SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post - Pakistan: how long until finally, finally the gloves are taken off?

Skybird · 10-08-10, 11:24 AM

The more "asymmetrical" a war is:

- the less Clausewitzian ideas can be applied

- the more difficult if not unwinnable the war becomes for the side sticking with the principles and demands of the Hague Landwarfare Convention (while the other side, whose participation in the conflict make that conflict qualifying for a description of being asymmetric, does not obey them - that is an inherent characteristic of "asymmetric wars").

But that is not the point so much, although these conclusions are dictated by any reasonable assessement of the matter of asymmetrical wars.

The point is: determination - or lack of.

If the latter, then the question is why you even started to fight at all. You are committing a crime against your own troops that way (which always has been one of my biggest criticisms of Bush, if you recall past debates in 2003, 04, 05, on Iraq). I am also criticising the Germans since long time to have absolute, total illusions about the nature of their military engagement in Afghanistan, and what can be achieved with an engagement like Germany's. I do not often say "Trapped in the Afghan maze" for no reason.

Either you are determined to do whatever is needed to crush the enemy and acchieve the military objective of the war, or you are not. Fighting kindly, and in the more beautiful way, with no sweat on your shirt and no blood on your hand, may earn you fine notes from the referees of the wellmeaning PC brigade. But it is meaningless. This is not basketball, and every goal by the enemy your people pay in blood for. You do not want to win by a margin of 77 to 72. You want to win 100 to 0, if possible. In war, there is no use in thinking in terms of "proportionality of means and tools". I deliberately refuse to thinkl and argue in terms of "proportionality" when it comes to war. You do not win by being fair or giving the enemy a chance, but by killing, crushing and destroying him, as fast as possible, as complete as possible, as brutal as necessary, you maximise your fighting power and and let go without holding back and allowing no distraction from the cause: destroying the enemy - the only chance that you will bring own losses to the minimum that you cannot avoid and reduce any further. You do not plan ahead to you and him shaking hands afterwards, but you want to saw fear in his heart so that after it ended he does not dare to turn against you again.

Morals and reasons are to be considered during the deicison making of whether to go to war or not. Consider them, and think twice. Ask yourself over your motives time and again. But if you are attacked, or if you have decided to go to war, understand that war means the end and the absence of peace, and the absence of morals and values deriving from peace. War has it'S own logic and it'S own values, and they are different than that of peace.

Espoecially true for asymmetrical wars.

10-08-10, 11:24 AM	#14
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,719 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	The more "asymmetrical" a war is: - the less Clausewitzian ideas can be applied - the more difficult if not unwinnable the war becomes for the side sticking with the principles and demands of the Hague Landwarfare Convention (while the other side, whose participation in the conflict make that conflict qualifying for a description of being asymmetric, does not obey them - that is an inherent characteristic of "asymmetric wars"). But that is not the point so much, although these conclusions are dictated by any reasonable assessement of the matter of asymmetrical wars. The point is: determination - or lack of. If the latter, then the question is why you even started to fight at all. You are committing a crime against your own troops that way (which always has been one of my biggest criticisms of Bush, if you recall past debates in 2003, 04, 05, on Iraq). I am also criticising the Germans since long time to have absolute, total illusions about the nature of their military engagement in Afghanistan, and what can be achieved with an engagement like Germany's. I do not often say "Trapped in the Afghan maze" for no reason. Either you are determined to do whatever is needed to crush the enemy and acchieve the military objective of the war, or you are not. Fighting kindly, and in the more beautiful way, with no sweat on your shirt and no blood on your hand, may earn you fine notes from the referees of the wellmeaning PC brigade. But it is meaningless. This is not basketball, and every goal by the enemy your people pay in blood for. You do not want to win by a margin of 77 to 72. You want to win 100 to 0, if possible. In war, there is no use in thinking in terms of "proportionality of means and tools". I deliberately refuse to thinkl and argue in terms of "proportionality" when it comes to war. You do not win by being fair or giving the enemy a chance, but by killing, crushing and destroying him, as fast as possible, as complete as possible, as brutal as necessary, you maximise your fighting power and and let go without holding back and allowing no distraction from the cause: destroying the enemy - the only chance that you will bring own losses to the minimum that you cannot avoid and reduce any further. You do not plan ahead to you and him shaking hands afterwards, but you want to saw fear in his heart so that after it ended he does not dare to turn against you again. Morals and reasons are to be considered during the deicison making of whether to go to war or not. Consider them, and think twice. Ask yourself over your motives time and again. But if you are attacked, or if you have decided to go to war, understand that war means the end and the absence of peace, and the absence of morals and values deriving from peace. War has it'S own logic and it'S own values, and they are different than that of peace. Espoecially true for asymmetrical wars. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.