There are so many things wrong with that article, I hardly know where to begin. Prominent among the errors is the assertion that the Luftwaffe bombed London to force a capitulation. - Completely untrue.Originally Posted by Dr. C
The author also says,
WHAT? If he seriously believes that, then how does he define the purpose of Strategy? Surely Strategy is INSTRUMENTAL! - It is used to get something done!We can avoid the logical error of instrumentalism (that which may work in practice, but not in theory) only by disclosing our paper trail of reasoning.
If the secret of SOD is merely holding reasoning and assumption to rigour, then why not say that. Theory you cannot put into effective practice or use to inform practice is utterly useless.
The role of "theory" in military thought is to check the relationships between intentions, practices and actions. The primary source of useful military theory is history. - which SOD seems mostly to ignore.
1.) There is no evidence that SOD is any better or more valid an idea than Manoeuvre Warfare or EBO - there is simply no reason (body of evidence) to believe this.
2.) I hate to rain on the author's parade, but there is substantial evidence that the flow down effects of SOD were very much responsible for problems in the Lebanon. He talks of "Israeli SOD Theorists" - I know of only one, and his standing is not high, except in the US SOD commercial consultant world.
3.) There are no "ethics" in military theory. The ethical dimension is merely how well or poorly a course of action sets forth the policy! Killing civilians generally undermines political objectives. - More over this is a bizarrely "White Christian" view of the world. Many many folks in the world consider killing civilians to be the heart of their strategy.
So yes, the article is nice convoluted wordy romp through various philosophy and theory, but so what?
Bookmarks