To encapsulate it, if you know these and understand the fundamental importance of their application, you are well on your way to obtaining that which you elucidate.

 

http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Principles/ - http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Principles/

 

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8893629 - http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2012/02/8893629

 

http://www.2worldwar2.com/principles-of-war.htm - http://www.2worldwar2.com/principles-of-war.htm

 

http://www.uc.edu/armyrotc/ms2text/MSL_201_L02b_Intro_to_Principles_of_War_and_Operations.pdf - http://www.uc.edu/armyrotc/ms2text/MSL_201_L02b_Intro_to_Principles_of_War_and_Operations.pdf

 

 

I would disagree, the most effective method is to take the opponent unaware............ from behind, preferably you heavily armed and him not armed........ asleep even....... or bed ridden and suffering from a terminal illness.

 

My heart agrees....

 

 

As I remain a man of some conscience... but alas it's not necessarily realistic in the accomplishment of the goal..as directed by those who do. History supports this. It is the romantics view and I cant criticize it heavily for I am one of those in part as well.

 

 

 

 

But neither romantics nor appeasement ideologies win wars once they are forced on the body politic. 

 

 

 

 

 

As warfare since the days of Ramses has not entirely been a vocation of  the individual/individual ruler and or their designated champions duelling to resolve their individual differences or accomplish their individual gains....Or as representatives of their states....that's more myth then reality. And certainly when dealing above the clan system of government. And certainly as id' in the development and practices as far as potentially 7000 years ago.

 

Matter of fact no one can actual id when transition from individual battle gave way to collective with any real accuracy.

 

To understand the transition and the practical (not moral) reasons why warfare has become a collective effort requires a lifetime of study...I'm still at it.....but even given the individual repugnance one might feel at Toltec's suggestions and comments...not only are they historically apt; but there has been much worse in the record. And they have more importantly...whether agreed with or not.. been successful.... therefore useful.

 

 

 

And in part, to x degree or other, still used.

 

The ethics and morality of warfare as a means to acquire 'whatever' have always been challenged....I have no doubt of that....but the more recent transition to and introductions of codes and rules is fairly recent in historic terms for good or bad. And I believe they are good and necessary. 

 

 

 

 

Ntl.... when one discusses this conundrum, one must always be guided by the historical cultural development of the combatants, of the specific era, and the multitude of reasons why they chose warfare as a political or personal option to gain whatever they sought....ie. context.

 

It's always context.