The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[Pete]

Well where I am, we have entire groups of learned men, who just study the Torah and many other sacred texts - and argue all day and for many years.

Were Wilf one of those scholars of arcane texts he'd probably have his very own thread in the Trigger Puller forum on the efficacy of the Jawbone of an Ass as a weapon of war. His thread would include discusssion on the proposed basis of issue of the Jawbone, Ass within the standard infantry company, as well as the recommended MOS to repair the Jawbone, Ass at the direct and general support levels of maintenance.

[William F. Owen]

Were Wilf one of those scholars of arcane texts he'd probably have his very own thread in the Trigger Puller forum on the efficacy of the Jawbone of an Ass as a weapon of war. His thread would include discusssion on the proposed basis of issue of the Jawbone, Ass within the standard infantry company, as well as the recommended MOS to repair the Jawbone, Ass at the direct and general support levels of maintenance.

Well you do need lots of Jawbones. I'll also take any Ass I can get!

[mmx1]

For those uninclined to buy the book, he makes a brief(er) version of his argument in the latest issue of JFQ

http://www.ndu.edu/press/war-and-its-aftermath.html

[mmx1]

Though on further review (I came across this thread while curious about the book cited at the top), neither Sherman, Clausewitz, or an argument for total war appear in the JFQ piece. Instead his argument here is a much tamer "offensive war requires subsequent military governance".

Still, I find his argument for militarizing strategy by making the Joint Chiefs a centralized combatant command a questionable application of the World War II model to the regional problems of today.

[Cavguy]

Having Mr. Melton as my tactics instructor the past year -

His main point is that none of the Iraq governance/occupation debacle should have been a mystery. We planned for 3 years prior to 1945 how we would govern Germany, and it paid off, with similar planning for Japan. If we had started with our 1945 governance regs/books we would have been better off.

He notes that before a country can be effectively occupied its will must be broken, and that our decisive/CoG effort against the Iraqi military failed to break the will of the population prior to occupation.

Thus he advocates an attritional campaign prior to any occupation operation. He does not advocate attrition in all things, but cites "maneuver warfare" as appropriate for limited and raiding war, not occupation war because it does not break the will of the populace to carry the fight.

A simplified version of his book.

[William F. Owen]

His main point is that none of the Iraq governance/occupation debacle should have been a mystery. We planned for 3 years prior to 1945 how we would govern Germany, and it paid off, with similar planning for Japan. If we had started with our 1945 governance regs/books we would have been better off.

Strongly concur. So would Carl.

He notes that before a country can be effectively occupied its will must be broken, and that our decisive/CoG effort against the Iraqi military failed to break the will of the population prior to occupation.

Same again.

Thus he advocates an attritional campaign prior to any occupation operation. He does not advocate attrition in all things, but cites "maneuver warfare" as appropriate for limited and raiding war, not occupation war because it does not break the will of the populace to carry the fight.

As there is no functional difference between "attrition" and "manoeuvre" I can't see the issue here. For example, raiding is aimed at causing attrition.

[Bob's World]

We also went into Germany expecting the German people to fight us for every inch of ground; whereas we went into Iraq expecting to be greeted like the the guys who liberated Paris. Query: Did we have master plan for rebuilding France?? I suspect we didn't.

Most problems in life are foreseeable if you have your eyes open and are looking at things with a clear perspective. On Iraq, there was no room for clear perspectives, those voices where shouted down, ignored, or simply mowed over. (Speaking from one working on the Army staff during the period that the concept of going into Iraq first came up and watching in shocked amazement as it developed...)

[Dayuhan]

His main point is that none of the Iraq governance/occupation debacle should have been a mystery. We planned for 3 years prior to 1945 how we would govern Germany, and it paid off, with similar planning for Japan. If we had started with our 1945 governance regs/books we would have been better off.

He notes that before a country can be effectively occupied its will must be broken, and that our decisive/CoG effort against the Iraqi military failed to break the will of the population prior to occupation.

Certainly the planning for the governance and occupation of Iraq was woefully inadequate and based on some astonishingly inappropriate assumptions... but comparisons to Germany and Japan are unlikely to be useful. The same qualities that made Germany and Japan formidable opponents in war made them excellent candidates for organized reconstruction; likewise the same qualities that made Iraq such a failure at war made it an extremely poor candidate. The obvious difference - the extreme ethnic and sectarian divisions and the hostility produced by extended and brutal minority rule - is only the most obvious of many.

I suspect that failure to break the will of the population to resist our occupation was less an issue than our failure to accurately assess the will of the various sectors of the populace to kill each other.