Given the ongoing discussions and debates on various subjects such as
the rise and fall of COIN and CT and everything else under the sun
since 9-11, perhaps this is an apt quote that we should consider as we
participate in these debates.
Men who, aware of their ignorance, would probably have shrunk from
assuming charge of a squad of infantry in action, had no hesitation
whatever in attempting to direct a mighty army, a task which Napoleon
has assured us requires profound study, incessant application, and
wide experience.They were in fact ignorant - and how many statesmen,
and even soldiers, are in like case? - that strategy, the art of
maneuvering armies, is an art in itself, an art which none may master
by the light of nature, but to which, if he is to attain success, a
man must serve a long apprenticeship.The rules of strategy are few and simple. They may be learned in a
week. They may be taught by familiar illustrations or a dozen
diagrams. But such knowledge will no more teach a man to lead an army
like Napoleon than a knowledge of grammar will teach him to write like
Gibbon.
Stonewall Jackson and the American Civil War, G.F. R. Henderson,
Chapter XII, pages 345-346 Originally Published in 1898
Comments
"As we move past COIN, CT, FID, SFA..."
I waited an inordinate amount of time for this SWJ Editor blog post to load. When it did load, I saw that the above sentence was not on this page, but was visible on the SWJ home page as part of the link. What irony. Was it removed, but was the remnant still available on the main page due to the quirky new website? I have to ask "Why?" Also, I have to ask, that if this is the case, then when is smallwarsjournal.com going offline due to irrelevance?
I have a thing or two to say about Stonewall's quote: I've always been confused about the obsession with anachronistic stratagems that are overly vague and amount to little more than common sense or fait accompli and their ability to somehow spin themselves into guiding principles of modern warfare. What a great quote:
"The rules of strategy are few and simple. They may be learned in a
week. They may be taught by familiar illustrations or a dozen
diagrams. But such knowledge will no more teach a man to lead an army
like Napoleon than a knowledge of grammar will teach him to write like
Gibbon."
Based on the final paragraph, I think Stonewall would categorize the use of his words as applied to today's potential conflicts, and their attached strategic decisions, as a complete irony. And if not, then his own thought process was hypocritical.
I agree that some of the "experts" of today have ulterior motives for pushing certain narratives, but is going back to a conflict that ended almost 150 years ago really what we need to do here?