Well, if Bill Lind (and I will certainly give full credit to him for trying to shove the English-speaking world out of its doctrinal complacency, and by beating us over the head with the German way of war - of which I must personally approve) and COL Hammes (agreed, the man comes out in his writings as a class act, and sharp) are playing the part of Socratic gadflies, then they've probably achieved more than one might have expected, though certainly not as much as they had hoped.
Still, MW and 4/5GW Warfare Theory still strike me as useful mainly to draw attention to what has been forgotten or neglected by classical/traditional military thought; they still don't seem up to the task of supplanting it per se, if indeed that is the intention of folks like Lind and Hammes. Without exception, they acknowledge Sun Tzu and for that matter Clausewitz. And I would be the first to acknowledge that Boyd himself would not have considered himself to be departing from Sun Tzu.
But unless there has been a case of violent disagreement going on, and we're actually agreeing (with those who do not consciously subscribe to MW and 4/5Gw theory and the like simply being unaware that this is in fact the case), then there still seems to be, from the traditional perspective, a critical lack of recognition of the limitations in practice of MW Theory by its theorists, and an oversubscription to novelty on the part of 4/5GW Theorists.
Bookmarks