Abstract : The United States Government lacks meaningful measurements for progress in the Global War on Terrorism. Measured by traditional military methods, the United States scored quick victories in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The United States captured or killed hundreds of terrorist/insurgent operatives and toppled two governments who provided support to terrorist organizations. However, the U.S. government has not satisfied public opinion with its explanations of forward progress in the war. Metrics must be developed to give meaning to our military actions. There are several parallels between what the military is now facing in measuring progress in the Global War on Terrorism and what business leaders faced during the information age revolution in the early 1990's. Computer networks in the 1990's allowed companies to monitor lead indicators that evaluated a wide perspective of intangible assets. Companies that recognized the new capabilities the information age offered reacted much more quickly to changes in the market and overwhelmed companies that did not. The United States military needs to apply these lessons to our war planning doctrine to develop a balanced approach to measuring our success in the war on terror.
[1]
Paul R. Niven.
Balanced Scorecard Step-by-Step for Government and Nonprofit Agencies
,
2003
.
[2]
Harry P. Hatry,et al.
Measuring the Effectiveness of Nondefense Public Programs
,
1970,
Oper. Res..
[3]
Edward C Mann,et al.
Thinking effects: Effects-based methodology for joint operations
,
2002
.
[4]
R. S. Stainton,et al.
Handbook of systems analysis: H.J. MISER and E.S. QUADE (eds.) Wiley, 1985, xviii + 346 pages, £34.95
,
1986
.
[5]
A. J. Joes.
Sorley, Lewis. A Better War?: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Viet Nam. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1999.
,
1999
.