Posted by William Owen
Sorry, but I profoundly disagree with this assertion. The "Europeans" studied the US Civil War in great detail - but saw nothing that new, bar the use of telegraph and railways, and were not short on their own combat experience from the Crimea. The war that was improperly studied, and could have aided some thinking was the Russo-Japanese War.
I think some key historians would disagree with you. The theory I seen was that the wars in Europe prior to the American Civil War were wars between kingdoms and the focus was on defeating the other side's military. On the other hand, the American Civil War was focused on the society as a whole, not just against one another's Armies. Some called it the first total war in the Modern Age.

Agree or disagree, and I'm simply voting present on this one. I think the argument is relevant, because the principles of war are very applicable to Napoleon's Day where great Armies determined the outcome of the conflict. To some extent that held also held true through the Great World Wars, but in WWII there was considerable coercion conducted against the civilian populations (carpet bombings, Hiroshima, etc.) where the center of gravity shifted from fieled forces to the opponent's national will to continue, verus the material means to continue.

Since the nature of war has changed, it would seem that the principles would have to be adjusted accordingly. It is more than adjusting to the information age, we now have enemies that we cannot mass against, that do not have a center of gravity, etc. Great Armies will not determine the outcome of asymmetrical conflicts.

A principle by definition means it should never be violated. Using that as a standard, and using the Global War on Terrorism or Long War as the model, it should be relatively easy to see what principles apply and what ones don't. Furthermore, if the principle applies in one situation (like Desert Storm), but not in another like our current fight, is it still a principle?

Does it even matter in the long run?