Fouche on “Libeling Boyd”
“Libeling Boyd” seems to me to be an accurate call by Joseph Fouche. I find it difficult to believe that a defense intellectual of Dr. Gray’s caliber does not know the difference between the ideas of John Boyd and Art Cebrowski. Or that there are Soviet antecedents of the Pentagon’s RMA. Or that Boyd’s history as an anti-defense contractor Pentagon gadfly is unknown to him. Or that Gray was too lazy to look up easily available material on the OODA Loop. If it would help, I’d be happy to send Gray a copy of Col. Frans Osinga’s Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd 
Whether it would help though, is debatable.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Joseph Fouche:
December 27th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Thanks for the link.
I think Gray is consciously and deliberately building up Boyd as a strawman here, much as van Crevald does with his "Westphalian" Clausewitz. It may be surprising that Gray picks Boyd out of the many figures who have contributed to the transformation fiasco. However, Gray may need to avoid offending living Pentagon connections and Boyd is conveniently 1) dead and 2) a known outsider. It’s a shame because the old Gray was good at giving proper recognition to generally neglected strategic thinkers like Boyd and RADM J.C. Wylie.
zen:
December 28th, 2009 at 4:09 am
" However, Gray may need to avoid offending living Pentagon connections…."
.
Astute call, JF. 😉
Lexington Green:
December 29th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Since Boyd did not himself <a href="http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/5553.html"> write a book</a>, then he may be more open to this kind of abuse. Still, it does stink of Gray ingratiating himself with someone or some community that wants to belittle Boyd, by misrepresenting him. Shame on Gray.
Dan Ford:
December 29th, 2009 at 6:06 pm