Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (102 users) | |
|
| jeeeeohn United States. August 09 2011 15:45. Posts 859 | Profile Blog # |
I started reading The Art of War yesterday and found it absolutely fascinating--so much so I began thinking about the difference between modern warfare and classical warfare in relation to Sun Tzu's principles.
Before we continue, I'd like to point out that while I love talking about war, I don't consider myself an expert, so cast that thought/flame bait out of your mind please. I'm going to spoiler these into clumps so as not to create an eyesore.
Morale
+ Show Spoiler +Thinking about Iraq and Afghanistan in particular (and I'm not haughty enough to assume everyone on TL is American, so bear with me), I can already think of several relevant passages, most notably "There has never been a protracted war a country has benefitted from," and (loosely, from memory) "I have known of many quick blunders but no quick victory."
It really amazes me how a work from ancient times is still so painfully relevant today; the essays are simple and the ideas are presented in their most basic form. One of his 5 points for victory (or was it 3?) was morale, and that got me thinking: since the Vietnam war our military's morale has begun low, because the people in our military don't want to go to war, because the philisophical outlook on the nature of war has flipflopped from classical times.
War used to be the honorable profession of choice and the act of becoming a soldier was glorifying and transcendant (I'd also point out that most wealthy people chose to become soldiers, but I don't want to turn this into a class discussion); now it's regarded as brutal and animalistic (and conversely, most soldiers come from poor backgrounds--what upper middle class or upper class parents will let their children into the military, besides military families?).
Another cause of low morale, I think, would be the modern method of deployment itself: soldiers are ferried onto distant shores and become increasingly spread out in a non-traditional gourilla war like Iraq/Afghanistan, or are dropped like so many bombs from planes. Unlike the Roman Legions, the modern soldier will look to either side and see not thousands but tens, surrounded on all sides by hostile weather, locals, and the possibility of fatal traps.
If we had focused our strength and kept the soldiers happy, it would have gone a long way to ending these wars sooner.
Shock and Awe
+ Show Spoiler +Which brings me to Shock and Awe (TM). The very idea that you could steamroll an entire nation is absurd--I don't care how large your military is, prudence is often the best method. The Iraqi military surrendered to us, sure--but we weren't at war with them (if you believe the spin, which I personally couldn't care less about), we were at war with guerilla fighters hiding in foxholes and in plain sight. Shock and Awe tips your hand, presents an easy target, and is a logistical nightmare (remember "The Roadmap to Freedom?" holy shit!) to begin with. We should have been more careful, organized our strength and combed the country over and over and over and over again--better yet, why not conduct a year or two of covert operations first?
I believe the best known line of The Art of War is: "All war is based on deception." Moreso (again, from memory) "The greatest show of skill is defeating an army without fighting (an already demoralised army, etc.) and taking a city without laying siege."
The line I already wrote--"I've seen many quick blunders but no quick victory"--is also viciously apparent. Unless I remembered wrong, in which case fuck me.
Rushing into a neutral nation with a hostile culture halfcocked and without clearly defined goals is a surefire way of defeating yourself and getting bogged down in a long, protracted war. It's stupid. So if you're ever in control of a military, don't do it.
On the Verge of a New War Philosophy
+ Show Spoiler +Pretty short section, as the title speaks for itself. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (and my crystal ball says Yemen, but I sincerely hope not), have all been (or will be) what you'd call a non-traditional war. Thus a new method of warfare is needed, one not based in men and money and bullets but of ideas and information. I think we're starting to get that in the way of cyberwarfare, but I don't know. You can't defeat an ideology with bombs: you have to counter them and show people a better way to live. If they preach, you preach. If they stand on the pulpit and expounge Islamic Extremism (notice I say extremism, not Islam itself) you push them off and hold up the statue of liberty. Does that sound nationalistic as hell? Yeah, it is. It's the new war: ideology vs ideology, and the size of your military frankly doesn't matter.
Wrapping Up (tl;dr)
+ Show Spoiler +
If you read this much, thank you. If you didn't, too bad, because I'm too lazy to summarize all that. I wanted to talk about something else too, but I forget. I'll probably edit it in later. If anyone knows about any books on war philosophy please share, because I want to read more.
 |
| | "Never forget the Cheer Cannon." (MLG Orlando, 2011) IdrA / HuK / INcontroL, On November 17 2011 07:41 iNcontroL wrote:[i]The pleasure was all mine[/i] / BoxeR / Ret / Stephano ("Napoleon") / Machine / Artosis: I am not a doctor. (Dreamhack Winter 2011) |
|
|
| rei United States. August 09 2011 16:52. Posts 2906 | Profile Blog # | |
| |
|
| jeeeeohn United States. August 09 2011 17:27. Posts 859 | Profile Blog # |
| Yeah, I've seen that before. Funny guy, shame he passed away. |
| | "Never forget the Cheer Cannon." (MLG Orlando, 2011) IdrA / HuK / INcontroL, On November 17 2011 07:41 iNcontroL wrote:[i]The pleasure was all mine[/i] / BoxeR / Ret / Stephano ("Napoleon") / Machine / Artosis: I am not a doctor. (Dreamhack Winter 2011) |
|
|
| RenardDesMers France. August 09 2011 17:33. Posts 73 | Profile # |
I think a big difference from old wars is that nowadays, wars are not really meant to annex the country and make it a part of the empire/kingdom. US and allies just try to build stable enough countries so that they cannot become a threat and commercial relationships continue.
IMO that's a very different goal. Back then, people (not just military) from the "winner" country would move to the defeated land to assert domination and property with the full power of the winner country.
Nowadays, they try to rebuild something from zero with lots of fighters and weapons still around, knowing the invader will surely leave the country with weak political and military structures. |
|
|
 zatic Germany. August 09 2011 17:43. Posts 11700 | Profile Blog # |
Iraq and Afghanistan were only been the most prominent examples of irregular warfare. Pretty much since WW2 there has not been a traditional war. Well, one that included Western powers at least.
You could maybe make a case for Korea, but that's about it. All other wars Western powers have fought have been irregular wars.
This also means that you should be very careful to apply Sun Tsu to any of the recent wars, since Sun Tsu very much talks about traditional warfare. What you really should be reading out of the classics is Machiavelli's Prince, it is a read probably more valid than ever these days.
The problem of course, from a Western point of view (and increasingly, from every state's pov), is that Machiavelli is effective, but just not practical anymore for political reasons. One has to just look at the current Syrian uprising. Assad's father Hafez was one of the very rare rulers in the 20th century who truly understood Machiavelli. He was faced also with increasingly violent resistance by the Muslim Bortherhood, but he knew how to squash the opposition once and for all (See Hama massacre).
His son Bashar basically does the same mistakes Western powers have been doing for the last 60 years. Increasingly violent reaction to protest, but never violent enough to end it.
It's truly amazing that after 60 years of failure Western politics and military still refuse to learn any lessons, and continue to do the same mistakes over and over again. |
| | I know Teamliquid is known as a massive building |
|
|
| GhostOwl August 09 2011 18:07. Posts 490 | Profile Blog # |
Nuclear bombs ruined the tactical sense in war. No longer needed are those military strategies and manuveurs because you can just blow everything up!
Guns ruined variety in soldiers. Back then when we didn't have guns, we had different types of fighters like calvary archers, knights, phalanx, etc.
Phalanx formation with spears and shield wall combination (like they showed in Troy) is really beautiful imo. |
|
|
| Sotamursu Finland. August 09 2011 18:21. Posts 608 | Profile # |
On August 09 2011 18:07 GhostOwl wrote:
Guns ruined variety in soldiers. Back then when we didn't have guns, we had different types of fighters like calvary archers, knights, phalanx, etc.
Yes because the military entirely consists of plain ground infantry armed with rifles. There is no variation at all. |
|
|
| jeeeeohn United States. August 09 2011 18:35. Posts 859 | Profile Blog # |
| He's just pointing out the difference between a variety of melee soldiers/archers and today's comparatively limited variety of foot soldiers. Factor in vehicles and the variety swings back to modern times' favor. |
| | "Never forget the Cheer Cannon." (MLG Orlando, 2011) IdrA / HuK / INcontroL, On November 17 2011 07:41 iNcontroL wrote:[i]The pleasure was all mine[/i] / BoxeR / Ret / Stephano ("Napoleon") / Machine / Artosis: I am not a doctor. (Dreamhack Winter 2011) |
|
|
| TheGiz Canada. August 09 2011 22:04. Posts 708 | Profile Blog # |
Remember too that the US military has to abide by the Geneva Conventions (for the most part), which restricts how they operate. While there has always been a kind of etiquette regarding warfare (chivalry), this was largely dependent on the types of cultures involved, and the Geneva Conventions are around 200 years old iirc.
In Asia, wars have always been particularly gruesome. Mongols had no problem starving or literally raping entire cities, Reds of various kinds have had no problem slaughtering millions of the intelligentsia. The Japanese had no problem fighting to the last man and committing mass suicide rather than surrender; it took two nukes to make them stop.
It is very hard to fight against an enemy that won't play by the rules. There is a quote from The Godfather: Part II that is particularly relevant in this case. In the film, Cuban communists are blowing themselves up during the revolución. Michael Corleone's mafia is struggling for control, but upon seeing this kind of craziness he simply says something to the effect of:
There is no way we can win against something like that.
And the mafia pulls out of Cuba. Modern armies are much better equipped, so they will win, but not without a significant struggle.Last edit: 2011-08-09 22:06:14 |
| | Life is not about making due with what you have; it's about finding out just how much you can achieve. Never settle for anything less than the best. - - - Read my blog! |
|
|
| Yurie August 10 2011 00:13. Posts 2093 | Profile Blog # |
I agree with zatic. It isn't good politics to win a war by any means. The press and the population dislike what is needed to pacify a country (enough violence to deter).
As for the war part in Iraq, that was basically over in a week. So they followed Sun Tzu well. Then they didn't follow the rules laid down for how to consolidate a country after winning since it would be too violent.
Resistance groups only function when violence against them is at an appropriate level. If it is too strong people won't join since they, their family, their clan and maybe their entire town will die.
If it is too weak the resistance has won since those they are resisting has already left. Or you have to keep no resistance up for several generations and just let it play out. Being nice has no effect short term.Last edit: 2011-08-10 00:20:02 |
|
|
| zatic Germany. August 10 2011 00:40. Posts 11700 | Profile Blog # |
That is essentially it. There are two models in combating irregular/guerrilla warfare that have been proving successfully (in theory and reality).
One is basically genocide, but not just a randomly killing people. It has to be one terrible strike, swift, decisive, public, and merciless. The Hama Massacre was the perfect example how to execute it well, militarily as well we politically. The punitive expeditions of Colonialism are another.
The other method is denying the nature of war entirely, and fighting the resistance only with police methods. This means being reading to take losses. The British showed how to do this exceptionally well in Northern Ireland.
Any other path in between the two extremes just leads to failure. Even the Nazi occupation in Yugoslavia could not have held the country, as reckless as they were, because they just randomly lined up 100 civilians for every Landser killed, and still only enforced the resistance doing so. |
| | I know Teamliquid is known as a massive building |
|
|
| SCPlato United States. August 10 2011 01:13. Posts 239 | Profile Blog # |
Clausewitz' "On War" Is truly a masterpiece when dealing with the complexities of war and all it entails. I have found it to be just as, and in some aspects, more applicable then Sun Tzu especially in modern times.
War has not changed in my opinion. It is the same now as it always has been. "War is an act of Force to compel our enemy to do our will." -Clausewitz
The means of war may have changed, how we fight, but what we are "doing" and what the goal of it is has remained the same. We wish to disarm our enemies by forcing them into a position that is worse then what we want them to do.
one thing i do disagree with you on is your comment about ideology and bombs not mattering. + Show Spoiler +Part of the problem for me stems from the fact of gross misinformation even from people involved on the hill who should know better about Islam. When you have Senators and Reps blatantly misquoting and misrepresenting Islam it is no wonder that most don't understand who or why they are fighting.
You cannot argue religion against religion because it simply does not work. You will not change the mind of any true believers. Just as if a Muslim came here and tried to do the same. A few people might change, but not a huge amount.
Anyways, just some of my initial thoughts when seeing the OP, Really interesting topic though ^^ |
| | All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by one Workman; and however we deceive ourselves, as dear unto God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince. -Plato | |
|
|
| Kukaracha France. August 10 2011 02:18. Posts 1890 | Profile Blog # |
I see a few misconceptions in the OP, most of which are quite common amongst the RTS-game communities which have a peculiar point of view about war and geostrategy.
About morale, you're dismissing afew things, among which the current higher value of life, the regression of military fanatism, the aformentioned convention of Geneva (not often respected in the Middle-East by foreign troops though), and the lack of ideals. However, I don't think moral is particularly low today, as the the morale of troops in charge of guerilla repression (like the Napoleonic troops in Spain in the early 1800s) is always low and has always been through History (it is after all a pain in the ass to get sniped by invisible ennemies all the time).
You should also try to imagine what it was for a soldier in a Roman legion to be in the front line. This is the reason why batallions like the Forlorn Hope existed. Every charge was not that far from from a suicide. But hundreds were behind to push...
The idea that war used to be an honorable profession also seems quite peculiar. Whether it was the itialian condottieri, hired mercenaries, or forfefully conscripted civilians in the Napoleonic armies, the main body had no particular glory at all. In fact, troops running away during the fight was actually quite common, and sometimes led to the creation of barrier troops in charge of preventing any sort of desertion.
I won`t even mention in detail the fact that diseases was the number one cause of casualties, resulting in a painful and inglorious death. This was painfully true during the Amercian Civil War, WW1, and Napoleon's campaigns.
I think you`re referring to old times where noblesmen would be the only fighters, before the 9th century I believe, or even more ancient times like the Greek domination. After that, the core was made of violent army men who would leave hundreds of innocent dead bodies in their passage, looting the civilian populations. A good example is the repercussion of Crusade Armies on the local population and ressources, or the state of the Lorraine region in the 17th century.
Or maybe you're only referring to army officers who indeed had a certain glory.
I mostly agree with Zatic although I think that Realpolitik is one of the main causes of horror in our contemporary times and one of the reasons the ruling oligarchy only grows stronger every passing hour - thus not really being a "good" thing. Fuck Kissinger!
Edit: Oh, and I believe that the American Civil War was one of the last big traditional wars, with many modern traits. The last one would be the German invasion of France in 1870, but I may be wrong.
Edit: Grammar.Last edit: 2011-08-10 08:39:13 |
| | Le long pour l'un pour l'autre est court (le mot-à-mot du mot "amour"). |
|
|
| TheGiz Canada. August 10 2011 04:01. Posts 708 | Profile Blog # |
On August 10 2011 02:18 Kukaracha wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I see a few misconceptions in the OP, most of which are quite common amongst the RTS-game communities which have a peculiar point of view about war and geostrategy.
About morale, you're dismissing afew things, among which the current higher value of life, the regression of military fanatism, the aformentioned convention of Geneva (not often respected in the Middle-East by foreign troops though), and the lack of ideals. However, I don't think morale is particularly low, as the the morale of troops in charge of guerilla repression the like Napoleonic troops in Spain in the early 1800s is always low and has always been through History.
You should also try to imagine what it was for a soldier in a Roman legion to be in the front line. This is the reason why batallions like the Forlorn Hope existed. Every charge was not that far from from a suicide for many soldiers. But hundreds were behind to push...
The idea that war used to be an honorable profession also seems quite peculiar. Whether it was the itialian condottieri, hired mercenaries, or forfefully conscripted civilians in the Napoleonic armies, the main body had no particular honor at all. In fact, troops running away during the fight was actually quite common, and sometimes led to the creation of barrier troops in charge of preventing any sort of desertion.
I won`t even mention in detail the fact that diseases was the number one cause of casualties, resulting in a painful and inglorious death. This was painfully true during the Amercian Civil War and WW1, and Napoleon's campains.
I think you`re referring to old times where noblesmen would be the only fighters, before the 9th century I believe, or even more ancient times like the Greek domination. After that, the core was made of violent army men who would leave hundreds of innocent dead bodies in their passage. A good example is the repercussion of Crusade Armies on the local population and ressources, or the state of the Lorraine region in the 17th century.
Or maybe you're only referring to army officers who indeed had a certain glory.
I mostly agree with Zatic although I think that Realpolitik is one of the main causes of horror in our contemporary times and one of the reasons the ruling oligarchy only grows stronger every passing hour - thus not really being a "good" thing. Fuck Kissinger!
Edit: Oh, and I believe that the American Civil War was one of the last big traditional wars, with many modern traits. The last one would be the German invasion of France in 1870, but I may be wrong.
Only some of this of this made much sense. I'm guessing it's a language barrier thing - the rest has background waves of Zeitgeist, which is unfortunate for you.
- Yes, disease was the #1 killer of troops in wartime. This is less of a problem with today's medicine.
- Roman soldiers were professional soldiers. They chose to be there.
- Napoleon generally had a very good rapport with his troops. There's a reason be became Emperor of the French. Just because a soldier is being forced to fight does not mean that said soldier will not fight honorably.
- It has always been considered honorable and/or noteworthy to be a soldier. This is universal across most cultures throughout history.
- You referred to there being an oligarchy in the world. *sigh*
- The American Civil war was the one of the last traditional wars as the technology changed from typical 18th century stuff to 19th/early 20th century technology during the course of the war.
- The Franco-Prussian war was mostly a modern war with the exception of some German states that had yet to update to the newest technology. France actually had the technological advantage but lost to the badass Prussian army. That's mostly because at the time no one knew how awesome Prussia really was.
Last edit: 2011-08-10 04:01:58 |
| | Life is not about making due with what you have; it's about finding out just how much you can achieve. Never settle for anything less than the best. - - - Read my blog! |
|
|
| Kukaracha France. August 10 2011 05:08. Posts 1890 | Profile Blog # |
On August 10 2011 04:01 TheGiz wrote:
Only some of this of this made much sense. I'm guessing it's a language barrier thing - the rest has background waves of Zeitgeist, which is unfortunate for you.
Well I believe my english is still not that bad, and I don't know what Zeitgeist is so I don't know what you mean by this. However, I would appreciate if you clearly pointed what is not making sense in my post.
- Yes, disease was the #1 killer of troops in wartime. This is less of a problem with today's medicine.
-->We agree, I don't see your point.
- Roman soldiers were professional soldiers. They chose to be there.
-->Again we agree, I still fail to see your point. I would add that so did mercenaries and most soldiers. However let us not forget that many prisoners were added in the ranks, mostly in the first lines.
- Napoleon generally had a very good rapport with his troops. There's a reason be became Emperor of the French. Just because a soldier is being forced to fight does not mean that said soldier will not fight honorably.
-->Indeed, here is a quote of Rostand's work. A soldier is talking to the Marechal:
Nous ne cessions de marcher
Que pour nous battre, et de nous battre un contre quatre
Que pour marcher, et de marcher que pour nous battre.
Marchant et nous battant, maigres, nus, noirs et gais
Nous ne l’étions pas, peut-être, fatigués ?
Et sans lui devoir comme vous des chandelles,
C’est nous qui, cependant, lui restâmes fidèles.
Aux portières du roi, votre cheval dansait…
We only kept on walking,
Except to fight, and to fight one on four,
Except to walk, and walk only to fight.
Walking and fighting, thin, naked, black and joyful,
Don`t you think we were tired?
And without owing him, like you, fortunes,
We, however, remained faithful.
At the king`s door, your horse was dancing...
However, my point is that Napoleon did force young men to follow him through the Russian cold, successfully draining the life out of the French youth. And while these men did believe in his adventures before the Russian campaign, it was difficult to keep troops in line around 1814. And no matter what promises were given, most of these young men found nothing but a deadly cold.
- It has always been considered honorable and/or noteworthy to be a soldier. This is universal across most cultures throughout history.
-->This is an illusion caused by the fact that there was an educated minority that did value the profession of war. However, to peasants and regular townspeople, the proximity of troops was nothing but a danger. As I said, read about the situation of the Lorraine region in France in 1650, it`s a prime example of what happened when troops crossed the country regularly. As soon as armies became masses of armed men, their good behaviour was not guaranteed and the "soudard" (french slang for soldier, with a negative touch) became a feared species.
But if you believe things are different, please provide precise examples like I did.
Here is a bonus: a letter from a young northern soldier to his parents during the Civil War in 1863, extract from the French magazine L'Histoire, nº361S:
"I didn't realize what was going on, but the vision of the battlefield at midnight would give anyone an idea about what war is. I wouldn't want to see that again for anything in the world... My head is so full that my ideas are melting together and I can't describe the battle like I would like to do, with a little coherence..."
His final words are: " Tell Mrs. Diggings not to let her son volunteer.".
- You referred to there being an oligarchy in the world. *sigh*
-->Of course there is, and I'm not referring to any crazy conspiracies, but to the simple fact that financial groups have a great power, that's all. It's not a nominative oligarchy but it's one nonetheless.
- The American Civil war was the one of the last traditional wars as the technology changed from typical 18th century stuff to 19th/early 20th century technology during the course of the war.
-->Traditional and modern wars are not only distinguished by technological differences.
- The Franco-Prussian war was mostly a modern war with the exception of some German states that had yet to update to the newest technology. France actually had the technological advantage but lost to the badass Prussian army. That's mostly because at the time no one knew how awesome Prussia really was.
-->Again, in the disposition of the troops, the battles themselves, the casualties, the objectives, the strategy and the overall ideology, it was a traditional war. And no, France was not prepared, despite the Chamber's desire to punish the "arrogant neighbours". The leading officers were old, the army lacked training and professionalism, Napoleon the IIIrd was turned towards Mexico and France had an inferior artillery and maybe inferior overall weaponry although I'm not sure about the rifles used.
France should've just stayed quiet and everything would've gone better than expected.
Disclaimer: I am not a pacifist nor a conspiracist so don't argue with me on that. And the soldier's letter was translated from a translated quote in a magazine so there might be a few mistakes.
|
| | Le long pour l'un pour l'autre est court (le mot-à-mot du mot "amour"). |
|
|
| RvB Netherlands. August 10 2011 07:35. Posts 1080 | Profile # |
On August 10 2011 00:40 zatic wrote:
That is essentially it. There are two models in combating irregular/guerrilla warfare that have been proving successfully (in theory and reality).
One is basically genocide, but not just a randomly killing people. It has to be one terrible strike, swift, decisive, public, and merciless. The Hama Massacre was the perfect example how to execute it well, militarily as well we politically. The punitive expeditions of Colonialism are another.
The other method is denying the nature of war entirely, and fighting the resistance only with police methods. This means being reading to take losses. The British showed how to do this exceptionally well in Northern Ireland.
Any other path in between the two extremes just leads to failure. Even the Nazi occupation in Yugoslavia could not have held the country, as reckless as they were, because they just randomly lined up 100 civilians for every Landser killed, and still only enforced the resistance doing so.
Guerilla warfare can also be fought with guerilla warfare. A Dutch officer did it in the 17th century I think, in Indonesia to defeat a sultan that the dutch were at war with. He even got a statue in Amsterdam for it I'll have to look up his name though since I forgot  . |
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
