Posted on Nov 13, 2020
American Military History is Wrong - Modern War Institute
4.33K
17
10
5
5
0
"How should the US armed forces today apply these lessons to their thinking about our two great-power adversaries, China and Russia? First and foremost, the desired strategic outcomes should be indefinite sustainment of favorable balances of power and avoidance of direct armed conflict with either great power. Second, contingency planning should begin with the desired strategic outcome of the war, not how to fight it. Before asking How should we defeat Chinese or Russian regional aggression?, we should first ask, What strategic purpose is the war supposed to accomplish? and What does the desired strategic outcome look like? "
American Military History is Wrong - Modern War Institute
Posted from mwi.usma.edu
Leadership Development
Military History
Lessons Learned
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
@LTC Eric Udouj Are “strategic outcomes” in the military’s lane? ‘Strategic outcomes’ sounds to me like a political consideration.
(3)
(0)
Suspended Profile
It’s a mix of both. Strategy from a military perspective is setting conditions for victory. If we accomplish this, this and this we have won the military portion of the war. Then we backwards plan the tactics to accomplish those goals based on what we have, what they have, and what we expect them to do.
LTC Eric Udouj
CSM - yes they are. That is were the GCCs operate for the military. You have to have a strategic plan to build all the lower plans from... or you end up like we are in Afghanistan now with no real plan and not one that is tied into national strategy where those strategic outcomes are being weighed. But it is political at the highest level in determining what the outcome is to be so that plan and execute to achieve it .
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
LTC Eric Udouj
Are you talking about the 7 article points? That would probably be a great course using clips from the Long War Era to show each of those points! The one that really stood out to me that would really rock in using video clips to teach it is:
4. The US armed forces are legally and morally responsible for the military governance of liberated or occupied territories and their populations until a legitimate and credible civil authority formally relieves them of their area responsibility. We expect privates to obey their first general order of guard duty: “I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.” We should expect nothing less from our generals.
4. The US armed forces are legally and morally responsible for the military governance of liberated or occupied territories and their populations until a legitimate and credible civil authority formally relieves them of their area responsibility. We expect privates to obey their first general order of guard duty: “I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved.” We should expect nothing less from our generals.
(0)
(0)
LTC Eric Udouj
Why does the lense we use now to learn military history not grasp the flaws made in the orientation of learning it that were established in The American Way of War. Thanks SrA Moore - good point!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The foregone concept of diplomacy has been a universal ridicule for the past few years. Neutrality instead of domination is the only respectable avenue of approach.
If it does come to combat, the best team wins; period, within the confines of established rules. If a party ever steps those rules, “sucks being you, buddy”.
If it does come to combat, the best team wins; period, within the confines of established rules. If a party ever steps those rules, “sucks being you, buddy”.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google