Targeting

[slapout9]

Hi Wilf, I was rather confused at your response about systems. A short definitions os a system is persons,places,and things using a process to accomplish some purpose. The Army has the purpose of breaking the enemies will to fight by using the processes of Annihilation and or Exhaustion would be an outstanding definition of the Army as a system.

Agree on my handle Wilf SBW (Slapout Based Warfare) is about how to get the Enemy Slapout of town.



Hi Bill, what is usually called 5 rings analysis Warden calls mapping the system. The 5 rings are meant to be a map that shows all the persons,places and things that are in your AO. Somehow over time people just stopped calling it that or explaining it that way and usually just call it a 5 rings analysis. The point being whether you use PEMSII (i keep wanting to say Pepsi) or ASCOPE doesn't really matter. The fact that you are mapping the a system is the important thing. ASCOPE isn't that different than the 5 rings to me but either one is fine. CARVER is just tool that I would use to analyze the 2nd ring (System Essentials) instead of doing an entire fractal 5 rings map. Adaption or evolution of a process is life

The Rand Corp. did a study called "Street Smarts" where they suggested that OAKCO be used to create a human terrain map long before human terrain teams were talked about. The same acronym would go hand in hand with the physical terrain analysis. Example Key Terrain would be VIP's, avenues of approach would be people who could introduce you to or influence key terrain. obstacles could be crowds or individuals that were working against you to block access or influence key terrain you were also trying to influence. If I can find the link to the paper I will post it here. So you are are busy have enjoyed the debate and education throughly.


PS: All you other smart folks out there jump in at any time. where's them Air Force dudes hiding at

[William F. Owen]

Hi Wilf, I was rather confused at your response about systems. A short definitions os a system is persons,places,and things using a process to accomplish some purpose. The Army has the purpose of breaking the enemies will to fight by using the processes of Annihilation and or Exhaustion would be an outstanding definition of the Army as a system.

OK, so maybe I am missing something. What is the antithesis of a system? Based on your definition, everything is a system. I see Armies as organisations, with varying degrees of hierarchy. I would also debate the use of the word "process." This implies procedures - which brings us to drills, etc.

My understanding of "System" is that poorly demonstrating by Fuller and Liddell-Hart with the "bullet to the brain" analogy that gives us all the Manoeuvre Warfare silliness.

[slapout9]

Everything is a system Wilf. And every system connects to another system all the way up to the universe. Below is one of the best introductions to systems thinking I have ever read. it is short and easy to read. To first understand a system you have to know it's purpose the original cause for it to be created. Sounds you talking dosen't it Give it a read I think you will like it.



http://www.forseekers.com/Meaning-Ch2.pdf

[William F. Owen]

Everything is a system Wilf. And every system connects to another system all the way up to the universe. Below is one of the best introductions to systems thinking I have ever read. it is short and easy to read. To first understand a system you have to know it's purpose the original cause for it to be created. Sounds you talking dosen't it Give it a read I think you will like it.

http://www.forseekers.com/Meaning-Ch2.pdf

OK, but how is this useful. It's all wonderfully logical, but I'm not sure I see it's relevance to Military Thought. How does considering the enemy, "a system" help me break his will? How would thinking of Hezbollah as a system help? Clausewitz's trinity helps me understand how to defeat Hezbollah, but this system thing is all a bit abstract.

[Ken White]

is (or will react as) a 'system' will get a surprise. Warden's theory has never been effectively proven simply due to that fact. Bill summed it up well with this:

"The problem is if we use the wrong perceptional model we misrepresent the problem, and thus develop the wrong strategy..."

[slapout9]

Hi all, Bill I don't exp ext the Air Force to bail me out nor do I need them to. I know how to Strike and Hold ( for those who don't know that was my unit motto from 2/504 of the 82nd Airborne Division)

The Air Force generally thinks we should not be involved in COIN, there are exceptions and don't sell the Air Force short on this. If they ever decided to really work on COIN like the Army does I think you would be surprised. But this generally conflicts with XB-55 super duper bomber fighter programs so they are not going to get involved to much.

As for examples of Warden's theory being used against an Insurgency...I don't know of any! It hasn't been around that long compared to other theories. Plus Warden has said and continues to say that he thinks COIN is the purview of Special Forces and they should be in charge of it and if the Air Force can support (Like Afghanistan) that is probably their best role.


As for the theory in general being useful to fight against Insurgencies/ Terrorist Organizations that is mine and mine alone, any fault with that belongs at my doorstep and no one elses.

The best current example I can think of is 911. They attacked across the rings just like they would have done if they had been taught the system. All the targets were Ring1 leadership targets...they were also Ring2 process targets...and Ring3 infrastructure targets. And we are still feeling the effects of the attack. The only reason it wasn't more successful was because apparently he could not continue the attack.....a very good thing from our point of view!!

Bill if you want to and you can keep everything open source I will build one for you right here. The only restrictions would be the information has to be open source and I be allowed to use his whole methodology ( Targeting/System mapping is only one partSystem) is only one part. Also I have a day job so it would have to be done in chunks of time when I could work on it.

So name your Insurgency and forget the pom poms I want to see what is holding them up.

[marct]

Hi Slap,

I suspect one of the problems is that when many people think of systems they use mechanical analogies. Systems theory, at least in its original form, was based on biological, not mechanical, analogies. At the same time, the original formulations of it (forget F.W. Taylor, he's a twit who doesn't count) implicitly include some form of evolutionary theory (through time) as well as process theory (at a spot in time). Shifting to a mechanistic analog, for which Taylor deserves to be reincarnated as a dung beetle, destroys the change over time component (evolution) and devalues the usefulness of the model to a large degree.

[Bill Moore]

Slapout you've become a desperato if you're openly calling upon the Air Force to come to your rescue. I'm sure some will because Warden's Five Rings was a successful ploy to squeeze mo money from Capital Hill for their attack craft, while letting their lift capacity go underfunded and dwindle, so they could then coerce the Army into helping them buy the C-17. You have to give it to them, they know how to play the game on Capital Hill.

The bottom line is Warden's system has merit in some situations, he is obviously an intelligent man with great insights, but my rub is the tendency to think there is one tool out there that will answer the mail for all of our security challenges. I don't think Warden's system effectively addresses targeting for insurgencies and other irregular threats. An opinion based on some experience; however, if you can provide examples where this methodology was actually "effective" in targeting an insurgency please provide them. If you can do that, I'll get my poms poms out of the closet again.