Sorry, but that's just not true. All were popular and their utility recognised. In the UK, lack of money, and service politics prevented them developing at the rate they did in Germany or Russia - and Russia had purges. If you read the professional journals of the time, - and I have - you'll see the Brits talking about the bones of Deep Battle in 1917!
I certainly never ignore the value of good writing, or the contribution of those with valid and useful experience. It is how this thing is done. I am fed up with the new and mostly silly words.You’re also ignoring the fact that there is some value in this writing. Even if that value is William Owen getting so fed up with the COIN snake oil that he writes an article proving them wrong that becomes the prism through which all early 21st century warfare is analyzed.
To whit, you asked,
So your question is basically would the US fight it's enemies in the same way that the Viet Cong, The PLO, Hezbollah, Hamas or the LTTE guerillas fought? There were/are Guerilla and Irregular Forces. If that's your question, why use the word "Hybrid?" Why do any of us use this word?Many smart people are saying that in the future America's enemies will use "hybrid warfare." Is there anyone thinking/writing about how America could use "hybrid warfare" against it's enemies?
If you can physically kill in cyberspace, then it is a battlefield, and if you are telling me that IP based data comms have military application, then I agree, but the Internet is not a battlefield, unless folks die. Words matter. In military writing "Battle Field" has a precise meaning. Please do not invent new ones for it.Also disagree about the internet not being a battlefield (especially since it was designed as way of circumventing physical battlefields), but that’s a different thread.
Bookmarks