bttt
ping
The founders always wished though that they could play by those rules though. Washington lamented how he could not field a European style army. And it was the final force on force battles like Yorktown that decided the war.
See the book in this post: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2489017/posts .
It outlines a strategy similar to what you are endorsing. Not mega centralized groups, but many smaller groups. It uses ideas from free market economics create the system (think Smith’s inivisible hand applied to politics).
I agree. For example, every year the pro-life movement has a parade in Washington that numbers in the millions. Every year the press **ignores** it. Isn't it time to do something different?
Yes, these large Tea Party and pro-life marches are wonderful for building moral, but why not try having a pro-life march next year right on the doorsteps of MSNBCABCCBS in New York City? It could be that they might even have a larger turn out. Why not a massive turn out in the drive ways of the CEOs of the media organizations that refuse to fairly report on pro-life and conservative issues.
By the way, has anyone noticed that "flash mobs" are organized within minutes by teens using cell phones? What would happen if one million people simply all decided at the same time to show up at opportune times and places?
While large marches are useful and should not be abandoned, ultimately if conservatives fail to win elections the nation loses. Winning elections means aggressive poll watching, vigorous purging of the voter rolls, and block by block "get out the vote" organizers.
I've said over and over again, if we insist on playing in a rigged game by the one-party Democrat-Republican monopoly's rules, we will lose.
And so, the first thing we must do is change the rules and stop playing their game.
Sounds like an excellent plan!
Make THEM react to US, instead of the other way around.
This sounds like obama and the dems taking on America by not playing by the traditions and rules.
The small pt boats are the family. Make those stronger, and send our kids out into the country with Christian values and a love of country. That is how we take the nation back, by denying the liberals their cannon fodder.
He is expounding my posts for some time now. We always lose by following liberal rules. Our behavior and posts on the conservative bastion of Free Republic is policed by politically correct sanctimoniousness. Their rules
There is another game, TEGWAR, the Exciting Game Without Any Rules. We should be playing TEGWAR and making new rules. The Rats just trashed the rules to pass the Health bill. That is the game we should be playing.
There should be new rules that exterminate those who persist in trashing America.
I think that while not that radical, Sarah Palen is a TEGWAR player. Her lead must be followed
This kind of skirmishing was not unique. It certainly was not "utterly outside contemporary military thinking at the time". It had been practiced for centuries beforehand (although admittedly the Patriots were particularly good at it). The British were perfectly capable of doing the same thing back, and did so on numerous occasions.
The problem with this kind of fighting is that although it can inflict casualties and delay an enemy, it is rarely decisive in its own right. Contemporary military commanders recognised this. They fought lined up in neat rows for a very good reason. It worked. It is rare for one combatant in a conflict to "steal a march" with some tactical breakthrough. It is even rarer for them to maintain that edge for very long. Similarly, I would suspect this hypothetical wargame navy won because it "played to the rules" of the game itself. It wouldn't work in real life for the very simple reason that the world's military would have deployed such a force if it did. They do, after all, spend their lives working this kind of stuff out. Straight off the cuff I would argue that a giant fleet of PT boats would struggle because a) they don't have much range and b) they aren't very seaworthy. They probably couldn't fire their weapons in rough weather and a gale would sink most of them.
You have to keep an open mind. Things do change. But you also have to be careful. There are very good reasons why some things are done the way they are. It's because they work better than any of the alternatives. :)
mark
Well, the principal is hardly new - naturally you fight to your own strengths: hence your own forefathers avoiding pitched battles when unsuitable, the Iraqis/Vietnamese, etc turning to guerilla war rather than fighting pitched battles on our terms.
I recall a great quote regarding the Algerian war (May have been in the Battle of Algiers) where a French officer bellows at a captured fighter words to the effect of “Why won’t you fight honourably? Why do you use bombs and other cowardly tactics?”, to which the prisoner replies calmly,”Give us your tanks and helicopters and planes and we will fight you honourably, monsenieur.”
Anyone who fights in ways that suit the enemy are fools. Obviously there are limits, as demonstrated by unneccessary damage to civilians or use of atrocities, but war is not about honour. War is about victory.
Shalom.
And, this is why the greatest Army in the history of the world is still fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq.
This analysis implies that Butler could have beaten Duke, which, of course, is ridiculous...
It’s sort of like the saying, “Which fights better, a Rottweiller or a Rottweiller’s weight in Chihuahuas.” If course, you have to deploy and use such force in a manner that maximizes the advantages you have.
So a better analogy might be to say that conservatives are trying to beat a battle group consisting of two carriers, a heavy cruiser, and misc. other assets, with a single destroyer.
Wow! Very thought-provoking concept. Will need to chew on that one for a while. Kind of like fielding a virus to destroy a mammalian enemy. Hmmm....