An Awkward Tango: Pairing Traditional Military Planning to Design and Why It Currently Fails to Work

Over the past decade, traditional military planning methodology and doctrine has gained an unlikely dance partner- the ambiguous, conceptual, and controversial process commonly called ‘design. Traditional planning reflects a military practice of developing specific, sequential, and highly scientific-based plans that are usually quantifiable or measurable according to an accepted language, format, and professional education. Unlike detailed planning, ‘design’ evokes eclectic combinations of philosophy, social sciences, complexity theory, and often improvised, unscripted approaches in a tailored or “one of a kind” practice, which often works against its acceptance in military applications. The two approaches do not dance well together, yet our western militaries continue to attempt to pair them together in doctrine, education, and practice

A military design movement:Postmodern comedians of war

Across the security studies discipline and beyond, the security community is now questioning whether legacy systems of thought and organization as practiced by American armed forces are still relevant for the application of organized violence in the twenty-first century. There is a growing sense that military frames for thought and action concerning contemporary and future war are increasingly insufficient or unsuitable for how societies are currently expressing conflict. There is a growing interest in security studies, as well as within military organizations, on how design logic and practice could be useful for navigating this dynamic, complex landscape described by some as the ‘postmodern world’, composed of ‘post-industrial societies’ engaging in ‘post-conventional warfare.’ The confusion between war in a postmodern context and reinterpreting war within a postmodern frame will be addressed so that readers appreciate the distinctions as well as the ongoing arguments between military practitioners, academia, and other stakeholders in contemporary as well as complex defense challenges. Postmodernists provocatively suggest that war has changed, with still others suggesting war has entered postmodernity, and others still advocating ‘new rules for war’ in postmodern stylings; with this change there is also an emerging methodology for security forces to deal with this change in the warfare within this new ‘war’ context. While this methodology uses the term ‘design’, it is not interchangeable with civilian or commercial design applications in most cases, particularly in the complex, strategic, and systemic security challenges where military design is being employed with more frequency. Lastly, military design continues to spread across the Anglosphere and beyond in post-industrial societies while also shifting and adapting to cultural, geo-political, and social nuances of the nation itself. These examples of military design results do not fall neatly into the traditional security categories of ‘victory’, ‘achieved end-state’, or ‘failure’ as earlier efforts in organized state violence could. Instead, this research provides a rich tapestry of military design experimentation, scattered adaptation and variation, institutional resistance, and in some cases assimilation. In some instances, there is a destruction of new and radical ideas so that the established and deeply ritualized military belief systems remain intact despite their growing irrelevance in this emergent postmodern security context. Yet these battles are expected in any paradigm shift, including one of how and why to engage in warfare as well as what ‘war’ has now become for humanity

Blending Postmodernism with Military Design Methodologies: Heresy, Subversion, and other Myths of Organizational Change

The emergence of postmodern thinking in 21st century military practice, theory, and education is apparent through various international Armed Forces research, debate, and professional development. However, there is yet to exist a single overarching or agreed upon form for a postmodern military methodology, with extensive disagreement over language, form, function, and practical application in war. This essay frames the current debate by proposing an emergent movement termed the ‘postmodern military movement’ that is in conflict with the existing ‘modernist military movement’ well entrenched in most Anglo-Saxon Armed Forces. More significantly, the military appropriation of postmodern social theory invokes subsequent questions of whether the military might forge novel war applications that redefine the larger postmodern movement, or if it will remain untouched. This essay describes the current competing design theories as well as the personal journey of the author as he contributes his own military research and experimentation into the larger military profession for institutional debate and self-reflection