This monograph examines operational risk in the United States Army and the tendency to subordinate risk because of an institutional focus on aggression, offensive action to seize the initiative, and a reliance on firepower. The tendencies of the American way of warfare compel operational risk acceptance without properly integrating risk into operational planning. U.S. doctrine references risk in many locations, but never really defines it in a useful way or links it to operational purpose and decision-making. The purpose of this monograph is threefold. First, it suggests a model to help planners better understand operational risk. Secondly, it proposes a better definition for operational risk. Lastly, it points out the vulnerabilities the current thinking about risk has caused. This study explores American operational doctrine from 1949 to present to identify the risk tendencies of modern U.S. ground forces and their roots. The monograph examines two case studies of X Corps'; advance in Korea during the fall of 1950 to test the tendencies in the doctrine and the risk model. The case studies examine one campaign from two perspectives. The purpose is to examine how two different formations dealt with similar terrain, missions, and risk.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.