Foul-mouthed maverick changed the art of war

New Zealand Herald ^ | 12/30/02 | ROGER FRANKLIN

[Valin]

NEW YORK - The coming assault on Baghdad already has its first hero: Colonel John Boyd, a foul-mouthed, insubordinate fighter pilot who has been in his grave at Arlington National Cemetery for almost five years.

When Iraq's tyrant is brought down, that inevitable victory will be Boyd's doing. You won't hear Boyd's name being cited in Rose Garden speeches, however. Nor will the Pentagon be authorising any posthumous decorations for the man who, through 30 years of bureaucratic guerilla warfare, transformed America's military. Even though he gave them many of the tools that made Operation Desert Storm such a sweeping success in 1991, the brass continued to hate Boyd with such a passion that, as a final sign of contempt, they sent only a single general as their official representative at his funeral. But without his influence, the US would almost certainly be preparing to enter Iraq much as it fled Saigon: a vast, muscle-bound killing machine based on the assumption that big budgets and expensive weapons assured victory.

That approach didn't work in Vietnam, nor even in tiny Grenada, where a US expedition force required two days in 1983 to subdue a squad of 200 Cuban construction workers. "Thank God they have dumb sons of bitches in the Kremlin, too," Boyd fumed not long after. "If they weren't thick as ****, Grenada would prove how weak we really are." Boyd's disgust was palpable. Army units on the island couldn't call in artillery support from Navy ships because their radios worked on different frequencies. Nor could soldiers on the ground stop air strikes hitting the wrong targets. Almost 30 Americans were killed in the conflict, most the victims of friendly fire. "Grenada was confusion cubed," Boyd told me in 1985, after the Pentagon released a report whitewashing the invasion's flaws and follies. "Our top guys know the first rule of warfare: always protect your rear."

Boyd devoted the latter half of his career to catching those generals with their pants down. The first half had been spent in the cockpit, first over Korea and later as an instructor at the US Air Force "Top Gun" flight schools. Had he been just another joystick virtuoso, Boyd would have had a traditional career: step by step up the ladder until retirement, when he could have been expected to join one of the weapons companies, pitching former colleagues on the latest, gold-plated guns, planes and tanks. That's how the procurement game had always been played at the Pentagon, where a weapon's usefulness was of secondary importance to its cost. Big budgets still mean bigger staffs for the Pentagon's project-development officers - and bigger salaries, too, when they leave to work for General Dynamics, Grumman, or Boeing. To Boyd, the system produced "gold-plated **** shovels" that "hurt us more than the enemy".

So, after rewriting the air combat rulebook he began looking at the broader flaws in US military theory. They were, he concluded, the same ones that had led to disaster in Vietnam, the ultimate symbol of which he saw as the F-111. "The only good thing about the F-111," he said, "is that the dumbass Soviets believed our propaganda and built their very own piece of useless ****, the Backfire bomber." His idea of the perfect fighter plane was the F-16. Small, cheap and simple, it used only enough technology to make it a more efficient killing machine - fly-by-wire control systems to save the weight of hydraulics, one engine to keep it small, cut costs and make it hard to target.

When superiors tried to silence his criticisms by pushing him into a dead-end office job, Boyd developed the concept on the sly by "stealing" a million dollars worth of computer time, giving his brainchild a variety of misleading names and slipping the evolving concept past bureaucratic enemies before they realised what they had just authorised. It earned him a wealth of grief. There will be plenty of F-16s over Iraq pretty soon, but that won't be Boyd's greatest contribution. Of much greater impact will be the culmination of his life's work, a treatise on military tactics that he penned after retiring to Florida and seeing the F-16 accepted, against all odds, as a frontline mainstay.

"He called it Observe-Orient-Decide-Act - commonly known as the OODA loop," says Boyd's biographer Robert Coram. "Simply rendered, the OODA loop is a blueprint for the manoeuvre tactics that allow one to attack the mind of an opponent, to unravel its commander even before a battle begins."

To Coram and others, including Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Boyd is "the most influential military thinker since Sun Tzu wrote The Art of War 2400 years ago". So why should pacifists cheer the memory of a man whose life was devoted to perfecting the use of martial force? Because, if the Iraq invasion goes even remotely according to plan, Saddam's downfall will be short and relatively bloodless. Isolated, unable to trust his generals and with his every move tracked by the cheap, plentiful, all-seeing Predator drones that Boyd also helped to develop, Saddam will have two options: surrender or perish.

The Baghdad campaign will reflect Boyd's greatest insight, the one he borrowed from Sun Tzu. The sweetest victory, said the Chinese sage, is the one that does not demand a battle. Even if you have the weaponry to win it at a canter.

[yoe]

If Donald Rumsfeld is really listening, I am greatly relieved. Let us pray he is.

[Valin]

For what ever it's worth Dick Cheney is a big John Boyd Fan.
During the gulf war he brought Col. Boyd to the pentagon to help plan the ground attack. CentComs plan was High diddle diddle straight up the middle, into the teath of the Iraqi defence.

[Imal]

I think there must be more to his story though, just not brought forth in this article.

How right you are! When I first saw this article, I had never heard of the man. So I've been poking around the 'Net and finding out more about Col. Boyd. As I have done so, my estimation of this remarkable American has grown exponentially.

I strongly recommend that you find out more about Col. John R. Boyd. Among other things, you'll discover that his "Energy-Maneuverability Theory" was used not only in the design of the F-16 (which rightly or wrongly you disparage) but also the F-15, which you so rightly praise.

But I am coming to believe that his greatest contributions to America have much less to do with aircraft design or air combat tactics per se than military strategy as a whole.

It has only taken me a few hours of study to conclude with confidence that Colonel John R. Boyd was, beyond all doubt, a military genius of tremendous historical significance.

[Arkie2]

Thanks. I thought there must be more. This particular article represents a very poor summary of his talents and achievement if what you say is correct.

[Imal]

Thank you very much for posting the title article and the additional information.

I am now studying Col. Boyd's work with the delight of discovering something of great value that I had long overlooked.

[Imal]

This particular article represents a very poor summary of his talents and achievement if what you say is correct.

I urge you to see for yourself. Just follow some of Valin's links and do a few Google searches. There's a wealth of solid information out there. A good source is Boyd and Military Strategy.

Check out Col. Boyd and his legacy. You will not regret it!

[Pelham]

But without his influence, the US would almost certainly be preparing to enter Iraq much as it fled Saigon: a vast, muscle-bound killing machine based on the assumption that big budgets and expensive weapons assured victory.

It doesn't sound to me like he knew all that much about Vietnam. Far from being "muscle-bound", the number of combat troops was remarkably small. From 35,000-50,000, even at the height when we had 500,000 people there. Small stinger with a long tail. The problem was a lack of strategic plan at the political level, little to do with equipment or procurement.

[VOA]

I was deeply saddened to learn of the passing of Colonel John Boyd, USAF (Ret).
How does one begin to pay homage to a warrior like John Boyd?...(big snip)...
That ancient book of wisdom—Proverbs—sums up John’s contribution to his nation:
" A wise man is strong, and a man of knowledge adds to his strength; for by wise
guidance you will wage your war, and there is victory in a multitude of counselors."*
I, and his Corps of Marines, will miss our counselor terribly.

C.C. Krulak General,
U. S. Marine Corps
Commandant of the Marine Corps


As a civilian (and speaking to civilian posters/lurkers), when a fellow like
Krulak (who as appeared on "Focus On The Family") gives this sort of praise
to a brilliant, foul-mouthed genius...
IMHO, it's a sign the genius far out-shone the profanities.....

The thing that does bother me about all this post-mortem praise for Boyd?
The bad guys will hear about him and start studying his doctrines in earnest...

[Pelham]

The quote is attributed to Nathan Bedford Forrest, who said something of that sort. The funny thing is he rarely had "the mostest", but he surely hit hard and fast with what he did have.

[Pelham]

I've heard the B-2 is able to hit 16 separate targets on one pass.

[Hobo anonymous]

As you recall, the F-16 could not be armed with laser guided munitions "back in the day". Thus it had to drop the vintage "dumb bombs". Thats changed now. The F-16 has been modified to drop both XAGM laser guided weapons and JDAM. The F-16 will be the backbone of any air campaign into Iraq.

Plus, the Israelis prefer the F-16 as their air combat craft of choice. They have some of the best pilots in the world, greater or on par to our Naval aviators.

What you say is true, and you know as well as I do that the F-16 will seriously clear some house when we introduce it back into Iraq.

[B4Ranch]

Boyd's techniques are known the world over. Our pilots hopefully have the best instructors.

[Hobo anonymous]

True, the F-15E is a better plane. BUT, the F-16 is just as lethal. Low cost, multi-role, fast, maneuverable (the plane can shoot itself) and hard to see.

From what I understand, the Airforce operatres more F-16's than F-15s, which give you greater mobilty. Not all F-15c's have been configured for Air-to-ground combat either, thus the E (Strike Eagle) designation.

The USAF is improving upon the Falcons design. An example of this would be the "Super Falcon", which incorporates thrust vectoring into the design.


F-16, a piece of crap? The F-16 is the plane of choice for the Israelis, whom sent MANY F-15's to their graves in air-to-air (dog fighting) combat simulations against U.S. pilots. Israeli pilots are the best in the world, mainly because they are always in action. The weapon of choice? The F-16.

Japan also operates the F-16 J, upgraded variant of the Falcon.

NASA &Drayden have been working on the F-15 ACTIVE, which in my opinion, is just plain awesome. High altitude canards and thrust vectoring, pfew. One crazy ride.

[Hobo anonymous]

I like your thinking!

[SoCal Pubbie]

Finally I find someone on FreeRepublic who doesn't want to just dump on the Sherman tank. Sure, they were outclassed by the bigger German designs but they were much more reliable and up to par with the German types below the Tiger or Panther. The fact that logistically alone it would have been impossible for the United States to have designed, built, and shipped tanks like the Panther doesn't phase them, they just look at the stat sheet and say the Sheman sucked!

[AFCdt]

All of those aircraft you just described were just technology demonstrators, using 'old' F-16 and F-15 airframes.

In fact, the current plan is to send most of the active duty F-16s to the Guard, to replace their older model F-16s. The active force will then get the Joint Strike Fighter, idiotically designated the F-35.

Likewise, some of the air superiority F-15Cs will go the Guard, replaced by the, again stupidly designated, F/A-22, which will begin squadron service in the 1st Fighter Wing in 2005.

I expect the active force will hold on to the F-15Es for a while.

Who knows, with the sometimes crazy budget priorities, they may just end up buying lots of Stryker infantry combat vehicles and Virginia class nuclear attack submarines. While the Air Force is left with tankers and bombers built in the 60s, and fighters built in the 70s.

[Mo1]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Leisler]

Not to mention that because of the numbers of Shermans, our infantry had way, way more armored support against troublesome obstacles than German infantry. Some tanks, and fair tanks are way better then no really good tanks.

If I recall correctly, Sherman vs. German armor, the Shermans did quite well by having enough to engage the Germans, and then send more around to outmaneuver the German armor, leaving a choice of abandoning their position or be hit from behind or the sides.

[Brian Allen]

Cannot speak for and/or about today's Air Force but I interact lots with frontline Naval Aviators and they -- and their MO, talent and tactics are superb!