Typical AF approach, I'm sorry to say. They don't understand that not every problem can be solved with a suitably large bombload or with some stealth system or another.
Typical AF approach, I'm sorry to say. They don't understand that not every problem can be solved with a suitably large bombload or with some stealth system or another.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
John Robb wrote,OFF TOPIC:Since the American military's objective is to gain a monopoly on violence in Iraq, these developments indicate that it has sustained the commercial equivalent of a rapid loss in market share
The interchangeability of commercial thought and military thought scares me. You can't even read an article on the conflict without the terminology pervading it. War is not business.
Originally Posted by dusty
Hardly off topic, mate! One is directly related to the other and we as a nation have struggled with this phenomenon forever. Sometimes itv has been a force for good: Elihu Root's reforms were a case in point. Then again we have the "Shock and Awe" (Translated "I'm shocked my model din't work and Aw, Sh%# they don't love us) crowd.
Best
Tom
War and business
Historically, it has been business thinkers who have appropriated military terminology while rarely internalizing or even comprehending the concepts. This is often seen in what business calls "strategy" which they seem to think has something to do with planning for quarterly profits.
I am reminded of the discussion among the wives of the test pilots in the film version of The Right Stuff where one says that her college friends married to businessmen talk about the vicious warfare on Wall Street but have no idea what it is like wondering if their husbands will come home from work that day alive, in a body bag, or at all.
Hi John,
I'll beg to differ on this - the original relationship, at least in the modern world, was the other way; business to the military. It really starts with the Dutch in the 16th century and the application of manufacturing processes,particularly interchangeability and standardization, to producing civil militias that could fight the Spanish. It really goes into high speed in the late 18th century / early 19th century with the centralization of military logistical production (especially cannon balls) and with Napoleon's integration of civilian and military production.Historically, it has been business thinkers who have appropriated military terminology while rarely internalizing or even comprehending the concepts. This is often seen in what business calls "strategy" which they seem to think has something to do with planning for quarterly profits.
I think, although I could easily be wrong, that what you are referring to is the application of the General Staff model to business organization with the development of FW Tyler's Scientific Management and the rapid spread of Fordist production techniques. That's certainly when we start to see large amounts of military rhetoric and terminology appearing in the business literature. I've also found it fascinating that most business authors and practitioners know so little about their original impacts on the military.
As far as your point about business "getting the concepts", you are totally right and I couldn't agree more. Even worse, over the past 25 years or so, the model of "military" that appears to have been adopted by business is closer to that of the "military" after the fall of the Minoan Empire. Look at the terms used: "raiders", "acquisitions", "pirates", etc. On the whole, few of them seem to have the same time horizon as the military (BTW, this is also seen in the use of the term "consumer" rather than "customer" in terms of relationship).
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Chicken or egg
Hi Marc--
I defer to you on the early history. But the main point there is that an interaction and interchange has taken place. It probably started before the Greeks came up with the word 'Strategos' and has been bouncing back and forth incorporating other 'disciplines' ever since.
Since I am positively ancient, my personal historical frame of reference is from WWII to the present. Frederick Taylor and the Scientific Management school certainly had an influence and was influenced in turn.
Agree completely regarding the analogous business version of the military as being 'post-Minoan' or perhaps, just Caribbean pirates, or the Sumatra ones who took on a US nuclear attack sub in the early 90s in the Straist of Malacca...
Cheers
John
Obviously dinosaurs!!!!!
Hi John,
Oh, totally true. Sorry if I sounded a bit touchy about the early modern stuff, but it's been a bit of a button for me with many of my colleagues (in Sociology especially) disregarding it. Actually, I think we could certainly make a good case for the linkages going back to at least the Minoan period - those Linear B texts from Pylos and Knossos are really pretty boring, but they do show a strong linkage on the logistics side.
One influence (B2M) that I always thought was very useful was the "trouble shooters" in WWII. In some ways, I'm rather surprised that we haven't used them in this war.
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
War is business
War is absolutely business. I'm surprised Marc didn't raise the linguistic connections "made famous" in dialogues about privatization, such as the origin of words like freelancer, company, filibuster, soldier, and ideas about contracts. Also in the course of discussing privatization, especially historical models such as the Dutch Marc mentions, you see war, or simply war powers, are fully integrated into the business of making money.
Socrates wisely said all wars are fought for money.
Wars of national passions aren't. They're about treasure and the business of treasure acquisition, protection, distribution, etc.
Historically, using warfare for economic gain was common practice, I agree. To clarify,for guys at my level, where the metal strikes the flesh, the idea of war as a business is repulsive because there are men and institutions that make money during conflicts, but the individual soldier pays the highest price.
From a grand strategy and strategic view, economics is most certainly a part of war. Business is part of economics the last time I looked.
Agree that Robb tends to look at things with USAF tinted glasses - his book, of which there are some excellent points, trends too heavily towards EBO and destroying critical nodes/targets at the tactical level.
He does bring up a very salient point - AQ and their ilk attack us at far less cost (monetarily) then we attack them. Can/will the nation spend $600-700B a year on the military? Probably not until the next attack, but the question still hasn't really been asked - are we really getting the military to defeat the islamic radicals for that $600-700B a year?
Heh. A polite qualifier.
I understand why John Robb has irritated some ppl here, including our much admired SWJED, with one of his previous posts on Col. Kilcullen; they were correct to be upset; in my view his comments there were obnoxious.
In fairness, however, I'd like to make two brief points:
1) Mr. Robb's previous military career was in the special forces community, not dropping bombs from B-52s.
and, more significantly
2) Network Theory has too much scientific validity demonstrated by peer-reviewed research in too many domains to be lightly ignored by a community whose professional raison d'etre is suppressing very specific kinds of adaptive social networks. It's a subject worth looking at with an open mind - it ain't just electrical grids, bacterial colonies and internet hubs.
Let's be clear on Mr. Robb's previous military career. He was in an Air Force Special Operations outfit as a pilot, probably for an AC-130 or HC-130. This doesn't necessarily translate to good perspective in terms of boots on ground. His aviation missions supported the Special Operations community, which no one can take away from him. But it's a lot like saying that a fueler knows about reconnaissance operations because he puts gas in my tank.
Example is better than precept.
You forgot wearing a flight suit and neck scarf...that always helps the focus on COIN!
While I'm open to hearing new theories, discussions and approaches, there is nothing worse than criticisms without an alternate solution. We all know COIN is hard and there are no cheap or easy solutions. But if he want's to complain about the current theories/practices, offer up some new ones we haven't tried before. Or in the immortal words of Jerry McGuire..."SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!"
Back to my kool aid and coffee....
"But the bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet withstanding, go out to meet it."
-Thucydides
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks