3 ms·

No, leaders talk almost exclusively about logistics, and it becomes truer the further up the chain you go. Strategy is for the rifle company commander and his o

No, leaders talk almost exclusively about logistics, and it becomes truer the further up the chain you go. Strategy is for the rifle company commander and his officers.

paganel 7y ago
Throwing napalm over the Vietnamese jungle was a strategy error by the US leaders, and there are also a couple of other such strategical errors of theirs from the last half-century or so that I’m sure have had a very big impact on how the US is seen by the outside world. And in the end, as long as you avoid total annihilation war is almost all about politics, and being seen as the bad guy by the other countries you’re trying to do political business with is bad for politics in the long run. So I’d say strategy still remains the most important thing.
- fapjacks 7y ago
  My post was partially a poke at subjective meaning, but if pressed to defend my point, I would say politics is logistics, because logistics is about managing resources, and everything is about managing resources. Napalm to me seems a natural consequence of jungle warfare, and is a fine solution to a hard logistical problem: How do you fight a battalion of local riflemen in the jungle with a company of guys that only ever saw a jungle on television? Incinerate the jungle or spray toxic chemicals on it, killing the jungle and whatever it contains. This is for example why gas was a natural consequence of trench warfare (cf. the ancient gas attack in the Persian siege of Roman-held Dura [0]). However I concede that this and many of the other posts here are essentially a bit of wordplay. That being said, I am very interested in this topic of discussion which you've brought up, because war is a spectre of human nature which is not palatable to anyone. So even if your fight is a good one, it's going to look bad on TV, which is exactly the thing that gets weaponized by your political opponents in furtherance of their own goals. [0] https://archive.archaeology.org/1001/topten/syria.html https://archive.archaeology.org/1001/topten/syria.html
  - czbond 7y ago
    I am not trying to start a back and forth - I had believed that logistics was HOW one goes about implementing a complex, scenario based strategy.
jammygit 7y ago
Was that true in WWII, or is it a more modern emphasis?
- fapjacks 7y ago
  It's a modern emphasis, considering modern American military science derives heavily from the successes of WW2. I'm particularly interested in this but I don't think this is the crowd, if my other post wasn't very popular.

No, leaders talk almost exclusively about logistics, and it becomes truer the further up the chain you go. Strategy is for the rifle company commander and his officers.

paganel 7y ago

Throwing napalm over the Vietnamese jungle was a strategy error by the US leaders, and there are also a couple of other such strategical errors of theirs from the last half-century or so that I’m sure have had a very big impact on how the US is seen by the outside world. And in the end, as long as you avoid total annihilation war is almost all about politics, and being seen as the bad guy by the other countries you’re trying to do political business with is bad for politics in the long run. So I’d say strategy still remains the most important thing.

fapjacks 7y ago
My post was partially a poke at subjective meaning, but if pressed to defend my point, I would say politics is logistics, because logistics is about managing resources, and everything is about managing resources. Napalm to me seems a natural consequence of jungle warfare, and is a fine solution to a hard logistical problem: How do you fight a battalion of local riflemen in the jungle with a company of guys that only ever saw a jungle on television? Incinerate the jungle or spray toxic chemicals on it, killing the jungle and whatever it contains. This is for example why gas was a natural consequence of trench warfare (cf. the ancient gas attack in the Persian siege of Roman-held Dura [0]). However I concede that this and many of the other posts here are essentially a bit of wordplay. That being said, I am very interested in this topic of discussion which you've brought up, because war is a spectre of human nature which is not palatable to anyone. So even if your fight is a good one, it's going to look bad on TV, which is exactly the thing that gets weaponized by your political opponents in furtherance of their own goals. [0] https://archive.archaeology.org/1001/topten/syria.html https://archive.archaeology.org/1001/topten/syria.html
- czbond 7y ago
  I am not trying to start a back and forth - I had believed that logistics was HOW one goes about implementing a complex, scenario based strategy.

jammygit 7y ago

Was that true in WWII, or is it a more modern emphasis?

fapjacks 7y ago
It's a modern emphasis, considering modern American military science derives heavily from the successes of WW2. I'm particularly interested in this but I don't think this is the crowd, if my other post wasn't very popular.