The John Boyd collection (merged thread)

[Cavguy]

It seems that a little less charity is being expressed in the various threads about Boyd, OODA, MW, etc. My take on this is that the acrimony in a debate varies inversely to the stakes/outcome of the debate. IOW, lots of folks have a lot of "skin" invested in the explanatory power of Boyd, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc, but the cash value of that "skin" is actually quite small. On a day-to-day, non-academic basis, having one of them be more right really doesn't amount to much in how successfully we get along in the world of prosecuting warfare at the tactical level.

WM,

I have very little vested in any of the methods talked about, except perhaps Slapout Based Warfare.

Seriously, what prompted this thread was my confusion over the near sainthood of John Boyd by certain organziations, and their strong claims that he was America's greatest military theorist.

I was simply asking someone to justify why/if this was so (I admitted some ignorance) and trying to separate hyperbole from fact about the man, his work, and influence.

It seems from the resulting discussion (which ties into the MW discussion) that most of the veneration comes from a time when the military thought culture had degenerated into decision matrices, checklists, COFM's, and other linear tools that were teaching individuals what to think, not how to think.

From what I have gathered Boyd began a counter-revolution against this, adding the "art" back into warfare in his lectures and writings. The USMC, in an intellectual rut, adopted this philosophy after some "Young Turks" (Lind, et al.) convinced the USMC to make "Maneuver War" the central tenant of its doctrine instead of attrition tactics. Maneuver War as implemented by the USMC was heavily influenced by Boydian thought.

As Eric stated, it was needed medicine and perhaps an oversold in an effort to change the mindset of a force. Now that that correction has happened in some ways, the devotion and passion of its proponents seems a little extreme to those who didn't grow up in a stats based military (like me), and are skeptical of anyone claiming to have it all figured out.

It seems to me Boyd was a charismatic, no-BS type of guy who didn't have patience for stupidity and things that don't work or are inefficient. Through force of character he managed to change some military culture for the long term. I admire that.

However, I haven't yet seen anything to justify that he is the "Greatest American Military Theorist" that Lind & Co. claim him to be, or why I need to adopt a "Boydian mindset" above all others.

[Steve Blair]

However, I haven't yet seen anything to justify that he is the "Greatest American Military Theorist" that Lind & Co. claim him to be, or why I need to adopt a "Boydian mindset" above all others.

I would suggest that some of this comes from the impact Boyd's personality had on the individuals in question. My "drink the Kool-Aide" comment earlier was facetious in a way, but also intended to point out the impact that Boyd's personality had on people. From what I've read, he was one of those people that you either loved or hated. There was rarely any middle ground. This may in some small extent explain the appeal he had for the Marine Corps, which has a tradition of charismatic mavericks, and the violence with which many in the Air Force establishment rejected him (he wasn't a systems guy in their sense of the term).

One of the more interesting parts of Coram's book is his examination of Boyd's main acolytes (and that's the word he uses for them...and also if memory serves one they used for themselves). If you read that, it might help explain why Boyd has the impact on some people that he does.

[Eden]

I have to say this has been one of the most stimulating threads I've followed in a while, and one of the reasons why I keep coming back here when I should be working. The references and explanatory notes have given me a better understanding of Boyd and his work - though I have to admit I have never been a fan.

I also have to note that, through no fault of his own, Boyd's influence has had an insidious effect on the US military. Like apes with loaded sidearms, some Boyd adapters with an imperfect grasp of his principles did positive harm. The OODA loop, for instance: you can draw a fairly direct line between it and some of the nonsense concepts we've had to deal with over the last decade or so, like accelerated-decision-making, recon-pull, and perfect SA. It has infected planning, acquisition, doctrine, and organization.

Not that that is a lick on Boyd, any more than I blame Clausewitz for trench warfare in WWI. It's just that some ideas can be dangerous in the hands of the dim.

[Ken White]

...Not that that is a lick on Boyd, any more than I blame Clausewitz for trench warfare in WWI. It's just that some ideas can be dangerous in the hands of the dim.

were never spake...

[ericmwalters]

Entropy writes:

IOW, the level of influence a particular theorist has is pretty subjective. I don't know who the "greatest American military theorist" is and furthermore I don't really care - it doesn't really matter in the end.

Oh, so true...but this isn't any fun!

Feel like going back the the beginning of this thread, trying to figure out where the appellation of Boyd being "the greatest American military theoretician/strategist" came from. It must matter to somebody. I don't count him as a strategist by any means, although he did talk about strategy a good bit. But talking about something doesn't make you that same thing. I can talk about pro football all day long, but that doesn't make me a footballer.

The best than can be said about Boyd in this regard is--I'd argue--he counts as the greatest American military theoretician in the latter half of the 20th century. Wilf will argue that properly belongs to Bob Leonhard. So what is the criteria for "great?" He and I will probably disagree, and that's okay, because at least I could concede that Bob deserves to be a candidate/contender for that characterization. But who else would be in that field? Here's my list of contenders other than Leohard and Boyd...and none stack up given my personal criteria:

Admiral William Owens ("Lifting the Fog of War," anyone?)
Douglas Macgregor (Breaking the Phalanx)
Trevor DuPuy (Quantified Judgment Model)

If I included the early 21st century, I could toss in:

Thomas Barnett (The Pentagon's New Map)
TX Hammes (The Sling and the Stone)
Steven Biddle (Military Power)
Philip Bobbitt (The Shield of Achilles and Terror and Consent)

And if I wasn't so U.S.-centric, I could include people such as:

Colin Gray
Martin van Creveld
Sergei Gorshkov
Nikolai Orgarkov

and more....

Now, if I had to characterize the "Greatest American Military Theoretician" of all time (at least at this writing), it would be dirt easy--Alfred Mahan. I'll just say right now--before the literary punches start flying--find or start another thread somewhere else on that!

Seriously, it may be worthwhile--admittedly purely for fun since it truly does not matter--to determine your criteria for what "great" means. If it will help, consider the question of who is the greatest baseball player of the 20th Century? Have fun with that one!

[William F. Owen]

The best than can be said about Boyd in this regard is--I'd argue--he counts as the greatest American military theoretician in the latter half of the 20th century. Wilf will argue that properly belongs to Bob Leonhard. So what is the criteria for "great?"

I don't think Bob Leonhard is the greatest. If nothing else, most people have never heard of him, or even read him. I just think he is greatly more useful and insightful than Boyd, when it comes to Land Warfare.

I think Doug MacGregor does good work - again he and I strongly disagree, on some issues, but sure makes me think. The same is true of TX Hammes. I can't get around TX's 4GW at all. I have real issues with his acceptance of the idea that the historical record does not need to support the concept of 4GW.

Steve Biddle's book Military Power is good, though a bit one dimensional. I find it a very "comforting read" - but the equations and systems stuff at the end, just leaves me cold.

I would also submit Archer Jones as one of the most insightful US writers on general military thought. His Art of War, is extremely good.

I get a lot of inspiration from Colin Gray, and corresponding with him, moved me to write the "MW Fraud" article.

As Umar Al-Mokhtār points out, SO WHAT? is the acid test of military thought. Is it true? Is it useful?

From all I have read on Boyd, he seems a very honest and likeable guy. I have profound respect for his personal conduct, and his "Be someone or Do something useful - you can't do both," dicta, in that the important thing was to get the ideas out there, not take the credit for them.

[Entropy]

However, I haven't yet seen anything to justify that he is the "Greatest American Military Theorist" that Lind & Co. claim him to be, or why I need to adopt a "Boydian mindset" above all others.

Personally, I'm inherently skeptical of any an all claims that so-and-so are the "greatest" at anything, though maybe Michael Jordan and Pele' are exceptions . IOW, the level of influence a particular theorist has is pretty subjective. I don't know who the "greatest American military theorist" is and furthermore I don't really care - it doesn't really matter in the end.

[wm]

WM,

I have very little vested in any of the methods talked about, except perhaps Slapout Based Warfare.

I didn't mean to suggest that you were one of the guys with a vested interest. In fact, I suspect that when you were leading that Tank company team in Iraq, you seldom, if ever, asked yourself a question like :"What would CvC or John Boyd suggest I do know?"

Seriously, what prompted this thread was my confusion over the near sainthood of John Boyd by certain organziations, and their strong claims that he was America's greatest military theorist.

I tried to answer that. I suspect that a lot of us who did grow up in the metricized afterbirth that came from MacNamara-era MBO and zero-defects thinking were so traumatized that avoidance of critical, original thought became ingrained as a self-defense mechanism. Boyd became a hero/sacrifical lamb of sorts because he did buck the system. However, I have submitted previously that his take is really not new and is missing some critical pieces of the explanation. For one thing he doesn't explain how we get from Observe and Orient to Decide and Act in a timely and meaningful way. Second, he doesn't explain how we avoid the problem that was the motto of several of my frat brothers: "Let's do something, even if it is wrong." IOW, he does not show how we verify that our observations and orientations were properly focussed and conducted correctly. A Boydian explanation is IMHO embeds the "And then a miracle happens . . ." part of many explanations or the Deus ex machina found in too many movie plots.

[Ron Humphrey]

Are we differentiating between applied theory and theoretical constructionist here. Or does that really make a difference when trying to pin the tail on a tiger

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

military iconoclast. As far as "greatest" military theoretician...eehhh maybe not so much IMHO.

He did not really come up with anything new to add to the theory of warfare, what he did was pointed out the inter-relationships and added to the never ending debate.

And the "so what" factor Wilf advanced shouldn't be taken as a smack down, he was expressing what many who are very well read in the military arts felt when looking into Boyd's briefing. Now certainly for many others it proved to be a sort of revelation; but to go back to the 6 year old analogy, if, for some reason, the kid is already fluent in calculus, when he takes the class his reaction will be 'so what I already know this stuff.' Not to smack anyone just to say 'check, got it, let's move on.'

I respect Boyd because he took on the system from the inside, he certainly played well to the dumb, cigar chomping, fighter pilot stereotype, which caused many to underestimate him. His genius lay in his ability to be a governmental guerrilla, an insider insurrectionary, a bureaucratic insurgent…and more metaphorical descriptions I can't match up right now.

[slapout9]

I have very little vested in any of the methods talked about, except perhaps Slapout Based Warfare.

All The Way, Sir