[mythrowaway0]

There's a bibliography near the end with interesting things to read. That's generally where things to read if you're interested in a topic will appear, and there's no need to be harsh to the guy pointing you toward useful information.

No amount of buzzwords can conceal that you don't understand what "maneuver warfare" is, either; fourth-generation warfare pretty much is maneuver warfare. Your dilution of your point by introducing United States themes and specific tactical situations makes me question why you're putting so much skin in this discussion if you're as lay as your questions indicate. I'm not criticizing you, for what it's worth, just wondering why you're cloaking not knowing something with extra buzzwords -- you should be happy to learn, not apt to show off.

Terrorism and insurgency are forms of maneuver warfare, and the term "maneuver" doesn't imply scale (and certainly not armor, for that matter). Since you're quite obviously American, the Marine Corps' definition of "maneuver warfare" should interest you:

"Maneuver warfare is a warfighting philosophy that seeks to shatter the enemy’s cohesion through a variety of rapid, focused, and unexpected actions which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot cope."

That's from Warfighting[1]. Seriously, read up, you sound interested but misguided, and I made a throwaway just to spite you. :)

[1]: http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/mcdp1.pdf

[dfc]

"Third Generation warfare, like Second, was a product of World War I. It was developed by the German Army, and is commonly known as Blitzkrieg or maneuver warfare." [1]

"Along with placing greater emphasis on adaptability, the Army has transitioned its focus on training and operations from developing forces for large-scale maneuver warfare to increasing the capability of individuals to operate in smaller, decentralized elements." [2]

The wikipedia link to Warfigthing is broken. I am having trouble finding the manual on DoD's doctrine section.[3][4] Is it still relevant?

You made a throwaway account because you did not want to have your name attributed to what you wrote, I experienced no spite

[1] Understanding Fourth Generation War by William S. Lind

[2] Special Operations as a wr fighting function, http://www.soc.mil/swcS/SWmag/archive/SW2401/SW2401SpecialOp...

[3] http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/index.html

[4] http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/search.html?zoom_query=mcdp+war...

[mythrowaway0]

Notice how your quote includes the phrase "large-scale" behind it? That's because of what I, you know, wrote in my original comment about maneuver warfare not implying a certain scale or strategy in particular. You're proving my point and disagreeing with me at the same time, which is rather remarkable. Lind's equivalence of third-generation warfare to being called "maneuver warfare" is a definition that I happen to disagree with, as I think maneuvers in general evolve as war itself does. Terrorism itself is another evolution of a maneuver, in my opinion.

Maneuver warfare isn't the specific strategy on a general's table. It's an ethos of war. In particular, maneuver warfare embraces decentralized command, as you're so vociferously citing in your defense; Iraqi Freedom was a war of colonels, not generals, as discussed in a link I shared with you earlier.

I tried to be kind in my reply since you share a passion for military theory, and it's a topic I happen to be extremely versed in (as in, my entire adult life to this day). I hope one day you realize that there are people out there in the world that know more about a topic than you do, don't feel like justifying that authority to you, and that you should appreciate that they took some time out of their day to try to inform you rather than attack them belligerently because they dared to disagree with you.

I see this is fruitless, so, best of luck debating with other laypersons on the Internet.