Results 1 to 20 of 59

Thread: Classic Principles of War

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Gee Wilf

    Freedom of Action is one I've seen on a few other national lists of Principles of War (if not that then something very like it). We tend to write them because we like checklists. there is nothing wrong with that as long as we don't see the list as the be all, end all. Rather, principles - seen in the less rigid way - can be useful in helping us consider whether we have taken account of the major areas of war that may present problems.

    Unity of command is a principle that in most political-military conflicts the US honors in the breach. Ask yourself who is in charge of ALL USG activity (including military) in Iraq and Afghanistan. The answer is that there is no one person. In Iraq, neither Odierno nor Crocker is in charge of everything. thus the best that can be hoped for is unity of effort and that depends on the personal relationship.

    Security is THE issue in both places. We've done pretty well in Iraq in the last couple of years, badly in Afghanistan.

    My sense is that defining the objective was a problem in both places - again, better in Iraq recently than in Afghanistan. The objective in Iraq may well be an issue with the new Administration. It is certainly an issue in Afghanistan now and in the future. Hopefully, Petraeus is focused on that at his level but again, how will the Obama Administration see it?

    Cheers

    JohnT

  2. #2
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
    Freedom of Action is one I've seen on a few other national lists of Principles of War (if not that then something very like it). We tend to write them because we like checklists. there is nothing wrong with that as long as we don't see the list as the be all, end all. Rather, principles - seen in the less rigid way - can be useful in helping us consider whether we have taken account of the major areas of war that may present problems.
    John, I'm a huge believer in taxonomies as aids to planning and decision making, but I see no rhyme or reason to "Principles of War" in terms of lists.

    "Mass" is not a principle, but "Concentrate combat power at the decisive place and time." is nearly always useful. The word "Mass" does not have that meaning in it's normal usage.

    My thanks to Bill Moore for pointing that out in good clear language
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

Similar Threads

  1. The overlooked, underrated, and forgotten ...
    By tequila in forum Historians
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 10-18-2013, 07:36 PM
  2. Afghanistan troop surge could backfire, experts warn
    By jkm_101_fso in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 09-06-2008, 10:43 PM
  3. Pedagogy for the Long War: Teaching Irregular Warfare
    By CSC2005 in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-02-2008, 11:04 PM
  4. A Modest Proposal to Adjust the Principles of War
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 02:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •