Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ian TB's avatar

A couple of years ago I wrote a more modern assessment of Boyd, specifically his impact on the Marine Corps, which can be found for free at the link below or by emailing the Marine Corps University Press (mcu_press@usmcu.edu) for a free hard copy:

https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/ANewConceptionOfWar.pdf?ver=2018-11-08-094859-167

It includes a lot of material not covered either at all, or in detail, in Coram’s book, especially primary source analysis of Boyd’s “Patterns of Conflict” briefing, and the OODA loop. I think the OODA loop itself is quite misunderstood and often presented in ways that Boyd himself never presented it. With due respect to the author above, if understood in the Boyd intended it is much more than a device for rapid tactical action; reading my book, and Osinga’s as well, makes that clearer.

Expand full comment
Mister_G_2's avatar

ML-This was really interesting and a good read, thanks for posting. However, I came away from this less, not more, impressed with Boyd overall. As an example, turning down requests for "shorter versions of the 6-hour briefing" seems more indicative of obstinacy than anything that should be held up as to be emulated. I can't help but think that such a brilliant and dedicated individual would have had more impact in his lifetime if he had been a bit more flexible and spent more time strategizing on how to best see his ideas accepted and adopted... in comparison to the investment he put into maintaining his intellectual purity/independence. To me, this triggered echoes of the "Kent-Kendall Debate" which I used as reading for my grad school class last week: https://thecsi.org.uk/isi/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Kent-Kendall-Debate.pdf?0856f5 Since the 1940's, the US intelligence literature has struggled with the priority of maintaining intellectual independence ("Truth to Power") versus having a closer relationship with decisionmakers that enables impact/relevance. "Truth to Power" matters a lot less when you never get to speak to power, power ignores you, or you're speaking "truth" on issues that don't actually affect key decisions. Over time, the consensus has grown that these considerations need to be carefully balanced, and mechanisms put in place to tighten relationships with decisionmakers, while also establishing firewalls that preserve intellectual independence for analysts. After reading this, I don't think Boyd got this balance quite right. Could he not have had more impact if he had been less extreme in his approach? Could he not have been more flexible without becoming a "sycophant?" I think so. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

Expand full comment
21 more comments...

No posts