Deniers of the Truth

[bailaviborita]

The article is really about planning for UW ops and Robin Sage---

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...228_art011.pdf

(the small wars journal blog discussion about it: http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/den...warfare-is-key)

Excerpt:

I will never forget the day I ate lunch with a retired chaplain and his son in Leavenworth, Kansas in 2008. At one point an acquaintance of the chaplain’s walked up to him in the restaurant and shared with him his opinion of the School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS).

“They are deniers of The Truth,” he proclaimed, and went on to describe the school’s sin: the instructors encouraged students to question their most fundamental beliefs. At the time I thought it curious that someone would apply a religious attitude to the study of the military arts. After my first few months at the school, however, I realized that as one questioned one’s assumptions about the nature of war it was only natural that one would also start to question other assumptions about life, God, and everything. Critical thinking was difficult to limit to just one subject.

Amazingly, there were even more officers uncomfortable with questioning their fundamental assumptions about warfare. Today I realize that SAMS could only do so much in introducing different ways to approach the subject...

[bailaviborita]

There is an implied opinion in the piece that agnosticism equates to unstructured, though. This is an inaccurate.

IMO, it would have been enough for the author to state that outside the box thinking is appropriate in some situations but a mastery of inside the box thinking must happen first.

The agnosticism was meant as an overarching stance towards any one approach- not that if one was agnostic one would only favor unstructured approaches. Agnostics would not have faith in any one approach- consciously picking an approach that fits the situation.

Unfortunately I think "in the box" thinking usually keeps most people in the box. I would assert that understanding one's "box" and having the ability to see from multiple boxes might be a better admonition...?

[bailaviborita]

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

The author is championing the value of thinking "outside the box" in his article, but declined to mention the necessity of first mastering rational paradigm processes (MDMP, Design, backwards planning, etc.)

I'm inclined to think that one should master paradigms that are conducive to the situation that best fits that paradigm's inherent assumptions (ontological, epistemological, etc.). So, for instance, rational decision making processes are great if one is faced with explicit situations ("infil to this point", for instance, or "destroy that enemy division".). Emergent processes might be a better fit for more tacit situations ("establish peace in Haiti", "assist those security forces"). Thus, mastering rational processes first might not necessarily be best...

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

FWIW, the process of thinking "outside the box" must involve figuring then rejecting (or modifying) the accepted model. Its difficult to know what the accepted model is if it doesn't run through your mind in a comprehensive way.

In my mind (which admittedly is probably at least 51% wrong!), the "accepted" model is the problem: I don't think there should be an accepted model. That there is today is, IMHO, the problem with our Army being unable to reach strategic objectives- even with all our tactical awesomeness... ?

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

If our SAMS trained leaders aren't good at "outside the box thinking", I would suggest that insufficient mastery of the standard paradigm processes may be a factor.

That might be true- although I would say the possibility that being too comfortable and reliant on the standard paradigm might also be a problem...?

Originally Posted by DocIllinois

With this in mind, is adding yet one more to the pile (Design) going to help?

That is the million $ question. I was down at SOCOM recently for an Op Design course design meeting. One participant opined that we should test this design stuff first, as MDMP has been validated and proven. I was in 100% agreement that it should be tested- but vehemently disagreed that MDMP has been validated and "proven". I am unaware of 1 recent experiment which tested MDMP against any other process. I do remember, however, a UQ event awhile back and most coming away thinking MDMP did not test well at all against Design...