[CaudwellianDialect]

I think he is a brilliant but outdated strategist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_von_Clausewitz

Musashi, a swordsman, who killed 100 samurai in a single battle - he said strategy mattered like the weapons you had during a war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miyamoto_Musashi

At least some of you must learn Grand Strategy, if you wish to win a war. You can win 1000 battles, but still lose, cause you do not make them into campaign or strategy. The US beat the Vietnamese in every battle - they still lost the war.

Also if you do not know this - but you say you are Warriors you are wrong. You nay be strong physically and in agility. But the US has never produced a general like the Prussian Clausewitz. And in Strategy he is outdated by a lot.

The ability to win a war, starts with the Mind and the Heart, before your strength and reflexes. If you are not even at the level of Clausewitz, how do you expect to beat the people who think beyond him?

You must learn Strategy, not just Tactics. That is the only way natives can win, it matters even more then guns and infrastructure.

Let me give you a physical example of what I talk about. Say the USSR faced the US on the German Front.

The US and its allies to defend Western Europe has to defend 600 kilometers. The USSR to break through can fought with 10,000 tanks, with accompanying artillery, aerial and mechanized infantry forces in wave 1. In wave 2, they will have more. The allies would be overwhelmed in 2-3 hours easy. This is over a 10km width, where they choose. That means a few hundred rocket men from the allies, at most, vs 10-20,000 tanks with support, and the USSR forces have the initiative.

No matter how much better their weapons. That is the power of Operational/Theatrical tactics over Tactical, that is the power of Grand Strategy.

The reason the Allies won, in part, was anticipating this. They purposely left their European front extra weak - and then had small-calibre nukes as a second line defense. That meant nuclear artillery and mines and small bombs. It meant, if the USSR invaded with their tank armies - the Allies, out of weakness, would have to use tiny nukes. The USSR could only respond then with big nukes.

If the Allies had a stronger conventional force, the USSR may have used tiny nukes first, forcing the allies to decide on whether or not to use big nukes.

The strategic consideration then, to use weaker armies, backed by tiny nukes, is what won the Allies the Cold War. It was the use of Strategy over tactics and it worked.

This was because every major West German city was 2-3 hours from that tank roll. So the USSR WOULD take the cities, and either they'd do guerilla resistance (we did not expect Western-German people to have the stomach for massive casualties or nuclear war). So we had to stop them before - that meant a weak front, followed by the fact that the USSR would KNOW we would have to use small nukes after. And it worked.

Other defenses were unlikely to work:

-Front-line defense: As noted, the Allies would have to defend 600 km, whereas the Soviets could attack with a concentrated column of 10,000 tanks over 10 km. That would mean the Allies would be too spread to prevent a Soviet invasion.

-Defense in Depth: The usual counter for a deep penetration attack, especially on the Eastern Front of World War 2 would not have worked. The Soviet targets (major German cities) are simply too close to the Soviet border. Defense in depth involves giving ground to slow enemy momentum and then counter-attacking. As the closest major Western German cities are 30-50 km from the front on average, this would not have worked.

-Guerilla resistance: The Industrialized Western German population and politicians would have to accept casualties and retaliation against civilians for this. Given what we know, it is unlikely the Germans had the stomach for this.

-Counter-Attack: What happens when you launch a land attack against Russia? The answer to this is why such a strategy would not work to defend Western Germany.

Note: Like I said, even beating the USSR conventionally could be problematic, because then the Soviets may well feel compelled to use tactical nukes to save face.

As noted, the solution is to keep the German front weak in conventional forces, but arm them with tactical nukes. The USSR would know, if cornered, the panicked soldiers and commanders may well employ such weapons. That creates a terrible predicament for the USSR.

The above strategy used by NATO was largely derived from analysis based on Clausewitz general theory of strategy (this is partially outdated in the era of 4GW, but still worth knowing if one really wants to understand strategy in terms of both its application to matters of war and matters of peace. )

BTW when I say more people should learn strategy I am not advocating literal violence or acts of war. I believe, even in the area of peaceful politics or legal politics knowing strategy can be of great benefit. Remember, the goal of strategy is not simply to perpetuate war, but ultimately, for any moral person, to establish a beneficial peace.

[nateboussad]

It's purely a matter of determination and willingness to do unpleasant things to end the conflict as rapidly as possible. A coordinated air-ground campaign a fraction of the size of the first gulf war would mop ISIS up in short
order. Remember how "fierce" Sadam's Republican guards were supposed to
be? After a few B-52 arc light strikes and encounters with A-10s they
were surrendering en mass to CNN news crews. ISIS is these same guys.
The problem is our guys aren't there and the turds on the ground win
when the toilet paper refuses to engage.