Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Learning From History, or not

I have not heard this point of view before this post. Someone has to think independently, I guess.

The United States was started by the freedom fighters being willing to break the rules. Before the American Revolutionary War, wars were fought by groups of men, standing in the open, forming squares or lines to fight calvary or infantry, respectively. Our patriots, the founders of our country, were willing to adopt the tactics of those savages, the redskins. They were willing to hide behind walls, and trees, and "break" the current rules of war.

By doing so, the revolutionaries of America were able to defeat a superior force. The English were better trained. They were better equipped. They were supported by a superpower. Yet, the colonists were able to come out on top.

Granted, the British of the time were distracted by the Spanish and the French. In fact, the French were willing to support our bid for independence by military and tactical support. The Spanish kept the British otherwise occupied on "the continent."

Now, we have a relatively poorly trained and poorly equipped force who is willing to break the rules of civility and modern warfare to achieve their ends. Are they hiding behind walls and trees? No.

They are hiding behind civilians and women and children and icons of religion, such as mosques.

And the Americans are unwilling to break the same rules. We are fighting zealots who are not wearing uniforms and who hide amongst innocents.

If we do not change our tactics, and kill or destroy whatever or whoever our opponents use as shields, we are certain to lose in the end. Having a weapon capable of winning the battle, but being unwilling to use it, makes the weapon completely useless.

Yes, I am advocating a complete and utter dispensation of the "civil" rules of warfare. I am advocating the complete and utter dedication to the destruction of those who are sworn to defeat us.

Adopting my plan will result in the deaths of many, many innocents in the lands of the aggressors, however, polls and other indicators have shown that these humans overwhelming support our attackers. Therefore, their deaths and injuries and losses are their own fault. Out our enemies, or feel the wrath of our might.

Or else we lose.

I hope our "leaders" will realize this very, very critical point before it is too late.

11 Comments:

Blogger Lee said...

Everyone is running around trying to be so 'politically correct' these days they dare not offend anyone! Let's hope it's not detrimental to the rest of us!

Our 'leaders, as you so aptly described them, are too busy adjusting their ties and being complimentary to each other to face the reality of what is occurring on our doorsteps.

I agree...I hope it's not too late when they wake up!

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 10:50:00 AM CDT  
Anonymous hamous said...

We have been willing to fight the necessary wars in the past. Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are stark examples of that. Its the cultural marxists we call liberals that have turned us into milquetoast. Rich, white, self-loathing liberals have convinced the populace that we no longer need to fight those wars. If we just try and understand our adversaries we can all live in perfect harmony. They just want to be our friends, after all.

My biggest fear is that the sleeping giant will not awaken until a truly monumental disaster befalls us, an event that will dwarf 9/11.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 7:01:00 PM CDT  
Blogger Don said...

Welcome, hamous. Good to have you posting here.

What makes you think that even a truly monumental disaster will wake us up?

Our "leaders" are not very smart. It is hard to believe this is the same country with ex-leaders like Jefferson, Madison, and Adams.

We need more such patriots as these men were. Men willing to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor for the good of the people and the country.

Now, they're willing to pledge their virtue, their principles, and their sacred campaign chest for any personal gain and re-election.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 8:55:00 PM CDT  
Anonymous hamous said...

I just can't believe our citizens are that blind. I guess I could be wrong. I have absolutely no faith in anyone in the Democratic party. I watched several congressmen over the last few days spin the thwarting of the recent terror threat in Britain as a failure by the Bush administration to protect us! This from the same jerks that cried over mining phone numbers of people talking to terrorists. Maybe its Bush Derangement Syndrome and they'll have better judgement once he's out of office.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 at 9:15:00 PM CDT  
Blogger NAT PIERCE said...

I think we have some leaders willing to do what is necessary but to achieve success must frame their actions so that liberals cannot thwart their intent.

The "data mining" is one pro active example. Now stopped.

Today 8/17/06 a President Jimmy Carter appointed judge in Michigan ruled the wire tapping done by the NSA illegal.

Taking all the weeds that have been sown by liberals out of this garden will be a hard and long task.

Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 5:12:00 PM CDT  
Blogger Don said...

Welcome, as well, Nat Pierce.

I have no problem with much of what we are doing.

My problems deal with what we are not doing. We aren't fighting this war as a war.

Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 6:57:00 PM CDT  
Blogger NAT PIERCE said...

We aren't fighting this as a war because we can't.
The President cannot declare war without the consent of congress. The dhimocrits would turn the proposal into the biggest sideshow yet and the gang of seven or show would not help. Look at what Clinton has been saying the last couple of days and the Jimmy Carter interview in Der Spiegel.

It could not be done.

Thursday, August 17, 2006 at 11:39:00 PM CDT  
Blogger Don said...

Nat

We could fight Iran as a war. Iran declared war on us back in either 1979 or 1980 (I think it was 1979).

At the time, we ignored them. Maybe it's time to return the favor, at least until they are set back about 400 years in the nuclear ambitions.

We can't have a true war against an ideology, no matter how twisted the idea. Barring that, then we should eliminate the threat to the American people.

"Support the general welfare" wasn't meant to mean giveaway checks, a la LBJ. It was meant to mean, "protect the public from harm."

The government is not doing their job, but when has it ever done so?

Friday, August 18, 2006 at 7:38:00 AM CDT  
Blogger gtotracker said...

The redskin tactics initially used by the colonists did not defeat the Brits. Those tactics failed for themselves eventually. Only after the colonists were willing to uniform, organize, and meet the Brits on the field did the Brits call it quits. The colonists did not even have to win a battle, just fight until the Crown decided it was not worth the expense. Was it Nataniel Greene who said 'we fight, we get beat, we get up and fight again'?

If the colonists had just kept shooting from behind walls, Tarleton would have beat them. He comes across as a cold blooded s.o.b, but he had the right strategy for his war. Find the enemy, surround them, and kill them. If they grabbed the family and ran into a church, too bad.

Sunday, August 20, 2006 at 8:28:00 AM CDT  
Blogger Don said...

gtotracker

We use the "redskin" tactics today. In fact, we build even better "rocks and trees," called bunkers, to hide behind.

Much of what Wellington did to keep Napoleon at bay was to hide on the FAR side of the hillside when Napoleon started his artillery attacks.

Blucher, Wellington's ally, instead said that it demoralized the men not to see the opponent, so he put his men on the front side of the hill, even during bombardment. Who do you think had better success?

Not adapting to your opponents' tactics will lose every time.

We are still fighting this as a war with civilians and enemies. Except our enemies are pretending to be civilians until they decide to pick up their rifles. We need to be a little less careful of the enemies' well-being, and a lot more careful of our own boys' well-being.

Monday, August 21, 2006 at 10:06:00 AM CDT  
Blogger gtotracker said...

Well, hard to argue with what worked but Wellington was also lucky. His reverse slope deployment screened him from bombardment yet once the French cavalry charged (they once did that sort of thing) Wellington was blind to what approached from the French side of the hill. If Nappy followed with infantry then Waterloo has a different ending.

But Wellington changed, Nappy did not and went to build small roads on small islands.

Moving up to the Second Boer War, only case coming to mind where one side made a humane (don't choke yet) effort to prevent civilian casualties while removing them from aiding the war effort.

Round up all the non combatants and concentrate them in secured areas. Don't wait till they start keeling over to supply them. Then everything left moving on the veld is fair game. Shoot it. If it is not a combatant then it is probably edible.

Next build a series of bunkers connected with barbed wire until the country is divided in two. Then keep building until into fourths. Continue this process until no force of any size can move without being observed. Create mobile garrisons to support bunkers if they are attacked. The Boers finally tired of running and quit.

If there is a point to this, the Boers joined the British in WW1. Two of their leaders became British generals.

And then dismantle the bunker system and reassemble it along the Rio Grande.

Monday, August 21, 2006 at 6:33:00 PM CDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home