disruptive thinkers

“The Military Needs More Disruptive Thinkers,” by Benjamin Kohlmann was itself an example of the provocative and original thinking that the author calls for in the world of national security policy.  The article reminded me of what is surely fast becoming the quote for our times when Sir Ernest Rutherford, the father of nuclear physics, once said to his staff: “Gentleman, we have run out of money.  It is time to start thinking.”

In a world of long-term austerity, rapid technological change, declining importance of Westphalian concepts and later generation warfare that almost ceases to have any resemblance to traditional notions of war we can no longer afford to be prisoners to doctrinal precepts and organizational notions that are more applicable to the 1950s.  The futility of large, inflexible military bureaucracies, procuring large, complex, over-engineered systems from the few large, inflexible remaining general contractors in a rapidly changing world seems evident.  This system, which Anthony Cordesman has described as a “poisoned chalice” has long been broken and is no longer fully relevant to the emerging world of the “rise of the rest” and the proliferation of military technology.  We need not only a revolution in military affairs; we need a revolution in military organization, design and procurement.  We need to replace the military industrial complex with a military innovation complex, although the word “complex” is probably less than satisfactory to describe the dynamic that is most appropriate for the times. This emerging system would require far expanded notion of jointness: visions of security that extend beyond the battlefield integrating concepts from economic development, flexible manufacturing, commerce and social systems into the mix.

Something that I wrote an article critiquing one branch of the military, the Navy, and its fixation on large ships, seems relevant to this discussion.  In that article appearing in the May 18, 2011 issue of Jane’s Defence Weekly I said:

What is the most effective way to achieve the missions of the US Navy: sea control, sea denial, power projection or protection of open commerce? In an age of networks, small wars, unmanned systems and diffusion of military technology, the best solutions are unlikely to be found in highly expensive, complex, centralised systems requiring massive manpower. Answers are likely to be found in ways that distribute firepower to lower-cost platforms for more widespread and rapid deployments on more numerous, but less visible, lower-signature vehicles. Solutions are likely to stress reliability over theoretical elegance, quality achieved through quantity and simplicity over complexity while utilizing the emerging capabilities of robotics and unmanned systems.

One real world example that illustrates this point can be found in a small New Hampshire company, Juliet Marine.  Interestingly, Juliet describes itself , not as a defense contractor but as “a maritime technology think tank that is developing innovative solutions for naval and commercial applications.”  This is the type of approach for which Lt. Kohlmann exhorts.  Juliet claims that it can develop systems in one third the time and at one third the cost than achieved through usual military procurement procedures.  Juliet has developed “Ghost” which they claim to be the world’s first supercavitating ship.  Reportedly Ghost achieves very high speed through hull friction that is 1/900^th of conventional surface ships.  The craft is claimed to have combined the features of an attack helicopter and a stealth fighter, but on water.  The vessel was designed to control the littorals and would be applicable to missions from patrolling for pirates, keeping bodies such as the Straits of Hormuz open from swarm attacks to also supplying offshore oil rigs.  As yet untested, the Ghost and the organizational system that produced it merit a lot of attention and, if verified, emulation.  Most interesting of all, Juliet developed the Ghost on its own nickel, without any government funding.  

As promising as all of this may be, disruptive thinking at operational and doctrinal levels has to be preceded by disruptive thinking at the level of grand strategy.  Warmed over or updated versions of worldviews borrowed from the end of World War II or the Cold War will not suffice.  The last attempt, “the Long War,” was a tepid stew not worthy of being served. We face a period of human history that will be unprecedented.  How do we intend to use all of our strengths – economic, technological, social as well as military – to lead the world?  The brayings from Washington are not promising.  The supposed deficit hawks who are keen on revolutionizing the safety net and social contract want to give a free pass to the military complex not merely wanting more of the same, but rather increased amounts of the same.  Waste is waste, no matter where found.  Wasting money on outmoded concepts in the name of defense actually saps the national strength on which our power ultimately rests.  Then too, there may be ways that the military can help solve national security problems through unconventional means.  Two possible examples.  The US Navy leads the world in small nuclear power generator technology and is developing some very promising technology to convert all too plentiful algae into fuel.  Unleashing such technologies on the domestic economy to lessen reliance of the world on hydrocarbons from a very unstable Middle East could do wonders for national security.  The coffers in the west are bare.  The time has come to start thinking.

The craze started by Ben Kohlmann's essay and was then taken up by me and the legendary Doctrine Man has made its way to the pages of the U.S. Naval Institute blog with a post by LCDR B.J. Armstrong.  As a reminder, you can find all of the disruptive thinkers pieces as they are published by going to this page at SWJ.

There are places and people that have a long tradition of creative thinking, problem solving, and innovation.  A great deal of military innovation throughout history has come from junior and mid-grade officers.  LCDR Claude Berube has documented the Naval Institute’s history of junior officer innovation and the rise of the Institute from a small group of officers on shore duty to a pre-eminent thought center.  There is a movement within USNI that is growing to bring JO’s and mid-grade Officers back to the pages of Proceedings with their innovative thoughts.  This is important, but not enough by itself. 

...

Disruptive thinking is, however, the starting point.  We need critical thinking that starts with new ideas and we need to develop those into innovative solutions that are researched and workable.  Just pointing out problems doesn’t get us anywhere.  John Boyd, another great example from Ben’s essay, always did his homework and knew exactly what the staff-pukes were going to ask at the end of his briefs.  Their questions were usually intended to try and derail him or embarrass him.  But, he used his research to set traps for them, using their own questions and lack of homework against them to help push his ideas through the Pentagon bureaucracy.  He wasn’t just disruptive, he had the research done in advance and the solutions ready which made him unstoppable.

Please visit the USNI blog to read more.

We know there are problems with commenting in this post, so please weigh in at the original disruptive thinking post until we get this one fixed.

Everyone's favorite cubicle-dweller, Doctrine Man, weighed in at his blog on yesterday's blockbuster article from Ben Kohlmann.

So, as we approach this crossroads, this historical inflection point, we have two choices: one, embrace the disruptive thinkers; or two, push them aside and weather the storm with the “yes men” who seem so content to genuflect at the altar of the status quo. You see, real change is top-driven, but fueled from below. Separating those two layers is a filter that, more often than not, ultimately shapes the course and speed of change. That filtering layer – where you will generally find seasoned O-5s and O-6s – is where ideas either flourish, or are lured into a cul-de-sac and slowly strangled to death. It really is that simple.

Choose your filter, but choose wisely. Who we surround ourselves with during this time is at least as important as who we choose to exclude. If we are to achieve the type of institutional change necessary to transform for the future, we must embrace the disruptive thinkers. We must open our minds to them and allow them to breathe free. This isn’t heresy, it is an absolutism. Or twenty years from now, people who look a lot like us will glance around and utter those fateful words: “I never saw that coming.”

Read more here.

I try to mostly stay out of the comments section of articles now that I'm editor, but I couldn't help jumping into the epic fray over Ben Kohlmann's piece today.  I jumped in because I am passionate about this issue and because many of the comments demonstrated - in my mind - exactly the malaise Kohlmann aims to address.  In think pieces like this, people love to snipe the suggestions, extrapolate suggestions far beyond their scope to make a strawman that can be knocked down, and condescend about how a junior cannot possibly understand what they are talking about.  All were found here today.

First, I implore all of those who have strong opinions on this article and the issues that surround it to submit their essays to us.  Even if I violently disagree with you, I will publish all submissions on the topic that are lucid and written well enough to merit our readers time.  Clearly, our readers are interested in this topic.  While many of the comments picked at the essay, the massive amount of pageviews and the large number of Facebook likes tell me that it resonated with many.  Which is a symptom of my next point.

The U.S. military is in crisis.  There is a large segment of the force that is disgusted with the bureaucracy and its failures.  There are bright young minds who have been given tremendous responsibility in combat and have been far more earnest about learning at a young age because their lives seemed to depend on it.  Thrust them into a stodgy, conservative bureaucracy and they are going crazy against its illogic.  Some of this may be generational, but some is a combination of the continuing ossification of the organization and its culture just as a cohort with unparalleled combat experience in recent memory rises to levels where they must tread through its morass.  Combine the pending withdrawl from Afghanistan, the drawdowns, and a system that doesn't let these "young Turks" (as LtGen Neller termed us, perhaps incorrectly) exert influence to their potential, and you have a recipe for a train wreck.  This is only one of numerous salvos that have been fired on this issue recently, but too often they are dismissed, poo-pooed, condescended, or attacked.  In the end, the institution seems to be content to ignore them.

I'd like to address a few more issues that came up in the comments.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that the military should adopt business practices wholesale or to send every officer to business school.  And certainly, entrepreneurs and the business world have their share of failures, as well.  But as I look at some of the comments here and on Facebook, the level of hostility toward the business world and the level of arrogance that the military is so far superior to the business world that there's nothing we could deign to learn from them is a symptom of the self-lionization and the isolation from society that we have created in the past decade and more.  Not every HBS grad was a Wall Street investment banker precipitating the recession.  Many are running the industries that keep the nation and the military going.  They and other business people are the ones that keep our economy going, without which there is nothing to defend or to defend it with.  Military members increasingly think we are the be all, end all of American society.  This is sick and ultimately dangerous thinking and it needs to stop.

Sure, business has had its disasters, but are you telling me that the people who brought you Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghainstan, plus a host of other debacles, constant acquisition nightmares, and the complaint that spending more than the next 19 nations combined on defense isn't enough cannot learn anything from the business world?  Are you telling me that since medicine and science have had fraud and failures, we should not seek to learn from them either?  Yes, the military is not a business.  Everyone gets that.  But we should seek to learn from every field we can.