Is John McCain inside of Obama's OODA Loop?

Please allow me to explain what the OODA Loop is. It is an acronym for Observe-Orientate-Decide-Act and it is a concept that was developed about 50 years ago by the Late Col. John Boyd.

Col. John Boyd is better known as "40 second Boyd" because as a fighter pilot in the U.S. Air Force he would challenge his fellow fighter pilots to simulated dog fights. He used the concept that he developed, the OODA Loop to defeat every one of them.

Col. Boyd had a standing bet that anyone who could defeat him in a simulated dog fight would win $40.00 dollars. He reportedly never had to pay off any of his fellow pilots.

The most important aspect of the OODA Loop are the orientation and the decision phases. In fact the decision phase is likely the most important phase. It is the ability to make decisions faster than your opponent that causes him to become disorientated and make mistakes, both physical mistakes and mistakes in judgment. Keep in mind that it is more important to make faster decisions rather than the best decision. You still have to make good decisions but it is more important to make good decisions quicker than your opponent.

It has been said that Boyd has developed the most profound change in military tactics since Sun Tzu wrote the Art of War. The most important aspect of the OODA Loop is that it allows those who are skilled enough to practice the concept to attack the mind of their opponent as opposed to attacking the person. In some cases the battle can be won before it even begins, simply by disorientating the opponent.

The U.S. Marine Corps has literally changed the way they go into battle based on what they learned from Col. Boyd. When Boyd died in 1997, Marine Commandant Charles Krulak gave him the highest praise possible by saying that it was Boyd who was one of the major influences on the thinking that led to the Marines victory in the Persian Gulf.

That is a brief background of both Col. Boyd and the OODA Loop. Now fast forward to today and the campaign that is going on for President of the United States.

I can only speculate but I think that John McCain is well schooled in the tactics of the OODA Loop and he is using those tactics to his full advantage in the Presidential campaign. It would be nice if we could find out if John McCain actually knew Col. Boyd and if they crossed paths at some point in their careers.

Go back last week as the democratic convention was unfolding. In the weeks leading up to the convention there was much speculation about the Vice Presidential nominee's for both parties. We obviously know that Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate. That is when McCain began using his skills that he likely learned from Col. Boyd.

He began to float the name of Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. There were numerous leaks from the McCain camp that his VP choice would be Pawlenty. There were news reports on the night of Obama's big speech that Pawlenty had canceled all of his appointments and cleared his calendar. There were even reports on numerous limousines at the Minnesota State Capitol, supposedly to pick up the Governor for the big announcement.

Even Rush Limbaugh and numerous local talk radio hosts were convinced that Pawlenty would be the VP pick. This was all occurring on the afternoon of Obama's big speech to the 85,000 people in home of the Denver Bronco's and a stage that caused many people including numerous veteran political reporters to drop their jaws in awe.

At the very peak of all of the hype, John McCain runs a few TV ads directed at Obama saying "Job well done" and then McCain makes an announcement that he will not make the announcement that night. He would defer to Barack Obama because this was his night to be in the spotlight.

Within a little more than 12 hours after the finish of Obama's speech, McCain is out announcing his VP pick and it a complete surprise to almost everyone, especially the Obama campaign. While the Obama campaign was all geared up to attack Pawlenty, McCain got "inside of his loop" by announcing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, almost out of the blue.

When I saw Barack Obama and Joe Biden on Friday morning TV program and they were asked about McCain's VP pick, they both looked like they were completely disorientated and did not know which way was up.

In my opinion, John McCain is deeply inside of the Obama campaign's OODA Loop. He has them very disorientated to the point that they are not sure what they are doing. There minds have turned to mush and they are not capable of thinking straight at this point. This was a brilliant case of mis-direction on the part of John McCain.

This campaign is quickly turning into a contest between the "Fighter Pilot" and the "Rock Star" I am not advocating for the election of John McCain, in fact I may not even vote for him. But from what I have seen so far and now that I have a basic understanding of the OODA Loop, I have a lot more respect for John McCain than I did just a week ago.

I don't know what else McCain has up his sleeve but I'm sure that he has a few more tricks for Barack Obama and I'm sure that Obama will become even more disorientated in the coming weeks than he is right now. If I were betting on this race, I would put my money on the "Fighter Pilot", he is much more experienced, he is making faster and so far better decisions, he has Obama on the defensive and most importantly, he is inside of Obama's Loop and I think he is closing in for the kill.   

Comments

[Steve T.]

Orv you make a very good observation. I had never heard of OODA Loop.

I think Sarah Palin very well has disoriented the left. The Party itself doesn’t want to come across harsh, rude, mean, or hypocritical.

It is very hard to know which way to turn and battle. Keeps them on the toes and boxes them in.

[Orv]

For those who have never heard of the OODA Loop, I would suggest a Google search and then follow that up with setting your computer up with Google Alerts for OODA Loop. Other than those 2 key things, there are only 2 good books that deal with this idea. You can do a search at Amazon.com for Co. John Boyd or OODA Loop to find them.

There are several bloggers around the country who understand this concept and they are posting their comments on the McCain-Obama race.

Once you have a basic grasp of this concept, you will look at the race for President and almost every other political race in different terms.

[Iceman1964]

I have never heard of something so silly. Next you will tell me it is a CIA tatic along with brain washing.

[Scott J]

Iceman,
This is silly to you? But conspiracies about Palin's baby, that she was chosen by McCain because she was a beauty queen and not her credentials, and that Obama's speeches are "more than just words" (which they aren't) is completely sane and rational? These are all arguments you have made.

I will say that there times when I will agree with you that I've seen Obama speaking and he was using "more than just words" - it's the interviews with him when his speeches are not pre-written. Along with his words are an excessive amount of "umms" and "errs".

[Iceman1964]

Scott J. are you a neocon? If you are with me sometimes, does that make you a mod?

You seem conflicted in your views.

Are you picking on Obama's speech problems? How low can you go?

Tell me sir, what makes Obama not fit to lead and McCain so. In your words, not a cut and paste job.

You seem slightly intellegent so umm err, ahh, you shouldn't have a problem.

[Buck]

Actually iceman brainwashing goes back to before the Inquisition. I'm sure you'll be glad to hear it was the Soviets and Red Chinese that really perfected the tactic. I would think the only American agency that still uses it would be the teachers union.

[Scott J]

Iceman,
Like many on the left, you demonstrate in your response your inability to debate or discuss an issue. This is why problems don't get solved and issues more clearly defined. You made a comment ridiculing the OODA process as silly, yet your best arguments against the right are conspiracy theories. I asked you a specific question which your response did not answer, instead you try and change the subject by referring to my trailing comment so that you never have to answer the question.

Although it's not necessary for me to do so, and although you didn't answer my question, I will answer yours.

I'm a Catholic/Christian first, a Conservative 2nd. Where there is conflict between the two, such as in the case of the Death Penalty, I follow my Catholic/Christian beliefs. Although I've voted Republican and support the party, I will not join. This is due to a study of history, and recognizing that there is always change between the two, and although it probably won't happen in my lifetime, it's entirely possible the two sides will exchange positions and the Democrats could end up as more Conservative. For example, Ronald Reagan started out as a Democrat, and became a Republican with the quote most have heard "I did not leave my party, my party left me." If this were the turn of the century, without an 8 hour workday, when you actually had only a handful of the privileged and little opportunity, I would have been a Liberal Democrat of that time (remember that these terms have changed meaning since then, as there has been some consolidation between movements).

I don't see where I am conflicted in my views and will be glad to defend them anytime.

"picking on Obama's speech problems"? Hardly. I was merely pointing out the fact he's not a top tier speaker, he's half the package. When he's giving a prepared speech, he does very well. When he's in an open forum and has to think on his feet, he's quite bad and nothing for you to fawn all over about. While I like George Bush, his best prepared speeches have an average delivery and he's just as bad in an open forum. Are we forbidden from stating facts because you are an Obama fan?

"What makes Obama unfit to lead?" (this is the worst of your open-ended questions that had nothing to do with the topic - the broader the better, that hopefully I'll say something you can use to personally attack rather than address the original question - but that's okay, we all understand this is your coping mechanism for when you don't have an answer. FYI, there are plenty of topics I don't feel I have enough information about to comment on, in those cases it's okay to not post) - I don't believe I ever stated he was unfit to lead. I disagree with his stances on abortion, the war, the economy, and the card check bill, to name a few. I question the sincerity of his personal convictions based on his personal associations (Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and Rezko to name a few. This is a quick summary, perhaps I'll do a full blog entry and go further.

[Iceman1964]

Oh, Scott J. I didn’t know you were so sensitive.
Hmm, I didn’t answer your questions, did you ask real questions or are they more correctly statements that you end with a question mark.

This is silly to you? - NO Scott, I take it very seriously

But conspiracies about Palin's baby - Until we see medical reports and don’t give me the new pregnancy rules it out. I bet she delivers late.

That she was chosen by McCain because she was a beauty queen and not her credentials - Can you prove otherwise?

Obama's speeches are "more than just words" (which they aren't) - What most of you are failing to see that as a speech and the one delivering it is how all things are done. Example blah, blah, tear down this wall, blah, blah, not because it easy but because it is hard. The list goes on. The speech is step one. The one speaking it is step two. The action after the words is step three. Since Obama is not President yet, he cannot carry out his speech. I thought those on the right are the smart ones? Do I have to spell it all out and think for you as well Scott.

Is completely sane and rational? - YES. Most definitely YES. I just showed you how.

I will say that there times when I will agree with you that I've seen Obama speaking and he was using "more than just words" - See you already knew what I said was true, but you cannot comprehend even what you write yourself.

It’s the interviews with him when his speeches are not pre-written. - All speeches are pre-written!

Buck - Actually iceman brainwashing goes back to before the Inquisition. - The Spanish Inquisition? Can you show me where that is stated?

I'm sure you'll be glad to hear it was the Soviets and Red Chinese that really perfected the tactic. - I am sure the CIA and FBI are not far off.

I would think the only American agency that still uses it would be the teachers union. - Funny! Don’t forget if you have children those teachers in the union are as the CRG man said getting into your kids minds.

Scott again!
This diatribe was just wonderful. Your expression and use of words just wants me to hug you. Did you feel good writing it? I think you did. What questions can I answer here. Don’t want to miss one and have you state I did so.

First paragraph no questions, just some blah, blah, blah about discussion and words that you think connect to debating.

Second just a statement that you will answer my questions or face the fact you are a hypocrite like me. Remember I have been self-empowered by releasing myself from not embracing that I am a hypocrite. By accepting it, I can use it! I can have my cake and eat it!

Third, You do admit some conflicts, where I was right. Wisconsin doesn’t require you to join the party, so what. Here is where your diatribe and justification of your conflicts in not wanting to take a label as John Foust said as well. You are more liberal then you care to knowledge to yourself.

Forth one I already showed you.

Fifth one gets meaty.
"picking on Obama's speech problems"? Hardly. I was merely pointing out the fact he's not a top tier speaker, he's half the package. - Do you know forsure that he doesn’t have a speech impediment? At half the package he is more then McCain!

When he's giving a prepared speech, he does very well. When he's in an open forum and has to think on his feet, he's quite bad and nothing for you to fawn all over about. - One open forum and you know this?

While I like George Bush, his best prepared speeches have an average delivery and he's just as bad in an open forum. - But you are not a “repub” so why like GWB?

Are we forbidden from stating facts because you are an Obama fan? - NO, but what facts are you standing on?

"What makes Obama unfit to lead?" (this is the worst of your open-ended questions that had nothing to do with the topic – Amy picked the question and isn’t that what you are leading towards?

the broader the better, that hopefully I'll say something you can use to personally attack rather than address the original question – And that was what?

but that's okay, we all understand this is your coping mechanism for when you don't have an answer. - Yes I am a hypocrite! See how easy that makes this. I am off the hook.

FYI, there are plenty of topics I don't feel I have enough information about to comment on, in those cases it's okay to not post) – By post what do you mean?

I don't believe I ever stated he was unfit to lead. I disagree with his stances on abortion, the war, the economy, and the card check bill, to name a few. - If you can name a few then there is more, which means you feel he is unfit!

I question the sincerity of his personal convictions based on his personal associations (Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and Rezko to name a few. - Since I don’t know them myself how can I judge them?

This is a quick summary, perhaps I'll do a full blog entry and go further. - I look forward to it and please make it sooner than later.

[Fred Keller]

Nice post, Orv. Interesting observsations.

[Scott J]

Iceman,
I didn't realize I was giving the impression I was sensitive. I'm afraid our conversation may be at an end as your comments appear to be mostly circle talk and nonsense.

This blog entry was speculation about if McCain was using a specific process in running his campaign. Processes & procedures are not uncommon, two I use frequently relating to I.T. are ITIL and PDIOO. You thought the idea of someone using a process was silly, when you admittedly base your beliefs on conspiracy theory's and insist they are right unless someone can prove you wrong. That's not rational. Demanding private medical records, which the Clintons and many other Democrats wouldn't release when under scrutiny, and which are protected by law, is not reasonable. There is no implication that she's broken any laws, you and others are just making things up, throwing them at the wall to see if you can make something stick. As I stated in my previous post (A post is when you publish a statement online, such as a new blog entry, article or comment since you asked), you're hoping she'll release something to defend herself that you can comb through to use in a subsequent personal attack to try and destroy her. You're on a fishing expedition.

I asked you if you were serious. That was the original question since you didn't seem to know what it was.

Please allow me to bottom-line it for you. You made a comment about something claiming it wasn't reasonable or rational, when many of the comments you've made and positions you take have been unreasonable and irrational. You at least acknowledge that you're a hypocrite, but claiming it as something to be proud of and that in doing so somehow frees you might change how you perceive yourself, but not how others perceive you. Hypocrisy is something that can be pointed out in many of us at one time or another, usually when we don't understand a particular topic, it's background or it's circumstances and then take an uninformed position on it without thinking it through. It happens to the best of us at one time or another. It is something to be corrected or removed from oneself, not embraced.

Many of your follow up comments were equally illogical.

I stated that I disagreed with Obama's stances on issues, I didn't say he was unfit. You comment "If you can name a few then there is more, which means you feel he is unfit!". This is again incorrect. Disagreeing with someone on issues doesn't equate to them being unfit. I believe he would take the country in the wrong direction.

When referring to Obama's associations with Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and Rezko, you stated "Since I don't know them myself how can I judge them?" Also illogical. I didn't know Bundy or Dahmer personally, who am I to say if they did the wrong thing? I would go further regarding the Christian understanding of "judge", but based on your track record I'd be wasting my time.

"But you are not a "repub" so why like GWB?" Drum roll please.... illogical beyond all comprehension. I could type for weeks comparing this statement to nearly anything. "You don't work at a malt shop so why like malts?", "You're not a woman so why love your wife?", "You're not a child so why love your son?".

I will be more than happy to reply to your comments if you want to have a serious (or even lighthearted) discussion, but please try to think things through and understand your position. Debate is fun and we all like to be in the right, but I'm also prepared to change my position when someone proves me wrong. Are you? Randy posted some blogs regarding logical fallacies on his "The Way I See It!" blog a while back. I humbly suggest you take a look at those and then look at your own comments before you post. Are you arguing a defensible position based on facts? What words is someone using in their argument? Am I taking their words for what they are or am I reacting on my feelings and drawing conclusions that aren't there? It doesn't matter what you think that person is "really" saying. What matters is what that person is saying. Best of luck to you.