Effects-based operations
Join Date: May 2003
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having just had the brief, I think you'll find it is Effects Based Approach as part of the overarching Comprehensive Approach (based around EBOC...!)
How riveting is that...!!??
Dupes
How riveting is that...!!??
Dupes
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Lyneham
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My impression of EBO is that you look at disrupting rather than destroying a target. For instance if you wanted to knock out a coal power station for a week you'd not need to flatten it to the ground you would maybe just knock out the coal elevator which would take a week to replace. Its mainly about avoiding high costs to rebuild a country's infrastructure post conflict.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What about money as the ultimate "effect" tool in the inventory?
Take a hypothetical dicatator X, for example. The cost of a war and occupation could be evaluated (say £5million) and used to derive a "retirement package" (say £1billion). If dictator X was offered £1billion and a home in a neutral state in return for stepping down, then bloodshed could be avoided at a fraction of the cost.
If former members of the Iraqi Army (shouldn't have been disbanded) had been offered a generous pension for 10 years, then this may have prevented a damaging insurgency at a lesser cost.
Take a hypothetical dicatator X, for example. The cost of a war and occupation could be evaluated (say £5million) and used to derive a "retirement package" (say £1billion). If dictator X was offered £1billion and a home in a neutral state in return for stepping down, then bloodshed could be avoided at a fraction of the cost.
If former members of the Iraqi Army (shouldn't have been disbanded) had been offered a generous pension for 10 years, then this may have prevented a damaging insurgency at a lesser cost.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearing alcohol weary, doctrine battered throat...
I think what it's really getting at is that military activity is only one option in order to achieve the effect and the comprehensive approach embraces that. So for example, if you require a particular end state eg country A stops committing human rights crimes, you could use military force, or you could employ economic sanctions or you could humilite the leadership. So the end state, is that government A stops doing bad stuff, how you achieve it doesn't matter. Militarily, the effect could be achieved by parking a frigate in the harbour (coercion) rather that the traditional approach of blasting everything in sight. It's keeping firm sight of the aim and blending all available means to achieve it.
I'm spent
I think what it's really getting at is that military activity is only one option in order to achieve the effect and the comprehensive approach embraces that. So for example, if you require a particular end state eg country A stops committing human rights crimes, you could use military force, or you could employ economic sanctions or you could humilite the leadership. So the end state, is that government A stops doing bad stuff, how you achieve it doesn't matter. Militarily, the effect could be achieved by parking a frigate in the harbour (coercion) rather that the traditional approach of blasting everything in sight. It's keeping firm sight of the aim and blending all available means to achieve it.
I'm spent
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Fin, you wouldn't by any chance be refering to gun-boat diplomacy would you? A force in being has often had a deterrent value far in excess of the military muscle it might employ.
A few Hunters in the whole of the Arabian peninsular would not have lasted 5 minutes against a well equipped and determined enemy but they were more valuable than that as they showed political intent.
Similarly relatively small forces during Confrontation were rapidly boosted with sqns from UK and Germany and again showed political intent.
The problem arises when these forces prove inadequate to deter and ineffective in operations. Then you need to scale up to brigade, division, army, air component etc. Then we get the 'peace' and we scale it all back down again. So far in the Iraq case the the initiative appears lost and we are faced with having to scale up again.
GBD worked; now we call it EBO? Will it work?
A few Hunters in the whole of the Arabian peninsular would not have lasted 5 minutes against a well equipped and determined enemy but they were more valuable than that as they showed political intent.
Similarly relatively small forces during Confrontation were rapidly boosted with sqns from UK and Germany and again showed political intent.
The problem arises when these forces prove inadequate to deter and ineffective in operations. Then you need to scale up to brigade, division, army, air component etc. Then we get the 'peace' and we scale it all back down again. So far in the Iraq case the the initiative appears lost and we are faced with having to scale up again.
GBD worked; now we call it EBO? Will it work?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EBO in a nutshell is, "don't tell me what weapon to use, tell me what effect you want to have or goal you want to achieve"
During opening days of OIF, we asked for several radars to be taken out - the Joint Fires guys came back & said we were asking incorrectly! They had several questions:
1 - Do you want them to not see you at all?
2 - Do you not care if they see you, just not be able to shoot you?
3 - Do you not care if they can shoot, just not be accurate?
4 - Do you just want them to be distracted?
After patiently listening to his mini-doctrine lesson on EBO, I told him I wanted them dead & I didn't care what weapon or tactic he felt was best - kill them.
The above is a targeting/fires application, but that's where the concept originated. They are now applying it to everything - even staffs!
It is empire building that creates more process over product justifying the stupidly bloated staffs.
One of my favorite quotes during the war (probably been heard before), "Never before in the history of armed conflict have so few been led by so many."
During opening days of OIF, we asked for several radars to be taken out - the Joint Fires guys came back & said we were asking incorrectly! They had several questions:
1 - Do you want them to not see you at all?
2 - Do you not care if they see you, just not be able to shoot you?
3 - Do you not care if they can shoot, just not be accurate?
4 - Do you just want them to be distracted?
After patiently listening to his mini-doctrine lesson on EBO, I told him I wanted them dead & I didn't care what weapon or tactic he felt was best - kill them.
The above is a targeting/fires application, but that's where the concept originated. They are now applying it to everything - even staffs!
It is empire building that creates more process over product justifying the stupidly bloated staffs.
One of my favorite quotes during the war (probably been heard before), "Never before in the history of armed conflict have so few been led by so many."
