A weblog of periodic insights from a former know-it-all Infantry Officer


Dreaming up metrics is the pre-school level of warfare
Posted by Schmedlap at: 5:31 PM on 10 FEB 10 | Comments (3) | Reply to this post

I am a pet person. One of my many pet peeves is the word “metrics.” The concept is fine, but the perceptions surrounding it are maddening. This comes to mind today because of a recent thread at SWJ that links to a post about “metrics” on one of the blogosphere’s largest methane factories. Basically, people are once again talking about metrics as if they are some magical list of standards that we can substitute for solid campaign planning.

I do not know a clear way to explain why brainstorming a list of metrics is stupid, so I will attempt to illustrate it instead. I no longer have a stack of doctrinal publications or written procedures or class materials at the ready that I used to rely on when doing things like putting together MOPs and MOEs, but I think my memory serves me relatively well, so here goes.

First off, “metrics” or Measures of Effectiveness (MoE) are exactly what they sounds like: a measure of whether your efforts are effective. They are not measures of whether you are “winning” and may not be measures of whether things have improved for the population or whether your situation is any less dire. Here is an example…

Scenario: Suppose you want to clear an area that is currently regarded as a Taliban safe haven. You want to push the Taliban out of the area without inflicting civilian casualties or doing significant damage to whatever infrastructure is there. In pursuit of that goal, you attempt to get the Taliban to vacate before you move in.

One part of your concept of operations: As a shaping operation, you seek to get the Taliban to leave by way of information operations that seek to make your imminent movement into the area well-known and creating the impression that the Taliban will suffer greater public relations harm than good if they choose to stay and fight. In order to convince the Taliban that staying and fighting will do more harm than good, you decide to create an impression that the locals will blame the Taliban for any death or destruction to the locale if fighting occurs.

Your specific objectives in pursuit of shaping those perceptions…

1) Inform Taliban decision-makers of your imminent movement into the locale
2) Inform Taliban of your intent to seize control of the locale
3) Inform the local populace of your imminent operation
4) Convince populace that Coalition forces will not target non-combatants or infrastructure
5) Convince populace if Taliban fights then collateral damage will be unavoidable
6) Convince Taliban decision makers that collateral damage will be publicized as effective anti-Taliban propaganda
7) Convince Taliban that preparation and resourcing of the operation will be sufficient that any fighting will be lopsided and embarrassing
8) Inform civilian population of where to go to evacuate if Taliban remain to fight

Now, for the sake of brevity, I’ll only expand upon the first objective, though I think it is worth noting that some of the actions below apply to multiple objectives.

Objective 1: Inform Taliban decision-makers of your imminent movement into the locale

Actions: Inform the media of your movement, broadcast warnings via radio, inform individuals known to travel to and from the locale

Measures of Performance: Number of news outlets informed and the amount of coverage that they devote to the information by way of the relevant conduits; number of radio spots aired and their durations and area of coverage; number of relevant individuals spoken to

Measures of Effectiveness: Amount of accurate information relayed through the media to your target audience; number of radio spots heard by your target audience; portion of the populace that has heard accurate information relayed to them through individuals whom you spoke to; amount of inaccurate (corrupted or distorted) information that reaches your target audience. See footnote.

Now, I was never much of a doctrine geek and it has been a couple of years, so I might have omitted a step or substituted “inform” somewhere in lieu of “influence” but the basic point is this: your MoE (or “metrics”) are derived from the specific actions that you intend to take in pursuit of your objectives. Your metrics are not some “best practices” list that you copied from your buddy’s notepad or got forwarded to you in some PowerPoint slides. Metrics are operation-specific and only make sense in the context of that operation. This nonsense that I have seen lately about coming up with a list of good metrics is maddening. If we learn as slowly as some reporters, bloggers, and other commentators suggest we do, then we truly are screwed.


Important note! In addition to developing a set of MoE based upon your objectives and actions, you also need to determine in advance how you will measure your MoE. Why? Because there is a human tendency to become wedded to our plans and ideas. You need to determine objective means of measuring MoE so that, in the heat of the moment, staff officers and Soldiers collecting information and intelligence will not be as likely to subconsciously skew the data. If the commander is expecting some type of input and gets some other type, then he can ask why the new type of input. Maybe it makes sense. Maybe it's a new input that does a better job of fitting the facts to the outcome sought. If it is determined in advance how you intend to measure the MoE, then the commander can determine whether the change makes sense or whether you his staff is cooking the books.

Posted by Schmedlap at: 5:31 PM on 10 FEB 10 | Permalink | Comments (3) | Reply to this post

bayonet


Hey, at least it's something other than COIN or Afghanistan
Posted by Schmedlap at: 07:04 AM on 10 FEB 10 | Comments (0) | Reply to this post

Just to be clear, this blog is not going to turn into a political blog. But this issue arose elsewhere I’ve got nothing else to write about, so what the heck… DADT!

I oppose changing the DADT policy. I obviously have personal views such that I chafe at the thought of accommodating behavior that I regard as immoral. But I also realize that my personal views are irrelevant in formulating policy. Just to be absolutely clear, I will repeat that sentence: I also realize that my personal views are irrelevant in formulating policy. I would not (and, if one scrolls down to an earlier post, it is clear that I do/did not) invoke my personal views in arguing against a change in DADT. If you leave a comment calling me out for invoking morality in this issue, then I will call you stupid and point to the preceding three sentences and ignore the rest of your comment. On the other side of the issue, I know there are some people who realize that their personal views are as irrelevant as mine are, and who truly believe, from a policy-perspective, that pushing forward with full integration of openly-serving gay servicemembers in the Armed Forces is a good idea.

My impression, however, is that an unfortunately large number of people on either side of the issue view the matter in very dumbed-down terms. Here is my very rough estimate of the composition of each side of the issue…
Those who want to keep DADT…
2% Homophobes
40% Right-wingers who oppose left-wing policies
2% People convinced that the Constitution is on their side
1% People who think that "God hates fags"
55% Normal people like my parents who are agnostic and simply view homosexuality as deviant (in the sociology sense of the word); seriously, spend some time outside of major cities and you'll find that is a pretty typical attitude

Those in favor of full integration…
2% Flamboyantly gay individuals who want to be "in our face"
40% Left-wingers who want a victory over right-wingers
2% People convinced that the Constitution is on their side
1% People who think that Christians hate gays
55% Normal people who have an attitude of "so what?"
I suspect the slight majority on each side of the issue falls into the category of "normal" people. But they are not the voices that we are likely to hear. We are more likely to hear the individuals who hold the views that I would classify as "dumbassery." Ironically, we are most likely to hear their views because they betray their own cause. If I were a right-wing activist, I would seek to give a loud voice to the fringe part of the left in order to cast them as anti-Christian bigots and radical Marxists. If I were a left-wing activist, I would seek to give a loud voice to the fringe part of the right in order to cast them as abortion-doctor murderers and homophobes. Thankfully, I am neither a right-wing nor left-wing activist because I am not a political ideologue. To be a political ideologue is to reach conclusions without facts. That is faith, not reason. I’ll take God's word on faith, but not worldly issues of politics and economics. It is one thing to say "I hold xyz views and that makes me conservative" or "I hold abc views and that makes me liberal." It is quite another thing to say, "I’m conservative, therefore I believe x" or "I’m liberal, therefore I believe y." The "I hold" statement is descriptive. The "I am… therefore" statement is an admission that you are incapable of processing facts and concepts and arriving at a conclusion. Unfortunately, you probably vote. That sucks for the rest of us.

But my point in this post is not just to express how much I loathe the Huffington Post, Free Republic, Daily Kos, Redstate, and the like, or to express my frustration at the nonsense often referred to as "news" on cable and network television. So, back to DADT. Whether you support keeping it as it is or pushing ahead with full integration, I think you have got to admit that the timing is absolutely horrible. This is a political football (see my non-authoritative numbers above that I plucked from out of the air). Our military is under stress. They do not need another political football thrown their way. I suspect that we will eventually push ahead with full integration. If we are going to do so, could we at least give our military a breather first?

While many may think this is just a simple matter of rewriting a law, the mechanics involved are more complicated. First off, think about the overplanning that will occur. When I was a platoon leader running a range, my Brigade Commander wanted to know my tertiary plan for medical evacuation and he was not pleased with my response that, "sir, this is a TPT range." Just think of the overkill that will go into this goat rodeo. Think about the questions that will confront the JAGs. Do we ask about sexual preference? Do we not ask? Do we rearrange barracks assignments on the basis of sexual preference? Do we allow gays to room together? Do we require them to room together? Do we randomly assign and not worry about it? What if there is a "hate crime" and the media finds out about it? We’d better step up barracks inspections and have a bunch of briefings in addition to our already lengthy parade of EO, POSH, and other mandatory forums. Oh, and then there are more serious issues, LIKE THESE. None of these individually are all that jarring, but they are a bunch of ankle-biters and small cuts. Our units have enough requirements and time-constraints as is and this would add a bunch more. And just imagine if any of them get bungled. The media is already going to be watching this issue like hawks. It is much cheaper to put up a reporter in the Holiday Inn Express outside a military installation than to ship him or her off to Afghanistan. One screw-up and hello, media circus. Why not wait until Iraq and Afghanistan draw down?

I do not understand why Gates and Mullen are carrying the water for the President on this one. I am not suggesting that Bob Gates does not have a quadruple-digit IQ and I am not suggesting that he could not kick my ass in about half a second and I am not suggesting that he cannot make the sun blink by staring at it. I just do not understand why he is playing along. He has a fair amount of clout when it comes to defense issues and the President does not. This is a political issue that has a very vocal and well-organized base of support, but that base of support is also very small. One would think that Gates would pull the President and/or his advisers aside for some counseling, or use his Jedi powers to change their minds. This is horrible timing for this issue unless he has some brilliant plan that exceeds even the expectations of a Gates cheerleader like me.

Posted by Schmedlap at: 07:04 AM on 10 FEB 10 | Permalink | Comments (0) | Reply to this post

bayonet











-->