Why Be Engaged in Europe?

For John, BLUF:  This is about World War One, The Great War, of which we have a number of memorials here in Lowell, including Kittredge Park.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Lesson of the Great War:  Stay Engaged, America

Here is the sub-headline:

A century after the guns fell silent, the United States risks replicating the errors of the past.

From Defense One, by Professor Eliot A Cohen, 9 July 2018.

I do disagree with Professor Cohen on one point.  I believe the Commander of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF), General John "Black Jack" Pershing, was right to want the US forces to be committed as a whole, rather than in penny packets along the front.  The reason was psychological.  Support for the war would be enhanced by American performance and diminished by American accomplishments being blurred in with those of the French and British.

If we glance at Dead Carl for a moment we see the emotional, the psychological, as the first in the three items listed in his "Trinity".  It appears General Pershing knew this.  One suspects President Wilson, with his Southern background, would have sensed it also.

But, back to the larger theme, we do need to stay engaged in Europe, because it will likely cost us in the long run to not be so engaged.

Regards  —  Cliff

MOUT

For John, BLUF:  Currnt operations in Mosul show how difficult cities are for infantry units.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

THE ARMY NEEDS AN URBAN WARFARE SCHOOL AND IT NEEDS IT SOON

MOUT — Military Operations in Urban Terrain.

This article, by Retired Army Infantryman John Spencer, comes from the US Military Academy's Modern War Institute.

From the first paragraph:

Train as you fight.  It’s the first of the Army’s ten principles of training, meant to ensure that the Army will develop and execute tough, realistic training.

My older son, who once was an Infantryman in the Blue and Gray,♠ wrote to me:

Trump is into real-estate, have him work on this.

I like that idea.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The 29th Division, as a National Guard unit, once included units in Massachusetts.

Principles of War

There are some things that aren't done.  One of those things is add or subtract from the Principles of War.  I remember when Major Dick Frishkorn recast Air Force Manual One Dash One, Air Force Basic Doctrine, back in 1984.  We added a principle of war, which upset the leadership down at Tactical Air Command (now Air Combat Command) no end.  The cynical comment was that it was just a dumb idea cooked up by a couple of Majors talking around the drinking fountain.  Frankly, it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Now comes USMC Reserve Lieutenant Colonel Frank Hoffman, head of National Defense University Press, writing in Armed Forces Journal, with a proposed new Principle of War, Understanding.

Strategist Bernard Brodie once observed that “good strategy presumes good anthropology and good sociology.”  Fundamentally, war involves an iterative competition between peoples whose behavior patterns will be a result of a complex combination of factors.  Our national security community has experts who monitor and study the strategic and military culture of adversarial states and assess an opponent’s military capabilities. During the Cold War, we created a cadre of experts in Russian history, language and culture.  After the Cold War, we lost that expertise.

From the United Kingdom we have this explanation:

Intelligence is knowing a tomato is a fruit; understanding is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Understanding.

The source was Joint Defense Publication 04, Chapter 2, Page 2-1.

For me the Principles of War is not a list to be memorized, but rather a set of terms to use for a series of discussions about what they mean at this time and place and in possible future conflicts.

Regards  —  Cliff