Thought provoking piece Richard. Have you read the biography or writings of John C. Boyd? Great American pragmatist philosopher of war and mind behind the F-16. Among many things, he said Initiative was the thing -- on both offense and defense.
Thanks for the tip. I will check him out. Right now reading Luttwak's new book on military innovation, focused mostly on Israel. He agrees in re initiative.
It was the Royal Naval blockade that actually ended WWI. The main effect of US entry into that war was to enable the blockade to be complete. Before that, the US, as a neutral country, could effectively run the blockade. I wouldn't call a blockade "defensive". If anything, it is a strategic offense. It ended the Crimean War, and (on land) enabled the victory of Kublai Khan.
I think you are correct that a blockade can be regarded either way. As I hope the next parts make clear, I am thinking of it primarily as a way of interrupting the very long supply lines necessary to force projection. I should have made that more clear.
The 1917 Russian collapse, which left all Eastern Europe open to the Central Powers, would have nullified the blockade in the course of time. The war ended because of the cumulative effect of military defeat on all fronts, and the prospect of further defeats to come.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Over 20 years of training, warfighting, and participating in exercises in North America, Asia, and Europe, I learned that no other allied country plays at the level of the United States. Our training is amazing advanced and complex, yet our number one criticism of ourselves it is never "realistic enough." I spoke with surface Navy, Air Force, and Army soldiers who agree. Not even the Brits. No one else uses combined arms / multidomain ops like we do. Nobody. There is always the next challenge (UASs). But before we toss it all out, remember the only thing holding back our armed forces is political constraint. Lord help whoever we chose to fight in an unrestrained manner.
"The quality of the machine matters not. What matters is the quality of the man in the machine." - Baron Von Richtofen.
Could not agree more. Training rules. And U.S. training is rightly the envy of the world. With the exception of the Israelis (but in a very different, apples to oranges context) no one else comes close. For one thing, training is super-expensive and no one else can afford to do what we do for an army on our scale. It amazed me--and the rest of the world--how in the Gulf Wars U.S. soldiers who had never seen battle fought like grizzled veterans!
Love the Richthofen quote.
There are three more parts to come for this series of posts, I will be very interested in your ultimate views.
In the meantime, thanks so much for posting. Nothing is more encouraging than getting a reaction, especially in the form of an intelligent demurral.
Thought provoking piece Richard. Have you read the biography or writings of John C. Boyd? Great American pragmatist philosopher of war and mind behind the F-16. Among many things, he said Initiative was the thing -- on both offense and defense.
Thanks for the tip. I will check him out. Right now reading Luttwak's new book on military innovation, focused mostly on Israel. He agrees in re initiative.
It was the Royal Naval blockade that actually ended WWI. The main effect of US entry into that war was to enable the blockade to be complete. Before that, the US, as a neutral country, could effectively run the blockade. I wouldn't call a blockade "defensive". If anything, it is a strategic offense. It ended the Crimean War, and (on land) enabled the victory of Kublai Khan.
I think you are correct that a blockade can be regarded either way. As I hope the next parts make clear, I am thinking of it primarily as a way of interrupting the very long supply lines necessary to force projection. I should have made that more clear.
The 1917 Russian collapse, which left all Eastern Europe open to the Central Powers, would have nullified the blockade in the course of time. The war ended because of the cumulative effect of military defeat on all fronts, and the prospect of further defeats to come.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Over 20 years of training, warfighting, and participating in exercises in North America, Asia, and Europe, I learned that no other allied country plays at the level of the United States. Our training is amazing advanced and complex, yet our number one criticism of ourselves it is never "realistic enough." I spoke with surface Navy, Air Force, and Army soldiers who agree. Not even the Brits. No one else uses combined arms / multidomain ops like we do. Nobody. There is always the next challenge (UASs). But before we toss it all out, remember the only thing holding back our armed forces is political constraint. Lord help whoever we chose to fight in an unrestrained manner.
"The quality of the machine matters not. What matters is the quality of the man in the machine." - Baron Von Richtofen.
Mike,
Could not agree more. Training rules. And U.S. training is rightly the envy of the world. With the exception of the Israelis (but in a very different, apples to oranges context) no one else comes close. For one thing, training is super-expensive and no one else can afford to do what we do for an army on our scale. It amazed me--and the rest of the world--how in the Gulf Wars U.S. soldiers who had never seen battle fought like grizzled veterans!
Love the Richthofen quote.
There are three more parts to come for this series of posts, I will be very interested in your ultimate views.
In the meantime, thanks so much for posting. Nothing is more encouraging than getting a reaction, especially in the form of an intelligent demurral.
Best, RV
And here I thought a lost mail box key was the most depressing thing I would have to think about this morning.
I'm sorry about the key.