Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War

Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War


Very interesting book; I was given this book as a gift from one of my Soldiers. John Boyd had a unique view on the world, and a driving desire to find truth, both of which enabled him to improve US military fighter tactics, fighter aircraft design, and ultimitely, the way the military fights.

Following is a summation of the book from Amazon:

John Boyd (1927-1997) was a brilliant and blazingly eccentric person. He was a crackerjack jet fighter pilot, a visionary scholar and an innovative military strategist. Among other things, Boyd wrote the first manual on jet aerial combat, was primarily responsible for designing the F-15 and the F-16 jet fighters, was a leading voice in the post-Vietnam War military reform movement and shaped the smashingly successful U.S. military strategy in the Persian Gulf War. His writings and theories on military strategy remain influential today, particularly his concept of the "OODA (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action) Loop," which all the military services-and many business strategists-use to this day. Boyd also was a brash, combative, iconoclastic man, not above insulting his superiors at the Pentagon (both military and civilian); he made enemies (and fiercely loyal acolytes) everywhere he went. His strange, mercurial personality did not mesh with a military career, making his 24 years in the Air Force (1951-1975) difficult professionally and causing serious emotional problems for Boyd's wife and children. Coram's worthy biography is deeply researched and detailed, down to describing the fine technical points of some of Boyd's theories. A Boyd advocate (he "contributed as much to fighter aviation as any man in the history of the Air Force," Coram notes), Coram does not shy away from Boyd's often self-defeating abrasiveness and the neglect and mistreatment of his long-suffering wife and children, and keeps the story of a unique life moving smoothly and engagingly.

Copyright 2002 Reed Business Information, Inc.

The Yom Kippur War

The Yom Kippur War, Abraham Rabinovich


(Note: This is a rough draft of this post. /dwb.)


It was very eye opening, and it was very educational as to the personalities that played a major part in the middle east politics for the next 30 years.

The astounding thing is how the Israeli's were so confidant that they could win in tank battles with the odds stacked against them as much as 100:1. The avalanche was hanging over their heads, and no one thought anything about it. Amazing self-deception. I feel we are doing the same thing with Iran right now; willfully decieving ourselves as to what will happen when Iran gets nuclear weapons.

As for the lessons from the battlefield, the same lessons seem to be learned in every war.

1. Defense is stronger than offense. The best offense is to pick a target that your enemy cannot afford to not get back, and then set up a strong defensive position. In this way he crushes himself against your strength, and not the other way around. Find the choke points, and defend them (such as Task Force Z).

2. Combined arms fights matter. Tanks, infantry, and close air support have to practice together to limit the vulnerabilities and benefit from the strengths of the other arms. Developing the skills and training together for experience will allow the seperate elements to work together through shared techniques, tactics, and procedures.

3. Leadership matters. Soldiers will fight, even in a bad situation, but leadership will make their fighting matter in the big picture. Saying "no" when something doesn't make sense matters. Striking at key targets of opportunity matters, but only at the right time. Waiting too long could make a previously good target into a death mill. Visiting the front lines to see the condition of the troops, and the reality of the battle field is essential. (Sherman wrote that too see a battlefield from the rear area's is too see failure and rout, only from the front line does a commander get a true picture of what is going on.)

4. Small unit leadership matters. The Soldiers repeatedly went into difficult, dangerous battles, but only under good leaders. Some leaders have the skill to motivate others to achieve greatness. The showmanship of leadership cannot be taught, but can be developed over years. The showmanship is the result of the character that you develop, not a substitute for character. That is the mistake that many generals, and politicians, make. People understand a fraud when they see it, no matter what you say. The good small unit leaders led from the front, knew their men personally (or got to know them before leading them into battle), and frequently checked on the men in person (going tank to tank to get a look at the condition of the individuals). It could be summed up as a sense of personal responsibility and accountability for ones subordinates.

5. Small unit tactics (or planning) matter. Several times the Israelis were rushed into battle because of a pending timeline or cease-fire. The result was never good. There is a tremendous difference between aggressiveness and foolhardiness. The paratroop commander who was ordered to drive into Suez City without maps or any planning was right to protest. He didn't protest enough. On the modern battlefield it is suicidal to charge into a trap, especially when you don't have the tools required to extract yourself from a bloody situation. Being aggressive is critical to success (Task Force Z saving the day in the Golan, the Navy crippling the Egyptian's boats, the air-lifted artillery unit that shelled Cairo), but aggressiveness alone does not ensure success. Operational speed does not mean tank speed. Taking a moment to scan for the enemy at the top of every rise ensured that some units remained effective defenders in the Golan, while rushing in a wild dash across the desert resulted in a needless Israeli slaughter. In person, slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. Slow down in order to think clearly, see clearly, and avoid unnecessary death.

6. Technology matters. The radios were not encoded during transmission, so Egypt could listen to the Israeli plans. The sagger missiles and RPG's negated the tank advantage the Israeli Army believed it had over the Arabs. The SAM 6 batteries negated the effectiveness of the IDF Air Force in destruction of the enemy forces. In today's world, the internet matters, and it's a weapon's platform that must be trained on, and around which security must be developed and used. Underwater missles are being developed by China, to which we do not yet have an answer. Satellites are being sniped out of commission by China. Nuclear material is being sold to Venezuela by Russia. I don't know what technological threat is out there, but the big threat changes every year as we develop counter-measures, and as the enemies produce newer weapons. We have to spend money on those developments, or we will be very exposed to our enemies.

7. Politics matters. Having a military, and even a trained and experienced military that is able to effectively fight and support a war anywhere in the world does not mean victory. Victory is not won by weapons, but by leaders who direct those weapons effectively. The leaders have to have a realistic view of the world, or the weapons, and the Soldiers trained to use those weapons, will be wasted in efforts that do not matter to the overall outcome of a war. A lack of will, or misunderstanding the enemies intentions, are very real weaknesses in a country, and can be manipulated by a master strategist to create disaster for even the strongest opponent. Moshe Dayan and Golda Meir were "punished" by the people, not because they lost the war, but because they failed to see a war brewing, and therefore failed to warn the people of the impending shock. The people no longer had confidence that Dayan and Meir understood the realities of the world, and were not convinced they had the will to protect all the citizens. The enemies were emboldened when it appeared that the Isreali Army was going to fail in defense of the Sinai and the Golan, and they saw weakness in the reactions of Israels leaders to the new emergency. The people did not get the feeling that the Defense Minister and Prime Minister were able to protect them anymore. That is the danger of over-inflating a nations confidence. Leaders need to provide realistic expectations. The young survivor's in the tanks did so at the personal level, but the government failed to do so at the national level (via televsion).

8. "Master Politician's" don't exist. Kissinger is praised in the book for his masterful manipulation of situations. Golda Meir is shown to be the head of government. Breznev and Nixon are pictured as two grandfatherly patrons who provide for their peoples gentle guidance and support, and prevent them from hurting themselves. These sections of the book really irked me. Government as not the solution to our problem, it is our problem. Government should protect the people, but comparing Egypt and Israel, or comparing the Soviet Union and the United States of America is a false comparison. Kissinger wanted to be "smooth" and liked by everybody, but how much harm did he cause in his life's work? Did Sadat really care about his people? He was looking for more power to take the lead among the Arab countries, not in some mission to free his people. His people are poor, and they don't desire liberty because they have never had freedom to do as they please. Kissinger clouded those differences with detente because he was interested in power, not in the benefits to the largest number of people in the world.


That last point was my only irritation with the book. Abraham believes in government. I do not.

Loved the book, though, very well written, and based on the bibliography of sources, very thoroughly researched.

The Tragedy Of The "Korosko"

A Desert Drama: Being The Tragedy Of The "Korosko", by Arthur Conan Doyle


A story composed while he was visiting Egypt for the health of his wife. The story was interesting in that his descriptions of the middle east are as applicable and valid now was they were when the book was written a century ago. In fact, I believe Doyle may have a clearer and saner view of the enemy than we do today.

America Alone

America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It by Mark Steyn

A fascinating read. Steyn takes the reader through the demographics of the current world, and shows how the cultural suicidal tendency of the west (with a birth rate in Europe sinking to 1.1 children per woman) and the unrelenting and unapologetic Muslim invasion (with a birth rate of 7.8 children per woman) are colliding to cause the end of the world as we know it.

As usual, Steyn is hilarious as he walks readers through is reasoning, and tells the enviro-wackos they are way off base about the world ending in a few millenium. "The world is ending within a decade or two!" As he unveils his traumatizing view of current events he keeps up a pep-talk for how America is Alone in the world, but its not too late. The demographics of the world are changing, the populations are shifting (with many dying off because of social welfare states than encourage life-long childhood and end with old age government care), and he presents the possible scenarios that could result from the current chaos.

Its a world view altering read. If read, it will snap you out of the calm and steady progress the media leads us to believe is unalterably laid out before us. In fact, the times from 1945 to the 1990's were an anamoly in history, and the reality of a world in chaos is once again upon us. Its not a question of if, but of when.

The real question posed by Steyn is, will we have the will to do anything about it? Daily we give more power to the government in seemingly insignificant ways. The result is a cutlure paralyzed into inaction and indecision. In one anecdote Steyn repeats a conversation with a friend in France. "Why do American's insist on owning guns?" "Americans own guns because they like to have guns." "Well we would like to own guns too, but we don't" (with the implication that its better for society). "And that is the difference between Americans and the French."

Europe is being invaded by an unrelenting wave of Muslim immigrants, and the children of immigrants. The immigration is not the problem, its the inability of the host countries to assimilate the immigrants. As Steyn illustrates througout the book, the Muslim immigrants are interested in only one thing, Muslim supremacy. They take, but they never give back. The problem is in the will of the host nations. In England some departments of government have already banned the flying of the British flag, including the prison system. The bureaucrats think that the flag is too offensive because elements of the flag are from the period of the crusades. That is sad, sad, sad.

In a great illustration of how to be "multi-cultural" (or as Mark writes, "multi-culti") and still show judgement of moral superiority of one culture over another he describes the British General in India who put an end of "suttee". In the India that the British colonized there was a practice of "suttee" in which the widow was burned alive in the funeral pyre of her husband. General Napier told the Indian's, you go ahead and follow your custom of burning women alive, and I will follow the British custom of hanging men by the neck who burn women alive. So go ahead and build your funeral pyres, and my carpenters will build gallows next to those pyres from which to hang you after you burn your women.

The question is not, "Are the enemies powerful enough to defeat us", as much as, "Are we morally strong enough to defend ourselves from our enemies?" Our enemies are the enemies of freedom, both foreign and domestic. Those at home who want to kill the American spirit of independence, self-sufficiency, and innovation with government welfare and socialism are equally as dangerous as any armed enemy. Do we have the will? That is the question.

It will be answered shortly.




Scipio Africanus: A Greater than Napolean by B.H. Liddell-Hart

Reading his book, and seeing anew the situation of the world, I couldn't help but contemplate the Roman Empire. During the time of Carthage and Rome, a time when Rome was unconvinced of its greatness, and harrassed by Hannibal, a leader stepped into the arena when no-one else was willing. The Roman commanders had been betrayed by allies, and killed in a battle for Spain, among them Scipio. When the senators called for a new general to step forward the collective society took one step back and revealed only one youth who was willing to take on the role; Scipio's son, who would soon be called Scipio Africanus.

Scipio rebuilt the legions, reformed the allies, and decisivly defeated the Carthaginian's in all of Spain. He went back to the Senate to discuss the next move, but they despised his youth and his skill as a general, and grudgingly acknowledged his success. They still moaned and complained about their plight, with Hannibal in the hills of Italy, and wanted Scipio to defeat Hannibal. Scipio said that he wanted to defeat Carthage, not Hannibal, and therefore wanted to attack the city in North Africa. The Senate resisted this with all their might, and instead gave Scipio the province of Sicily to govern.

So, Scipio raised his own funds, built his own boats, raised his own legions and sailed to attack Carthage. Hannibal was quickly called back to North Africa, and was handily beaten in a fair contest with Scipio. Carthage surrendered, and Scipio made a fair treaty that forever prevented Carthage ever again being a military threat to Rome, but also gave them economic hope as a trading empire. The Senate finally gave Scipio his triumph in Rome (but tried to undo the good treaty he had made with Carthage, not seeing the strength of his strategy).

The people tried to make Scipio King, but he would have none of it, and went quietly off to enjoy his family and his estate.

A decade later there was once again trouble in the Republic. This time Hannibal had partnered with the Persian's and was causing turmoil in the east. Scipio was chief advisor to his brother, and once again won success and an enduring peace for Rome. Once again he was attacked by the senators who were jealous of his success, and having nothing evil to say of Scipio attempted to frame his brother on stealing government money used in the campaign. Scipio's reaction was to tear the account books into shreds on the senate floor and leave. He was escorted by the crowd, who protected him from the Senators, and lived the rest of his life in self-imposed excile at his home outside of Rome.

I think a modern similarity to our own times would be Reagan. Our nation was convinced that our greatness was over, and were resigned to the fate of becoming a communist country before Reagan boldly led us to strategic victory. His entire presidency the people shuddered and complained, and acted outraged by his manuevers, yet the end results showed how right he had been all along. He defeated the great enemy of America, the Soviet Union, and set the conditions for America to be the worlds sole hyper-power.

Now, as in Scipio's day, we are encountering another threat just a few decades after the great enemy was destroyed. This enemy is once again out of the east, and is similar to Persia. The enemy is weak, but we are weaker due to a lack of unified will, and we are threatened by our own weak-minded senators who demonize the very strategies that have made us great. But where is a Reagan to step up to lead us to victory?

We are at a very interesting time in history, and our greatness has only just begun, if we will only develop the self-confidance to enforce our will. Our system is better than any other system ever devised in the history of man to promote the general welfare, the general defense, and the general good of all peoples. It provides these benefits by limiting government and protecting the individual rights of an individual to fail, to succeed, and to keep what he earns. As Reagan would say, "There are simple answers, but they are not easy answers."

We know how to make our nation great, and we know how to make other nations great. The question is, do we have the will to do it?

We will find out very shortly.

Thank you Mark Steyn for illuminating the current condition of the world! A great read, and good food for though.

Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell

Basic Economics, Thomas Sowell

This is a book everyone should have to read. He takes a complicated subject, the economy, and breaks it down to its most basic fundamentals. Its so easy, once you understand those fundamentals.

At the beginning of the book Mr. Sowell says that our ignorance costs a great deal of trouble. Because we don't know the basics, we fall victim to myths, very complicated myths that are not true, and do great harm. He equates the common understanding of economic principles in the US today to the myths that simple, scientificly ignorant tribesmen create to explain why trees move in the wind. They attribute spirits and emotions to the tree, not understanding how winds are created. Our economic ignorance is equally embarrassing, and he forges ahead to rid us of common myths and silly notions.

The first point is that the economy is not money. Rather, economics is the study of how resources that have multiple uses are distributed in society. In a free market, prices reflect a resources worth at a given time. By fixing prices, to slacken political pressure, politicians change the value of a resource, and bad things happen. Its simple economics, and Sowell shows with many good examples throughout recent history how these price-fixing actions affect society.

A fascinating read. Everyone should read this book, and all kids should have to read this excellent discourse in high school.

Read well, friends, read well.