To: GROUND ZERO™ who wrote (760768 ) 3/30/2007 6:12:02 PM From: DuckTapeSunroof Read Replies (1) | Respond to Re: "he says that the U.S. tends to commit only to a stale mate," might or might not, be unconscious to us, to our leaders. But, conscious or not, he pointed out that has largely been the reality for more then 50 years or so. And, we have been *very lucky* that that has been the case....)Spoiling Attacks *, and how spoiling attacks (as represented by US wars since WW II) might be FAR MORE EFFECTIVE in nearly every sense, then *all out* 'burnt and salted ground' types of wars --- where in the larger global context that we all live in, such victories might only be PYRRHIC, not actual practicable wins.actually far less cost/effective ... and don't play to our inherrent strengths as a nation very well . (The 'Law of Unintended Consequences' being alive and well, as it certainly is!)that message was not in the piece... because the ENTIRE THRUST of his discussion was against that type of thinking. optimal wins by NOT 'winning' all-out but pyrrhic victories. Our greatest strengths as a nation residing in our free markets, our inventive spirits, and our 'shining city on a hill' example of personal freedoms and liberty, not in our raw military power. For, the Soviet Union [& today's Russia] could match us megaton for megaton --- but were never as 'strong' or successful as we.)small stuff... merely launching cost/effective spoiling attacks, and engaging just enough with the TEMPORARY enemy-of-the-day to SPOIL their plans, bloc them from advancing --- we preserve the conditions that enable us to win all the marbles in the end.today's enemy is often just that: the temporary enemy of the day... handled correctly the enemy of today can be defeated with strategic judo and likely turned into the ALLY of tomorrow.)
