> Nope. The point is if I am inside their OODA loop, I can make decisions and react quicker than the adversary. Now they are reacting to my decisions and I have the advantage.
Yes you'll have the advantage because they'll be making bad decisions as the situation will have changed by the time they've decided to act on older information. It's not sufficient to simply act faster you have to be making good decisions as well.
> The keyword there is "could be". That's what makes leadership hard. You have to know when is enough information to make a decision, and when you need to wait. Or if you made the wrong decision, what can you do now?
Yes exactly so acting isn't axiomatically the thing to do. Although making a great folly seems like a great way to get lionized in military history. :D
> Yes exactly so acting isn't axiomatically the thing to do. Although making a great folly seems like a great way to get lionized in military history. :D
Usually when battles are studied in military history, they try to look at it based on what the leader knew then versus what we know now. Hindsight is always 20/20. There are examples of famous battles where even studied now, military strategists say that the losing commander did the right thing, based on the information available.
For sure you can make good decisions based on the info available and still lose. You can also make bad decisions and still win. Sometimes decisions that seem vital are totally pointless etc. etc. etc.
I was replying directly to your point that military historians found that some military commanders were making good decisions based on the info available even if they caused grand follys. I was pointing out that doesn’t really say much as most people try to make good decisions but won’t always be able to or won’t be making decisions that actually matter as external forces overwhelm no matter what decision is made.
The best laid plans of mice and men often go askew to paraphrase Burns.
Yes you'll have the advantage because they'll be making bad decisions as the situation will have changed by the time they've decided to act on older information. It's not sufficient to simply act faster you have to be making good decisions as well.
> The keyword there is "could be". That's what makes leadership hard. You have to know when is enough information to make a decision, and when you need to wait. Or if you made the wrong decision, what can you do now?
Yes exactly so acting isn't axiomatically the thing to do. Although making a great folly seems like a great way to get lionized in military history. :D