How Bombing and Demolition Formulas Carved Illusions of Control:

Ben Zweibelson, PhD
19 min readJan 16, 2022

This is an excerpt from a design monograph that addresses design, NATO operational planning and Joint planning methodologies (NATO-OPP, JPP, and various service-specific deviations therein). This monograph is pending publication and was produced through the Joint Special Operations University where the author is a design educator (contractor) for the U.S. Special Operations Command. The title of the monograph is: “Disrupting Modern Military Decision-Making: Deconstructing Institutionalized Rituals through Design Synthesis.” (Follow Ben Zweibelson at Medium to see more on strategic design, war theory, operational planning and military philosophy).

Image source: https://external-preview.redd.it/2GfosYho9Ngvs3yA6TBRtg6O1-ypkBrt2FnQ1S8lScE.jpg?auto=webp&s=e19db2620517d373683ba86230f58aa62c8541b3

Militaries do love categorization models that can be remembered with useful mnemonics in the form of indoctrinated acronyms. We have ‘Centers of Gravity’ (COGs), SWOT Analysis, as well as ‘courses of action’ or COAs. We even assess COAs with yet another mnemonic, ‘AFDSC’ (acceptable, feasible, distinguishable, suitable and complete). Thus, COG and SWOT analysis are far from the only analytic-oriented, categorization models employed within modern military decision-making by NATO and Joint Forces. Within the targeting cycles and analysis in NATO-OPP and JPP, intelligence analysts perform elaborate calculations on what appears vulnerable as associated with enemy center of gravity assessments…

--

--

Ben Zweibelson, PhD

Philosopher of Conflict; works at U.S. Space Command; All opinions my own!