Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Polarbear's avatar

The ”Group Think” of Wargamers, Futurist and Costal/AI Elephant Defense

https://warontherocks.com/2024/01/trends-in-maritime-challenges-indicate-force-design-2030-is-the-proper-path/#:~:text=However%2C%20given%20what%27s%20in%20the,lighter%2C%20but%20lethal%2C%20mix%20of

I agree with Samuel W’s opinion of the above article. A quick review of the authors shows that they are smart guys but, in my opinion, the 2030 Design is a product of a group think. We now know a little something about the 2030 Design perpetrators (not illegal, maybe “USMC” immoral, but definitely harmful).

Thinking about the future of warfighting is important. This crew’s thinking, however, is more in the 2050 category vs 2030. First 2030 Design did not follow the Joint Strategic Planning Guidance leaving the Commandant open to Congressional questions and criticisms. No one can predict the future of war fighting accurately nor the counters to breakthrough warfighting technologies. For that reason you have to build a flexible fighting organization that can rapidly adapt and I am thinking the beauty of the MAGTF here.

We are currently watching Red Sea Arliegh-Burke Destroyers counter the missile based A2AD strategy. Yes the Army and Marine Corps were distracted by the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fortunately the US Navy was not and stayed focus on the A2AD problem.

Commandant’s mistake was the decision to trade combat power for experimental tactical techniques produced by a group think. I say group think because the only justification for the implementation of 2030 Design was a set of classified war games use to discourage creative thinking.

In 2016 the British Government conducted an Inquiry (multi-volume and 100s of pages) to determine how they got involved in the Iraq War. The inquiry was not flattering of the decision that got their commitment to the Iraq war. The simple answer was their government and military policy makers fell victim to group think. The British Defense Ministry produced a document that condensed the inquiry: “The Good Operation; A handbook for those involved in operational policy and its implementation.” The good news is the handbook offers a remedy for group think called a “Reasonable Challenge”:

“The Iraq Inquiry (Chilcot) Report tells us that it’s important to avoid ‘groupthink’ as we develop policy, and the best antidote to that is reasonable challenge. An environment in which challenge is expected and accepted is important. People should be receptive to reasonable challenge and assume that it is provided with the best of intentions, while those offering challenge should know how to do so effectively. Challenge isn’t about proving someone right or wrong; rather it’s about highlighting and exploring alternative options. These cultures and behaviors reflect a healthy organization and we have created the following guide to support their development.” P.62

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a81f19440f0b62305b91a48/TheGoodOperation_WEB.PDF

I don’t think that the Commandant or the 2030 Design Staff allowed or accepted a “Reason Challenge”. I think the Commandant backed the wrong crew and I will take the names like Krulak, Zinni, Wilhelm and Van Riper over his crew any day. Semper Fi

PS: If you are wondering about “AI Elephants” here is a paper by Brian Strom explaining: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1178260.pdf

It is important paper, will thought out and should be read by any Marine Corps futurist.

Expand full comment
Samuel Whittemore's avatar

Please use your preferred browser and look up this amateurish, nauseating, sycophantic word salad. War on the Rocks 29 Jan 2024

TRENDS IN MARITIME CHALLENGES INDICATE FORCE DESIGN 2030 IS THE PROPER PATH

C. TRAVIS REESE, IAN BROWN, ZACH OTA, TRAVIS HORD, LEO SPAEDER, AND BRIAN STROM

JANUARY 29, 2024

Expand full comment
7 more comments...

No posts