Principles of War

I am a military history major graduate from the United States Military Academy. The intent of this post is to take another brief look at the current conduct of war, in August 2005, by using the “Principles of War”. I am not on active duty, nor do I have access to any classified information pertaining to this war. Violating some principles of war does not mean we will lose this war, but these violations are NOT helping America win this war.

The first principle discussed is “Offensive. The United States has been on the defensive for over two years. It is time to go back on the Offensive. We need to overthrow the government of the second ‘Axis of Evil’, Iran. If needed, we also need to overthrow the Syrian government. President Bush in a speech at Fort Bragg stated that we need to stay on the offense. I say we need to go back on the offensive.

The next Principle of War that I will now discuss is “Unity of Command”. This principle was being violated for the first 2 years of the War on Terror. I am sure having the Commander of CENTCOM being bypassed and using SOCOM, created many problems. Bremer and the CPA is another example. At least those two problems have been fixed.

The third Principle of War to be looked at is “Objective”. Every military operation should have a clearly defined, decisive and attainable objective. The ultimate military objective of war is the defeat of the enemy’s armed forces. I no longer believe that this is a War on Terror. This is the first war fought over the control, ownership and use of nuclear weapons. The primary threat to the US is a nuclear attack. We have already been attacked with biological agents. While it took the US only 3 ½ years to develop nuclear weapons, Iran and terrorists have been trying to buy, steal or develop nuclear weapons for over twenty years. We must expect that they will (or have) seceded. Therefore, one of our primary objectives has to be the continued denial or destruction of our enemies’ nuclear weapons.

The fourth is “Mass”. The main effort is where your combat power is concentrated at the critical point and time to achieve decisive results. I hope this becomes Iran.

The fifth is “Economy of Force”. Afghanistan has been a great EoF mission. There may not be a better example in all of history. I hope that Iraq also becomes an EOF mission rather then the ‘Main Effort’.

The sixth is “Simplicity”. With everyone saying that this is going to be a long and complex campaign, I wonder what has happened to the basic principle of “KISS”.

Number seven is “Surprise”. While the terrorists used strategic surprise on September 11th, the enemy has appeared to have gone into extended hiding. When they stand and confront us, they die. They clearly will continue to be able to gain tactical surprise. While US forces never had strategic surprise, we have always been blessed with being able to gain operational or tactical surprise. I hope we continue to do well in that arena. The first use of nuclear weapons clearly will be a surprise. I hope we are ready.

Eight is “Security”. It appears that our combat forces are continuing to take enough measures to protect our combat power from observation, sabotage, annoyance, surprise, the press and hopefully espionage. I do not want to write anything else that may compromise that principle.

Last, but not least is “Maneuver”. I would think battalion and brigade heavy task force(s) with special forces (not UofAs) based in Iraq and Afghanistan could support operations inside of Iran. Tom Clancy may have to write a new novel.

In conclusion, I hope that I am wrong in my observations about the principles of war that were being violated. Something that Americans have always been better at then any of our enemies is learning from our errors, correcting our mistakes and driving on to victory. Let hope THAT history repeats itself.

"I posted this article on the Principles of War as taught at West Point. It is an academic tool to evaluate battles, operations and war. I used it to start a discussion on the subject here on FR. Tell me what war is?"

According to the USDOD, war is a clash of wills. The main enemy in the war on terror is the collection of State and nonstate actors that are engaged in terror tactics to thwart efforts to to promote peaceful and free commerce and the efforts to establish the honoring of rights and their protection.

The offensive began when the jihadists that mounted the attack on the US had the lands where they were free to operate and were given govm't support, were taken from them. They were either taken outright, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, or the govm'ts of others were moved to contain the terrorists. The US never let up on the offensive. The main focus of the jihadists is now the US mil in Iraq. The minor focus is the various civilian population centers around the world in desperation to force world opinion against the US. Their efforts there are counter productive.

As far as Iran and their nukes go, that is not part of the war on terror. That is a separate matter. It involves Putin's Russia and takes the form of traditional national conflict. The govm't of Iran itself, as with NK, is posing as a hostile nation.

Most of the principles you mentioned are not principles of war. They are elements of strategy.

.... I'm going to have to read Corbett .... clearly West Point likes Mahan.

One of Corbett's teachings, in contrast to Mahan's doctrine to seek out the enemy for a decisive encounter, was that chasing around the Globe trying to bring your enemy to a decisive battle often results in striking a "blow in the air" or finding the enemy in a place of his own choosing.

Instead, Corbett advised occupying a place of high strategic value and forcing the enemy to come to you.

"It should be borne in mind that if you seek it (the enemy fleet) out with a superior force, you will probably find it in a place where you cannot destroy it, except at very heavy cost. It is far better to make it come to you..."

That strategy is now in effect in Iraq.

The definition of "War" in the US Army and West Point is: "The condition in the life of a political group where violence and destruction of considerable duration or magnitude are directed against a rival political group that is powerful enough to make the outcome of the conflict uncertain for a time."

Most of the principles you mentioned are not principles of war. They are elements of strategy.

Yes they are .... You can Google "MOUSE MOSS" or "Principles of War" and see for yourself. Strategy is separate and is part of the "Threads of Continuity". The Threads are both Internal and External. The Internal Threads are Military Professionalism, Tactics, Strategy, Logistics and Administration, Military Theory and Doctrine, and Generalship. The External Threads are Political, Social, Economic Factors and Technology ....

Strategy is the planning for, coordinating of, and concerted use of the multiple means and resources available to an alliance, a nation, a political group, or a commander, for the purpose of gaining an advantage over a rival. It is divided into grand, national, military and campaign strategy.

IMHO, the US stopped offensive operations sometime shortly after the fall of Iraq. During our elections the reasons were political. We will just have to disagree on that point.

Since the Iranian President was involved in the 1979 embassy take over and with our old embassy still a HQ for their revolutionaries with a Museum to the Great Satan, It is clear that Iran is a Terrorist State. I believe that since 1979 the heart and most of the brains of terrorism lies in Tehran.

I don't think Nelson would agree with your post .... if I remember correctly he was "blowing in the air" after Napoleon for nine months until the Battle of the Nile ..... I've got to go to bed .... to be continue....besides doesn't Rumsfeld still think there is no insurgency? Stumbling into that strategy by accident is not strategy....

Believe it or NOT there are DAILY press releases with accompaning VIDEO about the reconstruction efforts and in general the GOOD news that is happening in IRAQ.

The MSM doesn't care and won't risk life or limb to cover and report the GOOD when all they have to do is sit in the luxury of a hotel and wait for a roadside bomb and the latest casualty count of the day........and report that!

Believe it or NOT there are DAILY press releases with accompaning VIDEO about the reconstruction efforts and in general the GOOD news that is happening in IRAQ. The MSM doesn't care and won't risk life or limb to cover and report the GOOD when all they have to do is sit in the luxury of a hotel and wait for a roadside bomb and the latest casualty count of the day........and report that!

Yep, as sad as it is to say. Our Government does a better job of reporting what is going on then the "journalists" are doing.

trying to bring your enemy to a decisive battle often results in striking a "blow in the air" or finding the enemy in a place of his own choosing.

Which is what the Cast Iron right is advocating with their "take out Syria and Iran right NOW" mindset. As I keep asking those who scream "GW is letting them have sanctuary".

What are your targets? What are your goals? Really easy to scream "hit the pipeline thru Syria" lot harder to actually do that with a foe that is indistinguishable from the civilians around them. So what then? Since their bases and sources of supply are covert there is no "Haiphong Harbor" or "Ho Chi Min" trail to hit to stop up the pipeline. Strike into Syria or Iran and all the Terrorist need to do is fade back into their civilian lives until we are forced by time and cost to move on to the next hot spot. To fight terrorist we need to have a battlefield that they HAVE to come fight on. Death Ground as Sun Tze calls it. Iraq, part of the "holy" Arabina peninsula, currently is that death ground.

I don't think Nelson would agree with your post .... if I remember correctly he was "blowing in the air" after Napoleon for nine months until the Battle of the Nile .....

Remember, that post was Corbett's dictum. I can't take credit for it.

Corbett would point out that Nelson was "blowing in the air" until the French fleet stopped at the strategic point of Aboukir Bay. The French made Nelson come to them at a prepared position. Be that as it may, and although the French out-gunned the British, Nelson's superior tactics prevailed.

Corbett cited a previous Mediterranean chase:

"....in 1704, Admiral Sir George Rooke was unable to seek out the Toulun fleet but, by seizing Gibraltar, he made it come to him".

Corbett did step on quite a few Royal Navy toes by daring to criticize Nelson, the Royal Navy's minor deity.

Corbett believed that Nelson's statement that he would be willing to see his fleet destroyed if he could cripple the French fleet in the process was highly irresponsible.

Corbett pointed out that, while a Continental land power had a fleet as a luxury and could take extreme risks with it as it was not vital to survival, a maritime nation such as Britain that depended on its fleet for its very survival could not afford to risk the destruction of that fleet in a cavalier fashion.

I will continue reading up on Corbett this weekend. I just finished reading Williamson Murray's online account of Corbett. Murray was one of my "Ps" at West Point, when he was visiting professor and I have alot of respect from him. It's pretty clear that Corbett is a Naval Clausewitz .... I like Churchill, while Churchill had his faults, I don't think Corbett was in Churchill's camp .... luckily for England ..... there seems to be a concept error here if the Nelson /Churchill part of the Royal Navy didn't like Corbett there must be a reason ..... I'll be looking up Admiral Jackie Fisher .....

there seems to be a concept error here if the Nelson /Churchill part of the Royal Navy didn't like Corbett there must be a reason ..... I'll be looking up Admiral Jackie Fisher .....

Corbett was a member of Fisher's "Fish Pond".

Corbett also stepped on more Royal Navy toes when he was thought to be too sympathetic to Admiral John Jellicoe's performance when he wrote the official history of the Battle of Jutland.

Corbett's point was that, although Jutland did not result in a destruction of the German fleet, it was still a solid strategic victory as the German High Seas Fleet never ventured from port again. A more aggressive action may have jeopardized the survival of the British Grand Fleet without any further strategic benefit than what Jellicoe achieved.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.