|
mnottertail -> RE: An example of why our military loves the press .... (11/9/2007 5:21:25 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: herfacechair
First, read the entire book that the link leads you to. Read it more than once if you have to. Then, go back to my replies and read them in their entirety.
Had you done that in the first place, you wouldn’t have come up with that conclusion. Your question, asking if it’s “entirely based,” is nothing but a red herring.
You didn’t even come anywhere NEAR my position. Again, something that would’ve been alleviated had you read the book the link I gave you leads to, as well as my posts, with the intentions of understanding what was being said.
The Federal Government translated it for study. That should speak volumes. If you go through and read what’s in that link, and read through my posts, listen to what people carrying out the fight against us, and their enablers, are saying, and so on, you’ll see that what those two colonels wrote is very applicable to what’s going on today.
READ the book in that link before knocking it, “diminishing” it, or trying to cast doubts on it. Your attitude toward the book in that link isn’t intellectually healthy.
You have a problem somewhere in your reading comprehension, and I am just going to point out a few quotes from this book that directly contradicts your blatherings about it and some of the positions you have adamantly held and also had no less gall than to put the retarded rush limbaugh ridicule on me and others for, while this will not be an entire compendium, and will not cause you to take a different position, it will cause many of the people to laugh at anything you espouse. Kinda like the PR guy for Saddams Regime.
But before I do; regarding technical space, I commented that when china took a good old everyday missile and knocked an american sattelite out of the sky, I said KU.........somebody out here said we aint guatemala. Yesterday a high ranking titular politician in china (that has nothing to do with monetary policy) said that they were going to invest deeply in other currencies than greenbacks, and dumped it pretty bad against the euro, I said KU. Anyways the ideas in the book are nothing new, and in fact the greatest part of it is very very old. At the end of the book there are seven or so re caps of lessons learned that should be incorporated into any future warplans -- one of these was asymmetrical war (which is definitely not what we are figting in Iraq, because it is all about borders). Nevertheless, you skipped the chapters dealing with the additive properties of war tactics. Here is just a blurb for you:
Up to this point, we have already found the reason, beginning from the appearance of "high tech" on stage, that this military revolution has slowly been unable to be completed. From the perspectives of human history and the history of warfare, there has never been one military revolution which was declared to have been completed merely after technology or organizational revolutions. Only after signifying the appearance of this revolution of military thought with the highest achievement will the entire process of the military revolution be finalized. This time is no exception so that whether or not the new military revolution brought about by high technology can bring it to a final conclusion depends on whether it can travel far upon the road of the revolution of military thought. It is only this one time that it needs to jump outside of the ruts made by the war spirit that has persisted for several thousand years.To accomplish this, it is only necessary to be able to seek help from addition. However, prior to utilizing addition, it must go beyond all of the fetters of politics, history, culture, and ethics and carry out thorough thought. Without thorough thought, there can be no thorough revolution. Another little hint, Sun Zi and Sun Tzu are the same feller. Anyway, as Carl von Clauswitz (quoted in your pamphlet) has said: "War is nothing but a continuation of politics by other means." So here you go, from your intense study of this pamplet, here are a few excerpts which directly contradict your supposed research and reality, I will leave the matching up of your untruths to these quotes as an exercise to the reader....
Page2:
Published prior to the bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade, the book has recently drawn the attention of both the Chinese and Western press for its advocacy of a multitude of means,
The United States breaks [UN rules] and makes new ones when these rules don't suit [its purposes], but it has to observe its own rules or the whole world will not trust it.
Page 22:
Viewed from the performance of the U.S. military in Somalia, where they were at a loss when they encountered Aidid's forces, the most modern military force does not have the ability to control public clamor, and cannot deal with an opponent who does things in an unconventional manner. On the battlefields of the future, the digitized forces may very possibly be like a great cook who is good at cooking lobsters sprinkled with butter, when faced with guerrillas who resolutely gnaw corncobs, they can only sigh in despair.
…
Looking at the specific examples of battles that we have, it is difficult for high-tech troops
to deal with unconventional warfare and low-tech warfare, and perhaps there is a rule here, or at least it is an interesting phenomenon which is worth studying.
Page 24:
However, the Americans are not necessarily in the sole lead in everything. The new concepts of weapons, which came after the weapons of new concepts and which cover a wider area, were a natural extension of this. However, the Americans have not been able to get their act together in this area. This is because proposing a new concept of weapons does not require relying on the springboard of new technology, it just demands lucid and incisive thinking. However, this is not a strong point of the Americans, who are slaves to technology in their thinking. The Americans invariably halt their thinking at the boundary where technology has not yet reached.
Page 32:
Navy Lieutenant Robert Guerli [as published 0657 1422 0448] proposed that "the seven areas of misunderstanding with regard to information warfare are: (1) the overuse of analogous methods; (2) exaggerating the threat; (3) overestimating one's own strength; (4) historical relevance and accuracy; (5) avoiding criticism of anomalous attempts; (6) totally unfounded assumptions; and (7) nonstandard definitions." (U.S., Events magazine, Sep 97 issue).
Page 34:
However, Orgakov's foresight and wisdom with regard to the issue of a revolution in military affairs ran aground because of structural problems. "If, in keeping up with the extremely high costs of the revolution in military affairs, a country exceeds the limits that can be borne by its system and material conditions, but it keeps engaging in military power contests with its opponents, the only outcome can be that they will fall further behind with regard to the military forces that they can use. This was the fate of Russia during the czarist and Soviet eras: the Soviet Union undertook military burdens that were difficult to bear, while in turn the military was unwilling to accept the need for strategic retrenchment."
Page 57:
1. For more on the close relationship between Iraq and the U.S., the reader may refer to Desert Warrior: A Personal View of the Gulf War by the Joint Forces Commander, Junshi Yiwen Publishing House, p. 212. "Iraq had established extremely close relations with the United States. Iraq had received weapons and valuable intelligence regarding Iranian movements from the U.S., as well as U.S. military support for attacks on Iran's navy."
Page 59:
12. There was an article entitled "Financial Markets are the Biggest Threat to Peace" in the
August 23, 1998, issue of the Los Angeles Times. The article noted: "At present, financial
markets constitute the biggest threat to world peace, not terrorist training camps." (See Reference News, Beijing, September 7, 1998.)
Pages 183 – 184:
Only a fool like Saddam Hussein would seek to fulfill his own wild ambition by outright territorial occupation. Facts make it clear that acting in this way in the closing years of the 20th Century is clearly behind the times, and will certainly lead to defeat. Also pursuing its national security and national interests, as a mature great power the United States appeared much smarter than Iraq. Since the day they stepped onto the international stage, the Americans have been seizing things by force or by trickery, and the benefits they obtained from other countries were many times greater than anyone knows than what Iraq got from Kuwait. The reasons cannot be explained as merely "might makes right," and they are not just a problem of an evasion of international norms and vetoes.
|
|
|
|
