More on "Attrition"—maneuver, theory, and strategy

Parameters, Winter, 2004 by Richard Stuart Maltz, George H. Franco, Ralph Peters

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to Ralph Peters' article "In Praise of Attrition" (Parameters, Summer 2004). I am a Concept Developer and an author of the "Joint Operational Warfighting" (JOW) concept that introduced to joint concept development the term "discourse" that Mr. Peters disapproved of. JOW, along with similar efforts of the Joint Staff, was also deeply rooted in the "maneuver" theory that he deprecated. Like Mr. Peters, I spent much of my life (26 years) as an Army officer. I admire Ralph Peters, and have defended his views against colleagues who failed to understand his writings in context. In this article, however, while he was substantially correct, he also railed against ideas that he apparently failed to understand, in context.

The thesis of Mr. Peters' article was that attrition (of the adversary) is good. In this, he is correct. There are many who reject attrition, mistaking it for the ponderous "Methodical Warfare" (World War I French) model that holds attrition to be its highest goal. They are correct that attrition is not our highest goal, but Mr. Peters is correct that it is still a necessary and worthy goal (a means to an end). He asserts, "Whatever else you aim to do in wartime, never lose your focus on killing the enemy." In some sense, most battles, campaigns, and wars must be dedicated to attrition, but if that is all that they are dedicated to (particularly at the higher levels) then they are usually wasteful. A soldier's job is to kill the enemy, but the general's job is to out-think the enemy, killing as many of them as is useful, but not as an end in itself.

The article subsequently launched into a general attack against theory. Here the author painted too broadly. Theory is essential and inescapable. No action results from cognition without theory first being formed about how it leads to desired outcomes. Sound actions must be rooted in sound theories. The training and leadership that Mr. Peters mentioned as sources of victory must be rooted in theory in order to exist. Purging of theory is necessarily purging of all but reflexive action. Theory need not be a "straitjacket," as the author described it. Sound theory rejects rigid of formulaic solutions (just as he does). JOW (an archetypical example of joint military theory) held that "creative tension" between myriad alternative approaches was the key to successful decisionmaking, and that the need to maintain such tension--between the poles of traditional, "methodical," industrialism and emerging, "maneuverist," post-industrialism--lay at the core of successful warfighting. I believe Mr. Peters confused theory broadly with bad theory based on formulaic approaches and false panaceas (such as the worship of airpower, precision, information, networks, technology, etc.). The armed forces have long been saddled with trendy notions that were inherently unsound. These have led to mistakes in policy and counterproductive actions, but one may never reject theory as a whole. The result must be paralysis, defeat, and tragedy.

Mr. Peters' next target was "maneuver warfare." Having studied Marine Corps doctrine, and working in the joint world, I can state with authority that the Army and Marine Corps mean two different things when they use the term "maneuver." To the Army (and the defense community generally), maneuver is as Mr. Peters described it: movement of forces in the battlespace, and also the complement of tires. That is not, however, the context used by the Marine Corps and maneuver warfare theorists. To them, "Maneuver Warfare Doctrine" is not a doctrine at all, nor is it uniquely related to maneuver. Rather, it refers to a philosophy and culture of warfighting that undergirds and animates doctrine, and which facilitates much more dynamic decision and action. It emphasizes underlying causes and structures, and unleashing human potential to achieve desired effects more quickly and cheaply. It is based on German and Israeli military experience, philosophy, and culture--standing in contrast to French "Methodical Warfare Doctrine." The principal distinction is a shift in emphasis from "control" in the latter, to "opportunism" in the former. The connection between maneuver as culture and philosophy, and maneuver as movement, is that the former, by stimulating emergent behaviors of synergy, adaptability, and opportunism, facilitates much great dynamism in the latter. Hence, the emphasis by "maneuverists" on deep, fast-paced employment of "maneuver and firepower, speed and violent systemic shock, combined to devastate an opposing force," just as Mr. Peters advocates, as opposed to plodding, linear force-on-force engagements (this is where common confusion arises about maneuver being the antithesis of attrition). Maneuverists are not calling for "elegant" maneuvers to replace tires or attrition; they are calling for a transformation of our warfighting culture. Mr. Peters' comments about leaders schooled in caution suggest that he understands this, but in this context, many of his arguments are pointless. He misinterpreted the meaning of maneuver as used by maneuverists. This common confusion is a strong argument for changing the name of Maneuver Warfare Doctrine.