Hey Rob !

Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
Stan,

You've hit on what I think is the biggest problem for EBO. When you are talking about what people will do in an action - reaction sort of thing, its hard to predict when they (really talking about the commited) see life much differently then you (cultural values), when the the thing you'd like them to do is perceived as being worse then death or suffering. This can cost you a great deal of resources if your plan is contingent on a desired effect, and worse if you don't have the ability to go back and fix it the old fashioned way. Some enemy are just "hard headed" and need to be killed.
EBO IMO only rarely works when the opposition has more to loose. If our enemy is content with death as a final result, there’s little ‘effect’ going on. You’re right, old fashioned it is. Hopefully, we have but one or possibly two generations to deal with before the third gets fanatically unstable and we have yet another million to deal with. I would hope that the munitions would run out prior to the third fanatical generation gearing up against the Yankees.

Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
EBO gets its formal roots at least back to WWII where the studies were done on the ball bearings that ruined the Axis. It was not the theory that sold it to Eisenhower though - it was the fact that if bombers went deep then the Luftwaffe would have to come up and try and intercept - when that happened we would continue to destroy planes and pilots faster then Germany could replace them, and exhaust the Luftwaffe's capactity to interdict the landing forces, or to support German units repositioning to destroy our beach heads. However, I think the general feel in the Army is we've been doing EBO since birth, we just never gave it its own spot on the shelf - reading Grant's memoirs - he talks about Winfield Scott conducting what smells like EBO to me as part of his campaign plan against Mexico.
Damn ! I thought it was that famous Chinese dude Sun Tzu
One of my favorite books to date is WWII America at War, 1941-1945 by Norman Polmar and Thomas Allen. “General Eisenhower grew to be the indispensable coalition General, a peerless coordinator and command of the Allied operations”. Eisenhower back then was correct in his line of thinking, as we had nearly destroyed Hitler’s war machine. The overall morale of his troops vanished with lack of ammo and food. Pretty basic Bravo Sierra aye ? However, we knew where all his stuff was, so destroying it and his machine was no real strategy. We just had to get there, dump ordnance and head home for fuel.

Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
The best example I've heard to consider the limitations of EBO is Hitler's aerial bombardment of the Britons - did Churchill throw in the towel?
I think Winston got a raw deal. After all, he was only 35 or 36 when he reached ‘cabinet rank’. I know folks to this day in their 50s who can’t put the M4 back together without their eyes. Churchill didn’t throw in the towel, but he did realize that Britain would never win without US involvement. Hence the deal ‘destroyers for bases’.

Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
Having said all that, I do think EBO can be useful in reaching those not totally commited to the fight (for whatever reasons), for shaping the perceptions of those not directly in the fight, but whose support or lack of support could make a difference, and also when the circumstance don't yet, or will not permit more lethal and final ways to be used. There are certainly those who are using it to good effect. It seems to work best when there is some kind of carrot attached.

Marc, and regional/national/tribal/ethnic/religious specialists like Marc who have spent their lives thinking about people and why people do what people do (or don't do) are probably bested sutied to look across the targeted PMESII (Political, Military, Economic, Social, Information and Infrastructure) environment and give us a few posible reactions to consider before we marry ourselves to an effect.
I like that approach, but just how many of the estimated 5 million are unwilling to fight ? What sort of carrots are we talking about

I also like asking Marc questions…It’s his answers that worry me most

Regards, Stan