Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
1-both Lind and Wyly talk about it and yes if you blindly follow easy terrain sooner or later you will end up right in the middle of an ambush. There suggestion was, if you run up against a surface where there is no apparent gap then find the weakest part of the surface. The whole defensive perimeter is not going to be of equal strength, which is why one of them (I think Wyly) called it soft spot tactics.
Certainly, that's one perspective. I just see the construct of surfaces/gaps to be of little utility to the commander on the ground. As a way of analysing combat it's fine, but it isn't robust or solid enough a tool to be employed by a commander. It's too open to external factors, the least of all being a perceived knowledge of the enemy in the midst of battle that's simply unrealistic.

As unattractive as the idea is, and it was brushed upon earlier, competent drills, SOPs and tactics will be of far greater assistance. Knowing how to advance to contact, the battle drills to go through and how to apply them to the situation remains fraught with uncertainty and demands flexibility - but the battle drills provide a framework for success.

MW and battle-drills aren't mutually exclusive, but I don't see MW as adding anything of great value to the battle-drills concept. Tactics will succeed when combined arms are applied properly, regardless of how one views 'tempo', 'surfaces', 'mission command' and so forth. MW might be right in parts (the God we tear to bits and consume what we like) but it isn't the whole picture, and it isn't a silver-bullet to victory.

2-In later additions they talk about Combined Arms just as you have, in fact that became one of the later added principles of MW. To my way of thinking it just adds confusion to the idea of the main effort. To me the ME could very well be an artillery unit or air unit used to blow a hole in the enemies surface and make your own gap instead of just blindly walking or riding around searching for one.
Combined arms is, IMHO, absolutely the most important tactical construct that has to be taught and employed for combat success. I have seen it become confusing due to poor thinking - for example, I have seen it defined as the combination of Battlefield Operating Systems so that suddenly logistics becomes a 'combined arms'. Sure, supply is essential but surely combined arms are those things we have that affect the enemy.

I'd suggest your view of MW that assumes knowledge of the enemy - more so than ever will be possible. MW, I believe, is right in parts but for the wrong reasons. Instead of trying to being clever, as MW tells us, we are far better off focussing upon being technically proficient at tactical drills at all levels.

I don't think MW is dangerous but rather that it represents unnecessary complication. It won't directly lead us to disaster but it does not represent the best possible practise.