A reaction to a recent published in March thinking Attack F. St V . He poses the question correctly model strategy. I offer some comments on the models.
Model nonmilitary
*
The model is there to represent reality, it has a dual aspect: imitation and representation. Representation, such as copying, are not the original reality but try to approach it. Modeling of reality is the basis of human culture in order to develop concepts, more or less complex to exchange / upgrade / modify / drop with other humans. Mathematics, philosophies, religions, physical sciences, the humanities have developed models describing reality. This list is not exhaustive. Without modeling the reality, it is almost certain that we would be close to the hunter-gatherer.
When a model is satisfactory for a given context, in a limited space-time. It seems to me that we can find two main possibilities:
1 / model adequately reflects the reality for what we want to do. It keeps it.
2 / model is not appropriate, therefore, the exchange (with the problem of the transition):
- replacing it with an existing model,
- developing a new model.
Performance model
*
My humble opinion on the models for conflict:
- We did not enough models in stock due to the lack of research on models. For now, we have 4 or 5 large models of war (two or three of regular war, two of irregular warfare). Sometimes a "school takes precedence over another" and that runs in time according to events, ways ... or the wind.
- models come in laws, theorems, principles, probability, etc.. Over the palette is larger, it is possible to find the tools to respond to problems.
- I saw little of the original models developed over the few years that I'm about. The new models are often recycling can be very intelligent. If they change relative to current models, they are not unprecedented.
- The Researchers propose some models. Large original proposals date back half a century with the advent of nuclear weapons. The U.S. Army has integrated the concept of modeling his planning method, which I seems a good methodological advance to stick to reality.
- models are mistaken for reality (a common drift) where some bitter disappointments because you can not bend reality to stick to the model (but can change model). We can deduce a model study of a conflict but the converse is a difficult sport.
- models need not always be proved as they work (beliefs, theorems in math, crypto keys, etc..). Not everything can be proved. I'm afraid to wait long for an answer to this problem philosophical (determinism / nondeterminism) unresolved since at least ancient times.
- models that are supposed to be applied are not always. Failure is not in style but what is done in reality. The men are challenged and it becomes easier to blame the model (neither good nor bad in absolute as relative) rather than its application. of U.S. COIN doctrine is really totally put out? The overall approach is applied?
In summary some models are relevant in some contexts (space-time and limited areas). Seek a universal model seems somewhat preposterous even if it's comfortable intellectually. Thus, the strategy (balance objectives, means and ways) to select one or more appropriate models that allow this match, changing template if necessary. The great difficulty, it must be said, lies in the choice and not in the model.
Reproduction strictly prohibited without permission from the author. http://www.pourconvaincre.blogspot.com/ Find To convince on facebook 
0 comments:
Post a Comment