[Al Kufr]

I dont know if anybody here likes to study military theory or has ever heard of John Boyd(he is the most important military theorist since Sun Tzu),but his ideas are some of the most powerful ideas ive ever heard. And i believe that if they were applied to this war on terror in the correct manner it would be devastating to our islamist enemy. But the problem is that many if his ideas have been "infected" with contemporary bad philosophy and ideas(pragmatism for example),but what hasnt been infected by that though?

For example it has lead some military theorists to consider mutually agreed chivalric codes with islamist!!! becuase war is fought at three levels, the physical, the mental, and the moral level, which is the most POWERFUL level so the weak are perceived to have the moral high ground, for example in the "The Power Of Weakness" :

[QUOTE]"Martin van Creveld who wrote 'The Transformation of War' the definitive book on 4th generation war says:-- --“In private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five-year old – even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife – will be perceived as committing a crime; therefore, he will lose the support of bystanders and end up being arrested, tried and convicted. In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up losing the support of its allies, its own people and its troops. Depending on the quality of the forces … things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.”-- [/QUOTE]

He concludes that its "Human Nature" to feel sorry for the week.

And this is by William Lind who is a conservative(pragmatist) defense policy analyst and who wrote Maneuver Warfare Handbook says:

[QUOTE]"In other words, he who fights against the weak – and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed – and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force, however rich, however powerful, however advanced, however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat …. That is why the present adventure will almost certainly end as the previous one (Vietnam) did. Namely, with the last U.S. troops fleeing the country while hanging on to their helicopters’ skids." --Lind continues and asks this questions, "More fundamentally, the question of how a strong state such as the United States can fight the physically weak (but often morally powerful) non-state enemies it now faces is a central problem in Fourth Generation theory. "[/QUOTE]

[CODE]"the question of how a strong state such as the United States can fight the physically weak (but often morally powerful) non-state enemies it now faces is a central problem in Fourth Generation theory.

Unless we can come up with an answer (mutually agreed chivalric codes may be the beginning of an answer, where those are possible), the 21st century may see the weak triumph over the strong."[QUOTE]


[url="http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?command=viewone&id=176&database=DefenseWatch%202004%2edb"]http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews....tch%202004%2edb[/url]

And here is another quote that speaks for itself:

[QUOTE]I need to tell you that Gunny Poole is a deeply religious Roman Catholic. The religious dimension of this book is probably its most significant and persuasive aspect. His religious teaching on military matters-which I agree with 100% coming from a different, but non-Catholic Biblical tradition-is that our religious ethics teach that the point of fighting in a just cause is *to win, not to kill*. Not only are the lives of our own service members precious, according to our religious teaching, but so are enemy lives, both civilian and combatant. The irreplaceable key to winning with minimum casualties, both ours and enemy, is SKILL. So small unit skill and small unit leader skill are religious imperatives. In almost any fight, especially one that goes on for a while, skill trumps technology. [/QUOTE]

[url="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0963869531/ref=pd_sim_books_1/002-7583949-8996865?v=glance&s=books"]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books[/url]


Now, i hear many Objectivist like leonard peikoff say that we should attack the islamist but he leaves HOW we attack the islamists to the military as if military intellectuals havent been infected by bad ideas, so are there any Objectivist military theorist out there?

Here as some quotes from John Boyd:

[QUOTE]Machines dont fight wars. People do and they use their minds.-Col.John R Boyd

"The goal [of maneuver warfare at the operational level] is destruction of the enemy's vital cohesion—disruption—not by piece-by-piece physical destruction. The objective is the enemy's mind not his body.'--Col John R. Boyd "

War is fought at three levels, the physical, the mental, and the moral level, which is the most POWERFUL level.

People, Ideas, Hardware, important in that order.

"Boyd begins with the premise that the business of life is life. Life cannot be lived unless the organism survives. It can be lived better if it prospers. Hence, all organisms’ first priority is to survive and prosper. This is best done by acting in such a manner that you can provide for your own sustenance independently of others. You cannot control their actions, motives, and performance. Self-reliance is better than alliance. This being the case, the chief aim of an organism that seeks to survive and prosper is to achieve and maintain its independence, its freedom of action."[/QUOTE]


Eastern philosophy has had a great influence on military theories with Sun Tzu and Mussashi, so Im wondering, what contribution can Ayn Rands ideas have on how we fight our wars? Especially in this time that we our in a war for our survival.

If you want to know everything about Boyd and his ideas this is the best place to start:

[url="http://www.belisarius.com/modern_business_strategy/hammond/essential_boyd.htm"]The ESSENTIAL BOYD [/url]

[url="http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/cowan_proceedings.htm"]http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/cowan_proceedings.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm"]http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/boyd_military.htm[/url]

[pvtmorriscsa]

I am glad someone brought this up. I am a military history junkie, and have been wrapping my brain around the idea of an Objectivist/Value based military organization.
My thoughts are still bouncing around in my head, and not fit for publication yet. When they are be sure that I will post them.
As for the Boyd fella, I had never heard of him. I did a quick read of the Essential Boyd link you posted, and I must say it looks like a rewrite of Sun Tzu.
Sun Tzu, is pretty definetive in my opinion. You have to strip away all the mystical crap in it, but at it's core it is perhaps the usefull book of strategy and tactics that I have found.
In fact the first translation into a European language of the "Art of War", was French, and it was pubished, if memory serves shortly before Napolean's rise to power.
If you read Napolean's Maxims, you will notice a lot of similarities.
I hope this topic brings some discussion, as it is a great interest to me.

[Al Kufr]

OODA loop

Boyds major contribution is the OODA loop, which is incredible if used properly in warfare.

Here is a short interview about boyd

Boyd

[Praxus]

Quote

Sun Tzu, is pretty definetive in my opinion. You have to strip away all the mystical crap in it, but at it's core it is perhaps the usefull book of strategy and tactics that I have found.

I highly disagree, we have come so far from Sun Tzu that even reading his work is completly pointless. Everything Sun Tzu thought about has been evolved so much by the likes of Ulyses S. Grant, Kesselring, Robert E. Lee, Erwin Rommel, Georgi Zhukov, Omar Bradley, Boyd, and Patton just to name a few.

If you want useful information on tactics just read Marine Corps tacticle doctrine;)
https://www.doctrine...il/htm/doc5.htm

[Al Kufr]

Praxus, on Aug 27 2004, 01:58 PM, said:

I highly disagree, we have come so far from Sun Tzu that even reading his work is completly pointless.  Everything Sun Tzu thought about has been evolved so much by the likes of Ulyses S. Grant, Kesselring, Robert E. Lee, Erwin Rommel, Georgi Zhukov, Omar Bradley, Boyd, and Patton just to name a few.

If you want useful information on tactics just read Marine Corps tacticle doctrine;)
https://www.doctrine...il/htm/doc5.htm
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NO NO NO, Sun tzu is still very important, the art of war is still important just go jhere to read

http://www.d-n-i.net...word_4_boyd.pdf

http://www.sonshi.com/richards.html

[Praxus]

I have read it numerous times in the past and have found nothing in it that can not be read more easily in other works, exspecially when one is talking about applying it in a modern context.

He may have been the first one to write on Strategic warfare but he is hardly the best one to write on Strategic warfare. He also almost completly ignores small unit action and tacticle warfare.

I am by no means saying his lessons were not important, but they are not the best to look at if one wants to fight a modern war.

Some good reading(linkts to articles, and articles)...
http://worldaffairsb...read.php?t=1627

Your welcome to join the forum of course!

[Al Kufr]

Praxus, on Aug 27 2004, 02:54 PM, said:

I have read it numerous times in the past and have found nothing in it that can not be read more easily in other works, exspecially when one is talking about applying it in a modern context.

He may have been the first one to write on Strategic warfare but he is hardly the best one to write on Strategic warfare. He also almost completly ignores small unit action and tacticle warfare.

I am by no means saying his lessons were not important, but they are not the best to look at if one wants to fight a modern war.

Some good reading(linkts to articles, and articles)...
http://worldaffairsb...read.php?t=1627

Your welcome to join the forum of course!
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I dont know about that, Col. David Hackworth still recomends that all soldier read that book if they are going to war.

[Praxus]

Why he would is beyond me.

[Al Kufr]

yeah, he says:

Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese general/philosopher, wrote THE ART OF WAR more than 2,500 years ago. I strongly urge you to buy it, read it a dozen times and then carry it in your pack next to the PRIMER. They go together like chopsticks and rice and passages of both should be read daily.

I think he means that Sun Tzu is important becuase of the basic thing that are in the book that even modern commaders today ignore to the detriment of their soldiers.

Here is the best example of Hackworth using ideas from the book
http://dev.siliconin...?msgid=20065351

He quotes him many times in his weekly column:
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.....02638255663663


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=18371

[Praxus]

Al Kufr, on Aug 27 2004, 04:58 PM, said:

yeah, he says:

Sun Tzu, an ancient Chinese general/philosopher, wrote THE ART OF WAR more than 2,500 years ago. I strongly urge you to buy it, read it a dozen times and then carry it in your pack next to the PRIMER. They go together like chopsticks and rice and passages of both should be read daily.

I think he means that Sun Tzu is important  becuase of the basic thing that are in the book that even modern commaders today ignore to the detriment of their soldiers.

Here is the best example of Hackworth using ideas from the book
http://dev.siliconin...?msgid=20065351

He quotes him many times in his weekly column:
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.....02638255663663
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=18371
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well then sure go ahead and read it. My point is that almost all people in the Army are dealing with tacticle warfare and not strategic.

[Al Kufr]

Praxus, on Aug 27 2004, 05:35 PM, said:

Well then sure go ahead and read it. My point is that almost all people in the Army are dealing with tacticle warfare and not strategic.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well if your tactics are bad doesnt the grand strategy collapse? And if your grand startegy is bad it kinda makes tactics pointless because innthe long runyoull fail anyways.

And the army is a mess they are bearly starting to change from second generation war to third, the marines is where its at.

[Praxus]

Quote

Well if your tactics are bad doesnt the grand strategy collapse? And if your grand startegy is bad it kinda makes tactics pointless because innthe long runyoull fail anyways.

You can fight a war with bad tactics and win but it turns into a meat grinder. Just look at the Soviets in World War 2.

Quote

And the army is a mess they are bearly starting to change from second generation war to third, the marines is where its at.

I agree. On top of this they are moving to a lighter force. Let's see a Stryker Brigade carry out Operation Thunder run.

[Oakes]

I started reading about Boyd only a couple weeks ago, but Patton has been a military idle for me for years now. I was reminded of him by a recent CapMag article, and the description it gave of Patton's tactics reminded me a lot of what I had just read about Boyd.

It turns out that Patton was part of a long line of people, including Sun Tzu, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, Napolean, W. T. Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and MacArthor, who valued speed and powerful attacks on their enemy's weakest point when it was least expected.

Of course, there is more to maneuver warfare (3rd generation warfare) than that, but I haven't read any complete book on the subject yet. Does anybody have any books to recommend (besides Sun Tzu -- I share Praxus' sentiment about that)? All I know of right now is "Maneuver Warfare Handbook" by William S. Lind and "The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security" by Grant T. Hammond.

Al Kufr: In response to your first post, were you trying to say that the authors you quoted were altruists?

[Al Kufr]

Oakes, on Aug 28 2004, 12:04 PM, said:

I started reading about Boyd only a couple weeks ago, but Patton has been a military idle for me for years now. I was reminded of him by a recent CapMag article, and the description it gave of Patton's tactics reminded me a lot of what I had just read about Boyd.

It turns out that Patton was part of a long line of people, including Sun Tzu, Hannibal, Genghis Khan, Napolean, W. T. Sherman, Stonewall Jackson, and MacArthor, who valued speed and powerful attacks on their enemy's weakest point when it was least expected.

Of course, there is more to maneuver warfare (3rd generation warfare) than that, but I haven't read any complete book on the subject yet. Does anybody have any books to recommend (besides Sun Tzu -- I share Praxus' sentiment about that)? All I know of right now is "Maneuver Warfare Handbook" by William S. Lind and "The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security" by Grant T. Hammond.

Al Kufr: In response to your first post, were you trying to say that the authors you quoted were altruists?
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mostly pragmatists, William Lind for example is a conservative, read these articles to give you an example:
"The Marines threw away the opportunity to de-escalate the fighting with the Sunnis in Fallujah and instead have raised the intensity of anti-Americanism there. For months, the Marines trained for de-escalation. But because of one minor incident of barely tactical importance, the killing of four American contractors, the de-escalation strategy was thrown out the window and replaced by an all-out assault on an Iraqi city. The Marines may have been given no choice by the White House, but it also looks as if their own training did not go very deep; the Plain Dealer quoted a Marine battalion commander in Fallujah as saying, “What is coming is the destruction of anti-coalition forces in Fallujah. They have two choices: Submit or die.” That is hardly the language of de-escalation."

http://www.defense-a...ind_4_14_04.htm

http://www.defense-a...ind_4_21_04.htm

http://www.defense-a...ind_4_27_04.htm


If you want more info on 3GW and 4GW the best place to go is:

http://www.d-n-i.net/

http://www.belisarius.com/default.htm

BOOKS:

http://www.defense-a...level/books.htm

http://www.defense-and-society.org/richard...ed_readings.htm

[Praxus]

Patton was a brillaint strategist and tought the Germans a thing or two about manouver war. He wasn't a good tactician that's for sure. Omar Bradley and Kissereling are the greatest tacticians of the war in my opinion.

As for books...
The Rommel Papers
A Soldiers Story
War as I Knew It
George Washington
Henry Lee
Ulysses S. Grant Memoirs
Memoirs W.T Sherma
Crusade in Europe

These are all memoirs written by the Generals themselves. You can find more memoirs from nearly every great general in the history of warfare.

*I don't have Word installed on this computer so don't complain about spelling;)

[Oakes]

Al Kufr said:

Mostly pragmatists, William Lind for example is a conservative, read these articles to give you an example:

Would you still recommend his book as a good intro to maneuver warfare despite his foreign policy? I think it should be okay as long as the problems in the white house and the problems on the battlefield are totally separate. Here at home our political leaders are reluctant to fully and decisively protect America's self-interest, and abroad our commanders (and the pentagon?) are still in the traditional 2GW worldview.

Praxus said:

As for books...

I'll be sure to look into those, especially Patton's. However, it seems that due to his untimely death the book isn't as much a memoir as it is a compilation of journal entries. One reviewer said it well: "the post-war world lost its opportunity for the war's greatest memoir and its most unpredictable political leader."

[Al Kufr]

Oakes, on Aug 28 2004, 07:03 PM, said:

I'll be sure to look into those, especially Patton's. However, it seems that due to his untimely death the book isn't as much a memoir as it is a compilation of journal entries. One reviewer said it well: "the post-war world lost its opportunity for the war's greatest memoir and its most unpredictable political leader."
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, ive read some of his book and its great, and i think you should buy i dont think it give any forein policy stuff though its just on 3GW.

[pvtmorriscsa]

Praxus, on Aug 28 2004, 01:28 PM, said:

As for books...
The Rommel Papers
A Soldiers Story
War as I Knew It
George Washington
Henry Lee
Ulysses S. Grant Memoirs
Memoirs W.T Sherma
Crusade in Europe

I would add to this list
The Art of War by Jomini. Hard to find, but worth a read. Supposedly my beloved Stonewall was heavily influenced by his writings.
History of War by Keegan. A good read on the evolution of warfare, strategy and tactics.
Steal My Soldiers Hearts, by Hackworth. A great primer on how to out guerilla the guerillas.
Achtung Panzer, by Guderian. One of the first books to work out the principals of what would be called Blitzkrieg tactics.
When Infantry Attacks, by Rommel. This is a book of lessons learned from WWI.

[Praxus]

Some online stuff...

Marine Corps Strategy 21
Expiditionary Manouver Warfare
Joint Vision 2020
Battleships Essential for War on Terrorism
Long Range Guns Still Have a Place in 21st Century War
Tactically Responsive Firepower
Asymmetrical Warfare and the Transnational Threat: Relearning the Lessons from Vietnam


Needless to say Im an advocate of NSFS:)

[IAMNAPIV]

I am surprised no one here has mentioned Clausewitz. Patton, Rommel, and a slew of other military theorists are students of On War.