New art of war

Actually I reckon there is one major difference between Bush and Savimbi: the president of the US went to war certain he would win in a few days and would be able to shape the future according to his will as nobody would be there to tell him "no I disagree"; on the countrary UNITA's leader's position was "let's go to war so after that we can impose our conditions in the negociations to come".

Bush went to war ready to face a total war but soon had to face a "bloody negociation" where he put himself in a situation where he couldn't negociate (and then  was doomed to fail).

No, surrender can't be regarded as a negociation in the full sense of the term as the options offered are die or stop fighting.

What I mean by negociation and what Mr Bush refuses to do with terrorist is: "let's listen to your claims and see if through negociation we can reach a point where both of us will consider their core preoccupations well preserved".

Maharbbal,

I really fail to see the difference between Savimbi and Bush. They both believed that violence could quickly solve problems in their favor. This strong belief clouded their minds from looking at the situation objectively.

Let's look into other mistakes of Bush. The brutality of Abu Ghraib was meant to scare Muslims from messing with the U.S. It did the oppossite: it filled them with indignation, and it has probably inspired many to join terrorist groups that the brutality was meant to scare them from joining.

Or look at the many failed attacks on cities meant to wipe out the insurgency. In military terms each of these battles achieve total victory, but their net effect is to further increase the insurgency.

Had Bush really considered the chaos, destruction, and death that taking Saddam out of power would bring, he would have not engaged in this war. At the moment that he did, he lost.

Originally posted by hugoestr Or look at the many failed attacks on cities meant to wipe out the insurgency. In military terms each of these battles achieve total victory, but their net effect is to further increase the insurgency.

A distinguished English former general came today to speak at my uni and here are a few things he said about the type of war he says will replace industrial total war and that he calls "war amongst the people".

 

Be honesty, i really dont think what he told is something new, I believe  we could easily find similar thoughts dated back to thousands years ago. The war has  never been a isolated social activity, it was linked with many other factors. It is not for me to speak of the future form of warfares, but i believe chances to resort to force would be lower due to the higher cost of the war and more emergences of non-violence alternatives. Single minds think war is just war, a competition of military muscles, and a quick way to solve problems, that's why they always get messed up when they throw themselves into a war, without a little thought about the local culture tradition and political system.

Edited by Qin Dynasty - 25-Nov-2006 at 22:07

and Irak/Afghanistan where virtually, there is no organized body in front of you, to an certain extend every street fighter in Bagdad represents himself, or at least the units fighting recognize only very loosely any hierarchical command.

This will piss everyone off:

Edited by pikeshot1600 - 27-Nov-2006 at 16:29

Originally posted by Ponce de Leon glad ta see ya back pikeshot