5 ms·

I used to work with Soldiers a lot (I helped build training simulations) and was often amazed by their perspectives. I remember theoretical discussions (Q: when

I used to work with Soldiers a lot (I helped build training simulations) and was often amazed by their perspectives. I remember theoretical discussions (Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is) alongside powerful raw emotions (Dutch peacekeepers unable to intervene in the Srebrenica massacre). On one project, where things were technically crashing around our ears, I was staggered by the emotional and practical support from soldiers who understood that I was on their side, more than I’ve ever experienced from civvie project managers. It's the closest I've come to crying with gratitude. That and the attitude: when you fall down, we will laugh, but we will help you up. Respect.

Terr_ 2y ago
> when he thinks he is Or when they do not think they are defeated, but their goals now align with your own. > But Miles had seen it complete in Metzov's eyes sixty seconds earlier. It reminded him of that definition of his father's. A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind. The mind was the first and final battleground, the stuff in between was just noise. -- The Vor Game by Lois McMaster Bujold
rightbyte 2y ago
> Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is Well, giving up is taboo in the military. As is fragging etc. I think there is a big correlation between being defeated and thinking you are. The quote seems to imply a one way causality. Like as if the realization causes the defeat.
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  "Well, giving up is taboo in the military" The quote was about the 'enemy'. Many civilian governments will end a war, before the military would have. I'm sure there are a lot of examples in both directions, they should have just walked away sooner, or they should have stuck it out and all died gloriously. Example: The German Military didn't want to end WW1, wasn't it the civilian government. But, weren't they actually really beat? Or Vietnam. Did we lose? Or were we convinced we had lost. It is possible to be 'defeated' but just not accept it. The never give up attitude leads to extra deaths. What if Japan had this attitude, and we just kept dropping atomic bombs until the country was gone. Guess goes back to some other quote I can't cite. War is easier to start than to end.
  - tristramb 2y ago
    "The German Military didn't want to end WW1." Not true. Following the breaking of the Hindenberg line on 1918-09-29 Ludendorff realised that further resistance would likely lead to communist revolution in Germany. On 1918-10-01 he explained this to the heads of department of his General Staff and said he had therefore asked the Kaiser and Chancellor to ask Woodrow Wilson for an armistice based on his Fourteen Points. It took six more weeks for the armistice to be agreed partly because Ludendorff was trying to ensure that someone else could be blamed the defeat. Its all in "On a Knife Edge - How Germany lost the First World War" by Holger Aflerbach, 2022.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      You're correct. I was referring more to the general attitude of the 'country'. There were a lot of people upset that Germany had 'given up', including rank and file. And a lot of that resentment went into WW2. Of course lot of details being skipped here. Maybe Vietnam is better example. One could argue that after the Tet Offensive, that the North was out of resources and the US could have won. But the Tet Offensive had convinced the US that there was no winning, so by 'believing' they had lost, they lost. "Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is" I was just commenting on the original quote, that there is large part of psychology to winning/losing. If you can make the enemy 'think they lost' then you have won, even if it doesn't look like it on paper by the number of units, position, etc...
- sandworm101 2y ago
  >> Well, giving up is taboo in the military No. It is only taboo at basic training. Mission-focused delegation of authority in modern militaries specifically adresses this. Leaders are encouraged to take initiative, which often means abandoning a failing plan. The ability to quickly recognize failure, "give up" and reattack a problem is what separates western forces from the drills-based approach of the post-soviet block. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics (Even at basic training, giving up is a thing. The only true failure at basic is getting oneself or others injured.)
  - kloop 2y ago
    That's not giving up in the sense it's being used here. Giving up would involve no longer attacking the problem, not switching tactics
- The_Colonel 2y ago
  You interpret the question in a tactical context, but I sense it was in a strategic sense. e. g. US thought it defeated Taliban by the end of 2001, Taliban certainly didn't think so. Similar thing with Palestinians vs. Israel.
  - KineticLensman 2y ago
    > You interpret the question in a tactical context, but I sense it was in a strategic sense. Exactly. The (British) soldier who answered this was channelling Sun Tzu
  - 082349872349872 2y ago
    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Page_29 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Pa... > ...such is man, that most individuals will stop fighting at some point short of extinction; that point is reached when one of two things happens: > Either, the defeated people may lose their sense of organization, fail to decide on leaders and methods, and give up because they can no longer fight as a group. This happened to the American Southerners in April, 1865. The President and Cabinet of the Confederate States of America got on the train at Richmond; the men who got off farther down the line were "refugees." Something happened to them and to the people about them, so that Mr. Davis no longer thought of himself as President Davis, and other people no longer accepted his commands. This almost happened in Germany in 1945 except for Admiral Doenitz. > Or, the defeated people can retain their sense of organization, and can use their political organization for the purpose of getting in touch with the enemy, arranging the end of the war, and preparing, through organized means, to comply with the wishes of the conquerors. That happened when Britain acknowledged American independence; when the Boers recognized British sovereignty; when Finland signed what Russia had dictated; and when Japan gave up. Note that Linebarger claims the high point of his PsyWar career to have been figuring out a formula by which outgunned chinese during the Korean War* could stop fighting, in a way that seemed to them not cowardly but honourable. * a conflict which has yet to reach either of the endings above
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Hm ye maybe. But in the 'tactical sense' we have routing, which kinda is applicable of a self-fulfilling prophecy of believing you are defeated, makes you defeated. Maybe not very relevant today though.

Terr_ 2y ago

> when he thinks he is Or when they do not think they are defeated, but their goals now align with your own. > But Miles had seen it complete in Metzov's eyes sixty seconds earlier. It reminded him of that definition of his father's. A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind. The mind was the first and final battleground, the stuff in between was just noise. -- The Vor Game by Lois McMaster Bujold

rightbyte 2y ago

> Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is Well, giving up is taboo in the military. As is fragging etc. I think there is a big correlation between being defeated and thinking you are. The quote seems to imply a one way causality. Like as if the realization causes the defeat.

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"Well, giving up is taboo in the military" The quote was about the 'enemy'. Many civilian governments will end a war, before the military would have. I'm sure there are a lot of examples in both directions, they should have just walked away sooner, or they should have stuck it out and all died gloriously. Example: The German Military didn't want to end WW1, wasn't it the civilian government. But, weren't they actually really beat? Or Vietnam. Did we lose? Or were we convinced we had lost. It is possible to be 'defeated' but just not accept it. The never give up attitude leads to extra deaths. What if Japan had this attitude, and we just kept dropping atomic bombs until the country was gone. Guess goes back to some other quote I can't cite. War is easier to start than to end.
- tristramb 2y ago
  "The German Military didn't want to end WW1." Not true. Following the breaking of the Hindenberg line on 1918-09-29 Ludendorff realised that further resistance would likely lead to communist revolution in Germany. On 1918-10-01 he explained this to the heads of department of his General Staff and said he had therefore asked the Kaiser and Chancellor to ask Woodrow Wilson for an armistice based on his Fourteen Points. It took six more weeks for the armistice to be agreed partly because Ludendorff was trying to ensure that someone else could be blamed the defeat. Its all in "On a Knife Edge - How Germany lost the First World War" by Holger Aflerbach, 2022.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    You're correct. I was referring more to the general attitude of the 'country'. There were a lot of people upset that Germany had 'given up', including rank and file. And a lot of that resentment went into WW2. Of course lot of details being skipped here. Maybe Vietnam is better example. One could argue that after the Tet Offensive, that the North was out of resources and the US could have won. But the Tet Offensive had convinced the US that there was no winning, so by 'believing' they had lost, they lost. "Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is" I was just commenting on the original quote, that there is large part of psychology to winning/losing. If you can make the enemy 'think they lost' then you have won, even if it doesn't look like it on paper by the number of units, position, etc...
sandworm101 2y ago
>> Well, giving up is taboo in the military No. It is only taboo at basic training. Mission-focused delegation of authority in modern militaries specifically adresses this. Leaders are encouraged to take initiative, which often means abandoning a failing plan. The ability to quickly recognize failure, "give up" and reattack a problem is what separates western forces from the drills-based approach of the post-soviet block. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission-type_tactics (Even at basic training, giving up is a thing. The only true failure at basic is getting oneself or others injured.)
- kloop 2y ago
  That's not giving up in the sense it's being used here. Giving up would involve no longer attacking the problem, not switching tactics
The_Colonel 2y ago
You interpret the question in a tactical context, but I sense it was in a strategic sense. e. g. US thought it defeated Taliban by the end of 2001, Taliban certainly didn't think so. Similar thing with Palestinians vs. Israel.
- KineticLensman 2y ago
  > You interpret the question in a tactical context, but I sense it was in a strategic sense. Exactly. The (British) soldier who answered this was channelling Sun Tzu
- 082349872349872 2y ago
  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Page_29 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Pa... > ...such is man, that most individuals will stop fighting at some point short of extinction; that point is reached when one of two things happens: > Either, the defeated people may lose their sense of organization, fail to decide on leaders and methods, and give up because they can no longer fight as a group. This happened to the American Southerners in April, 1865. The President and Cabinet of the Confederate States of America got on the train at Richmond; the men who got off farther down the line were "refugees." Something happened to them and to the people about them, so that Mr. Davis no longer thought of himself as President Davis, and other people no longer accepted his commands. This almost happened in Germany in 1945 except for Admiral Doenitz. > Or, the defeated people can retain their sense of organization, and can use their political organization for the purpose of getting in touch with the enemy, arranging the end of the war, and preparing, through organized means, to comply with the wishes of the conquerors. That happened when Britain acknowledged American independence; when the Boers recognized British sovereignty; when Finland signed what Russia had dictated; and when Japan gave up. Note that Linebarger claims the high point of his PsyWar career to have been figuring out a formula by which outgunned chinese during the Korean War* could stop fighting, in a way that seemed to them not cowardly but honourable. * a conflict which has yet to reach either of the endings above
- rightbyte 2y ago
  Hm ye maybe. But in the 'tactical sense' we have routing, which kinda is applicable of a self-fulfilling prophecy of believing you are defeated, makes you defeated. Maybe not very relevant today though.