One piece at a time

Why Linear Planning and Institutionalisms Promote Military Campaign Failures

Bibliographic Data

ID7097675
AuthorsBen Zweibelson (0000-0002-9760-3726, United States Army Command and General Staff College, corresponding author)
Year2015
Volume15
Issue4
Pages360-374
Publication date2015-10-02
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueDefence Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1470-2436 • E-ISSN: 1743-9698
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/14702436.2015.1113667
OpenAlexW2200877994
LanguageEN
Citations received9
References cited22

The recent strategic failures in Iraq and Afghanistan for military coalitions illustrate that we have significant problems with understanding how and why we plan military campaigns in ways that over time demonstrate ineffectiveness and confusion. Arguably, we may not realize why we construct insufficient campaign plans because we are not even aware of our cognitive behaviors. This article critically charges that our entire approach to understanding conflict and our subsequent military planning methodologies stem from highly limited yet deeply cherished conceptual models that operate behind the scenes. We hardly realize them, yet they dominate our very understanding of how we imagine the world functions. With military campaign plans, our centralized hierarchies, linear causality reasoning, and other significant sociological forces send us into cycles of poor planning along with institutional blinders that resist critical reflection on why we are failing

Causality (physics · Confusion · Construct (python library · Law and economics · Plan (archaeology · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · Anthropology: Ethics, History, Culture · Complex Systems and Decision Making · Computer Science · History · Peacebuilding and International Security · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub