Is Boyd Still Relevant?

The Marines think so. “Is Warfighting Enough?” by Chet Richards and Don Vandergriff is now available in the February 2008 edition of the Marine Corps Gazette.

[Available to members and subscribers only. If you’re eligible, join! If you’re not, subscribe! Click here for details.]

Be Sociable, Share!

Filed in Uncategorized | 6 responses so far

6 Responses to “Is Boyd Still Relevant?”

  1. maximilliangcon 28 Jan 2008 at 4:54 pm 1

    While Boyd’s insights continue to gather lip service,
    witness more empirical evidence that the US Military
    has no concept of how to win at asymmetric and
    non-linear warfare, moreover, as evidenced by its leadership
    it apparently has no motive or interest in doing so.

    Once again, US casualties are on the rise, as our people
    fall victim to classic ambush techniques.

    The stalemate continues, and costs continue to mount.
    MC

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080128/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
    http://icasualties.org/oif/US_chart.aspx

  2. maximilliangcon 01 Feb 2008 at 5:39 pm 2

    A disturbing new twist, in the the bogus US concocted GWOT,
    as new tactics and techniques are demonstrated much faster than
    the hapless US military and political elites can even imagine, much less counter.

    They are within the US OODA loop, and perhaps several cycles ahead. (no pun)
    MC

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080201/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq

    BAGHDAD – Remote-controlled explosives strapped to two mentally retarded women detonated in a coordinated attack on Baghdad pet bazaars Friday, Iraqi officials said, killing at least 73 people in the deadliest day since the U.S. sent 30,000 extra troops to the capital last spring.

    The chief Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, claimed the female bombers had Down syndrome and that the explosives were detonated by remote control, indicating they may not having been willing attackers in what could be a new method by suspected Sunni insurgents to subvert stepped up security measures.

  3. maximilliangcon 02 Feb 2008 at 2:50 pm 3

    After what ? Six years ?
    Ther Afgan campain is behond the US Militaries OODA loop.

    Pathetic ?!

    Maybe the US should invade Bermuda, and such, it might
    have better luck,,,,.

    Maximillian

    http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=29850

    Afghan picture confusing, US Marines’ chief says

    REUTERS
    Reuters North American News Service

    Feb 01, 2008 18:35 EST

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Pentagon does not have a clear picture about the state of the war in Afghanistan, with U.S. commanders on the ground offering positive assessments while intelligence reports are more negative, the U.S. Marine Corps chief said Friday.

  4. maximilliangcon 02 Feb 2008 at 2:54 pm 4

    The title of this thread, “is Boyd still relevent”
    In terms of the conduct of the US Military, apparently NOT.
    MC

    http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticleNew.asp?xfile=data/theworld/2008/February/theworld_February28.xml&section=theworld&col=

    US Qaeda strategy fatally flawed: analysts
    (AFP)

    2 February 2008

    PARIS – In its ideological struggle against Al Qaeda, American anti-terrorist strategy too often overlooks the basic tenets of the infamous Chinese warlord Sun Tzu, namely: know your enemy.

    That is the fixed view of leading analysts, who conclude that through ignorance of the enemy it faces, ignorance of its nature, its goals, its strengths and its weaknesses, the United States is condemned to failure.

  5. jaylemeuxon 02 Feb 2008 at 7:28 pm 5

    I have to say that I never saw where the Marines thought Boyd relevant, at least not from 2001-2006. Well, maybe that’s not entirely accurate. Boyd’s ideas exist on paper in MCDP-1, but in reality his words are used to justify attrition warfare in a most unBoydian sense.

    For instance, (during my service, which ended in ’06) the Marine Corps constantly told every Marine from the first day of boot camp that they had to show “initiative.” Really though, one would be punished for doing anything that one had not heard from a superior first. The operational definition of “initiative,” as I saw it, was “the act of doing what you know I’m going to tell you to do anyway.” So if a bunch of lance corporals serving their second tour in Iraq were standing around next to a pile of sandbags waiting for their NCO to arrive and tell them to start filling, good “initiative” would dictate that they start filling without waiting for his almost certain orders. However, it would not be acceptable for them to, based on their own past experience and what they see before them, decide that sandbags were not the best method of fortification in this case and start laying concertina wire instead.

    Of course the centralization of command varies from unit to unit, but in general Boydian terms were taken out of context and used to extend the effect of rigid, centralized, unimaginative command down to the lowest level even when direct supervision was not available.

  6. maximilliangcon 03 Feb 2008 at 9:05 pm 6

    “Really though, one would be punished for doing anything that one had not heard from a superior first. The operational definition of “initiative,” as I saw it, was “the act of doing what you know I’m going to tell you to do anyway.”

    I think that pretty much sums it up Jay.

    MC