Armies are destroyed or defeat by tactics. Wars are won and lost by strategy.
Yes but, all strategy is flawed, so to win at war you always need to keep up with the process, i.e. the OODA loop, and change, i.e. Destruction and Construction (D&C in the context of quantum movement of energy that the OODA loop represents). Strategy give war structure (the machines of war are very good against structure) between both Ends (End,Way, and Means of strategy), but the OODA loop (process) gives strategy its Means to bridge the gap between Observation/Action or Past/Future.
Meanwhile, change (D&C) gives strategy the Way to complete the process.
There is no force in the movement of mass, and when you are talking the OODA loop we are talking the movement of mass.
As Boyd would say: it’s about people stupid (I am paraphrasing here of course).
Mass (people) simply moves from where it has been (the past) to where its volume can (the future). The force developed in Observation only adds the potential of the mass. not direction, i.e. force can move in a different direction (feedforward or feedback) than the mass in a OODA loop.
The mass in the OODA loop has to keep moving forward, as it is able, unless something collapses, such as its Orientation.
An Orientation is a position of advantage in the environment Observed. The Orientation itself doesn’t need to collapse to cause problems, only its position that gives it an advantage.
I mean at the same time you are relying so heavily on strategy, one needs to be able to look at the energy not available in the system and compare it to the energy available, and decide, “how healthy are you?”
Today’s military commanders can do it, because they not only have access to open-source intelligence (OSI) that are able to Observe the flaws in the narrative (its the narrative that strategy uses to build structure with), but military commanders are also able to judge what they are doing, because OSI are able to compare the narrative to a specific time/space in the future/past, and make available the entropy of the system in their judgement, or they are judged by and with the entropy of the system itself.