Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
So much of what you see out there in terms of current understanding of what needs to be done is based upon what needed to be done for the last war. Almost a definition of doctrine, which is a codification of what needed to be done for the last war, applied to the next. Thus the "fighting the last war" syndrome.
With respect Bob, that's not what history shows us. History and the operational record show us that screw ups in one war mostly come from not understanding the observations from the last. The list of examples is literally endless. Things known in WW1 were not applied in WW2. WW2 knowledge was not applied in Korea, and the Falklands etc etc etc. We hardly ever "fight the last war". if we did we might get somewhere. IIRC That line comes from Liddell-Hart, so needs to be taken with a huge pinch of salt.

I, for one, believe that the principles of both state-based and populace-based conflicts, while very different, are also very enduring in nature. But the environment in which they occur, made up of the history and culture of the affected populace/state; the terrain, veg, weather; the available technologies; etc, etc shape each in a unique way.
Concur

Who will use them? Don't know. Where? Don't know. But there are trends and indicators of change.
That are consistently ignored. All the "NEW WAR" crowd constantly ignore the evidence that Warfare is not changing in the ways they say it is.
This is my big beef with the Intel community from top to bottom. Gross negligent failure to evolve from a complete and total focus in identifying and learning as much as possible about who the "enemy" is;
I concur. If you can find him, you can fix him and strike him. Works on criminals, works on irregulars, works on Tank Divisions.
So, no, I don't try to predict the future, but I do try to understand more fully the here and now. That means a deep study and understanding of the past, without also adopting a blind adherence to the same.
I don't see how you could "adhere to the past," but yes, you have to understand what is relevant an why that is. Some day, someone might want to look at all the smart folks that came up with FCS, and ask what about history did they not understand.