In response to Global Scout
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
The problem is that military thought (as I have said many times before) is discussed as though spoken by Avril Levene, by randomly using nonsensical, definition free words, phrases and aphorisms like, 4GW, OOTW, Asymmetric (which is really stupid) and now Hybrid Wars.
Rant complete. Guns to rest. Secure from action stations. Systems to stand-by. Listening out. :wry:
Cognoscente of Global Scouts assertion that I call people stupid, I feel it only right that I draw attention to my actual use of that word.
Based on the quote above, I did say, and also implied that the use of phrases and ideas such as 4GW, OOTW, Asymmetric and Hybrid Wars, was stupid.
Let me clarify and apologise (if required). I do NOT consider anyone here stupid. I do consider the use of such phrases and ideas as "Not Useful" and that they may even harm understanding. (and I submit that 4GW has done harm) - but the use of language is critical in military thought, and I sometime use it as stupidly as everyone else.
I understand that Frank Hoffman coined "Hybrid Wars" and Frank is a good friend, whom I very much respect, so I would never call him stupid - but I don't agree with him on many things. The use of this terminology is one.
I think that's why some seem to have a problem
with life and war today and wish -- quite wrongly, IMO -- to return to the 1988 version of the Army... ;)
Quote:
...I think stability operations is now a phase in the joint pub after achieving dominance? It also realizes that the battlespace is not contiguous, so like the three block war (at a much larger level) it anticipates doing all operations simultaneously. Not sure that makes teh DOTMLPF outputs any easier though.
It makes them a lot more difficult -- and makes training more difficult -- and expensive. That means fewer toys...
It means more work...
It means changing the way one thinks...
Thank you and GS for adding some good and thoughtful comments to an odd thread. :wry:
Let me clarify that I meant odd only in the
sense that it somehow got politicized (military and other) or off track in several directions on occasion. The basic premise was a good and fair question and there are some good comments. I contributed mightily to oddness by getting in off thread jabber answering Rank Amateur's ad copy political interjections, a failing of mine I should resist but alas, cannot... :wry:
After re-reading the whole thread, I get back to two things I said earlier:
"No statement pertaining to warfare is ever completely accurate. War is too chaotic to codify and define precisely. We can have fun trying but we will not succeed."
"Irregular Warfare (and / or other types of warfare) and Stability Operations may be simultaneously conducted. Or they may not be. Or there may be a time phased melding. I believe that METT-TC applies in that determination..."
References and Distinctions
All,
IMO it is beneficial to regularly discuss and examine terminology and concepts if for no other reason than it furthers the education of those involved. I note that Clausewitz was said to have characterized Jomini as 'narrow, simplistic, and superficial' yet I have learned a thing of two from both of them despite (or because of) their different styles and focuses. Liddell Hart has some interesting points as well on this subject of conventional/regular warfare (steady G.S., steady) and irregular/civil/religious warfare that all of us here study and participate in to one extent or another.
With regard to mathematics and associated models, I must respectfully dissent as to some previously made statements about their applicability to the study of warfare. There are things that cannot be adequately described without the use of mathematics and at a certain point mathematical models are simply the most accurate and appropriate way to describe things....the problem, I find, is often found in the initial assumptions made and then later in attempting to translate back and forth between the world of deeds, words, and math. Operations research is an interesting discipline which militaries seem to devote resources to.
This is not to say that such models are a cure-all and the only way to 'truth'. For those of you interested in a non-mathematical book on quantitative financial models and their limitations I just finished off Fooled by Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Taleb (ISBN 978-0-8129-7521-5) and found it to be a fun and fast read and a reminder about the limits of what we think that we know.
So back to definitions. I would like to solicit opinion as to whether the following (Bloomberg on the US Economy and its current potential for crisis given the actions of the Federal Reserve with regards to Bear Stearns) link describes the effects/responses of/to irregular/economic warfare or is this just a self inflicted wound?