The Ancient Art of Modern Warfare

Chris Mayer National Security and Strategy Consultant

Exploring changes in the practice of war while the fundamental nature and principles of war are unchanging. Includes mercenaries, PMSC, Hybrid Warfare, revolution in military affairs. For in-depth information see my blog at blog.ctmayer.net

  1. MAR 20

    Operation Epic Fury vs. The Powell Doctrine (E131)

    In podcast episode 128, posted just before Operation Epic Fury began, I outlined how I think that an attack on Iran could be just, necessary, and what I perceived as a path to achieve the goals expressed by the U.S. Government in the weeks leading to the start of the war. I did not expect this to be a blueprint for what would actually happen. What I really did not expect was for the conduct of the war to be completely different that that. So different that more than the usual naysayers are questioning whether this war is just at all, or winnable. In this episode I go beyond the Just War Theory I used in my previous analysis, using the Weinberger-Powell model for the use of military force. This model is credited with successful use of American military force in the last decade and a half of the 20th century. Although it is not, and was never intended as a recipe for success, abandoning its thought process seems to have been a formula for failure. As usual, the opinions in these podcasts are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the Department of Defense, anyone else in the U.S. Government, or any other organization I am or ever have been associated with. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.   Dedication to my sons, 1st Lt Miles Mayer USAF and PFC Charles Mayer USA. With the commitment to our future military engagements being jus ad bellum and jus in bello.   The Weinberger-Powell Doctrine (1984) Promulgated by Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger. Believed to have been written by then Maj Gen Colin Powell, his senior military assistant. The United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved. S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed. U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives. The relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary. U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress. The commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.   General Colin Powell’s re-statement of the Doctrine in 1992, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Is a vital national security interest threatened? Do we have a clear attainable objective? Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed? Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted? Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement? Have the consequences of our action been fully considered? Is the action supported by the American people? Do we have genuine broad international support? If after careful consideration of these questions, the decision is made to commit U.S. military forces, then two imperatives shall apply:   Clear and unambiguous objectives must be given to the armed forces. These objectives must be firmly linked with the political objectives. When we do use it, we should not be equivocal: we should win and win decisively.   Reference: Powell, C. “U.S. Forces: Challenges Ahead,” Foreign Affairs, Winter 1992/93 Music: Kiilstofte, J., The Cavalry, Machinamasound (Licensed)

    14 min
  2. FEB 4

    Predicting the future...has a rather bad track record (E125)

    The inevitable never happens. It is the unexpected always. -- J.M. Keynes 1938   Almost everyone plays with predicting the future. Persons who speak with presumed authority and say that some outlandish thing is inevitable often get a lot of media attention. The more media attention, the more people come to think that the outlandish thing really is inevitable. In warfare, I have lived through the inevitability of guerilla warfare as the model for all future warfare; the inevitable demise armored warfare, the transformation of maneuver warfare; counter-insurgency warfare as the inevitable future war form; and more recently, that drones will so dominate the battlefield, that all previous forms of warfighting will be obsolete. In my opinion, inevitability has a rather bad track record. From time to time in these podcasts, I will revisit some of these predictions and see which of these were inevitable and which were overcome by reality.   The information in these podcasts is solely my own opinion and do not represent the position of the U.S. Department of Defense, or any other organization I am or have ever been associated with.   Certified 100% natural intelligence. No artificial intelligence was used in making this podcast.   References: Pournelle, J., The Mercenary, (1977, republished 1986, ISBN 9780671655945) Recompiled with other works of the series and published as: Pournelle, J. and Stirling, M., The Prince (2002) (ISBN 0-7434-3556-7) Heinlein, R., Starship Troopers, (1959) ISBN 978-0450044496 Music: Kiilstofte, P. Mercenaries, Machinamasound (Licensed)

    8 min
4.5
out of 5
19 Ratings

About

Exploring changes in the practice of war while the fundamental nature and principles of war are unchanging. Includes mercenaries, PMSC, Hybrid Warfare, revolution in military affairs. For in-depth information see my blog at blog.ctmayer.net

You Might Also Like