More handpicked essays just for you.
Military decision making process essay
The Military Decisionmaking Process
Different processes in military decision making
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
MDMP, PLANNING TO COUNTER THE IED THREAT Leaders today need to have an appreciation for the operation process, understand a situation, envision a desired future, and to lay out an approach that will achieve that future (Flynn & Schrankel, 2013). Plans need to be created that can be modified to changes in any factors considered. However, plans should not be dependent on specific information being precise or that require things to go exactly according to schedule. Instead, the staff NCO should be flexible where they can and always be prepared for the unexpected. Today’s military members are fighting an unconventional war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The enemy constantly changes their tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP’s) to counter the United States technological advances, making planning very difficult for leaders. There are multiple tools at a staff NCO’s disposal to try to anticipate an outcome of a current operation, but also assist with the development of concepts in follow-on missions. The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is just one tool a staff NCO can utilize. In order to stay ahead of the enemy, create effective plans and orders, it is critical for a staff NCO to assist the commander, and understand that the MDMP and planning are essential in defeating the enemy and conserving the fighting force. …show more content…
The MDMP is a seven step process, including receipt of the mission, mission analysis, course of action (COA) development, COA analysis (also known as war gaming), COA comparison, COA approval, and orders production, dissemination and transition (HQDA, 2014). Immediately when commanders receive the mission, is when the MDMP and planning process begin. Receive the
The Army Problem Solving Model was design to be use when time is not critical. The Army Problem solving model is a systematic way to arrive at the best solution. This system considers the risk and a detail analysis of each course of action to prepare an unbiased solution for the decision maker. In contrast with the Rapid Decision Makin and Synchronization Process (RDMS) was design to give the commander the ability make timely and effective decision without the expending too much time on processing or analyzing all the information.
Compare and Contrast the Army Problem Solving Model (Process) with the Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process (C100). As a leader and Sergeant Major, I must have the essential skills to identify and solve problems in order to accomplish the missions we face in our current and future operational environment. The army has provide us with two techniques in order to identify and solve problems; the army problem solving model which is a systematic approach to a decision making process, and the rapid-decision making and synchronization process which provide a rapid solution to a rapid changing environment. There are several similarities and differences between these two processes, as I compared the process I realized they both utilize the higher headquarter guidance, subordinates, personal observation, and decision-making guide in order to identify problems. These problems exist due to a difference between the current state of condition and the desire state of conditions.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey opened the 2015 National Military Strategy with the line “complexity and rapid change characterize today’s strategic environment.” Robert Axelrod and Michael Cohen offer that complexity and rapid change describe a system that “consists of parts which interact in ways that heavily influence the probabilities of later events.” Further, human involvement in the strategic environment signifies that the “agents or populations” within the system will seek to change and these interactions and changes are extremely difficult if not impossible to predict. The integrated planning process combines detailed and conceptual planning to enable planning in a complex environment. The Army Design
Background: In 2003, the Army published its guidance on the implementation of the principles of Mission Command (MC); the leadership philosophy adopted by the Army. The ideals and principles were discussed and implemented throughout the Army over the course of Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom and are still being implemented in Operation Inherent Resolve. In 2012, the Army published updated doctrine to further explain and codify the principles of MC in ADP 6-0. The Army War College developed the Key Strategic Issues List for 2015-1016 and asked students in the FA49 ORSA Q-Course to identify one key strategic initiative and draft a white paper to discuss it. This white paper will discuss issue #7: "What cultural changes are needed in the Army for it to meet future challenges while embracing" MC? In this white paper, I will discuss what embedding and reinforcing mechanisms the Army senior leaders need to put into place to change the culture.
Past military events have demonstrated the importance of anticipation and preparation for a wide spectrum of missions and capabilities. To conduct these operations, the U.S. Military must prepare to move and conduct them anywhere in the world. The Military must also have the capability to conduct low intensity wars against an ill-defined enemy as well as major conventional style conflicts against major states.
This paper examines lessons learned that are timeless in their relevance for all types of warfare with respect to the lesson materials discussed in the Warfare Studies course. The first lesson learned that this paper examines is the United States’ adaptability in response to changing nature of warfare. The United States has experienced various types of warfare ranging from war of annihilation, war of attrition, or fourth-generation warfare; the United States has no identifiable American way of war. Second, this paper looks at the importance and enduring nature of fourth-generation warfare and counterinsurgency operations. These events are here to stay and will be significant in the future conflicts. The third lesson learned discusses America’s poor planning and preparation for stability, security, transition, and reconstruction operations (SSTR) and demonstrated the need to avoid stovepiped, single agency planning. The apparent lack of planning for SSTR operations severely complicated and extended the United States mission in Iraq. Fourth, America must always strive to be on the cutting edge and maintain technological superiority over our adversaries in order to secure great advantages. However, the United States cannot solely rely on technological savvy military to achieve success. The last lesson learned discusses the growing relevance of information IOP as a powerful tool of war and the importance of it in shaping public opinion.
In the instance of the invasion of Iraq, planning would not follow the precedent of doctrine but rather embark on a path where the joint force would approach the operation with cogent ways (concepts) and means (resources) with risk towards desired ends (objectives) to ensure victory. Analyzing U.S. military campaign planning for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM using operational design as an evaluative framework shows the depth and breadth of the success and shortfalls in the planning process. From the interpretation of the pre-invasion guidance and problems to the initial operational approach, how planners assessed the campaign and redefined the approach over time and finally and how current joint planning policy incorporates lessons from Operation
“Operational design is a journey of discovery, not a destination.” Operational design provides a framework, with the guidance of the Joint Force Commander (JFC), that staffs and planning groups can use to give political leaders, commanders, and warfighters a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the problems and objectives for which military forces will be committed, or are planned to be committed. Furthermore, operational design supports commanders and planners to make sense of complicated operational environments (often with ill-structured or wicked problems), helps to analyze wicked problem, and devise an operational approach to solve the problem in the context of the operational environment.
"The soldier is the Army. No army is better than its soldiers. The Soldier is also a citizen. In fact, the highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms for one’s country” (-General George S. Patton Jr). Here within our borders we are the lucky ones, we have been blessed with the pleasure of so many brave men and women; to volunteer in the world's greatest military; and put their lives on the line for something that they believe is a moral obligation. But, think of some other countries, that have conscription (the practice of ordering people by law to serve in the armed forces) laws. We as a nation have some laws on conscription, and if you are male and above the age of 18 you have already signed the slip of paper stating that in the time of war; if our great nation re-instated the draft then there is a great chance you will be serving on the frontline of the next Great War. This brings me to my first topic of this page, is it ethical to have a draft? My second topic that I will discuss will be on if it is morally acceptable to "draft dodge". What I mean on the second topic is if you have a right; that morally allows you to not go fight in the war.
Compare and Contrast the Army Problem Solving Model (Process) with the Rapid Decision making and Synchronization Process. (C100)
In the view of global security,(2011) The military decision making process abbreviated as MDMP is a planning model that establishes procedures for analyzing a mission, developing and comparing courses of action(COA) that are best suited to accomplish the higher commander’s intention and mission. The MDMP comprise of seven stages and each stage depends on the previous step to produce its own output. This means that a mistake in the early stage will affect all the other stages that follow. These steps include:
Military leaders make decisions and solve problems every day. Some need a decision quickly while others can take time. The US Army has several decision-making methods to assist leaders. The Army Problem Solving Model (Process) (PSM) is a systematic approach to identifying the best possible solution to an issue or problem and a deliberate method of decision-making (FM 6-0, 2009). Leaders use it to solve a problem when time is not critical and they can put some thought into different solutions. The solution must be objective and based on facts in order for the decision to be relevant and practical. The Rapid Decision Making and Synchronization Process (RDM) is a decision-making and synchronization technique typically used during the execution phase of an operation (FM 5-0, 2010). Besides its use during execution, this style of decision making is quick and focuses on the ability to modify the plan, due to changing circumstances, and synchronize those changes with subordinate elements. Determining which method to apply requires an understanding of the similarities and differences of both techniques.
There is always risk while planning and executing military operations. Both JPP and operational design are used together as tools for the overall planning process. Commander’s use operational design as a repetitive process to help them answer the questions regarding ends, ways, means and risk. The staff supports the commander gain an understanding of the operational environment by defining the problem and developing the approach using operational design and the JPP. This continual process with further development and refinement leads to possible COAs where resources can be identified and turned into an order or executable plan (JP 5-0, IV-2). Comparing the COAs will assist the commander with their decision making by allowing them the ability
These troops operated in a decentralized manner,picking their own targets to attack and, using laser-spotting equipment, called in air strikes withoutrequiring approval through a long chain of command. Thedevelopment and deployment of information technology intimes of war, is seen as only a part of the bigger pictureof military operations and functions.Information technology is currently enabling themilitary to have greater flexibility in the way theyorganize their command structure (Goldman, 2004).“Information technologies facilitate more efficient anddecentralized command and control arrangements, allowinggreater flexibility in reacting to quickly changing battlesituations and a higher operating tempo” (Goldman, 2004,p.209).Advanced information technology especially in thecommunication systems, combined with innovativeorganizational concepts and designs has provided theUnited States military the current Revolution in MilitaryAffairs. A theory that seeks to exploit the advantages ofinformation technology, advanced weaponry, andorganizational concepts, given the United States militarya tactical advantage over its
Operational Design (OD) enables commanders, and their staffs, to solve problems of varying scope and severity at the conceptual level. The elements of OD help provide the framework to guide the operational planning process from understanding the problems sets concerning the operational environment, to shaping coherent and executable courses of actions (COA) for the joint force. In particular, the OD elements of military end state, objectives, and center of gravity (COG), work together to help develop a compelling planning framework by providing the focus of effort towards desired political ends, in which the plan works to achieve. United States (U.S.) historical examples from World War II (WWII) to Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom