Air Power Development Centre

The desired effect

By Sanu Kainikara

THE latest buzzword making the rounds in military parlance is “effectsbased operations” (EBO). The dictionary defines the word effect variously as “a result, a consequence; and the power to produce results, efficacy”.

So what does EBO actually mean? It is difficult to define a concept in terms of procedures and systems when the concept itself is dependent on the operations to be undertaken and the results to be achieved.

The importance of EBO stems from the fact that they are focused on actions that are linked to behaviour patterns and responses to stimuli rather than targets and their destruction.

The other factor that makes the concept attractive to strategic planners is that it is applicable across the whole spectrum of conflict, from total war to military operations that do not involve combat.

It is also important to understand that EBO, while being articulated only now as a concept, is not new.

Historically, in conflict situations successful leaders have always focused on the final outcome and the human factors involved in the conflict both during and after it.

Effects-based operations comprise a set of coordinated actions aimed at achieving objectives that are defined by human behaviour.

These “actions” can be undertaken by any agency of national power – military, diplomatic, economic, etc – or a combination of these, normally referred to as a national effectsbased approach.

These actions also involve operations in combat, peace and conflict inducing situations.

Four distinct features of EBO can be delineated from observing combat operations. First, EBO is seen to create effects on the adversary, as well as on neutral parties, allies and friends alike.

Second, it can occur simultaneously at the tactical and operational level. In a well-conducted operation simultaneous effects can even be created at the strategic level – both military and geographic – in conjunction with the effects taking place at the tactical level.

Third, the actions can create effects that can be isolated while remaining correlated with different levels. Fourth, the effects can be both physical and psychological in nature.

Changes in warfighting methodology are always brought on by the evolving security environment, which in turn activates changes in threat perceptions.

It is obvious that the international security environment has changed radically in the past few years. Asymmetry, wherein dependence on conventional physical means of waging war is minimised, has become the preferred way for the adversary to fight established conventional forces.

In such a scenario, attrition- based warfare will not be able to produce the desired results primarily because there are no distinctive targets to be destroyed and the adversary is more often than not in fluid, borderless form.

Terrorist organisations with international links would be an example of such adversaries without a clear target on which to focus the military response.

Operations short of all out combat are required to deal with the emerging threat trends.

New information technologies and network-centric thinking must be effectively combined in the proper context to ensure that complex, warlike situations, where no clear attrition-based tactics or strategy will suffice, can be comprehensively addressed.

An effects-based approach to military operations provides the necessary methodology to deal with even ill-defined threats efficiently.

Sanu Kainikara is the Deputy Director of the Air Power Development Centre

.