Replies

Extremely interesting, and well written, but Swanson fell victim to the same confusion about "shock and awe" that has afflicted the reporting on the campaign.

Shock and Awe is a land warfare doctrine that, essentially, encompasses Boyd's designs. It simply involves the application of force that is so intense and rapid that the enemy either is paralyzed and therefore incapable of reacting (shock) or is so fearful of the consequences of reacting that he fails to do so. (awe) The doctrine was applied quite extensively during the final part of the 3ID's move on Baghdad.

Somehow, the media picked up the phrase "Shock and Awe" and attached it to leaks about the opening air campaign. Then, having created an unrealistic expectation, they were able to file stories deriding the failure to achieve it. It was sort of the classic case of a media-created issue. Mostly what DOD did was, simply, not correct their mis-impression.

We had "shock and awe"... significant amounts of it... in the land war, which is where the doctrine is intended to be applied.

Good find, though.

Well, I think your notion that "Shock and Awe" is "only" a land war tactic (and that I was thereby "confused" about it) is a bit narrow/tunnel vision. I think (and so interpreted) Boyd's work as potentially being larger than that. Yes, Rumsfeld did say that the tomahawk/bomb attack was only part of a larger pattern of shock-and-awe. And yes, 3rd Inf. did use a great deal of shock-and-awe during its campaign. However, I suggest you guys are a bit too critical and fail to realize journalists (or anyone else writing an analysis) must necessarily keep things relatively simplified. My larger point was that Rumsfeld et al promised one thing, but delivered something else--and that those who failed to understand that this was basically a form of psy-ops, mind****ing, were consequently disappointed. And I was interested in the problem of a public official (the entire administration) saying one thing but doing something substantially different--(in this case, for perfectly valid Boydian "psy-ops").
I would define Shock and awe not only as the application of force (as yoiu suggest), but also the THREAT of such application, the treat being so massive or self-evident that you achieve Boyd's "break-their-spirit" objective.
I actually think the treat aspect worked pretty well, though there's no evidence one way or another, until we begin detailed interrogation of what the other side was thinking and perceiving (and we won't know that for a while yet). And in any event, what I really wanted to see was some public discussion of all this doctrine, use of boyd's tactics/ideas, etc. So far, the only thing I've found is this specific chat--and not much discussion of Boydian stuff even here.
I think your defining "shock-and-awe" narrowly to "only" land warfare doctrine just makes it the same old "shock" tactics of the Blitzkrieg, the April 1918 German counter-attack, and some Napoleonics. If that's so, then Boyd has "only" re-stated earlier work. But I think he did more--and it seems (from the "we're bogged down and under-manned" critics, a lot of the ground guys (don't know if you are one, or not) still don't understand it/him.
your larger criticism of the media reporting "leaks" (didn't seem like "leaks" to me--seemed like press conferences) that created false expectations, and then knocking down those expectations, is very accurate, though. however, that's the stuff I'm now referring to as part of the psych disinformation war.
i'd be interested to know if you agree or disagree with my observation that the US clearly gave the impression it was going to bomb the crap out of baghdad.
my problem is this: to me, Baghdad really did seem to be "shocked" virtually from the beginning in how it reacted (actually, failed to react). if you agree with that premise, how then to explain it? how to explain the failure (if that's the right word) to use chemical weapons? (was it fear of consequences?).
my other problem is this: how does "shock-and-awe" (or any other psch. warfare) apply to people who are essentially irrational/fanatical? it seems to me S&A/Psywar necessarily applies only to people who are more or less rational and paying attention. but can you psych out a wacko, or if so, do you use the same tools as you'd use with somebody more-or-less rational? I dunno, but I'm inclined to doubt it.
your thoughts?