NATO’s Libya intervention ends Monday

pp_muscimol October 31st, 2011 at 9:58 am

TWO important aspects for me!!

i) even with an european lead operation and with clear humanitarean goals GERMANY shit themselfs in the pants again. I wonder untill when we’ll have a teenager kind of aproach in germany concerning foreign affairs.

ii) secondly, they improved a litle from the 90’s when NATO interveened in Kosovo but still same shit. Whithout the US things would have gone “not so smooth”.

If europe cannot pay for bombers like the B1 or B2 then at least is expected as a hole can have a stock of precision munitions (such as SCALP missiles) to at least not depend for ever in the United states!

for that I think think this comflict may serve also to improve logistics (again) in europe. .…I hope!

Thinking_ExUSAF October 31st, 2011 at 10:57 am

I think that the single biggest “lesson” that came out of Libya is that NATO CAN actually be militarily effective in something other than that “WW-III” scenario. Whether that is carried forward, and the other “lessons” pertaining to that military involvement are learned and addressed, is still to be seen.

Thinking_ExUSAF October 31st, 2011 at 11:22 am

We condemn ourselves to relearning these lessons largely because we have this overpowering “need”, call it OCD in DoD, to “find a better way” where “cheaper” is usually what they really mean.

If we learn the simple lesson, usually attributed to Jubal Early in the American Civil War, that says “get there firstest with the mostest”, it’s expensive in dollars and lives. So… we stage a bunch of simulations, analyses, wargames or whatever to conclusively prove that 1000 Tigers are better than 50,000 Shermans (at only 1/10th the dollar cost and a huge savings in lives!). Since we only get ahead in the “system”, and thereby be better able to implement further changes in the systen, through successes, our exercise succeeds marvelously!, You know, words like “next level of execution of national strategy” certainly do sound like PowerPoint discriptives for that kind of “success”.

But remember, FIRST we have to get ahead in the system, with a higher grade, more pay, better bennies, .… . .. or maybe once we are there we forget the first lesson.…. :-( Sound about right?

Thinking_ExUSAF October 31st, 2011 at 1:43 pm

Blame my spellchecker, I originally typed it in the form that Jubal himself would have recognized.

No matter what system, or how much oversight, or how many rounds of training, or… fill in the blank.… you try to legislate, if the people in the system do not have the integrity to actually put their mission above their career advancement,.… On the other hand, if the people in the system have that all-pervasive integrity instilled into their bones, you dont need the overhead from all of the regulatory oversight (and the risk tolerance rises since everyone would know that the “best effort” was in the offing) and before you know it you dont have 30-year development programs EVEN if you challenge the technical boundaries.…. so… Hmmmm.…. Unfortunately, we just legislate left and right, regulate anything that we missed in law, and try to avoid at any cost, a “busted” ACAT 1 because we tried to reach a tad beyond our grasp! Makes sense to me, right?

Chaostician October 31st, 2011 at 2:14 pm

roger that. my wife, a hardcore environmentalist, and i were talking about this yesterday. Our politicians create knee jerk legislation in response to any mishap in the headlines, as opposed to fixing what is wrong in the current state of law & regulation, and government organizations. Or even just acknoweldging that somtimes bad things & mistakes happen and there is always residual risk. The new legislation (Sarbanes Oxley, and now we have DoDD Frank, for example) creates other problems & more cost. This pattern is also evident in immigration law. They can’t even use the “lack of resources” defense. There are resources (there will always not be enough from some one’s perspective), but the real deficiency is political will. And you cannot have the political will to do what is in the net best interest of the country unless you have integrity.

Thinking_ExUSAF October 31st, 2011 at 2:21 pm

Stand by for “more to come at Six”.

Just saw a news article that described some of the Libyan chem/bio weapons that have been discovered by the new ruling junta. Imagine that, a despotic dictator who had proclaimed himself innocent and cleared of any WMD program having chem weapons stashed away in hiding……Hmmm…. what would have happened if he had defiantly declared to the international news services that he possessed chem weapons and invited a NATO strike against him just to test the weapons in combat! Would we have believed him? Or only believed him until it came time to “second guess” the decision to make the WMD go away, after the fact of course! .… I only wish that I could laugh about the answer.

STemplar November 1st, 2011 at 12:41 am

A little premature to conduct a large scale reenactment of the last war for learning how to be more effective in the next. Part of that answer can only be learned though time. I personally think we were stupid to say things like no ground forces at all. I don’t think we should have had combat troops in place, but putting advisers for things like planning, or weapon training or commo, or a large field hospital for treating the wounded, puts a face on America. It lets people on the ground meet Americans that are helping them in real ways. Networking with the mid to upper level decision makers gives us that interpersonal connection to what will be the government. Here we are fretting over the presence of AQ in the possible government, personally while we def helped things happen for the Libyans, by and large we did it from 25,000 feet, whereas a lot of these AQ clowns were in the mud and the blood with them probably. Makes a difference in my opinion.

Chaostician November 1st, 2011 at 9:47 am

nope. as i wrote above to USAF (if my comment gets published), i am opposed to rigid deterministic modeling and a proponent of probabilistic modeling. and i recognize the limitations of any model. but say we were to build a model for the past conflict. it would take time for us to learn & implement it, and then it would need reiteration following feedback. but in the end we would be further along in the quality of it, then if we let being “premature” prevent us from beginning the analysis/synthesis process. The thing about modeling is.… we do it whether or not we put real analytical rigor to it. The lessons that can “only be learned through time” are in fact mental patterns that form the basis of individuals’ experience. It makes NO SENSE to delay the process of formally capturing data & people’s experience and developing useful models from which to help improve decision making, prediction & performance in the future. We need a model through which we could then do the case study impacts of using ground forces, advisers, weapons training, commo, or field hospital, all of your suggestions.

STemplar November 1st, 2011 at 3:02 pm

I just don’t think the lessons to be learned from Libya are going to be in regards to military operations or the nuts and bolts of applying military power. Obama shot his mouth off before we had assets in place and Gaddafi made a move on Benghazi.

That was a lesson learned, if you’re gonna use stick talk make sure you got a stick in place.

The technical details of shortcomings on the part of various European militaries were pretty obvious, so that’s a lesson learned, but if the respective governments aren’t willing or able to apply the resources to fix the problem no need to wargame that.

I already posted my opinion on the value of at least some interaction on the ground.

The Arab spring caught everyone off guard, even the Israelis. I supposed if there were something to simulate it would be to compress the time frames we have to react to unforeseen events. That of course raises the obvious question of whether we should bother too.

In the middle east I think we are kind of stuck, it isn’t a region we can afford to not be involved in. I think at the end of the day when people say we shouldn’t have supported the rebels my question is things would have been better if we did nothing and the Muslim Brotherhood and AQ were left to be the only players? Syria is far more capable and the ‘resistance’ far less serious and they haven’t been able to stamp it out, so I think the rebels would have survived without our help. It just would have turned Libya into another multi year mess. Bottom line is sometimes we have to involve and our choices suck when we do.

Thinking_ExUSAF November 1st, 2011 at 4:29 pm

Have you ever actually constructed a Monte Carlo simulation of a complex system of systems? Do you understand the special circumstances required and the implementations necessary to make a Monte Carlo meaningful? Just saying “monte carlo” solves very little in terms of the modeling problems or insuring the value of the output. At one extreme I could “model” an entire campaign as a single dice roll, i.e. assign probabilities and roll the dice, or I could model discretely down to the individual round of ammunition and do a monte carlo on the probability of kill, which would be more valid? Think about it! .… . :-)

Chaostician November 1st, 2011 at 4:41 pm

I indeed have. I don’t know what you are getting at with the second question. My view is MCS is one of the most beneficial and underutilized tools of the modern era. Some valuable books I’d recommend are Flaw of Averages and Failure of Risk Management. If leaders would listen to simulation practicioners we would have avoided a plethora of unwise choices. The resulting better decisions made by a a quantitatively literate population would result in virtuous circles and we would be free of a plethora of the problems that plague us today. The other concept I would like to promote is “destructive evolution” when it comes to M&S. Suppose I build a model. We put it to the test. People hate it. We take that feedback and then we have learned more about the type of model that needs to be built. It is an iterative, continuously improving process akin to Toyota kaizen and Boyd’s discourse on Destruction & Creation.

Chaostician November 1st, 2011 at 4:47 pm

totally valid point of view. but you can’t blame the process of M&S on people’s laziness to understand them and their limitations. Your last statement proves my case of the fallacy of deterministic modeling. We need to chuck deterministic thinking into the toilet, and start to add uncertainty & risk analysis, and we’ll start getting somewhere. The other thing to keep in mind, is that we create mental models whether we choose to recognize this is going on or not. They are called heuristics, or rules of thumb, or biases. Everyone’s got em. The question is… how much are we willing to invest in capturing people’s experience (which we paid dearly for them to get) and including them with analytical rigor into useful models that can help us make better decisions in the future?

Thinking_ExUSAF November 1st, 2011 at 5:03 pm

You dont need to “capture” the knowledge from people’s experience, you capture the people with the experience and put them in the decision making positions with the authority to make the decision! Sort of shuts down the opportunities for personal advancement for those who have never “been there — done that”, but.… we have discussed before that its first and foremost about getting the right tools to the troops in the field, and not the career advancement of those in the acquisition system. :-)

Chaostician November 1st, 2011 at 5:03 pm

For example, CBO “scores” legislation and always warns of the uncertainty in the analysis. The polticians cherry pick the result they want (like Obama saying how much his health care bill is good for the deficit and the economy). If Obama, or the public, were MCS-literate, we would learn to not fall into this trap. Another example, Bush & Cheney, would not have a justification to believe the Iraq War was affordable. Wall Street Execs might think twice about the “value” of complex derivatives, Mortgage Lenders would think twice about lending to uncertain & risky people, and retirees would learn to spend their nest egg more wisely and not count on a 10% annual return.

Thinking_ExUSAF November 1st, 2011 at 5:14 pm

LOL! So I take all that vital human knowledge, transcribe it into computer model, let the model print it back to me and Im home free!

Thinking_ExUSAF November 1st, 2011 at 6:48 pm

Does that little axiom of yours apply to the fallible folk running the sims, or would you decree them to be immune?Sent from my iPhone

William C. November 2nd, 2011 at 3:39 am

Is there any doubt that itfunk aka Oblat here is a troll?

Not only did USAF and USN provide AEW&C, UAV, CSAR, and other critical tasks, we supplied them with precision munitions because they were using up their stockpiles all too rapidly. After months of NATO bombing Libyan tanks, the rebels were finally able to drive Gaddafi out and take control. Yet we still have little idea of who these rebels are and their connection to groups like Al-Qaeda.

The European way to win a war? You mean blunder into a conflict with no idea just who your new allies are, use American supplied munitions to destroy Libyan vehicles, and pray that the rebels prove slightly less incompetent than Gadaffi’s forces? That is brilliant strategy?

Are we talking about the battle for Fallujah where your beloved insurgents were cornered and exterminated by the “incompetent” US military? Does General Oblat and his non-existent friends think he could to it better?

Chaostician November 2nd, 2011 at 9:28 am

Of course. The solution to prevention of logical fallacies is to make sure that models & simulations are done with stakeholder engagement on the methodology. A wargame modeler should not be developing in a vacuum. It’s impossible for anyone to be an expert in infantry, armor, artillery, communications, and logstics for example. SME’s from every area need to be engaged to help develop better methodology. Another safegaurd is to have independent modeling done by another agency (such as OSD CAPE) to help mitigate the problem of organizational & cultural bias.

Thinking_ExUSAF November 2nd, 2011 at 9:48 am

AGAIN, how does the “stakeholder engagement” do more than to make sure that the model is providing the “right” answer? If I knew the answer in the first place, to the point that I could recognize it when its presented to me, why bother with, and PAY for, the model to simply place that correct (by whatever means you care to define “correct”!) answer in front of me? If the logic sounds a bit circular, then I have communicated the idea, not screwed up the syntax and grammar! :-)

A term used from time to time is “the self-licking ice cream cone”! :-)

Thinking_ExUSAF November 2nd, 2011 at 10:30 am

And the “least risky” during the acquisition process turns out to be buying anachronisms that are far more risky on the battlefield.… and the self promotion of all of those involved in the acquisition program for being able to effectively maintain CPI and SPI while producing the technically outdated equipment. Hopefully reality would not be quite so bleak if your approach was adopted but.… do you see my point?

I would rather risk every PM’s backside than risk a regiment on the battlefield, but I guess Im funny that way.

Chaostician November 2nd, 2011 at 10:53 am

OR we could have a “GCV AoA” that includes the Stryker, Bradley, Abrams, MRAPs, and 5 other various types of vehicles, NEVER make up our minds as to weight & survivability tradeoffs, and have 10 years of investment in a doomed to failure program. An AoA should address different alternatives to accomplish a focused purpose. I’m sorry but if you are combining treads & wheels, and tanks and IFVs into ONE AoA, then you really don’t know what you want.. you are trying to be all things to all people and you are going to end up with another fubar. Meanwhile those 80’s era & upgraded Bradleys will be deterring & fighting war, and we could have had a better modernized replacement for them with sustained production lines. I don’t understand your obsession with EVM either. To me its a flawed, costly, but necessary evil. EVM is also focused on contract performance. Program performance is evaluated at the OSD, LCC, APB level. So comprende you can have a contractor performing to CPI/SPI against a fictitious baseline, you still are not convincing anyone in the Building, OMB, Congress, and GAO that you know what you are doing.

Thinking_ExUSAF November 3rd, 2011 at 8:49 am

I am obsessed with EVM because we have a total procurement system that is obsessed with CPI and SPI as being the measure of fittness for programs and the people that run those programs.

If the current emphasis stayed in place, but there was a totally unrealistic mandate that any PM who had ever had a position on a program would be fired from his current job (or have his pension rescinded!) should the product fail OT&E, THEN I would be less concerned.

We are accountable for CPI and SPI, but not system performance. When that “tradeoff” shows up, what gets tossed to the roadside? (and you wonder why our weapon systems dont quite live up to the promises.… . )