The John Boyd collection (merged thread)

[ipopescu]

According to Lind, the Osinga book is the book Boyd would have written.

I've just started reading the Osinga book. I don't have much background on Boyd, so I am hoping Bill Lind is right about the value of it.

From the first chapters, Osinga seems to have sourced his book nicely. The tone seems a bit too flattery for my taste, but not unbearably so.

[Norfolk]

I just spent a week in the company of Bill Lind and T X Hammes. Bill and I had few frank discussions about Boyd, MW and 4GW.

I have to say, I now know more than I ever did. Lind is a fascinating man, and TX is just a hell of a nice guy and hugely smart. Both men think very differently and seldom agree.

Broadly,

a. - I remain unconvinced about MW. - However, as a construct I can now see exactly what it tried to achieve with the US Forces and in Linds mind, failed.

b. - 4GW is designed to do the same thing and has the same weaknesses, as a result. When I pointed out that it was founded on very poor history, TX noted that it didn't matter if it got folks to think through the problem. - thus useful.

c. - According to Lind, the Osinga book is the book Boyd would have written. This disturbs me, but as Lind pointed out, I was seeking precision in a field where no such precision existed or looking for a black cat in a dark room that wasn't there!

Well, if Bill Lind (and I will certainly give full credit to him for trying to shove the English-speaking world out of its doctrinal complacency, and by beating us over the head with the German way of war - of which I must personally approve) and COL Hammes (agreed, the man comes out in his writings as a class act, and sharp) are playing the part of Socratic gadflies, then they've probably achieved more than one might have expected, though certainly not as much as they had hoped.

Still, MW and 4/5GW Warfare Theory still strike me as useful mainly to draw attention to what has been forgotten or neglected by classical/traditional military thought; they still don't seem up to the task of supplanting it per se, if indeed that is the intention of folks like Lind and Hammes. Without exception, they acknowledge Sun Tzu and for that matter Clausewitz. And I would be the first to acknowledge that Boyd himself would not have considered himself to be departing from Sun Tzu.

But unless there has been a case of violent disagreement going on, and we're actually agreeing (with those who do not consciously subscribe to MW and 4/5Gw theory and the like simply being unaware that this is in fact the case), then there still seems to be, from the traditional perspective, a critical lack of recognition of the limitations in practice of MW Theory by its theorists, and an oversubscription to novelty on the part of 4/5GW Theorists.

[Ski]

Whatever happens today, for once I am happy.

The conference in the UK must have led to some frank discussions and some great learning, from all perspectives. This is a very good sign. I am also very happy that Wilf, Lind and Hammes all met, and that there was greater discourse for the common good.

We're all in this mess together, and new theories, ideas and strategies should be discussed at length. Whether 4GW is a theory based to last is unknown.

Norkfolk/Wilf:
There is a critical lack of education (ie; officers with History degrees) within the American officer corps. We do not prioritize the learning of history in university, and even fewer learn on their own on their own time once commissioned. It's a tragic flaw that can be easily corrected if driven from the top...instead of West Point graduates having a mandatory engineering degree, make West Point graduates have a mandatory history degree.

[Cavguy]

There is a critical lack of education (ie; officers with History degrees) within the American officer corps. We do not prioritize the learning of history in university, and even fewer learn on their own on their own time once commissioned. It's a tragic flaw that can be easily corrected if driven from the top...instead of West Point graduates having a mandatory engineering degree, make West Point graduates have a mandatory history degree.

I'm not a West Pointer, but I know plenty get non-engineering degrees. I think that went away in the 19th century.

Hacksaw told me the other day the sociology dept (which includes history at WP) has the most graduates of any at WP. (He was a prof there).

[Steve Blair]

Yeah...the mandatory engineering focus did slip from WP some time ago.

What I think it speaks more to is a disconnect in how we teach history, and the neglect of it at the lower education levels. Many high schoolers don't get a good history foundation, and then when they hit the university level they get a couple of semesters of sanitized PC history and then crushed with the full spectrum of diversity history without a good foundation. By that I mean many universities don't bother to offer any sort of historiography instruction until a student is a junior or senior. By that time they've most likely fallen into one of the many splinter groups of historical instruction (environmental history, women's history, lower East Coast disenfranchised lower-caste Irish history....you get the idea) and the tools come too late. Or they get grabbed by a series of "my way or the highway" ideologues, and learn only how to parrot the professor's line of thought.

My attachment to the idea of MW as the USMC put it out was that it encouraged people to think about how they fought. They at least tired to give people the tools they needed to evaluate a situation and to conduct their own historical analysis. It wasn't in-depth, but it was at least a good starting point. It may have gotten hijacked along the way...but the original intent was (I think) good. It's the lack of background (often not the fault of the individual student...more the instructor) that I mentioned above that (to me) led to some of the failings we've identified.

Still not a big believer in 4GW, though.

[Hacksaw]

Cav Guy misheard when we were discussing West Point Curriculum...

Dept of Social Sciences confers (or at least used to in the mid 90's) the most degrees (Economics, International Relations, and American History). In fact if memory serves correctly these were the three most popular majors at the Academy and (as coincidence or not) were all apart of the Sosh Dept. As a side note the Department's motto (translated) "Nothing Human is Alien"

That said, I also offered the opinion when I taught there that what USMA offered was a first rate Liberal Arts curricula (exactly the right education). This used to chafe plenty of my colleges at the time; I'd be interested to see how they feel after 5 years of war "in and amongst the people"

Whether serendipitous or not, I find it ironic that cadets were way ahead of the power curve in determining what was a relevant education

[selil]

There is a critical lack of education (ie; officers with History degrees) within the American officer corps. We do not prioritize the learning of history in university, and even fewer learn on their own on their own time once commissioned. It's a tragic flaw that can be easily corrected if driven from the top...instead of West Point graduates having a mandatory engineering degree, make West Point graduates have a mandatory history degree.

I would disagree strenuously that we need more people with history degrees. According to the AHA there are like 2500 PhDs in history granted for 300 positions each year. People with a history degree have a heck of time finding a job except in the military. As a West Point faculty member pointed out to me an engineer with broad enough instruction can make a passable historian, but it will be a rare historian that can make a passable engineer.

I would strongly and vociferously support stronger history and liberal arts education for all degrees including science, technology, engineering math (STEM). I am one of many graduates from an ABET accredited computer science degree program who got all of four or five liberal arts type courses all categorized "for engineers".

I think some of the problems we are having currently with American society and educational goals can be summed up in two words "educational specialization". At most doctoral granting institutions general education degrees are not even offered above undergraduate levels. The upside down pyramid of education from general to ultra specific is now the rule. Philosophers and neo-renaissance individuals need not apply. The principle works for getting tenure, but hampers creativity leading to gaps never to be filled.

[Granite_State]

Whatever happens today, for once I am happy.

The conference in the UK must have led to some frank discussions and some great learning, from all perspectives. This is a very good sign. I am also very happy that Wilf, Lind and Hammes all met, and that there was greater discourse for the common good.

Likewise, what was the conference if I may ask?

And while West Point doesn't require that you major in engineering, it does only hand out a BS, not a BA, correct? I know when I went for a look there, must have been 1999, everyone took three years of engineering, a ton of math and science, and ended up with a BS regardless of major. Has that changed?

[Hacksaw]

Tons of Math and hard science is still true, not sure on BS vs. BA, then again not sure it matters. They get two years of language, history, philosophy, 4 yrs english, economics, ap, and ir all as part of base curricula.

[Ski]

I think it was up until 5 years ago that West Pointers had to have either a BS in Engineering or at least a minor in an engineering speciality. I think it changed in 2002/2003 - a greater choice of degrees.

While I agree with the comments regarding greater liberal arts educations for all officers, I stand by my initial comment. We need more history majors in the officer corps. Small wars require an in-depth knowledge of a country's history in order to understand why the country operates the way it does.

By no means do I want an officer corps specialized in one subject too heavily - like everything else in life balance is required. I honestly do not care about post-military employment possibilities. There is no requirement for cradle to grave security blankets - and the smart individual could use get advanced degrees in other subjects as well.

Steve Blair is correct - history is taught poorly in the US, from grade school through undergrad.

GS - the Royal Marines hosted a conference on their upcoming deployment. Lind, Hammes and Van Creveld were supposed to be in attendance although I heard MVC had to decline at the last minute.

[Ken White]

...While I agree with the comments regarding greater liberal arts educations for all officers, I stand by my initial comment. We need more history majors in the officer corps. Small wars require an in-depth knowledge of a country's history in order to understand why the country operates the way it does.

So do large wars; one still deals with other nations. I agree that a broader knowledge of history within the officer corps is important and needed.

...Steve Blair is correct - history is taught poorly in the US, from grade school through undergrad.

True. However,Sam is also right, History PhDs are in oversupply -- BUT a glaring lack of knowledge of even elementary history in most Americans is woefully obvious and needs to be rectified. Effort at the Middle and Secondary levels really needs emphasis...

[Steve Blair]

However,Sam is also right, History PhDs are in oversupply -- BUT a glaring lack of knowledge of even elementary history in most Americans is woefully obvious and needs to be rectified. Effort at the Middle and Secondary levels really needs emphasis...

I'm not talking about PhDs....I'm talking about stuff that should be at the basic BA/BA level (if not lower). Personally I think we have way too many PhDs and MAs/MSs running around as it is. Better to beef up the basic education and put more qualified BA/BS people (and especially better-qualified high school grads) in the field.

[selil]

By no means do I want an officer corps specialized in one subject too heavily - like everything else in life balance is required. I honestly do not care about post-military employment possibilities. There is no requirement for cradle to grave security blankets - and the smart individual could use get advanced degrees in other subjects as well.

Then you are not talking about accredited and sanctioned higher education nor should they be given a diploma. Higher education is supposed to be about serving society not just the military and even if it is a military academy it must be more even within the focus of its mission. If the curriculum does not meet certain fairly rigorous standards then it will devolve to little more than vocational training.

[Vic Bout]

geography was the "it" discipline. The study of spatial relationships. Can't get any better than a field that let's you fill in the blank...as in "Gee, Dad, I really wanna study the Geography of Sunni tribes in north-central Iraq"

Back in the day, classically trained military officers were taught the finer art of sketching terrrain...(when they they weren't conversing in latin over tea and riding horses over wog infantry formations)

[Ski]

Higher education - if paid for by the military, in turn paid for by you and me and 299 million other taxpayers - should focus on making the military the best and most successful it can be.

I agree with your comment otherwise.

Then you are not talking about accredited and sanctioned higher education nor should they be given a diploma. Higher education is supposed to be about serving society not just the military and even if it is a military academy it must be more even within the focus of its mission. If the curriculum does not meet certain fairly rigorous standards then it will devolve to little more than vocational training.

[Ski]

Agreed. I would also add that there are too many professors teaching history that have ossified since gaining tenure.

I remember taking a history course in undergrad that discussed the over-specialization of history. This is also a major problem. Again - balance is the key. No one really wants to read or know about "The 47th Infantry Brigade Dining In Ceremonies, A Historiography from 1842-1996." But damned if I haven't read - and possibly even authored - a few papers of this nature.

I'm not talking about PhDs....I'm talking about stuff that should be at the basic BA/BA level (if not lower). Personally I think we have way too many PhDs and MAs/MSs running around as it is. Better to beef up the basic education and put more qualified BA/BS people (and especially better-qualified high school grads) in the field.

[Norfolk]

To a limited extent, I will echo Ski on the necessity for properly-schooled History and -related degree majors, though I would not take it to the extent of making such a degree a mandatory requirement. As Steve points out, the fundamental problem begins in elementary and secondary school, where the scant history taught is usually rubbish. I would argue from personal experience that things more often than not actually deteriorate at University-level, even at the Graduate level. That said, there are some Universities (and some professors) that do a good job at teaching real history, and not the pseudo-history that has more or less taken over the discipline over the past 40 years or so.

I will also echo Ski, again to a limited extent, on the point of degrees taken by officers and officer-candidates. It really burned my butt to see so many young officers with degrees for anything except either History, Military or Strategic Studies, or Political Science carrying on with apparently little or no awareness of what their profession really entailed, or any genuine desire to pursue professional self-improvement. Checking a stack of books out of a library to read in your own spare time is hardly an onerous burden, although I will admit that finding the time to read said books - and to ponder their lessons - can be difficult at times. Work, family, and life in general tend to conspire against it, but motivated learners almost always find a way around this.

I wonder if Gian is in a position to have his history students (or better yet, to intercede with WP's Commandant with a view to the Corps of Cadets) read the German Army's classic leadership and operations text from 1933, H.D.v. 100/1 Truppenführung I. Teil (Troop Leading, Part I). CGSC has a on-line copy of that jewel, which the U.S Army translated from the German way back in 1936 (and subsequently used in its preparation of the 1941 edition of FM 100-5, Operations). Wow, if only I had that puppy in my possession when starting out back in the early '90s. And all the advocates of MW Theory should, if they haven't already, read Truppenfeuhrung, as well as the Red Army's 1944 operational masterpiece, PU-44 Polevoy Ustav Krasnoy Armit, Volume 1, (Red Army Field Regulations, 1944); Tuchachevsky's PU-36 is great in theory, but PU-44 is how Deep Battle worked in reality - and against the Germans.

As an aside, doesn't CGSC still tend to favour science/technical subjects in its entrance examinations, or has that changed in recent years?

All that said, the finest Infantry Officer that I ever met was a Chemistry major, and as a mere Captain he was sent to instruct at the CF Staff College in Toronto (he was the Battalion S-3 for only about two months before he was poached by higher for that assignment). When he resigned his commission (remember, this was the Canadian Army of the 90's), it was a huge shock, and it was a definite loss for the Army (and the Regiment). Now he's a salvage diver making good money at the family business on Lake Erie. As such, it of course depends rather less upon what degree (if any) an officer holds, than upon the officer's inclination and ability to properly educate himself.

When officers spend their free time on the golf green, or at the Rotary Club, but spend little or no time even reading on matters that contribute to their professional development, that's wrong. Instead of hanging out with the lads, or chatting up the Colonel, they should be studying (except when they've earned a well-deserved break). Sadly, it'd the old game where career-enhancement and professional development are two very different, and often mutually-exclusive, things. As Ken, Don Vandergriff, et al., ad neauseum like to say, it's the personnel system (and not just in the US Army, either).

[Ken White]

but will plead guilty.

Y'know, that's a good post -- and thanks for the links, BTW -- as it brings up a critical point I've often wondered about. How much better off would all the Anglophone Armed Forces be if all the golf courses on bases and posts were removed...

Seriously.

[Ski]

Norfolk,

Everyone gets to go to CGSC now. There is the year long course at Leavenworth, but there are three new courses designed for other functional areas - these folks spend about four months at Leavenworth, and then another 3-4 months at places like Lee for loggies, Belvoir for Force Management officers, and I think there's one at Gordon but am unsure at the moment.

I'm headed to Leavenworth in 8 weeks. No entrance exams at all - just a set of orders. There is a pre-test that is required...but I don't think it's anything strenuous.

[selil]

I wish I could go to CGSC, heck I wish they'd let me go to platoon leader course. Anybody who could arrange that next summer would be my hero.