2 ms·

The second part doesn't really follow from anything mentioned here AFAICT, but I believe the idea is that making a plan forces you to think about many large and

The second part doesn't really follow from anything mentioned here AFAICT, but I believe the idea is that making a plan forces you to think about many large and small issues. When things don't go to plan, or you don't have a plan, all that knowledge will help you make decisions on the spot (if necessary).

AlbertCory 4y ago
I believe that's right. D-Day certainly didn't go all according to plan, but without a plan to start with it wouldn't have happened at all.
Jtsummers 4y ago
An important part of planning, especially in the military context, is that you don't, or shouldn't, make a singular plan. You make a collection of plans and contingencies. You practice them with various levels of simulations from tabletop wargaming (these days computer simulations) to large scale exercises. Then while you're in the simulation you throw in constraints, problems, etc. to force the plan to fail and the people to react (bad exercises, and these do happen, are set up with a target outcome so one side can't "lose", which isn't supposed to be the point of the exercise). So the planning ends up being one of the more useful things to do because it prepares you for both your intentions but also to handle things when they fail (in some fashion). The plans, themselves, are useless because they will very rarely be carried through as written. You can't just read a plan and memorize it and expect to carry it out in an adversarial situation. If you're lucky, or your adversary is severely outmatched, then this can work. However, you can't count on luck and you can't count on your adversary being unprepared or incapable or incompetent. Planning, contrasted to plans, prepares you (or should) for when the plans fail and you have to adapt and overcome in the field.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  I've heard what the military likes to say about battle plans is: The enemy gets a vote

AlbertCory 4y ago

I believe that's right. D-Day certainly didn't go all according to plan, but without a plan to start with it wouldn't have happened at all.

Jtsummers 4y ago

An important part of planning, especially in the military context, is that you don't, or shouldn't, make a singular plan. You make a collection of plans and contingencies. You practice them with various levels of simulations from tabletop wargaming (these days computer simulations) to large scale exercises. Then while you're in the simulation you throw in constraints, problems, etc. to force the plan to fail and the people to react (bad exercises, and these do happen, are set up with a target outcome so one side can't "lose", which isn't supposed to be the point of the exercise). So the planning ends up being one of the more useful things to do because it prepares you for both your intentions but also to handle things when they fail (in some fashion). The plans, themselves, are useless because they will very rarely be carried through as written. You can't just read a plan and memorize it and expect to carry it out in an adversarial situation. If you're lucky, or your adversary is severely outmatched, then this can work. However, you can't count on luck and you can't count on your adversary being unprepared or incapable or incompetent. Planning, contrasted to plans, prepares you (or should) for when the plans fail and you have to adapt and overcome in the field.

AlbertCory 4y ago
I've heard what the military likes to say about battle plans is: The enemy gets a vote