Tofflerian "RMA" Firepower versus Heinlein/Fehrenbachian/Van Crevaldian "4GW" Maneuver: which is right for 21st century combat?
UPDATED 3/22/2009
Note: if geocities conks out due to band width restrictions click here for an early version of the power points: www.combatreform.org/FEHRENBACHvstofflersNLBv1.0.ppt
Please try to view the geocities slides because they are packed full of new information added since the power points were first made in 2002.
"We need smart people who can think about old things in new ways that make sense."
--Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, February 22, 2002
The painful irony in RMA zealot Wolfowitz's words is that his former DoD team refuses to admit their philosophy of war is a failure and to adapt---which is by definition hypocrisy. Photo immediately below shows M113 Gavins and M1 Abrams escorting a truck convoy (cannot depart from roads/trails) in Iraq exploiting the former's greater armor protection. The picture beneath the first pic is a Canadian M113 Gavin in ACAV gunshield configuration in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia in the 1990s. Maybe if we stopped making up new labels like "SASO" and studied what works in our profession from events going on all around us we wouldn't have "discoveries" like tracked armor works in ALL forms of combat on planet earth.
“Tanks and armored personnel carriers have been out of favor with the advocates of 'military transformation' for so long that their value and versatility in Iraq has come as something of a revelation,” the report says. “Not only have they provided critical capabilities in waging urban battles, but they have proven surprisingly relevant in the conduct of counterinsurgency operations.”
--Lawrence Korb, He is vice president of the Council on Foreign Relations and former assistant Secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration
What Korb doesn't understand is that RMA disciples are anti-PHYSICAL; physical means effort, it means $ buying durable things that can be re-used; in their techno-arrogance they think MENTAL firepower replaces physical MANEUVER; its failed obviously in Iraq and now Lebanon, yet the Andy Marshall gang are still ruining DoD and getting Americans killed (disposible people) as they waste billions on "inexpensive" disposible guided bombs and lust for expendible platforms like LCS ships. U.S. Naval War College professor of Joint Operations, Milan Vego writes about "net-centric warfare" (NCW) in the January 2007 issue of Armed Forces Journal in his article, "The NCW Illusion":
"There is no proof, at least not yet, that NCW would be effective in quickly and decisively defeating stronger and much more skilled [nation-state] opponents than the ones U.S. forces faced in Afghanistan and Iraq. NCW also appears not to provide much of an advantage in fighting an insurgency in the post-hostility phase of a campaign, as the current situations in Afghanistan and Iraq illustrate. In fact, the ongoing insurgency in Iraq is a powerful proof, if any is needed, of how little practical value networking one's forces has in obtaining accurate, timely and relevant information on the enemy. There is probably no conflict in which U.S. forces have fought in such ignorance of the enemy's purpose, strength and leadership. Even more dubious are ideas that somehow NCW can be effective in fighting and defeating international terrorists such as al-Qaida."
BREAKING NEWS: U.S. Army and now marines reject RMA "Effects-Based Operations" (EBO)
Effects Based Operations (EBO) aka Air strike Firepower Mentality of USAF Rejected by the U.S. Army in 2007
Mattis is a Luddite; he rejects anything new out of hand; in this case something bad, which is fortunate...just don't expect any innovation or progress from him.
Attached from his memo shows he's just copy-catting views of others; in this case the U.S. Army which rejected USAF air strike EBO in 2007.
Let's give credit where its due.
USJFCOM Commander General General Mattis Rejects EBO and gets on the anti-RMA band wagon:
www.combatreform.org/usjfcomebomemo.pdf
Maneuver Warfare is a Fraud
www.rusi.org/publication/journal/ref:A48AD5019CB46E/
Aug 2008, Vol. 153, No. 4
By William F. Owen
The concept of Manoeuvre Warfare (MW) in its modern form was first advocated in the early 1980s as part of the U.S. military conventional response to perceived Warsaw Pact superiority. It has since become widely accepted as a style of warfare and generic concept of operation. This paper will argue that the community it was intended to serve based its wide acceptance largely
on ignorance and a lack of intellectual rigour.
Read Wilf Owen's great article on the MW hoax:
www.combatreform.org/Owen_Journal_August_2008.pdf
My reaction:
USMC: Both Maneuver & Attrition Warfare as Excuses for Military Malpractice
As a friend of Bill Lind and most of the maneuver warfare (MW) proponents stemming from my time in the USMC, I can report that their goal was to make the marines tangibly change for the better since they tend to be narcissistic, stupid dumb asses bent on macho self and peer validation. The intended result that the USMC would light mechanize and be a modern-day German-style, blitzkrieg combined-arms, warfighting organization did not happen because the MW proponents didn't realize that the slacker marines would simply use their ideas of bypassing enemy strength and collapsing a center-of-gravity (COG) to SUBSIDIZE THEIR INFANTRY HAND WEAPON, FOOT-SLOGGING FROM WHEELED TRUCKS NARCISSISM. Actual result: no tangible change in the USMC which simply states it will now die heroically gunslinging from trucks in search of COGs in lieu of dying on beaches frontally assaulting fortified position ala Iwo Jima. The pack-marines-like-sardines-in-amphibious ships racket continues unhindered despite the proliferation of thousands of anti-ship missiles, sea mines and torpedoes ready to swarm and overmatch any anti-this-or-that defenses.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBQo6z_mnmA