PDA

View Full Version : Does Sun Tzu apply here?



Paul G
08-02-2005, 11:01 PM
Do your reckon Bush should read Sun tzu?

"If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice.

When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.

Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted."

skuthorp
08-02-2005, 11:04 PM
Particularly so in any sort of a democracy

Peter Malcolm Jardine
08-02-2005, 11:06 PM
Do your reckon Bush should read Why.. yes.. yes I do :D

Paul G
08-02-2005, 11:10 PM
History never repeats....

"Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

Therefore, a general who understands warfare is the guardian of people's lives, and the ruler of the nation's security"

LeeG
08-03-2005, 01:34 AM
Has he heard of General Myers?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/26/news/terror.php

WASHINGTON The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, according to senior administration and military officials.


In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the country's top military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice.


Administration officials say the earlier phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.


General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."

LeeG
08-03-2005, 01:42 AM
It's worth reading this short synopsis of how we've expressed our power finding ourselves fighting former allies. This doesn't look healthy.


www.juancole.com (http://www.juancole.com)

LeeG
08-03-2005, 03:41 AM
maybe GW is a visionary,,and democracy will rise up through a theocracy? More armored humvees next time.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18150

Ann Bodine, the head of the American embassy office in Kirkuk, spoke at the ceremony, congratulating the newly minted parliamentarians, and affirming the US commitment to an Iraq that is, she said, "democratic, federal, pluralistic, and united." The phrase evidently did not apply in Erbil. In their oath, the parliamentarians were asked to swear loyalty to the unity of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Many pointedly dropped the "of Iraq."

The shortest speech was given by the head of the Iranian intelligence service in Erbil, a man known to the Kurds as Agha Panayi. Staring directly at Ms. Bodine, he said simply, "This is a great day. Throughout Iraq, the people we supported are in power." He did not add "Thank you, George Bush." The unstated was understood.

John of Phoenix
08-03-2005, 09:19 AM
Sun Tzu, the old Chinese guy? That's like, "historical", right? Reality based stuff?
We don't do reality.

Wild Wassa
08-03-2005, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by Paul G:
"Do your reckon Bush should read Sun tzu?"

He hasn't finished reading 'My Pet Goat', yet. One book at a time, I'd suggest.

Warren.

[ 08-03-2005, 10:31 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

George.
08-03-2005, 09:40 AM
McNamara, Sun Tzu, Thucydides... you guys expect too much. I'd settle for him starting to read the newspaper.

Alan D. Hyde
08-03-2005, 09:41 AM
Why would ANYONE read Robert McNamara's self-serving prevarications?

Alan

[ 08-03-2005, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

Meerkat
08-03-2005, 10:09 AM
Why would ANYONE believe George Bush's self-serving prevarications?

TomF
08-03-2005, 10:14 AM
I recommend Thucydides. That lad got it right.

He's worthy of another thread ... if only to talk about the mutual obligations between the dominant power (hegemon) and the lesser powers that pay tribute. When the hegemon doesn't fulfill those obligations, an opportunity is created for a new power to arise.

He said that's how Athens got its big break ... because Sparta was not reacting strongly enough to the Persian threat.

Keith Wilson
08-03-2005, 10:16 AM
Why would ANYONE read Robert McNamara's self-serving prevarications?
Oh, I dunno, maybe to study courses of action to avoid? Just a thought.

John of Phoenix
08-03-2005, 10:25 AM
McNamara's confession.
1. We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries . . . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience. . . . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

4. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

5. We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine. . . . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

6. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.

7. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course . . . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

8. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

9. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

10. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions. . . . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

11. Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.
Nothing of worth there Alan?

[ 08-03-2005, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: John Teetsel ]

Keith Wilson
08-03-2005, 10:41 AM
Oh God, that's depressing. Those who will not learn the lessons of history . . ..

Alan D. Hyde
08-03-2005, 11:00 AM
For a more frank, insightful, and less defensive and self-serving account, see The Savage Wars of Peace by Max Boot...

Alan

John of Phoenix
08-03-2005, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Keith Wilson:
Oh God, that's depressing. Those who will not learn the lessons of history . . ..Ain't that the truth. That could have been written by Rumsfeld, except for the fact that "He's doing a superb job."

Here's my favorite Sun Tzu quote.


If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.
Know yourself -

Vietnam - The objective was never really clear. “Stop the spread of communism” was the big picture, but the implementation ranged from “pacification” (whatever the hell that was) to bombing Hanoi. Hell, we bombed everything in Vietnam. We lost and to this day the great yellow horde still hasn’t managed to invade San Diego.

Iraq - How many times has the mission changed? WMD, free the Iraqi people, spread democracy, kill terrorists there so they don't invade San Diego, yada, yada, yada. In Iraq, as in Vietnam, if you don’t know what you want, how can you possibly attain it? We don’t know ourselves. We don’t even know what we want. Again. (Still?)

Know your enemy -

Vietnam – “Hey, what can a bunch of untrained piss ants in black PJ’s do against the US Army, Navy, Marines and all the B-52’s in the world?” Well, out last them for one.

Iraq – Rumsfeld originally said we’re up against a bunch of deadenders and things will be wrapped up in a few months. Now he says he doesn’t know the extent of the insurgency and we could be at this for the next 12 years. Cheney is convinced the insurgency is in its throes while the CIA seems to think more and more that civil war is in the cards. That pretty well defines “Know your enemy”, yes it certainly does.

Sun Tzu finishes with this -
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Same song, second verse.

[ 08-03-2005, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: John Teetsel ]

John of Phoenix
08-03-2005, 12:30 PM
Nevermind.

[ 08-03-2005, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: John Teetsel ]

Gonzalo
08-03-2005, 12:59 PM
Norman,

I, too, would like to hear why from Alan in his own words. I think someone as well read as he seems to be would have much to share, instead of the book reference and aphorism for every purpose.

Edited to reword the nasty way I originally expressed this thought.

[ 08-03-2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Gonzalo ]

Meerkat
08-03-2005, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
For a more frank, insightful, and less defensive and self-serving account, see The Savage Wars of Peace by Max Boot...

AlanTranslation: written by a conservative I agree with! tongue.gif

Alan D. Hyde
08-03-2005, 01:20 PM
People, it's not simple.

No silver bullets here.

IF I could explain it in a sentence or two, rest assured that I would.

I'm not going to write and post a fifty page (or more) essay here, and I'm not deft enough at distilling it all that I can post a really good short summary. Here's a poor attempt---

Essentially, after spending many lives, and much time and treasure, and making many mistakes (some of them major*) we managed, because of stateside political selfishness and snafus, to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory, with horrific consequences for both the country of Vietnam and the region.

Alan

* See the USMC Small Wars Manual. Extrapolate.

Here's a link---

http://www.smallwars.quantico.usmc.mil/sw_manual.asp

Chris Coose
08-03-2005, 01:28 PM
Speech, Alan, Speech!!!!!
I'd like to see that write up too.

Alan D. Hyde
08-03-2005, 02:17 PM
OK, Norman, this once...

1. We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries . . . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

None of us can see the future. Bobby has the benefit of hindsight. The statement is broad-brush and non-specific. And actual CONFESSIONS are individual and personal, and thus do not begin with "WE."

2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience. . . . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

A truism. Made with the benefit of hindsight.

3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

See The USMC Small Wars Manual. MacNamara may have made such underestimations, but many of his military advisors, whom he and LBJ treated most vilely, did not.

4. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

See two books by Rene Defourneaux--- The Winking Fox, and The Tracks of the Fox

See them here---

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Bunker/3338/index.htm

We KNEW what was going on, at Rene's level, but Bobby and his buddies wouldn't listen and learn...

5. We failed then -- and have since -- to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine. . . . We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

Many USMC officers said precisely this--- straight out of the Small Wars Manual and were ignored, chastened, and excoriated by Bobby and LBJ...

6. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement . . . before we initiated the action.

The duty of a leader is--- to lead. These words are an irrational ex post facto rationalization by a pig-headed prig who couldn't identify who in his organization knew what he was talking about, and Bobby--- in any case--- wasn't much of one for listening and learning.

7. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course . . . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

This is true. It is hardly news.

8. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

The statements are self-evident, and were the basis for a major point in Churchill's and Roosevelt's Atlantic Charter. Here, Bobby is playing for applause from the NYT Book Review and similarly-oriented readers.

9. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

This is NOT a principle, and never should be. If, for example, Hitler had been unilaterally resisted by a major power during his early walk-in occupations, it is possible that World War II may have been averted.

10. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions. . . . At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

WHAT a surprise, Bob. And, if wishes were horses, then beggars might ride...

11. Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues

I doubt it. For forms of government, let fools contest. Whichever governs best, is best. (Alexander Pope) However Bob was stacked in an organization, he still would have been equally pig-headed, and equally unwilling to learn from those who came up thru the hawsepipe... As had many of the best officers in our services at the time, to whom he would not listen...

There's a piece in a Marine Corps magazine a few years ago, by a General who was in on a Vietnam-era meeting with LBJ, and who got profanely chewed-out by Johnson. If someone can find it, it will give Norman a good idea of what I'm trying to convey here...

Alan

[ 08-03-2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Alan D. Hyde ]

LeeG
08-03-2005, 02:22 PM
Alan, posting silver bullets out of context doesn't require you to do the same with your own words,,heck they could even be lead, brass or bronze.

ed. thanks for the the response,,now for the fun.

[ 08-03-2005, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

Gonzalo
08-03-2005, 02:37 PM
Alan,

It sounds as though you agree with most of McNamarra's 11 points. You specifically disagree with only number 9 and maybe number 11.

You agree that McNamarra was stupid in just the same ways he said he was. Your main beef is that he didn't know it sooner.

And yes, it is based on hindsight, as is all learning from experience.

Most of us would agree that LBJ and McNamarra botched the Vietnam war, although there is still plenty of disagreement on what the right actions would have been. McNamarra is one of few leaders who really screwed up who actually admit it.

John of Phoenix
08-03-2005, 02:45 PM
Have some fun with this - replace "Vietnam" with "Iraq", "LBJ" with "GWB" and "Bobby" with "Rummy".

What a hoot. NOT!

George.
08-03-2005, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:

Essentially, after spending many lives, and much time and treasure, and making many mistakes (some of them major*) we managed, because of stateside political selfishness and snafus, to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory ...

So you are saying that you only lost because you ran out of public support. But Alan, isn't that like saying that you would have won if you didn't run out of men and ammo? A leader needs to reckon his limitng factors, material and political, before taking his country to war - especially in a democracy, where people can't be forced to indefinitely support a war that is going nowhere.

George.
08-03-2005, 02:56 PM
I won't dispute all your refutals - some of them I agree with. But I'll differ from some:


1. We misjudged then -- and we have since -- the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries . . . and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

None of us can see the future. Bobby has the benefit of hindsight. The statement is broad-brush and non-specific. And actual CONFESSIONS are individual and personal, and thus do not begin with "WE."

2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience. . . . We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

A truism. Made with the benefit of hindsight.
But in the case of Iraq, you could both learn from the past, i.e., Vietnam, and listen to the huge amount of people who told you that you were misjudging them and exaggerating the danger before you went in.


3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

See The USMC Small Wars Manual. MacNamara may have made such underestimations, but many of his military advisors, whom he and LBJ treated most vilely, did not. Rumsfeld did not see that USMC Manual either. He assumed that people would toss aside nationalism and welcome a foreign invader with flowers. He fired military men who told him it would take more men to pacify the country than it took to invade it.


4. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

See two books by Rene Defourneaux--- The Winking Fox, and The Tracks of the Fox

We KNEW what was going on, at Rene's level, but Bobby and his buddies wouldn't listen and learn... And this time around, Rummy and his buddies wouldn't listen and learn...


7. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course . . . we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.

This is true. It is hardly news. And it is happening again. And they are still not explaining. Instead, they insult our intelligent with "stay the course" and "death throes." Why should the result be any different, in terms of support for the war?


9. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action . . . should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

This is NOT a principle, and never should be. If, for example, Hitler had been unilaterally resisted by a major power during his early walk-in occupations, it is possible that World War II may have been averted.
Yes, but in Iraq you did NOT manage to do it alone, and had to resort to begging for help, which you did not get. No one wants to help you now. And instead of averting something worse, you have created it.

Alan D. Hyde
08-03-2005, 02:58 PM
The Tet Offensive was a major defeat--- FOR THEM.

The U.S. media portrayed it as the opposite.

Resolute LEADERSHIP could have made all the difference. LBJ was a bully who got his bluff called. Read Robert Caro's multi-volume biography of Johnson, and then tell me I'm wrong... The first volume (IIRC) is entitled The Path to Power.

Alan

John of Phoenix
08-03-2005, 03:14 PM
The writers of that Small Wars Manual must have studied Sun Tzu. Dated 1940, interesting.


2–2 The mission.-—In a major war, the mission assigned to armed forces is usually unequivocal —the defeat and destruction the hostile forces. This is seldom true in small wars. More often than not, the mission will be to establish and maintain law and order by supporting or replacing the civil government in countries or areas in which the interests of the United States have been placed in jeopardy, in order to insure the safety and security of our nationals, their property and interests. If there is an organized hostile force opposing the intervention, the primary objective in small wars, as major war, is its early destruction. In those cases where armed opposition is encountered only from irregular forces under the leadership of malcontents or unrecognized officials [Falluja comes to mind], the mission is one of diplomacy rather than military. Frequently the commander of forces operating in a small wars theater of operations is not given specific mission as such in his written orders or directive, and it then becomes necessary for him to deduce his mission from the general intent of the higher authority, or even from the foreign policy the United States. In any event, the mission should be accomplished with a minimum loss of life and property and by methods that leave no aftermath of bitterness or render the return to peace unnecessarily difficult. [Where does Shock and Awe fit in?] I don't think Rummy has seen this manual either.

John of Phoenix
08-03-2005, 03:21 PM
Alan, I believe it was Nixon who declared "Peace with Honor" and hauled ass.
I know LBJ was a Democrat, but he didn't loose the war without lots of help.

Osborne Russel
08-03-2005, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
LBJ was a bully who got his bluff called. George W. Bush is born-again rich frat boy who bluffs because he isn't smart enough for anything else.

LeeG
08-03-2005, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
Why would ANYONE read Robert McNamara's self-serving prevarications?

Alanto learn from experience, what will we learn from GWs memoirs in the reserves?

[ 08-03-2005, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

George.
08-03-2005, 04:17 PM
Where the hell is ljb5's post?

Anyway, it had a quote that brings up how in American football, kids are goaded into "hurt 'em, kill 'em," and how that predisposes some of them to go hurt and kill ragheads, or gooks, or whatever, as long as they ain't American.

I wonder how relevant it is that America is the only country where a physical sport like football is the most popular. Everywhere else it is soccer (i.e., real football :D ), followed by other non-contact games like volleyball, baseball, or basketball. Only in America is it a game where pushing and knocking down is not only allowed, it is essential.

PS: When I was growing up in America as a teenager, I loved football - and not the tag-pussy type. Tackle football, and my favorite position was running back. But I never played in a school team, only for fun.

[ 08-03-2005, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: George. ]

Alan D. Hyde
08-03-2005, 04:20 PM
Ever seen a rugger match, George? :D :D :D

If not, do an image google on rugby and take a look...

Alan

George.
08-03-2005, 04:34 PM
We tried to play rugby once, Alan - as we (dimly) understood it, and using a football.

It resulted in many bruises, several torn T-shirts, a major dispute over imagined rules, and a couple of incipient fist fights. We decided to stick to tackle football...

Victor
08-03-2005, 05:02 PM
After "Mission Accomplished" would have been a good time to withdraw. We did what we came to do. Unfortunately for Bush his neocon buddies saw an opportunity to make some fast money while "democratizing" Iraq, and it backfired on them, as any fifth grader could have told them it would.

[ 08-03-2005, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Victor ]

Alan D. Hyde
08-03-2005, 05:11 PM
Now, I DO think there's something to be said for Victor's comment.

There's a kind of martial arts punch which retracts as quickly as it's made--- I thought it was an Aikido punch, but perhaps it's a karate punch--- that describes the sort of effort I first viewed as most promising in Iraq.

Excising the cancer, and then leaving the wound to heal on its own, with our help only as requested...

But then civil order might have been hard to establish without our presence.

And, those who have been there recently--- and have had their boots on the ground in the countryside--- say that the Iraqi government and its American allies are now winning.

Alan

LeeG
08-03-2005, 05:21 PM
smoking some good stuff there,,pass it on

ever get so high that words appear real, the word is real,,in the beginning was the word,,and if you say the words it's real.

what is in Iraq isn't a stylized punch learned in Aikido so suburban warriors can get in touch with their inner chi.
What is in Iraq isn't a medical condition described with glib metaphors.

[ 08-03-2005, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: LeeG ]

Paul Denison
08-03-2005, 05:44 PM
Run for your lives! The sky is falling!!!

George.
08-03-2005, 05:48 PM
I disagree. If you had left at "Mission Accomplished," the Baathists would have been back in the rider's seat before you could say "rebound."

You know the former Information Minister? The one that they made silly action figures out of? The one that said "they can't get out of their tanks," and everyone laughed - what was his name?

Turns out he was right, and Rummy was wrong. They really can't get out of their tanks. :(

Wild Wassa
08-03-2005, 07:32 PM
Back to Sun Tzu.

Page 27, "... states run by pretenders and plotters set up armies to make themselves superpowers."

"Warring states were shamlessly greedy ..."

Page 28, attributed to Yen Hui. "... he exploits his country whimsically and does not see his own mistakes."

Page 29, "... mass canibalism of human and natural resourses." Yesterday the US deaths passed 1800 in Iraq with the death of 14 soldiers. Sun Tzu wrote ..."this is called the dying ground." Too true Sun Tzu.

Imagine the parallels that I might read in 'The Art of War' when I get past the translator's notes, but that isn't until page 39.

Warren.

[ 08-03-2005, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

Victor
08-03-2005, 07:44 PM
Bush could have said, our goal is to oust Saddam, and let the chips fall where they may. Perhaps it will destabilize the country, but we don't care. Everything that happened after Mission Accomplished was done either through hubris or naivete. It assumed Iraqis WANTED what we were selling. Once that assumption prived false it turned into a chronic situation, which as everyone in the world but us knows, we cannot tolerate. All they have to do is wait.

LeeG
08-04-2005, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
And, those who have been there recently--- and have had their boots on the ground in the countryside--- say that the Iraqi government and its American allies are now winning.

Alanthat's the challenge Rumsfeld had almost two yrs ago,,what are the metrics for winning? About a year ago the pentagon says to Rumsfeld that this GWOT is hard to show progress when the numbers go up. Ba da bing,,GSAVE.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/post_saddam_iraq/html/2.stm

Andrew Craig-Bennett
08-04-2005, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by Paul G:
Do your reckon Bush should read Sun Tzu?

"If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice.

When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.

Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted."Sun Tzu had not had the advantage of studying the campaigns of either Fabius Cunctator or Frederick the Great. Both waged skilled, protracted, campaigns, espescially the latter in the Seven Years' War. But it is fair to add that both these campaigns were essentially defensive (though Frederick was defending the gains that he had already made, of course!

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
08-04-2005, 04:19 AM
People in this world look at thing mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void.
This is not the true void.
It is bewilderment.

Miyamoto Musashi

[ 08-04-2005, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: P.I. Stazzer-Newt ]

Wild Wassa
08-04-2005, 04:43 AM
Attributed to Jai Lin, on page 57. "If a military operation goes on for a long time without accomplishing anything, your rivals will begin to get ideas."

I think it is about time the US Administration started to get even a hint, ... let alone an idea.

Watching the news from the US tonight, a US soldier said, after another one of her female commrades had been killed, "This is not a linear battlefield they are all around us."

In the 'Art of War', which is the most influential and prestigious book on strategy in the real world today (I don't know about in the US with their paranoid Administration, they don't seem to understand much) and it has been studied for over two millenia by military leaders and strategists it says, (in reference to the soldier's comment above, I mean) ... "A surrounded army must be given a way out." On page 123.

Would the weed (which is a shrub where it is not wanted) call that, ... cut and run or an exit strategy?

Warren.

[ 08-04-2005, 06:27 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

George.
08-04-2005, 05:22 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
Just gonna pass on this one, Geo? Throw some lame crap out to see if it sticks, and it falls to the ground. Isn't that breaking one of George's Rules of Order?Donn, why are you so bitter? Believe it or not, I have a life. I don't stay on the computer all night, just to respond to you - even if you had posted anything relevant.

Don't direct your bitterness at me. I am not the one who misled you into supporting a burnt mission. I am not the one that made you look like a fool for doing so. I am not the one who mismanaged the war so badly, and gave you reason to be ashamed of your country and your leader.

Joe (SoCal)
08-04-2005, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Donn:
Back to your utterly ridiculous theory about football, Geo. Have you ever heard of hockey?Already commented on in this thread.

Read first, Chew, Then post smile.gif

Nicholas Carey
08-05-2005, 06:30 PM
To understand why we lost in Vietnam, one should really read the Army War College's commissioned analysis of why we lost: On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891415637/104-5703428-4056751?v=glance), by Col. Harry Summers (http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/SummersObitText.htm). Highly recommended.

The basic take is that that we lost the Vietnam war because we had no strategy, as the various Sun Tzu quotes point out, and the government failed to engage the American people prior to engaging in war.

Consequently, even though we won essentially every engagement, we lost the war.

Iraq looks to be much the same.

—
Second verse, same as the first

Meerkat
08-05-2005, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by MIke:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />My own non-military conclusion is that the Iraq war is a walking disaster.Opinions or conclusions are like arseholes, everyone has one, but are not facts, but sounds good in partisan internet forums. People, in modern times, like the word winning, as in the video games, which is not the case in realtime warfare and conflicts.

Norman, each day, you are beginning to sound more like a seminar troll for the DNC than a person interested in an exchange of ideas, and then form their opinions, which moderates cling to when unwilling to admit that they are hardcore left wing wackos.

By the way, I went over to the smirkingchimp website, and many of your posts and many of your like ilks are posting talking points from that site. TOO FUNNY!!!!</font>[/QUOTE]Who died and made the crabs around Uranus so special? tongue.gif

Paul G
08-05-2005, 08:48 PM
Interesting stuff.

Why exactly is the US in Iraq? The reasons and justifications change at will. That leads me to conclude that either the US administration is blind and selfserving and plain stupid or there really is a plan which they dont want us to know.

Reading Sun Tzu even at my level which is light, It seems the principles of war are well established. Skill in warfare is rated highly in that it can save a lot of grief. He basically says avoid war, using whatever means possible. BUT if you are going to break out the swords n'sandals then make sure you are going to win----fast!

The US has perhaps the mightiest arsenal of any army ever, a HUGE war chest and wmd's that dwarf anyone elses on the planet. So maybe the US can make its own rules, much like the fake overdone beefcake heroes in its action movies where brawn wins out .

There is no skill here, in this Iraq adventure and the price is vast human suffering. Whatever the cocooned leaders say, there will be a time when tide will turn. We are all paying for it now anyway, the world is less secure now there a more idiots blowing themselves up than ever and still the white hats refuse to acknowledge the obvious connections between "you drop bombs on my country and I will blow up your whatever"

Sun Tzu would be turning in his grave.

George.
08-06-2005, 06:12 AM
Originally posted by MIke:
Norman, each day, you are beginning to sound more like a seminar troll for the DNC than a person interested in an exchange of ideas...I hate to tell you this, Mlke, but you sound far more like a rather angry Republican troll than Norman does like a DNC troll. You have been posting far more ad hominem attacks and generic attacks on "liberals" and "democrats" than to-the-point arguments.

George.
08-06-2005, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by MIke:

Oh George, still waiting for you to prove that the U.S. is holding 70,000 people in underground prisons? I said that Amnesty International issued a report stating that, and I already provided the link in English, thanks to Andrew.


Originally posted by MIke:

Have a great life and great day, for I will do that also, as I get to enjoy a lot of time on the water. Good idea. Let's do that. Have a great day on the water, Mlke! smile.gif