Quote Originally Posted by Eden View Post
I would caution those who believe the above statement that chosen 'modes of warfare' can not be entirely de-linked from the desired ends. Ends, in other words, sometimes dictate the means. Moreover, there are always non-military factors (culture, politics, economics, etc) which impact on an adversary's ability to 'mix and match' modes of warfare.
I agree, and in fact I did not mean to imply that "modes of warfare" can be divorced from the desired ends. I actually agree with Eliot Cohen, Fred Kagan and others who argued that one of the big errors of the RMA and Network Centric Warfare discourse was precisely a separation of war from its political objectives. I'm sorry if my choice of words was inadequate.

All I meant to say was that it seems to me some people believe that the conduct of future wars will be mainly determined by the ends we seek (with the implication that if we don't get involved in wars of occupation - which we shouldn't- there is no need to improve irregular/COIN capabilities; Jeffrey Record made the argument for a Cato paper a while ago), while others, as Secy Gates said this week, think that US adversaries (state and non-state) will use attempt irregular/asymmetric and hybrid means of warfare against the United States not just in prolonged wars of occupation, but in most contingencies.

And referring to Clausewitz on this forum is like jumping into the lion's den with a pork chop around your neck.
I readily admit that my understanding of Clausewitz is limited and most certainly a work in progress, but I am hoping that trying to improve it by making such references where I think appropriate, and waiting on people smarter than me to correct me if I'm wrong, is not terribly inconvenient for the members of this forum.