I recently posted two photos to flickr.com of the CFLCC Rules of Engagement card. It’s a little yellow piece of laminated paper that, on both sides, lists some common, strongly encouraged “guidance” for combat conduct. I’m not in the military so I can’t say to what breadth or depth or frequency these rules are issued. I have learned from a little further research that different rules are often issued depending on the mission and the forces operating in the mission. I will have to ask my father what he knows, and maybe combine that for a better understanding.
My Dad had several of these cards in his truck, so I stole one of them. He’s retired from the US Armed Forces now, so I doubt he’ll be using them anytime soon. I wanted one because it was a token of my father that I carry with me, and I was just fascinated with this little printed document. Somehow I imagine taking that card out after a mission and looking to it like a confessional.
Thinking about those cards led me to Wikipedia to get a little more insight. Before I took the pics I also didn’t know what CFLCC stood for. It means Coalition Forces Land Command Component according to Wikipedia. There’s a separate entry for rules of engagement. Under the See Also section there’s a link to The Moscow Rules for “an example of the use of the ROE term in spycraft“. How was I going to pass that up? It’s like “Geneva Convention” “Kyoto Treaty” “Kitchen Debates” The title creates a sense of mystery by explicitly leaving out what the rules are about. It’s a question that is so sexily answered at the end of the sentence by the word ‘spycraft’ I’m in.
The sexy payoff was big too. Read this:
- “Don’t look back; you are never completely alone.”
- Any operation can be aborted. If it feels wrong, it is wrong.
- Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.
- Technology will always let you down.
and the best one of all, “Once is an accident. Twice is coincidence. Three times is an enemy action.” That’s what I call double entendre genius. Not only does it give you the ability to gauge your own cautiousness about anomaly, but it gives you a key to operational advantage.
The Moscow Rules, by association are like Sun Tzu’s Rules of War. In that they attempt to prescribe learned strategy to areas of human activity that are governed by dishonesty, secrecy, chaos, and danger by design. I wonder if the Moscow rules can be applied to business in the same way that Sun Tzu’s adages are. Right off the bat, the ones listed above read like sound advice with regard to meetings.
Thoughts?