Quote Originally Posted by Duckhunter View Post
Nonetheless, I feel obligated to disagree on many points in his post.
...and you are obligated. T'is why you are here!
First of all, he contends that Many historians argue that linear warfare was the norm until 1939, when the German blitzkrieg defeated Poland and essentially altered the nature of combat. This strategy (coined "third generation warfare" by the United States in 1989) focused on maneuver, speed, surprise, and synchronization to overwhelm the enemy. So, historically speaking, warfare was ENTIRELY linear before 1939.
Which historians? So the Greek Persian Wars were linear? Hannibal's campaign against Rome was linear? Wellington's campaign in Spain? The Spanish conquest of South America? The English Civil War? The US Civil War? ...and what does "linear" mean anyway? The first common and enduring use of the phrase "Front lines" - in Theatre terms - appears in WW1. It was never used in the same context before that.
There never was anything called "Blitzkrieg". It's baby talk, and the Germans never used the word. German operations in 1939 were based on tactical doctrine written in 1922/3 and that in turn developed from the Artillery Tactics of WW1 - often wrongly coined "Stormtrooper."
However, "killing bad folks" is an oversimplification that borders on intellectual arrogance. First of all, how does one define "bad?" While this seems like an absurd question, there are countless levels of "bad," and not all of them should be solved with lethal fire.
Killing the folks who oppose your policy is why you fight. "Bad" means exactly that. Warfare is about the breaking of will, via violence. All else is diplomacy.
Warfare requires killing. Killing is instrumental, so must be applied against the right people for the right reasons. Who you need to kill is why you have intelligence. FIND, FIX, STRIKE, and EXPLOIT works in all warfare, regardless of the enemy or the policy - and even Galula could not avoid that fact - he just couldn't admit it!
But at no other time in history have the lines between tactical, operational, and strategic warfare been so blurred.
Why are they blurred? What do you not understand?
a.) There is not an "operational level of war." There is tactics and strategy.
b.) Operations are those things an army does to ensure tactical action occurs in the time and place best suited to the political aims required.
The actions of a few Soldiers on the ground can produce second and third-order effects that immediately impact upon national strategy.
I submit winning the Battle of Waterloo (tactical action of a "few soldiers") had strategic effect!
300 Spartans did the same (in myth anyway).
5-10 Bombs dropped by 5-10 men, won the Battle of Midway.
One U-boat captain sinking the Lusitania provided the US with a pretext for War.
A good, albeit overused example, is the Abu Graib scandal.
Explain the actual strategic out come of Abu Graib? Give me facts. What did it actually change?
The level of complexity that young men and women deal with while deployed is significant, as are the repurcussions of their actions. The slightest mistake is leveraged in the information age by insugents looking to capitalize from the fog of war.
How is this new? WW1 was started by one assassination. What about a mistake by Nuke Boat driver in the Cold War?
As the first conflict since the explosion of the Internet, the War on Terror makes headlines, across the globe, within minutes. That burden is heaped on the shoulders of young officers, NCOs, and enlisted personel.
No it isn't. This is a myth. - and the internet and conflict existed well before 2001! War on terror? War on an abstract noun? It may be more complicated because Presidents do no understand the instrumental nature of strategy.
I apologize for rambling. Again, I respect 99% of what Mr. Owen says. However, I did feel the need to voice a different opinion on this one post. Thank you for listening.
No apology required. First call me Wilf and second, voice away.
-Point is, you seem to have brought into all the comforting myths of modern warfare that forgives folks not studying military history both in breadth and in depth. It is incredibly arrogant of the modern generation to assume they have it tougher or more complex.
It is simply without evidence. Confusion born of ignorance (no offence intended) does not mean "complex." Warfare has always been about the most complex human affair on the planet.
Loosing on Iwo Jima or Okinawa would almost certainly have had far greater strategic consequences than defeat/withdrawal in both Iraq or Afghanistan.
Washington loosing his entire Army in one administrative river crossing at Trenton would have had similar effect.