Yeah, I'd go with that. And the fiction that follows. Such as WW1 was stupid, mindless attrition....in the context of the problems they faced, trench warfare made sense...and only evolved after significant manoeuvre, countermanoeuvre and flanking movements got as far as they could. They deadlock was broken when the integration of the tank, artillery, air and infantry, via detailed timings and use of the wireless enabled real-time combined ops...with resulted in...bugger me...'manoeuvre warfare'.

So what proponents of 'manoeuvre warfare' of the 80-90s were actually espousing, was 'competent warfare'...ie - not runnning spastically at machineguns when a handly covered route for a flanking attack existed. And the 'attritional' alternative to MW or 'stoopid warfare', implied that MW could be achieved at little or not cost - a sad misapprehension.

Yup. A lot of lazy thinking, and conceptual liferafts in lieu of thought.