A Critique of Effects-Based Thinking
Dec 2005, Vol. 150, No. 6
By Jim Storr
Much ink has been spilt on the subject of effects-based operations, effectsbased thinking and a cluster of related neologisms. A number of conferences have been held, and no doubt much hot air generated. However, little consensus or agreement has emerged. The Ministry of Defence’s Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre has recently released a Joint Doctrine Note to discuss the issue. It could be surmised that the production of the Doctrine Note demonstrates a real difficulty in reaching such shared understanding. This article provides one slightly detached perspective on the discussion. What is substantive in effects-based thinking? What is worth taking forward?
Add your comments
By Jim Storr
Much ink has been spilt on the subject of effects-based operations, effectsbased thinking and a cluster of related neologisms. A number of conferences have been held, and no doubt much hot air generated. However, little consensus or agreement has emerged. The Ministry of Defence’s Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre has recently released a Joint Doctrine Note to discuss the issue. It could be surmised that the production of the Doctrine Note demonstrates a real difficulty in reaching such shared understanding. This article provides one slightly detached perspective on the discussion. What is substantive in effects-based thinking? What is worth taking forward?
You need 4 credits to access this item
If you are a member or registered user, please login
Not already a member and have not yet registered?
Add your comments
Copyright © 2009 RUSI