In the aftermath of the air campaign that began Operation Desert Storm, the US Air Force sought to measure US success in the military-technical and organizational innovation that occurred during the Gulf War and its impact on the future evolution of military art. From the perspective of the Air Force, the success of the war was based on planning and execution by the US air and naval strike forces during the initial aero-space operation, which set the stage for follow-on air-ground operations. These operations culminated in the defeat of Iraqi forces in theater and the liberation of Kuwait with few allied casualties. This success attracted considerable attention within the US Air Force and led to the reorganization of US Airpower for the Post-Cold War environment, which was characterized by local conflicts and Operations Other Than War. This success led the US Air Force submit this concept as the "centerpiece" for its input to the Quadrennial Defense Review of 2001. Air power theorists promoted this emerging concept as Effects-Based Operations (EBO). EBO emphasized that the goal of any conflict was to cause the adversary to act in accordance with US national interests, and that this could be achieved by the application of superior technology, against selected targets, to cause an effect. Though this was not a new concept, EBO was a new means to apply force in military operations. Over the past decade there has been confusion on what is EBO, its capabilities and necessity. So where does all the confusion come from? Is contention by the service components regarding EBO just petty semantics or obstructionist in-fighting over a "rice bowl"? The divisive interservice politics of EBO is utilized to illuminate certain issues but will not be researched and discussed in great detail for this monograph. It is unlikely that the Army will incorporate the term "EBO," but apparently, effects-based approaches have been, and will continue to be, intertwined within doctrine and tactics for the foreseeable future. Army reticence to adopt even the word "EBO" or embrace it's principles begs the following question: "So what if we don't understand the theory, origins or the actual process, if the Army is implementing portions of EBO effectively, is that not success?" More than tacit incorporation of EBO may be needed, however, given the merits of EBO as a conceptual framework. At the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate (CADD), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, there is a push to rethink the way the Army makes decisions, postulating that a greater understanding of the environment and a complete understanding of the actual "problem" is necessary. This ability to gain a systemic understanding of the environment and developing a theory of action to inform a planning process is encapsulated in the "Art of Design," in which concepts of iterative learning and complex problems are introduced. Although the actual label of EBO may not be incorporated, the concepts and terminology may complement this emergent doctrine. There is confusion and opposition to incorporating an effects based approach into Joint and Army planning doctrine that may be a result of resistance to ideas and concepts associated with, but not part of EBO. For example the Revolution in Military Affairs and the Air Force's interest in understanding the enemy as a system, vulnerable to the employment of precision weapons and discriminate air attack alone are highly controversial and often incorrectly, and unfairly associated with EBO. It is the merits of EBO, not related arguments postulated by EBO proponents that are considered in this monograph.