By: Maj. Donald P. Carter, U.S. Army
Summary:
This article touches on the struggle of
using intelligence preparation of the battlefield (IPB) in today’s complex
society. The new U.S. Army Operating Concept: Win in a Complex World
2020-2040 (AOC) is focused on complexity. The AOC defines a complex environment
as one “that is not only unknown, but unknowable and constantly changing.” The author of this article talks about a few
main points on how IPB may not be as affective in today’s complex society. The combination of globalization and advances
in technology has changed the nature and character of warfare. The U.S. Army
defines IPB as, “the systematic process of analyzing the mission
variables of enemy, terrain, weather, and civil considerations in an area of
interest to determine their effect on operations.” Currently the default
analytical model is intelligence preparation of the battlefield to generating understanding
and supporting the military decision making process. The author argues that the
era of clearly defined battle lines is over making IPB less effective. IPB is
used on well-structured problems to support commanders against a
relatively well-known enemy in a conventional combined arms maneuver fight. The
author argues that systemic operational design or similar systems theory
approaches are more effective because they focus on environmental systems.
English philosopher Karl Popper has an analogy
on the differences between “clouds” and “clocks” that illustrates the author’s point.
Popper describes clocks as well defined and systematic, which are easily
disassembled and reduced to parts. There are defined solutions to fix
clocks. Clouds are amorphous, messy, and ill defined, just like a lot of our
new problems. Clouds are highly unpredictable. IPB narrowly frames critical
thinking. In complex environments, IPB, may constrain thought and critical
thinking about the environment and underlying problems. Unknown environments
with no templates will produce IPB products that are random with no contextualized
information and data points. However, the author argues we will never fully
understand the full complexity of the “cloud”. We are able to understand the
“clock,” and develop a strategy on how to fix it. To solve the new world problems there needs to
be a balance of IPB and systems theory approaches complement each other.
Critique:
The author does an excellent job on
describing why IPB has been effective in the past. It is structured and is able
to be fixed to generate an actual plan. The author talked a lot about how the
new problems are highly unpredictable, cloud like. Which I’m sure has validity
to it, however he never really addresses how to overcome the cloud like
problems. In the end he is pretty much claiming their needs to be a mixture
between IPB and systems theory approaches. He spent a lot of time putting down
the future effectiveness of IPB, instead he should have elaborating on this balance.
Posts
This is a perfect article to highlight the idea that "something is better than nothing." Although all methods have limitations, applying one or more to the analytic process is better than not applying anything at all. The argument could be "why not use it?" vs the idea of diminishing returns. We don't want to waist time applying a bunch of methods just to apply them, so its important to know the utility and limitations of each in order to know when to use them.
ReplyDeleteAlyssa, the author's argument against the effectiveness of IPB in today's world is a compelling one. From my understanding, the challenge of applying IPB today stems from ill-defined battle lines, enemies, and rules of engagement. In light of this, would you consider IPB to be a conditional methodology? In other words, do you agree that we should only apply IPB when our battle lines, enemies, and rules of engagement are all clearly defined? As Bryant points out, this can be important because knowing what conditions are necessary for IPB to be effective can inform our analysts so that they know when to use IPB. I'm looking forward to your thoughts.
ReplyDeleteTom, I would definitely argue that IPB is a conditional methodology. However, there is a struggle in determining when it is going to be effective and when it is to narrow to be used. Yes having clearly defined battle lines, enemies, and rules of engagement would make IPB a favorable method to chose.That doesn't always happen though. The author argues that the fast changes in technology is making very hard to clearly define those topics. There is a long precedence of IPB being used in the military and of it being an effective approach. Analyst have to be able to recognize when the problem is to "cloud like" to use IPB. Also depending on the problem the right mixture of methodologies will change.
DeleteI love the analogy between the clock and the cloud. The explanation of the cloud really puts in perspective the difficulty in executing a task in modern times, all while trying to be discrete. Although the author may not describe ways to overcome the cloud analogy, I appreciate Bryant's comment that having some information is better than nothing. In this day and age IPB's may be a great starting point or beneficial somewhere in the process.
ReplyDeleteChelsie, I agree that IPB definitely has its benefits and gives a starting point to the problem! Like I said to Tom, based on the individual "cloud like problem" the right mixture of methodologies will change.
DeleteEven automatic watches will stay working better if they are wound manually about once every two weeks because this helps keep the watch lubricated. Montre s.Oliver
ReplyDelete