Archives: Gazette Magazines

by William S. Lind

Among the challenges facing Marines is understanding the operational level of war. The Corps’ adoption of maneuver warfare as doctrine, announced in the 1988 edition of OH 6-1, Ground Combat Operations, means that the operational level is also Marine Corps doctrine since it is central to maneuver warfare.

Neither the term nor the concept are new. Both were introduced by the Germans in the 19th century. The Soviets make frequent reference to the “operational art,” and their approach to war is focused on the operational level. The term was officially introduced into the American military vocabulary by the 1982 edition of the Army’s field manual FM 100-5.

What is the operational level of war? It is sometimes defined as actions taken at or above corps level. However, that is not a very useful definition since it really does not tell us much. It has little relevance to the Marine Corps, which normally deploys units smaller than corps. It is also partially incorrect because small units may at times undertake operational actions. We call those actions “special operations.” What makes them “special” is not so much their technical or tactical characteristics, which may differ little from a standard infantry raid, but the fact that they have operational or strategic significance. In fact, a good definition of special operations might be, “tactical actions that in and of themselves have direct operational or strategic significance.”

Another common definition is to say that the operational art is the art of the campaign as distinguished from tactics, which is the art of battle. The 1986 edition of FM 100-5 defines operational art as “. . . the employment of military forces to attain strategic goals in a theater of war or theater of operations through the design, organization, and conduct of campaigns and major operations.” Unfortunately, this definition is also somewhat unsatisfactory. It implies that any employment of forces in a theater to attain strategic goals is operational art if it manifests itself in “major operations.” Yet such “operations” may be little but floundering from one battle to another, and the linkage to strategic goals may not go beyond the notion that if one wins enough battles one must win strategically. Yet in such a situation-historically, not an uncommon one-the operational art is simply absent.

I would propose a third definition, one I think gets to the heart of the matter:

The operational art is the art of using tactical events-battles and refusals to give battle-to strike directly at an enemy’s strategic center of gravity. In other words, it is the an of deciding when and where to fight battles, and when and where not to, on a strategic basis. It includes the idea that a goal is to win strategically with the fewest possible battles.

FM 100-5 gets at this in the discussion of operational art that follows its definition. It states:

Operational art thus involves fundamental decisions about when and where to fight and whether to accept or decline battle. Its essence is the identification of the enemy’s operational center-of-gravity-his source of strength or balance-and the concentration of superior combat power against that point to achieve a decisive success.

This, not simply the notion of “the art of the campaign,” is the heart of the operational art.

Two questions can be raised about the wording in FM 100-5 (as good a document as it generally is). The first concerns the phrase, “concentration of superior combat power against that point.” This could be taken to mean massing large forces directly against some point on a map. Sometimes that will be the case, but not always. As noted, special operations are “operational,” but do not involve large forces. And the enemy center of gravity may not be a geographic “point.” For example, in the current Iran-Iraq war, one of Iran’s centers of gravity is its ability to export oil.

The second objection is more serious. By saying that the operational art involves striking the enemy’s operational center of gravity, FM 100-5 misses its essence. Rather, the goal should be to hit the enemy’s strategic center of gravity. The focus is not winning the campaign, but winning the war. FM 100-5’s error here is missing one of its own most important words, a word central to understanding the operational art. The word is “decisive.” The operational art focuses on achieving a decision, achieving it on the highest possible level-the war-winning, strategic level-and achieving it as quickly as possible with the minimum number of battles. Of course, circumstances affect how closely one can approach this ideal. In some cases, it may require a series of campaigns, in which case it is correct to say the operational art in each campaign is focused on the operational (campaign) level. But the goal of seeking a decision requires the campaign planner to aim as high as possible, which is to say, to aim at a strategic center of gravity. The lower aim is a fallback, only adopted when circumstances compel it.

As noted earlier, the operational art is central to maneuver warfare. As important as maneuver is at the tactical level, it is even more important at the operational level. Why is this the case? There are two basic reasons: tempo and economy of force.

In maneuver warfare, tempo is a weapon, often the most powerful weapon. Maneuver tactics both use tempo in battle and permit operational tempo to be sustained through the course of battle. However, almost all battles, even those which go as well as one could expect, slow operational tempo to some extent. A lost battle can slow it considerably or even stop it. It is, therefore, highly important in sustaining tempo to avoid unnecessary battles, battles where victory really does not do much beyond causing some attrition. Operational art is the art of determining beforehand which battles are worth fighting.

Equally important to the Marine Corps is the macro-level economy of force provided by the operational art. Every battle involves friendly casualties. The smaller force-and a Marine expeditionary force will often be out-numbered by its opponent-can win a series of battles, only to find itself reduced to the point where it cannot win the war because of the casualties each victory entailed. The smaller force must use battle sparingly, because it must economize its forces on a theater basis. The operational art permits you to use battle sparingly. It is thus the basis of theater-wide economy of force.

The notion of using battle sparingly, of refusing battle where a victory will not mean much strategically, is a new and probably somewhat uncomfortable idea for Marines. (Sometimes you will have little choice as a competent enemy may force you to fight where you would rather not.) In the past, American forces have generally attempted to win strategically by accumulating tactical victories, accepting battle wherever and whenever offered. There have been exceptions, such as the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific in World War II, which was based on avoiding battle wherever possible. But accumulation was the rule, and it was essentially a replacement for the operational art (of which, institutionally, we had little or no concept).

Vietnam shows the weakness of the accumulation approach. We kept accumulating tactical victories, but they brought us no closer to our strategic goal. With no concept of the operational art, we could not link our tactics and our strategy. Our ability to win battles was ultimately meaningless. Unfortunately, our opponent did understand the operational art. The Tet Offensive, although it resulted in a tactical defeat, was a major operational victory. It struck a decisive blow at our center of gravity, the home front’s support for the war.

The operational art has direct relevance to the Marine Corps’ principal mission, expeditionary warfare. In most cases, expeditionary warfare is likely to mean military intervention in the Third World. Because of the political reaction in the United States to such interventions, it is of the highest importance that they achieve decisive results quickly. The American people are unlikely to support a lengthy limited war, and no administration is likely to be able to continue such a conflict in the face of widespread public opposition. The operational art is central to obtaining a quick decision, and therefore it is also central to the Marine Corps’ utility to the Nation as an expeditionary force.

The Marine Corps’ seaborne amphibious mobility is also operationally important. In fact, it offers a capability we often overlook, one that can only be exploited through the operational art. We normally think of the Corps’ amphibious capability as providing two advantages: one strategic-strategic mobility; and one tactical-forcible entry. But there is a third in many expeditionary situations: an operational mobility advantage.

In many Third World areas, a seaborne force is more mobile than even a mechanized land-based force, which must contend with few roads, most of them bad. The seaborne force can shift its operational point of main effort faster than can the land-based force. Operational mobility advantages can be decisive. The defender had that advantage in World War I. He could shift reserves laterally by rail faster than the attacker could advance on foot. In World War II, mechanization reversed the operational mobility advantage, giving it to the attacker. The result was shown in France in 1940.

In many expeditionary situations, the advantage in operational mobility the Marine Corps has from being seabased may be more important than the forcible entry capability. In other words, the amphibious campaign may be of more value than the amphibious assault. In this sense, the future of the Marine Corps may be seen better in Wellington in Spain than on Tarawa or Okinawa.

A third way the operational art is of direct relevance to the Marine Corps is in special operations. The Corps has been a late entry into the special operations sweepstakes, and this may be to the good. It may give the Corps the opportunity to get it right. So far, our national record in special operations has been less than impressive. Much of the reason has been a failure to grasp the essence of special operations. It has been defined largely as a set of techniques, techniques for storming airplanes, jumping out of helicopters in wet suits, eating snakes, etc. That conception misses the point. As noted earlier, the essence of special operations is that they must be operational. They must be thought through in such a way that a tactical success has direct operational or strategic significance. Sometimes specialized techniques may be needed, and as in all combat, competence in techniques is necessary; but a well-trained infantry unit may often have techniques adequate to the task.

The key here is the phrase, “thought through.” The quality of thought must be high, both in planning and in executing the operation. That means we want people like T.E. Lawrence, not Conan the Barbarian. The Marine Corps can put such people at the core of its special operations forces.

Understanding operational art is one thing, putting it into practice is another. How does one learn how to do it? As in maneuver warfare generally, there is no method or process by which you can do it. Process-type thinking leads to methodical battle, which is the antithesis of maneuver warfare.

For the individual Marine who wants to study operational art, the best route is probably study of past campaigns. He must look not just at what happened, but why it happened. Memoirs of accomplished practitioners of the operational art are also valuable. One of the best is Field Marshal Erich von Manstein’s Lost Victories. You could do worse than taking the advice one Army general gave the officers of his division: “Read this book once a year for 30 years.”

There are several institutional steps the Marine Corps could take to develop expertise in the operational art. One, which is currently under discussion, is to establish a small second-year course at the Command and Staff College at Quantico, modeled on the Army’s excellent second-year course at Fort Leavenworth. That course is focused on the operational art.*

Second, it could put out an Operational Handbook on the operalional art, one that would include some good case studies.

Third, it could game the operational art in developing scenarios for major exercises. By developing those scenarios in wargames instead of just concocting something arbitrarily, staff officers could be exposed to operational level thinking.

None of this will make the operational art easy or something anyone can do with a little “common sense.” No military has a lot of von Mansteins floating around. But if the Marine Corps wants genuine excellence in expeditionary warfare, it must come to grips with the challenge. The potential reward for the Corps and for the country is enormous. Excellence in the operational art is the ultimate force multiplier.

by Capt Kevin R. Clover

In 1980, 2d Marine Division commander, MajGen AM. Gray, sent the following correspondence to the Marines in his division:

Realizing that many of our potential enemies could bring superior numbers of men and good equipment to bear against us in a distant theater, it would be fool-hardy to think about engaging them in firepower-attrition duals. Historically, maneuver warfare has been the means by which smaller but more intelligently led forces have achieved victory. It is, therefore, my intention to have us improve upon our understanding of the concepts behind maneuver warfare theory and to train our units in their application.

Under this direction, the 2d Marine Division began to study and practice the concepts of maneuver warfare.

Beginning in the late 1970s and continuing to this very day, an interesting debate has occurred within the Marine Corps about the art of warfare. This has centered on the idea that there are two points on the ends of a “styles of warfare” spectrum. It was argued that all strategy and tactics were some combination of these two styles: maneuver warfare and firepower/ attrition warfare.

Maneuver warfare was also a heated topic of discussion within the other military Services, academia, and even Congress. The House Armed Services Committee directed the Marine Corps to make a formal report in 1982 to explain, “the manner in which maneuver warfare concepts are being or have been incorporated into the policies and training . . . of the Marine Corps.”

The official Marine Corps policy on maneuver warfare was stated in a report sent to the House Armed Services Committee in 1983. The report declared that the “Marine Corps does not subscribe to any exclusive formula or recipe for warfare,” but that “the concepts of maneuver warfare are evident throughout the Marine Corps” and that efforts are being made “to further integrate the concepts of maneuver warfare and amphibious warfare.” The implication of this report was that the Marine Corps considers maneuver warfare to be one of many theories included in the repertoire of Marine commanders on both the tactical and strategic levels.

If the Marine Corps intends to train and fight maneuver warfare, then we need to determine how well we have educated our Marines to fight in this manner. We also need to ascertain how those Marines feel about maneuver warfare. What are their perceptions and attitudes toward it? Insight in these areas would give us a starting point from which to intelligently continue our training.

In June 1986, a survey was completed by a random, representative sampling of 375 Marines in 2d Marine Division. The objective was to determine the level of dissemination of maneuver warfare concepts among these Marines and to appraise their attitudes about those concepts. The 2d Marine Division was chosen because of its reputation as a leader in the area of maneuver warfare. The survey respondents ranged in rank from sergeant to sergeant major and second lieutenant to lieutenant colonel and concentrated on the combat arms military occupational specialty (MOS) groups. The survey was administered to members of 15 battalions. The survey respondents included infantrymen, artillerymen, tankers, assault amphibian vehicle (AAV) and light armored vehicle (LAV) crewmen, and reconnaissance Marines.

This article will report the results of that study by looking first at knowledge about maneuver warfare and its related concepts and then at attitudes toward maneuver warfare.

Knowledge of Maneuver Warfare

Marines were asked to categorize their own knowledge of maneuver warfare tactics as one of the following:

• I don’t know anything about maneuver warfare.
• I know very little about maneuver warfare.
• I have a basic understanding of maneuver warfare.
• I consider myself an expert on maneuver warfare.

Of the Marines that returned the surveys, 67.3 percent claimed that they had at least a basic understanding of maneuver warfare. Not surprisingly, the enlisted ranks were less confident in their knowledge than the officers, and the number of officers who believed themselves to have a basic understanding of maneuver warfare increased with rank. Very few of the respondents said they knew nothing about maneuver warfare, and very few said they were experts. Of 103 Marine officers surveyed, only one captain considered himself an expert in maneuver warfare theory. Seventeen officers said they knew very little about maneuver warfare and two lieutenants said they knew nothing about it.

The tank/AAV MOS group had the most confidence in their maneuver warfare knowledge with 78 percent reporting at least a basic understanding. The infantry and artillery/engineer groups followed closely at 69.8 and 65.8 percent respectively. The percentage of correct answers to the multiple choice questions did not differ significantly between MOS groups.

In the next portion of the survey, 12 multiple choice questions sought to determine what differences exist in the quantity and/or quality of knowledge about maneuver warfare concepts. The results of this test support both positive and negative conclusions, depending on the criteria of the individual making the conclusion.

If one believes that maneuver warfare can be simply defined as attacking weaknesses and avoiding strengths, then the 2d Marine Division has a widespread knowledge of the concept. Over 80 percent of all Marines surveyed knew that in maneuver warfare, one should “avoid enemy strengths and exploit enemy weaknesses.” Every field grade respondent and 76.2 percent of the sergeants answered the question in this way. Also, the respondents seemed to realize that maneuver is different from mobility and, although there is some confusion, the majority believed maneuver warfare is an innovative way of thinking about war rather than old wine in new bottles.

If, however, one believes maneuver warfare to be a complex concept made up of many concepts and processes, then the knowledge of maneuver warfare tactics among Marines in the division falls short of what is needed, especially among the noncommissioned officers (NCOs), staff NCOs, and lieutenants. Some of the concepts, such as focus of main effort and mission-type orders, are unfamiliar and confusing to many Marines.

An example of this confusion is shown in the answers to the following multiple choice question:

• “Mission-type” orders require:

a. strict and unquestioning obedience of detailed instructions given during the commander’s briefing.

b. decisions to be made at the highest level possible.

c. that the commander give only general guidance to his subordinates in how to carry out a mission.

d. all of the above.

e. I don’t know.

The percentage of correct responses to this question shows a wide disparity in the level of knowledge about mission-type orders between the officer and enlisted respondents. Over 90 percent of the field grade and company grade officers answered correctly that mission-type orders require “that the commander give only general guidance to his subordinates in how to carry out the mission.” Only 41 percent of the SNCOs and 27.9 percent of the sergeants answered the question correctly.

It is interesting to note that around 25 percent of the sergeants surveyed believed that mission-type orders require “strict and unquestioning obedience of detailed instructions given during the commander’s briefing.”

Another example:

• The “focus of main effort”:

a. can be changed during an operation,

b. cannot be changed during an operation,

c. can only be changed with specific, detailed instructions from the senior commander,

d. I don’t know.

While 89.7 percent of the field grade respondents answered correctly that the focus of main effort “can be changed during an operation,” only 62.5 percent of the lieutenants and 27.1 percent of the sergeants made the correct response. The number of respondents answering that the focus of main effort “can only be changed with specific, detailed instructions from the senior commander” increased as rank decreased.

Limiting the usefulness of the focus of main effort concept by requiring specific, detailed instructions to be delivered restricts a unit’s ability to maintain the initiative. By quickly and smoothly shifting the focus of main effort, opportunities may be exploited that otherwise could be lost in the drawn out process of creating and promulgating a new operational plan. All Marines must be aware that a senior commander may change the focus of main effort at any time during an operation and they must be able to react accordingly.

In several of the questions, even the field grade respondents displayed a disparity of views concerning the definitions of certain concepts or terms. A “gap,” for example, was incorrectly defined as “a geographical place” by 62.1 percent of the majors and lieutenant colonels. Only 34.5 percent of the field grade respondents answered correctly that a gap could be “any enemy weakness.” Only 29.1 percent of all respondents answered correctly.

This difference between the actual definition of a gap and the definition that the majority of respondents believe correct is a problem. If a large number of the practitioners of maneuver warfare tactics are searching for gaps in the enemy defenses only in geographical terms, then there is the possibility that an enemy weakness or gap of some other form may be overlooked.

The respondents were grouped according to rank to best determine knowledge of maneuver warfare concepts at the levels a tactical order is delivered. The results of this survey show that the definitions a commander has in mind when he delivers an order to his subordinates may quite possibly conflict with the operational definition the subordinate has in mind.

An analysis of the percentage of correct answers based on the amount of time the respondents had spent in the division showed that knowledge levels do not significantly increase with the amount of time spent in the 2d Marine Division. This indicates that Marines coming into the division already have knowledge of maneuver warfare tactics almost equal to those who have been members of the division for some time. This suggests also that there is not, as some authors have stated, a heavier emphasis placed on maneuver warfare tactics in the 2d Marine Division than in the rest of the Marine Corps.

Another survey question asked the Marines to indicate where they had learned the most about maneuver warfare. An analysis of the answers indicates significant differences between officers and enlisted. Enlisted Marines claim they learn the most about maneuver warfare from unit training and operations. Officers believe they learn the most about maneuver warfare on their own initiative-from professional literature and other sources. Neither of these groups believe they learned the most about maneuver warfare from Marine Corps schools.

Attitudes Toward Maneuver Warfare

Command support for maneuver warfare was directly measured through these two survey questions:

• Does your commander encourage using maneuver warfare tactics during training exercises?
• Does your entire chain of command support the use of maneuver warfare tactics?

A large number of Marines, ranks sergeant through lieutenant colonel, responded that both their individual commanders and their entire chain of command supported the use of maneuver warfare tactics. However, an equally large number were undecided as to the support for maneuver warfare among their superiors. In fact, 50 percent of the respondents refused to agree or disagree with the statement that their chain of command supported maneuver warfare.

Obviously, there is some confusion among Marines concerning maneuver warfare. This uncertainty could be the result of the intense debate that has surrounded the subject Any Marine who has followed this debate in the professional literature knows there are a wide variety of views concerning maneuver warfare and its related concepts. While this debate is healthy for the Corps, it is obviously confusing to many Marines. While the senior Marine Corps leadership admitted the merits of maneuver warfare to the House Armed Services Committee in 1982, it declined to support it as an exclusive doctrine. And subsequent criticisms made about the Marine Corps and maneuver warfare by the Military Reform Movement probably contributed to this uncertainty. In the summer of 1986, this author sensed that apprehension toward the term “maneuver warfare” was widespread in the 2d Marine Division. As one Marine major put it, “Maneuver warfare is a dangerous subject.”

The next step in determining how the Marines felt about maneuver warfare was to ask if and when maneuver warfare tactics were an appropriate response to current threats to national interests. The respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the use of maneuver warfare tactics in four different types of conflict scenarios. The types of conflicts and the percentage of respondents agreeing that maneuver warfare tactics would be an appropriate response are shown in Figure 1.

The data shown here demonstrate clearly that Marines perceive a direct link between conflict intensity and the appropriate use of maneuver warfare tactics. This is in concert with the official Marine Corps policy that calls for a military response appropriate to the situation. Maneuver warfare, in other words, plays an important, but by no means dominant, role when applied across the spectrum of warfare.

The survey then turned to training. Most every respondent had definite opinions on the adequacy of maneuver warfare training in the division. Very few were undecided. This was measured through the following questions:

• Is your unit given adequate time for the practice of maneuver warfare?
• Has your unit trained and operated together enough to perform maneuver warfare tactics in combat?
• Do your subordinates have the training necessary to perform maneuver warfare tactics in combat?

The results showed that a large number of Marines in the division believe maneuver warfare training to be adequate. An equally large number believe the training is not adequate. This indicates that maneuver warfare tactics are given different amounts of emphasis in training by the units within the division.

When asked where more training emphasis was needed, the Marines as a group agreed that more time should be spent on military education and practicing combat techniques. The priority given to practicing combat techniques was higher than that given to military education.

Perhaps the most important element of any training program is the training environment Two questions were constructed to determine if an environment conducive to the practice of maneuver warfare tactics had been created in the 2d Marine Division:

• Does your commander encourage boldness and initiative during tactical exercises?
• Does your commander consider tactical mistakes during an exercise to be educational opportunities rather than grounds for a reprimand?

The results of these two questions were overwhelmingly positive. Only 5.8 percent of the respondents said their commanders did not encourage boldness and initiative and only 5.3 percent of the commanders considered tactical mistakes to be grounds for reprimand. This means that the leadership traits necessary for the performance of maneuver warfare tactics are being cultivated among subordinates by commanders throughout the division. Boldness and initiative are encouraged while tactical mistakes are looked upon as educational opportunities.

Indirect Measurement of Maneuver Warfare Concepts

A rose by any other name . . . .

What if the Marines in 2d Marine Division were not well versed in the jargon of maneuver warfare but were practicing it anyway? Could it be that some or all of the maneuver warfare concepts (see Figure 2) were inherent in the existing division doctrine? Are they performing maneuver warfare tactics but just do not know the terminology?

To probe these matters, six survey questions were constructed to indirectly measure the respondents’ opinions on whether or not some of the underlying concepts of maneuver warfare theory are being practiced in the division. These questions and the maneuver warfare concepts they were intended to measure are listed below:

• Does your immediate superior commander give only general guidance in his tactical orders and allow his subordinates to accomplish the mission using their own judgment and initiative? (Missiontype orders.)
• Does your commander issue his orders in such a way that it is very easy to understand what he intends for his subordinates to accomplish? (Commander’s intent.)
• Does your commander issue his orders in such a way that it is clear which part of the unit’s mission is to receive the highest priority? (Focus of main effort.)
• Does your commander require his subordinates to request permission to do anything different than what was given in his order? (Mission-type orders.)
• Do your superiors keep you informed of the commander’s intent at least two levels up? (Example: If you are a squad leader, are you informed of the platoon’s mission and the company’s mission9) (Mission-type orders.)
• Does your unit avoid attacking enemy strengths and seek to find and exploit enemy weaknesses? (Surfaces and gaps.)

The answers to the first five questions clearly indicated that the Marines believe maneuver warfare concepts are being practiced by the division’s units. The Marines left no doubt that, although they may not understand the terminology, maneuver warfare is included in 2d Marine Division doctrine

The only question on which the respondents were undecided was the last question about avoiding strengths and exploiting weaknesses. This could be a result of official Marine Corps policy that states that different situations require different forms of warfare. Therefore, the respondents would not commit themselves to saying that their unit always avoided strengths. They might have felt that some situations may require directly confronting the enemy’s strengths.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This study was intended to evaluate the impact of maneuver warfare theories and concepts on the 2d Marine Division at a certain point in time. And from this “snapshot,” what exactly did we learn?

First of all, the discussion about knowledge of maneuver warfare demonstrated we have a considerable amount of educating to do throughout the ranks of the Marine Corps. Marines are just not “reading off the same sheet of music” when it comes to maneuver warfare terminology.

Second, there is a great deal of confusion when it comes to whether or not maneuver warfare is official doctrine in the Corps We must reassert the Marine Corps’ position on maneuver warfare so it is clear to all Marines that, in certain situations, the Marine Corps supports the use of maneuver warfare tactics. Mannes must understand maneuver warfare is one style of warfare the Marine Corps intends to keep in its repertoire and that it is a style of warfare requiring great amounts of training.

But there was also some very good news

Maneuver warfare advocates should be encouraged by what appears to be a doctrinal base within the 2d Marine Division that favors a maneuver warfare style of fighting. The commanders of the division should be congratulated for creating an atmosphere that allows their subordinates to show initiative and to experiment with tactics without the threat of recrimination

Also, despite unfamiliarity with the terminology of maneuver warfare, a large percentage of Marines throughout the division are following the basic tenets of maneuver warfare theory, including such important concepts as mission-type orders and focus of main effort.

The Marine Corps appears to have made a good start at bringing maneuver warfare into its doctrine. What now needs done is to further identify those areas requiring attention and act to correct the deficiencies. As a start, I would otfer the following recommendations.

• Create a program of standardized unit-level training to ensure a common understanding of maneuver warfare tactics and related concepts among Maones.
• Place more emphasis on educating tactical leaders from the platoon level down in the concepts and terminology of maneuver warfare.
• Make tactical leaders aware of the differing levels of knowledge about maneuver warfare among their subordinates so that they may ensure all have some common level of understanding. This may avoid costly tactical errors stemming from confusion over terms.
• Increase the amount of education and discussion of maneuver warfare tactics in Marine Corps
• Ensure all Marines remember maneuver warfare concepts by adding key definitions to the essential subjects manual.

These are all very simple measures that could be implemented at virtually no cost in dollars. But they are important measures because they would allow us to all read from the same sheet of music. In this way we would make certain, as we reported to the House Armed Services Committee in 1983, that “the concepts of maneuver warfare are evident throughout the Marine Corps.”

Over the past decade the Marine Corps Gazette has been at the forefront of the discussions on maneuver warfare and has contributed notably to therenaissance of interest in warfare concepts stressing mobility and the indirect approach. More than 50 Gazette articlesaddressed these themes from every aspect and with diverse viewpoints. Most of them are as pertinent today as when they wereinitially published. Here are some suggestions, drawn from this group, for those interested in further reading on thetopic schools.

Capt Stephen W. Miller, “Winning Through Maneuver, Part I-Countering the Offense,” MCG, Oct79.

“Winning Through Maneuver, Part II-Countering the Defense,” MCG, Dec79.

William S. Lind, “Defining Maneuver Warfare,” MCG, Apr80.

Maj William C. Fite, “Some Lessons from the Israelis,” MCG, Sep80.

MajGen Bernard E. Trainer, “New Thoughts on War,” MCG, Dec80.

Capt Gary I. Wilson, et al., “The Maneuver Warfare Concept,” MCG, Apr81.

William S. Lind, “Tactics in Maneuver Warfare,” MCG, Sep81.

Col Brace G. Brown, USMC(Ret), “Maneuver Warfare Roadmap, Part I-Trends & Implications,” MCG, Apr82.

“Maneuver Warfare Roadmap, Part II-Concepts of Employment,” MCG, May82.

Maj Jack W, Klimp, “Attack on a Fortified Area: Lessons From the Past,” JWCG, Jun82.

Maj James D. Burke, “Maneuver Warfare and the MAGTF,” MCG, Sep82.

LtCol Michael D. VVyly, “Thinking Beyond the Beachhead,” MCG, Jan83.

William S. Lind, “Preparing for Maneuver Warfare,” MCG, Jun84.

Maj Gary W. Anderson, “Maneuver, Attrition, or the Tactics of Mistake,” MCG, Sep85.

LtCol Edward J. Robeson IV, “Forrest War: Putting the Fight Back . . . ,” MCG, Aug86.

William S. Lind, ‘Misconceptions of Maneuver Warfare,” MCG, Jan88.

by William S. Lind

Over the past 10 years, Marines have made significant progress in understanding and applying the concept of maneuver warfare. Many Marine officers now devote substantial time and effort to studying tactics, reading military history, and thinking about the art of war. In terms of both level of interest and knowledge, the situation has advanced greatly from where it was in the mid-1970s.

At the same time, a number of misconceptions of maneuver warfare have arisen. This is a normal part of the process of change and innovation. But it will strengthen the debate and help move it forward if the misconceptions outlined in the following paragraphs can be corrected.

* Maneuver warfare is just some theory propounded by a small group of “armchair generals. “Maneuver warfare is not the- ory; it is historical fact. Everything that maneuver warfare proponents (who include many Marine Corps and Army officers) call for has been done, in combat, by armies-successful armies. Focus of effort, surfaces and gaps, and mission-type orders are concepts with long combat histories. All the theorists have tried to do is explain the common threads that run through these histories and relate the experiences of other times and nations to today’s Marine Corps.

* Maneuver warfare advocates claim that with maneuver, there need be no real fighting, no killing. A look at history lays this misunderstanding quickly to rest. Did Stonewall Jackson or George Patton avoid real fighting? Have the Israelis avoided fighting and killing? All war is bloody business, and maneuver warfare is no exception. It will involve plenty of hard fighting. What maneuver warfare advocates have pointed out is that maneuver can often reduce friendly casualties, compared to running head-on against an enemy at his strongest point; that in a campaign of maneuver, a relatively high proportion of enemy casualties are often prisoners (again, a historical fact); and that the amount and difficulty of actual fighting is situational, depending on the skill and toughness of the opponent. We need to prepare and train under the assumptions that our opponents will be skilled and the fighting, tough. If, as on Grenada, that proves not to be the case and maneuver alone is sufficient to collapse them, so much the better, but we cannot count on that.

* Firepower is not important in maneuver warfare. Nothing could be further from the truth. Firepower, often massive firepower, is highly important in maneuver warfare. Rommel’s Infantry Attacks describes cases where a few squads were given whole machinegun companies and artillery batteries for fire support Rommel constantly stressed plastering the enemy with tire as soon as he is encountered.

What changes in maneuver warfare is the use of firepower. It is used to open the way, to support maneuver by blasting a “gap” or fixing an enemy in place so you can maneuver around him, not just to cause enemy casualties. Perhaps the greatest change is the stress on immediacy of fire support. Tempo must not be sacrificed to the need for fire support control; fire support must accommodate the tactics, not the other way around. This places increased emphasis on direct fire weapons and implies a revolution in command and control of indirect fire weapons-including air support. A few rounds that are immediately available may be worth more than a massive bombardment hours or days later, after the enemy has had time to regain his equilibrium or prepare his positions. In sum, maneuver warfare will require that fire support be made more responsive, perhaps through more decentralization of control, but it in no way lessens the importance of firepower.

* Maneuver warfare is irrelevant to amphibious operations. Maneuver warfare relates directly to amphibious warfare at both the tactical and the operational levels. At the tactical level, it offers the landing point amphibious assault as an alternative to current doctrine. The landing point assault carries the infiltration attack over into the amphibious assault itself, with multiple deep penetrations on separate axes. At the operational level, maneuver warfare opens a vista on the amphibious campaign, which may be more important under modern conditions than the amphibious assault. It suggests that we look at amphibious warfare not only in terms of Tarawa and Iwo Jima but also of Moore and Wellington in Iberia.

* Maneuver warfare means heavying up-mechanizing the Marine Corps. Actually, for most of the Marine Corps, maneuver warfare means lightening up. It requires the conversion of most Marine infantry from line to true light infantry. That means getting rid of vehicles, cutting the Marine’s load to no more than about 46 pounds, reducing greatly the size and complexity of headquarters, etc. True light infantry is the most mobile type of force in close terrain, and maneuver warfare demands mobility. For mobility in open terrain, vehicles are required, but for the Marine Corps, these may be trucks, LAVs, and motorcycles rather than personnel carriers and tanks. The goal should be a mix of light infantry and mounted forces, from which a force appropriate to the terrain can be task organized.

* Maneuver warfare is just common sense tactics. Depending on one’s philosophical approach, everything that is successful in life may be termed “just common sense.” Common sense is certainly useful in maneuver warfare, but if that were all it required, history would have seen many more “Great Captains” of maneuver warfare. In fact, developing an accurate picture of the battlefield and figuring out how to outmaneuver the enemy in a specific situation requires considerable ability. It requires commanders and operations officers with what Clausewitz called a “talent for judgment,” composed of imagination, creativity, and intuition. It requires study of the enemy, his weapons, techniques, doctrines, and, if at all possible, his commander’s tendencies. It adds up to a good deal more than is usually meant by “just common sense.”

* Maneuver warfare is just a formula for flank attacks. In maneuver warfare, a usual goal is to attack the enemy in an unexpected place. But that does not just mean flank attacks. If you always attack his flanks, he will soon figure out the pattern you follow, and he will be waiting for you at the flanks. His flanks will, in effect, become his front.

More fundamentally, maneuver warfare is not a formula for anything. Maneuver warfare tactics never follow a checklist. Those who just make up a new checklist with “commander’s intent” and “focus of effort” on it do not understand maneuver warfare. It is a way of thinking, a way of thinking that recognizes that each combat situation is different and, therefore, requires a unique approach. Through education, training (especially free play, force-on-force training), and careful selection of commanders and operations officers, it cultivates the creativity, active spirit, and willingness to innovate and take risks that yields situational rather than checklist tactics. Maneuver warfare requires officers who have been taught how to think, not what to do or what to think.

* Focus of effort (or Schwerpunkt) is just a new buzzword for the main attack. It is much more than that. When a commander designates his focus of effort, he says, in effect, “This is the unit with which I will achieve a decision.” It is not a casual or simple decision, nor one to be taken lightly. Then he ruthlessly concentrates combat power to support that unit, often taking major risks elsewhere. This second element in particular is somewhat new to Marines, in that it often means depriving other units and sectors of what they regard as “their” assets. In Marine exercises, such assets are usually distributed so that everyone gets his “fair share.” That contradicts the concept of focus of effort. Focus of effort demands the total focusing of combat power at what the commander thinks will be the decisive point.

* Maneuver warfare advocates don’t consider techniques important. Not true. A military with sloppy techniques will be ineffective in combat, no matter how good its schemes of maneuver. Excellence in techniques is very important in maneuver warfare, and many maneuver warfare advocates strongly support such efforts to improve technique skill levels as the new Marine Corps Battle Drill Guide.*

At the same time, maneuver warfare brings some changes in techniques. Examples include the three-element assault, where a small assault element, supported by a strong suppression element, makes a small breach through which a large exploitation element is passed to collapse the enemy from the rear while pushing still deeper into his depth;** forward push logistics; and the use of ambushes in the attack.

* Advocates of maneuver warfare ignore the chaos and confusion of combat; they think battle is neat and orderly. Quite the contrary. Maneuver warfare is rooted in the realization that combat is dominated by uncertainty and rapid change, by what Clausewitz called “friction.” The very core of the maneuver warfare concept is that we can turn the confusion and chaos of battle to our advantage, but only by taking risks, using mission-type orders, allowing wide latitude for subordinates to act as the situation requires (and expecting them to do so), and by placing heavy stress on junior leader initiative. While attrition warfare usually attempts to eliminate the chaos and friction of war with centralization and strict control, maneuver warfare accepts chaos and confusion, seeking to work within it while magnifying it for the enemy. Maneuver warfare also recognizes that “friction” increases as you move up the chain of command and away from the actual scene of battle. Therefore, it stresses commander’s intent, commanders forward, and initiative and flexibility on the part of subordinate commanders who are closest to the actual fight.

* Maneuver warfare advocates are not interested in aviation, fire support, or logistics. In fact, all three are vitally important in maneuver warfare. However, all supporting arms and combat service support must be keyed to supporting the ground scheme of maneuver. The great challenge is embodied in the ideas of immediacy and decentralization. In the areas of aviation, fire support, and logistics, the state of the discussion is about where it was 10 years ago in ground tactics. We need to generate thought and debate in each area, beginning not by asking for answers but for the right questions. How can air support and artillery support be made more responsive? How can each be focused, not on following its own procedures and methods, but on the ground scheme of maneuver? Can logistical support be pushed forward, especially to the focus of effort? Are organizational changes and changes in institutional culture required?

Maneuver warfare advocates urge all Marines to join in the attempt to create thoughtful debate and discussion in each area-debate like maneuver warfare itself has generated in relation to ground tactics and operations. Clearly, maneuver warfare will bring changes in each area. What those changes need to be can best be thought through by Marines, especially Marine aviators, artillerymen, and logisticians.

Again, Marines have made great progress in understanding and beginning to implement maneuver warfare. The fact that some misconceptions have arisen is understandable and indeed inevitable. The task now is to clear up those misconceptions, deepening the understanding and expanding the experimentation. The achievements of the past decade are substantial. On the base they provide, progress can be steady and rapid toward the shared goal of improved combat effectiveness.

by Lt Col E. J. Robeson IV

War is far more complex than either the firepower-attrition or maneuver warfare models suggest. The campaigns of MajGen Nathan B. Forrest illustrate a third model that could prove devastating on the modem battlefield if we master the characteristics that made him successful.

The debate over the conflict in Indochina has prompted a renaissance in American military studies and has yielded essentially two schools of thought on how wars have been successfully fought throughout history; they are popularly known as maneuver warfare and firepower-attrition warfare.

The maneuver warfare school has been particularly vocal in advocating its position and in castigating firepower-attritionists. In fact, the debate has been singularly one-sided. Few strategists would openly advocate pure firepower-attrition (although several prominent leaders have come close in practice). Moreover, the skeptic must ask whether the firepower-attrition school is really nothing more than a “straw man” alternative developed by the maneuverists, for it has many detractors and no known champions.

I believe that warfare is much more complex than either of these two models suggests, and we should actually be striving to implement a third alternative. Let’s call it “Forrest war,” in honor of one of its foremost practitioners. MajGen Nathan Bedford Forrest, Confederate States Army (CSA).

Forrest war recognizes that both firepower and maneuver are essential components of warfare and that they must be integrated to obtain maximum effectiveness. Certainly, no one in the maneuver warfare school would argue with that; but there is a fundamental difference. Forrest war also postulates that firepower is not only essential, but that it must always come first. This is true because of the realities of war, especially at the level of the individual combatant. For the infantryman on the ground, every attack is a frontal assault. Here, weapons are for killing, wounding, or causing the enemy to cower. Assertions that a rifle is not for killing, but should be principally regarded as a means to maneuver are simply ludicrous. (Only when the rifle butt is placed under the arm and used as a crutch could a rifle be considered as a means to maneuver.) In truth, it is only after the enemy has been dominated by aggressiveness and firepower that maneuver can become an effective option at all. Educating the enemy to the consequences of firepower can be a brutal, personal struggle; but, if it is successful, it will make him susceptible to maneuver. Gen Forrest understood this very well and knew how to fully implement this third style of warfare to which we have attached his name.

Six characteristics quickly become apparent in an analysis of the art of Forrest war. These are: 1) fearsome reputation, 2) preparation and positioning, 3) surprise, 4) physical dominance through firepower, 5) moral dominance through maneuver, and 6) pursuit. Let’s look at each of these in turn.

Gen Forrest initially gained reputation during the fight for Ft. Donelson, where Union forces captured the Confederate garrison with one notable exception: Forrest‘s command, which was then a Tennessee cavalry regiment. Here, in February 1862, strong winds, sleet, and snow brutalized the Confederate garrison trapped inside the fort by superior Union forces. Forrest and other junior commanders advocated a breakout attempt, but the senior leadership faltered, even after the initial Confederate attacks were successful, and decided the garrison should be surrendered. As R. U. Johnson writes in his history of the Civil War:

Colonel Forrest promptly announced that he neither could nor would surrender his command. He requested permission from General Pillow to cut his way out. He assembled his men, all as hardy as himself, . . .moved out and plunged into a slough formed by backwater from the river. An icy crust covered the surface, the wind blew fiercely, and the darkness was unrelieved by a star. There was fearful floundering as the command followed him. At length he struck dry land, and was safe. He was next heard of at Nashville.

It is from such character and stamina that the first requirement for successful prosecution of Forrest war is derived-the establishment of a fearsome reputation.

Cultivating this irreplaceable commodity is also essential. It can only be done through demonstrated excellence in the performance of duties in the field. Forrest accomplished this at the end of the Battle of Shiloh in April 1862. Forrest‘s cavalry regiment was assigned to cover the Confederate retreat, but even here, he was a dangerous opponent. When Forrest noticed momentary confusion in Sherman’s pursuing infantry, he ordered an immediate charge. Firing their double-barreled shotguns, Forrest‘s men rode over their opponents, shooting down men by the score. Sherman himself, says W. Sword in Shiloh: Bloody April:

. . .was caught in the tumult and nearly killed. He said ‘My aide-de-camp was knocked down, horse and rider, into the mud, and I and the rest of my staff ingloriously fled pell mell. . .closely followed by Forrest and his men. . . .’

It was for actions such as these that Sylvanus Cadwallader in Three Years with Grant observed:

Forrest was the only one whom Grant sincerely dreaded, largely because he was amenable to no known rules of procedure, was law to himself for all military acts, and was constantly doing the unexpected, at all times and places.

An excellent case study that clearly demonstrates all six tenets of Forrest war can be found in the Battle of Brice’s Crossroads, MS, which took place from 10-12 June 1864, between the forces of MajGen Nathan Bedford Forrest, CSA and MajGen Samuel Davis Sturgis, USA.

By May 1864, Sherman had advanced deeply into the South and was becoming increasingly concerned over the vulnerability of his lines of communication to Forrest‘s predations. Having previously met him at Shiloh, Sherman wrote to Sturgis, “I expect to hear every day of Forrest breaking into Tennessee from some quarter.” Forrest‘s reputation had not been lost on Gen Sturgis either. When ordered to tie up Forrest in Mississippi, he reported:

The force sent out was in complete order and consisted of some of our best troops. . . .I saw to it personally that they lacked nothing to insure a successful campaign. The number of troops deemed necessary by Gen Sherman, as he telegraphed me, was 6,000, but I sent 8,000.

In fact, Sturgis sent 8,300-3 brigades of infantry, 2 of cavalry with the latest repeating carbines (“which would give them a big advantage in firepower over their butternut opponents”) and 22 field artillery pieces.

This force left Memphis on 1 June in an unrelenting rainstorm that soaked the men and flooded fields and roads, and began to slowly move south toward Tupelo, MS.

At Tupelo, Forrest made known his presence in the area (Characteristic 1), permitting his previously established reputation to begin to prepare the terms of the battle. He then demonstrated the second characteristic preparation and positioning, by collecting his 4,800-man division for the fight.

A study of the terrain, possible Union objectives, and the axis of advance of the Union troops provided Forrest the intelligence he needed to complete his preparations and position his force. He chose his battlefield just south of Tishomingo Creek, MS, now flooded by a week of rain, at Brice’s Crossroads.

Meanwhile, Sturgis’ forces continued to crawl along through the nonstop deluge and muddy roads. Discouraged by his progress, as well as by the thought of all the Confederate troops gathering ahead, Sturgis remarked in his official report that his delay could provide time needed by the rebels to “concentrate an overwhelming force against us.” Like Sturgis, Forrest was also having thoughts about the comparative force ratio. Even though Sturgis would have almost a two-to-one advantage in men, and three times as many artillery pieces, Forrest believed that boldness and the nature of the terrain, which he knew well, would make up for the numerical odds he faced. He said:

I know they greatly outnumber the troops I have at hand, but the road along which they will march is narrow and muddy; they will make slow progress. The country is densely wooded and the undergrowth so heavy that when we strike them they will not know how few men we have. . ..Their cavalry will move out ahead of their infantry and should reach the crossroads three hours in advance. We can whip their cavalry in that time. As soon as the fight opens, they will send back to have the infantry hurried in. It is going to be hot as hell, and coming on the run for five or six miles, their infantry will be so tired out we will ride right over them.

Forrest‘s sensitivity to weather and terrain is clearly seen in this analysis. He had selected a battleground to which the enemy had only one avenue of approach, the narrow, muddy Guntown Road that crossed the flooded Tishomingo Creek bottom on an elevated dirt causeway before climbing for about one-half mile in a southerly direction to Brice’s Crossroads. It was near this intersection that Forrest intended to meet the enemy, but from an easterly direction, requiring the Union forces to make a 90 degree turn as they entered the battle area. This radical change of direction would most assuredly create problems of command and control. Next day, as the rising sun began to bake steam out of the muddy fields and roads, Union cavalry moved up the hill to the crossroads to find a sense of foreboding in the air.

Forrest‘s march to this same location had begun well before dawn in the cooler hours of the day and on as many parallel routes as were available, for he had over twice as far to come.

Forrest initially had few forces available, but he opened his attack suddenly with lines of dismounted gray soldiers moving rapidly forward and fixing the lead Union cavalry units in position. These vicious frontal assaults were merely designed to buy time for his units to close and force Gen Sturgis to commit his entire force. In this, he was eminently successful. The Union cavalry brigade commanders were soon desperately crying for reinforcement or relief, and Gen Benjamin H. Grierson even asked that his division be withdrawn, as it was being “overwhelmed by numbers” and was “exhausted and well nigh out of ammunition for its rapid-firing carbines.” In fact, however, the Confederate “desperate charges” were being successfully conducted against Union forces that were much larger and which overlapped the Confederates on both flanks; the Union forces had six cannons in action and four more in reserve, while Forrest‘s guns had not yet arrived.

Meanwhile, on Guntown Road, the Union infantry brigades were marching to the sound of the guns. They were being hurried along by their officers and staff noncommissioned officers through the Mississippi summer heat. Gen McMillian was among the first to arrive at the crossroads, leading his infantry brigades and finding:

. . .everything was going to the devil as fast as it possibly could, he [McMillian] threw caution to the winds. Though many of his troops had already collapsed from heat exhaustion on the hurried approach march, and though all were blown and in great distress from the savage midday, mid-June Mississippi sun, he sent preemptory orders for his two front brigades to come up on the double quick and restore the crumbling cavalry line before the rebels overran it.

With these actions, Forrest had achieved the third important characteristic of surprise.

Physical dominance through firepower had become the key concern. Forrest had closed all his units on the battlefield, and he rode along putting the fire of battle into his lines of soldiers lying on the line of departure. At the bugle call, he had them up and surging forward. It was a brutal frontal assault, and everywhere “there was a grim struggle, much of it hand to hand, before the contest reached the climactic point and the time came to hit ’em on the ee-end.” The stage was set for the fifth characteristic-moral dominance through maneuver.

Forrest committed his final reserves, small units who were sent simultaneously around the right and left flanks of the Union lines to gain their rear. Because of the carnage occurring to their front, even veteran Union brigades were now susceptible to dislocation, and these actions “. . .made the whole line waver and cave in, first slowly, then with a rush.” As Gen Sturgis related in his official report:

Order gave way to confusion and confusion to panic. . . .Everywhere the army now drifted toward the rear, and was soon altogether beyond control.

The Confederate battery along with a captured Union cannon were now playing with deadly effect along the Union escape route, and the closely pursuing Confederates ensured “. . .that every attempt to make a stand only brought on a new stampede.”

As Gen Sturgis related to Col Edward Bouton during this retreat, “. . .for God’s sake, if Mr. Forrest will let me alone, I will let him alone.” Forrest, however, had other ideas. He directed his commanders to “keep the skeer on “em,” and they did just that, past sunset and on into twilight and full night. Forrest later reported that after 8 p.m.:

It being dark and my men and horses requiring rest, . . .I threw out an advance to follow. . .after the enemy, and ordered the command to halt, feed and rest.

Pursuit was now in full operation, and unlike his contemporaries of that era, he did not see darkness as an insurmountable obstacle to further combat operations. By 1 a.m., Forrest had his troopers back in the saddle and hard on the equipment-littered trail.

By dawn, Forrest caught up with the last Federal rear guard about four miles south of Ripley, MS, and smashed it. His official report stated;

From this place, the enemy offered no further organized resistance, but retreated in the most coplete disorder, throwing away guns, clothing, and everything calculated to impede his flight.

One Union commander described it thusly:

On we went, and ever on, marching all that day and that interminable second night. . .we marched, marched, marched, without rest, without sleep, without food.

An Ohio regimental commander reported that his troops became so stiffened they needed assistance to walk. Some of them crawled upon their hands and knees. These accounts are starkly indicative of the dangers that come when units are both physically and morally beaten.

As one Union cavalry major put it:

. . .it is the fate of war that one or the other side should suffer defeat, but here there was more. The men were cowed, and there pressed upon them a sense of bitter humiliation, which rankles after nearly a quarter of a century has passed. . . Just over 8,000 troops had been thrown into a rout and driven headlong for nearly a hundred miles by just under 5,000.

What can we learn today from this exhilarating victory and tragic defeat?

First, success in combat requires an excellent professional reputation that is only obtained in peacetime through hard, uncompromising training. Secondly, preparation and positioning of friendly forces for battle must ensure that they will end the initial engagement where they are advantageously deployed for the next event. (Every billiards player understands this instinctively as he lines up his “next” shot with his current one.) This, of course, often requires modification of the open-ended mission-type orders that the maneuver school advocates. Stipulating the commander’s intent for the current battle is important, but ensuring that subunits are properly positioned for the next sequence of engagements is essential. This often requires specific instructions that detract from the freedom of subordinates. Maneuver warfare extremists decry such “how-to” instructions, but a Forrest war proponent would counter that there is a middle ground between chaos caused by subunit “free play” and rigidity caused by instructions that are unnecessarily restrictive. When Forrest chose Brice’s Crossroads as his battleground, he positioned his brigades so that he could meet the enemy there or respond to enemy initiatives elsewhere. He also enhanced the effectiveness of his surprise by permitting the enemy to extend before he struck at an unlikely time and place.

Achieving physical dominance through firepower is perhaps the single greatest difference between the contemporary definition of maneuver warfare and the tenets of Forrest war. Gen Forrest stated when describing his 30th victim in personal hand-to-hand saber/pistol combat:

You know, if that young fellow had had sense enough to give me the point, I wouldn’t be here right now; but he tried to slash, which was his last mistake.

Military commanders today should recognize Forrest‘s symbolic intent: sophisticated movement will never compensate for failure to give the enemy “the point.”

War is a grim and bloody business. Maneuverists seem to forget this fundamental fact. Clever schemes to gain the enemy’s flanks or rear may appear eloquent and even delay the day of reckoning, but sooner or later the shooting must begin. As the Germans discovered again and again during OPERATION BARBAROSSA in Russia during World War II, bold maneuvers did not disconcert Soviet soldiers. In fact, the Red Army continued to resist even when surrounded and often succeeded in getting out large bodies of troops. Soviet soldiers, cut off in severe weather for days at a time, lay without shelter on the frozen ground in defensive positions until a breakout or exfiltration could be successfully accomplished.

Failure to recognize this hardiness and professionalism in our most dangerous adversary and his relative immunity to being “dislocated” by flank attack or even encirclement is the maneuver school’s greatest error. Only after the shooting is well underway can the door to maneuver be opened with any guarantee of success against a competent adversary.

However, “giving ’em the point” through vicious application of firepower can unhinge even professional soldiers from their organizational security and ensure the disintegration that is required for total victory. Tough, not fancy, infantrymen are required for this task. Demonstration of physical dominance through firepower sets the stage for moral dominance through maneuver-and successful maneuver produces the conditions required for the culminating phase of Forrest war-the pursuit.

In summary, Gen Nathan Bedford Forrest‘s campaigns stand as fine examples of how inferior forces led by hardened commanders with proven character and reputation can dominate a larger enemy. The six characteristics or phases of Forrest warfare form a pattern of building blocks that prove devastating when properly woven together on the battlefield.

So, while maneuver warfare advocates continue to press the Marine Corps to radically change its traditional mode of operations, perhaps the more prudent action would be to have confidence and believe in ourselves, to resist the current vogue, and to remember that at the core of every conflict is a rifleman, whose every attack will be frontal and brutal, and whose weapon is for killing, not for maneuver. The more effectively we institutionalize this truth in the souls of all Marines, the better able we will be to fight, maneuver, and pursue on the battlefields of tomorrow.