It may be that lethality is being posed as a counterculture to LEGALITY, or that may be the way my mind runs.
Certainly a culture of Lethality is better than what just happened in America’s military, which was Legality. Our own strange defeat and we’d better ditch it at any cost.
Legality is our paralysis, as opposed to the “hardening of the arteries” and bureaucracy that Marc Bloc laid at fault with the French leadership in 1940. They did maneuver, just far too slowly. “It was all a matter of hours.”
If Weygand had ordered an immediate flank attack we have a different outcome.
Maneuver vs Attrition;
The present cultural emphasis on maneuver did not play well in Ukraine, see 2023. Perhaps a rebalancing towards acceptance of attrition when it happens isn’t untoward.
It’s unwise to sell solutions that could exist but presently don’t, and the magic thinking of maneuver seems to ignore LOGISTICS and Ammunition to our detriment. Sorry but we do need to be lethal, regardless of how clever we are, and 1940 breakthrough at Sedan wasn’t possible without tons of bombs and shells landing on the French - then we have the maneuver.
Speaking of logistics, how are those IOUs for no more tanks in USMC working out?
Finally with the Current DOD SECDEF when he slagged Karen Culture and said we need a culture of Lethality he wasn’t slagging Maneuver.
I won’t either, but without means of lethality (like 10,000~ 20,000 155mm daily for 3 years) we shan’t tap dance the enemy into startled submission.
The Battle of Verdun was essentially posited on the idea of lethality and its decisive effect. Von Falkenhayn thought he could bleed the French army white and achieve some grim, grinding kind of victory by inducing Joffre to keep pouring reinforcements in to be killed at little cost to the Germans.
ISIS may be used as counter arguments. Once an enemy succeeds in radicalising a large number of people then there is no win except that you eliminate a substantial number of adherents. Otherwise the radicalisation becomes a self perpetuating problem despite military defeat . Military victory may also mean achieving enough lethal pressure to secure the best terms in a negotiated deal
You are knocking down straw men. "Lethality" does not mean, to anyone, "kill all the enemy" and it never did.
von Clausewitz defined the aim of war a long time ago, but that is advice for the men at the top. For the ones at the bottom, "kill the enemies that we designate for you" IS the right advice.
"Lethality" right now means "the aim of the military is to fight and win" and not "the aim is to achieve diversity and equity in everything we do."
Great piece. I do think that lethality should remain as a stated priority, even if for no other reason than to encourage continued development of more efficient weapons. I can’t really speak to the tactical side of things but you certainly argue it well.
It may be that lethality is being posed as a counterculture to LEGALITY, or that may be the way my mind runs.
Certainly a culture of Lethality is better than what just happened in America’s military, which was Legality. Our own strange defeat and we’d better ditch it at any cost.
Legality is our paralysis, as opposed to the “hardening of the arteries” and bureaucracy that Marc Bloc laid at fault with the French leadership in 1940. They did maneuver, just far too slowly. “It was all a matter of hours.”
If Weygand had ordered an immediate flank attack we have a different outcome.
Maneuver vs Attrition;
The present cultural emphasis on maneuver did not play well in Ukraine, see 2023. Perhaps a rebalancing towards acceptance of attrition when it happens isn’t untoward.
It’s unwise to sell solutions that could exist but presently don’t, and the magic thinking of maneuver seems to ignore LOGISTICS and Ammunition to our detriment. Sorry but we do need to be lethal, regardless of how clever we are, and 1940 breakthrough at Sedan wasn’t possible without tons of bombs and shells landing on the French - then we have the maneuver.
Speaking of logistics, how are those IOUs for no more tanks in USMC working out?
Finally with the Current DOD SECDEF when he slagged Karen Culture and said we need a culture of Lethality he wasn’t slagging Maneuver.
I won’t either, but without means of lethality (like 10,000~ 20,000 155mm daily for 3 years) we shan’t tap dance the enemy into startled submission.
I do actually support maneuver
Unless it’s opposed to lethality.
Cheers
Fantastic essay!
Great essay! I wrote something similar a few years back that you might enjoy https://newrepublic.com/article/154970/james-mattis-lethality-buzzword-cult-military
Thanks Jared, interesting article indeed!
The Battle of Verdun was essentially posited on the idea of lethality and its decisive effect. Von Falkenhayn thought he could bleed the French army white and achieve some grim, grinding kind of victory by inducing Joffre to keep pouring reinforcements in to be killed at little cost to the Germans.
Brilliant!
ISIS may be used as counter arguments. Once an enemy succeeds in radicalising a large number of people then there is no win except that you eliminate a substantial number of adherents. Otherwise the radicalisation becomes a self perpetuating problem despite military defeat . Military victory may also mean achieving enough lethal pressure to secure the best terms in a negotiated deal
Well done! Sun Tzu would agree with your argument. China's industrial overmatch makes attritional designs rather unwise.
Another consideration regarding lethality is the decades of animus it engenders in the opposing country.
You are knocking down straw men. "Lethality" does not mean, to anyone, "kill all the enemy" and it never did.
von Clausewitz defined the aim of war a long time ago, but that is advice for the men at the top. For the ones at the bottom, "kill the enemies that we designate for you" IS the right advice.
"Lethality" right now means "the aim of the military is to fight and win" and not "the aim is to achieve diversity and equity in everything we do."
Great piece. I do think that lethality should remain as a stated priority, even if for no other reason than to encourage continued development of more efficient weapons. I can’t really speak to the tactical side of things but you certainly argue it well.