The John Boyd collection (merged thread)

[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.