The effective military can no longer lust for a mythical nation-state mirror image foe on a linear battlefield; it must accept the fact that sub-national conflicts pre-date the nation-state and these types of wars must be prepared for, fought and won. Superimposed on TOP OF this is the fact that a nation-state foe may be supporting the sub-national groups and could enter the fray just like South Vietnam was assailed by both internal Viet Cong (VC) guerrilla attacks simultaneous to external North Vietnames Army (NVA) attacks.

Saying Non-Linear Warfare Capabilities are "In the Playbook" Is Not Enough

Is mechanized infiltration through an enemy line to then fight non-linearly and collapse him in the American, British and other Army's playbooks? Status quo mongers pontificate this is so, events on the ground show otherwise.

Such tactics were not in the narcissistic, small penis, self-validation frontal assault, advance-a-front-line USMC until Lind convinced them to put it into their books.

Our concern is that just having mechanized infiltration, non-linear war tactics in the books and NOT HAVING THE EQUIPMENT TO DO IT means you are BSing yourself as the USMC does, look at the invasion of Iraq in 2003, following what few tracks they had the 75% wheeled truck clusterfuck was continually stopped by mere Iraqi rear guards and they were 6 days late reaching Baghdad allowing Saddam and his subordinates to escape and start a rebellion against us that continues to bleed us to the current day.

Frontal assaults and advancing a front line isn't the answer all the time; remember Grant at the fortress of Vicksburg? He used a TURNING MOVEMENT to win there--attacking between Vicksburg and Jackson he placed both positions in jeopardy and "turned them" out from their defensive positions and collapsed them because without supplies they couldn't hold. Today you can't do this foot slogging or trucking along roads/trails against an alert enemy or even using slow boats like Grant/Sherman did at Vicksburg.

Logistical and C2 dislocation of enemies after breaking through their lines and encircling them only seems to work against pampered western armies that need logistical umbilical cords--against the Russians who didn't give a damn if they had supplies who could live off the land with minimal air drops for ammo DEPLOYED DEFENSIVELY IN DEPTH, blitzkrieg didn't work. Hitler had a chance to beat the Russians if he took Moscow quick and showed benevolence to the Russians wanting freedom from Stalin's communism but he was not FULLY MECHANIZED so his horses and wheeled trucks got stuck in the mud and snow and he didn't use his Airborne for 3D maneuver to get there before the winter struck--the battle against the earth being decisive yet again.

It also seems that only on 3 occasions the British Army did maneuver warfare in WW2; O'Connor in early North Africa fighting, Slim all the time in CBI, and Montgomery during Operation Market-Garden. If the British Army has non-linear mechanized war in its "playbook" their persecution of great generals like General Hobart and refusal to adequately mechanize puts them in a situation akin to the USMC except that they will do WW1 better and value combat engineering tanks to clear through obstacles/land mines unlike the stupid American Soldiers at Omaha beach and the many USMC blood baths in the Pacific. Today, WW1-style walking and riding linear war types persecute men like Macgregor rather than to fully and best mechanize to effect non-linear war--nothing has changed as long as the weakest members of society flock to the military for greed and ego reasons. Civilians need to be directly involved in their defense or else they set themselves up for societal exctinction as the French found out after the Germans over-ran them. There will be no one to save America if we continue to think like and act like the French who longed for methodical, linear wars and glorious self-validation during war. Funny how fascist Americans "hate the French" when we see their image in the mirror.