"Is war a science or an art?" Topic

McLaddie,

I think that you confuse science with object of scientific research. They are totally different. Science studies certain object, but the object is not the science. It is the basic difference between who studies and who is studied.

So war can be a scientific object of study or research chosen by a science, but war cannot be a science. It is evident.

For example, Psychology studies the human mind, so Psychology is the science and the human mind is the object of study. The human mind is not a science.

Following the example, Anthropology studies war, so Anthropology is the science and war is the object of study. War is not a science.

Military Phylosophers, like Sun Tzu or Clausewitz, or modern experts, can chose war as scientific object of study, using the scientific method, or other methodic approach in the case of Sun Tzu. I agree with you on this conclusion. But war, an object of study, cannot be a science.

Again, much to some here's dismay. I agree with Brechtel, Just Jack, Wolfhaq, Dartangen and McLaddie. Now I'm pretty sure all but McLaddie are Vets. If I'm wrong correct me. But his points as valid as well. I take all posts at face value until I decide if they agree with my beliefs. One does not have to be a Vet for me to agree with. Just among other things, realistic, pragmatic and logical.

I don't always agree with just Vets like myself. I do agree with anyone who sees things as I do. Vets generally have similar[but not always the same] views. I can think of at least 2 Vets[or at least they said they were Vets(?)] that I vehemently disagreed with. Much in the same way as I do with at least Rod and Ruchel. And some others as well here.

I don't build a group who I agree with to defend my points. As some would believe. I only agree with those who I see things in the same light. Nothing to do with weakness as some would say. When is agreeing with someone makes you or your beliefs weak ? [rhetorical question]

Again as some of us have gone round & round & round with Rod and Ruchel many times before. It is a waste of time to debate with them as they are again 180 degrees opposite to my views. And always see "red" when I see or those like me generally always see "blue".

As we see some are intellectual, academic, ideologues, and IMO generally their views are fine in the classroom or library, etc. But not having the experience, knowledge, training, etc. as some of us who were in the military. Those views hold less weight with me and it appears to some other Vets here.

I know I generally don't always agree with their "academic" views. Now in saying that, everybody is entitled to an opinion. As well as everybody is entitled to disagree with those opinions, in turn.

But to stay out of the "dawg haus" or worse(?). I generally at this point, choose not to argue with those that "vehemently" disagree with me. As well as I won't hit the stifle or ignore "button". I generally choose just not to engage.

As again I know how Rod & Ruchel [and some others feel] about my opinions and me personally, etc. … But nothing will change their or in turn my opinions.

Best let them post their "views" and not get into a big "academic" debate with them. It is a waste of all our times.

Logistics, if not "a science" is "scientific," in that it is a matter of numbers and logic.

Strategy is an art, in that it requires skill, timing, insight and an understanding of your opponent.

Sounds about right to me …

Legion 4,

I understand you not wanting to get into a 'discussion' with those two. It would be akin to engaging in a battle of wits with two people who are unarmed.

War is neither science nor art, it is a toboggan ride. The winner isn't the one who understands the toboggan or the one who goes fastest, it is the one still on the toboggan at the bottom of the hill.

I understand you not wanting to get into a 'discussion' with those two. It would be akin to engaging in a battle of wits with two people who are unarmed.

And you might lose.

I would like to offer a few examples of definitions of sciences (Cambridge Dictionary.
Ruchel, you are looking in the wrong dictionary.

Look up: Наука о войне

According to some authors of Military Thought , "military science is the sphere of human activity (another option is the field of research) aimed at understanding the properties, relationships, principles, laws and laws of phenomena, processes and objects of wars and military affairs." Others believe that military science is "a system of knowledge about the nature, preparation and conduct of armed struggle , based on the achievements of military scientific thought, recognized by a certain scientific community as the basis for further practical activities." Or that military science is a system of knowledge about war and military security in the aggregate of its interrelated components: the general theory, the theory of the military art of armaments, education, and so on.
- Tyushkevich Stepan Andreevich – Major-General , Doctor of Philosophy , Professor

Someone in this thread has mistaken war for the science of war or the art of war. No one has said war is a science or an art. It like saying a phenomenon is the study of the phenomenon. No one has said that.

All:

To my mind 'War' is the preparation for and the execution of Will and Purpose in the face of mounting and shifting Chaos/Disorder. Officers and other ranks practice their trade in order to confront and hopefully overcome both their adversaries and the inherent chaos of warfare. They can rely upon knowledge of military principles/rules, tactical, operational and strategic knowledge, clear communication skills, battle drills, scientific understanding like ballistics, cryptology, meteorology and psychology (to name but a few), the more general knowledge of history, rhetoric and oratory, accounting and management skills, artistic expression (for inspiration and propaganda), common sense and a plethora of other human disciplines to prepare themselves for the ultimate confrontation with chaos/disorder. But also playing a role are intangibles like personality, charisma, intuition, will power and fortune/luck which shape the soldier's capability to confront the swirling maelstrom of chaotic cascades that is war.

War is the application of Will and Purpose against disorder and chaos. The same skills and traits which makes a good soldier/officer also make them dangerous to peace because it takes great personal discipline and restraint to not apply that same bloody-minded Will and Purpose to non-military challenges during peace time or the in-between state of the forever-war which we find ourselves in with greater regularity these days. Militarists are the uniformed and civilians who have the Will and Purpose but lack the discipline/restraint to differentiate between war and sub-war/peacetime behaviours and thus apply wartime solutions and methodology to peacetime problems and challenges. The worst militarists are those people of Will and Purpose who can no longer differentiate between war and peace and who view everything as war. The maniacs among them crave war and seek it out, addicted to the forceful application of Will and Purpose like junkies to their drug of choice. They delude themselves with a paranoid creed into thinking that everything is a military threat which must be neutralised militarily. That presumption of the need for the application of forceful Will and Purpose to non-military problems, more than anything else, is what drags peoples, nations and states into open war and results in such regular ruin being visited upon the more pacifistic majority of the population.

Jack:

I see war as the management and orchestration of a myriad combats being conducted either simultaneously or sequentially by some stratified structure of central command which attempts to exercise some measure of will and direction on the cloud of chaotic combats which are on going. War is the aggregate of many combats and preparing for such combat is often characterised as tedium punctuated by terrifying brutality. War cannot, in my mind, be differentiated from combat although war includes additional activities and is not limited to combat alone.

Donlowry:

Logistics, like accounting or managing a shipping company, is not a science. It may use some scientific principles and technology born of science but it itself is not science. Reconnaissance by fire has a better claim to be called science than logistics. When conducting recce by fire you hypothesise the position of possible enemy forces, conduct an experiment (fire) and hope to collect data (movement or return fire) to prove or disprove that hypothesis and to develop a more general theory of deployment for enemy forces in the area, without getting killed yourself. Logistics is management, not science.

Murvihill:

Well said. A terrifying toboggan ride with only limited controls down a foggy and steep hill in a lethal fun-house of grisly horrors.

Brechtel198:

It would be more helpful if you entered the discussion constructively rather than slinging petulant barbs from the peanut-gallery. But do as you will.

Rod Robertson

Logistics is a science. Everything else is art.

What I see developing here is a case where "war" is a "science", is an "art", or is both or neither … all depending upon how a particular correspondent chooses to define the terms "war", "art" and "science". In other words, the likelihood of any consensus may be said to be approximately zero.

FWIW, I suggest we agree to disagree and move on before this thread reaches the next level of acrimony.

B

So, what else did Edwin Starr do?

"Agent Double O Soul"
"Twenty Five Miles"

;-)

B

yeah … Headline News …read all about it !

S.O.S …sending … sending!

:-)

right so, what else apart from this?…

YouTube link

Legion 4,

I do not have a bad opinion of you because I do not know you personally. I have said in other occasions that it seems to me that you are an honest and respectable person.

But, after reading some posts by other ‘veterans', I think that we should discuss using elaborate arguments, avoiding impolite comments and useless and unnecessary anger.

Mobius,

Have you read correctly my last posts? I do not think so. And after reading your quote, I think you agree with me:

‘military science is the sphere of human activity (another option is the field of research) aimed at understanding the properties, relationships, principles, laws, and laws of phenomena, processes and objects of wars and military affairs'

So this definition agrees with my arguments: phenomena, processes and objects of wars (in few words, everything related to war) are the object of understanding (of study) by a science but this object of understanding is not a science. Tyushkevich recognizes that war may be an object of scientific study, but he does not say that war is a science. It is obvious. Thanks, this quote proves my arguments. And the dictionary which I have used is correct.

Please, read again my previous post. The difference between science and object of study is a basic lesson of Epistemology.

That war is neither a science nor an art is a fact, not an opinion.

I understand you not wanting to get into a 'discussion' with those two. It would be akin to engaging in a battle of wits with two people who are unarmed.

"I understand you not wanting to get into a 'discussion' with those two. It would be akin to engaging in a battle of wits with two people who are unarmed. "

And you might lose.

That is a bit presumptuous … Or because you disagree with me ? Does that makes me [or those that think like me] a stupid old Vet that is not intellectual enough to understand such high minded academic, etc., comments ?

I do not have a bad opinion of you because I do not know you personally. I have said in other occasions that it seems to me that you are an honest and respectable person.

Well I rarely hear such comments from some here. I thank you for the kinds words. But yes, you don't really know me.

But, after reading some posts by other ‘veterans', I think that we should discuss using elaborate arguments, avoiding impolite comments and useless and unnecessary anger.

I think like some who are not Vets, you don't really understand how many of us think and feel. As I said, we have a different perspective on many military topics than most who have not served. I'm not being insulting or demeaning. And again everybody is entitled to any opinion. But as is often said, something about "walking in another's shoes". Or here more accurately "boots".

Well I'm agreeing the war is not a science or an art.

Physics: the scientific study of matter and energy and the effect that they have in each other.

Just like I agree that matter and energy is not the science of Physics. But the study of matter and energy and their laws is the science of matter and energy ,i.e. Physics. So the study of war would be to some Military science.

So the study of war would be to some Military science.

Yes as I said, like many/most ROTC Grads, I had a minor in Military Science. But I will have to go with what I was taught in the US ARMY along with Sun Tzu … it is an art. As well as a science. Just my opinion on the original topic of this thread.

FWIW, I suggest we agree to disagree and move on before this thread reaches the next level of acrimony.

Totally agree, as I said, we've discussed a topic or topics like it over & over again. And all the usual "suspects", including myself generally say the same things. Brings to mind …

Or …

So the study of war would be to some Military science.

The senior military history course I took at West Point was entitled 'History of the Military Art.'

Rod begins his last posting with "To my mind…" which should serve as a clear warning to all. I mean really, does anyone want to go there?

Wolfhag

Wolfhag:

These ideas don't lurk in my mind alone. You should read some of the excellent work of Col. Andrew J. Bacevich (Ret'd) who expresses these same observations albeit in more gentle and nuanced language. Because this thread is not on the UM Board I will only link to a review of his work from a 2005 book. The review covers the book's theses reasonably well but the book itself is well worth a read as are later works.

PDF link

Rod Robertson.

The senior military history course I took at West Point was entitled 'History of the Military Art.'

West Point, ROTC and Sun Tzu … I think that pretty much says it all in my mind. War is an Art & Science … IMO of course.

Wolfhag being a former USMC Grunt … his comments holds a some of weight with me …

So round it goes. The original proposition always looked a bit inflammatory.

I have been surrounded for years by lectures, study courses, learned works and library catalogues whose titles include the words 'Military Arts' or 'Military Science'. The choice between these seems to reflect more on the age or the national culture which produced them. It seems beyond contest that the prosecution of war requires the application of various categories of science, and possibly even art if you're prepared to accept a rather dated definition. But to try and box 'War' in its totality within these academic distinctions has to a forlorn effort, if indeed it has any purpose.

Finally, I don't need a scientist to give me a definition of science. The definitions I've heard of art from some self-proclaimed artists also make me very wary of taking their word for it. I don't need a builder to explain what a building is. And while I would instinctively defer to the experience of practitioners when discussing Tactics, or Strategy, or Logistics, I don't accept that present or former military service – in itself – confers advantage in this historical or sociological debate. The argument is at best philosophical, but probably just semantic.

Be serious. Whether tacticians or just armchair tacticians: we all understand that warfare is more than a self-congratulatory label.

Rod,
I didn't think TMP was a forum for what lurks in people's mind (you really do not want to know what lurks in mine). If that is what you want to discuss start a discussion, "What lurks in your mind" and then have at it.

Personally, I don't hang out at a forum for miniatures painters and game players to discuss philosophy.

I thought this discussion had some potential for helping with ideas for wargame rules and modifiers at the tactical level. I always look for contributions and posts from former military, game designers, professional researchers and players with in-depth experience with specific games. I won't mention names, you know who you are. If you don't fit into that category I like to hear what you like and don't like about the games you play.

I do seek opposing points of view from mine because that's how I learn something new. However, I'm not going to waste my time trying to change someone's mind or get them to agree with me. If they don't agree with me I let them stay ignorant (ha, ha).

I don't claim any special knowledge from my military service, I can only relate my experiences, what I observed and the equipment I worked with.

I draw my game designs from military manuals, field tests, combat results and personal experiences. In that respect, I feel the science of war game design is the hard facts, tactics, strategy and formulas used by various military services. The art is how the designer interprets, abstracts and makes the game playable and attempts to get the game to succeed at it's stated goals. If you agree fine. If not then start another discussion and propose a better way.

I'll pass on the book recommendation as I doubt it has anything to do with tactical war gaming at any level. Since you like book learning so much I recommend you apply for an internship or fellowship at the Chomsky & Zinn Revisionist History Department at the Univ of California in Berkeley. They have hundreds of books you'll enjoy to read and write reviews.

Rod, don't get me wrong, I'm not telling you not to post. People should be free to post whatever they want, well almost anything as some of us have experienced.

Wolfhag

The senior military history course I took at West Point was entitled 'History of the Military Art.'

There you go. The difference between western Art of War and Eastern Science of War. It's the culture.

Biology: the scientific study of the natural processes of living things.

And the definition of war: armed fighting between two or more countries or groups, or a particular example of this. (Cambridge Dictionary)

So there can be no scientific study of War, warfare and the military processes?

So, let's all sing "And I'll study war no more, no more."

Military men have seen the connections between science and art for a long, long time:

Clauswitz: ON War

BOOK 2 • CHAPTER 3
Art or Science of War?
1.—Usage still unsettled.
(Power and Knowledge. Science when mere knowing; Art, when doing is the object.)
THE choice between these terms seems to be still undecided, and no one seems to know rightly on what grounds it should be decided, and yet the thing is simple. We have already said elsewhere that knowing is something different from doing. The two are so different that they should not easily be mistaken the one for the other. The doing cannot properly stand in any book, and therefore, also, Art should never be the title of a book. But because we have once accustomed ourselves to combine in conception, under the name of theory of Art, or simply Art, the branches of knowledge (which may be separately pure sciences), necessary for the practice of an art: therefore, it is consistent to continue this ground of distinction, and to call everything Art when the object is to carry out the doing (being able), as for example, Art of building; Science, when merely knowledge is the object; as Science of Mathematics, of Astronomy. That in every art certain complete sciences may be included is intelligible of itself, and should not perplex us. But still it is worth observing that there is also no science without a mixture of art. [my bold]

In mathematics, for instance, the use of figures and of algebra is an art, but that is only one amongst many instances. The reason is, that however plain and palpable the difference is between knowledge and power in the composite results of human knowledge, yet it is difficult to track out their line of separation in man himself.

McLaddie,

Have you read my previous posts? I do not think so. It is necessary to read carefully other members' posts.

I have already answered you.

War may be an object of scientific study, but war is not a science in itself. Again, it is the difference between science and object of scientific study.

How many times should I repeat the same evidence?

The connections between science and art are not the matter of this topic. The question is if war is a science or an art. The answer is: war is neither a science nor an art.

But you can study war (object of study) using scientific methods, or another similar methodical procedure. It is the case of Clausewitz and his work.

So certain aspects related to war, for example military processes, such as strategies and tactics, may be object of scientific study. I have repeated this argument many times here.

And you are wrong.

It is clear that you have no background in the armed forces and have not attended any service schools.

Perhaps you should take a look at, for example, Frederick Artz's The Development of Technical Education in France which covers both the civilian and military side of the equation.

Another good study is Engineering the Revolution by Alder.

makeagif.com/i/vYF92t

Military men have seen the connections between science and art for a long, long time

Amen !

I don't claim any special knowledge from my military service, I can only relate my experiences, what I observed and the equipment I worked with.

You & I seem[and some others Vets and others as well] get that … yet some don't see the relationship. With having experience and training, etc., and posting it in our comments on a thread.

It is clear that you have no background in the armed forces and have not attended any service schools.

That should be on a T-shirt ! And TMP could sell'm !

That being said, we all agree everyone is entitled to an opinion. Hmmm ? That could be another TMP T-Shirt !

SJDonovan, you are a UK Vet right ? You didn't answer my question to you. On a post further up on this thread. I just want to keep track and know who is who and why, etc. Humor me …

War may be an object of scientific study, but war is not a science in itself. Again, it is the difference between science and object of scientific study.

Ruchel:

No, I did read it. I just think your definition of science isn't on target and doesn't agree with the definitions you gave… or shed light on the question of the thread. Science isn't a thing you find in the street or a building in a university. It is something scientists do: They do 'science' which is the study of different subjects using variations of the scientific methods of observation and experimentation. They build up knowledge, that construction of knowledge is also science.

Science and scientific studies of different aspects of our world are not 'totally different.' For instance, they don't give Nobel prizes for science, they give them in categories such as "the study of Physics", "the study of Chemistry."

The term 'science' has changed over the centuries, but in never has been a thing in and of itself. It has been:

sci·ence

"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment." The scientific method is the foundation of that systematic study.

Science is an activity so you can't separate the activity, the study from science and say they are different things.

The question is if war is a science or an art. The answer is: war is neither a science nor an art.

War is a collective human activity…again, not a thing in-of -itself. It is something people do. Is biology a science? No, biology is just the various activities of life… which is then categorized and studied scientifically. The collected knowledge that scientific study has accumulated is called biology.

The question would be clearer if it asked whether the waging of war is an art or a science. Military men such as Clauswitz have answered that question as well as can be… just as Crick has answered whether

"Genetic Research is an exact science, but it's also an art."
--Dr. Francis Crick, of Watson and Crick, the discoverers of the double helix structure of DNA.

When Crick speaks of an exact science, his is speaking of the quality of the activity, not some thing.

I hope I have made my position clear. I imagine we will have to agree to disagree.

SJDonovan, you are a UK Vet right ?

Good lord, no. Whatever gave you that idea? I wasn't even a boy scout. I have studied ballet though so I do know a bit about art.

We don't really have the same concept of veterans here in the UK. People who are no longer in the army, Royal Navy etc are generally just referred to as former members of the armed services.

The term veteran is reserved for people who saw combat in specific conflicts. So you might be a Falklands War veteran or a First Gulf War veteran but, for example, the soldiers who served in Northern Ireland during the 'Troubles' are not generally considered to be veterans because it was deemed to be a policing action rather than a war. Probably totally unfair – because they were certainly putting their lives on the line – but, hey I didn't make the rules.

So no, unlike you, I have never been on the front line where the bullets are flying, so feel free to ignore everything I say because I can't possibly have anything useful to add to the debate.

Legion,
It seems us ground pounders and grunts don't have the mental aptitude to participate in this high-level discussion. Seems to me like they are all officer material.

I'd like some of the more enlightened participants using your vast intellect to answer if the following is an art or science on the battlefield and what you would do?

1- You are in a clearing and hear a single loud "thump" in the distance. Based on the sound can you tell what it is and the size and distance? Can you determine the amount of time before the round impacts? Do you decide to hit the deck or run for cover? If you run in what direction and how far can you go? What happens next?

2- You are a squad leader and your squad comes to a rice paddy that looks suspicious. Your choices are:

A- Send the FNG to the other side of the rice paddy treeline to see what's there.

B- Call in an arty strike HE & WP FFE and take a smoke break.

C- Get everyone on-line and conduct a Recon by Fire.

D- Deploy in a wedge formation and quick march across the clearing and hope for the best.

3- You are a Recon/LRRP Team Leader deep in enemy territory out of arty range. You're outnumbered 10:1 and have been discovered by the enemy and am being chased through a triple canopy jungle. You are about 2 miles from your extraction point and will take 45 to 60 minutes to get there. You only know your location to about what grid square you are in (+/-1000 to 2000 yards). Your RTO tells you there is a flight of two Phantoms with a load of Snake and Nape few minutes away that can be diverted to assist you. As the Team Leader, what do you do? You are being chased so you cannot stop running and cannot take a compass reading. Can you direct the air strike effectively to hit the bad guys chasing you and save your patrol? You do have excellent radio communication.

4- Your squad is in a column going down a trail. Your CO needs you to move rapidly so no flank security (yes, that sucks). You see your point man disappear around a bend in the trail. A couple of seconds later small arms automatic fire opens up from the direction of your point man and on your right flank. What happened? What are your best options?

Now if you are former military you know the manual has a SOP for all of these actions except #3. Each question calls for immediate action.

So let's see how well you guys do outside of the classroom and library. Your solution please – are you going to use art or science to save your team?

Wolfhag

Now if you are former military you know the manual has a SOP for all of these actions except #3. Each question calls for immediate action.

So let's see how well you guys do outside of the classroom and library. Your solution please – are you going to use art or science to save your team?

If you are asking for the SOP that is in the manual aren't you just asking for the answers that you learnt in the classroom?

Whatever? I am willing to play. You are right, I am sure I am officer material so in cases 1 to 4 I would say: "Sergeant, what do you advise?" And I would do that.

Then home for tea and medals.

SJDonovan.
Yes, as an officer your score is 100%. I commend you. As a Team/Squad Leader you are KIA.

Wolfhag

Did I get fragged by my own men?

Brechtel,

No, I am not wrong. The difference between science and object of scientific study is a basic lesson of Epistemology. Is Epistemology wrong? No.

The definitions of war, sciences and arts, given by reputed dictionaries and authors, are they wrong? No.

Is war a science? No. Is war an art? No. It is evident. So, I am not wrong.

I do not know why you do not understand those basic elements of scientific knowledge.

You have said: ‘It is clear that you have no background in the army forces and have not attended any service schools'

So, in your opinion, if some people have no background in army forces and have not attended those kinds of schools, they cannot offer any valid argument about war. So, dozens of philosophers, historians, anthropologist, scientists, writers, who have offered many writings about war, are wrong because they have never been soldiers. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, Spinoza, Immanuel Kant, Voltaire, Gandhi, Einstein, Jung, and many others, ancient and modern authors, are a bunch of liars.

Again, war is a complex concept which includes many different aspects: military, economic, social, demographic, psychological, moral, religious, ideological, sociological, etc. Military aspect (strategies and tactics) are only one among many others, and you cannot reduce war to a set of military matters. It is untrue and morally inacceptable.

SJDonovan,
No, you fell back on your level of training. Nothing else can really be expected. With an experienced NCO to rely on you most likely came out OK. Enjoy your tea and medals, you earned them.

The way I see it the higher up in the chain of command the more you are interested in the bigger picture (more science and less art) and not micromanaging. The lower the level the more art and less science. This is why the US uses Frag Orders and the German the principle of Auftragstaktik.

My opinion: A squad and team leader interprets orders and responds to action (initiative). I consider that an art because like in painting the person making the brush strokes interprets the subject he is painting. A painting by Leroy Nieman looks nothing like a real human but is still a work of art. However, a division commander is more concerned with the science of supplying, moving and attacking/defending with his maneuver units. Two commanders may interpret and execute differently, I'd call that part art.

Wolfhag

In mathematics, for instance, the use of figures and of algebra is an art, but that is only one amongst many instances. The reason is, that however plain and palpable the difference is between knowledge and power in the composite results of human knowledge, yet it is difficult to track out their line of separation in man himself.

Mathematics is an art, not a science. At least according to my university. But, mathematics is not a physical process.

So a better response is to say we want to manage war. Is management of war a science or art?

Mathematics is neither an art nor a science. Mathematics is a language, a means of describing either concrete or abstract processes or principles. Mathematics is a descriptive tool, a means to an end and is rarely an end in and of itself except in esoteric mathematical circles. Scientists, musicians, visual artists, soldiers and accountants can all use mathematics profitably in their fields of study/craft.

A soldier, sailor or airman, either other rank or officer, may use science to further their expertise in war. Such people may use the scientific method in their pursuit of a better understanding of war. But the process they follow and the topic which they study are not the same. Their methodologies are not their craft. They are augments to their craft. A FOO may use mathematics, geometry, meterorology and communications skills to do his/her job but that does not make the FOO's job description that of a mathematician, a meteorologist or an orator. The FOO is s an artillery officer and is calling in fire on a target. His/her craft is war, not math, not meteorology, not oratory, not science and not art.

War is not a science. War is not an art. War is not mathematics. War is war. It exists separate and distinct from the processes and tools which it uses. Now some similes. To say war is a science is like saying doctoring is medicine or plumbing is welding or soldering. The tools and process are not the craft. They augment the craft.

So war is war – a craft of managing coercive force and killing in the face of violent opposition and chaotic circumstances to achieve the policy goals of a defined state or organization which is entitled by a significant portion of a society to call its forceful application of will and purpose "war".

Rod Robertson.

McLaddie,

The Theory of Knowledge developed in Western civilization has originated the current concept of science and the accepted scientific method. Western concept of science and knowledge is basically dualist. In practise, scientific method implies a strict separation of subject (knower) and object (known). The real world is complex, and that separation cannot be absolute (Heisenberg). I am very critical of this scientific method because I think it is basically reductionist and narrow-minded: the map is not the territory.

Science does not mean absolute truth. It is the final consequence of the modern Western way of thinking: the separation of Epistemology and Ontology.

So I agree with some of your arguments. But a total confusion or mixture of sciences and objects of study is dangerous. Nowadays everything may be considered a science or an art, and the situation becomes chaotic. Science is an activity, and other activity may be an object of scientific study; both are activities, and both may be related to each other, but their nature is totally different.

Regarding the similarities between science and art, I think that it is difficult to reach a conclusion or an agreement. Nowadays the purpose of sciences is basically to reach a certain type of knowledge, theoretical and practical, about something, in order to develop practical applications (technology). The purpose of arts is quite different, because this human activity includes many different, non-measurable or abstract aspects such as creativity, originality, emotions, feelings, intuitions, etc. A scientist may use the scientific method in a creative way, but perhaps there can be more similarities between art and some procedures of technology.

Wolfhag:

Your four scenarios are a trap. In war you can do everything right and still be defeated by circumstance. You can make an appreciation of the situation, follow correct procedures or SOP's and still take it in the teeth. The manuals and battle drill are there to train the ranks and officers to do what will most likely work as quickly as possible in order to maximise your chances for success and minimise the casualty and materiel cost for success. The problem is the manuals and drill can't cover everything so there are combinations and permutations of circumstance where following your training will lead to defeat or result in greater harm being done than is otherwise necessary.

I think back to Operation Totalize in the summer of 1944. The Commonwealth armoured brigades followed SOP's and halted without infantry support during the second night of the operation. They went into defensive lagers and awaited sunrise as was SOP. As a result they lost the opportunity to fully exploit their breakthrough and thus lost the strategic initiative, allowing the Germans time to regroup and plug the gaps created by the breakthroughs. Hard and costly fighting followed. Had they gone forward unsupported and in the dark they could have been massacred by infantry attacks against blind tankers. There was no right choice given the limited knowledge they had. To advance would have required an act of faith which would have been indefensible in a follow-up enquiry if they had met disaster. To stay put squandered a possible opportunity for great success. They were screwed either way. Alea Iacta Est! The German's couldn't believe their own good fortune.

Someone earlier posted a link to a segment of Gwynne Dyer's 1980's TV series "War". There Dyer tells the story of how during the Yom Kippur War the Syrian armoured command followed procedure while attacking through the Golan Heights and waited for artillery and infantry support before assaulting what the Syrians believed to be well defended Israeli positions. But the Israelis weren't there in strength, they had been caught flat-footed. Had the Sryian command not followed SOP's they likely would have had a successful breakthrough to the Jordan Valley and the war might have gone very differently. But, had the command attacked and the Israelis were in place and in strength then the Syrian armour would have suffered wholesale destruction. Thus in war you can do everything right and still fail and on rare occasions you can do many things wrong and still prevail. War is not a science because it is too slaved to chance and luck. War is not an art because hierarchy and authority (like manuals and SOP's) prevent the full expression of the artisan's skill (Ie. fighting by the seat of your pants). War is war. Perhaps a bit Zen and circular but nonetheless true.

So I will not walk into your four-part ambush and play the loser's game. I have neither the training nor the skills to play well by the rules which you have studied and mastered. Rather, I will play a different game, rewrite the rules and continue to wage war on war itself (at least unnecessary war driven by unrestrained militarism), for that is a battle which I at least have a chance to win.

Rod Robertson.

So let's see how well you guys do outside of the classroom and library. Your solution please – are you going to use art or science to save your team?

Wolfhag:

What do you think an SOP is, other than a conclusion about what the best or appropriate response is from research and study?? How you choose and apply an SOP among the choices you gave, OR decide to ignore them all together is the art.

I can't think of a soldier who would simply ignore all training, the past accumulate knowledge of the military research, past experience [which is the model science works off of] to make a decision about what to do: i.e. the art. Science: Knowledge, Art: Application of that knowledge.

It doesn't matte whether you are a grunt of a five star general…

Your four scenarios are a trap. In war you can do everything right and still be defeated by circumstance.

That is true in every human endeavor, whether it is the study of biology or competing in the Super Bowl, creating a theory of plate tectonics or using oil paints that have been scientifically created.

Rod,
Thanks for your honest feedback and non-answer.

Trick questions? These are all scenarios small unit leaders are confronted with on the battlefield. It's a bitch, isn't it?

I'd like to get a few more responses before I tell you what I had in mind for this little experiment.

Clue for #1: This can actually be solved using middle school math/science and common sense by anyone that has attended basic infantry training. Knowledge of light mortar tactics would help too.

Question #2 and #4: Is there really a right answer? Maybe or maybe not.

Here is a clue for #3: 1970, Marine 3rd Force Recon, I Corps, Vietnam. It's not in a manual but did actually happen. The air strike was called in successfully even though the Phantoms did not have a visual on the recon team or the enemy. Contact with the enemy was broken. What signal devices could you be carrying that would enable you to call in the flight while running for your life? Legion, you have carried and used them numerous times. It's so common you are most likely overlooking them.

So far McLaddie is on the right track (if there really is a right track). SJDonovan is on R&R drinking tea and being recommended for a promotion and Rod is in the running for the Social Justice Warrior award.

Wolfhag

Rod,
Just when I was going to write off all of your responses to inane babble you say: "So war is war – a craft of managing coercive force and killing in the face of violent opposition and chaotic circumstances to achieve the policy goals of a defined state or organization which is entitled by a significant portion of a society to call its forceful application of will and purpose "war"."

Well said. That being said I must say that as a Colonel in the U.S.Army, so I am both educated and experienced in the field that this discussion is about- you and Ruchel are wrong. I also understand art very well both my grandmothers, both parents, my daughter and my mother-in-law are/were artists and as such I have had to study and discuss art for most of my 55 years.

War is war, and it is best studied using a scientific method to improve performance and best practiced using the creativity and flair of an artist. If you don't like my answer I could not care less- I come here to learn new things about playing with miniature Soldiers. You are entitled to an opinion as am I. I doubt either of us will change the others opinion.

Please enjoy your wargaming activities.

OK, so is there an art, or a science of deception in war?

The place to begin to study war as both an art and a science is with the Eastern Romans. Their military treatises hold a cornucopia of military knowledge and attempt to impart the art of war.

And, no, there is no such thing as the Byzantines…

Well said COL Scott … So based on my count, we have US ARMY COL, Brechtel/West Point, ROTC and of course Sun Tzu … So again, I think that says it all IMO …

so feel free to ignore everything I say because I can't possibly have anything useful to add to the debate.

Thank you for trying to answer my query. And as I said, I take every post's merit into consideration. And evaluate it as I see it. "I call'm as I see'm !"

We don't really have the same concept of veterans here in the UK.

And more and more I see this with the UK "concept" as a Vet vs. the USA's. And yes, the UK soldiers who were in Ireland should be considered "Vets", IMO. So I think that is at least one thing we can agree on.

Interestingly, I received a metal for my service in the ROK just a year or two ago. About 30 years after the fact. So yes, I again see how the US vs. the UK in it's concepts of a Vet. I guess if I was UK Vet that wouldn't have happened ? Regardless it really it is no big deal. Seriously … I put it, still in the box, with some others, etc., on my book case. Again no big deal.

And thank you for the pop quiz and you seem fairly well versed as I read your questions. However, not to repeat what Wolfhag posted. I'm going to have to go with his replies as I see those and all he says pretty much what I would say, generally. And note he is a USMC Enlisted Man/NCO and I a former US ARMY Infantry Officer. And as many officers learn in many cases you listen to your NCOs generally. If for no other reason than to get a second opinion.

And yes, we all were trained to react quickly. Doing training like Immediate Action Drills, Rehearsals, follow your SOPs, experience, etc. We all know in many cases you have little time to think very long if at all. Just react. In the Military, you train and rehearse almost all situations that you are likely to encounter. And more … We do more than just classroom work. That may be the first step. But you physically practice everything you learn in a "classroom". Over and over again if need be. So when the situations [and others happen], you have listed occur you generally know what to do.

And as Wolfhag pointed out we are all expected to use our initiative. Whether Enlisted, NCO or Officer. Plus as Wolfhag said McLaddie is on the right track. Regardless if he was in the military or not. He seems to be knowledgeable, realistic and pragmatic.

You are right, I am sure I am officer material so in cases 1 to 4 I would say: "Sergeant, what do you advise?" And I would do that.

Donovan, I don't know if you are officer material. I was only a lowly ROTC Cadet that only obtained the rank of CPT. But you did as I mentioned, rely on your NCOs. But again, in many cases you just have time to react and follow I/A Drills, SOPs, etc. If there is a right answer it is the one that gets you and your men out alive.

And as we all learned, the "right" answers "depend on terrain & situation". And who the highest ranking man is giving the order(s), at times. So in that light, training, knowledge, experience, etc. are very important at all levels.

It seems us ground pounders and grunts don't have the mental aptitude to participate in this high-level discussion. Seems to me like they are all officer material.

And yes, it appears you may be correct. Even if I was an Officer.

But Donovan I still don't think you answered my original query.

Brechtel : "I understand you not wanting to get into a 'discussion' with those two. It would be akin to engaging in a battle of wits with two people who are unarmed. " "

Donovan : "And you might lose"

L4 : That is a bit presumptuous … Or because you disagree with me ? Does that makes me [or those that think like me] a stupid old Vet that is not intellectual enough to understand such high minded academic, etc., comments ?

Was that just smarm, etc. and directed at me because you don't like my geopolitics, I'm from the USA, a Vet, etc. ? So do you think I'm too dumb, etc., to understand, etc. ? To compete with the intellects of Rod and Ruchel ?

Don't get me wrong, they both are very intelligent. But have no "hands on", "on the ground experiences or training". And if I may, a bit "out of their depth(s)" on some of their comments, beliefs, etc., … Those are the seminal point of my comments …

Did I get fragged by my own men?

Another over publicized event that occurred very rarely. Again is that just smarm as you see Wolf and I as just "dumb Grunts" ?

If you don't like my answer I could not care less- I come here to learn new things about playing with miniature Soldiers. You are entitled to an opinion as am I. I doubt either of us will change the others opinion.

Agreed COL !