Elephants may not respond, neanderthals will...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jik K
... I also believe that the proponents of MW recognised this and sought to promote a change in the cultural environment that would facilitate a flexibility of operational and tactical response that would be required in a changing operational environment – a culture built upon what Boyd termed the principles of the blitzkrieg:
• Without focus and direction (Schwerpunkt) at all levels, people will not know what to do
• Without mission responsibilities (Auftrag), people will not take the initiative
• Without intuitive competence (Fingerspitzengefühl), people will not spot mismatches
• Without mutual trust (Einheit), there is no moral force to put group goals above individuals’
In seeking to promote such a change they sought to establish a doctrine, i.e. a mutually understandable language, in which to express their ideas, and, whatever its admitted limitations, the vehicle they chose to express the difference between the current culture and its preferred model was the generational one, i.e. current meme of the US Armed Forces is second generation.
Yes they did seek to promote such a change -- but they didn't do it very well. Attack the elephants verbally as being too large and a huge Bull will just totally ignore you...
They were and are some smart guys but in their sales pitch, they didn't practice what they preach; they tried a frontal assault on a monolith; never a good plan.
As to the four bullets you provide, I submit, in order:
- Not true. You just have to train them properly. if you do not all the focus and direction is to no avail. with proper training, they'll innately know what the focus is. I'd also suggest that the word 'direction' was misunderstood (purposely?) by the Bulls to centralize decision making even more -- thus, the salesman by a poor choice of words hampered their own programs.
- Not true, comments above apply almost in totality.
- True, totally true. What is not addressed is how one trains intuitive competence... :) . Some have it, some don't. All the doctrine in the world won't fix that. To select for that I agree very much needed capability one has to say that some people are better than others; anathema to the 'egalitarian and meritocratic' US Armed Forces (and to Congress who fostered DOPMA to make sure those Forces didn't get elitist...
- Also totally true; while moral force is just a term, trust is vitally important in the true sense of vital -- because if Commanders do not trust their subordinates they over supervise and hamstring units. That trust is achieved through good training, it cannot be dictated.
Quote:
...At the same time they seek to illustrate the requirement for a new meme through an exposition of the new operational environment, i.e. the rise of non-state actors as the primary challenge to American/Western national/Geopolitical interests, and express this meme as fourth generation.
I disagree with the generational aspect. First, non-state actors are not new; Thugees, assassins and anarchists all precede the adoption of the generational terminology by centuries. I believe non-state actors are a norm, historically and that the relatively artificial world wide suppression of them induced by the predominance of powerful states in the 1900-1990 period of constraint, particularly the Cold War tamped down the non-state effect temporarily. The end of that era allows the world to return to a more historically normal state of scattered chaos.
The terrible flaw is that the onset of such chaos was predictable (and was predicted), has been broadcast since 1972 or so and was diligently ignored by too many in the corridors of power.
Quote:
...If we take Clausewitz’s trinity of state, people and army and recognise that American military superiority is such that no opponent, state or non-state, could hope to militarily defeat the US, we may recognise that any sensible opponent will aim to strike at one of the other foundations – generally choosing the will of the people to sustain a conflict by extending the war’s longevity whilst avoiding direct confrontation and maximising American expenditure of blood and treasure.
Obviously -- and yet, we utterly ignored that in spite of all evidence to the contrary. While the generations of warfare mantra did a good service in delineating the potential, the poor approach to promulgating the issues allowed it to be ignored.
Quote:
At the same time a profound change has taken place in the attitude to the utility of force in Western civilisation... Even if we can fix our enemy in one place long enough to apply massive firepower to him we become revolted by the mass extermination of our enemies, without even consideration to the moral effect of any collateral damage to the innocent.
True but a fact divorced from the MW / 4GW mantra.
Quote:
Even if we refuse to espouse MW ourselves we must be cognisant that our enemies don’t share this view, as we have seen recently in the Red Sea
Right area, wrong body of water... ;)
Quote:
...The Iranians clearly see something in this MW stuff, and are actively seeking to shape the battlefield by getting us used to them performing a “Crazy Ivan” whilst permitting them to close to within 200m of our vessels, i.e. where no defence is possible to a multiple missile launch...
That's not MW, that's just a common sense METT-T approach using so-called asymmetric warfare. Which in itself is just common sense. Do not attack Bull elephants head on; you've gotta flank 'em.
Quote:
... Where would they get such an idea? Perhaps from an American military exercise conducted several years ago in which a retired Admiral ‘sank’ so many Blue Force ships that the exercise had to be stopped and then restarted because the Red Force was using the ‘wrong’ tactics.
Actually, that was Ol' Paul Van Riper, LTG USMC (Ret) who I knew when he was a Captain advising a Viet Namese Marine Battalion in 1966. He just applied common sense to the problem...
Heh. reminds me of an article in the Naval Institute Proceedings
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TT
...
Once upon a time, in a misty isle far, far away filled with castles (actually I still live there :eek:), I pretty much believed the same thing. But my research and Marines learned me better :wry:.
some years ago wherein a Navy Captain said; "If you enter a Ship allocation conference with the Marines and see these young men with strange haircuts who seem like neanderthals and think they're stupid, you'll discover at the end of the day that not only did they get every hull they wanted where and when they wanted it but that you have also given away the Admiral's Barge and his Daughter" (or words to the effect). :D
I don't reject that at all. Boyd got a lot of things right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stanleywinthrop
As you and many here are not boyd fans i know you'll reject it out of hand, but to quote boyd "War is not fought by equipment or by terrain. It is fought by people--who use their minds."
so have many others.
I was using 'intellectual' as I thought JikK was, in the academic sense. In the pure sense of the word intellectual, as in fighting is a mind over matter effort, of course.
I'd also point out that not only Boyd but Travis McGee in the old John B. MacDonald series said "We can't outfight them, we've got to out think them." Even Mel Gibson in Braveheart said "...You don't fight wi' your back, you fight wi' your mind..."
As JikK also pointed out, Napoleon, the guy who went to Moscow and made, in his last fight, made the mistake of attacking the Brits who excel at defense, said "in War, the moral is to the physical as three is to one."
So John from Erie had no patent on that idea...
Your last paragraph is proof of what you say...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
Knowing how people think is not enough...
. . .
We know that good decisons do not always motivate action--just take a look at many of the so-called intelligence failings of the last century.
We over the last century have produced at various levels a lot of really good intel -- which got short shrift by the decision makers who all too often ignored it and thereby made bad decisions. The few real intel failures got a lot of publicity but their saving grace is that they caught the decision makers unaware and thus, no decision was made... :wry: