While I’m not all that interested in military doctrine and tactics in and of themselves, I am interested in complex systems, how the weak win wars, and the lessons military leaders offer (for example, see the lessons of William McRaven and Stanley McChrystal).
This is how I found myself flipping through The U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, which was written to facilitate a common understanding of the problems inherent in counterinsurgency campaigns.
There was a fascinating section on the difference between designing and planning that caused me to pause and reflect.
To better understand the multifaceted problems many of us face today it helps to talk with people who have different perspectives. This helps achieve better situational understanding. At best this can point the way to solutions and at worst this should help with learning what to avoid.
Often we skip the information gathering phase because it’s a lot of work. A lot of conversations. However this process helps us become informed, rather than just opinionated.
Just as you can never step in the same river twice, design is not something you do once and walk away. It’s an ongoing inquiry into the nature of problems and the various factors and relationships to help improve understanding. Constantly assessing the situation from a design perspective, helps gauge the effectiveness of the planning and subsequent actions. If you don’t periodically reassess the situation, you might be solving a problem that no longer exists.
The U.S. Army / Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual is full of other thought-provoking content.
This piece originally appeared on Farnam Street.
Join over 60,000 readers and get a free weekly update via email here.