Thread: Great article by @Heather_at_ACTS regarding paralysis, war, and the always sensational argument Maneuver vs Attrition. Her article is a great reminder that the idea of maneuver should not be romanticized. /1 https://warontherocks.com/2020/12/paralysis-in-peer-conflict-the-material-versus-the-mental-in-100-years-of-military-thinking/

What is also sure is that Marine Corps doctrine specifically denounces the idea of Maneuver warfare being some bloodless endeavor where destruction, violence, and lots of killing isn’t necessary to make the opponent quit. The idea of Maneuver vs Attrition is a FALSE DICHOTOMY /2

This FALSE DICHOTOMY always gets everyone’s cognitive juices flowing but it really shouldn’t. Maneuver Is about gaining an advantage at all times in every domain. This means physically, cognitively, temporally etc. the reason why is important to gain an advantage is to ensure /3

That ones combat power is best postures to ATTRIT the enemy at ones decided time and location. When a plan goes “generally” right... catching the enemy off guard by maneuvering than attriting from that superior position (physically or cognitively) Will add efficiency to what /4

Attrition will actually accomplish. No true professional believes that one can maneuver the enemy to death. The only way is to attrit him to the point of his capitulation or to maneuver to a position of advantage and threaten to attrit him from a superior position. /5

Both cases relies on a maneuvering mindset the same reason why you teach boxers how to move around the ring before teaching them all of the sweet punches and combinations. Maneuver warfare has many principles which can be debated. I just do not believe /6

The Maneuver vs Attrition False Dichotomy is one of them. Professional soldiers at all levels of war should seek to gain an advantage then be physically mentally and morally prepared to exploit that advantage through attrition, heavy attrition, heavy fighting, bloody battles, /7

A whole bunch of heartache and a bunch of loss. / Fin