Strategy in the 21st Century

[Bill Moore]

Excellent article from OTH we lack of understanding in our language. Nobody knows what anybody is talking about anymore.


https://overthehorizonmdos.com/2017/...fense-debates/

A good article, but perhaps misplaced here. I didn't hear McMasters use any buzz phrases, and the ideas he promoted for this NSS are built around enduring principles in U.S. strategy. McMasters, perhaps more than anyone else I heard speak, is believer in the enduring nature of war.

It is refreshing to hear an Air Force officer address the limitations associated with clinging to new technology as a replacement for strategy. Our adversaries have already developed new gray zone strategies to negate our technical advantages. If we end up getting in a high intensity conflict, it is doubtful that any of these technologies will be decisive.

The former SecDef and his deputy were the advocates the 3rd Off-Set Strategy, not the current regime. Although I suspect the 3d Off-Set effort will continue. As I noted earlier in this thread, after WWII strategy was no longer focused on winning, it became focused on deterrence. That lead DoD to focus on programs to develop the means to deter adversaries. We see the services compete for funding for their latest toy, often with little idea of how it will enable execution of a viable strategy to win. Of course, if you only want it for deterrence, I guess winning is a secondary thought?

Having read Boyd's biography, I think his initial ODAA loop was about decision speed to determine the out come of a dog fight between fighter aircraft. However, as Boyd moved beyond tactical to strategic he adapted the ODAA loop, and the article provides a good description of the strategic ODAA loop. Arguably a weakness in our ranks.

But what Boyd was getting to with his actual OODA loop diagram – which is considerably more nuanced than the simple one referred to in most instances – was that there is not just one cognitive process in play here, and that it does not just work on one direction since orientation also influences observation. Competitive advantage is gained by leveraging all of the mechanisms available to you across the physical, mental, and moral levels of interaction, but first, you have to understand what they are, and improve your orientation while seeking to influence the cognitive processes of your adversary.

This understanding is critical to strategists. Without it we simply react.

[slapout9]

A good article, but perhaps misplaced here. I didn't hear McMasters use any buzz phrases, and the ideas he promoted for this NSS are built around enduring principles in U.S. strategy.

I thought the thread is about 21st Century Strategy. The article seemed to fit that General discussion, but it's your thread if you don't like it ask David to move it somewhere else.

[Bill Moore]

I thought the thread is about 21st Century Strategy. The article seemed to fit that General discussion, but it's your thread if you don't like it ask David to move it somewhere else.

You're right, I thought it was specifically in response to the NSS comments, so my response was a crude way of asking for clarification. It is very relevant to the thread. Actually one of the more relevant ones.

[Bill Moore]

The author asserted he was going to challenge or clear up the imprecise language, unqualified assumptions, and outright myths that muddles DoD's thinking. That is an ambitious agenda for a short article.

For the most part he makes traditionalist arguments tied to the enduring nature of war. The author also revisits the frequent critique of DoD (especially the civilian leadership) trying to hyper rationalize war and the folly of this tye of thinking. Then he points out we generally tend to use buzzwords to describe what appears new to us. This comment is interesting and has merit. A lot of things in our security ecosystem appear new because we have embraced an ahistoric view of war and competition. This is true, but an argument can be made that the use of buzzwords can help illuminate areas we have been blind too. It doesn't mean they are identifying anything new, but they are identifying areas we have neglected like irregular warfare. Clearly not new, but to long neglected in favor of a preferred war (Desert Storm) scenario that is more predictable.

The idea of multidomain battle isn't really new either, but it does possibly offer a corrective to the situation we find ourselves in. Our services through their various programming efforts have created functional stove pipes by domain that had little to do with the reality of war, but everything to do about protecting rice bowls. If the concept of multidomain battle facilitates greater functionality and jointness I am a fan.

Sometimes muddling has a purpose, paraphrasing Bruce Lee, "When I first started martial arts training a punch was just a punch, then the more I practiced it became a complex series of moves, and when I mastered it, a punch once again was just a punch." In sum, much of what we're doing is relearning the basics that we somehow lost.