Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
Wilf, here is a little deeper back round on the beginnings of what became known as EBO.

1-I guess this is pretty much the paper that started it all. "The Enemy As A System" by Col. John Warden
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...les/warden.htm


2-From that original concept of "Systems Warfare" it went to this, which is why EBO has long been associated with Air Power only, which is was never meant to be.
http://www.aef.org/pub/psbook.pdf
Yes, The Warden paper I know well and reject it utterly, for the same reason Tira and whole bunch of other folks do.

Quote: In today's world, strategic entities, be they an industrial state or a guerrilla organization, are heavily dependent on physical means. If the physical side of the equation can be driven close to zero, the best morale in the world is not going to produce a high number on the outcome side of the equation. Looking at this equation, we are struck by the fact that the physical side of the enemy is, in theory, perfectly knowable and predictable. Conversely, the morale side, the human side, is beyond the realm of the predictable in a particular situation because humans are so different from each other. Our war efforts, therefore, should be directed primarily at the physical side.

This assumes breaking stuff is decisive. It is not. We have vast amounts of evidence against this.

This is not attacking the will and cohesion of the enemy nor is it anything to do with what many touted as EBO - so how come this is always cited as the Rosetta Stone of EBO? - when Warden is advocating something that is purely physical destruction. Any relevance to COIN?