Solarium 2015: Forcing Multiple Dilemas On The Enemy

2015-03-03T10:26:04-05:00

Army leadership meets to discuss desired outcomes for the Army Operating Concept. Are we fostering a climate where our enemies are faced with multiple dilemmas but we feel comfortable operating in?

Solarium 2015: Forcing multiple dilemmas on enemy

One of the hoped for outcomes of the Army Operating Concept, or AOC, is "creating an atmosphere where we can create multiple dilemmas for the enemy in an environment where we feel very comfortable operating," said Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2015 10:51 AM

2015-03-03T10:51:22-05:00

Yes. Just like chess. You can't come at your enemy w/ a one-front battle. You must strike & feint. Cause them to expend resources where your point of attack is not. It is why Patton was sent to Italy before D-Day. Germany believed he would be leading the invasion, so they allocated many resources to rebuff him.

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Mar 3 at 2015 11:04 AM

2015-03-03T11:04:48-05:00

I read this article with steadily increasing discomfort until I got to the following paragraph, where my head detonated in complete and utter disbelief:

"Further development is needed, however, in several other areas, Hooper pointed out. These are: synthesis, the constructive process of piecing together information to create an operating picture; perceptiveness, the ability to see through the fog of war using different lenses or filters; speed of processing, the ability to shift through vast amounts of data and information while discarding the trivial and arriving at sound judgments; and finally, innovativeness, the ability to create new ideas based on critical and creative thinking that results in valued outcomes."

OK. I'm cynical. I admit it. To THIS 20-year veteran of Corporate Cube-Ville, our Top Brass is starting to sound a lot like the vacillating, catch-word-Du-Jour, pin-heads of the corporate board rooms. I apologize if I offend, but that's what I hear and read.

Do we really need to have meetings of top brass to frickin' define "innovativeness"?

I'm not a soldier - just a former bubblehead - but I do have a decade's experience with threat identification and mitigation for civilian facilities. What happened to the grand old mission of being able to destroy our adversaries farther, sooner, faster, more violently and with less risk to our soldiers/sailors/airmen?

Are these the same people that want to get rid of the A-10 and replace it with this generation's version of the F-4 / F-111 - an overly-complex and less-than-useful-aircraft for every branch?

Standing By for edu-ma-ka-shun, Major.