A Modest Proposal to Adjust the Principles of War

[Ken White]

If there is no theory to underpin the profession of arms then it is not a true profession, as in medicine, engineering or law. Its just a job, like being a hairdresser or shop assistant. You just need to be trained. You don't have to be able to reason. - and as it is a true profession, I submit that sound theory is vital - otherwise you just have opinions. You don't see engineers having "opinions" about single span bridges.

There are a number of competing theories that underpin the profession of arms. There always will be as people of differing experience levels and intellect espouse their version of the 'correct' theory. If the profession of arms is the management of violence as some say, that implies order from chaos. That has been achieved by proponents of various theories and I suggest, as the saying goes, there is no wrong answer -- unless one wishes to relegate it to an academic pursuit. I think that would be a very bad mistake. Academic precision is nice, combat rarely is.

Yes, you do see engineers having opinions about single span bridges -- if we did not, then there would be no need to seek proposals for design selection.

If mass is no longer required, then when a J-TAC calls in a combined Fast Air, NGF and Atry strike on a high value target, is he not concentrating mass in time and space?

I'd say no -- I'd say he was achieving Local Superiority.

If mass is no longer required, what is the opposite of mass, that we should be emphasising?

Agility, initiative and local superiority?

[William F. Owen]

There are a number of competing theories that underpin the profession of arms. There always will be as people of differing experience levels and intellect espouse their version of the 'correct' theory. If the profession of arms is the management of violence as some say, that implies order from chaos. That has been achieved by proponents of various theories and I suggest, as the saying goes, there is no wrong answer -- unless one wishes to relegate it to an academic pursuit. I think that would be a very bad mistake. Academic precision is nice, combat rarely is.

Yes, you do see engineers having opinions about single span bridges -- if we did not, then there would be no need to seek proposals for design selection.



I'd say no -- I'd say he was achieving Local Superiority.



Agility, initiative and local superiority?

OK, but all the engineers proposals will use same the basic criteria, and be measurable. Load, cost, materials etc, will not be opinions or should not be.

No one is looking for academic precision. I was utterly dismissive of doctrine until I realised that it was 100% essential to a subject that needed to be taught. No doctrine, no nothing. Doctrine = that which is taught.

How is achieving local superiority, different from creating greater mass than the enemy has, in that time and space?

[Ken White]

OK, but all the engineers proposals will use same the basic criteria, and be measurable. Load, cost, materials etc, will not be opinions or should not be.

However, the combination of load, cost materials, etc and in what design package esoterically will be different opinions -- all will work, most likely. Which is selected will be in the eyes of the selection committee (they'll use a committee so no one is responsible if it's a cockup).

No one is looking for academic precision. I was utterly dismissive of doctrine until I realised that it was 100% essential to a subject that needed to be taught. No doctrine, no nothing. Doctrine = that which is taught.

Totally agree -- but that has little to do with semantics and I submit that the Doctrine followed by Brazil, China, Russia, the UK and the US will differ markedly and will be culturally based and semantically different. I contend that is not only acceptable but desirable -- cultures differ and while words are indeed important, usage varies as you earlier pointed out. I'd add trunk / boot, petrol / gasoline, elevator / lift and dozens of others. Recall also that excessive standardization breeds decay; competition OTOH, tends to foster improvement.

Still, if semantics are important to one, I submit that dictionaries exist and that most doctrinal tenets are usually textually expanded (ad infinitum and ad nauseum at that). It seems to me you're proposing a solution in search of a problem.

How is achieving local superiority, different from creating greater mass than the enemy has, in that time and space?

Not one whit -- thus my point about the semantics making little difference.

[Gian P Gentile]

No one is looking for academic precision. I was utterly dismissive of doctrine until I realised that it was 100% essential to a subject that needed to be taught. No doctrine, no nothing. Doctrine = that which is taught.

As an aside but to comment on this definition of doctrine, I prefer a definition that a good friend of mine recently gave me:

"Doctrine is how an army thinks out loud about war."

gian

[John T. Fishel]

SLUGS like us (iron Majors and LTCs active and retired).

A brief comment on professions: I noted no disagreement that the Law is a profession (only good lawyer jokes please). While most lawyers worldwide recognize a professional affinity, their theoretical basis differs drastically. Consider the differences between Code Law and Case (or Common) Law countries. Consider too those legal systems based on religious law as well as the hybrids. Finally, note the differences in legal theory in US law as taught in US law schools.

So, I submit that a profession that draws its theory from SunTzu, Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Giulio Douhet and Billy Mitchell, John Warden, Max Manwaring, Steve Metz, and Dave Kilcullen, among many others and produces an international debate at a high level on this board is clearly a profession - the profession of arms.

Cheers and a salute to all of you

JohnT

[SteveMetz]

So, I submit that a profession that draws its theory from...Max Manwaring
JohnT

Speaking of whom--today is his 75th birthday. Drop him a line!

[William F. Owen]

As an aside but to comment on this definition of doctrine, I prefer a definition that a good friend of mine recently gave me:

"Doctrine is how an army thinks out loud about war."

gian

I know what you mean. I have actually had serving officers try and tell me that doctrine is something other than what it taught.