Adapting is probably the best way to describe what I do with his stuff.
Adapting is probably the best way to describe what I do with his stuff.
Then it's probably better to name it differently.
This is the same as with Schwerpunkt, which got badly distorted by American 'adaption' as well.
Heh. We can screw up anything...
It's what we do best.Originally Posted by Fuchs
The saving grace is that we argue and quibble with each other about how to do anything and everything. Thus for every foul up, somebody gets things right. That's only a '50% right' average but that's so far been ahead of most others most of the time...
And that quibble factor, really, is the basis for my concern with the theorists. More accurately with the potential for misapplication of their ideas. Actually, most of the theorists are smart enough to know that -- it's the acolytes and dedicated followers that miss the mark by insisting a particular method or theory will solve all problems. Those ideas might if they ever were implemented in the pure fashion but that will not happen. People will not apply theory as designed, they will interpolate and add their own fillips. That's really okay and whatever works for each person is great.
Read a lot, preferably from conflicting sources. Try ideas, preferably radical idea and develop your own methods. Accept things that work for you at the time and reject all the rest as extraneous. That's what Bumperplate says he's done and that's the way to go.
Most people do not adapt the pure operational methodology of others all that well but they will, if they exercise a bit of thought and initiative come up with solutions that are appropriate to the time and place. Some people like a pattern (some must have one -- they're generally dangerous...), some like to free flow, most mix the two approaches. Few will be able to apply 'rules' or precepts as they were intended. That's one reason we see so many discussions concerning Boyd and Warden.
Fuch's comment that better naming and adaptation is desirable is spot on not only on this score but on many others. It's the fanatics who insist on rigid adherence to the gospel of the Master who create problems.
Armed Forces trying to make Pattons from Pandas tend to breed particular problems in this regard...
I never did integrate Schwerpunkt into anything I teach...good thing I guess, after reading this thread.
No idea what to rename this thing. Perhaps it should be called the Small Wars Loop.
How?
I would really like to here your opinion on how we distorted it. I am serious because we probably did screw it up...and I would honestly like to here what the short comings were. Thanks
"If you want a new idea, look in an old book"
see PM
Steve Jobs On Maneuver Warfare
Listen to Steve Jobs talk about how to organize companies in order to develop trust with your subordinates....a key component of Maneuver Warfare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jZi2...eature=related
"trust" -that's the keyword which triggers one of my "read my blog because I'm to lazy to write it all again" responses.
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot....basics-of.html
William S. Lind Interview
Link to a 30 minute interview of Bill Lind from 2007. Lind discusses Somalia, Ethiopia and a wide array of things to include 4GW and the Military,Industrial,Congressional complex (Eisenhower's original phrase but was altered for his speech)
link to interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hjQOMlpH9A
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks