Opinions on William S. Lind?

D

deerslayer

Milforum Swamp Dweller
Well, what do you think about William Lind? A huge Bush administration critic, the man who helped create the concept of generational warfare, and a voice of reason in warfare. All in all, I think Lew Rockwell needs to keep hosting his articles.


Linkage: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind-arch.html

Side note:Check out Humberto Fontova. He's a sportsman from Cuba who settled in Louisiana, and pretty funny. His articles for the LA Sportsman are always a hoot.
 
I skimmed thru a few articles. Although I believe some of his opinions hold true, there are others that spin the truth. He said that things in Iraq were worse than what the media reported, citing troops he talked with. Were they affiliated with moveon.org? His article named National Guardsmen Diserting, wouldn't you? definately spinned things to be much worse than they really are. Lastly, he lacks a level of detail that I prefer. In my opinion, read on but take his words with a grain of salt.

Deerslayer, are you aware of Max Boot. He's a member of the Council on Foriegn Relations, wrote a few good books and writes a colulm for the LA Times. Read more about him in the link below, which has links to his column. Let me know what you think.

http://www.cfr.org/bios/5641/max_boot.html
 
Well, you're right Doody, take anything with a grain of salt (many media sources with the entire shaker). I don't know that he's involved with moveon.org. Lind did a lot of good for the Marine Corps in association with some colonels and a LC back in '89, when these men published a paper on coming warfare that was (surprise!) largely ignored by Washington. Their ideas ended up having a major impact on USMC doctrine.

I'm not familiar with Max Boot, but I'll look into it when I get the chance. Always nice to have more writers in the "Bookmarks" toolbar.
 
Maybe that's what its intended use was, but...

From the articles I've read (mostly Lind and Fontova), a efw of these guys stand to the right of Atilla the Hun. Fontova, I KNOW is right-wing. Take a look at anything in the LA Sportsman and you'll figure that one out. As far as any of the other authors, I'm not sure about their political affiliation.
 
It's not a bad thing to read an article or book from anyone who may be considered an evil political opponent in your eyes. As I said, there will be points that are valid, points that are questionable and points that are dead wrong.

In the case of Mr. Lind, he's got some valid points...unless you believe that the military operations, past and present, in Iraq were ran perfectly.
 
Phoenix80,

If you can't stand liberal media, read some of these articles with a grain of salt. Know thine enemy:) IMHO it can be beneficial to see both sides of a story, then dissect it and piece together what you can of it. In the process you usually form from insight your own opinions that aren't in line with media sources.
 
My two cents on this is that Lind is a politician through and through, not a soldier. He understands politics but SFA about combat and war. I am far more interested and give a great deal more weight to exit strategies and criticism and critiques posed by true warriors that have been there and done that not sat on the sidelines and watched. BUT it is important to take in as many points of view as possible and weigh them on their merits.
 
but wait just a minute here...

I agree with you to a certain extent. But let's not forget that Lind actually DID have military service, DID develop the USMC's current doctrine concerning guerilla tactics, and, IIRC, DID attempt to prevent the political martyrdom of compatriot Mike Wyly. A politician, but one with noble actions, as the latter displays. Then again, I have a great deal of trouble respecting a politician of any caliber, so this may just be a mistake or fluke on my part :)
 
Aye but he is talking beyond the scope of his own experience. Were he one of the commanding generals of the British forces that quelled the Malay rebellion I would listen with far more respect given to his words. Unfortunately Mr. Lind has no proven track record on the subjects he spouts forth with purported expertise even if his heart is in the right place. Yes he helped developed a theory but in point of fact very few theories pan out well in the real world. I am far more interested in the men like I said who have been there and done that, themselves. It is one thing to know something through mental faculties and quite another to know something experientially.
 
While I accept your arguments as valid, take a look at that last sentence. While Mr. Lind himself may not have been in service to experience the benefits to the Corps, no doubt the Corps has since 1989 proven his work (and the work of Colonels Nightengale, Wyly, and Burton) quite valid and scholarly. True, one cannot tell the entire tale of military life without experiencing it, but his later work has done a fair job which I felt worthy of mentioning on this forum.
 
Your sentiment is not lost. You did ask for an opinion and that's what I wrote, not an effort to shame or disgrace... just an opinion and the reasons thereof.
 
deerslayer said:
Phoenix80,

If you can't stand liberal media, read some of these articles with a grain of salt. Know thine enemy:) IMHO it can be beneficial to see both sides of a story, then dissect it and piece together what you can of it. In the process you usually form from insight your own opinions that aren't in line with media sources.
Click to expand...

oh believe me that I do! But I was just telling you how they are!
 
bulldogg said:
Your sentiment is not lost. You did ask for an opinion and that's what I wrote, not an effort to shame or disgrace... just an opinion and the reasons thereof.
Click to expand...

I totally understand that, bulldogg. I was just trying to further understand your thinking on the matter.

Phoenix: I agree, can't stand the liberal media, or Michael Moore, for that matter. I was simply pointing out that some of these guys are actually on the extreme right :)
 
stand moderate, eh? Can't say that I blame you, I was just using Fontova as a case in point. Lind, I'm not entirely sure about.

I still highly suggest you check Humberto Fontova out, for no other reason than the fact that he's friggin hilarious.
 
deerslayer said:
Well, you're right Doody, take anything with a grain of salt (many media sources with the entire shaker). I don't know that he's involved with moveon.org. Lind did a lot of good for the Marine Corps in association with some colonels and a LC back in '89, when these men published a paper on coming warfare that was (surprise!) largely ignored by Washington. Their ideas ended up having a major impact on USMC doctrine.

I'm not familiar with Max Boot, but I'll look into it when I get the chance. Always nice to have more writers in the "Bookmarks" toolbar.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Lind was part of team that was put together by then CMC General Al Gray. The effort was adopted as the Corps moved toward manuver combat training and doctrine and refined into an FMFM.

In my thinking Lind got that spot because he worked with General Gray on the LAV program when Big Al was a Brigader General at the Big Q. And while Lind may have played a part in each evolution, he's not the main player.

His manuver warfare design was actually being evolved by General Gray when he was appointed Commandant. The Team to include Lind only polished up what CMC wanted. That was to not only prepare for a fast pace combined arms response to a Soviet Bloc threat but to also not to leave out the possibilty of LIC and peace keeping.
 
actually, "maneuver warfare" was the brainchild of John Boyd. Using Boyd's ideas, Lind and his team developed the framework for the 4 generations of modern warfare.

Up until that post, USMC, I was under the impression (judging from the martyring of Mike Wyly for his work) that Lind and his compatriots were working freelance. Thanks for clarifying that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top