Marine General Explains the 9 Tenants of ‘Critical Military Theory’
“Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” – Sir Winston Churchill
“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” –
“Only the dead have seen the end of war.” –
Several of our readers sent us an essay by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Greg Newbold titled “A retired Marine 3-star general explains ‘critical military theory’.”
Lieutenant General Newbold begins by stating:
Many Americans, particularly our most senior politicians and military leaders, seem to have developed a form of dementia when it comes to warfare. The result is confusion or denial about the essential ingredients of a competent military force, and the costs of major power conflict. The memory loss is largely irrespective of political bent because all too many are seduced by a Hollywood infused sense of antiseptic warfare and push-button solutions, while forgotten are the one million casualties of the Battle of the Somme in World War I, or the almost two million in the Battle of Stalingrad in World War II.
This “warfare dementia” is a dangerous and potentially catastrophic malady, because the price for it could alter the success of the American experiment and most assuredly will be paid in blood. The condition is exacerbated and enabled when the most senior military leaders — those who ought to know better — defer to the idealistic judgments of those whose credentials are either nonexistent or formed entirely by ideology. [Emphasis added]
Under the current administration with memory loss and dementia taking on new life with the potential of war between Russia and the Ukraine we need to understand the words of General Newbold.
Biden and his national security team are acting like their lost in space with confusion and denial over the potential costs of war in Europe in the near term and the possibility of war between a nuclear capable Iran and Israel and Communist China and Taiwan after the Olympic games are over.
Lieutenant General Newbold wrote his essay to:
[E]xplain the fundamental tenets of a military that will either deter potential enemies or decisively win the nation’s wars, thereby preserving our way of life.
Here are General Newbold’s nine tenets of “Critical Military Theory”:
- The U.S. military has two main purposes — to deter our enemies from engaging us in warfare, and if that fails, to defeat them in combat. Deterrence is only possible if the opposing force believes it will be defeated. Respect is not good enough; fear and certainty are required.
- To be true to its purpose, the U.S. military cannot be a mirror image of the society it serves. Values that are admirable in civilian society — sensitivity, individuality, compassion, and tolerance for the less capable — are often antithetical to the traits that deter a potential enemy and win the wars that must be fought: Conformity, discipline, unity.
- There is only one overriding standard for military capability: lethality. Those officeholders who dilute this core truth with civil society’s often appropriate priorities (diversity, gender focus, etc.) undermine the military’s chances of success in combat. Reduced chances for success mean more casualties, which makes defeat more likely. Combat is the harshest meritocracy that exists, and nothing but ruthless adherence to this principle contributes to deterrence and combat effectiveness.
- A military should not be designed to win but to overwhelm. In baseball, you win if your total score is one run better than your opponent’s. In war, narrow victories incur what we call “the butcher’s bill.”
- Wars must be waged only with stone-cold pragmatism, not idealism, and fought only when critical national interests are at stake. Hopes for changing cultures to fit our model are both elitist and naïve. The failures of our campaigns in Iraq and especially in Afghanistan confirm this.
- A military force’s greatest strengths are cohesion and discipline. Individuality or group identity is corrosive and a centrifugal force. Indeed, the military wears uniforms because uniformity is essential. The tenets of Critical Race Theory – a cross-disciplinary intellectual and social movement that seeks to examine the intersection of race and law in the United States, but which has the unfortunate effect of dividing people along racial lines – undermine our military’s unity and diminish our warfighting capabilities.
- “The enemy gets a vote.” An objective lens for military theory is how the nation’s foes regard our martial ethos; after all, that is what constitutes deterrence…or lack of it. Ferocity, not sensitivity, prevails.
- Infantry and special operations forces are different. The mission of those who engage in direct ground combat is manifestly distinct, and their standards and requirements must be as well. Not necessarily better, but different. For direct ground combat units, only the highest levels of discipline, fitness, cohesion, esprit, and just plain grit are acceptable. Insist on making their conditions and standards conform to other military communities, and you weaken the temper of steel in these modern-day Spartans.
- Those who enlist in our military swear an oath to carry out dangerous, sometimes fatal duties. We call it “being in the service,” because it’s service to others….selfless sacrifices when the other option was often more comfort, freedom, individuality, and higher pay. Those who occupy the most senior ranks of the military must repay this selflessness with courage that is even rarer — moral courage. Civilian control of the military is indisputable, but its corollary is the ordinary principle that advice is sought, offered, and seriously considered before crucial decisions are made. My personal experience provides examples — the willful exclusion of military judgments in the build-up to the Iraq War with the attendant consequence that the invasion force was too shallow (thereby creating a vacuum which the insurgents quickly filled), and the decision to disband the Iraqi Army (the single most unifying institution in that country) after the collapse of the Baathist regime. A more recent example worth considering involves the Afghanistan withdrawal.
The Bottom Line
Soldiers train to win wars. One must never get into a war without a winning mentality and a clearly defined exit strategy like FDR’s “unconditional surrender” of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Soldiers and our enemies understand unconditional surrender.
Don’t go into any war if you’re not all in. If you’re not all in then get out!
Adolf Hitler wrote:
“If you win, you need not have to explain…If you lose, you should not be there to explain!”
We have seen wars in our lifetime from Vietnam, of which we are a combat veteran of, to Afghanistan.
I have always known that we won the Vietnam war on the ground but lost it during the anti-Vietnam War street protests and in the halls of Congress in Washington, D.C.
I was serving in Vietnam with the 101st Airborne Division during Tet of 1968. I was there when we soundly defeated both the Communist Viet Cong and the Communist North Vietnamese Army. I was shocked to hear Walter Cronkite declare that the Vietnam War was lost on national television.
Today, I worry about putting our young men and women into battle without adhering to all 9 of General Newbold’s tenants.
The Art of War wrote:
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
And so ends this lesson on war and peace.
ABOUT MARINE LIETENANT GENERAL GREG NEWBOLD
Greg Newbold is a retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General who commanded at every level from platoon to division. His last assignment was as Director of Operations for the Joint Staff in the Pentagon. In retirement, he operated a science and technology think tank, and co-founded a private equity firm and consulting group. He has been a director on a dozen non-profit and for profit companies.
©Dr. Rich Swier, LTC U.S. Army (Ret.) All rights reserved.
RELATED ARTICLE: Russia-Ukraine crisis worries Americans
