Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Strategy is not irrelevant.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-18-06 11:29 AM
Original message
Strategy is not irrelevant.
I was just reading a post in LBN about how Rumsfeld says that the US can't possibly lose in Iraq, because our military is too strong. As somebody who has a specialty in strategy and tactics, I must point out that to say something so ridiculous demonstrates a complete and total lack of understanding about strategy and game theory.

Perhaps it's simply an ego thing, but many hawkish militarists continue to insist on believing that any problem can be solved with suitable application of force using traditional methods, no matter what the situation, even though this has been proven wrong time and again. What wins wars is strategy, tactics, even finesse.

To get a better understanding of the principles involved, I highly recommend "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. It's a very short book, and 1400 years old, but still one of the definitive texts on military strategy. In the first chapter, Sun Tzu outlines how a guerilla force is one of the ideal forms of military attack:

"...when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

...

If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.

Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."

He goes on to say later that attacks and strategies which are "formless," or asymmetrical, are virtually impossible to plan against because they can never be predicted. That is the key here: pure numerical or technological strength is wasted when you allow the enemy to dictate the terms of engagement. As Sun Tzu puts it, if you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will lose every battle.

Whatever its definition, pure strength isn't a guarantee of victory today any more than it was in centuries past. An army of a hundred thousand men can still be broken down and defeated by a much smaller opposing force working from a different strategy. It's been seen time and again, in virtually every military occupation, including our own Revolutionary War and countless others. There are some battles which simply are not winnable using straightforward military methods of patrol, attack, eliminate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC