Military Theory vs. Philosophy

I have noticed that when it comes to military theorists, the grander and vaguer the theory, the more popular support it receives. Those that focus on small and achievable changes seem to receive very solid resistance. Examples of large and indistinct theories include 4GW, EBO and Maneuver Warfare. Focused theories would be ones like Wilf's patrol based infantry.
Grandiose theories are like vapor and seem to change to conform to the users desires of the moment, perhaps this is why they are popular, but what real and beneficial purpose do they serve? An analogy;, both social service worker’s and philosopher’s goals are to "help" people find spiritual, emotional and metal wellness. Though the goals are related, philosophy has very little impact on how social service providers go about there work. However, small and focused and testable changes (invariably thought of by social service workers themselves) modify and improve of social service providers work on an on-going basis. How many lives have social service providers had a real impact on? How many has Philosophy impacted.
My point is that real benefit comes from focusing on real and testable change, not extravagant theories on the nature of warfare. An example of a testable hypothesis would be that direct and accurate portable HE projection could replace MG in the primary infantry support role. Best platform would be the XM-109 payload rifle with air-fuzed and HEAP rounds. This could be tested through computer simulation, modeling, field testing and historical review etc etc. While all those methods have there weaknesses and biases, they provide more feedback then is achievable is from the "nature of warfare" theories, so why are focusing on these non-productive concepts of 4GW and EBO etc. to define how we fight COIN?
Reed

One of the strengths of higher-end military philosophy is that it is a flexible thing. That flexibility allows it to be adapted as needed to specific situations and/or contexts (if it's done correctly...and this isn't always the case). More fixed concepts such as you describe have their uses (I don't view this as an "either/or" proposition...and I think it's actually dangerous to do so), but they do tend to lend themselves to rigid thinking and a lack of flexibility that can lead to unintended consequences.

You also highlighted one of the main points (although I'm not 100% sure it was intentional): wide theories can be espoused without running the risk of damaging one's little empire because they are so hard to implement. Smaller objectives DO often damage one's little empire, hence the resistance.

It's worth remembering that often those wide-ranging theories provide the framework for small, measurable changes. Trouble occurs when one is mistaken for the other. I'm a believer in the need for a wider framework or basis of understanding, because it tends to help focus some of the smaller tasks or goals. Not for everyone, I understand, but it can be helpful.

Testable is a loaded word in and of itself, because of the bias that can be embedded into the testing and validation process itself. I've seen some really half-assed products come out of an improper historical review, and we all know about "objective field tests" that produce exactly what the evaluators want to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reed11b

I have noticed that when it comes to military theorists, the grander and vaguer the theory, the more popular support it receives. Those that focus on small and achievable changes seem to receive very solid resistance. Examples of large and indistinct theories include 4GW, EBO and Maneuver Warfare. Focused theories would be ones like Wilf's patrol based infantry.

---

Interesting. Never thought of it like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reed11b

I An analogy;, both social service worker’s and philosopher’s goals are to "help" people find spiritual, emotional and metal wellness. Though the goals are related, philosophy has very little impact on how social service providers go about there work. However, small and focused and testable changes (invariably thought of by social service workers themselves) modify and improve of social service providers work on an on-going basis. How many lives have social service providers had a real impact on? How many has Philosophy impacted.

---

I would say that the great flaw of "social work" is that they lack good philosophy. Most "social work" I am aware of has an end result that is counterproductive, with more, not less human suffering. "Social work" without sound philosophical underpinnings lacks "goodness". In fact, I would propose that philosophically, someone who makes their living off of human suffering is evil. So, do you really want to go down that trail???

Quote:

---

My point is that real benefit comes from focusing on real and testable change, not extravagant theories on the nature of warfare. An example of a testable hypothesis would be that direct and accurate portable HE projection could replace MG in the primary infantry support role. Best platform would be the XM-109 payload rifle with air-fuzed and HEAP rounds. This could be tested through computer simulation, modeling, field testing and historical review etc etc. While all those methods have there weaknesses and biases, they provide more feedback then is achievable is from the "nature of warfare" theories, so why are focusing on these non-productive concepts of 4GW and EBO etc. to define how we fight COIN?
Reed

---

I don't see how testing gadgets relates to fighting COIN. I would suggest that developing new weapons and systems for COIN is a case of "asking the wrong question."

Have you read Galula yet, on counterinsurgency? If not, do so. If so, read it again.

On the subject of weapons testing, the Achilles tendon of material testing is bad assumptions and poor variable management. The best test I can think of is akin to the old Samsonite vs. Gorilla commercials, only you need to have Joe Snuffy abuse it over a prolonged period of time to REALLY test a weapon.

Here we have the 120mm military testing procedure courtesy of Samsonite and the Gorillas.:D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2ZeI...eature=related

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reed11b

I have noticed that when it comes to military theorists, the grander and vaguer the theory, the more popular support it receives. Those that focus on small and achievable changes seem to receive very solid resistance. Examples of large and indistinct theories include 4GW, EBO and Maneuver Warfare. Focused theories would be ones like Wilf's patrol based infantry.

---

I think it is due to the relevance of the subject matter to popular discourse. Right now, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the (distant) memory of 9/11 peaks peoples' interest in military affairs and national security in general. There is a greater hunger for ideas that make sense of those issues. With a larger audience, any new ideas must have a broader appeal. "Focused theories would be ones like Wilf's patrol based infantry" are not accessible to the layman who gets his "news" and the sum total of his knowledge regarding military affairs from the evening network broadcasts or CNN. You can have the greatest idea ever, but if it does not excite or interest a significant portion of the population, then it is not going anywhere. It needs to be marketable to a large audience in order to for it to be heard among the giant chorus of ideas out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

I don't see how testing gadgets relates to fighting COIN. I would suggest that developing new weapons and systems for COIN is a case of "asking the wrong question."

---

I think you missed the forest for the tree. The point was not that the x-whatever was perfect for COIN, but that it was part of a unit structure, and training reform that was applicable to COIN (and other LIC and HIC for that matter) and thast the contriversial opinion that other systems could replace the venerable MG could be tested. Wilf's concepts could be tested in much the same way. Admittedly all these tests have biases as pointed out by myself and others, but they beat no testing.

As for the whole social service comment, you DO KNOW that I am a PTSD counselor right? Are you trying to set me off?:confused:
Reed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reed11b

I think you missed the forest for the tree. The point was not that the x-whatever was perfect for COIN, but that it was part of a unit structure, and training reform that was applicable to COIN (and other LIC and HIC for that matter) and thast the contriversial opinion that other systems could replace the venerable MG could be tested. Wilf's concepts could be tested in much the same way. Admittedly all these tests have biases as pointed out by myself and others, but they beat no testing.

---

But without a sound philosophy, how do you know what to test?

Quote:

---

As for the whole social service comment, you DO KNOW that I am a PTSD counselor right? Are you trying to set me off?:confused:
Reed

---

Not trying to set you off; I'm trying to stimulate an alternative way of thinking about the issue. Your OP stated this:

Quote:

---

Grandiose theories are like vapor and seem to change to conform to the users desires of the moment, perhaps this is why they are popular, but what real and beneficial purpose do they serve? An analogy;, both social service worker’s and philosopher’s goals are to "help" people find spiritual, emotional and metal wellness. Though the goals are related, philosophy has very little impact on how social service providers go about there work. However, small and focused and testable changes (invariably thought of by social service workers themselves) modify and improve of social service providers work on an on-going basis. How many lives have social service providers had a real impact on? How many has Philosophy impacted.

---

Without writing a dissertation, I disputed your assertion that Philosophers have not had a greater impact than (government) social workers. I haven't dedicated scientific research into it, but I've been a social worker before and have had a little experience with some of the pitfalls of the system.

My experience with social workers has been uniformly poor, and I've come to the conclusion (independent of your post) that most social workers suffer from "thinking errors" and poor philosophical grounding. Typical outcomes including enabling/encouraging/excusing "bad" behaviors, "milking" the system, ego driven "saving the world" syndrome and living vicariously through the misadventures of their "clients".

The worst outcome imo is reserved for the theory that they support and are supported by a bureaucratic system which is designed to crush the life and humanity out of all who encounter it.

I would support a lean system that would "teach a man to fish", but giving fish away pays better....

Theory is just that theory. If it were tested it could be law. That is why it is Einstein's theory of relativity and Newtons law of gravity. There are a whole lot of misconceptions about epistemology floating around.

A good theory is general enough to encompass the problem state it is meant to explain. Read some Thomas Kuhn for more on that topic.

A technique, an empirical study, a method should be testable by real world apparatus in such a way as a specific instance can be proven. The goal though not necessarily rule is to have enough validity to statistically apply that result to other cases. Which is a violation of statistical rules (never extrapolating beyond the data set).

All the other stuff about philosophers and social workers is just dirty water and anti-intellectualism. The empirical evidence of an anecdotal singular case widened to encompass the broader discipline and varieties of culture is a violation of all that scientific method stuff too. It is a ethnocentric trait realized in bias to refute debate rather than extend understanding.

Nobody builds a car all at one time. You build small components, that become bigger components, and then you put those components together and finally you go bankrupt even after you get a huge bail out from the feds.

If you want to discuss theoretical constructs and models of behavior you will have to tease those out separately from anecdotal evidence of techniques.

Why does 3GW, 4GW, and other theories get so much air play? They are generalizable, they are holistic, they can define or describe large patterns of behavior. Flip all of that around to criticize them too. If they were narrow and only defined small things they would be poor theoretical constructs. E=mc2 was great, but Einstein was looking for the greatest theory of all. The one that defined everything. The ultimate general use theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

Theory is just that theory. If it were tested it could be law. That is why it is Einstein's theory of relativity and Newtons law of gravity. There are a whole lot of misconceptions about epistemology floating around.

A good theory is general enough to encompass the problem state it is meant to explain. Read some Thomas Kuhn for more on that topic.

A technique, an empirical study, a method should be testable by real world apparatus in such a way as a specific instance can be proven. The goal though not necessarily rule is to have enough validity to statistically apply that result to other cases. Which is a violation of statistical rules (never extrapolating beyond the data set).

All the other stuff about philosophers and social workers is just dirty water and anti-intellectualism. The empirical evidence of an anecdotal singular case widened to encompass the broader discipline and varieties of culture is a violation of all that scientific method stuff too. It is a ethnocentric trait realized in bias to refute debate rather than extend understanding.

Nobody builds a car all at one time. You build small components, that become bigger components, and then you put those components together and finally you go bankrupt even after you get a huge bail out from the feds.

If you want to discuss theoretical constructs and models of behavior you will have to tease those out separately from anecdotal evidence of techniques.

Why does 3GW, 4GW, and other theories get so much air play? They are generalizable, they are holistic, they can define or describe large patterns of behavior. Flip all of that around to criticize them too. If they were narrow and only defined small things they would be poor theoretical constructs. E=mc2 was great, but Einstein was looking for the greatest theory of all. The one that defined everything. The ultimate general use theory.

---

Selil, is there any chance I could convince you to translate what you just said into dumb grunt? Or at least simplfy down to a paraprofesional level? :confused:
Reed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schmedlap

"Focused theories would be ones like Wilf's patrol based infantry" are not accessible to the layman who gets his "news" and the sum total of his knowledge regarding military affairs from the evening network broadcasts or CNN. You can have the greatest idea ever, but if it does not excite or interest a significant portion of the population, then it is not going anywhere. It needs to be marketable to a large audience in order to for it to be heard among the giant chorus of ideas out there.

---

I think this is very good analysis, how many peopel read Infantry Magazine outside of a select few. Now if Wilf had an agent and renamed it some kind of unique war theory so the Guvmint would have to spend millions on research and get 14 PH'Ds to explain it. He would go down as the greatest living UK Military Theorist known.:wry:

How is Slapout based Warfare proceeding by the way?
Reed:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

All the other stuff about philosophers and social workers is just dirty water and anti-intellectualism. The empirical evidence of an anecdotal singular case widened to encompass the broader discipline and varieties of culture is a violation of all that scientific method stuff too. It is a ethnocentric trait realized in bias to refute debate rather than extend understanding.

---

I would suggest that "The Scientific Method" is just as ethnocentric (that's not the right word for it, really) as Philosophy. Heck, "The Scientific Method" IS a philosophy, in and of itself. :)

I'd also suggest that there is no such thing as "extending understanding". As Science creates new understanding, it simultaneously destroys old understanding, which is then forgotten.

The problem with the dialectic, is that the winner just has the best argument, they are not necessarily "right". I'd be willing to bet money, though, that each and every person who serves as a Social Service Provider, does so for purely selfish reasons. I know that I do, though sometimes it's fun to get on the pedestal and put on the robe and crown.... ;)

This gets back to the original argument, which if I understand it correctly was "Why waste our time on that worthless Philosophy crap, when we can do real things like test more tangible things, like guns and tactics."

To which I STILL answer: In order to get to where you can do "real" things, it helps to HAVE a philosophy, (which you do, whether you admit it or not) and to recognize what that philosophy is. Otherwise, you're doomed to revert to "evil". (For lack of a better word. "Sin" is a good word for it as well, but religious connotations have wasted it's utility)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

I'd also suggest that there is no such thing as "extending understanding". As Science creates new understanding, it simultaneously destroys old understanding, which is then forgotten.

---

I'll take one Popper refutation hypothesis and raise you a pedantic incremental science salutation.

Not all science is the refutation of previous work, and some inquiry is the further proof of concepts or knowledge. As an example we theorized buckyballs, but now can create them. That theory has suggested that there may be other formations of nano-particles. That doesn't mean buckyballs go away upon discovery of other nano particles.

Some science is stepping stones across the river of knowledge rather than a good solid bridge. unfortunately every now and then somebody dynamites the bridge with a remarkable discovery and we are back to incremental science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 120mm

This gets back to the original argument, which if I understand it correctly was "Why waste our time on that worthless Philosophy crap, when we can do real things like test more tangible things, like guns and tactics."

To which I STILL answer: In order to get to where you can do "real" things, it helps to HAVE a philosophy, (which you do, whether you admit it or not) and to recognize what that philosophy is. Otherwise, you're doomed to revert to "evil". (For lack of a better word. "Sin" is a good word for it as well, but religious connotations have wasted it's utility)

---

All elements of society are based on a philosophy of action or thought. Not that dark robes and grey matter stuff people fling around like Chimpanzees at the zoo though. Cultural elements feed how people cognitively consider their relationship to reality. Not to talk to far over my head but symbols and symbolic relationships are the cornerstones of human expression. Thus we get sin and evil and good and bad and differing points of views of what those things mean.

My primary and only interest in symbols are user interfaces for computers and machines where people have expectations and defined roles for symbols. For deeper discussion dig up MarcT.

Gentlemen,

Philosophically it's being piled higher and deeper than I am capable of piling it ;)

Quote:

---

I'd also suggest that there is no such thing as "extending understanding". As Science creates new understanding, it simultaneously destroys old understanding, which is then forgotten.

---

Coming back down to applied science however, I disagree with the above statement. Civil engineering is an everyday example of how Science is built upon/dependent upon the work and understanding of those who went before:

Quote:

---

Egypt (circa 2700–2500 BC) might be considered the first instances of large structure constructions. Other ancient historic civil engineering constructions include the Parthenon by Iktinos in Ancient Greece (447-438 BC), the Appian Way by Roman engineers (c. 312 BC), and the Great Wall of China by General Meng T'ien under orders from Ch'in Emperor Shih Huang Ti (c. 220 BC).[6] The Romans developed civil structures throughout their empire, including especially aqueducts, insulae, harbours, bridges, dams and roads.

---

Best,

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reed11b

How is Slapout based Warfare proceeding by the way?
Reed:eek:

---

Oh this will take years of developement:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reed11b

Wilf's concepts could be tested in much the same way. Admittedly all these tests have biases as pointed out by myself and others, but they beat no testing.

---

Actually in a lot of cases, the testing has been done. My concern is why the results of testing are often ignored. For example, the method of platoon attacks which I adhere to has been shown to be 70% faster and 23% less costly. UK looked at the test results and didn't like them, so forgot them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by slapout9

I think this is very good analysis, how many peopel read Infantry Magazine outside of a select few. Now if Wilf had an agent and renamed it some kind of unique war theory so the Guvmint would have to spend millions on research and get 14 PH'Ds to explain it. He would go down as the greatest living UK Military Theorist known.:wry:

---

Errr... well the absence of good or even original ideas would hopefully disqualify me, but I think if say nothing definite, and alter the meaning of words and care less about the practical application, I might make more progress!!


...but actually, I couldn't care less about promoting me. I tend to promote other peoples good ideas, and I'd like the ideas to get an airing rather than people get obsessed with the messenger. Would Boyd be as highly regarded if he was a civilian analyst?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by selil

I'll take one Popper refutation hypothesis and raise you a pedantic incremental science salutation.

Not all science is the refutation of previous work, and some inquiry is the further proof of concepts or knowledge. As an example we theorized buckyballs, but now can create them. That theory has suggested that there may be other formations of nano-particles. That doesn't mean buckyballs go away upon discovery of other nano particles.

Some science is stepping stones across the river of knowledge rather than a good solid bridge. unfortunately every now and then somebody dynamites the bridge with a remarkable discovery and we are back to incremental science.

---

Very nice! The question I have is "where do refuted theories go, when they die?" And you of course are correct here.

Quote:

---

All elements of society are based on a philosophy of action or thought. Not that dark robes and grey matter stuff people fling around like Chimpanzees at the zoo though. Cultural elements feed how people cognitively consider their relationship to reality. Not to talk to far over my head but symbols and symbolic relationships are the cornerstones of human expression. Thus we get sin and evil and good and bad and differing points of views of what those things mean.

My primary and only interest in symbols are user interfaces for computers and machines where people have expectations and defined roles for symbols. For deeper discussion dig up MarcT.

---

I agree, but lack the organized thought right now to do so succinctly. My problem with "Military Philosophy" is that it often does not reflect the actual, pre-existing unstated philosophy, or even capabilities of military organizations. I think this could bear more examination, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

Actually in a lot of cases, the testing has been done. My concern is why the results of testing are often ignored. For example, the method of platoon attacks which I adhere to has been shown to be 70% faster and 23% less costly. UK looked at the test results and didn't like them, so forgot them.

---

I'd guess that the technical superiority exposed by the testing was not relevant to the cultural mind-set of those who "looked at" the test results.

I have people all the time attempt to advise/sell me on things that are good for me, but I reject them, because those things don't fit into my own set of goals. My guess is that they viewed your ideas in this manner.

Maybe you need a cultural advisor...:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by reed11b

I have noticed that when it comes to military theorists, the grander and vaguer the theory, the more popular support it receives. Those that focus on small and achievable changes seem to receive very solid resistance. Examples of large and indistinct theories include 4GW, EBO and Maneuver Warfare. Focused theories would be ones like Wilf's patrol based infantry.
Grandiose theories are like vapor and seem to change to conform to the users desires of the moment, perhaps this is why they are popular, but what real and beneficial purpose do they serve?

---

I consider this as a wrong impression.

Many factors provoke such an impression:

1) No really good AND war-proven new strategical, operational or tactical concepts float around as theory. That's the real shortcoming.
There wasn't much improvement since WW2 and the examples of good theory that succeeded are long since accepted as practice.
(The military art & science of 2008 feels like 1913 to me.)

2) The grandiose concepts like Maneuver Warfare, EBO, 4GW face huge resistance, albeit that resistance can be judged as too small by those who dislike these concepts.

3) 'Small' concepts are often highly technical and not easily accessible by a large audience.

4) 'Large concepts' often address very widespread deficiencies. Maneuver warfare was a counterweight to an excessive belief in firepower, for example. Their usefulness can be seen in opening the eyes of the interested audience for previously ignored aspects. Such large concepts like Maneuver Warfare don't need to be helpful tools when an officer plans an operation - they rather shape his military intellect.

- - - - -

Large concepts can easily be superior to focused concepts.

Imagine this; someone designs a recon-strike complex of counter-artillery radars, aerial SAR/GMTI radars, SatCom and guided MLRS. The complex is able to detect firing artillery, identify it, track its redeployment and initiate the precision counterfire once the target is in its new location.
That would be a focused concept if I understood you correctly.

Now recall the large and non-focused concept of 'Maskirovka' and CCD.
There are hundreds of wicked ways how to de-value such a complex.

What's more important?
To train an officer to be aware of CCD potential for his own and for opposing forces or is it more important to teach him schematics about the tactical employment of hardware?

I bet you'd prefer to teach him both.