Admiral Cebrowski’s Legacy is not Iraq

December 2nd, 2007 by zen

In fairness to Shachtman, as the WIRED article proceeds, he offered a more nuanced picture of the role of Network-centric Warfare in the larger scheme of things and backtracked somewhat during his exachanges with Tom. However, not all of WIRED’s readers are defense geeks who surf obscure PDFs from OSD.mil and understand the entire context of defense doctrine and policy; Cebrowski and Garstka are therefore, left tarnished by Shachtman in a way that’s sort of akin to blaming William Lind and 4GW theory for Pakistan and India brandishing nuclear weapons at each other.

Page 2 of 2 | Previous page

Posted in barnett, Cebrowski, defense, intellectuals, iraq, military, military reform, national security, network theory, Network-centric Warfare, networks, social networks, state building, strategy, system administration, theory, war, wired | 9 comments

Previous post:
Next post:

  1. historyguy99:

    December 2nd, 2007 at 5:03 pm

    Mark,
    Your summation of Shactman’s article and the response it provoked, is right on point! 
    I think that those of us who have watched this unfold, and are familiar with the basic tennets of NCW, and with Tom’s work, know how much Admiral Cebrowski influenced Tom’s thesis.  Thank you for saying so eloquently what so many of us feel.

  2. Jane d.:

    December 2nd, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    Bravo Mark

    It’s been a busy post holiday week for many.  I, for one, was very agitated by NS’s piece and hoped people who appreciate Tom’s work (and by extension his mentors) would respond. Thanks to you for setting the record straight and helping to correctly inform a larger readership.

  3. zen:

    December 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 pm

    You’re welcome guys!

    We all enjoy Danger Room and no one believes Shachtman is a bad dude on a personal level, but I  think he dropped the ball here in a major way and the record needed correction.

  4. Galrahn:

    December 3rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm

    Thank you very much for this. Excellent work.

  5. Legacy of Arthur Cebrowski and Network-Centric Warfare « Kings of War:

    December 4th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

    […] of Arthur Cebrowski and Network-Centric Warfare Over on Zenpundit you’ll find a useful round-up of a rather intemperate exchange between Noah Schachtman of […]

  6. 4GW vs. NCW « House of War:

    December 6th, 2007 at 1:43 pm

    […] Zenpundit sums it up well: The crux of the problem with Shachtman’s article is that his opener gives the impression that the botching of the occupation in Iraq should be laid at the door of two men who articulated strategic ideas with impressive intellectual celerity and subtlety, one of whom is no longer able to defend himself. […]

  7. vimothy:

    December 7th, 2007 at 4:49 pm

    No problems Mark.  I like The Danger Room and Noah (and WIRED), but his article was a bit silly.  Got the impression that Tom was too pi**ed off to explain it in words Noah could understand, but thought your post nailed the whole thing up with admirable brevity.

    Best,

  8. vimothy:

    December 7th, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    Apologies for stray "up"… never at my finest on Friday afternoon… 🙂

  9. Opposed Systems Design :: The High Touch Competitive Advantage :: December :: 2007:

    December 14th, 2007 at 5:00 pm

    […] Blog (excellent reading for all Excel jockeys) has an interesting post responding to Noah’s now infamous Wired article about NCW and CPOF in […]