Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: freedumb2003
So not running to run is some sort of “strategy?”

Believe it or not, people who win actually do strategize. I take it that you are unfamiliar with the concept, so my bet is you spend a lot of time losing.


"The Art of War" by Sun Tzu

18. All warfare is based on deception.

19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable;
when using our forces, we must seem inactive; 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.

20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder,
and crush him.

21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him.
If he is in superior strength, evade him.

22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to
irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

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

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

25. These military devices, leading to victory,
must not be divulged beforehand.

http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html

50 posted on 09/29/2011 7:40:10 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Palin is coming, and the Tea Party is coming with her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies ]


To: E. Pluribus Unum

John Boyd (military strategist)

Elements of warfare

Boyd divided warfare into three distinct elements:

Moral Warfare: the destruction of the enemy’s will to win, disruption of alliances (or potential allies) and induction of internal fragmentation. Ideally resulting in the “dissolution of the moral bonds that permit an organic whole [organization] to exist.”

Mental Warfare: the distortion of the enemy’s perception of reality through disinformation, ambiguous posturing, and/or severing of the communication/information infrastructure.

Physical Warfare: the destruction of the enemy’s physical resources such as weapons, people, and logistical assets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boyd_(military_strategist)


52 posted on 09/29/2011 7:46:28 PM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

>>Believe it or not, people who win actually do strategize. I take it that you are unfamiliar with the concept, so my bet is you spend a lot of time losing.<<

Platitudes doth not a strategy make. Quoting 5 or 6 of hundreds/thousands means... exactly zero.

“Deception” when the battle is over is useless.

Sun Tzu emphasized the importance of involving his soldiers in the battle. Leaving them in ignorance was not one of them.

But he makes a great source when you have absolutely no idea what is going on. This is just the Gov. Palin supporter version of claiming she is playing “pan dimensional chess.”

If “waiting” is her “strategy” then everyone can see it from beyond the horizon line.


54 posted on 09/29/2011 7:48:18 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (California: Making Texas more Conservative one voter at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Indirect approach

In Strategy the longest way around is often the shortest way there. A direct approach to the object exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, where as an indirect approach loosens the defender’s hold by upsetting his balance.

There were two fundamental principles which governed the “Indirect Approach”.

Direct attacks on firm defensive positions almost never work, and should never be attempted.

To defeat the enemy, one must first disrupt his equilibrium. This cannot be an effect of the main attack; it must take place before the main attack is commenced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indirect_approach


56 posted on 09/29/2011 7:49:30 PM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson