Proactively “From the Sea”; an agent of change leveraging the littoral best practices for a paradigm breaking six-sigma best business case to synergize a consistent design in the global commons, rightsizing the core values supporting our mission statement via the 5-vector model through cultural diversity.
Over the weekend I pounded out a thread on twitter that got a lot of attention, so I wanted to bring it here for the good folks on the Front Porch who wisely stay away from that hellsite. What prompted the thread was the story started, I believe, by a writer at NYT that the killing of Qasem Soleimani was "a mistake" because some careless staffer put that option in a decision brief as a poison pill to drive decisions towards what they wanted ... yet Trump picked it anyway to everyone's shock. Though "garbage COAs" or "throwaway options" should be an urban myth, you do see it as a too-clever-by-half bureaucratic tactic by the immature, unprofessional, uneducated, or unethical who by some mistake make it in to a planning team. Both in the classroom and the staff room, those type of people or mercilessly culled or used as an object of scorn as an example of what not to do. I'm sorry, that simply is not what is done. Like a religion, operational planning at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels have a myriad of confessions and variations on a theme. They do have some fundamentals in common. Along those lines, I offered to set the record straight that at the highest levels, these things are not done. Sure, they do happen now and then - but that poorly of a led staff is the great exception, not the rule - and you can tell by the decisions they made. Good people can disagree on if it was time to eliminate QS; but after the storming of our embassy, it was not a "throwaway." Enough intro, you can read the unroll here, or just the repeat below. It has not been edited, put down warts and all.
It simply is not done.
Here is how it works. This is for a 4-star, you can scale up to a CINC.
Before the 4-star sees the slide deck, 50/50 chance the COS has looked at it (another 3 or 4 star). Prior to that, the at least two other 2 or 3 stars have approved it. Before that a whole gaggle of O6 types were involved in getting it ready for prime time.
Everyone in that series would have to give a nod to a "throwaway slide" containing something they would not want to, or would not be able to, execute. Best practices, based on preliminary direction & guidance, would allow 2 or at most 3 Courses of Action (COA) for the principal to choose from.
They run a spectrum usually based on increasing levels of effort/risk. All COA are what the staff recommend as valid and executable options. Below the above mentioned O6 (Colonel or navy Captain) is a whole bee hive of O3-O5s working. If anyone of them were a jackass enough to propose something we couldn't sell to OPS or PLANS - much less the O6 gauntlet, they wouldn't be on the planning group anymore. I had people removed from my teams for less.
It would help everyone if those who are so vested in hating Trump that they can't think straight would just check themselves for a bit. Say what you want about Trump, but there are some people of exceptional quality in his national security staff, both civilian & military, who are briefing options for him.
I am willing to have history prove me wrong, but I know enough about those people & have played that game enough to be willing to put down a paycheck or two that the "throwaway slide" is just made up, or is a bitter boy talking out of school because his/her preferred COA was not the one the CINC approved.
You see, that is a thing about COA - each one is there because in the chain of staff officers there are some who are convinced that their COA is the best option. The other COAs are sub-optimal garbage staff officers of lesser vision have proposed. Yes, even in staffs, crap is political and egos are in play. Good GOFO promote that friction though, as they want different and valid options to bring up to the Principal.
Heck, I was briefing my preferred COA to a 4-star once & his 3-star ground component commander (who I later briefly worked for when he got his 4th star - fun story for a different day) interrupted & challenged my/our ground force levels (he wanted more & different). I - just a middling navy O5 - looked over at the Principal, who just said, "Well, Sal explain to LtGen XXX what he doesn't understand about your COA." ... and he let me go back and forth with the GCC. (NB: the J3 told me the COA I was briefing was the one J00 wanted, so I knew I was OK to dance).
Anyway, the other 2 COA briefed that day were also valid & good COA, all depended on the Principal's desired effort/risk calculus. In that crowd, with a constellation of GOFO and senior civilian leaders, it would be career suicide - not to mention gross professional malpractice & unethical - to put anything up there that was "garbage" or "throwaway."
Sure, the Principal may choose COA-C - and that will cause butthurt for those on the staff who really like COA-A & COA-B, but that does not make COA-C a throwaway ... unless of course, the person calling it that is a immature & unprofessional brat who by using that terminology, just advertises that they should not been on that high level of a staff to begin with.
So, at the end of the day, 99% this is either a made up story or was a leak by a disgruntled staffer who is butthurt their preferred COA was not chosen.
There is that 1% chance that history will prove me wrong and at the highest levels of the US government we have staffers who will produce and approve options for the CINC that are "garbage" and "throwaway" to the degree they would fail out of my NATO Operational Planning course.
Happy New Year to everyone and you know what 2020 means? It means that Midrats is having its 10th Anniversary. Come join us this Sunday from 5-6pm Eastern as we look back at the previous decade and do our best to see what is coming over the horizon for the next. Who knows, we might have a surprise guest or two.
You can listen to the show at this link or below, but remember, if you don't already, subscribe to the podcast at Spreaker or any of the other podcast aggregators. If you use iTunes, you can add Midrats to your podcast list simply by clicking the iTunes button at the main showpage - or you can just click here.
Somewhere there was a 19-yr old mechanic that made sure it was up and ready for flight. Somewhere there was a 20-yr old ordnanceman that made sure the weapons were loaded and ready. Somewhere there was a 30-yr old pilot and 40-yr old copilot who were on their game. Somewhere there was a large group of intelligence professionals who kept an unblinking eye on their target, giving decision makers real-time, actionable details. Somewhere there was an entire ecosystem of communications, IT, and satellite professionals that maintained a lashed up of legacy and cutting edge technology enabling world-wide, real time observation of the target over an extended period. Somewhere there were senior uniformed and civilian advisers providing the Principal the pros and cons of action. Somewhere there was a Principal who gave the order. After thousands of deaths and untold tens of thousands wounded … one of the most blood soaked enemies of our nation was eliminated. Fullbore to everyone.
So, you thought I was done with DivThu? Ha! Welcome to 2020 people. Stephen Bainbridge is the William D. Warren Distinguished Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law in Los Angeles. As in many places where the cancerous identity politics cult has grown to infest every corner, as part of his annual merit pay raise, the commissariat forces him to submit a statement of how he contributes to the University's goals in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. How very Maoist. This is high art;
Although I am aware and respectful of the many dimensions within which a university properly seeks a diverse faculty and student body, I have long been particularly concerned with the lack of intellectual diversity at the law school. A survey of U.S. law professors in general found that white Democratic professors (both male and female), Jewish professors, and nonreligious professors “account for most (or all) of the overrepresentation among racial, gender, religious, and ideological groups in law teaching.”[1] The groups that “account for most of the underrepresentation among racial, gender, religious, and ideological groups in law teaching” are Republicans (both male and female), Protestants, and Catholics.[2] This disparity persists even though “religious and political diversity are probably more important for viewpoint diversity than gender diversity and roughly as important as racial diversity.”[3]
At UCLA, we know that the campus as a whole leans substantially to the left. “A study of various university faculties showed that at Cornell the ratio of liberal to conservative faculty members was 166 to 6, at Stanford it was 151 to 17, at UCLA it was 141 to 9, and at the University of Colorado it was 116 to 5.”[4] Conservative students at UCLA have been “harassed, stalked, and threatened.”[5] I recently searched the opensecrets.org donor database for political contributions made by persons who claimed UCLA School of Law as their employer. Thirty-eight of those persons contributed solely to Democratic candidates, the Democratic Party and various affiliates, and liberal PACs. One person contributed to both Republicans and Democrats. Three persons contributed exclusively to Republican candidates, the Republican Party, and various NRC affiliates. Of the faculty members who contributed exclusively to Republican candidates, the most recently hired of the two was hired in 1997. As a monetary matter, 92.67% of all contributions went to Democrats and affiliated groups.[6]
Because conservative students and students of faith often feel alienated and estranged in an environment that is so relentlessly liberal and secular, I have made particular efforts to reach out to and support such students. I have served as a mentor for leaders of The Federalist Society and Christian Law Students Association. I have given talks to both organizations. I taught a Perspectives on law and Lawyering seminar devoted to Catholic Social Thought and the Law, which gave students—whether Catholic or not—an opportunity to consider how their faith (or lack thereof) related to the law and an opportunity to learn about a coherent body of Christian scholarship that might inform their lives as lawyers. I have also tried to lead by example, such as by serving as a volunteer with the Good Shepherd Catholic Church’s St. Vincent de Paul chapter, which raises funds for distribution to poor persons who are in danger of losing their home due to inability to make rent or mortgage payments.
...the end of 2019, remember that Foreverwar is still going forward. From today, these Marines in Kuwait are getting ready to reinforce our embassy in Baghdad. Via CENTCOM:
A lot of these Marines were in diapers on 9/11/2001.
When you ask for something, especially money, from another party so you can in return give them a benefit, you have to show them a few things: 1. That you bring value relative to other options available to them. 2. That you have a track record of performance – hopefully something well known to yourself an others. 3. That you will be a good steward of their investment. 4. That you will not over-promise and under-deliver. 5. That you won’t embarrass them for having invested in you. As the Navy slouches in to the 2020’s, have we earned the investment, trust, and confidence of the American taxpayer and their elected representatives that navalists know will be needed to maintain our dominance at sea? Our friend Robert Farley smells it too. Nice summary:
…the Navy wishes to accelerate the decommissioning of four littoral combat ships, each of which had more than a decade of expected hull life. ... This would represent not so much the death knell of the LCS project as much as belated recognition of the failure of the promise of the program. ... The Navy has also proposed accelerating the retirement of the aging Ticonderoga class cruisers … the latest proposals include cuts to future Arleigh Burke destroyer construction … the Navy would slow acquisition in the FFG(X) program, and perhaps delay construction of a Virginia-class attack submarine. … ongoing difficulties with the Ford-class carriers. … This much is clear: The Navy has not won the necessary battles within the Department of Defense and with the American public to accomplish the goal of a 355-ship Navy. Winning both of these battles was necessary to expanding the fleet to the extent navalists have desired, and it does not appear that the Navy won either.
He doesn’t even address DDG-1000, CG(X) or a series of lesser known embarrassments so far the last decade. He doesn't have to. Roll those into a few other items I’ll include in my year-end post – and no one should be surprised that our Navy is supine, off-foot, and ill-positioned to make its argument in the new decade. We did this to ourselves, and those who have their own agendas and programs to feed, are going to take advantage of it if we don’t get better.
