The books and actionable tips should be contained in the Formation and Theatre Commanders guidance and orders. - that's the point! You cannot have highly specific, context critical guidance in books. The Brits wrote manuals for each theatre. - well only Malaya - but after that all the writing was theatre specific.Insurgency and it's tactics are as old as warfare. - so how come the US is now suddenly learning about it? It's the Counter-insurgency ideas that are up for grabs.Except straight from the horse's mouth FM 3-24: "Insurgency and its tactics are as old as warfare itself." Also, the most commonly cited counter-insurgency experts is David Galula and he published a long time ago.
Galula, IIRC, dates from 1964.
Huh?? How on earth you can come to that conclusion is beyond me. Go and look at the politics of the time Clausewitz was writing or the Politics of the classical ages with which he was familiar. Messy beyond beleif - as ALL politics is.Unfortunately, I see Clausewitz more as the father of WWI and the Cold War and less useful for messy political wars. That is just my opinion I haven't read him, I only know who he has influenced.
Clausewitz's writings had nothing do do with the conduct of WW1. You cannot blame Clausewitz for Wars conduct.
Clausewitz would certainly have understood 911 better than most. He is the best possible perspective to explain and interpret modern conflicts. What people don't like is that his observations forces them to recognise certain fundamental problems with their understanding of strategy.
Bookmarks