Custer and Cognition

[alfuso]

comparing Custer's field decisions at LBH to some of today;s maneuvers.

Interesting read

www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i41/i41_recall_01.pdf

ndupres s.ndu.edu issue 41, 2d quarter 2006 / JFQ 87

Opinions are sharply divided
about whether George Armstrong
Custer was a brilliant
tactician or a compulsive risktaker.
Was the massacre at the Little Bighorn
the result of his misfortune or his audacity?

This article does not aim to settle the argument
between admirers and critics. Rather,
it uses a new explanatory model of cognition
in combat1 to explore what Custer’s case suggests
about decisionmaking in today’s era of
networked warfare.

How does this flamboyant 19th-century
cavalry officer relate to information-age
military decisionmaking? After all, Custer’s
“bandwidth”—binoculars and scouts—was
negligible by today’s standards. Yet there
are good reasons to consider his experience.
First, 19th-century cavalry action was
a precursor of the fast-breaking distributed
warfare that characterizes the network era.
Cavalry-type missions (reconnaissance, deep
strike, disruption) and qualities (speed, flexibility)
are relevant in current warfare. The
cavalry had to respond to the unfamiliar,
unclear, and unanticipated. More than those
who directed set-piece infantry maneuvers
and artillery bombardments, cavalry commanders
had to make prompt decisions
under fluid and ambiguous conditions, often
without guidance from higher authority,
much like tactical-level officers in networked
warfare.

alfuso

[elisabeth]

Very interesting. That "lack of self-awareness" point is a good one.

They don't mention (and I don't know if it'd even be a valid point) that given the rarity of commanders who combine all four gifts in equal balance, a pragmatic approach might be a pooling of resources -- e.g. if you're a man who's stronger on intuition than reasoning, you'd be wise to take advantage of any brain in your entourage that has the reasoning ability well developed. Custer's legendary reluctance to consult and confer -- perhaps itself a product of the self-awareness deficit -- may have cut him off from any such resource, and left him at the mercy of his own limitations? (One thinks of how even his old buddy Cooke was too scared to pass on Benteen's very sensible suggestion about guarding the packtrain, even after Custer's uncharacteristic speech about welcoming suggestions; looks as if people knew better than to attempt to offer an opinion!)

[crzhrs]

An excellent article . . . most of what we know . . . but it is interesting that Custer's is praised for his courage, fighting ability, and standard procedure of operations . . . then criticized for poor decision making in the face of an unexpected turn of events.

The article states Custer had the opportunity to make decisions that could have saved his command if he changed his thought process . . . rather than attack at all costs.

We know Custer was confident, aggressive, and fearless . . . but the one thing that cost him and his men's lifes was the rationale to see that his command was no longer capable of an offensive movement until it was too late to do anything but make a defensive stand on ground unsuited for it.

One thing I found refreshing and rare for many white author's is the statement that the Indians were better able to adapt and change their tactics better than the military.

[elisabeth]

Yes ... though they had little choice, really, with their non-coms threatened. But they were certainly smarter at instant risk-assessment.

I think perhaps what intrigues us all, as it does the writers of this article, is the number of opportunities Custer had to retrieve the situation -- from the first "oh sh*t" moment of seeing the village right through to the separation of his two wings. (Maybe even beyond, because if he'd left observers at, say, LSH, he might have had notice of developments on the right wing before things went beyond help.) Fascinating.

[q]

Thankyou alfuso. It's always nice to see things that are avaliable on the internet. And unless we were to search for such things, we wouldn't know they were there.

I Think first of all, one must understand what "cognition" is. The shortest version of a definition would be ~ thinking ability. Hence, we have near the end of this diatribe..."the military needs leaders at every level who can provide reliable intuition with quick reasoning."

This article was quick to judge Custer based upon modern perceptions. And they tend to analyse this based upon what they percieve as a lack of thinking ability, ie. the job was too big for him. In turn they then blame him for several mistakes. Well, really alot of mistakes, if you read the whole article. I will touch on only a few here.

The first misperception by this analysis is "his choice of plan", ie. the "splintered force" thingy that many today still harp over. So there's nothing new to this. And it is still hotly debated today, and probably forever, whether or not this choice was wise or in his best interest. So we still don't know whether it was a tactical blunder on his part or not.

The 2nd misperception is what I refer to as "hammer and anvil" hysteria. If only people would just stop using such terminology. Here they state. "Custer's plan depended upon Reno's anvil." Really? No kidding?.... Wait! (silence for umpteen minutes) This article is telling us it was all Reno's fault? No? No kidding? This is new? Another hotly debated topic? And we still don't know whether or not it was Reno's fault. Then they continue with "perhaps Custer judged that the hammer must strike even fast with the anvil cracking." (For heavens sake, can't anyone use sensible terminology that makes historical sense.) The reason that I say this is because they messed up. At the first of the article, they stated... "The indians were free to mass against Custer, whose presence became known when he launched a diversionary attack upon the village." Okay so your saying, so what? Right... If Custer launched a "diversionary attack" upon the "village" then it wouldn't have mattered it's success or failure, would it? Yet they blame Reno for it's failure! And if you question the success of a diversionary move, attack... whatever. Please state what a "diversionary attack", is, does and means. And after, please explain, in relation to what it could have possibly meant or done to Custer's operational success. Which leads us to....


The 3rd misperception is what I like to refer to as... " WOW, so you knew what Custer thought?" Oh Really?!!! They assume way to much. Such statements like: "Yet even if he did not know Reno was in full retreat, he knew the anvil (sic) had not held." An assumption, presumption or telekinesis, telepathy, or is it "beam me up Scotty" time for this article. No one knew what Custer knew. Thus we can't say as definite as this article assumes that anyone, at any time, knew what Custer knew. But to make such an article they had to know, didn't they? Why? Because their whole presumption was based upon what? Cognition..... ie. Custer's ability to think.

"rational analysis, had Custer taken time for it, would almost surely have revealed that striking as planned was not his best option." Do we really know this? To really know, we would have to go back and get inside Custer's head to find out. We would have to know him intimately beyond what is possible today. And this is one thing, just one... where we will never-ever know or be certain of. Because only his thinking ability would have produced the truth.... had he lived.

[George Armstrong Custer]

What a fascinating article Alfuso - thanks for bringing it to our attention!

The authors sense of balance and lack of a pre-conceived agenda as far as the personalities involved at LBH are concerned is refreshing.

The key to their paradigm of the LBH , it seems to me, is the concept of Custer's 'hammer and anvil' tactic - with Reno's anvil holding until the strike of Custer's hammer. The authors reference this throughout the piece. The author's conclusion, therefore, that Custer brought about total disaster by an inability to deploy reason instead of intuition as the 'hammer and anvil' tactic fell apart is, on the face of it, a convincing one. I'm not sure, however, if an analysis of the author's detailing of Custer's behaviour actually supports their final conclusions. Nor do I think that the authors give sufficient attention and weight to Benteen's dilatory role and the effect this had on upsetting a successful execution of Custer's reasoning as the battle unfolded.

The article's authors note that 'Much depended on Reno diverting the Indians from Custer and on Benteen arriving promptly.' Neither happened, of course, and the authors note that Custer was aware of Reno's mounting troubles as he himself made his way along the eastern ridgeline. I'm not so convinced as the authors seem to be that Custer was to any great extent cognisant of Reno's 'difficulties' [ ie failed charge], and certainly not of the impending rout from the trees. However, assuming that he was aware that Reno's 'anvil' was in danger of cracking before he could smash the hostiles against it with his 'hammer', and his awareness of the full extent of the village as he made his way along the eastern ridges, then clearly Custer was then forced to rapidly reconsider his original battle plan. The authors agree that such an on the hoof reconsideration by Custer did occur. But their conclusion is that it owed more to an intuitive self-belief than the more desireable combining of this intuition with reasoning in the light of the changed circumstances.

However, I believe the authors successfully undermine their own theses when they offer the alternative hypothesis that, having realised the size of the village, and believing Reno's anvil liable to collapse before it had performed its function, Custer took a reasoned decision to press home his hammer blow attack as rapidly as possible before Reno's counterbalancing force gave way. He therefore hurried on to the far end of the village with the plan modified from exploiting an anticipated successful charge by Reno to relieving a failed one before it could become a disaster. There is merit in this idea.

I would add that at the same time Custer would also be reasoning that the size of the village - which contrary to expectations was manifestly not running - also meant that the ammunition carried by his men was unlikely to be sufficient. That is, the original plan of a quick panic inducing light cavalry sweep of the village was now most unlikely - heavier fighting had to be reckoned on. The original plan could bear the ammunition on the packs operating in a 'satelite' role, which would see it come up in support after the initial dispersal of the village. Now, however, Custer must surely have reasoned that he wanted the ammo close up in immediate support. Beyond this, if we accept Kanipe's mission and message, Custer was also concerned to get all available fighting men into the rapidly vanishing window of opportunity for shock and awe to stand a chance of working.

The authors claim evidence for the fact that Custer acted intuitively and without reason based on the fact that he did not break contact with the hostiles and rejoin Reno whilst he was still able. But if we accept the argument which the authors gave for Custer attempting to relieve and rejoin Reno through continuing an attack, then this invalidates this alternative hypothesis. The latter also presupposes many factors which we just do not know - for instance when was Custer either wounded or killed? What decisions were taken on the basis of protecting other wounded of the command? How rapidly did the ammunition carried by Custer's command diminish? The authors do not address these and other issues with potential influence on decision making.

I like the article, and I think it refreshingly fair to Custer - though it is also remarkably free of criticism of Reno and, in particular, Benteen. Not so sure I agree however with the authors correlation of intuition/reasoning and the lack thereof in the decisions they rehearse for Custer as the battle unfolded.

Ciao,
GAC

[Dark Cloud]

I just skimmed it, but it's a sloppy piece of work, containing all the buzzwords and terminology to excite the plantlife. Start with the claim Benteen was sent "west," the apparent easy assumption without proof that Reno was to be Custer's anvil although his hammer didn't rise to fall for an hour, the slam that Reno and Benteen performed poorly citing no proof and demonstrating no interest in any, and the puzzling use of troop for trooper. The citations are few, layman, predictable, and not entirely understood by themselves.

This is what happens when academics get to use their terminology and intimidate the innocent. This is EXACTLY the sort of stuff that scares me, when people genuflect before it without going through and noting how many errors and grand assumptions are at work. I'm very disappointed.

[George Armstrong Custer]

darkcloud said:

I just skimmed it, but it's a sloppy piece of work, containing all the buzzwords and terminology to excite the plantlife. Start with the claim Benteen was sent "west," the apparent easy assumption without proof that Reno was to be Custer's anvil although his hammer didn't rise to fall for an hour, the slam that Reno and Benteen performed poorly citing no proof and demonstrating no interest in any, and the puzzling use of troop for trooper. The citations are few, layman, predictable, and not entirely understood by themselves.

This is what happens when academics get to use their terminology and intimidate the innocent. This is EXACTLY the sort of stuff that scares me, when people genuflect before it without going through and noting how many errors and grand assumptions are at work. I'm very disappointed.

Well, seeing as you went to the trouble of "just skimming it" DC, I'd say you were almost overqualified to comment on it - judging by your usual practise of reviewing Custer or LBH material without reading them at all. I quote from your DC website, specifically the 'Boulder Lout', where you proudly title a piece:

An Accurate Review of a Book I Have Not Read

And which you introduce with the following example of self-belief: "I've long been certain that books on Custer, or at least the Little Big Horn, can be reviewed without reading them."

Wow - prescient old you, eh DC?

This is EXACTLY the sort of stuff that scares me (now where have I heard that before?)

Ciao,
GAC

[q]

GAC:

Oh, go fly a kite somewhere, preferrably underwater, tethered to one of your buddies on this website, in the murky depths of the Missouri river. Go grope your way around the bottom tethered to one of your buddies trying to feel for a piece of the Far West. And if for a moment the (dust) and sand already in the water giving the river an appearance of flowing river of mud... mysteriously clears. Once you touch the sediments on the bottom, i'm quite sure that you will see clearly the nature of your predicament. That is until an underwater floating tree, branch, log or whatever happens to float by. Thus snagging the tether securing you to one of your buddies. Which then whisks you and them down it's course tangled in the exctasy of a pleasant dream Far more south than West. Good riddence, i'd say. Oh, and GAC please be sure and take Fred with you. I'm quite sure he would enjoy the tethered log ride the best. Perhaps it will inspire a new theme park with an all new thrilling ride for eveyone to enjoy.

I don't thinkyou have the credentials GAC to criticize DC. And DC please do release your reservations/inhibitions and just open up. I for one would just love to see you do the marvelous reflection of words that you do on this poor misguided soul.

[George Armstrong Custer]

Y'know, I almost feel sorry for ol' DC - with friends like that, who needs enemies.

Ciao,
GAC

[alfuso]

amazing what you can find just by browsing google for NY World archives. Mostly found Nellie Bly...

alfuso

[q]

alfuso dear, I have no quarrel with you. Please lets not start.

Gac:
I initially had nothing against you. Yet you like others here seem to interfere in the natural flow of the discussion. I offered my opinion here. You offered yours, and DC offered his.

Everything was flowing graciously down our muddy river. Then all of a sudden, you, in a stroke of brilliance, or is it quite something else? Decided to chastise someone for something you don't believe is correct. Whatever your method of madness was/is, and the reasons for... perhaps holding an exhalted opinon of yourself and knowledge thereof? For whatever reason, it was not I that struck the first blow. Perhaps you could indulge us in your fantasies a little bit more. And with your supreme knowledge thereof tell us exactly who is whose friend here?

Perhaps you could take a page from Leyton's book and try instead to be a peacemaker. But then again perhaps even that may not work. Because at the exact moment when I gracously offered the reasons for my dissallusionments with Fred, not only once but twice, someone intervened. I was only asking for something that he quite obviously is/was/ & forever unwilling to give. I as then, now and forever shall offer my comments here within the same spirit as Freds. Which are; inhibitions backed by exhalted opinions which seek not absolution nor the spirit of resolution bound by any ethical or moral law of propriety.

Grin and bear it, isn't that what you meant by interfering at the proper moment in the "introducing yourself" thread ~ Leyton? Take a page from your own book, tear it in little pieces that the stars would envy, place it in your mouth and swallow hard with little or no reservation. And that goes for you too GAC.

[fred]

Leyton—

Congratulations! I see you too have failed to elude the clutches of the Wicked Witch of the West. I would not be too chagrined if I were you; I think GAC and I wear it like a badge of honor. We traipsed into the Amazonian cave looking for gold and came out shaking an ass… er, asp. Sorry. The problem you and several others, including myself, are running into is that we are dealing w/ an abject liar who simply will not go away. She is constantly talking about her conciliatory remarks, trying to convince herself she is not the trumpeting little harpy she really is. It does not take a genius to wander back to the “Benteen” thread & she how she went after me with absolutely no provocation whatsoever. Heck, I had not even heard of her. When I questioned her motives—at the same time offering an olive branch in case I had misread her—she stepped up the vituperation. Instead of getting a shot across the bow, I got one directly in the stern; the old blind-sider, the only kind of attack a person of this poor quality is capable of firing. Yet she deludes herself into thinking she is the paradigm of virtuous righteousness, when all along she is merely an over-wrought, intellectual-wannabe, sitting behind the protection of anonymity, spewing her harmless venom in any direction it will stick. Hell, Leyton, even her venom is a failure. All it does is elicit gaffaws from people with some time, temporarily, on their hands. You talk about insecurity, my God!

If you notice, she is now trying the divide-and-conquer routine, trying to line up allies like “alfuso” and “darkcloud.” The mistake she is making here is in her choice of friendships. First of all, she is way out of her league with both. Say what you will about either, “alfuso” borders on the brilliant—if not already there—and “darkcloud” is not a great distance behind. I realize old “DC” comes in w/ a reputation, but the biggest strike against him—that I can see—is that he is infernally obtuse, does a lot of whining, and is negative about everything. “Darkcloud” makes me want to scream more than anything else, but his ideas are sound, his opinions are valid, & his wit is sharp. Despite some of my lame-brained comments to him, he takes them like a man (pardon me, ladies; it is a generic term), shrugs them off, and moves on. I admire that—to an extent. (Now watch him make a fool out of me!) And it seems to me that even w/ "alfuso," friendship may be fleeting. All things come at a price and "warning off" our friend from Florida may have cost entirely too much. Like I said, brilliant (though I don't know for certain, you may want to add, sophisticated).

“Q,” on the other hand, has no valid opinions. Her reasoning is ludicrous, her opinions are based on stupidity, and she has more trouble with the English language than a two-year old iguana. This latest diatribe is a perfect example. She tells you she doesn’t want to pick a fight, then slaps you across the back of your head. I am afraid, however, it is something we will have to deal with. A strategy might be that no one ever acknowledges her again. Then, like all dead skin, she might just shrivel up and turn to dust, blowing away like the wind she propounds. Unfortunately, I would then never get to meet her, and I could use the laugh. Maybe, however, if that really did happen we would find her traces on the beams of the “Far West.”

Best wishes Leyton,
Fred.

[Dark Cloud]

Well, now I've read it, and it's worse than supposed. The Reno field is six (6) miles from Custer's, according to these giants. But stated so forcefully. This is college freshman Sociology 101 level.

One of the six (6) referenced sources is entitled "Intuition at Work: Why Developing Your Gut Instinct Will Make You Better At What You Do." Does that have the whiff of a self-help book or what? No, not going to read it, either.

If this is the quality of crap our (alleged) military brain trusts are turning out, we're doomed.

You miss my point, GAC. It's not that I alone can review a book involving Custer of the LBH without reading it, but that ANYone can, yourself included, and I'd be very surprised if in looking over recent releases you can't accurately foretell the contents. I'll bet you do it all the time. There are templates, and rarely are they violated. Let me present a fake example or three.

Custer! American Murat or American Sacrifice?[/b] by former Sgt. Billy "William" Bobo. Sgt. Bobo served twenty seven years in the U.S. Army, now lives in San Diego with his wife, three cats, and pig named Hillary. The flyleaf provides a cover with the good Sergeant sitting in front of his extensive gun collection glaring into the camera. His pubisher claims that the mystery of Custer's annihilation is solved! Also, the identity of the bravest soldier who ever lived.

Or? "American Eichman" by Ward Churchill. The truth about the long concealed genocide waged by the American government against the peaceful, volleyball playing plains Indians. Book tour starts in Massachusetts, goes to Indianna, stops off in Kansas, with a rally scheduled in the Wampanoag Casino Grande somewhere.

Or? "Treason!" How poorly manufactured uniform buttons caused Custer's troopers to look silly and lower morale.

Come on, reviews of these things are cakewalks. If you can, with small effort, get 80% of an unread book's contents right, that's pretty damning of the whole field, don't you think?

[fred]

Actually, I rather agree w/ Darkcloud. While I found it an interesting article, I also found it extremely presumptuous, both in tone and in content. This is the typical corporate-military at work.

"People w/ battle-wise potential must be sought in recruitment, screened, sorted, & favored for line responsibility starting early in their careers." Sounds like the authors are bucking for a military-SAT. Oh, let's go find Napoleon Jr.

Above that quote, "ut the case of Custer suggests that it will not be an easy goal to achieve." Oh, boy! Talk about paving the way for your own brilliance!

This article-- as I said, while interesting-- is just rife w/ academic-speak, the stuff that wows the guys with over-ambitious shoulder ornamentation. I wonder how these clowns would apply this stuff to Iraq? Does it have a strategic value as well as a supposed tactical value?

Based on just 10 years experience, I still question their tactical grasp of Custer's intentions. Or were those tactics their own? The article still has merit unless the answer to that last question is, "yes." If so, throw it out the window.

Best wishes,
Fred.