Page 40 of 47 FirstFirst ... 303839404142 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 800 of 934

Thread: The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

  1. #781
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Backwards Observer View Post
    Agreed.

    In a war of ideas, how would you categorise "the idea"?
    I'd go back to Clausewitz's definition of war - essentially an act of violence to compel an enemy to do our will. Therefore, a "war" which consists solely of opposing ideas isn't really a "war."
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  2. #782
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    CvC on proper Strategic Analysis: highlights are my own. Ends,Ways and Means are only half a Strategy, it completely overlooks the Human element of the motive for War. It is the Human element that always beats America...you would think we would have learned that by now.

    "If you want to overcome your enemy you must match your effort against his power of resistance,which can be expressed as the product of two inseparable factors,viz. The total means at his disposal and the strength of his will. The extent of the means at his disposal is a matter-though not exclusively-of figures,and should be measurable. But the strength of his will is much less easy to determine and can only be gaged approximately by the strength of the motive animating it."
    Absolutely. There are numerous factors that (should) influence strategy, and human/cultural factors are definitely important. The Ends/Ways/Means framework, while central to strategy development, certainly does not encompass the totality of a strategy.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  3. #783
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default A bit off CvC, but since the points were raised...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Did you miss OIF, subsidies to Musharraf's Pakistan and the support to Ethiopia for invading Somalia???
    I didn't miss OIF, just referred to it as "Iraq", which I thought sufficiently obvious. I didn't claim that US intervention had ceased, only that it has been scaled back from its Cold War peak.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Fuchs, to find a better list of our "tinpot dictators" Google foreign fighters and the states that they come from to find the ones with Muslim connections.
    Actually foreign fighter sources don't correlate very well with dictators installed or sustained by the US. Libya and Syria provide large numbers of foreign fighters, and they have some of the tinniest tinpot dictators around, but those dictators were not installed by the US and are not sustained or supported by the US. The Saudi Government was not installed by the US, receives no US aid, and is in no way dependent on the US.

    There's a world of difference between dealing with pre-existing independent autocracies, as we do in China, Uzbekistan, Saudia Arabia, the Gulf States, and many other places, and directly interfering in local political processes to install and preserve autocrats who answer to us and serve our interests, which was our favored MO during the Cold War.

    If you're going to maintain that US interference in the domestic affairs of other countries has increased since the Cold War, that really needs to be supported by some evidence, since it's anything but clear. In much of the world, in fact, the trend seems to be quite the opposite.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Friendly dictators used to be a great tool, but in the current and emerging globalized environment it really carries more baggage than goodness.
    Very true, but just because there are dictators, friendly or otherwise, doesn't mean they are our tools or our responsibilities. During the Cold War we got used to assuming that any dictator who was nominally on our side was our creation and our tool (even though in fact we often ended up being their tools), and that perception has carried over. It's often not valid. We do ourselves no favors by trying to impose a Cold War paradigm where it doesn't fit, or by squeezing ground truth into a model rather than adjusting the model to deal with varying ground truths.

  4. #784
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Not imaginary. It's use just just delineates the informed student from the uninformed, once they are aware of the argument.
    My mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    There was simply no such thing as "blitzkrieg tactics".
    I was under the impression that when one uses the words "no such thing as" that it was equivalent with "imaginary."

    As an example,

    "There is simply no such thing as Santa Clause."
    "Santa Clause is imaginary."

    Well, Santa Clause is REAL! And so is blitzkrieg!

    Merry Christmas!
    Last edited by M.L.; 12-17-2010 at 02:30 AM.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  5. #785
    Council Member Backwards Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    Therefore, a "war" which consists solely of opposing ideas isn't really a "war."
    That's a relief. Thanks for the reply. Frohe Weihnachten.

  6. #786
    Council Member Infanteer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    Well, Santa Clause is REAL!
    WHAT!?!



    So are his presents the means, or is it the delivery of said presents that constitutes the means?

  7. #787
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    "war of ideas" is a misnomer.

    Was the "idea" of Nazisim the problem in WWII?
    Was the "idea" of Communism the problem in the Cold War?
    Is the "idea" of Islamism the problem today?

    .
    I don't quite agree with the above. Are you talking about "ideas" per se or "ideology"? Ideologies are very important. The "idea" that they are and that there are purely material causes to conflict ignores how one comes to understand/comprehend those causes in the first place. Ultimately, Ideas (relatively free floating concepts) or ideologies (codified systems of thought/dogma) are fundamental to understanding intentions. We don't interpret the world outside of ideology or thought systems or culture. A stream may be a flowing source of fresh water to one group of people (and thuse a natural resource to be exploited) and a living avatar of the mountain god to another. Acknowledgement of it in the former sense doesn't really help us in tackling the problem that one tribe seems to have inadvertendly decalred war on another by taking water/eseence from the stream. Two different sets of peoples may exist in the same material environment but because of their cultural predispositions or their ruling ideology (they may well be alternatives) we intepret and therefore act upon their situation differently. American's have a view of the world which though they find perfectly normal (and thus non-ideological) and the rest of us don't (we have our own normalised/ideological views of the world and vice versa; free-world anyone? Different stata of society and in/out groups will also have their ideologies as will ruling classes/elites, etc. The world simply isn't value-nuetral or non-ideological in anything other than the brute physical sense of "this is something solid in my hand" one associated with physics or natural science.

    The fact that we have a global Islmist insrugency is because
    Firstly) it defines all Muslims as Muslims and as a Supra-state entity (the Ummah), thereby helping to internationalise local conflicts (which may well be nothing to do with Islam) much like Catholicism did in the early modern period,
    Secondly) it provides an insturmental and explanatory framework/narrative within which to situate their identites ("British" muslims can empathises with Muslims in suffering in Palestine) and,
    Thirdly), it is the basis for that interpretation in the first place.

    It's easy for us in our ideologically relativist countries ("the west" if you like, though itself an ideological construct) to think that we don't think ideologically (when we do). Part of the problme resides in our rationalist propensity to divide life into distinct realms when in actual fact fact it's all inter-related. Ideas are not separable from actions, motives or historical events (a la Collingwood)
    Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 12-17-2010 at 10:12 AM. Reason: Forget it! Can't find the references I need to illustrate

  8. #788
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    The fact that we have a global Islmist insrugency is because...
    When did this become "fact"?

    I'm not sure it's possible to have a "global insurgency" without stretching the definition of insurgency beyond the breaking point, nor am I convinced that there is a "global" conflict of any sort currently in progress.

  9. #789
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    WHAT!?!



    So are his presents the means, or is it the delivery of said presents that constitutes the means?
    I would say this:

    Ends: Nice Children rewarded / naughty children punished
    Ways: Deliver gifts to nice children/coal to naughty children via night air assaults
    Means: Sleigh/reindeer, elf army, north pole strategic force projection base.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  10. #790
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
    I don't quite agree with the above. Are you talking about "ideas" per se or "ideology"? Ideologies are very important. The "idea" that they are and that there are purely material causes to conflict ignores how one comes to understand/comprehend those causes in the first place. Ultimately, Ideas (relatively free floating concepts) or ideologies (codified systems of thought/dogma) are fundamental to understanding intentions. We don't interpret the world outside of ideology or thought systems or culture. A stream may be a flowing source of fresh water to one group of people (and thuse a natural resource to be exploited) and a living avatar of the mountain god to another. Acknowledgement of it in the former sense doesn't really help us in tackling the problem that one tribe seems to have inadvertendly decalred war on another by taking water/essence from the stream. Two different sets of peoples may exist in the same material environment but because of their cultural predispositions or their ruling ideology (they may well be alternatives) we interpret and therefore act upon their situation differently. American's have a view of the world which though they find perfectly normal (and thus non-ideological) and the rest of us don't (we have our own normalized/ideological views of the world and vice versa; free-world anyone? Different stata of society and in/out groups will also have their ideologies as will ruling classes/elites, etc. The world simply isn't value-nuetral or non-ideological in anything other than the brute physical sense of "this is something solid in my hand" one associated with physics or natural science.

    The fact that we have a global Islmist insurgency is because
    Firstly) it defines all Muslims as Muslims and as a Supra-state entity (the Ummah), thereby helping to internationalise local conflicts (which may well be nothing to do with Islam) much like Catholicism did in the early modern period,
    Secondly) it provides an insturmental and explanatory framework/narrative within which to situate their identites ("British" Muslims can empathizes with Muslims in suffering in Palestine) and,
    Thirdly), it is the basis for that interpretation in the first place.

    It's easy for us in our ideologically relativist countries ("the west" if you like, though itself an ideological construct) to think that we don't think ideologically (when we do). Part of the problem resides in our rationalist propensity to divide life into distinct realms when in actual fact fact it's all inter-related. Ideas are not separable from actions, motives or historical events (a la Collingwood)
    No, I'm simply saying that ideology is not the overarching bogeyman it is made out to be.

    Catholics in N. Ireland did/do not resist English occupation because Irish tend to be Catholic and English tend to be Protestant; but it makes a handy label that diverts attention away from the political nature of the conflict for the state.

    "ideology" of communism was used to help move forward the "idea" of liberty from European colonialism in many countries. It wasn't communism that caused the problem, it was the presence of illegitimate foreign/foreign created governance.

    We see much the same today with Islamism. It is a handy devise for a certain family of populaces with similar political issues to take on where legal means of challenging those political issues are limited at best.

    Its nice to be able to blame one's problems on others. Addicts of all sort do this with a skill of rationalization that blinds them to how they are lying to themselves and everyone around them. They become delusional, and it is only when they have that "face down in the gutter, come to Jesus" moment of how F'd up they are that true healing can begin. This is why one of the first steps of the 12-step program is the admission of responsibility for the problem.

    Every government faced with insurgency should begin with a 12-step program; in fact, a session at all of these large summit meetings should be held in the basement of a church or community center, with world leaders sitting humbly in a circle on hard plastic chairs as they take turns recounting their problems and struggles to overcome them.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  11. #791
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    No, I'm simply saying that ideology is not the overarching bogeyman it is made out to be.

    Catholics in N. Ireland did/do not resist English occupation because Irish tend to be Catholic and English tend to be Protestant; but it makes a handy label that diverts attention away from the political nature of the conflict for the state.

    "ideology" of communism was used to help move forward the "idea" of liberty from European colonialism in many countries. It wasn't communism that caused the problem, it was the presence of illegitimate foreign/foreign created governance.

    We see much the same today with Islamism. It is a handy devise for a certain family of populaces with similar political issues to take on where legal means of challenging those political issues are limited at best.

    Its nice to be able to blame one's problems on others. Addicts of all sort do this with a skill of rationalization that blinds them to how they are lying to themselves and everyone around them. They become delusional, and it is only when they have that "face down in the gutter, come to Jesus" moment of how F'd up they are that true healing can begin. This is why one of the first steps of the 12-step program is the admission of responsibility for the problem.

    Every government faced with insurgency should begin with a 12-step program; in fact, a session at all of these large summit meetings should be held in the basement of a church or community center, with world leaders sitting humbly in a circle on hard plastic chairs as they take turns recounting their problems and struggles to overcome them.

    OK. I see where you're comming from. I think the kind of instrumental ideology you are talking about is often refered to by Marxists as false conscousness or nystification. What I'm trying to get at is something deeper and more constitutive. When Stalin was approached by the Allies to reinstate the Collective Security pact he shrugged it off and went for the Nazi's instead (who were ideologically predisposed toward hating the Bolsheviks more than the "Western" Allies). How do we explain that through pure materialism? According to one kind of non-ideological/idea centric conception (structural realism) Stalin's "real" interests should have been to join the Allies and balance against Nazism. He didn't. So Ideas, or what he was thinking (his biases if you will) are imortant factors as is the background knowledge to which they refered. Stalin's reasoning was that the capitalist powers (of which Fascist/Nazi germany was the most aggressive) wanted the Soviet Union (their natural enemy) to be dragged into a war with nazism (the highest stage of capitalism) to weaken the USSR. Stalin thought, why the hell do I want to do that. Better to let the advanced capitalist state (Germany) fight the lesser capitalist states and let them exhaust each other to the death or one will win (germany) which will then be so weakened that it too will be unable to stop the eventual triumph of communism. Either way we (the USSR) stay out of it until a more propitious time so, yeah, lets make our bed with Hitler, its better for us. (This is not the famous ICEBREAKER thesis by the way, that;'s a purely military hypothesis that sought to argue wether the USSR was preparing to invade Germany...they were but only after what they assumed would be a war of exhuastion between the Nazis and the "Allies". (See Albert Weeks's Stalin's Other War or read the review here);
    To conclude that ideology was readily disposable, meaningless, or otherwise irrelevant to Soviet policy making, especially as concerned the global arena and long-standing Leninist revolutionary goals, is unrealistic, unhistorical and inaaplicable. For the Soviet regime, its ideological underpinnings were fundamental. It is no exageration to say, one must think, that, to use the Soviet expression, ideology served as the Soviet regime's "lodestar". (p. 2 from the book)
    Now, assuming Stalin (or Muslims) would actually get into a church you assume that we all share the same understanding/interpreation of "reality" (which isn't neutral) and that we can all be set free from our mind forged manacles to see reality as it really is (only we can't because reality depends upon one's point of view/culture/ideology [in the non-instrumentalist socially constructive sense]). Berger and Luckmann have a pretty good go at expalining that kind of stuff here
    Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 12-17-2010 at 05:44 PM.

  12. #792
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Interesting passage from Brassey's encyclopedia of land forces and warfare By Franklin D. Margiotta:

    "[Carl von Clausewitz] introduces the term campaign on the strategic level because he needs a military operation between "engagement" and "war" since the distance in time, space, and force is too great between the two.

    One can justifiably argue that Clausewitz sometimes reached the conclusion that there should be a third military level between strategy and tactics, but he did not define a new one expressly below strategy."

    As I have said before, the operational level of warfare was born, though not matured, in the Napoleonic period. Clausewitz, writing On War as more or less an "After Action Review" of the Napoleonic period, recognized this nascent concept. However, it wasn't until WWI, when the need to coordinate vast armies, as well as synchronize combined arms tactics, did the operational level truly come into its own.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  13. #793
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    One can justifiably argue that Clausewitz sometimes reached the conclusion that there should be a third military level between strategy and tactics, but he did not define a new one expressly below strategy."
    CvC said somewhere(can't remember which book) that the connection between Strategy and Tactics is Marching! Remember Strategy is choosing the right point,the right time,and the right force. You march to the right point, at the right time, with the right force in order to engage the enemy with Tactics.

  14. #794
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    CvC said somewhere(can't remember which book) that the connection between Strategy and Tactics is Marching! Remember Strategy is choosing the right point,the right time,and the right force. You march to the right point, at the right time, with the right force in order to engage the enemy with Tactics.
    I cannot remember that he did say that, but that is largely correct. A campaign/operation merely ensures that tactics take place in the time and place relevant to the strategy.

    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    "[Carl von Clausewitz] introduces the term campaign on the strategic level because he needs a military operation between "engagement" and "war" since the distance in time, space, and force is too great between the two.
    This is not correct. Campaign does not sit between Strategy and tactics.
    However, it wasn't until WWI, when the need to coordinate vast armies, as well as synchronize combined arms tactics, did the operational level truly come into its own.
    Not true. The British had no concept even close to "the operational level," and they did the majority of the effective fighting in 1918. Indeed they never even talked about "operational level" until they copied the US in the 1980s.

    Why does anyone want to put a level between Strategy and Tactics? Why complicate something with a falsehood?

    The Operational Level is a sophistry invented by men unable to comprehend the basics. The conduct of Operations, does not make for an "Operational level" because all levels of command conduct operations!
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  15. #795
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default In answer to ...

    this question:

    from Wilf
    Why does anyone want to put a level between Strategy and Tactics?
    from THE U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE GUIDE TO NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES VOLUME I: THEORY OF WAR AND STRATEGY. 4th Edition, J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr., Editor, July 2010 (p.13; p.21 pdf):

    CHAPTER 2
    A SURVEY OF THE THEORY OF STRATEGY
    J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr.

    A common language is both the product of and basis of any effective theory; people conversant in the theory habitually use words in the same way to mean the same thing. Such meanings may be unique to the theoretical context even if the word has other non-theoretical usages. Thus, the word "passion" used in a Christian context has an entirely different meaning than in secular usage. Similarly, doctrinal military terms, while hopefully used consistently by military individuals and organizations, may differ slightly (or even radically) in common usage. Strategy is such a word. Defining it is not as easy as one would think, and the definition is critical.

    Part of the problem is that our understanding of strategy has changed over the years. The word has a military heritage, and classic theory considered it a purely wartime military activity—how generals employed their forces to win wars. In the classic usage, strategy was military maneuvers to get to a battlefield, and tactics took over once the forces were engaged. That purely military concept has given way to a more inclusive interpretation. The result is at least threefold: 1) Strategists generally insist that their art includes not only the traditional military element of power but also other elements of power like politics and economics. Most would also accept a peacetime as well as a wartime role for strategy. 2) With increased inclusiveness the word strategy became available outside the military context and is now used in a variety of disciplines ranging from business to medicine and even sports. 3) As the concept mutated, the military had to invent another term—the U.S. settled on operations or operational art—to describe the high-level military art that had once been strategy.[1]

    1. See Hew Strachan, “The Lost Meaning of Strategy,” Survival, Vol. 47, No. 3, Autumn, 2005, pp. 33-54.
    Both CvC and Jomini (both used "operations" as a key element of their strategic teaching) are rejected as being too military only and theater-specific (pp.13-14 of above text):

    Clausewitz wrote,

    “Strategy is the use of the engagement for the purpose of the war. The strategist must therefore define an aim for the entire operational side of the war that will be in accordance with its purpose. In other words, he will draft the plan of the war, and the aim will determine the series of actions intended to achieve it: he will, in fact, shape the individual campaigns and, within these, decide on the individual engagements.”[2]
    Because this is a classic definition, it is not satisfactory—it deals only with the military element and is at the operational level rather than the strategic. What Clausewitz described is really the development of a theater or campaign strategy. Historian Jay Luvaas used to say that because Clausewitz said something did not necessarily make it true, but did make it worth considering. In this case we can consider and then ignore Clausewitz.

    The Nineteenth Century Swiss soldier and theorist Antoine Henri Jomini had his own definition.

    Strategy is the art of making war upon the map, and comprehends the whole theater of war. Grand Tactics is the art of posting troops upon the battle-field according to the accidents of the ground, of bringing them into action, and the art of fighting upon the ground, in contradiction to planning upon a map. Its operations may extend over a field of ten or twelve miles in extent. Logistics comprises the means and arrangements which work out the plans of strategy and tactics. Strategy decides where to act; logistics brings the troops to this point; grand tactics decides the manner of execution and the employment of the troops.[3]
    This again is military only and theater-specific.

    2. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret, eds./trans., Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976, p. 177.

    3. Antoine Henri Baron de Jomini, The Art of War, G. H. Mendell and W. P. Craighill, trans., 1862, reprint, The West Point Military Library Series, Thomas E. Griess and Jay Luvass, eds., Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1971, p. 62.
    So, the reasion why the "operational level" was introduced was not because the changers were "unable to comprehend the basics". They knew exactly what both CvC and Jomini said - it's quoted above by Bartholomees. The reasons are the two he sets out above and which I requote:

    1) Strategists generally insist that their art includes not only the traditional military element of power but also other elements of power like politics and economics. Most would also accept a peacetime as well as a wartime role for strategy. 2) With increased inclusiveness the word strategy became available outside the military context and is now used in a variety of disciplines ranging from business to medicine and even sports.
    And an interesting thought from David Betz (at this KoW post, The State of Strategy) re: the result of this switcheroo:

    David Betz 25 May 2010 at 08:26
    Not just you, no; I was struck by a similar thought. If you look at Thomas’s list of old Europe strategists they’re all military up to Engels and Lenin. With the Americans it’s military up to Wohlstetter. ‘Applied strategy’. After that it’s much more civilian and abstract. Strachan talks about this in his series of articles in Survival about strategy starting with ‘The Lost Meaning of Strategy’. The bottom-line seems to be that during century 20 for a number of reasons (but most significantly because of nukes) strategy came to be something ‘practiced’ in the main by civilian academics; the military meanwhile became more or less completely focussed on their ‘operational art’–moving brigades around on a map. So who does ‘strategy’ now? The military? Well, not so much. The politicians? One suspects not. Which leads to the unsettling suspicion that the answer is no one. Which kind of makes sense when you look at the state we’re in.....
    The best answer that I've seen (so far) as to why there is an "operational level of war".

    Cheers

    Mike

    PS: So far, 1891 Bigelow, The Principles of Strategy (previously linked to Google Books) is an interesting read - lots of Jominian-CvC "operations" viewed with US military vignettes.

  16. #796
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Marches,Combat, and Strategy

    From Book 2-Chapter 1, the J.J.Grahm edition copied from The Clausewitz Homepage. Bold section is added.


    "Marches are quite identical with the use of the troops. March in the combat, generally called evolution, is certainly not properly the use of weapons; but it is so completely and necessarily combined with it, that it forms an integral part of that which we call a combat. But the march outside the combat is nothing but the execution of a strategic measure. By the strategic plan is settled, When, where, and with what forces a battle is to be delivered?—and to carry that into execution the march is the only means"

    From Book 3-Chapter 8,same source as above. Strategy as a Triple determination.

    "Strategy fixes the point where, the time when, and the numerical force with which the battle is to be fought. By this triple determination it has therefore a very essential influence on the issue of the combat."
    Last edited by slapout9; 12-18-2010 at 12:22 PM. Reason: add stuff

  17. #797
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    1) Strategists generally insist that their art includes not only the traditional military element of power but also other elements of power like politics and economics. Most would also accept a peacetime as well as a wartime role for strategy.
    2) With increased inclusiveness the word strategy became available outside the military context and is now used in a variety of disciplines ranging from business to medicine and even sports.
    Sorry, this is garbage. Strategy has always included all instruments of power, but strategy also assumes an opponent, and is always under pinned by the use of force. So strategy only applies in peace, if you are prepared to use force.

    That folks in Sport or medicine, use the word "strategy" is utterly irrelevant to any argument in this area.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  18. #798
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Gents, this is getting somewhat pedantic. Let me clarify.

    a.) Is Strategy the link between Policy and Tactics? YES/NO
    b.) Is that commonly/usefully expressed as "Ends Ways and Means." YES/NO

    Colin S. Gray (and many others) calls Policy, Strategy and Tactics, "The Strategy Triad."

    Essentially the counter argument (ML) says, as Means is Logistics/Resources, Ends Ways and Means is not an expression of the triad. It's something different. Strategy is Policy, Strategy, and Logistics.

    I didn't make this up. I was taught it. It is the main stream view amongst those who know what strategy actually is. It's in the books. IF you think something different, then write an article on any length you requires, arguing that statement A is not connected to Statement B, and I'll get it published in Infinity Journal, and we can see who wants to rebut the argument, in addition to myself!
    Quote Originally Posted by M.L. View Post
    Seems it has already happened:

    "Professor Eliot Cohen has provided a thoughtful outline for strategy. He starts with the requirement to make assumptions about the environment and the problem. Once the strategist has stated his assumptions, then he can consider the ends (goals), ways (the how) and means (resources) triangle." (Emphasis added)

    - COL (Ret.) TX Hammes, USMC, "Assumptions – A Fatal Oversight"
    Article 1, Issue 1 of Infinity Journal
    http://www.infinityjournal.com/artic...atal_Oversight
    Mr. Owen,

    I noticed you declined to reply to my answer to your above challenge.

    Care to comment?
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  19. #799
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    CvC said somewhere(can't remember which book) that the connection between Strategy and Tactics is Marching! Remember Strategy is choosing the right point,the right time,and the right force. You march to the right point, at the right time, with the right force in order to engage the enemy with Tactics.
    One of the tenets of operational warfare is determining lines of operation. In the Napoleonic period, this was quite literally marching, since that is how armies largely moved to and fro. So, it is natural that marching would figure prominently in CvC's conception of campaigning.

    Obviously, this concept of lines of operation evolved in later conflicts as marching became less central to the battlefield.
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

  20. #800
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    A campaign/operation merely ensures that tactics take place in the time and place relevant to the strategy.
    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    Campaign does not sit between Strategy and tactics.
    Huh?
    There are two types of people in this world, those who divide the world into two types and those who do not.
    -Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarian Philosopher
    http://irondice.wordpress.com/

Similar Threads

  1. Assessing Al-Qaeda (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 286
    Last Post: 08-04-2019, 09:54 AM
  2. OSINT: "Brown Moses" & Bellingcat (merged thread)
    By davidbfpo in forum Intelligence
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-29-2019, 09:11 AM
  3. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  4. The Warden Collection (merged thread)
    By slapout9 in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 09-30-2015, 05:56 PM
  5. Gaza, Israel & Rockets (merged thread)
    By AdamG in forum Middle East
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 08-29-2014, 03:12 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •