Rip and Samuel have written key thougts on what has become a central point in 7 years of discussion and debate. Unfortunately, there are too many who simply look at a post such as this one as the views of "old Marines who long for the past and 1) Do not understand the value and scope of technological advancements and 2) do not have the current security clearances to allow them to understand the significance in the change in the character of war." In simple terms, we have been labeled as "old farts who want to return to what we thought as the good old days." NOTHING could be further from the truth! We DO recognize the changing character of war and applaud and seek any and all advantages that technology brings to our warfighters. Our KEY point is that, as noted in this Compass Points (highlighted by Lt.Gen. VanRiper and Samuel Morrison), the Nature of War has not changed...it is chaotic, bloody, deadly and unforgiving of mistakes.This fact has not changed...not in centuries and not today. Cyber will not allow you to cross a minefield or river. Drones and loitering munitions will lose their effectiveness in triple canopy jungle or in heavily forested areas, or subzero conditions. Mass in Marines and equipment are still critical, and prompt and secure delivery of logistical support is.vital Warfighters need many "arrows in their quiver" and technology only provides some of them. Technology certainly does not lessen the Nature of War nor does it validate a strategy of "Divest to Invest."
LtGen Paul Van Riper is a national treasure. Serious students of the military art disregard his intellect and knowledge of strategy and operations at their own peril. Those hiding behind pseudonyms who viciously attack him as out of touch and the 'butt of jokes" do themselves a grave disservice. They lose respect and all credability, even in anonymity.
It has always been the foot soldier that takes and keeps ground. You can bomb, burn, flood, starve, pick your weapon. Until a foot soldier is there to control and keep the ground you have not won, General Van Riper is a true patriot. He always speaks truth.
All the examples of those who "don't know war" are there to be reviewed. Too bad the non-warfighters always get the biggest microphone. Remember the gunless F-4? Missiles would replace the gun in future combat - NOT! We keep on assuming that every new tool in the warfighter's tool box is the be all and end all, the shiny thing. Usually they're just a tool, and the most important tool, the soldier, sailor, airman, marine, are the shiny thing that wins wars.
Again, thanks to General Van Riper for clarity and truth.
A Legendary Marine’s biography:compiled at my direction by Grok Auto:”Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, USMC (Ret.) (born July 5, 1938) served over 41 years in the United States Marine Corps, both enlisted and commissioned. He is a combat veteran of the Vietnam War and participated in Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. His final active-duty assignment was as Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. He retired on October 1, 1997. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
Early Life and Commissioning
Born in Brownsville, Pennsylvania, Van Riper enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve in 1956. He completed recruit training at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, followed by infantry training. Released from active duty in 1957, he served in the 12th Infantry Battalion, USMCR, in Pittsburgh while pursuing higher education. He graduated from California State College (now California University of Pennsylvania) in June 1963 and entered Officer Candidate School. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in November 1963. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
Concise and well stated, as usual…Talents the present crop haven’t yet developed. Between every conflict, a pack of those who have contributed from the support bunkers, find the loudest voices. Until recently, they’ve been tolerated, but not allowed to run the show.
Gen Van Riper has as usual hit the central issues. Right now we see the limits of technology, both physical when our magazines run low; when our political will runs low; and when a determined opponent simply refuses to give in. JADC2 is a perfect example of billions spent while pursuing the goal of an all-seeing capability that can facilitate the destruction of targets from the air. As Gen Van Riper points out destroying targets is not the decisive factor in war.
War remains a contest of human will. I a human presented this statement to Grok Expert, a human made resource. IT delivered this response:”Yes. War remains, at its core, a contest of human will.
This is not a new insight, but it is a perennial one—echoed across centuries of strategic thought and repeatedly reaffirmed in modern doctrine even as the tools of war grow ever more sophisticated.
The Classical Foundation
Carl von Clausewitz captured it most precisely in On War: war is “an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” He described it as a duel on a grand scale—a violent clash between two living, thinking, feeling opponents, each striving to break the other’s capacity and resolve to continue resisting. Physical destruction is the means; the collapse of the enemy’s will is the object.
Napoleon put it more bluntly: in war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one. Technology, numbers, logistics, and firepower matter enormously, but they serve the human element—courage, cohesion, endurance, leadership, and the willingness to suffer and inflict suffering until one side decides it can no longer bear the cost.
Why It “Remains” True
The nature of war (a contest of opposing wills) does not change, even as its character (how it is fought) evolves dramatically.
• Swords and shields gave way to muskets, machine guns, tanks, aircraft, precision munitions, drones, cyber weapons, and information operations.
• Yet every new instrument is ultimately judged by whether it helps impose one’s will on the enemy or protects one’s own will from being broken.
Contemporary military thinking continues to stress this point. U.S. Marine Corps doctrine (MCDP 8) states plainly that “because war is a contest of human will, the human dimension is vital.” Canadian Army strategic documents note that “despite technological marvels, war remains a contest of human will.” Analysts of cognitive and information warfare—whether in discussions of Chinese doctrine or Western responses—return to the same truth: the decisive battles are often fought in the minds and spirits of populations, governments, and fighting forces.
Modern Illustrations
Consider recent and ongoing conflicts:
• In Ukraine since 2022, Russia possessed massive advantages in artillery, missiles, armor, and initial surprise. Many expected Ukrainian resistance to collapse quickly. It did not—because Ukrainian will to resist proved far stronger and more resilient than anticipated, while Russian assumptions about easy victory revealed a miscalculation of both Ukrainian and their own domestic will.
• In Vietnam and Afghanistan, technologically superior powers eventually withdrew not because they were militarily defeated in every engagement, but because the political and societal will to sustain the effort eroded.
• Information and cognitive operations today are not side shows; they are direct attacks on the enemy’s will—aimed at fracturing cohesion, sowing doubt, eroding public support, and convincing decision-makers that continued resistance is futile.
Even in an era of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence, the loop still closes with human judgment. Machines can execute, but humans decide when to escalate, when to absorb losses, when to negotiate, and when to surrender. The algorithms serve the will; they do not replace it.
The Enduring Lesson
Treating war purely as a contest of platforms, data, or production capacity is a dangerous illusion. It leads to strategies that count bodies or destroyed equipment while ignoring the far harder task of breaking (or sustaining) resolve under friction, fog, fear, and political pressure.
The side that better understands this—that cultivates its own will while systematically targeting the enemy’s sources of cohesion and determination—holds the decisive advantage, no matter how impressive the hardware on either side.
War remains a contest of human will because war is waged by humans, against humans, for human ends. Technology changes what is possible on the battlefield. It does not change what war ultimately is.“
Good article on Cimsec talking about force design creating this same predicament for the Chinese. Of course, there they are using a short range ASM. The need something cheaper, more numerous, and longer ranged.
Rip and Samuel have written key thougts on what has become a central point in 7 years of discussion and debate. Unfortunately, there are too many who simply look at a post such as this one as the views of "old Marines who long for the past and 1) Do not understand the value and scope of technological advancements and 2) do not have the current security clearances to allow them to understand the significance in the change in the character of war." In simple terms, we have been labeled as "old farts who want to return to what we thought as the good old days." NOTHING could be further from the truth! We DO recognize the changing character of war and applaud and seek any and all advantages that technology brings to our warfighters. Our KEY point is that, as noted in this Compass Points (highlighted by Lt.Gen. VanRiper and Samuel Morrison), the Nature of War has not changed...it is chaotic, bloody, deadly and unforgiving of mistakes.This fact has not changed...not in centuries and not today. Cyber will not allow you to cross a minefield or river. Drones and loitering munitions will lose their effectiveness in triple canopy jungle or in heavily forested areas, or subzero conditions. Mass in Marines and equipment are still critical, and prompt and secure delivery of logistical support is.vital Warfighters need many "arrows in their quiver" and technology only provides some of them. Technology certainly does not lessen the Nature of War nor does it validate a strategy of "Divest to Invest."
LtGen Paul Van Riper is a national treasure. Serious students of the military art disregard his intellect and knowledge of strategy and operations at their own peril. Those hiding behind pseudonyms who viciously attack him as out of touch and the 'butt of jokes" do themselves a grave disservice. They lose respect and all credability, even in anonymity.
It has always been the foot soldier that takes and keeps ground. You can bomb, burn, flood, starve, pick your weapon. Until a foot soldier is there to control and keep the ground you have not won, General Van Riper is a true patriot. He always speaks truth.
All the examples of those who "don't know war" are there to be reviewed. Too bad the non-warfighters always get the biggest microphone. Remember the gunless F-4? Missiles would replace the gun in future combat - NOT! We keep on assuming that every new tool in the warfighter's tool box is the be all and end all, the shiny thing. Usually they're just a tool, and the most important tool, the soldier, sailor, airman, marine, are the shiny thing that wins wars.
Again, thanks to General Van Riper for clarity and truth.
A Legendary Marine’s biography:compiled at my direction by Grok Auto:”Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, USMC (Ret.) (born July 5, 1938) served over 41 years in the United States Marine Corps, both enlisted and commissioned. He is a combat veteran of the Vietnam War and participated in Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm. His final active-duty assignment was as Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. He retired on October 1, 1997. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
Early Life and Commissioning
Born in Brownsville, Pennsylvania, Van Riper enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserve in 1956. He completed recruit training at Marine Corps Recruit Depot Parris Island, South Carolina, followed by infantry training. Released from active duty in 1957, he served in the 12th Infantry Battalion, USMCR, in Pittsburgh while pursuing higher education. He graduated from California State College (now California University of Pennsylvania) in June 1963 and entered Officer Candidate School. He was commissioned a second lieutenant in November 1963. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
Early Career and Vietnam Service
After completing The Basic School at Quantico in June 1964, he reported to 1st Battalion, 8th Marines, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, serving as platoon commander, company executive officer, and assistant operations officer. In spring 1965, he deployed with the battalion during the Dominican Republic crisis. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
In late 1965, he served in the Republic of Vietnam as an advisor with the Vietnamese Marine Corps. Wounded in action on February 7, 1966, he was evacuated and recovered at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Philadelphia. He returned to The Basic School as an instructor and later attended the Amphibious Warfare School. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
He returned to Vietnam in September 1968, serving as a company commander (Company M, 3d Battalion, 7th Marines) and assistant operations officer with the 3d Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division. He redeployed to the U.S. in September 1969. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
Subsequent assignments included instructor duty at the U.S. Army’s John F. Kennedy Institute for Military Assistance at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; staff roles at Headquarters Marine Corps; operations officer and executive officer billets in the 2d Marine Division; student at the College of Naval Command and Staff, Naval War College; and military observer with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in Palestine (Egypt, Israel, Lebanon). https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
Command and Senior Assignments
Van Riper commanded Marine Barracks, Naval Air Station Cecil Field, Florida; served as a student at the Army War College; and held regimental staff positions with the 7th Marines. He commanded 2d Battalion, 7th Marines (1983–1984) and later the 4th Marines on Okinawa (1985–1986), followed by roles as Assistant Chief of Staff, G-3, and Chief of Staff, 3d Marine Division. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
In 1988–1989, he served as Director, Command and Staff College, and became the first President of Marine Corps University. He later served as Deputy Commander for Training and Education and Director, Marine Air-Ground Training and Education Center at MCCDC. During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm (January–March 1991), he served temporarily on the MARCENT/I Marine Expeditionary Force staff. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
He commanded the 2d Marine Division (June 1991–April 1993), then served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers, and Director of Intelligence at Headquarters Marine Corps. Advanced to lieutenant general on July 13, 1995, he assumed duties as Commanding General, Marine Corps Combat Development Command, his final tour. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
Education and Decorations
He is a graduate of the U.S. Army Airborne and Ranger Schools, Amphibious Warfare School, College of Naval Command and Staff, and Army War College. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
Personal decorations include: Silver Star Medal with gold star (two awards for actions in Vietnam), Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal with Combat “V”, Purple Heart, Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Navy Achievement Medal, and Combat Action Ribbon with gold star. https://www.usmcu.edu/Research/Marine-Corps-History-Division/People/Whos-Who-in-Marine-Corps-History/Vandegrift-Worley/Lieutenant-General-Paul-K-Van-Riper/
Hand Salute!
Concise and well stated, as usual…Talents the present crop haven’t yet developed. Between every conflict, a pack of those who have contributed from the support bunkers, find the loudest voices. Until recently, they’ve been tolerated, but not allowed to run the show.
Gen Van Riper has as usual hit the central issues. Right now we see the limits of technology, both physical when our magazines run low; when our political will runs low; and when a determined opponent simply refuses to give in. JADC2 is a perfect example of billions spent while pursuing the goal of an all-seeing capability that can facilitate the destruction of targets from the air. As Gen Van Riper points out destroying targets is not the decisive factor in war.
War remains a contest of human will. I a human presented this statement to Grok Expert, a human made resource. IT delivered this response:”Yes. War remains, at its core, a contest of human will.
This is not a new insight, but it is a perennial one—echoed across centuries of strategic thought and repeatedly reaffirmed in modern doctrine even as the tools of war grow ever more sophisticated.
The Classical Foundation
Carl von Clausewitz captured it most precisely in On War: war is “an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.” He described it as a duel on a grand scale—a violent clash between two living, thinking, feeling opponents, each striving to break the other’s capacity and resolve to continue resisting. Physical destruction is the means; the collapse of the enemy’s will is the object.
Napoleon put it more bluntly: in war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one. Technology, numbers, logistics, and firepower matter enormously, but they serve the human element—courage, cohesion, endurance, leadership, and the willingness to suffer and inflict suffering until one side decides it can no longer bear the cost.
Why It “Remains” True
The nature of war (a contest of opposing wills) does not change, even as its character (how it is fought) evolves dramatically.
• Swords and shields gave way to muskets, machine guns, tanks, aircraft, precision munitions, drones, cyber weapons, and information operations.
• Yet every new instrument is ultimately judged by whether it helps impose one’s will on the enemy or protects one’s own will from being broken.
Contemporary military thinking continues to stress this point. U.S. Marine Corps doctrine (MCDP 8) states plainly that “because war is a contest of human will, the human dimension is vital.” Canadian Army strategic documents note that “despite technological marvels, war remains a contest of human will.” Analysts of cognitive and information warfare—whether in discussions of Chinese doctrine or Western responses—return to the same truth: the decisive battles are often fought in the minds and spirits of populations, governments, and fighting forces.
Modern Illustrations
Consider recent and ongoing conflicts:
• In Ukraine since 2022, Russia possessed massive advantages in artillery, missiles, armor, and initial surprise. Many expected Ukrainian resistance to collapse quickly. It did not—because Ukrainian will to resist proved far stronger and more resilient than anticipated, while Russian assumptions about easy victory revealed a miscalculation of both Ukrainian and their own domestic will.
• In Vietnam and Afghanistan, technologically superior powers eventually withdrew not because they were militarily defeated in every engagement, but because the political and societal will to sustain the effort eroded.
• Information and cognitive operations today are not side shows; they are direct attacks on the enemy’s will—aimed at fracturing cohesion, sowing doubt, eroding public support, and convincing decision-makers that continued resistance is futile.
Even in an era of autonomous systems and artificial intelligence, the loop still closes with human judgment. Machines can execute, but humans decide when to escalate, when to absorb losses, when to negotiate, and when to surrender. The algorithms serve the will; they do not replace it.
The Enduring Lesson
Treating war purely as a contest of platforms, data, or production capacity is a dangerous illusion. It leads to strategies that count bodies or destroyed equipment while ignoring the far harder task of breaking (or sustaining) resolve under friction, fog, fear, and political pressure.
The side that better understands this—that cultivates its own will while systematically targeting the enemy’s sources of cohesion and determination—holds the decisive advantage, no matter how impressive the hardware on either side.
War remains a contest of human will because war is waged by humans, against humans, for human ends. Technology changes what is possible on the battlefield. It does not change what war ultimately is.“
Quite thought provoking!
Good article on Cimsec talking about force design creating this same predicament for the Chinese. Of course, there they are using a short range ASM. The need something cheaper, more numerous, and longer ranged.