The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[jmm99]

this:

from ML
National Strategy for Iraq
Ends (Policy): Regime Change
Ways: Military Action
Means: CENTCOM and assigned forces, allied forces

No doubt "Military Action" can remove a regime.

But, how does "Military Action" change a regime - that is, provide the replacement regime ?

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

Jeeez....cant leave you guys alone for a minute.

As I have said many time Crimes and Wars are caused by people! They are not caused by natural phenomenon like a hurricane or earth quake. So when you analyze the Crime or War you get a list of people and property.....Targets that you can use force against in order to obtain an end to the crime or an end to the war. Choosing (Targeting) which persons or property to use force against is Strategy. And should go from the highest level to the lowest level like CvC said.... there is no level of Strategy, it always present or at least it should. My 2.5 cents anyway.

[William F. Owen]

There was a reason Clausewitz wanted his papers burned at his death. 'On War' was an unfinished, poorly thought out, self-contradictory notebook of thoughts.

Basically you've clearly never read Clausewitz. Yes it's complicated. Study of War and Warfare requires effort and guidance from those who have.

Sun Tzu is far superior, and if you add him to Boyd you get Maneuver Warfare Theory. I am pretty sure the marines have a statue of Boyd, but I doubt they have one of Clausewitz.

Sun Tzu is not superior. Let me guess, you've read the Griffiths translation, and you thing Sun-Tzu wrote the "Art of War?"
Boyd? Give me break! A man who didn't know a lot about military history, left almost no writings, and a faith based following based on poor understanding of warfare and War. For a very grass roots intro, try this. Plus, search for Boyd in the forums.

If Clausewitz ever added real value to warefare, it was to frame it as a science. Other than that, he just advanced a murderous and tedious type of fighting that had large consequences in WWI.

Rubbish. That is completely wrong, and utterly without evidence. You need to have some understanding of a subject before you start pontificating.

[Taiko]

This reminds me of an anecdote from On War:

A colleague wrote to CvC wanting advice on the final exam he was drafting for junior officers. The questions set for the exam included a number of different operations and tactical maneuvers, and the officers had to write which one they thought was best. In responding to the colleague’s letter CvC wrote that he could not answer the question because the examiner did not provide the policy context from which the officers could draw their answers from.

In my opinion it seems you are both arguing past each other in a theoretical vacuum. If you both used the context of policy, and historical examples, there would be cases were you are both right and wrong. Policy will always determine the ways, ends and means at the start of a conflict, however, that does not necessarily mean policy is always the sole arbiter throughout the various phases of war. This is the paradox of the trinity.

ML wrote:

Means are resources, not methods.

If we are viewing this from a strictly CvC perspective, in On War he takes "war preparation", that is logistics and resources as a given. Hence, means are considered tactics/methods of employing violence.

ML wrote:


"Containment" is a strategic end state.

The policy, or end state, was to 'contain' the USSR from expanding into America's sphere of influence. The strategies for achieving 'containment' ranged from Eisenhower's 'massive retaliation', to Kennedy's 'flexible response' and Reagan's 'star wars'/'national missile defense system'.

H.Nelson wrote:

There was a reason Clausewitz wanted his papers burned at his death. 'On War' was an unfinished, poorly thought out, self-contradictory notebook of thoughts. Sun Tzu is far superior, and if you add him to Boyd you get Maneuver Warfare Theory. I am pretty sure the marines have a statue of Boyd, but I doubt they have one of Clausewitz.

Very entertaining indeed and welcome. Pray tell, do you know the difference between war and warfare? There is an old saying that ignorance in bliss, however, when it comes to strategy ignorance gets people killed.

[M.L.]

this:
No doubt "Military Action" can remove a regime.

But, how does "Military Action" change a regime - that is, provide the replacement regime ?

Regards

Mike

A fair point Mike. I use the example of Iraq because it was a simple strategy...though not really a good one...

[M.L.]

Jeeez....cant leave you guys alone for a minute.

As I have said many time Crimes and Wars are caused by people! They are not caused by natural phenomenon like a hurricane or earth quake. So when you analyze the Crime or War you get a list of people and property.....Targets that you can use force against in order to obtain an end to the crime or an end to the war. Choosing (Targeting) which persons or property to use force against is Strategy. And should go from the highest level to the lowest level like CvC said.... there is no level of Strategy, it always present or at least it should. My 2.5 cents anyway.

For everyone's edification, here is what US Joint Doctrine says:

"targeting — The process of selecting and prioritizing targets and matching the appropriate response to them, considering operational requirements and capabilities. JP 1-02

"strategy — A prudent idea or set of ideas for employing the instruments of national power in a synchronized and integrated fashion to achieve theater, national, and/or multinational objectives." JP 1-02

"The three levels of war — strategic, operational, and tactical —
help clarify the links between national strategic objectives and tactical
actions. The strategic level is that level of war at which a nation,
often as a member of a group of nations, determines national or
multinational (alliance or coalition) strategic objectives and guidance
and develops and uses national resources to achieve these objectives.
The operational level links the tactical employment of forces to national
and military strategic objectives through the design and conduct of
operations using operational art. The tactical level focuses on planning
and executing battles, engagements, and activities to achieve military
objectives assigned to tactical units or task forces." JP 3-0

[William F. Owen]

For everyone's edification, here is what US Joint Doctrine says:

"The three levels of war — strategic, operational, and tactical —
help clarify the links between .... JP 3-0

Thanks for the clarification. IMO, the three levels of war (strategic, operational, and tactical) is just plain wrong. There's actually something of a debate right now as to where the idea of an "operational level came from."

[Bob's World]

Always good to remember that Joint Doctrine, all doctrine, is not law, or somehow deemed smarter or better than any other position on a topic. It is merely the current institutional position on the topic as approved by one commander.

Doctrine is the start point for studying a topic, not the final argument.

Doctrine only applies at all to the organization that publishes it.

I think "Doctrine Man" captures the concept well in this sadly accurate cartoon. Classic.:

[William F. Owen]

Always good to remember that Joint Doctrine, all doctrine, is not law, or somehow deemed smarter or better than any other position on a topic. It is merely the current institutional position on the topic as approved by one commander.

Doctrine should be "That which is taught." That is what the word means. It is the basis for all you do. That the US (and now the UK) keeps doing it badly should be more cause for concern that it is.

[slapout9]

I am not arguing that M.L. is wrong, he is not. I think everything he has posted IS what is being taught as doctrine. What I am arguing is I don't think CvC would agree with a lot of what is being taught.
Here is a copy from Book 3 CvC STRATEGY courtesy of the CvC homepage. I have highlighted what I think are the pertinent points. And I believe he is saying you must pick the right Tagets to engage or you will not win. It is very simple but as CvC said many time that does not mean it will be easy, so Strategy is not a level of war.... it must follow the Army to the battlefield and always be present from the top to the bottom.


Strategy is the employment of the battle to gain the end of the war; it must therefore give an aim to the whole military action, which must be in accordance with the object of the war; in other words, strategy forms the plan of the war, and to the said aim it links the series of acts which are to lead to the same, that is to say, it makes the plans for the separate campaigns, and regulates the combats to be fought in each. As these are all things which to a great extent can only be determined on conjectures, some of which turn out incorrect, while a number of other arrangements pertaining to details cannot be made at all beforehand, it follows, as a matter of course, that strategy must go with the army to the field in order to arrange particulars on the spot, and to make the modifications in the general plan which incessantly become necessary in war. Strategy can therefore never take its hand from the work for a moment.

[Fuchs]

It's always the same. Maybe I will sometime be showed an English CvC quote that's not poorly translated - it has certainly not happened yet!

Die Strategie ist der Gebrauch des Gefechts zum Zweck des Krieges...

"Strategy is the use of the combat for the purpose of war"
NOT
"Strategy is the employment of the battle to gain the end of the war"

Gefecht = combat, encounter, engagement - always smaller than a "battle" ("Schlacht").
Zweck = purpose, Krieg = war


The other part of the translation is simplified, but largely correct in its meaning.



P.S: CvC in English is really the simplified version; often incorrectly translated and much easier to read. CvC had a very complicated, confusing mind (judged by his writings).

[William F. Owen]

I am not arguing that M.L. is wrong, he is not. I think everything he has posted IS what is being taught as doctrine.

ML is correct in telling us what the doctrine is. Problem is the doctrine is wrong.

What I am arguing is I don't think CvC would agree with a lot of what is being taught.

Welcome to my world.

And I believe he is saying you must pick the right Tagets to engage or you will not win. It is very simple but as CvC said many time that does not mean it will be easy,

OK, but avoid over simplifying. It is WHO to target, when, why and how, plus a few other things.

so Strategy is not a level of war....

Spot on! You are right. The whole idea of "levels of War," is pretty hockey, BUT there are two Things called Strategy and Tactics. Levels is not a perfect noun but an adequate one bearing in mind the target audience.

[Ken White]

This thread is allied (LINK).

[Fuchs]

The concept of levels makes sense because there's a hierarchy in armed services and the high command is primarily responsible for what's known as strategy, corps/division command does what's known as operational art (the tactics of the formation level) and the lower level command does the tactical stuff (unit level).

The 'higher' level success or failure also tends to overrule 'lower' level outcomes - this makes the concept not only fitting, but valuable.

The concept of levels also helps to explain people how the work differs between different levels of the hierarchy. It's helpful because with it we can explain a NCO that strategy is not his job and we can explain a general that interfering in company tactics ain't his either.

Finally, some things apply much less at one level than at another one. To cut an enemy off his supply line is much more relevant to division and higher tactics than to small units. Resource allocation is much more relevant to higher than to lower levels of command.


The problems with the levels only arise when people don't invest the brainpower and -time to understand that the limits are not clear-cut, that it's an explanation aid and no mathematically defined nature's law.

[slapout9]

ML
Spot on! You are right. The whole idea of "levels of War," is pretty hockey, BUT there are two Things called Strategy and Tactics. Levels is not a perfect noun but an adequate one bearing in mind the target audience.

Yep, that is why I say Strategy is picking the targets to attack and tactics is about how to attack the target. And that can be the most difficult problem of all....we send a gillion dollar stealth bomber, they send a 50 dollar stealth car bomb

[Ken White]

The concept of levels also helps to explain people how the work differs between different levels of the hierarchy. It's helpful because with it we can explain a NCO that strategy is not his job and we can explain a general that interfering in company tactics ain't his either.

this may be what some would wish but fortunately it doesn't work that way in practice. I suggest that you're advocating, in a so-called professional force, that those with 15-20 years experience should not make suggestions to their nominal betters with only three to five years or less experience. Fortunately, the 'system' and humans do not work that way so far as the up the chain aspects. Unfortunately that also holds true on the down the chain aspects...

Good NCOs will offer advice and wise Commanders will at least listen to it; poor Generals will try to control Companies, Platoons and Squads.

That's true due to, as you said:

The problems with the levels only arise when people don't invest the brainpower and -time to understand that the limits are not clear-cut, that it's an explanation aid and no mathematically defined nature's law.

[slapout9]

I wrote Operations Orders as a squad leader, so was I at the Operational level of War? I dont think so. Operations are a planning/organizing techique not a level of War.

[slapout9]

Part one covers policy creation and the selection of Strategic Targets, notice toward the end it is a Marine Captain who understands what Strategy is


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olGwSyouBms


Part two is the execution of the Strategy


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

[Fuchs]

I wrote Operations Orders as a squad leader, so was I at the Operational level of War? I dont think so. Operations are a planning/organizing techique not a level of War.

The similarity of the words doesn't mean much.

I recall someone insisted on the difference between capital and small "o" operations. He attempted to point out how many of today's so-called "operations" are merely minor actions.

The only way how a squad leader writes true capital "O" operations orders is on a keyboard, typing what an officer ranking major or higher dictates.

[Ken White]

I recall someone insisted on the difference between capital and small "o" operations. He attempted to point out how many of today's so-called "operations" are merely minor actions.

I did that and it's on the Thread link I posted above. Also, what you say is not what was the intent. That intent was a tongue in cheek poke at pedantry and excessively serious attention to minor issues...

Etymology is more fun than entomology.

This, however, was / is thee:

The only way how a squad leader writes true capital "O" operations orders is on a keyboard, typing what an officer ranking major or higher dictates.

That may be true in your experience or even in your Army (though I'm doubtful based on my short but beneficial relationship with the Bundeswehr) but it is emphatically far from true in the US Army and in most others I've worked with. Good units expect their NCOs to come up with their own orders to reflect the Commanders intent, not his diktat. Following your model, the NCO who was Squad Leader but serving as an acting Platoon Leader -- and ALL Armies have those either by design or circumstantially -- would only write orders dictated by a Bn Staff Officer. Doesn't work that way.

Seems to me that anyone who succumbs to the view expressed by you is wasting a LOT of talent...