It is almost war-lie to read the turgid prose of the comments at Chicagoboyz. Put simply: war changed because strategy changed insofar as numbers killed during earlier wars. One very simple illustration: when was the issuing of the bayonet ended?Why?
Bootneck:
February 8th, 2008 at 3:34 am
I recently listened to Frank Hoffman brief at the UK Joint Services Command and Staff College and I appreciated his thoughts on "Hybrid War". I have also (actually) read: The Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd by Frans Osinga.
Notwithstanding that I tend to naturally believe in the wisdom of Clausewitz (I could go on but I would end up quoting Gray or Echevarria at length!) but I do like Boyd. I guess what I am saying is that debate is good!
I have met Wilf Owen and corresponded on a number of times and although his views do not seem to chime with the majority, the important thing to remember is as Echevarria asserts " The problem with any body of knowledge, however, is that it has to be read before it can truly exist"
The key determinant over time will be how the application of Boyd’s ideas to current conflicts , helps us, rather than arguments over his current perceived importance.
My father and uncles drilled with bayonets ( Vietnam era) but admittedly, I’ve not seen a bayonet charge lately.
Hi Bootneck,
Great handle BTW; and an excellent comment. I agree with your closer.
On Clausewitz, I recall Osinga argued in his lecture at Boyd207 that Boyd had misread him ( or perhaps projected things on to him that are not merited by a close reading of On War). OTOH – great thinkers are to an extent punished both by their critics as well as the more zealous of their own followers. Comes with the territory I guess
Joe blow:
February 10th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Fred, you are a pseudo-intellectual. Changes of bayonet occured at the technical and tactical levels of war. Far from war proper and strategy. Please, if you are going to make claims of turgid prose then don’t produce the opposite: writing so simplistic that the writer shows he knows nothing.
fred lapides:
February 7th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
It is almost war-lie to read the turgid prose of the comments at Chicagoboyz. Put simply: war changed because strategy changed insofar as numbers killed during earlier wars. One very simple illustration: when was the issuing of the bayonet ended?Why?
Bootneck:
February 8th, 2008 at 3:34 am
I recently listened to Frank Hoffman brief at the UK Joint Services Command and Staff College and I appreciated his thoughts on "Hybrid War". I have also (actually) read: The Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd by Frans Osinga.
Notwithstanding that I tend to naturally believe in the wisdom of Clausewitz (I could go on but I would end up quoting Gray or Echevarria at length!) but I do like Boyd. I guess what I am saying is that debate is good!
I have met Wilf Owen and corresponded on a number of times and although his views do not seem to chime with the majority, the important thing to remember is as Echevarria asserts " The problem with any body of knowledge, however, is that it has to be read before it can truly exist"
The key determinant over time will be how the application of Boyd’s ideas to current conflicts , helps us, rather than arguments over his current perceived importance.
zen:
February 8th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Hi Fred
My father and uncles drilled with bayonets ( Vietnam era) but admittedly, I’ve not seen a bayonet charge lately.
Hi Bootneck,
Great handle BTW; and an excellent comment. I agree with your closer.
On Clausewitz, I recall Osinga argued in his lecture at Boyd207 that Boyd had misread him ( or perhaps projected things on to him that are not merited by a close reading of On War). OTOH – great thinkers are to an extent punished both by their critics as well as the more zealous of their own followers. Comes with the territory I guess
Joe blow:
February 10th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Fred, you are a pseudo-intellectual. Changes of bayonet occured at the technical and tactical levels of war. Far from war proper and strategy. Please, if you are going to make claims of turgid prose then don’t produce the opposite: writing so simplistic that the writer shows he knows nothing.
zen:
February 10th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I have to say..it’s not just any day that Joe Blow stops by Zenpundit! LOL!