Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
I still think that, in the early days, Lind was a necessary component who shook some things up. I'm also not as inclined as some to discard maneuver warfare theories out of hand. They have their place, but like most ideas they were carried into areas that they were not suite for, and Lind bears some responsibility for that. He's clearly outlived his usefulness.
I don't discard MW. I just think that what it claimed to be and how it was suppose to be achieved, was based on a collection of ill thought out ideas, that were not challenged or identified as such because people did not read the source material, and if they did, failed to grasp the essential subtleties contained there in.

I was an MW junky, groupie, promoter, and pretty annoying chap all round, until my faith in MW was shattered by studying EBO, and then re-reading Clausewitz and the R.L. Wing translation of "The Way of Strategy". The nail in the coffin was the infamous "Once and Future Army" article by R.N. Bryson, that caused me to read Foch.

If I taught "Military Thought," I would require all my students to have a thorough understanding of the MW concept, as it would provide the antithesis for everything else. - thus I submit that this is it's true utility.