Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
It seems that a little less charity is being expressed in the various threads about Boyd, OODA, MW, etc. My take on this is that the acrimony in a debate varies inversely to the stakes/outcome of the debate. IOW, lots of folks have a lot of "skin" invested in the explanatory power of Boyd, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc, but the cash value of that "skin" is actually quite small. On a day-to-day, non-academic basis, having one of them be more right really doesn't amount to much in how successfully we get along in the world of prosecuting warfare at the tactical level.
WM,

I have very little vested in any of the methods talked about, except perhaps Slapout Based Warfare.

Seriously, what prompted this thread was my confusion over the near sainthood of John Boyd by certain organziations, and their strong claims that he was America's greatest military theorist.

I was simply asking someone to justify why/if this was so (I admitted some ignorance) and trying to separate hyperbole from fact about the man, his work, and influence.

It seems from the resulting discussion (which ties into the MW discussion) that most of the veneration comes from a time when the military thought culture had degenerated into decision matrices, checklists, COFM's, and other linear tools that were teaching individuals what to think, not how to think.

From what I have gathered Boyd began a counter-revolution against this, adding the "art" back into warfare in his lectures and writings. The USMC, in an intellectual rut, adopted this philosophy after some "Young Turks" (Lind, et al.) convinced the USMC to make "Maneuver War" the central tenant of its doctrine instead of attrition tactics. Maneuver War as implemented by the USMC was heavily influenced by Boydian thought.

As Eric stated, it was needed medicine and perhaps an oversold in an effort to change the mindset of a force. Now that that correction has happened in some ways, the devotion and passion of its proponents seems a little extreme to those who didn't grow up in a stats based military (like me), and are skeptical of anyone claiming to have it all figured out.

It seems to me Boyd was a charismatic, no-BS type of guy who didn't have patience for stupidity and things that don't work or are inefficient. Through force of character he managed to change some military culture for the long term. I admire that.

However, I haven't yet seen anything to justify that he is the "Greatest American Military Theorist" that Lind & Co. claim him to be, or why I need to adopt a "Boydian mindset" above all others.