
No Combat Without Movement: Enders Game as Maneuver Warfare Primer - bkohlmann
http://blogtarkin.com/2013/01/28/there-is-no-combat-without-movement-enders-game-as-maneuver-warfare-primer/
======
invalidOrTaken
I don't understand what all the fuss is about. It's a great book---in fact,
for a while, it was my _favorite_ book---but humans have been fighting wars
for thousands of years. The Romans ruled the ancient world, and the Mongols
Asia, with their mobility.

And yet we're supposed to believe that "hey, strategic and tactical movement
is pretty great" is a new idea?

Frankly, _most_ of the time, size and power win the day. Oracle is still here.
Microsoft is still here. Yahoo is still here.

The reason Card writes about weakness combined with movement and agility and
brilliant insight is the same reason we are all fascinated with startups---
because they're all counterintuitive (read: loses most of the time) and
therefore _fun to watch_. That's it. Not because it's always a superior
fighting style. Try fancy-schmancy maneuvers in the no-man's land of WW1 and
you're done.

Now, I am an underweight computer programmer, so I don't know what I'm talking
about. All I've done is think, and play video games. Which is precisely what
Card has done.

And I say this as a fan of Card's work. But turning military fiction into the
Art of War is a little much, it seems.

~~~
thaumaturgy
> _And yet we're supposed to believe that "hey, strategic and tactical
> movement is pretty great" is a new idea?_

Well, no -- I don't think that point was really argued anywhere in the
article. The tactics of movement are perhaps only recently being formalized,
but I think most students of history would agree that all modern military
strategy has historical precedent ... assuming that you generalize the tactic
broadly enough.

> _Frankly, most of the time, size and power win the day._

Hmm. There are two ways I can see to parse this: one is historical -- "most of
the time, size and power have won the day" -- and the other is theoretical --
"most of the time, size and power will win the day". I would readily agree
with the first, but I'm circumspect about the latter.

I avoid computer games because they're a time sink that I can't afford, but I
did get introduced to Sins of a Solar Empire a while back, and I still set
aside a little time for it now and again. It is a game that depends _very
strongly_ on relative sizes to determine victories. But, my favorite race is
militarily also the weakest one. I have the most fun trying to break the game,
coming up with less obvious tactics and strategy.

I think there are enough exceptions to the rule of the mightiest throughout
history that it's somewhat self-defeating to assume that force size will
decide a battle.

> _Oracle is still here. Microsoft is still here. Yahoo is still here._

Although there are some parallels, business is different from war. We
shouldn't use businesses to make points about military strategies.

> _The reason Card writes about weakness combined with movement and agility
> and brilliant insight is the same reason we are all fascinated with startups
> ---because they're all counterintuitive (read: loses most of the time) and
> therefore fun to watch._

Well, sure. That doesn't mean that it can't also be a good example of a
subject.

> _Try fancy-schmancy maneuvers in the no-man's land of WW1 and you're done._

I would counter-argue that WWI in particular was such a messy, horrible, ugly
disaster particularly _because_ of the use of non-fancy maneuvers combined
with new technology. Trench and chemical warfare was direct force-on-force
conflict, and because planes were relatively new inventions, they were de-
emphasized despite being exactly what each side needed to win the war.

~~~
azernik
> I would counter-argue that WWI in particular was such a messy, horrible,
> ugly disaster particularly because of the use of non-fancy maneuvers
> combined with new technology.

Most of the military histories of that war I've read don't so much blame the
tactics, but technological limitations. Radios were still too large and power-
hungry to be practical anywhere but at sea, last-mile telephone cables tended
to get cut by artillery as soon as battle started, and optical signalling
(e.g. flags) were difficult to make out near the front, leaving commanders
basically with runners and carrier pigeons as soon as battle started.

When a local engagement can be won and lost in half an hour to an hour, but
the communications RTT is 2-3 hours, maneuver warfare gets impractical (as do
a lot of other things, like long range artillery against anything other than
fortifications).

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _When a local engagement can be won and lost in half an hour to an hour, but
> the communications RTT is 2-3 hours, maneuver warfare gets impractical (as
> do a lot of other things, like long range artillery against anything other
> than fortifications)._

Which invalidates the entire GP's reasoning about 'size and power always
winning the day'. You can't really compare warfare modes before and after
portable radios; feedback loops are different.

~~~
azernik
Absolutely - although note that, at certain historical time periods, the
command and control situation was closer to the current one than the WWI
situation. The early 20th century was just a period when weapons ranges and
(off-battlefield) transportation speeds had gone up immensely, increasing the
effective size of a battlefield from practical shouting/runner range, while
battlefield communication still hadn't caught up. On the other hand, there are
clear examples of maneuver warfare in ancient times, involving tiny (by modern
standards) amounts of space and force.

------
mattdeboard
I first read this book early in my first USMC enlistment in the late 90s. It
was (is?) on the Commandant's Reading List, even, as recommended reading for
mid-grade NCOs and junior officers because of the strong representation of
maneuver warfare, the importance of individual initiative, etc. In the
intervening years I've read it a good 10-15 times. If you've not read it
you're missing out.

~~~
dfc
Have you read Lind or Leonard's book?

~~~
mattdeboard
God no. I think by "best book" he means most entertaining and most accessible
treatment of the concepts of the book.

~~~
hosh
Ha!

------
drucken
To all thinking of reading Ender's Game, do not expect some epic storytelling
with the grandness of Asimov, Herbert or Tolkien, or the depth of a Greg Bear
or Gibson, or intrigue of an Iain S. Banks or George R. R. Martin, or
fortelling of an Arthur C. Clarke or Heinlein, etc.

The maturity, scope and content of the writing in Ender's Game's pales in
comparison to many childrens books, modern or otherwise, including J.K.
Rowling's.

As someone else in this thread posted, it will feel like reading a (barely)
sci-fi version of Twilight, aimed at a pre-teen audience, and you may question
why some opine the book's greatness. You may have a point...

------
blackhole
I've read this book a good 3 or 4 times and it never ceases to amaze me.
Ender's Game is without a doubt Orson Scott Card's magnum opus and a must read
for anyone remotely interested in science fiction. I always had an interest in
the combat tactics employed in the book, and admired Ender's seemingly
unlimited ability to innovate, but never realized it had such a concrete
grounding in legitimate military tactical theory.

~~~
astrodust
I used to like this book. Then I realized it's basically _Twilight_ for
teenaged boys and started to think about it more critically.

Ender is an impossible creature and creates an archetype that cannot be lived
up to. People make mistakes, it's what makes them learn, advance, succeed,
become stronger. Ender is some kind of perverted ideal.

The way this essay describes military strategies makes it seems like those
running today's theaters are absolute idiots that simply smash one group of
soldiers to another just like the British did in the 1800s. This is not the
case. "Attrition theory" is not what's employed in individual battles, pawn-
for-pawn style exchanges. The US Army, as an example, takes extremely low
numbers of casualties with staggeringly high numbers of casualties inflicted.

Most of these bold claims about Card's novel seem like fluff on closer
examination. They're plot drivers for a novel and in that sense they bear a
similarity to real-life examples. Nothing more.

~~~
Cushman
Ender is profoundly not a role model. I think you may have missed something
crucial there.

~~~
jackpirate
Except that in practice, he actually _is_ a role model for a large number of
people in the military.

~~~
Cushman
Well, yeah; "Shut up, do as you're told, and we'll succeed in exterminating
those other people" is a lesson the military takes in a somewhat different
light from the general public.

------
coopdog
I think the article confuses physical 'movement', with maneuvering, which in
the context of maneuver warfare is more about adapting your strategy to both
hit the enemy's critical vulnerabilities (again not just physical, we're
talking media, moral, supply chains, sight, ability to discriminate between
civilian an enemy, timely communication of orders, ability to concentrate
force, etc), while covering your own.

Movement and physical speed is just the most basic of the possible maneuvers
in this context.

The rest of it does seem pretty good/interesting though

------
Symmetry
Interesting article, but I've read Leonhard’s book _The Art of Maneuver_ and
it does a much better job of explaining all of this and especially putting it
in context than _Ender's Game_ does. And includes some very additional
interesting ideas such as classifying weapons by what sort of behavior they'll
induce in your enemy as the enemy tries to avoid or defeat them.

------
DuskStar
Something that gets explored more in the sequels is what being a soldier does
to him- Ender becomes a dedicated pacifist, effectively founds a religion, and
devotes the rest of his life to undoing xenocide.

And it's cool that those are actual tactics- plus the timeline makes it look
like Ender's Game was actually on the cutting edge of military thought.

------
dfc
How does the review begin with:

 _"Despite this aggregation of martial thought, the best book on maneuver
warfare is in fact a 30 year old science fiction novel. Although incomplete in
addressing all aspects of theory, Ender’s Game is one of the best books on
maneuver warfare ever written."_

And then conclude with:

 _"Not all precepts of maneuver warfare are explored in the
book...Nevertheless, there are enough examples in the book to make a credible
case for the book as a primer on maneuver theory."_

It is worth noting that for Lind maneuver warfare was third generation warfare
and not fourth generation warfare.

------
jonaldomo
I really liked Ender's Game and can not wait for the movie
<http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1731141/>

~~~
sliverstorm
They'll slaughter it, for sure.

I don't have any _evidence_ of this mind you, but I've been through this cycle
with favorite books enough times to have learned: don't get your hopes up.

------
gmays
Nice article. I read EG in high school and I'm Marine now, but never thought
about EG as a primer on it. Depending on what experience kids have, maneuver
warfare can be a difficult concept to grasp. But once understood, it can be
applied widely (e.g. to business). For example, in my current startup I may
not have the technical background, but I've found ways to compete anyway.
Another example is where Malcolm Gladwell describes Col Van Riper's exploits
in his book Blink.

Anyway, I have friends who are ROTC instructors and forwarded this article to
them. MCDP 1 (Warfighting) is dry, so EG is a fun (though shallow) primer to
discuss. It should also make the concepts in Warfighting easier to visualize
for someone without any concept of asymmetric warfare.

To respond to some of the comments, maneuver warfare isn't a new concept but
it’s obvious it's not well understood, particularly in business. Another
useful military idea to apply to business is the OODA loop
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop>).

------
e12e
Another sci-fi book (or series) that would be relevant in the context of
tactics and strategy, is Jerry Pournelle's books/compilation on Falkenberg's
Legion:

<http://www.baenebooks.com/p-322-the-prince.aspx>

~~~
angersock
Less good for strategy but more for simply being excellent military sci-fi,
I'd recommend David Drake's Slammers series and Joe Haldeman's _Forever War_.

------
stcredzero
I was just reading about "Surfaces and Gaps." There is a concept there called
"reconnaissance pull" versus "command push." Basically, that's MVP, A/B
testing, and pivoting.

------
paragonred
I recently picked this book up after hearing great things about it for so
long. I'm not surprised that much of the information is relevant from a
strategic sense. The book is really written in a thoughtful and careful
manner.

Side note: I really hope the movie coming out later this year does the book
justice.

~~~
mhd
I had the exact opposite experience. After everyone gushing about it, I
finally grabbed it a couple of years ago. I would've _loved_ this in my teen
years, but as a 30something, it felt like a rather mediocre military sci-fi
book with a huge Mary Sue protagonist and dubious moral conclusions. Well, at
least it wasn't as long as Atlas Shrugged.

~~~
abolibibelot
I couldn't agree more. Ender's game is pretty much Atlas Shrugged in space,
written in a slightly less abysmal style. Same complexity in characters, same
vindication of the megalomania/resentment of the introvert male teenager
reader, same cult following.

------
riffraff
WARNING, contains spoilers.

