Page 19 of 33 FirstFirst ... 9171819202129 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 642

Thread: William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

  1. #361
    Council Member Polarbear1605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    176

    Default Not much but it is out there

    Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
    ...of interest, has there been any new Maneuver Warfare literature? Seems like a dead concept to me.
    The Blogs seem to be the only one publishing some of this current ideas.
    http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/
    just started re-publishing the "Attritionist Letters" from the Marine Gazette
    Project White Horse also has some here:
    http://blog.projectwhitehorse.com/
    and zenpundit sometimes has some things generally at the strategic Level:
    http://zenpundit.com/
    "If you want a new idea, look in an old book"

  2. #362
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bumperplate View Post
    Boyd stuff is like philosophy for me: we can argue all day about whether or not the chair is blue, what is blueness, etc. But, at some point we just agree that it's blue and put in the stack with the other blue chairs. So too with Boyd, we can argue about the meaning of the OODA loop as a result of parsing out details from hours of lectures. Or, we can just take it at face value, where it's at its most valuable, and put it in our tool kit.
    There is no argument. The man(Boyd) plainly says what he means on the tapes. From Boyd's interpretation it should be called the "Confusion Loop." It's not about understanding the situation and simply being faster at going through the OODA cycle, it is about how you can intentionally 'confuse" the enemy at all 3 levels.

    I am presently working on having the tapes transcribed but that takes some time and money, but when I am done I am going to make it available.

  3. #363
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    There is no argument. The man(Boyd) plainly says what he means on the tapes. From Boyd's interpretation it should be called the "Confusion Loop." It's not about understanding the situation and simply being faster at going through the OODA cycle, it is about how you can intentionally 'confuse" the enemy at all 3 levels.

    I am presently working on having the tapes transcribed but that takes some time and money, but when I am done I am going to make it available.
    RGR, totally understand what you're saying. I know that my use of the OODA loop is bastardized. But that's where I find the most utility. That layman's bastardized version of the OODA loop is more productive, for more audiences, than the detailed interpretation.

    Also, to be totally honest - I find so much utility in this bastardized version that I'm a bit reluctant to analyze every word that went into creating this thing. I'm worried that I'll be disappointed. I don't want to shatter my faith in what is a very useful instructional tool. It's not about neglecting rigor, but about embracing a useful and productive tool to teach ground floor tactical principles.

  4. #364
    Council Member Polarbear1605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    176

    Default Question?

    Quote Originally Posted by bumperplate View Post
    RGR, totally understand what you're saying. I know that my use of the OODA loop is bastardized. But that's where I find the most utility. That layman's bastardized version of the OODA loop is more productive, for more audiences, than the detailed interpretation.

    Also, to be totally honest - I find so much utility in this bastardized version that I'm a bit reluctant to analyze every word that went into creating this thing. I'm worried that I'll be disappointed. I don't want to shatter my faith in what is a very useful instructional tool. It's not about neglecting rigor, but about embracing a useful and productive tool to teach ground floor tactical principles.
    Are you bastardizing or are you adapting? Boyd spent a lot of time talking about adapting.
    The Boyd Theory is misnamed...it should be the Boyd Study...it is full of historical examples ... history is written down and can be analysed... experience is great but only if it is discussed and taught.
    "If you want a new idea, look in an old book"

  5. #365
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polarbear1605 View Post
    Are you bastardizing or are you adapting? Boyd spent a lot of time talking about adapting.
    The Boyd Theory is misnamed...it should be the Boyd Study...it is full of historical examples ... history is written down and can be analysed... experience is great but only if it is discussed and taught.
    I haven't gone through Boyd's history stuff for a couple of years, but I do recall thinking that many of his examples were flawed on one level or another. He was always very selective in his use of history, though. Rather like Warden in that regard.
    "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

  6. #366
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Adapting is probably the best way to describe what I do with his stuff.

  7. #367
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    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.

  8. #368
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Heh. We can screw up anything...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    This is the same as with Schwerpunkt, which got badly distorted by American 'adaption' as well.
    It's what we do best.

    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...

  9. #369
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    53

    Default

    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.

  10. #370
    Council Member Polarbear1605's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    176

    Default How?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    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.
    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"

  11. #371
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    see PM

  12. #372
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default 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

  13. #373
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    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

  14. #374
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default 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

  15. #375
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default William S. Lind Returns!

    Link to Chet Richards Blog on Boyd and other things to. Willima S. Lind has a special post that was done just for Chet on 4GW and is it alive or dead? Folks should read this.

    http://slightlyeastofnew.com/2013/05...l/#comment-301

  16. #376
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    He offers his impressions, but no analysis.

    I suppose an empirical analysis looking at the quantities of conflicts of various shapes would reveal that basically nothing has changed in hundreds of years save for very short interruptions (such as the IIRC 16 days of world peace after WW2).

    Groups of humans are still using organised deadly violence against each other, and groups called "states" merely inhabit the more sophisticated end of the spectrum.


    Great Britain fought in about fifty wars during the reign of Queen Victoria alone, what do you guess how many of these were against what Lind would call "states"?

  17. #377
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Personally, I'm happy to let 4GW as a concept die (and all the GW's). It's bad history, bad theory, and not really useful other than as a metaphor for "not conventional war". Plus the whole 2GW/3GW construct is a bludgeon of Lind's own construction and not really reflective of practice.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  18. #378
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
    Personally, I'm happy to let 4GW as a concept die (and all the GW's). It's bad history, bad theory, and not really useful other than as a metaphor for "not conventional war". Plus the whole 2GW/3GW construct is a bludgeon of Lind's own construction and not really reflective of practice.
    The key point of the 4GW theory that almost always gets buried in discussions about the UW/COIN/FID/Small Wars methods that are used and not used is that the theory is based upon the idea of WHO fights and WHY they fight. That is the part that is different and is also the part that is most often overlooked. I believe it is useful from the stand point that it shows the most likely enemies around the world both known and developing. And they are likely to be based upon Race,Religion and Language not some traditional nation-state-political motivation..

  19. #379
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    "4GW"; "IW"; etc are to my mind all legends we have created to explain what we cannot understand. Humans have always done this over time.

    Now, instead of trying to rationalize why there are sea shells on a mountain side, or why the sun rises or the moon goes through phases, we face a much narrower area of human ignorance that leads us to create legends.

    Why does a family of "COIN" designed by Western Powers to maintain the profitability of foreign colonies or to contain major threats in the past fail to work equally to stabilize foreign partners today?

    Why does the application of war, warfare, and Clausewitzian-logic in general to internal, populace-based conflicts in the modern era either fail to work at all, or if it does, only temporarily so and at a much higher cost to impose and sustain?

    It can't be because we never really understood these conflicts to begin with, so it must be because the nature of the conflict itself has somehow changed. Right?

    Perhaps. I personally subscribe to the camp (sometimes a lonely campfire to sit around) that we never had this right to begin with. Certainly modern information technologies have (for now) tilted the advantage away from governments and to those population groups who would challenge the systems of governance (foreign and domestic, formal and informal) negatively affecting their lives. But I suspect the nature of such conflicts is not much changed.

    That is because the nature of conflict is tied to the nature of man, and not to the technologies man invents.

    4GW is a legend that helps some draw comfort regarding something scary and not well understood. But it is not a concept that helps us to deal with such conflicts more effectively. It certainly does not help us better understand how to reduce our own powerful contributions to the causation of such events.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  20. #380
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Aren't headshots supposed to bring down zombies?

    4GW is nothing new...the only thing that is different perhaps is the pace of developments. Technology speeds up the process, both in terms of execution and commentary, but that's about it, really. WHO and WHY people fight has always been at the core of things, no matter what generational theory you subscribe to. Only someone who's ignorant of the history of conflict at all its levels would claim otherwise...or claim to have "discovered" that particular nugget.
    "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

Similar Threads

  1. The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 933
    Last Post: 03-19-2018, 02:38 PM
  2. The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)
    By Fabius Maximus in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 451
    Last Post: 03-31-2016, 03:23 PM
  3. The Warden Collection (merged thread)
    By slapout9 in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 317
    Last Post: 09-30-2015, 05:56 PM
  4. Stryker collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Equipment & Capabilities
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 05-25-2013, 06:26 AM
  5. The John Boyd collection (merged thread)
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: 05-30-2012, 10:24 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •