Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
I agree the intention was honest enough, but look where we are today. Boyd is applauded in ways that just make no sense given the evidence, and the facts. Lind came up with 4GW, which actually harmed understanding, and I won't even start on the OODA loopy garbage.

The intervening years have given us Maneuver Warfare, which once you actually break it down is an arbitrary collection of the obvious with a few attractive myths thrown in.Wilf
Sometimes old stuff needs a new, fashionable package to be seen.

Every - absolutely every - concept outside of hard scientific natural laws seems to be exaggerated. That's how things work. You won't be heard and won't get funds for research or sell books by stating the obvious in an unspectacular manner. Extreme concepts have a much larger audience potential (they need to please the people to realize this potential).

Practitioners don't need a perfect theoretical framework, and it's obvious that such a thing didn't exist any more since the Great War.
It's like the history of universal geniuses; the mankind had individuals who knew everything that was known about sciences till the 18th century - afterwards, we knew too much to fit this knowledge into one mind.
I believe we need to accept that the art of war will forever be a mosaic rather than a one-volume publication as in earlier times.
And every mosaic will have have an unrepresentative colour if looked at in isolation.