William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[slapout9]

In the Lind article you see a reference to Col. Michael D. Wyly who is probably one of the finest living military writers that there is, he is a very farsighted individual indeed. He wrote the best part of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook. But the link to the article below is very Germain to this thread. I have posted it before but it defintely belongs here.


P.S. Curmudgy! In it Wyly discusses what every Marine must know about the future of warfare and list 3 suggestions for every Marine(I would think it applies to Army officers to) to know in order to be prepared.

Here is the link to the article as usual comments are welcome.
http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/wyly_4gw.htm

[Bill Moore]

In the Lind article you see a reference to Col. Michael D. Wyly who is probably one of the finest living military writers that there is, he is a very farsighted individual indeed. He wrote the best part of the Maneuver Warfare Handbook. But the link to the article below is very Germain to this thread. I have posted it before but it defintely belongs here.


P.S. Curmudgy! In it Wyly discusses what every Marine must know about the future of warfare and list 3 suggestions for every Marine(I would think it applies to Army officers to) to know in order to be prepared.

Here is the link to the article as usual comments are welcome.
http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/wyly_4gw.htm

His three points

First, we must expect the unexpected in terms of new kinds of enemies and new kinds of forces that assume the function of soldiers and nondescript war makers.
Second, we must come to grips with the fact that our traditional form of warfare, i.e., high tech with overwhelming firepower delivered from a distant standoff, no longer solves problems.
Third, the Corps must be a bastion of Americans who really do support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Don't disagree with any of them, but I think the frst and third points are well known and bring little new to the table. His second point is critical, it is also the point that Gen Rupert Smith makes well in his book, "The Utility of Force," but Wyly doesn't address the so what of this comment (at least in the article you provided a link to). I know I sound like I'm defending military officers, and to some extent I am while also remaining highly critical, but what Wyly is pointing out is deeply flawed understanding of war and its requirements by our civilian leadership that our defense industry reinforces with their insistence that technology will save the day. To some extent they're right, and we don't want to be disadvantaged by being technically trumped by our adversaries, but that doesn't mean people aren't ultimately decisive.

[JMA]

Bill,

Wyly's article was dated 1995 while Smith's book was published in 2005.

Both - obviously - made a contribution to military thinking in their time.

Despite the writings of these two persons the 'civilian leadership' in both respective countries have learned nothing during the intervening years. This is the really bad news.

His three points



Don't disagree with any of them, but I think the second and third points are well known and bring little new to the table. His second point is critical, it is also the point that Gen Rupert Smith makes well in his book, "The Utility of Force," but Wyly doesn't address the so what of this comment (at least in the article you provided a link to). I know I sound like I'm defending military officers, and to some extent I am while also remaining highly critical, but what Wyly is pointing out is deeply flawed understanding of war and its requirements by our civilian leadership that our defense industry reinforces with their insistence that technology will save the day. To some extent they're right, and we don't want to be disadvantaged by being technically trumped by our adversaries, but that doesn't mean people aren't ultimately decisive.

[TheCurmudgeon]

P.S. Curmudgy! In it Wyly discusses what every Marine must know about the future of warfare and list 3 suggestions for every Marine(I would think it applies to Army officers to) to know in order to be prepared.

Here is the link to the article as usual comments are welcome.
http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/wyly_4gw.htm

Slap,

I have a bit of a problem with #3. Interpreting the Constitution is not easy. First, you have to decide if you believe it is a living document that is meant to be read and interpreted by people today, as Justice Roberts would advocate; or is it a dead document that was written in stone the moment it was signed and must be interpreted as the drafters understood things as Justice Scalla believes. If you get past that you have a document that Nine Constitutional scholars can interpret as it applies to a specific situation and still disagree almost right down the middle -- 5 to 4 -- on many key issues. And you want a Marine in combat to make decisions on the interpretation of the Constitution in a split second that these justices have months to research and think about and still not come to the same conclusion? I think that is utter nonsense.

Give them some basic values, like the Army's seven values, and have those guide their decisions. DO NOT expect them to interpret the Constitutionality of any action. Let their senior officers worry about that. They are the ones that need to understand if the orders they are given are just and legal.