Uh, yes, we did.
though I'm unsure what that has to with your post in this current sub-thread.Originally Posted by Pete
Does that mean you and I were wrong for discussing a manual that has been several times superceded? Or does it mean that since we discussed it on one thread, no one should, especially in a different context, do so on another? Or that no one should criticize doctrinal pubs unless they offer radical and innovative suggestions for change (I can offer about 500 of those. If they have to possess a reasonable chance of being adopted, I might produce two or three).
I asked two questions; If you'd offered any suggestions for doctrinal change and I asked for your opinion on the contention that the US Army lost the bubble by getting wrapped around 'the operational art.' If you posted the link to say you'd already done that, we can differ -- all that you did in that previous discussion was provide links and a short tutorial on Air Land battle, you did not give your opinion on the issue...
You said earlier:Several of us have stated that the 'Operational level of war' is a flaw in US doctrine and are willing to discuss that and to give our own opinions as opposed to quoting someone else. Your earlier comments were a neat tutorial and a couple of links to elsewhere but no 'Pete' opinions can be discerned, you neither panned the concept or defended it. You provide a lot of links to other Blogs -- which most of us can find on our own -- but you rarely state an opinion or engage in a discussion on the merits of an issue. I'm unsure how that addresses deficiencies in doctrine. Seems to me that if you want to discuss doctrinal deficiencies, you have an option and the ability to do that...Boy, was I ever wrong about the Small Wars Council forum. I thought it would be a place that sought to address the small wars deficiency in U.S. military doctrine.
Bookmarks