BACKGROUND
“Don’t you know that the whole aim of
Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there
will be no
words in which to express it.”
“Doublethink means the power of holding
two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting
both of
them.”
“In our time, political speech and
writing are largely the defence of the indefensible.”
“Freedom is the freedom to say that
two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”[1]
George
Orwell had a keen eye for social developments during the immediate
post-WWII
era; leading us though the way in which Newspeak
limited the span and depth of human thought and expression, as well as
its
impact upon political debate. His antidote was the exercise of freedom
of
speech. Given the exercise of that freedom, Newspeak
and Doublethink could not flourish.
Unfortunately,
the sixty years that followed have seen the evolution of an even more
institutionalised form of the disease, driven mainly by the mass media
and
government bureaucracies.
Over
the past two to three decades, governments in Australia, at all levels
and of
all persuasions, have largely abandoned their responsibilities for the
good
governance of their departmental bureaucracies. The Westminster
principle of
ministerial accountability has fallen victim to this , as
ministers now
plead that they were ‘only acting upon the advice of their department’,
and so
see no reason to accept personal accountability.
Bureaucracies,
in turn, have developed the practice of not employing experts in the
fields for
which they are responsible, but call in consultants as and when they
see fit. In
this way, departments can avoid being accused of having knowledge that
could
have avoided trouble, and any problems that might arise can be shifted
to
others. A public relations, rather than a management, approach has now
become
the preferred way of handling departmental problems and statements.
However,
being bureaucracies without organic expertise, they soon find that they
cannot
interface with the experts that run the organisations over which they
exercise
control. The solution to this problem has been simply to create a layer
of
mirroring bureaucracy at the top of those organisations. In this way,
health,
for example, is now ‘managed’ through a layer of bureaucratic policies
and
procedures at each hospital. As a result, we have the situation where[2]:
“The basic aim of the bureaucracy is
to avoid making mistakes. And what that creates is a paralysis of
decision-making throughout the system that now has kneecapped every
single
hospital general manager, health leader, and nursing leader. What has
happened?
What has happened is that local single-point accountability has been
taken away
from the hospital, so there isn’t that opportunity for someone to say
this
needs to be changed. At the ward level, the solution is to take the
power away
from the bureaucrats and give it instead to the clinicians and managers
within
each hospital who would then once again have the power, and incentive,
to
ensure their own units ran efficiently.”
A
similar situation has developed in Australia’s education systems, from
pre-school, through primary and secondary levels, to our universities.
PM Rudd
has promised that both health and education would be reformed, but he
has been
met with a loud rallying cry from those who created the problems in the
first
place to resist change. At the pre-school level, one would expect one
to five
year olds to be simply made sociable, friendly, and caring, and
equipped with a
basic ability to read, write and count.
However,
the Association for the Teaching of English, in its submission to the
National
Curriculum Board, declares that studying literature is “inherently
a
political
action in creating the type of people society
values.” The Association recommends that “Meaning-making
in and through language, across a range of forms, media and
expressions, should
be the core organiser of the (English) curriculum.” The
NSW
teachers
want the curriculum to
be about “other models of English such as
personal growth, cultural studies and critical literacy as that is how
teachers
understand and have operated within the subject.”
Other
statements made by the Association include:
“Any learning framework should
include post-structuralist theories that offer insights into issues of
power,
equity and social justice in early childhood settings.” Under Reflective Practice, we have: “Critical approaches to reflection enable
early-childhood educators to focus on implications of their decisions
for
equity and social justice.” Under Fairness and Social Justice: “Educators should draw children’s attention
to bias in texts and how that affects our view of people and themselves
and
that the development of our children be gauged by their ability to
understand
and critique ways in which texts such as movies, books and magazines
construct
a limited range of identities and reinforce stereotypes.’
The
reader is challenged to identify just what these quotes mean; they
carry an
obvious lack of critical thinking and clear expression.
As
Oscar Wilde noted[3]: “We must
give a
child a mind before we can instruct the mind.” Those who see the
teaching
of English as inherently a political action seek to narrow the range of
human
thought by denying children and students the freedom to develop their
inherent
rich diversity of interests, perceptions and capabilities. Left
uncorrected,
this will lead inevitably to the loss of free speech, as we become
unable to think
or say anything that does not comply with the political dogma –
whatever
that may be at any point in time. Freedom of speech, as he suggested,
is the only remedy for Newspeak and Doublethink.
The
thinking and writing targeted by Orwell is thus still with us and
spreading. If
our Prime Minister is to get anywhere with his promised and long-needed
reform,
and so return Australia to the high world ranking that it once held,
then the
difference between education and indoctrination must be identified
clearly and
corrected.
The
poor standard of education of those graduating from our secondary
education
system and entering the workforce is also evident amongst those
entering our
tertiary education system. Tertiary students are not accepted solely
upon the
basis of their meeting the required standard of education and
motivation, but
rather upon the numbers needed to make the university system as
cost-recovery
effective as possible in the provision of a marketable commodity
defined as
‘education’. Education is thus now seen simply as a commodity to be
marketed to
targeted ‘consumers’, with costs having to be cut to the minimum in
order to
gain an economic advantage over competing suppliers.
Traditionally,
Australian universities were concerned with meeting the needs of their
‘customers’ – those public and private enterprises that relied upon a
steady supply of well-prepared professionals over a wide range of
disciplines. As
the customers’ skills requirements evolved over time, under the
pressures of
advancing knowledge and technology, courses were amended accordingly.
At a
deeper level, Australia looked to its universities to establish and
maintain
the national body of professional knowledge and expertise at a
competitively
high level when compared with overseas universities. Applied and basic
research
programmes formed an important part of this broader objective.
One
result of this new “business approach” to education has been to force
our
universities to accept students who have not reached a satisfactory
entry
standard in basic literacy and numeracy, and who often lack an adequate
work
ethic and motivation, leaving the university to fill the gaps from
within their
own resources before any professional teaching can start. However, the
effectiveness, efficiency and standards of our universities are further
shackled
by departmental policies that require the performance of university
academic
and management staff to be measured primarily by student ‘satisfaction
ratings’.
As
one Australian university academic summed it up, “the customer has now
become
the student rather than those who depend upon the quality of the output
of the
University for the well-being of their, and Australia’s, enterprises”.
The
student, being the customer, now wields the power. He may often be
poorly
prepared for tertiary education, and lack drive and motivation, but,
having
paid, he has a ‘right’ to a successful tertiary education, and it is
the
responsibility of the university to fill any gaps and ensure that he
passes. The
onus for success has thus shifted from the student to the university. There are sufficient numbers in this
bracket, both from home and abroad, to impact those who do not fall
into this
definition and wish to move ahead faster, as well as threaten the
careers of
highly motivated and competent academic and management staff should
life be made too
onerous
for the paying student.
A model which
depends upon professional
university academic
staff being judged by their students, rather than by their professional
peers
and seniors, is a guarantee of entrenched mediocrity and a hindrance to
a
university’s potential. Handicapping competent academics by giving
priority to such
a one-dimensional measure of performance is antithetical to all that a
university should stand for.
Throughout the bureaucratic processes
imposed upon our universities, only cost and return are recognised;
those
elements such as quality, intellectual brilliance, creativity,
motivation and
dedication have no role to play as they cannot be expressed in monetary
terms.
Under such a regime, any hope of Australia becoming the smart country
that once
it was is remote.
Finally,
by imposing upon universities a growing number of social and
administrative
rules and processes, the education bureaucracy ‘keeps the universities
in their
place’; that is, under the tight control of the education bureaucracy.
In
summary, Australia has a potential fault line running through its
pre-schools,
and a fault line of long standing through its secondary and tertiary
education
systems. The common thread that runs through all levels is the absence
of sound
literary (English) and numeracy skills – the building blocks of all
advanced thinking and communication processes. Far too much of what is
communicated today is either incomprehensible, lacking in robust
substantiation, misleading, or is plainly deceptive. More and more
often we are
asked to accept things purely on unquestioning faith, a sure path to
losing
sight of reality.
Not
surprisingly, deficiencies in Australia’s education system were
reflected
amongst those joining the Services, but for many years the RAAF was
able to
select its entrants wisely and correct many of those deficiencies. This
ability
however changed under defence reform programmes which, amongst other
core
changes, replaced professional military thinking and writing with
something
more akin to those practices seen within a government department, its
bureaucracy, and its media arm.
IMPACTS
UPON
MILITARY THINKING AND WRITING
One
reliable measure of the standard of professionalism in an enterprise,
whether
military or civilian, is the quality of its critical thinking and the
clarity
of its writing. Traditionally, the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)
emphasised
the importance of Service Writing at all levels. High standards were
set and
maintained through training, examination, and an insistence upon high
quality
staff work at all levels. Failure to meet the required standard would
place a
limit upon a member’s career. The reason for this was simple: a lack of
clarity
of thought and expression cannot be tolerated in a military
organisation. The
consequences of false, confused, or ambiguous thinking and information
are too
high to accept – confusion soon leads to chaos, and chaos leads to
defeat
in battle.
Today,
little, if any, evidence of those high standards can be seen, all
having fallen
victim to the de-skilling that resulted from the Defence Efficiency,
Defence
Reform, and Commercial Support Programs approved by government and
implemented
by an over-zealous Defence bureaucracy. As a result, the RAAF, as well
as the
other Services, now think and write in much the same way as their
political/bureaucratic masters, and so are exposed to the ubiquitous
consequences of poor Service critical thinking and writing.
The
current standard of service thinking and writing may be judged from
much of
what is emanating from the Air Power Development Centre, the ‘think
tank’ of
the RAAF, over recent years. Two discussion papers distributed recently
provide
examples; the first titled ‘An Air Force of Influence: A Strategic
Framework
for the Future Air Force’ (March 2008), the second ‘Decision
Superiority: Air
Force Concept Paper 28’ (November 2008). Both see fundamental changes
as being
needed to take advantage of evolving technological developments and
operational
environments, essentially to “break
through the rigid mind set [of platform replacement].”
The
first concludes “Our Air Force is a
dynamic organisation. It embodies an organisational structure, is
sustained by
people, possesses a culture, and exists to serve a purpose and function
along
prescribed lines” and, “Faced with
the choice of seizing control of its future or leaving this to others,
Air
Force has chosen to become a strategic force of influence
disproportionally
greater than its size.)”, and emphasises “As a
strategic force, we will be guided by an enduring and systematic
strategy that links government intent to militarily achievable
objectives,
within a national effects based approach, through the coordinated and
sustained
application of air power effects, be they first, second or third order
effects.”, and in summary, “Faced
with a choice of distinct but equally viable means of satisfying the
challenges
presented through these developments and afforded by this opportunity,
we, the
Air Force’s senior leadership, have chosen to continue Air Force’s
maturation
as a key strategic national security contributor by transforming our
force into
a strategic one. We call this strategic force an air force of
influence.”
The
second paper develops the idea of ‘Decision Superiority’ and expands
some of
the matters raised in the first paper. Of interest is its proposal that:
“Simply put, individuals who enjoy a
broad and diverse education combined with a broad experience base
appear to be
more adaptable and exhibit better decision making skills and greater
judgement,
and make better decisions in complex and ambiguous environments. In
particular,
there appears to be a strong case for educating military professionals
in a
broad range of disciplines, such as strategy, politics, religion and
society, and metacognition (thinking about
thinking), so as to
better equip them for the rigours of decision-making in the complex
security
environment in which Air Force operates.”
This
very erroneous and dangerous concept resonates closely with the role of
the civilian
bureaucracy in the management of military affairs at all levels, as
seen by one
Defence Secretary, who stated:
Civilians
are “generally more readily able to
tolerate, and even be comfortable with, unclear lines of command,
divided
authority, and open-ended guidance or ambiguous instructions” (Mr
R.C.
Smith, Deputy Secretary (later Secretary) Defence, 1995)[4].
This may be so,
but they do not have to train, motivate, discipline, mentor, command
and
control troops in war. More importantly, they should never suggest or
require
that such open-ended
and ambiguous approaches are suited to those who do.
Both
suggestions fail to recognise the critical differences between civilian
and
professional military approaches to management. Nowhere do we see any
suggestion of the need for the bureaucracy to gain and maintain any of
the
professional military attributes upon which success in the use of
military
capabilities depend. Making professional military officers develop a
generalist, bureaucratic mindset in the manner proposed is the surest
way to
guarantee military defeat and national irrelevance.
Not
surprisingly, the Defence White Paper 2009 released recently also
reflects a
lack of critical thinking. It
starts from a sound re-assessment of the emerging regional strategic
environment,
but then fails to translate this into realistic plans and programmes. There are at least seven major
contradictions in the Paper, such as our reliance the United States Vs
the United
States’ capability to assist. The thinking is muddled and does not
provide an
implementation requirements baseline against which credible capability
planning
can proceed.
The
Paper thus fails at the hard interface between policy and
implementation. The policy may be capable
of absorbing
some, but not too much, political/bureaucratic prevarication. The
implementation, however, has to rest upon critical thinking and
planning based
wholly upon feasibility. The White
Paper provided only a sound basis for interminable and shifting
argument about
what was really meant and what should be done and when. This critical
shortcoming may also be traced to the decay in critical military
thinking that
has resulted from bureaucratic intrusion into Service matters under the
guise
of the Defence and Commercial Support Programs.
The
insidious impacts of liberal thinking upon the military in leading
Western
nations, particularly the US, the UK, and Canada, and now Australia,
were
identified by General Sir Michael Rose, Adjutant-General of the British
Army,
who saw the remedy as getting rid of the ‘top brass’ who ‘kowtow’ to
Whitehall,
and to distance military decisions from politics from wherever it
emanates. In
particular, he saw the British Army as needing its own jurisdiction,
administration, discipline, ethos, and all those things have to be
different
from civilians, and outside their meddling.[5]
In
general terms, both cited RAAF APDC papers are built upon bald
statements of
intention, unqualified assumptions and opinions, and conclusions
unsupported by
any critical analysis. The structured and rigorous professional
military
analysis that characterised pre-reform RAAF staff thinking and writing
is
entirely missing. Overall, what has been written smacks of marketing
jargon
rather than the accuracy, clarity, conciseness, and convincing argument
and
style that was a central feature of RAAF service thinking, writing, and
management.
As
one Senior Administrative Staff Officer would remind students at the
RAAF Staff
College during the early years of imposed change:
“Before any revolutionary change is
initiated, there is a need, in organisational and management fields as
well as
others, firstly to indicate clearly in what way the existing system is
deficient. That is, in what way the current system cannot meet the
over-all
aim; and secondly, in proposing change, to indicate with similar
clarity that
the change proposed will not only achieve the aim, but the change is
feasible. Any
advantages must be demonstrable and feasibility assured. There is no
need for a
forced-fed blossoming of iconoclastic fervour, but rather a
well-balanced and,
above all, a well thought-through response to current and future
circumstances.”
CONCLUSION
While
freedom of speech lies at the core of a nation’s defence against Newspeak, Doublethink, and political
attempts to defend the indefensible,
that freedom in turn rests upon replacing indoctrination with a sound
education
system based upon critical thinking, emphasising clarity, accuracy and
logic in
both thought and expression.
The
RAAF, if it is to become the Air Force that it once was, will firstly
have to
regain mastery of its professional critical military thinking and
writing at
all levels, and apply that mastery to the management of Australia’s air
power
capabilities.
|
APPENDIX:
THE PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF
PROFESSIONAL MILITARY THINKING AND WRITING
THE PRINCIPLES OF
SERVICE WRITING
The
standards that the RAAF had established and maintained were included in
Australian
Air Publication (AAP) 103 – Manual
of Administration. This analysis
will
visit selected chapters of this manual, using the September, 1952,
revision, in order to highlight RAAF
approaches to
thinking and writing that are as valid and needed today as they were
over
decades of war and peace. Firstly, the RAAF saw Administration as the
over-arching means of directing and controlling Service activities. In
effect,
it was the backbone of Service management. Hence, the Forward to the
Manual
included: “It is difficult to
over-estimate the value of sound administration. It has become so
important in
modern war that Administration has now been included as one of the
Principles
of War.”
THE AIM OF
SERVICE WRITING
The
broad aim of service writing is to initiate any required action quickly
and efficiently.
The particular aims of service writing are:
·
To
impart
knowledge.
·
To
express
intentions.
·
To
convey
orders
and
instructions.
·
To
persuade
and
convince
by logical argument.
·
To
record
discussions
and
decisions.
Characteristics
of Service Writing.
The normal rules and usages of written English are
observed in service writing,
but special stress is laid on the achievement of simplicity, clarity,
and
accuracy. In service writing, as in other writing, particular attention
must be
paid to the purpose of the writing and the type of reader for whom it
is
intended. There is, in addition, a need for standardisation.
Style of
Service Writing. Because of its special aim the style of
service
writing should be factual rather than imaginative, decisive rather than
leisurely. Short sentences and paragraphs expressed in simple English
should be
used in preference to long involved sentences or highly-coloured prose.
It is a
fallacy to suppose that official documents must be written in official
jargon;
they should be written concisely in a clear, simple, and direct style.
A
capable service writer is a person who can express his thoughts on
paper
clearly and convincingly. He must have a good vocabulary, and a sound
knowledge
of grammar and composition.
Basic
Requirements of Service Writing. There are five basic requirements of
service writing. The first four
are applicable in varying degrees to any kind of writing; the fifth is
purely
conventional and is applicable only to service writing:
1.Accuracy. In service writing accuracy is
essential. Nothing
should be written unless the writer is certain beyond all doubt that it
is
correct. Similarly, deductions drawn from facts must be no less
accurate. A
paper however well written cannot be a good one if misleading and
inaccurate
deductions have been made.
2.Clarity. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines
‘clear’ as
‘distinct, unambiguous, intelligible, not confused, manifest’. When
preparing a
service paper, the writer should always think in terms of a reader who
will take
the wrong meaning if he can. He should be careful to avoid any
possibility of
ambiguity, should lay out his paper in conformity with current service
writing
rules, and present his facts and arguments in logical sequence.
3.Conciseness. To
satisfy the requirements
for conciseness, ideas must be stated fully but in as few words as
possible. Conciseness
is an attainment; it demands an extensive vocabulary, constant
practice, and
ruthless pruning during the revision of the paper. Long words must not
be used if
short ones will do; verbosity must be avoided and irrelevant
information
excluded. Whenever possible, the active voice is preferable to the
passive. Note
Mr Winston Churchill’s instructions quoted later under ‘Official
Correspondence’.
4.Convincing
Argument and Style. The
acceptance of ideas by a reader depends on his
being convinced that the ideas are worth accepting. There may be very
little to
choose between two ideas on the same subject presented in papers by
different
writers, but it is probable that the paper likely to convince is the
one
written in a simple, direct style, with an orderly arrangement of
material, a
logical sequence of argument, and a standard layout. If an officer has
to
present arguments with which he personally does not agree, he must not
allow
any lack of enthusiasm to cloud his style and so make his work less
convincing.
5.Standardisation. Strict standardisation is necessary in
service
writing, because in a large organisation like the Royal Australian Air
Force a
uniform system of writing helps to convey information quickly and
easily. Uniformity
of layout is a means to an end and indeed only obeys a basic rule of
good
organisation of any kind. “A place for
everything and everything in its place”. If this
is fully appreciated, the stress laid on standardisation will not be
misunderstood.
THE RULES OF
SERVICE WRITING
Uniformity
can be achieved only by the observance of rules. These include the
normal rules
for writing good English, together with the conventional service rules
relating
to paragraphing, headings, numbering, abbreviations, appendices, and
the
preparation and presentation of service documents such as
appreciations, orders
and instructions, and summaries.
Correct
paragraphing, good headings, and a logical system of numbering are
required in
a service paper to show the logical structure of the paper, to present
the
argument clearly, and to facilitate reference to any part of the paper.
The
mechanics involved are not covered here, as they may be simplified
today, so
long as the objectives are met – to ensure that the reader can absorb
the
scope and content of the document quickly and effectively, and refer
accurately
to its content.
WRITING A SERVICE PAPER
THE SERVICE
PAPER
The
term ‘service paper’ covers practically all forms of service writing
and to
that extent the guiding principles contained in the following
paragraphs can be
said to apply to all service writing.
PREPARATION
Choice of
the Aim. Any form of writing must have an aim
and the
service paper is no exception. After examining the task or terms of
reference,
study the problem carefully and before writing anything
,
decide on the purpose of the writing – the aim the writing is to
achieve
– and keep this in mind throughout the preparation and construction of
the paper.
Collection
of Material. The next step is to collect all
available material
relating to the problem, examine it carefully in relation to the aim,
and
discard all that is irrelevant.
Initial
Planning of the Paper. Arrange the material into its main
divisions so
that a broad framework can be evolved and used as a basis for the
initial
construction of the paper.
Arrangement
of the Material.
Arrange
the material carefully under headings in an order that will bring out
the
argument most logically and convincingly.
Final
Planning of the Paper. Construct a detailed framework to show
all centre,
side, and paragraph headings and the titles of all appendices, and make
notes
under these headings where necessary.
Check Before
Writing.
Check that all aspects of the subject have been fully covered and are
dealt with in a logical sequence. The more time spent on the
preparation of a
paper, the less will be required for the writing.
CONSTRUCTION
Main Sections. Although
there are
variations in construction to suit individual requirements, a service
paper
generally consists of the following six main sections:
·
Heading.
·
Introduction.
·
Body
of
the
paper.
·
Conclusion.
·
Subscription.
·
Appendices.
Of
these sections, the first five are essential to any service paper; the
last one
is optional.
Heading. Selected to identify
clearly the subject of the paper.
Introduction. The
introduction
expands the title and states more precisely what the paper is about. It
introduces the problem or subject matter of the paper and defines the
scope or
terms of reference. It should be informative, not controversial. Its
length
will vary according to the type of paper, but it should always be kept
short.
Body of
the Paper.
Careful
preparation is required if the body of the paper is to be coherent,
concise,
and logical. It should carry the reader smoothly from the introduction
to the
conclusion, and should cover all the relevant aspects of the subject
within the
terms of reference of the paper. All relevant facts should be clearly
stated and
logical deductions drawn when possible. It is important to choose
suitable
headings for all sections and paragraphs, so that the reader can, if he
wishes,
see at a glance the general trend of the subject matter merely by
scanning the
headings.
Conclusion. The
conclusion is
the climax of the argument towards which all the former sections of the
paper
have been leading. Like the introduction it should be brief. It is a
summary
and a synthesis of the deductions drawn in the body of the paper and
therefore
should not introduce any new arguments. It should be complete in itself
and
should include any recommendations, requests or decisions made.
Subscription. The subscription varies with the type
of paper. It
should normally cover the signature of the writer and his identifying
details,
and the place, time, date, and distribution details.
Appendices. If the arguments in the body of the
paper are
based upon statistical data or information that is too bulky to go into
the
body of the paper, it will be necessary to use appendices. For the
purpose of
the argument, only the deductions arrived at in or from the appendices
need be
inserted in the body of the paper and the reader can be referred to the
appropriate appendix. In this way the body of the paper is not
encumbered with
a mass of detail and the smooth flow of the argument is not impeded.
Appendices
are lettered and attached in the order in which they are referred to in
the
paper.
Revision. It is important to revise a paper
carefully after
it has been written. Considerable alteration is often necessary during
the
revision. For this reason the first typing of a paper is normally done
in draft
form, i.e., with double spacing between the lines, to make the task of
alteration easier. The amount of revision will usually vary inversely
with the
amount of time and labour spent in preparation. The following tests
should be
applied:
·
Has
the
aim
been
kept in view throughout?
·
Does
the
title
fully
and aptly describe the paper?
·
Is
the
introduction
concise
and complete?
·
Have
all
aspects
of
the subject been covered?
·
Have
all
facts
been
correctly stated and are they in the right order?
·
Is
the
reasoning
sound?
·
Is
the
conclusion
concise,
complete and logical?
·
Can
the
English
be
improved?
·
Is
the
distribution
complete?
If
this approach to writing is followed as a general rule, then the
objective of
the writer is far more likely to be understood and accepted.
Alternatively, if
a reader assesses what he reads against this template, he is far more
likely to
be able to determine whether what he is reading is well researched and
argued
logically, and based on fact rather than in error, or is just
misleading or
false.
WRITING
APPRECIATIONS AND STAFF PAPERS
While
service papers were the vehicle for the majority of day-to-day staff
work,
there were occasions where a more rigorous treatment was needed to
determine
situations and how they might best be met. This need was met by
Appreciations
and Staff Papers.
DEFINITION OF
AN APPRECIATION
An
appreciation of a situation is a logical process of reasoning, the
object of
which is to determine from factors known or surmised the best course of
action
to adopt in any given circumstances.
NATURE OF AN
APPRECIATION
All
problems derive from ‘situations’. A new ‘situation’ may arise or an
existing
one may alter; or it may be necessary to create a new ‘situation’ or
alter an
existing one. Whenever a problem arises, as a result of a ‘situation’,
its
solution always involves an examination of the problem and the
selection of a
course of action.
All
rational action is governed by definite purpose and sets out to achieve
that
purpose. This purpose derives from the ‘situation’ and is concerned
with
initiating action directly related to the ‘situation’. As a first step,
therefore, anyone attempting to solve a problem must become conversant
with the
‘situation’, and must fully recognise the ‘purpose’ of the contemplated
action.
Only then is it possible to take the subsequent steps in the logical
sequence
of thought: the examination of all facts relating to the problem, and
the
choice of a course of action.
Although,
as stated above, the solving of a problem cannot be undertaken until
the
situation has been studied, the reasoning process proper begins with
the
recognition of the purpose. In dealing with any problems, therefore, a
reasoned
and logical train of thought will always conform to the following
sequence:
·
Recognition
of
the
purpose.
·
Review
of
the
relevant
circumstances.
·
Consideration
of
the
methods available.
·
Choice
of
the
best
method.
When
the train of thought has been completed, the course of action decided
is ready
for planning.
Within
limits, even the untrained mind is a highly efficient instrument and is
quite
capable of dealing logically with simple everyday problems and arriving
at
satisfactory solutions. But in complicated problems even the trained
mind is
liable to make mistakes; first because it is incapable of covering in a
logical
sequence all the circumstances related to the problem, and second
because it
retains in some degree the impatience inherent in all of us; and so
tends to
jump to conclusions without sufficient thought.
This
defect of the mind may be overcome if all complicated problems are
dealt with
on paper so that each stage of the reasoning may be carefully analysed,
tested,
classified, and checked, to ensure that no stage is omitted and that
all stages
are dealt with in alogical sequence. The result, which is, therefore, a
record
of the process of reasoned and logical thought, is a written
appreciation.
PURPOSE OF A
WRITTEN APPRECIATION
The
correct solution of military problems and the selection of the best
course of
action in war are matters of the highest importance. The history of the
world
is largely shaped by the decisions of the great military commanders,
and consequently
such decisions must be made with the greatest care. As these decisions
are
normally derived from the recommendations in appreciations, it is
obvious that
such appreciations are most important documents.
In
the Services, the written appreciation serves the following purposes:
It
clears the writer’s own mind about the prevailing circumstances, and
ensures
that no relevant points have been overlooked and that the recommended
course of
action is the right one.
It
endeavours to convince higher authority that the action recommended is
the best
in the circumstances.
It
provides a permanent record of the reasons why a certain course of
action was
adopted in preference to other possible courses.
BASIS OF AN
APPRECIATION
The
logical process of reasoning that constitutes an appreciation can be
analysed
in three sections:
·
The
aim
to
be
attained.
·
The
factors
that
affect
the attainment of the aim.
·
The
best
course
of
action to adopt in order to attain the aim.
These
sections form the basis of every appreciation no matter how the final
construction of an individual appreciation may vary.
STANDARD
LAYOUT OF AN APPRECIATION
If
allowance is to be made for variations in construction of individual
appreciations, it is undesirable to insist that they should invariably
be
written in a specialised form, so long as they are always constructed
upon the
three basic sections given above.
Experience
has shown, however, that the employment of some formal method helps to:
·
Train
beginners
in
the art of appreciation writing.
·
Solve
the
more
complex
and involved problems.
A
standard detailed form has therefore been evolved
by adding a number of additional sections to the three basic ones, and by arranging them in an order that
conforms
to the logical sequence of reasoning referred to above.
When
this standard form is used, the paper is given a formal heading and is
divided
into seven main sections, each of which has a standardized centre
heading. These
headings are:
·
Review
of
the
Situation.
·
The
Aim
to
be Attained.
·
Factors
Affecting
the
Attainment
of the Aim.
·
Enemy
Courses
of
Action
that Affect the Attainment of the Aim.
·
Courses
of
Action
Open
to us to attain the Aim.
·
Selection
of
the
Best
Course to Attain the Aim.
·
The
Plan
of
Action.
The
construction of an appreciation based on this standard layout is
described in
the following paragraphs.
DETAILED
LAYOUT
The Heading
The
heading of an appreciation follows closely the standard heading of a
service
paper, except for the following additions:
·
A
reference
showing
for
whom the appreciation is being written
·
A
reference
showing
by
whom the appreciation is being written
The
title is always to begin ’An Appreciation on…’.
It
should go as far as possible in specifying the subject of the
appreciation
without prejudicing the aim or referring to any possible course of
action. In
other words the title must be definite but non-committal.
It
is important to ensure that the ‘For’ and ‘By’ portions of the heading
are
completed correctly, as the level and scope of the appreciation depend
largely
on the level of the appointments of the writer and of the reader.
Review of the
Situation
The
review covers broadly the general situation as it exists at the time at
which
the appreciation is written, and provides the material from which the
aim is selected;
it is in effect a pointer to the aim.
The
review serves two main purposes:
·
If
the
reader
is
not fully informed of the existing state of affairs, it provides him
with a
picture of the situation that has led to the choice of the aim.
·
Alternatively,
if
the
reader is the officer who has ordered the preparation of the
appreciation and who has already specified the aim to be attained, the
review
will indicate to him whether or not the writer fully understands the
situation
and is mentally in tune with the views of his superior.
The
main difficulty in writing a review lies in determining how much or how
little
of the ‘situation’ to include in the review. As a general guide, it
should
consist solely of a statement of facts, giving a clear and concise
indication
of the situation so far as it concerns the problem under consideration.
It must
be confined to essentials and must contain information in broad terms
only.
The
normal tendency is to include too much detail, and care must be taken
not to
include data that properly belongs to the ‘Factors’ section of the
appreciation. It is important to conclude with the intention of higher
authority, thus reassuring the reader that the intention is in the
forefront of
the writer’s mind when he decides the aim.
When
selecting facts for the review from the ‘situation’, it is important to
think
in terms of the person for whom the appreciation is being written. If
this is
done, a mass of unnecessary detail that is obviously known to this
person will
be excluded; all the reader wants to know is that the writer fully
appreciates
those facts that have led to the selection of the higher intention.
When
the review has been written, the following tests should be applied:
·
Does
it
give
the
reader a clear enough picture of the situation if he is not
sufficiently
conversant with it?
·
Is
it
sufficiently
comprehensive
to show that the writer himself fully
understands
the situation and is mentally in tune with the views of his superior?
·
Does
it
indicate
the
intention of higher authority, and is this intention
placed last
in the review?
·
Does
the
review
lead
logically to the aim?
The
review should be carefully checked and any points that seem to be
illogical or
do not fit with the rest of the review should be eliminated.
THE AIM TO BE
ATTAINED
The
process of argument and reasoning begins with the statement of the aim
to be
attained. The aim is the keystone of the appreciation. One, and only
one, aim
must be set down. When this has not been set down by higher authority,
or when
two or more aims present themselves, a subordinate must select his own
aim.
The
selection is usually easy if the review has been carefully written and
concludes with a statement of the higher intention. Once defined, the
aim must
be kept constantly in mind during the writing of every subsequent
paragraph of
the appreciation.
The
aim must be defined in a clear, vigorous, and concise form. It must be
actively
expressed, definite and simple, and must begin with the word ‘To’. It
must not
be qualified by any condition, any suggestion of method to be used, or
any
indication of an ulterior aim. It may, however, contain qualifications
of time
or space. Words to avoid are ‘if’ (which qualifies by condition), ‘by’
(which
qualifies by method), and ‘so as to’ (which qualifies by indicating an
ulterior
aim). The method by which the aim is to be attained must not be
considered at
this stage, and the ‘aim’ must not be confused with ‘objective’.
Great
care is necessary in choosing the right verb when expressing the aim;
this is
most important, and is where beginners usually go astray. It is well
worthwhile, when a verb has been selected, to look up its various
meanings in a
dictionary to make sure that the correct word has been chosen. In doing
this it
will often be found that the chosen verb does not give quite the
required
meaning, but during the search a better one may be discovered. As far
as
possible, negative verbs such as ‘prevent’, ‘stop’, ‘delay’, should be
avoided.
Such verbs lack vigour, and automatically imply that the enemy holds
the
initiative; they are, therefore, psychologically unsuited to offensive
action. Verbs
that should also be avoided are those which place the main aim beyond
the
capacity of the force available; examples are ‘destroy’, ‘eliminate’,
‘annihilate’.
FACTORS AFFECTING
THE ATTAINMENT OF
AIM
The
‘Factors’ section is the main body of the appreciation and consists of
statements of known facts or reasonable assumptions, and deductions
that can be
drawn from them. The deductions must have a bearing on the attainment
of the
aim; some will be in its favour, others to its detriment, but in either
case
they must not be influenced by a preconceived course of action. No
facts or
deductions that are not essential to the problem and that have not a
definite
bearing on it should be included. In the light of the aim it may become
necessary to consider as factors points that have already been
mentioned in the
review of the situation.
The
factors should be considered not only in relation to ourselves but also
in
relation to the enemy, and should be arranged in a logical sequence
suited to
the situation. Each factor must be subject to an exhaustive and
impartial
examination. It is not sufficient to draw a deduction and assume that
the
factor has thus been adequately dealt with – the deduction itself must
be
examined to see if it, in its turn, will not yield a further deduction,
and so
on. Factors must be grouped together logically, for it is often
possible to
draw general deductions from the various groups. If an examination of
all
deductions in the ‘Factors’ section leads to a general deduction, or
deductions, the section should end with a paragraph setting out these
general
deductions.
When
factors are being considered, care is to be taken to avoid committing
oneself
prematurely to a course of action and thus prejudicing the issue before
reaching the stage at which all possible courses of action have been
examined. Avoidance
of the words ‘can’ and ‘will’, and care in the use of the words
‘should’ and
‘must’ will help to eliminate faults in reasoning of this kind.
Before
attempting to consider the ‘Factors’ section, the writer should collect
all
relevant material and select from it those facts which affect the
attainment of
the aim. These facts should be jotted down in any order, then arranged
in
logical order, and finally placed under suitable side headings in the
‘Factors’
section.
There
are two kinds of factors: objective facts such as the relative
strengths of the
opposing forces, vital points, ranges, ranges of aircraft, time and
politics;
and factors that are introduced by the uncertain course of the enemy’s
action. The
former are all dealt with in the ‘Factors’ section; the latter are
dealt with
as ‘Enemy Courses of Action’. ‘Factors’ and ‘Own Courses’ should not be
confused by the use of such phrases as ‘our action should therefore
be…’.
It
is usually advisable to discuss points on both sides before discussing
relative
strengths of opposing air forces. This ensures that the air forces on
both
sides are not treated simply as opposing air forces determined to wipe
each
other out. The correct method of dealing with vital points is as
follows:
·
Define
the
vital
point.
·
Show
to
what
extent
the enemy’s or our own dependence upon the point affects the
attainment
of the aim.
·
Assess
the
vulnerability
of
the point.
·
Show
to
what
extent
a successful attack on the vital point could influence the
attainment of
the aim.
The
smooth flow of argument in the ‘Factors’ section must not be obscured
by a mass
of detail, such as figures of aircraft performances and strengths,
which are
more conveniently included in appendices. Having referred the reader to
an
appendix the write need only include in the body of the appreciation
the
relevant deductions drawn from that appendix provided that information
is set
out so that the deductions are readily apparent to the reader. When
discussing
the ranges of aircraft it is usually advisable to attach, as an
appendix, a
sketch map with the radii of action shown as arcs with airfields as
centres.
Each
factor must be discussed in relation to the aim and must
produce some form of deduction affecting the attainment of the
aim. If it does not, it must be discarded.
ENEMY
COURSES
OF ACTION THAT AFFECT THE ATTAINMENT OF THE AIM
In
service appreciations, enemy courses
of action must be considered because they may affect our selection of a
course
of action. They are really factors and must, therefore, be treated in
exactly
the same extensive and impartial way as the factors proper. But whereas
factors
proper are indisputable facts whatever the situation may be, enemy
courses are
imponderable. They should be expressed in broad terms, and logical
deductions
affecting the attainment of the aim must be drawn from them in the same
way as
from factors. In addition, it is wise here to draw deductions relating
to
measures for security or defence that may be indicated by the study of
possible
enemy courses. It is essential that these measures should be taken,
whichever
course of action is adopted, they should be recorded separately at the
end of
the ‘Own Courses’ section. If, however, the measures are only a matter
of
prudence it is sufficient to draw attention to them again in the plan
of
action.
It
is logical that enemy courses, which are really factors, should be
considered
before our own. Indeed, if the enemy has the initiative his possible
courses of
action must be considered before deciding on our own. Even if neither
side has
the initiative, or if it is in doubt, it is prudent to consider the
enemy
courses first, although we should avoid limiting the forcefulness of
our own
action by giving too much weight to the enemy’s probable action. But
there are
exceptions to this rule, and that is one reason why this particular
class of
factor is treated under its own separate heading. Thus, if we have the
initiative and reasonable freedom of action, we should not be unduly
influenced
by what we fear the enemy may do, for this may prejudice our own
courses of
action. In such circumstances we may be well advised to consider our
own
courses first.
It
is obviously a matter of judgement to decide the order in which to
discuss the
courses open to the two sides; but whatever order is decided upon, and
whether
or not we have the initiative, due consideration – and no more than due
consideration – should be given to the possible action of the enemy. If
the enemy courses are dealt with first – that is, as factors – the
deductions drawn from them must be solely in relation to the attainment
of the
aim. If they are dealt with after our own courses, their effect on
these
courses must naturally be included.
The
courses of action open to the enemy should be considered from this
point of
view, and he should be credited with acting wisely unless he has shown
in the
past that he is likely to behave otherwise. The best guide when dealing
with
enemy courses of action is the base them on the discussion of the vital
points
in the ‘Factors’ section. We should, therefore, study the paragraphs
dealing
with vital points, and then try to decide first what the enemy could do
to
attack our vital points; and secondly what he could do to counter
attacks
against his own vital points.
It
may be of importance to decide which of the enemy courses will have the
most
unfavourable effect on the attainment of the aim. In general, however,
it is
best to resist the temptation to try to forecast the most probable
enemy
course, since it may influence our courses of action unduly and, in any
case,
may be wrong.
When
considering purely defensive operations, however, the attainment of the
aim may
depend entirely on what the enemy may do, and it may be necessary to
argue out
which of the courses he is most likely to adopt; by this means it will
be
possible to provide for that course with all resources instead of
trying to
meet every contingency in a half-hearted manner. Whenever possible,
however, it
is better to leave this question open so as to avoid laying down the
law for
the enemy.
COURSES OF ACTION
OPEN TO US TO
ATTAIN THE AIM
It
is incorrect to think of ‘Enemy Courses’ and ‘Courses Open to Us’ as
being
allied sections of the appreciation, simply because they both deal with
courses. The former are factors, the latter are not.
Each
course open to us should be examined separately on its merits, its
advantages and
disadvantages should be discussed and its chances of attaining the aim
assessed. In examining the courses, full use should be made of all
relevant
deductions that have been drawn from the previous study of factors and
enemy
courses; even though some repetition may be involved.
Each
course included in this section should be stated fully and should be
capable of
attaining the aim. Courses of action that obviously cannot attain the
aim
should not be discussed merely for the satisfaction of proving their
inadequacy.
A detailed examination of the selected courses will often show that a
combination of twp or more of the courses, or parts of them, is also
likely to
attain the aim. If this happens, the ‘combination course’ must be
included
after the other courses as an entirely separate course, and must be
examined
separately on its merits in the same way as all previous courses.
There
is a temptation when discussing courses of action to weigh one course
against
the other. This only results in confusion. The pros and cons of each
course
should be weighed impartially, and no attempt should be made to compare
the
relevant advantages and disadvantages of the courses until dealing with
the
next section, ‘Selection of the Best Course’. Just as when discussing
factors the
word ’therefore’ is more or less unavoidable, so when discussing
courses of
action the word ‘but’ will naturally present itself.
SELECTION OF THE
BEST COURSE TO
ATTAIN THE AIM
This
is the culmination of the appreciation. Under ‘Courses of Action Open
to Us’
the pros and cons of each course were stated separately, but no attempt
was
made to compare courses. Now is the time to do this and, if the
previous
section has been fully and clearly argued, it should not be difficult
to make
this comparison in a few brief paragraphs. Repetition may be
unavoidable but
should be kept to a minimum.
The
section is to conclude with a clear statement recommending the best
course of
action to adopt. The course selected must be one, and only one, of the
courses
examined in the ‘Courses Open to Us’ section, and must not be altered
in any
way.
THE PLAN OF ACTION
The
argument is now complete and a definite course of action has been
decided upon.
The final section – ‘Plan of Action’ – makes no contribution to the
actual solution of the problem. But it is added because it serves two
special
purposes:
·
By
indicating
the roles of the forces available it shows that the course of action is
practicable.
·
If
the
appreciation
is
accepted by higher authority without serious
modification, it
serves as a basis for the production of the necessary orders.
It
is particularly important to bear in mind the second of these purposes
when
writing the plan of action. It should not go into detail, but should
give
sufficient general instructions to enable any competent staff officer
to draft
without further briefing the operation orders and administrative
instructions
required to put the plan of action into effect. The plan must be a
clear,
definite, and practical proposal for the employment of the available
resources.
It should not be executive and should be written in the infinitive. It
should,
if necessary, be illustrated by a diagram or sketch map, so that the
salient
points may be easily grasped.
Nothing
should be included in the plan which is not based on, or which does not
logically follow from, material already discussed in the previous
sections of
the appreciation. A plan of action usually includes:
·
Proposed
allotment
of
command and control.
·
Statement
of
forces
available.
·
Role
of
forces
in
broad terms only.
·
Indication
of
administrative
arrangements,
also in broad terms.
REVISION
The
appreciation is not complete until it has been revised. It must stand
up to the
following tests:
·
Is
the
reasoning
sound?
·
Is
it
set
out
in logical order?
·
Is
it
free
from
ambiguities?
·
Is
it
accurate?
– eg, are place names properly
spelt
and map references correct?
·
Is
everything
in
the
appreciation relevant to the problem?
·
Has
the
aim
been
kept in view throughout?
·
Can
the
selected
course
in fact achieve the aim?
Value to Staff
in Appreciation Writing
Practice
in writing appreciations is the best way to train officers to think and
write
clearly and logically and to develop the ability to make rapid
decisions in an
emergency. A process of clear thought and logical argument is the basis
of
appreciation writing, and indeed of most other forms of service writing.
This
is the discipline so clearly lacking today.
THE WRITING OF STAFF
PAPERS
THE STAFF
PAPER
Many
papers that set out to examine and solve problems are written neither
in
standard appreciation form nor in any other forms of service writing.
The term
‘Staff Papers’ is used to describe them.
The
staff paper is basically the same as the standard appreciation, in that
it has
the same purpose as the appreciation and contains the same three basic
constituents of a logical process of reasoning, ie:
·
Statement
of
the
aim.
·
Examination
of
all
relevant
factors.
·
Selection
of
the
best
course of action to adopt.
It
does not, however, follow the rigid, detailed layout of the
appreciation, and
is therefore much more flexible and adaptable, and can be produced more
concisely. It is an appreciation in compact form.
There
is invariably a great deal of repetition involved when writing an
appreciation.
This usually means that more time will be required, both for the writer
to
produce his work and for the reader to read and understand it. On the
other
hand, there may be less likelihood of the writer going astray in his
argument
or of the reader failing to follow the argument. The decision whether
to
produce an appreciation or a staff paper is mainly a matter of
judgement, and
must be decided by the writer after an examination of the problem. The
advantages of a staff paper are:
·
The
writer
is
free
to use whatever framework he considers to be best suited to the
subject
matter.
·
It
contains
only
the
essentials of the argument.
·
The
subject
matter is presented in its most readable and concise form and should be
quickly
and easily understood.
LAYOUT
Although
the staff paper has no set layout, and therefore allows the write to
choose
whatever framework is most suited to the problem, there are principles
that
must be observed:
·
It
must
contain
an
aim, an examination of factors, and a recommended course of
action.
·
Like any
other
form of writing, it must have an introduction, a body, and a
conclusion. It
should also contain the other basic elements of a service paper, ie, heading, subscription, and appendices if
necessary.
CONSTRUCTION
The
introduction should define the problem, and the purpose for which the
staff
paper is being written. It should contain much the same material that
would
normally be found in the ‘Review’ and ‘Aim’ sections of an
appreciation. In
most staff papers, an introduction should include the following:
·
Terms
of
Reference.
·
A
review
of
the
situation.
·
Any
assumptions
on
which the argument is based.
·
The
aim
to
be
attained when this has been clearly defined and/or a clear and
unambiguous
statement of the problem that the paper sets out to examine and solve.
The
body of the staff paper should contain in a concise and logical
framework only
the essential arguments leading up to the conclusion. In subject
matter, it
should deal with the same material as that dealt with in the ‘Factors’,
‘Enemy
Courses’, and ‘Own Courses’ sections of an appreciation, but it must
deal with
the material more concisely.
The
conclusion should sum up the various arguments and set down the best
course to
adopt. This conclusion must follow logically from the arguments put
forward in
the body of the paper. No fresh arguments should be included, nor
should any
statement be made that is not supported by the arguments in the body of
the
paper.
Recapitulation
of argument may be desirable, but should be brief. A recommendation may
be
included in the conclusion if the circumstances in which the paper is
being
written demand it.
We
have seen that the reasoning process in an appreciation ends with the
statement
of the selected course, but that a ‘Plan of Action’ may be included to
show the
roles allotted to the forces available, and to provide a basis for the
production of the subsequent orders necessary to bring about the
required
action. In the same way, although the conclusion of a staff paper
completes the
reasoning process, it is usually necessary to indicate the suggested
role of
forces. This is done by attaching to the staff paper an appendix called
‘Outline Plan’. The same basic rules apply to the construction of this
‘Outline
Plan’ as to the construction of the ‘Plan of Action’ in an appreciation.
Although
the conclusion of a staff paper will normally contain some form of
recommendation, it is not always necessary to attach an outline plan.
For
example, if the problem is relatively simple, such as the question of
increasing a unit establishment, a simple conclusion followed by a
summary of
recommendations is all that is required. |
![Australia's First Online Journal Covering Air Power Issues [ISSN 1832-2433]](APA/APA-Title-Analyses.png "Australia's First Online Journal Covering Air Power Issues [ISSN 1832-2433]")
![F-22A Raptor, FB-22, F-22E, F-22N and Variants Index Page [Click for more ...]](APA/f-fb-22.png "F-22A Raptor, FB-22, F-22E, F-22N and Variants Index Page [Click for more ...]"){kind=small}
![People's Liberation Army Air Power Index Page [Click for more ...]](APA/pla-air-pwr.png "People's Liberation Army Air Power Index Page [Click for more ...]"){kind=small}
![Military Ethics, Culture, Education and Training Index Page [Click for more ...]](APA/ethx-culture.png "Military Ethics, Culture, Education and Training Index Page [Click for more ...]"){kind=small}
![Russian / Soviet Weapon Systems Index Page [Click for more ...]](APA/rus-weps.png "Russian / Soviet Weapon Systems Index Page [Click for more ...]"){kind=small}
