Let’s have a discussion about “enemy combatants.” “Police” would seem to fit this definition, when you become a person of interest. First, there’s no authority for “police.” No living person has signed any constitution, state or federal. No legislature has any powers of attorney on file. “In a Democracy power flows from the bottom up.” David Gergen. An election might identify a representative, but not settle whether we are going to have a representative gov’t, or vote on the internet; and how much power any representative will have. So, on to the police. They are in paramilitary dress, and armed. There’s no legal authority for them derived from the people. Their intentions are unknown to you. Then, when you become a person of interest, your risk skyrockets. Enemy combatant status fits. Why isn’t the the enormous standing army of police, strikingly well armed, in cars nicer than yours or mine, a topic of discussion?
These are the elements of a winning plan:
- The discovery of information
- The objective – part of the leader’s best future
- Forecasting and assumption(s)
- Resolve – The leader’s willingness to accept the costs which are necessary in order to reach the objective.
- Adaptability – The leader’s willingness to select the instruments which are necessary in light of information in order to reach the objective at least cost. Note that space time paths are treated as instruments in this model since we say and write “good timing” and the selection of a correct path are instrumental in achieving a good result.
- Forecasts-“game out” each proposal
- Scoring – equity v. efficiency
- The plan – the highest scoring proposal
- Discipline – the leader’s willingness to accept the opportunity costs in order to reach the objective at least total cost.
- Superabundance or Redundancy of #4 and the instruments in #5. See generally, triple modular redundancy.
- Force = instruments in #5, x4. This is the “execution phase” of the plan.
- Review and appraisal of each application of #13.
- Argument for completeness. Why exactly 14 elements? I claim that 14 elements are both necessary and sufficient. Necessity: run plan with 14 elements above, value result. Now, drop any element. Then, run plan with your 13 elements. If the value of the first result is greater than the value of your second result, the 14 elements are in fact “necessary.” Sufficiency: recall the value of the result using a plan with the 14 elements above. Now add a 15th element, your choice. Value the result-2, following the execution of a plan with 15 elements. I claim that the value of result-2 will be less than or equal to the value of the first result, or that the 15th element was an instrument deployed pursuant to #5 Adaptability. So, the 14 elements presented above are “sufficient” for a winning plan.
I submit that with the proper selection of instruments in #5 this “planning model” will meet and overcome any biological, technological, and/or cybernetic threat. This “planning model” was created to generalize the earlier remarks on War by the author known as Sun Tzu.