Targeting

[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.

[slapout9]

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.

Hi Marct, I am not surprised you noticed that... being a Anthro Man and all The first book I think that became known to the General Population in th 60's was the one by Ludwig Von Bertalanffy's (General Systems Theory) who was a biologist if I remember correctly who was trying to make that exact point. Open systems are living systems and closed systems are usually mechanical. Living systems adapt and quickly if they are going to survive, closed ones don't until a living system acts to change it.
Somehow over time people have forgotten that systems theory started with living/biological systems....except our enemy hasn't forgotten and they seem to understand it very well.

[marct]

Hi Slap,

Hi Marct, I am not surprised you noticed that... being a Anthro Man and all The first book I think that became known to the General Population in th 60's was the one by Ludwig Von Bertalanffy's (General Systems Theory) who was a biologist if I remember correctly who was trying to make that exact point.

From the back cover of General Systems theory (1968):

Ludwig von Bertalanffy, recognized throughout the world as a pioneer in promoting the organismic view in biology and the role of symbol-making in the interpretation of human experience, is also acknowledged as a founder of General Systems Theory

Exactly. He was also drawing on earlier work (1957) by Alfred J. Lotka - Elements of Mathematical Biology - a great text that I find myself going back to fairly often.

Open systems are living systems and closed systems are usually mechanical. Living systems adapt and quickly if they are going to survive, closed ones don't until a living system acts to change it.

They other thing that most people forget is that "open" and "closed" and labels of convenience that really refer to the boundary conditions of the system. All boundary conditions are "fuzzy" in reality and this tends to be forgotten (one of the key observations from Chaos Theory).

Somehow over time people have forgotten that systems theory started with living/biological systems....except our enemy hasn't forgotten and they seem to understand it very well.

Sure they do - they are culturally predisposed to think of reality as a biological system rather than a mechanistic system . Personally, I blame Descartes for our mechanistic views; then again, I never really liked that guy .