Feral Jundi

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Publications: Destruction and Creation, by John R. Boyd

    This paper rocks, and as you can see, is the basis for a lot of the ideas I talk about here on FJ.  From my social networking ideas, to shared reality, to leadership, to being a better contractor and person, to current military and business strategy.  It is pure Jundism and I highly recommend reading through it several times to grasp the concepts. If you want a foundation for the concept of OODA, then reading this is a must. Check out the influence of these ideas on warfare here, and I recommend expanding out to other sites that discuss these ideas for further learning and research. –Matt 

—————————————————————— 

From Wikipedia

Boyd never wrote a book on military strategy. The central works encompassing his theories on warfare consist of a several hundred slide presentation entitled Discourse on Winning & Losing and a short essay entitled Destruction & Creation (1976).

In Destruction & Creation, Boyd attempts to provide a philosophical foundation for his theories on warfare. In it he integrates Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics to provide a context and rationale for the development of the OODA Loop.

Boyd inferred the following from each of these theories:

    * Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: any logical model of reality is incomplete (and possibly inconsistent) and must be continuously refined/adapted in the face of new observations.

    * Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle: there is a limit on our ability to observe reality with accuracy.

    * Second Law of Thermodynamics: The entropy of any closed system always tends to increase, and thus the nature of any given system is continuously changing even as efforts are directed toward maintaining it in its original form.

From this set of considerations, Boyd concluded that to maintain an accurate or effective grasp of reality one must undergo a continuous cycle of interaction with the environment geared to assessing its constant changes. Boyd, though he was hardly the first to do so, then expanded Darwin’s theory of evolution, suggesting that natural selection applies not only in biological but also in social contexts (such as the survival of nations during war or businesses in free market competition). Integrating these two concepts, he stated that the decision cycle was the central mechanism of adaptation (in a social context) and that increasing one’s own rate and accuracy of assessment vis-a-vis one’s counterpart’s rate and accuracy of assessment provides a substantial advantage in war or other forms of competition.

—————————————————————— 

DESTRUCTION AND CREATION

By John R. Boyd

September 3, 1976

To comprehend and cope with our environment we develop mental patterns or concepts of meaning. The purpose of this paper is to sketch out how we destroy and create these patterns to permit us to both shape and be shaped by a changing environment. In this sense, the discussion also literally shows why we cannot avoid this kind of activity if we intend to survive on our own terms. The activity is dialectic in nature generating both disorder and order that emerges as a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and expanding universe of observed reality.

(more…)

Friday, April 17, 2009

Publications: The Private Military Herald

Filed under: Publications — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 6:56 PM

    This is a treat.  Jake Allen has put together a brand new project that I am pretty excited about and it’s called the Private Military Herald. The fun part about this site and all of the other blogs and sites that have been created over the last year, is to see how they evolve and grow. So add one more to this list of fantastic resources for the industry. –Matt

——————————————————————

About

   The Private Military Herald is a web-based news periodical which provides a forum for news, analysis and commentary on the role played by private security and military companies.

    The site has an editorial bias towards the existence of PMCs simply because of the fact that current state based structures and organizations are apparently incapable or unwilling to address the security challenges that exist today.

Link Here

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Publications: CSBA Report and Finding Strategists, By Barry Watts

Filed under: Military News,Publications — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 10:02 PM

   I found this over at DOD Buzz and it grabbed my attention.  Anything to do with strategy grabs my attention, and especially the lack there of within today’s military leadership. But the real juice of this article, is the discussion of how do you find ‘good strategists’ and what are the qualities of a skilled strategists, besides the obvious trait of achieving victories? I love stuff like that, because this guy goes beyond the standard report, and tries to infuse a little science into the deal.  Cool report, and check it out.    –Matt

—————————————————————— 

Clausewitz 

Finding Strategists

By Barry Watts

     Do most U.S. political leaders have the cognitive skills and talents to craft and implement effective long-term strategies? Do most senior American military leaders — even those who have demonstrated tactical competence in combat — have those skills and talents? Historical evidence, as well as leading-edge research into human cognition, suggest that the answer to both questions is: no.

     There is considerable evidence that strategic performance is an area in which U.S. political and military leaders have shown declining overall competence in recent decades. True, as the outcome of the Cold War and the turn-around in Iraq testify, American strategies have not been uniformly poor. Still, a case can be made that, on the whole, American strategic competence has been declining since the Vietnam War and continues to do so today. Given the recent financial crisis and economic down-turn, can the United States afford another decade of declining strategic competence? Or is it time to begin finding good strategists and put strategy in their hands?

(more…)

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Kaizen: New IPOA Code of Conduct 12 for Private Contractors Ratified

Filed under: Industry Talk,Kaizen,Publications — Tags: , , , — Matt @ 6:50 PM

   Excellent news, and congrats to Doug and his group for all the hard work they have put into this over the years.  I also love the fact that the document is always being improved upon. (this is version 12!)  That is pure Kaizen.  –Matt

—————————————————————— 

New IPOA Code of Conduct for Private Contractors Ratified

Thu Mar 5, 12:46 pm ET

WASHINGTON, March 5 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — IPOA is pleased to announce that the 12th version of its Code of Conduct was ratified by its 53 member companies and is now in effect.

IPOA is the premier industry association for companies operating in conflict, post-conflict and disaster relief environments. Member companies provide vital services in support of the international community in Afghanistan, Darfur, Haiti, Iraq and other critical global efforts.

The Code of Conduct is central to membership of IPOA. The international companies that form IPOA pledge to uphold the standards and ethics of the Code of Conduct and accede to review by the IPOA Standards Committee. This vehicle of corporate responsibility and industry self-oversight ensures that IPOA member companies are recognized internationally for their commitment to standards and ethics.

(more…)

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Publications: Tell Me Why We’re There? Enduring Interests in Afghanistan (and Pakistan) by Fick, Kilcullen, Nagl, Singh

Filed under: Afghanistan,Pakistan,Publications — Tags: , , , , , , , — Matt @ 4:01 PM

   If you care about the direction we are taking in the war, then I highly recommend reading this report.  The authors should give you a clue as to how important this thing is. If President Obama was smart, he would read this report as well, and not have some staffer spoon feed it to him. –Matt

—————————————————————— 

Tell Me Why We’re There? Enduring Interests in Afghanistan (and Pakistan)Publication Type: Policy Brief

Publication Date: 01/22/2009

Author(s): Nathaniel C. Fick, David Kilcullen, John A. Nagl, Vikram J. Singh 

January 2009 – In 2009, the Obama administration will attempt to deliver on campaign promises to change the Afghan war’s trajectory. In April, the Strasbourg NATO summit will determine the alliance’s role in shaping the future of the country and the region. By the fall, Afghans will have voted for their president for only the second time since 2001, an event which may irrevocably set the country’s course. By the end of this summer’s fighting season, the war in Afghanistan will not yet be won, but it could well be lost.

After seven years and the deaths of more than a thousand American and coalition troops, there is still no consensus on whether the future of Afghanistan matters to the United States and Europe, or on what can realistically be achieved there. Afghanistan does matter. A stable Afghanistan is necessary to defeat Al Qaeda and to further stability in South and Central Asia. Understanding the war in Afghanistan, maintaining domestic and international support for it, and prosecuting it well requires three things: a clear articulation of U.S. interests in Afghanistan, a concise definition of what the coalition seeks to achieve there, and a detailed strategy to guide the effort.

U.S. interests in Afghanistan may be summarized as “two no’s”: there must be no sanctuary for terrorists with global reach in Afghanistan, and there must be no broader regional meltdown. Securing these objectives requires helping the Afghans to build a sustainable system of governance that can adequately ensure security for the Afghan people—the “yes” upon which a successful exit strategy depends.

Read the Rest of the Paper Here

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress