Talk:Intent (military)

Initial assessment
I've assessed this article as being start class as it is has been written for a fairly specialised audience and is not accessible for more general readers. It would greatly benefit from the addition of an introductory section explaining what the concept of 'intent' is in plain English, and it would be helpful if the rest of the article could also be translated into plain English. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Antigoals are meaningful when to clarify alternatives action plans and what the resulting outcome might be. Antigoals are described in the same way as End State with the difference in that antigoals describe the unwanted outcome. In the surveyed doctrinal descriptions of Intent antigoals were not mentioned. Antigoals belong to the intent outcome." - I'm reasonably intelligent, and so I'm not going to help rewrite the article, because it would be a thankless task. Good luck to whoever has a go! -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Having read the British Army document - it seems that "Intent" in the Army means much the same as it does to a civilian. If you were to say "Wellington's intent was to draw up his force on the road to Brussels and stop the French army's advance." you wouldn't bother wikilinking intent. I think we could do worse than put it up for AfD. Might get it moved to wikitionary. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Change soft redirect to hard redirect?
I believe that this article would be better if it were a redirect to Military strategy, but I want to gauge consensus. Andrew327 01:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Restore previous content
I reverted the page to it's contents as an article. I actually came here looking to learn about the military concept of Intent. The Wiktionary entry does even define what Intent means in a military context. The lead paragraph should be simplified as it is a giant blob of jargon but much of the later material is quite readable to a non military person such as myself.

The article meets the standards for inclusion in wikipedia. It is a specific and important military idea so it noteworthy in its context and it is well referenced.

Bobprime (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)