Leo J. Blanken

Looking for Intel? . . . or Looking for Answers? Reforming Military Intelligence for a Counterinsurgency Environment

Abstract We analyze the recent Flynn Report and assess its implications for the future of military intelligence in Afghanistan. In particular, we argue that the report seeks to expand the substantive tasks of the military intelligence practitioner, while collapsing non-trivial aspects of existing organizational hierarchies. We argue that implementation of the Flynn Reports proposals would match poorly with the traditional nature of military intelligence and the realities of human resources constraints in the military. Further, the resulting scale of unfiltered data such a system would produce might serve to overwhelm rather than assist decision-makers. Finally, we conclude that the problems expressed in the Flynn Report should not be traced to the military intelligence apparatus per se, but rather to the inability of US political leadership to map out a clear vision for current operations – both in Afghanistan, and in the counterinsurgency environment in general.

Reconciling strategic studies … with itself: a common framework for choosing among strategies

Three distinct, and seemingly irreconcilable, schools of thought are identified within the strategic studies literature. One which searches for “universal principles of war,” a second, “context-dependent,” approach that seeks to embed each instance of warfare within its concurrent social, political, technological milieu and, finally a “paradoxical logic” school, which equates strategy with the generation of uncertainty. The author offers some intuitive concepts from non-cooperative game theory to develop a “dominate-mix” approach to strategy choice. In doing so, he helps to reconcile these disparate approaches and provides a simple framework to assist researchers in framing military decisions as well as to assist planners in choosing among strategies.

Performance measurement in military operations: information versus incentives

We explore the impact of strategic assessment efforts on military organizations at war. To do so, we construct a model to explore the impact of a principal’s choice among imperfect performance metrics for a military operation. In doing so, the principal must consider both the incentivizing and informational properties of the metric. We show the conditions under which uncertainty regarding the nature of the agent, as well as uncertainty regarding the operational environment, drives a metric choice that induces pathological behavior from the agent. More specifically, a poor metric choice can create an overly optimistic assessment and end up prolonging the conflict. We illustrate the model’s insights in the cases of World War II and the Vietnam War.

SLOWING DOWN TO KEEP THE LEAD IN MILITARY TECHNOLOGY

We develop a model of military technology competition among states. States can choose to introduce new military technology, mimic rivals’ level of technology, or withdraw from the contest. States can choose to implement any level of technology within their current feasible technologies. We find that states with significant technological leads should sometimes withhold new technologies, only strategically releasing them to trump rivals’ efforts. We develop the model by refining Admiral Jackie Fisher’s roughly articulated concept of ‘plunging’. We then use this refined argument to reanalyze the case of naval rivalries among European powers between the Crimean War and the First World War. Finally, we conclude by discussing the model’s implications for current US military force structure planning.

Unpacking the various meanings of redundancy: from refining the concept to military planning

The authors engage in the debate over waste in military force structure planning by rigorously deconstructing the concept of “redundancy.” First, a typology of redundancy is constructed that provides a common framework for identifying variety among redundant structures. These are labeled “true redundancy,” “expanded capacity,” “portfolio diversification,” and “mission overlap.” Further, a number of mechanisms are identified that produce these types of structures, and show the conditions under which planners may utilize redundant structure in the search for optimization. In sum, the article provides refined concepts for analysts and planners to identify when redundancy is deleterious or beneficial.