5 ms·
"We have been fighting on this planet for 5000 years and we should take advantage of their experience." Lessons in better tactics ain't the most important lear
by logjam 13y ago
"We have been fighting on this planet for 5000 years and we should take advantage of their experience."
Lessons in better tactics ain't the most important learning to draw from that reading, General.
- PakG1 13y agoIf war is a necessary course of action, then it is possibly the most important lesson. War is of course the least desirable course of action. But his job isn't to find peace without war. His job is to do his job (win wars) if called upon. The people responsible for peace are the political leaders. If they fail, they turn to the military. Yes, sometimes they turn to the military without exploring all avenues to peace. Whether or not those are good decisions can be long debated. But do not put the onus for peace on him. Rather, be thankful that he is capable to do his job. The responsibility for peace lays on the shoulders of political leaders and diplomats. Quoting the only line that ever stuck with me from Alien vs. Predator: "Why do you have a gun?" "It's like a condom. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it but not have it."
- cerebrum 13y ago> If war is a necessary course of action, then it is possibly the most important lesson. I think all wars since WWI were probably unnecessary but they were fought for economic reasons. It was all about money.
- PakG1 13y agoLook at my second paragraph. :)
- derefr 13y ago> Yes, sometimes they turn to the military without exploring all avenues to peace. Whether or not those are good decisions can be long debated. But do not put the onus for peace on him. What about all the military coups throughout history, where a general decided the politico commanding him wasn't a very good leader, and took his place?
- PakG1 13y agoSure, in that case, yeah. But we're talking about a US general in the US military where that hasn't happened. Your comment expands the scope and context of the conversation, and obviously conclusions wouldn't necessarily be the same in that case.
- jeffcouturier 13y agoWe've also been fighting for much longer than 5,000 years. It sounds like the General is a young-Earth creationist which, if true, doesn't give me much faith in his intellectual capacity.
- clarkm 13y agoDid you not read the rest of the paragraph? > Do you not adapt because you cannot conceptualize faster than the enemy’s adaptation? (Darwin has a pretty good theory about the outcome for those who cannot adapt to changing circumstance — in the information age things can change rather abruptly and at warp speed, especially the moral high ground which our regimented thinkers cede far too quickly in our recent fights.)
- jeremyjh 13y agoIts an article about books about war. Have you read any good books from 6,000 years ago lately?
- will_work4tears 13y agoExcept he doesn't say "we've been recording fighting for 5,000 years," he says "we've been fighting for 5,000 years." There's no ambiguity there, unless you're delusional.
- LanceH 13y agoFighting wars? or just fighting? His context was about fighting wars, not just a couple guys running into each other and throwing a few punches.
- PakG1 13y agoToday I learned: even allegedly smart posters on HN can be unable to understand context.
- omegant 13y agoThat´s why sometimes silence is the only viable option, any other one only receives mental onanism as a response, the conversations ends in the same place but with the OP mentally exhausted.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- will_work4tears 13y agoToday I learned: Fighting has only existed for 5000 years. Before that it was Haku Matata.