I've got a thought running through my head.  What if everything we do can be described as the difference between attrition warfare and maneuver warfare?

Attrition warfare is the tactical decision of the 19th century, and was codified by Carl von Clausewitz in On War.  von Clausewitz argued heavily for the kind of attacks seen during World War I, in which soldiers lined up and charged at each other.  These were heavily destructive battles that were exceptionally costly and ineffective.  This strategy persisted far into the Cold War and beyond.

It has mostly persisted due to simplicity.  It's a lot easier to teach Attrition War versus Maneuver War.  Now, jump back to the point at which von Clausewitz was writing On War.  He was a Prussian, writing about the battles of Napoleon.  Shortly after, the Prussian level of thinking also created the basis of the modern education system.   Prussia needed to move into the 20th century as fast as possible to prevent something like Napoleon from happening again.

Now, what the Prussians created was an attrition war versus the under-education of the the people.  In many aspects, that is still what the entire education system is based on.  But Attrition War has numerous problems.  It is costly in terms of human lives, and generally ineffective versus a decent defense.

Against the proper defense, attrition warfare costs thousands of lives.

Where does that all tie back towards Maneuver Warfare?  I think Boyd can answer that question.