[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Let's see your chops again, 2pid! I always learn so much from you!
TIA!

Sun Tzu was a Chinese general. His work "Art of War" is still studied
by military officers worldwide. It was written circa 400-320 BCE.
Let's look at what he has to say, 2pid, and then you can give your
"differing opinion" if you wish.

From chapter three "Offensive Strategy," 31, 32, and 33:

Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred
battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy
but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If
ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every
battle to be in peril.'

(Commentary by Li Ch'uan: Such people are called 'mad bandits'. What
can they expect if not defeat?)

(Quotes from the 1963 Griffith translation.)

So, 2pid, puzzle me this: were our odds of winning ever better than
50-50, even before the "GO" order was given?

It's too bad that insurgencies are not set-piece battles on a linear
battlefield, 2pid. The US military rocks at those.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 25, 1:31 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
Let's see your chops again, 2pid! I always learn so much from you!
TIA!

Sun Tzu was a Chinese general. His work "Art of War" is still studied
by military officers worldwide. It was written circa 400-320 BCE.
Let's look at what he has to say, 2pid, and then you can give your
"differing opinion" if you wish.

From chapter three "Offensive Strategy," 31, 32, and 33:

Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred
battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy
but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If
ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every
battle to be in peril.'

(Commentary by Li Ch'uan: Such people are called 'mad bandits'. What
can they expect if not defeat?)

(Quotes from the 1963 Griffith translation.)

So, 2pid, puzzle me this: were our odds of winning ever better than
50-50, even before the "GO" order was given?

It's too bad that insurgencies are not set-piece battles on a linear
battlefield, 2pid. The US military rocks at those.

I immediately regretted posting this.

2pid has 'taught' me that there is nothing to be learned from history
regarding the military.

Laser and GPS-guided munitions and air power have changed everything.

My apologies.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 25, 1:33 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Aug 25, 1:31 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!

wrote:
Let's see your chops again, 2pid! I always learn so much from you!
TIA!

Sun Tzu was a Chinese general. His work "Art of War" is still studied
by military officers worldwide. It was written circa 400-320 BCE.
Let's look at what he has to say, 2pid, and then you can give your
"differing opinion" if you wish.

From chapter three "Offensive Strategy," 31, 32, and 33:

Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred
battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy
but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If
ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every
battle to be in peril.'

(Commentary by Li Ch'uan: Such people are called 'mad bandits'. What
can they expect if not defeat?)

(Quotes from the 1963 Griffith translation.)

So, 2pid, puzzle me this: were our odds of winning ever better than
50-50, even before the "GO" order was given?

It's too bad that insurgencies are not set-piece battles on a linear
battlefield, 2pid. The US military rocks at those.

I immediately regretted posting this.

2pid has 'taught' me that there is nothing to be learned from history
regarding the military.

Laser and GPS-guided munitions and air power have changed everything.

My apologies.

"The Department of the Army in the United States, through its Command
and General Staff College, has directed all units to maintain
libraries within their respective headquarters for the continuing
education of personnel in the art of war. The Art of War is
specifically mentioned by name as an example of works to be maintained
at each individual unit, and staff duty officers are obliged to
prepare short papers for presentation to other officers on their
readings."

So according to the US Army, I wasn't in error when I did a paper and
presentation on Sun Tzu to fellow officers back in 1989. I recall
that: that was before PowerPoint. I had to make transperencies for an
overhead projector!

But who should I believe, 2pid? Is your 'differing opinion' more or
less valid than the US Army's when it comes to the importance of
military history in the preparation and training of senior military
leaders?

Hm. I guess I'm not really sorry any more.

Any 'differing opinions,' 2pid?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 25, 1:58 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
On Aug 25, 1:33 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!





wrote:
On Aug 25, 1:31 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!
wrote:
Let's see your chops again, 2pid! I always learn so much from you!
TIA!

Sun Tzu was a Chinese general. His work "Art of War" is still studied
by military officers worldwide. It was written circa 400-320 BCE.
Let's look at what he has to say, 2pid, and then you can give your
"differing opinion" if you wish.

From chapter three "Offensive Strategy," 31, 32, and 33:

Therefore I say: 'Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred
battles you will never be in peril. When you are ignorant of the enemy
but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If
ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every
battle to be in peril.'

(Commentary by Li Ch'uan: Such people are called 'mad bandits'. What
can they expect if not defeat?)

(Quotes from the 1963 Griffith translation.)

So, 2pid, puzzle me this: were our odds of winning ever better than
50-50, even before the "GO" order was given?

It's too bad that insurgencies are not set-piece battles on a linear
battlefield, 2pid. The US military rocks at those.

I immediately regretted posting this.

2pid has 'taught' me that there is nothing to be learned from history
regarding the military.

Laser and GPS-guided munitions and air power have changed everything.

My apologies.

"The Department of the Army in the United States, through its Command
and General Staff College, has directed all units to maintain
libraries within their respective headquarters for the continuing
education of personnel in the art of war. The Art of War is
specifically mentioned by name as an example of works to be maintained
at each individual unit, and staff duty officers are obliged to
prepare short papers for presentation to other officers on their
readings."

So according to the US Army, I wasn't in error when I did a paper and
presentation on Sun Tzu to fellow officers back in 1989. I recall
that: that was before PowerPoint. I had to make transperencies for an
overhead projector!

But who should I believe, 2pid? Is your 'differing opinion' more or
less valid than the US Army's when it comes to the importance of
military history in the preparation and training of senior military
leaders?

Hm. I guess I'm not really sorry any more.

Any 'differing opinions,' 2pid?

LOL!

Imbecile.

[George M. Middius]

Shhhh! said:

2pid has 'taught' me that there is nothing to be learned from history
regarding the military.
Laser and GPS-guided munitions and air power have changed everything.

Is there an historical precedent for attaining 80% of our objectives, as
we did in Afghanistan, and then abandoning the mission in order to
pursue an ideological war that lacked any worthwhile objectives?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Aug 25, 2:22 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Shhhh! said:

2pid has 'taught' me that there is nothing to be learned from history
regarding the military.
Laser and GPS-guided munitions and air power have changed everything.

Is there an historical precedent for attaining 80% of our objectives, as
we did in Afghanistan, and then abandoning the mission in order to
pursue an ideological war that lacked any worthwhile objectives?

For us? Not that I can think of off hand.

Historically? Hm. I think Russia had some worthwhile objectives in
1941.