I'll hve to object to he oblique order and Epaminondas being thrown in the same box as "hooking around", because the purpose of the former is to turn a flank by means of a "frontal" attack, not starting the battle on the enemy's flank (though obviously, if possible, this is an added advantage..)... totally different concepts, for totally different types of troops.
Similarly (and from someone who talks about "networking" so much, and should be aware of the impact of means of communication, this is huge a let-down), early modern massed close-order formations must be viewed from a point of communication, command and control, and not just massed firepower output.
Other than these objections to some of the historical analysis, it reads a bit too much like a Mr.-I-know-it-all-and-I-told-you-so rant... interesting, but probably ruining the good points it might be making with the attitude in which they're presented.
That said, to me the greatest challenge facing "western" militaries is regaining the required ruthlessness to expend lives as necessary to achieve goals, and give destruction of the enemy priority again over preservation of force.
Not going to be an easy, or popular, process, though...
< Message edited by jackx -- 4/21/2010 12:46:51 PM >
no truth - no justice
all false belief
blinded by morality
there shall be ... no peace