A COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT
2-1. Urban areas vary depending on their history, the cultures of their inhabitants, their economic development, the local climate, available building materials, and many other factors. This variety exists not
only among urban areas but also within any particular area. The ever-changing mix of natural and manmade features in urban areas present commanders with some of the most difficult terrain in which to
conduct military operations.
2-2. Although urban areas possess similar characteristics, no two are identical. The sprawl of Los Angeles, for example, bears little physical resemblance to New Delhi. Societal characteristics most significantly affect each area’s uniqueness and complexity. While complex, information about the terrain, its potential effects on operations, and how it changes over time may be determined with some degree of certainty. However, the human dimension is much more difficult to understand and assess, particularly its effects on military operations. Like any environment, the side that can best understand and exploit the positive and mitigate the negative effects of the urban environment has the best chance of success.
2-3. Whether a large metropolis or a small village, each urban environment has identifiable components that constantly change and interact. This “system of systems” consists of the terrain, the society, and the infrastructure that links the two (see figure 2-1).
2-4. These systems are not separate and distinct categories, but rather overlapping and interdependent systems, acting dynamically with each other. Thoroughly analyzing these elements, along with the other
factors of mission, enemy, weather, troops and support available, and time—
- Contributes to the accuracy of the commanders’ situational understanding.
- Potentially lessens the number and cost of close combat engagements.
- Allows commanders to develop courses of action that apply appropriate resources against
decisive points.
2-5. In stability operations and civil support operations, this understanding allows commanders to engage
and dominate the decisive points critical to maintaining peace or restoring normalcy to the urban
environment. Although each system is categorized into subordinate components or subsystems, commanders must often “step back” and visualize each system, the complex urban environment, and their area
of operations (AO) as a unified whole. This “systems thinking” aids commanders in uncovering key
relationships and intersections that can help reveal centers of gravity (COGs) and decisive points.
Stranger having took advantage and of parents and events,
Added to Defense bill War Bonds
A COMPLEX ENVIRONMENT
2-1. Urban areas vary depending on their history, the cultures of their inhabitants, their economic development, the local climate, available building materials, and many other factors. This variety exists not
only among urban areas but also within any particular area. The ever-changing mix of natural and manmade features in urban areas present commanders with some of the most difficult terrain in which to
conduct military operations.
2-2. Although urban areas possess similar characteristics, no two are identical. The sprawl of Los Angeles, for example, bears little physical resemblance to New Delhi. Societal characteristics most significantly affect each area’s uniqueness and complexity. While complex, information about the terrain, its potential effects on operations, and how it changes over time may be determined with some degree of certainty. However, the human dimension is much more difficult to understand and assess, particularly its
26 October 2006 FM 3-06 2-1 Chapter 2
effects on military operations. Like any environment, the side that can best understand and exploit the positive and mitigate the negative effects of the urban environment has the best chance of success.
2-3. Whether a large metropolis or a small village, each urban environment has identifiable components that constantly change and interact. This “system of systems” consists of the terrain, the society, and the infrastructure that links the two (see figure 2-1).
2-4. These systems are not separate and distinct categories, but rather overlapping and interdependent systems, acting dynamically with each other. Thoroughly analyzing these elements, along with the other
factors of mission, enemy, weather, troops and support available, and time—
- Contributes to the accuracy of the commanders’ situational understanding.
- Potentially lessens the number and cost of close combat engagements.
- Allows commanders to develop courses of action that apply appropriate resources against decisive points. 2-5. In stability operations and civil support operations, this understanding allows commanders to engage and dominate the decisive points critical to maintaining peace or restoring normalcy to the urban environment. Although each system is categorized into subordinate components or subsystems, commanders must often “step back” and visualize each system, the complex urban environment, and their area of operations (AO) as a unified whole. This “systems thinking” aids commanders in uncovering key relationships and intersections that can help reveal centers of gravity (COGs) and decisive points.
[In the matter of Dr T. W. Dyott’s Estate.]
Sneyd, Peter Y. Calder, and John A. Rowe, but your auditor is not informed that this re-assignment was ever accepted.
Aprinted copy of the said bond, with the assignments, will be found annexed to this report, marked schedule D.
SCHEDULE D.
Know all men by these presents, that I, Thomas W. Dyott, of the city of Philadelphia, Doctor of Medicine, am held and firmly bound unto Stephen Simpson, Samuel S. Sneyd, Peter Y. Calder,
and John A. Rowe, in the sum of $500,000, lawful money of the United States, to be paid to the said Stephen Simpson, Samuel S. Sneyd, Peter Y. Calder, and John A. Rowe, their certain attorney, executors, administrators or assigns ; to which payment well and truly to be made I do bind myself, my heirs, executors, and administrators firmly by these presents, sealed with my seal, dated the 9th day of May 1836.
Whereas the above bounden, Thomas W. Dyott, has already,
and is about to issue his certain promissory notes for the payment of various sums of money on their being presented at his banking- house in the city of Philadelphia, according to the tenor and effect of the said notes. And has already, and is also about to receive and hold on deposit such sums of money as shall be left and de- posited with him at his said banking-house, allowing and paying for the same such interest and on such terms and conditions as
have already and shall hereafter be agreed on with the depositors thereof, and in default thereof execution to be issued and the real
estate of the said Thomas W. Dyott to be forthwith sold, or so much thereof as shall be fully sufficient to pay and satisfy all such notes, deposits, and demands so outstanding and unpaid after de- mand duly made of the said Thomas W. Dyott, according to the tenor and effect of the said notes, and the terms and conditions of
such deposits, and the proceeds of such sales to be applied to the payment of the said notes and deposits with interest as aforesaid,
by the said Stephen Simpson, Samuel S. Sneyd, Peter Y. Calder,
and John A. Rowe, their certain Attorney, executors, administrators or assigns.
Now the condition of this obligation is such, that if the above bounden, Thomas W. Dyott, shall at all times hereafter, pay and discharge all and every the promissory notes made payable by him as aforesaid, and also pay overall and every sum of money deposited with him as aforesaid, according to the terms and conditions of such deposits, and shall in all respects fulfil all the agree- ments, terms, and conditions entered into by him touching or concerning the same, then, and in such case, this obligation to be null and void, otherwise to be and remain to and for the uses and pur- poses aforesaid in full force and effect.
(Signed) T. W. DYOTT, [SEAL] .
Sealed and delivered in the presence of, &c.
II. -59
