William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[slapout9]

“Pump-up friction via negative factors to breed fear, anxiety, and alienation in order to generate many non-cooperative centers of gravity, as well as subvert those that adversary depends upon, thereby sever moral bonds that permit adversary to exist as an organic whole.
Simultaneously,
build-up and play counterweights against negative factors to diminish internal friction, as well as surface courage, confidence, and esprit, thereby make possible the human interactions needed to create moral bonds that permit us, as an organic whole, to shape and adapt to change.”

I think part of the problem in understanding Boyd is he stays at the abstract level and dosen't give to many concrete examples. As an example I just saw on the news that a survey was conducted in A'stan that said over 90% of the population had no idea that we invaded A'stan because of their association with AQ and the 911 attacks. I think that is a moral failure on our part (US) for not making that clear to the population and that undermines our legitamcy in their eyes, we just seem like foriegn invaders.

[Polarbear1605]

I think part of the problem in understanding Boyd is he stays at the abstract level and dosen't give to many concrete examples.

Absolutely, I think he is abstract because he is teaching us a new way to think, however, “Patterns” is full of concrete examples (GOOD GAWD! Are you blind man!...j/k)…and, IMO, Boyd is telling us to go back and apply his method to those examples to see what he is seeing; and then go find your own examples; and apply them to current situations.

As an example I just saw on the news that a survey was conducted in A'stan that said over 90% of the population had no idea that we invaded A'stan because of their association with AQ and the 911 attacks. I think that is a moral failure on our part (US) for not making that clear to the population and that undermines our legitamcy in their eyes, we just seem like foriegn invaders.

Again, absolutely correct, and you are now looking at both sides of the equation (Cheng and Chi – commendable. BTW…this kind of thinking will never get you a job with a service publication). So! Mass media has resolved the issue here in the US. “The SOBs killed 3000+ citizens in a cowardly act.” How do we get that same message across to 90% of the population of a tribal, stone age, dirt floor country? But!... in a country that is full of tribal warriors and that knows and understands blood feuds… and, because it is a tribal muslin country, the people recognize that a primary communications channel is the tribal chief and the village Imam. Hmmmm? I know I am being presumptuous here but you wanted an example, and I gave you one without pilgrims or bibles.

[slapout9]

Bear, gotta go for awhile, will respond later.

[slapout9]

Absolutely, I think he is abstract because he is teaching us a new way to think, however, “Patterns” is full of concrete examples (GOOD GAWD! Are you blind man!...j/k)…and, IMO, Boyd is telling us to go back and apply his method to those examples to see what he is seeing; and then go find your own examples; and apply them to current situations.


Again, absolutely correct, and you are now looking at both sides of the equation (Cheng and Chi – commendable. BTW…this kind of thinking will never get you a job with a service publication). So! Mass media has resolved the issue here in the US. “The SOBs killed 3000+ citizens in a cowardly act.” How do we get that same message across to 90% of the population of a tribal, stone age, dirt floor country? But!... in a country that is full of tribal warriors and that knows and understands blood feuds… and, because it is a tribal muslin country, the people recognize that a primary communications channel is the tribal chief and the village Imam. Hmmmm? I know I am being presumptuous here but you wanted an example, and I gave you one without pilgrims or bibles.

Bear,

1-The more abstract a concept the more situations it can be applied to, but you also get the risk of it being applied incorrectly, which is how many people view Boyd IMO.

2-When I think of the moral level as it relates to the US I think of a formal "Declaration of War" there is a lot of moral authority in doing that and we screwed that up IMO. Whe we first went into A'stan that was explained to the forces we supported and it seemed to work well, truth and honor required that we retalite, but then we fell off the snowmobile and started doing make the world safe for freedom and democracy....really bad move IMO.

I will read the Meigs article in a little while.

[slapout9]

Short one minute video of Boyd on doctrine.



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

[Fuchs]

As an example I just saw on the news that a survey was conducted in A'stan that said over 90% of the population had no idea that we invaded A'stan because of their association with AQ and the 911 attacks.

Can you provide a source?

Polls tend to produce a 5-30% minority at all times, even if you ask whether an ocean is blue. A 90% result suggests that de facto pretty much nobody knows the reason.

[Polarbear1605]

1-The more abstract a concept the more situations it can be applied to, but you also get the risk of it being applied incorrectly, which is how many people view Boyd IMO.

Ah Ha! IMO Boyd had to keep it abstract in order to adapt to an ever changing situation. Then you wrote down that magic word "RISK"...we are making comments on what we are doing wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan...risk is always there with or without Boyd and with or without a good strategic leadership...risks are not the issues ....but the assumptions to minimizie the risks are.

2-When I think of the moral level as it relates to the US I think of a formal "Declaration of War" there is a lot of moral authority in doing that and we screwed that up IMO. Whe we first went into A'stan that was explained to the forces we supported and it seemed to work well, truth and honor required that we retalite, but then we fell off the snowmobile and started doing make the world safe for freedom and democracy....really bad move IMO.

Depends on which war your talking about...afghanistan when we went in we could morally, pretty much do what we wanted. Have you read "Jaw Breaker"...The CIA did a tremendous job conducting that war...very rigorious...they were not constrained by doctrine because there was none...risks were extremely high...it is not until the military takes over the operation that see it stale mate. BTW the military takes over when the risks became low.

[slapout9]

Ah Ha! IMO Boyd had to keep it abstract in order to adapt to an ever changing situation. Then you wrote down that magic word "RISK"...we are making comments on what we are doing wrong in Iraq and Afghanistan...risk is always there with or without Boyd and with or without a good strategic leadership...risks are not the issues ....but the assumptions to minimizie the risks are.

Yes, Boyd did have to keep it abstract. But the risk I am talking about is the risk of being misunderstood, not any specific risk relative to a specific situation.

[slapout9]

Depends on which war your talking about...afghanistan when we went in we could morally, pretty much do what we wanted. Have you read "Jaw Breaker"...The CIA did a tremendous job conducting that war...very rigorious...they were not constrained by doctrine because there was none...risks were extremely high...it is not until the military takes over the operation that see it stale mate. BTW the military takes over when the risks became low.

Exactly, moral certainty provides operational clarity! Yes, I read Jawbreaker several times. I am a big fan of that operation, them boys put the Alabama Whoop Ass on em!! Although I would argue that this was essentially Airpower theory(The Air Control Theory) from the 1950's. Now take a look at Iraq and how moral certainty degraded and then look what happened

I also read the Montgomery Meigs article last night.

[slapout9]

Can you provide a source?

Polls tend to produce a 5-30% minority at all times, even if you ask whether an ocean is blue. A 90% result suggests that de facto pretty much nobody knows the reason.

I saw it on MSNBC about 2 weeks ago.

[Ken White]

Can you provide a source?

Polls tend to produce a 5-30% minority at all times, even if you ask whether an ocean is blue. A 90% result suggests that de facto pretty much nobody knows the reason.

LINK

Not quite all of Afghanistan nor about AQ...

[Polarbear1605]

Yes, Boyd did have to keep it abstract. But the risk I am talking about is the risk of being misunderstood, not any specific risk relative to a specific situation.

Oops! Sorry about running down that rabbit trail. I did misunderstand your intent.

[Polarbear1605]

Exactly, moral certainty provides operational clarity! Yes, I read Jawbreaker several times. I am a big fan of that operation, them boys put the Alabama Whoop Ass on em!! Although I would argue that this was essentially Airpower theory(The Air Control Theory) from the 1950's. Now take a look at Iraq and how moral certainty degraded and then look what happened

I also read the Montgomery Meigs article last night.

Hmmm...your going to have to expand on The Air Control Theory comment a bit... your lossing me there.
You also need to expand the "how moral certainty degraded" phase...???? I think Iraq demonstrates a failure of strategic thinking by not only the national comand authority but also the military stategic leadership....???

[slapout9]

Hmmm...your going to have to expand on The Air Control Theory comment a bit... your lossing me there.
You also need to expand the "how moral certainty degraded" phase...???? I think Iraq demonstrates a failure of strategic thinking by not only the national comand authority but also the military stategic leadership....???

Bear,

1-Using small ground teams in conjunction with airpower goes all the way back to WW1 in Iraq (Mesopotamia) started by the UK and updated by the US Air force.

2-The original Moral Imperative to attack Iraq was possession of WMD, when that turned out to be false and we probably new that from the start. That undermined our legitimacy both at home and in the region. We lost at the Moral level of warfare IMO.

PS: Operation Jawbreaker was on TV yesterday! Somebody needs to give these guys some medals! They should also.......well I could go on but I want.

[Backwards Observer]

One notes with bewilderment the stubborn recalcitrance of uncivilised tribes in recent history to automatically cede the moral high ground to those who would slaughter their kinfolk and reduce their dwellings to smouldering rubble from the air. Puzzling.

Guilio Douhet's Theory of Air Power

... ...

Having achieved command of the air, pilots would then destroy the enemy's will to resist by conducting aerial bombing on his cities, industrial centres and civilian population. It was thought that civilians were not prepared for the effects of war and the bombing of population centres would create panic among the people.

... ...

In the 1920s Britain bombed Kurds and Arabs in Iraq when they rebelled against Britain's attempts to control them.

... ...

Winston Churchill, the colonial secretary at the time, believed that gas could be used effectively against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): 'I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.'

... ...

Wing-Commander Sir Arthur Harris, later Bomber Harris, head of wartime Bomber Command, was happy to emphasise that 'The Arab and Kurd now know what real bombing means in casualties and damage. Within forty-five minutes a full-size village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured.' It was an easy matter to bomb and machine-gun the tribespeople, because they had no means of defence or retaliation. Iraq and Kurdistan were also used as testing grounds for new weapons; devices specifically developed by the Air Ministry for use against tribal villages.

excerpts from "Bomber Theory" - http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/AVbombertheory.htm

[slapout9]

One notes with bewilderment the stubborn recalcitrance of uncivilised tribes in recent history to automatically cede the moral high ground to those who would slaughter their kinfolk and reduce their dwellings to smouldering rubble from the air. Puzzling.

What is bewildering is people who refuse to realize the CIA didn't do that. The Air strikes were coordinated with the local guerrilla forces to hit the Taliban.

[slapout9]

Here is a quote form the Montgomery C. Meigs article "Unorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfare" on how Political Will really collapses.

The tumultuous politics of the 1930s left the French body politic torn between the forces of the right and left. The connivance of the 200 richest families, none willing to look past its psychological fatigue and warped self-interest to appreciate the good of the state, devastated political will

I had to read it twice because I thought he was talking about modern day America.

[Backwards Observer]

What is bewildering is people who refuse to realize the CIA didn't do that.

I understand completely. The excerpted quotes in my post do not mention CIA, for whom I have a healthy respect, but your point is taken.

[slapout9]

I understand completely. The excerpted quotes in my post do not mention CIA, for whom I have a healthy respect, but your point is taken.

I know you do, but you are very correct in what you quoted as it relates to to how most people view air power. Bomb em, Burn em and Gas em. They don't want to talk about how air power has progressed since then.

[Backwards Observer]

They don't want to talk about how air power has progressed since then.

[Announcer's voice]: Air Power...now with added morality!

Look, I'm in no position to judge the moral high whatnot of whatever, but as you point out, the whole Douhet thing just doesn't seem to fly with folks anymore, if indeed it ever did. Call me nuts, but I think this is probably a good thing. If Air Power theory is moving towards a brighter future, all well and good.

As a side note, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that Douhet was influenced in part by the Italian Futurist movement. Huh...

Futurism had from the outset admired violence and was intensely patriotic. The Futurist Manifesto had declared, "We will glorify war - the world's only hygiene - militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman."[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism

---

I haven't read the following linked article, but it's the first link in Google if you put in "douhet futurism":

False Gospel for Airpower Strategy? A Fresh Look at Giulio Douhet's "Command Of The Air". http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...cc/douhet.html

Thanks for enduring my half-baked quibbling.