Warfare for Dummies
This post is in response to a challenge by Johan Goldberg (here) , as brought to my attention by the denizens of Castle Argghhh! (here.)
Remember that poster from the '60s that proclaimed "War is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things"?
For decades, the far left has avoided the subject of war because it makes them uncomfortable. Because the thought of war is so abhorrent to them, they find it difficult to conceive that other people might actually want to start a war to promote their own goals (unless they are Republicans.) From personal observation, this unwillingness to address the subject rationally cripples any serious discussion of the GWOT with these folk. Because they are unprepared to discuss the nuts and bolts (logistics, tactics, strategy, etc.) of war, or the mindset of the warrior (honor, duty, courage, etc.), or any other serious aspect of waging war; they default to the war is evil and its all our fault for being imperialists argument.
I've always thought there should be something similar to the SAT tests for anyone wishing to run for public office. There would be no minimum passing grade, but candidates should be required to post their scores. I would happily extend the offer to political hacks and opinion journalists on a voluntary basis. Can you imagine listening to some wonk on TV expounding on how President Bush is bungling the conduct of the war while his lowest 20th percentile score on military theory is flashing on the screen. Yeah, yeah, I know--a guy can dream can't he.
I know you can't make the horse drink, but it would be really nice if some of the critics of the war would read Warfare for Dummies before opening their yap. Then they might have some slight concept of the term "total warfare." It could even dawn on them that they are just as much a part of the war effort as our servicemen in Iraq.
Remember that poster from the '60s that proclaimed "War is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things"?
For decades, the far left has avoided the subject of war because it makes them uncomfortable. Because the thought of war is so abhorrent to them, they find it difficult to conceive that other people might actually want to start a war to promote their own goals (unless they are Republicans.) From personal observation, this unwillingness to address the subject rationally cripples any serious discussion of the GWOT with these folk. Because they are unprepared to discuss the nuts and bolts (logistics, tactics, strategy, etc.) of war, or the mindset of the warrior (honor, duty, courage, etc.), or any other serious aspect of waging war; they default to the war is evil and its all our fault for being imperialists argument.
I've always thought there should be something similar to the SAT tests for anyone wishing to run for public office. There would be no minimum passing grade, but candidates should be required to post their scores. I would happily extend the offer to political hacks and opinion journalists on a voluntary basis. Can you imagine listening to some wonk on TV expounding on how President Bush is bungling the conduct of the war while his lowest 20th percentile score on military theory is flashing on the screen. Yeah, yeah, I know--a guy can dream can't he.
I know you can't make the horse drink, but it would be really nice if some of the critics of the war would read Warfare for Dummies before opening their yap. Then they might have some slight concept of the term "total warfare." It could even dawn on them that they are just as much a part of the war effort as our servicemen in Iraq.
posted by 74 (William Powell) at
8:45 PM
