AmericanPride if this true, then simply apply my proposed test for the principles listed and see if works. Maybe the nature of war is the wrong choice of words, but how we and our "conduct" war is clearly different, and I don't "think" the principles apply equally, and sometimes not all based on the "nature" of the conflict.
I would assert that all conflict has the same nature: violence for the achievement of a political objective. Whether or not the "conduct" between opponents through different time periods and from different locations is not the same does not change that said belligerents are striving, through conflict, to attain a desired end-state. That 'end-state', when stripping away the particular identity of the combatants, also fundamentally requires the submission of the enemy. There is no "right" way to reach this end so long as it is accomplished. The principles which ostensibly lead one to success do so on the basis of the nature of war; therefore guiding (or determining), not originating from, its conduct. If principles were to be based on a particular "conduct", then they would be relevant only so far as that conduct wins wars.

My major concern about the so called "Principles" is we are discussing those feature in FM-100.5 or FM-3.0 and not those which originated the concept.
I share the same concern. It is currently 0430. I will attempt to mount a defense of the US Principles of War later in the day.