Maneuver Warfare Is More Than Rapid Movement

Major Aric Ramsey, U.S. Marine Corps

Source Link

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war has prompted much criticism of the West’s embrace of maneuver warfare—a concept that requires unpacking. Russia’s strategy was to use penetrating maneuvers to take Kyiv and bring an end to the war in a matter of weeks. Its failure, critics say, is a sign that maneuver is dead, the victim of technology and shifting geopolitical landscapes.1 Defenses characterized by holding positions of advantage and efficiently inflicting great cost on an opponent are supposedly regaining their place in the methodological toolbox of war.2

Shallow interpretations of maneuver warfare—or outright misreading of it—have led to a straw-man argument: Maneuver warfare is a narrow theory of victory that will limit what retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Amos Fox calls leaders’ “ability to be true artists in warfare.”3 Maneuver warfare is much more than rapid movement to surprise an adversary and gain a positional advantage from which to reduce his ability and will to resist. It is a philosophy that first focuses on the enemy, then theorizes how best to undermine the moral commitment to his cause, and finally defeats him through the tactical application of a customized mix of methods.4 It should continue to be the guiding philosophy of Marine Corps operations.