This is not entirely correct. They wrote a manual from the perspective of the technology (and associated tactics) of their time. But they both understood something which I believe has been lost in this conversation:
War isn't about fighting. It isn't about taking and holding ground. It certainly isn't about killing anyone. The purpose of war is to accomplish a political goal. This *usually* involves taking and holding some ground, but not always. And the great generals understood that war is *always* a political act, designed to accomplish an essentially political goal. We might argue for a while about whether or not religion is political or not. In this context it's irrelevant.
Wars can be used to take wealth, convert heathens, claim land and strategic sites. These are all at the root political goals. A need or percieved need creates a political impetus, though in many cases this process an be unnoticable. For example, many traditional raiding cultures made "war", in the sense of an armed attack, regularly and without much fuss.
The first job of soldiers and generals is to accomplish political goals. The second is to defeat the enemy. Depending on circumstances, this may need to be bloody and cruel - which I think was a slight flaw in Sun Tzu's thinking. Not that it was a requirement of war in *his* time, however. Vlad "Dracul" Tepich, for example, was a solid commander; he inspired terror in his opponents by building pyramids of their skulls and impaling captives on pikes. He's known today as a fearsome man, but in his time he was feared outright as a deadly opponent - and the man who ended years of Turkish rule practically singlehandily. He wasn't nice. But he was a great man. And he arguably wasn't an evil one, either.
Leading men... is knowing people. The great generals, aside from a few extrmely general [pun!] characteristics, had little in common. They were usually bold, intelligent, and used spies or scouts well. But these conceal a wide variety of other traits. Some were vibrant showmen, others dull and ordinary. Some were nobles, others failed merchants. Some were vicious and relentless attackers, others were canny trappers chewing up the enemy piece by piece. Some had myriad units each with different capabilities, while others enforced uniformity on every soldier. Some led hundreds of men. Some led millions.
There's one thing they did have. Every great general had subordinates he could count on. A great general and pick and teach men, to the point where they can respond without direct and precise instructions. The army of a great general isn't a detached brain leading a slave-like body, but a whole organic creations, with every layer feeding information up and down. General, officers, and soldiers all fight as one.Sitting back where it’s safe and not sending out recon is hardly a sound tactic.
After that, if Adid wanted to continue, I would follow up again…until he (Adid) decided to seek reason.
Gen. Colin Powell expressed it well…use overwhelming force, and you will win.
Those people who criticize the Allied Bombing campaign (over Germany) forget that it wasn’t carried out ruthlessly enough…had Air Marshall Harris had his way, Berlin wouldhave been reduced to a cinder. The Germans would have had a lot of trouble making tanks, guns, etc., if all of their factory workers were dead.
Again, I don’t believe that war can ever be made “fair”,or “just”. Yopu enter war for one and only one purpose…to win.
And, as I said, if war became sufficiently brutal, maybe people would think twice about entering into it.
[/quote]
Ralph, you sound like you’d be the kind of general that other generals hope they’ll meet in battle. Here’s a relevant quote for you: “For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong.”
Okay, screwed up the coding on that one.
Ralph, you sound like you’d be the kind of general that other generals hope they’ll meet in battle. Here’s a relevant quote for you: “For every problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious, and wrong.”
Nope , your job is to make sure that private snuffy has his marly reds and beer ration, then stay out of his way. Not sure of anything , just utter some vague noises and let the divisional sargeant major give all the right orders.
Other than that , are you lucky ?
Declan
The exterminator is the field commander, not the general. In this picture, the mayor is the head of the department of agriculture. But you’re right, economy does figure into it more than people realize. And the amount of logistics operations that a general has to know would put most trigger-pullers to sleep.
I think you’d make a great exterminator.
You’re misunderstanding the Powell doctrine. He lays it out here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/force/powell.html
Some excerpts, bolding mine:
Making war even more brutal would not eradicate war. We have The Nuke. We can obliterate entire cities. Yet, we still have war. In ancient times, there was eyeball to eyeball fighting, where people would gut each other with swords or butcher each other with axes, and then the winners would kill and burn the wounded. Sometimes, they would burn them alive. Pretty brutal, but it didn’t deter anyone.
Simply having an overwhelming force is not enough. You have to know what to do with it. A few Spartans were able to stop an entire Persian army. There was a huge disconnect between having superior numbers and the wisdom to properly use them. Location, location, location. Using hit and run tactics and a lot of luck, Washington was able to fight vastly superior British forces. Just staying alive shows a bit of brilliance, since he was fighting the against finest military power of his time.
Generals who only rely on force of numbers tend to be the World War I sort - Keep sending more troops over the top, only to be gassed and mowed down. Keep replacing them with more troops and repeat. Pretty brutal. It takes no thought, no skill, and any general who operates that way should be court martialled for gross incompetence. He deserves to lose an probably will.
Finally, wanton brutality only makes your enemy more determined to keep fighting and makes him want to “return the favor”.
Absolutely not. So far you haven’t demonstrated that you have any aptitude for logistics or motivating your troops. You favor a doctrine of attrition over maneuver (“I view my job much as an exterminator views his.”) which tends to get a lot of people killed on BOTH sides. And at the same time you’re timid (“My first concern is for the lives of my men.”) which means that more aggressive enemy commanders will eat you for lunch.
I still say you guys are incurable romantics…face it war is an industrial undertaking. You put in assets, and get a result. A good general is like a chief engineer…he has to weigh his inputs, plan (and adapt that plan as the situation changes), but always look to minimize costs. Industrial accidents ( casualties) are to be avoided, because they cost money and are bad for morale.
Since future wars 9involving the USA) are likely to be situations in which our armed forces WILL posess overwhelming strength, it makes sense to plan our wars upon the industrial model. Saving lives at the expense of materiel makes sense to , so yes, I would say a “timid” commander would be much appreciated by the men serving under him!
No, I think many of them have just read more military history than you.
Timid commanders don’t save lives. Timid commanders lose them. Or if they save them they do so by losing the war/battle when they’re forced into an untenable position due to their inactivity.
For that matter over-aggressive ( read: stupid ) commanders can lose lives wastefully as well when they commit at the wrong point because their blood is up. But all in all war tends to favor the aggressive over the timid.
You want to know how the Marathas built a sizeable empire in India? Many ( most ) of their early battles consisted of them outmaneouvering the enemy army, then cutting off the supply train of the enemy until it starved and the enemy leader had to come to term. This worked on at least one occasion on the British as well as assorted Indian opponents.
Yes, warfare is different today, but a number of basic principles are the same and I don’t think you quite grasp them. Frankly I think I’d make a better general than you and I know I’d suck at it, as I lack the charisma, decisiveness, administrative talent and operational experience that a good general needs. Or for that matter the political skills being a modern general demands.
- Tamerlane
ralph124c, if you won’t even admit you’re wrong here, on a message board, then what would happen if you were a general, and people pointed out your mistakes? Would you just call them an incurable romantic?
I wouldn’t follow anyone who couldn’t admit it when he or she was wrong.
I disagree respectfully. The industrial model is sometimes irrelevant. Overwhelming force is not a guarantee of victory. Being timid can get more troops killed. Timidity and insisting on always being prepared or having the superior numbers before you commit will cause a paralysis. Suppose we are opposing commanders.
Case 1: Through my spies and previous battles I know you will not fight until your “numbers are good”. I will immediately attack you, and keep attacking. You will never get a chance to be prepared. I will force you into a reactive defensive mode and never let up. That was Patton’s approach and it worked.
Case 2: There is a key position, be it a city or a hill that commands the entire area. You know it is. You put all your forces there and are ready. I can take a “detour” and smash something else while you are still waiting. The Allies did this at Normandy. Germany thought the Allies would land on one beach, the Allies landed on a different one. An even better example is the Maginot Line. It was thought to be unbreakable. So, Hitler didn’t even try. He sent his armies around it and literally came in the back door. Mobility won out over brute strength.
Case 3: There was a general whose men called “Vinegar Joe”. He was outgunned, out numbered, in a bad spot. The Germans told him to surrender. His one word reply was “Nuts”. He went on to win the battle. According to your philosophy, he would have quit.
Case 4. Industrial might and miltary power don’t guarantee victory. The US learned that in Viet Nam. The USSR learned it in Afghanistan. The Persians learned it fighting the Spartans. Rome learned it in Britannia and Germannia. Each was rightly called a superpower. Each learned a costly lesson.
Actually it was Anthony McAuliffe. not Joe “Vinegar Joe” Stilwell who said that…
Ralph, I’m finding it increasingly difficult to believe your claim that you’ve read a lot of military history. History is full of examples of military commanders who followed your simplistic view of combat and failed. How can you ignore their examples?
That’s the one. And he did win that fight 
OK. Show us how good you are.
Refight the battles of Fallujah and Sadr City, showing just how your tactics would have been better (or even good).
Well, in point of fact what McAuliffe and the 102st Airborne Division did was avoid being overrun until their predicament could be relieved by the 4th Armored Division. That was enough but it wasn’t a victory in the sense of driving the enemy out.
Speaking of becoming a good general, IMHO I think one has to take into account the element of luck, as Fermi explained:
http://www.ada.org.nz/fallacy.php
Not as famous as his paradox, but this dictum of Fermi is one of my favorites.
ralph124c, I will ask this question again, and see if you’re smart enough to answer it:
Have you actually been reading what we’re saying?
You asked if you’d make a good general. You have thus far demonstrated none of the signs of good generalship; intelligence, open-mindedness, lack of prejudice, moral decisiveness, understanding of military theory without being handcuffed by tradition, and others; there’s other personality traits, too, that are positively correlated with good generalship (Great generals tend to be successful with the ladies; bad ones tend to be disproportionately prudish.)
Are those things true of you?
A timid commander will get his men killed. Sorry, but I can provide a LOT of examples, and I already have provided two; McLellan and Percival. Percival actually acted exactly the way you’re describing, and he managed to get his entire army captured by an inferior force and lost Singapore. Buller was another timid general whose timidity resulted in unnecessary casualties.
You can keep repeating this “industrial model” mantra all you want, but what makes you think you know anything about running an industry, anyway?