Archive for January, 2007
Military strategy is a collective name for planning the conduct of warfare. Derived from the Greek strategos, strategy was seen as the “art of the general“. Military strategy deals with the planning and conduct of campaigns, the movement and disposition of forces, and the deception of the enemy. The father of modern strategic study, Carl von Clausewitz, defined military strategy as “the employment of battles to gain the end of war.” Hence, he gave the preeminence to political aims over military goals, ensuring civilian control of the military. Military strategy was one of a triumvirate of “arts” or “sciences” that govern the conduct of warfare; the others being tactics, the execution of plans and manœuvering of forces in battle, and logistics, the maintenance of an army.
Fundamentals of military strategy
- “Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, but let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances.” – Sun Tzu
Strategy and tactics are closely related. Both deal with distance, time and force but strategy is large scale while tactics are small scale. Originally strategy was understood to govern the prelude to a battle while tactics controlled its execution. However, in the world wars of the 20th century, the distinction between manoeuvre and battle, strategy and tactics, became blurred. Tactics that were once the province of a company of cavalry would be applied to a panzer army.
In its purest form, strategy dealt solely with military issues. In earlier societies, a king or political leader was often the same person as the military leader. If he was not, the distance of communication between the political and the military leader was small. But as the need of a professional army grew, the bounds between the politicians and the military came to be recognized. In many cases, it was decided that there was a need for a separation. As French statesman Georges Clemenceau said, “war is too important a business to be left to soldiers.” This gave rise to the concept of the grand strategy which encompasses the management of the resources of an entire nation in the conduct of warfare. In the environment of the grand strategy, the military component is largely reduced to operational strategy — the planning and control of large military units such as corps and divisions. As the size and number of the armies grew and the technology to communicate and control improved, the difference between “military strategy” and “grand strategy” shrank.
Fundamental to grand strategy is the diplomacy through which a nation might forge alliances or pressure another nation into compliance, thereby achieving victory without resorting to combat. Another element of grand strategy is the management of the post-war peace. As Clausewitz stated, a successful military strategy may be a means to an end, but it is not an end in itself. There are numerous examples in history where victory on the battlefield has not translated into long term peace and security.
That last line seems very appropriate in todays world; P. Sperry
Military doctrine is a level of military planning between national strategy and unit-level tactics, techniques, and procedures. It provides a shared way of thinking about military problems, but does not direct how military problems will be solved. It does not provide specific steps to solve a problem, nor does it direct a commander to take any action. Commanders are always expected to exercise their own judgment in carrying out their missions.
Doctrine may be shared among the armed services of a nation as well as be specific to a branch. In addition, doctrine may be shared between several nations.
In general, doctrinal documents state:
A nation’s national military objectives
The general mission of the armed service or branch (“who we are”)
General concepts of how this service or branch shall perform its mission (“what we do”)
Concerns and cautions in carrying out this mission (“how we should do it”)
Historical examples (“how we did it in the past”)
Military doctrine changes, or should change, as the nature of warfare and the specific threat to a nation changes.
This is a LONG piece, and it does start off with a slight bit of Bush bashing, but it rapidly stops as the author goes into great detail regarding the business dealings of the Clinton’s… Please, if you’re going to look at it, read it ALL, it is very enlightening, and I honestly think Hillary believes these matters are long forgotten… Well, they’re NOT…
What You Won’t Find in the Clinton Museum and Library
by: Sam Smith
BILL CLINTON AND GEORGE BUSH are the two most corrupt individuals to have occupied the White House in modern times. While Bush has clearly proved more venal and deadly and far more destructive of the American republic, it is a fair reading of history to say that Clinton was the warm up band for George Bush, towit:CLINTON, WITH NO LITTLE HELP from the Democratic Leadership Council, discredited and destroyed long standing principles of social democracy that had guided the party since the New Deal. Instead he offered the public GOP Lite. As Harry Truman pointed out, given a choice between a real Republican and someone who talks like one, the public will favor the real one.
CLINTON NEUTERED PROGRESSIVE organizations ranging from Americans for Democratic Action to women’s and black groups. Early in his administration they swore a loyalty that not only blinded them to his faults and corruption but left their brains devoid of ideas and arguments with which to take on the conservatives.
CLINTON DRASTICALLY LOWERED the standards of national politics with the help of a Washington establishment that rushed to his assistance as each scandal developed. The result was the Arkanization of the capital under which the only standard became whether you could get away with it. This opened the door wider for the even more venal neo-cons and their candidate, George Bush.
CLINTON WAS NOWHERE NEAR as good a politician as the Washington media and political establishment has claimed and the myth has proved to be a destructive fantasy for the party. Bill Clinton got 43.9% of the vote in 1992, while Michael Dukakis – purportedly the worst of all candidate – got 45%. True Clinton was up against Ross Perot who got 19% as well as Bush, but Clinton might well have lost were it not for Perot, in which case he would have joined Michael Dukakis in the hall of shame. Clinton won a majority in only two state-like entities: Arkansas and DC. In only 12 other states was he able to get ever 45%. Dukakis, meanwhile, got over 50% in 11 states and got over 45% in 12 others.
THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY by Bill Clinton was the worst experienced under any incumbent president since Grover Cleveland. Here are some of the stats:
– GOP seats gained in House after Clinton became president: 48– GOP seats gained in Senate after Clinton became president: 8
– GOP governorships gained after Clinton became president: 11
– GOP state legislative seats gained since Clinton became president: 1,254 as of 1998
– State legislatures taken over by GOP after Clinton became president: 9
– Democrat officeholders who became Republicans since Clinton became president: 439 as of 1998
– Republican officeholders who became Democrats: 3
CLINTON’S SCANDALS, going far beyond Monica Lewinski, were a major liability for Al Gore in 2000, far more so than Ralph Nader. According to the 2000 exits polls:
– 60% of voters disapproved of Clinton as a person– 59% – including some who approved of him – disliked him
– 68% said he would go down in the history books for his scandals rather than for his leadership
– 44% thought the Clinton scandals were important or somewhat important. In contrast, only 28% thought Bush’s drunk driving arrest was important or somewhat important.
– 15% of those who had voted for Clinton in 1996 voted for Bush in 2000.
Can we STAND another Clinton administration
Stolen from http://texasfred.net/?p=936
Clinton will never get my vote simple as all that. Why?
- Clinton is a sexist.
- Clinton hates Our Military.
- Clinton hates the Constitution on many fronts, and it only takes one to lose my vote.
U.S. Army, Field Manual 100-5, 1994 (Unclassified) … Combat power is created by combining the elements of maneuver, firepower, protection, and leadership. Overwhelming combat power is the ability to focus sufficient force to ensure success and deny the enemy any chance of escape or effective retaliation. … Overwhelming combat power is achieved when all combat elements are violently brought to bear quickly, giving the enemy no opportunity to respond with coordinated or effective opposition. … Commanders seek to apply overwhelming combat power to achieve victory at minimal cost. … They attempt to defeat the enemy’s combat power by interfering with his ability to maneuver, apply firepower, or provide protection. Commanders multiply the effects of combat power through the integrated efforts of combat, CS, and CSS arms, as well as the forces of the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy. … Four primary elements – maneuver, firepower, protection, and leadership – combine to create combat power – the ability to fight. Their effective application and sustainment, in concert with one another, will decide the outcome of campaigns, major operations, battles, and engagements. Leaders integrate maneuver, firepower, and protection capabilities in a variety of combinations appropriate to the situation. … Maneuver Maneuver is the movement of combat forces to gain positional advantage, usually in order to deliver – or threaten delivery of – direct and indirect fires. Maneuver is the means of positioning forces at decisive points to achieve surprise, psychological shock, physical momentum, massed effects, and moral dominance. Successful maneuver requires anticipation and mental agility. … Firepower Firepower provides destructive force; it is essential in defeating the enemy’s ability and will to fight. It is the amount of fire that may be delivered by a position, unit, or weapon system. Firepower may be either direct or indirect. Integrated as part of the commanders concept, firepower includes the fire support functions that may be used separately from or in combination with maneuver to destroy the enemy. The extended range and precision of direct and indirect fire weapon systems, using laser-guided munitions and integrated target acquisition systems, make firepower more lethal than ever before. Firepower can be integrated with smoke or electronic warfare systems to disrupt or disorganize the enemy, producing specific physical and psychological effects. … Protection Protection conserves the fighting potential of a force so that commanders can apply it at the decisive time and place. Protection has four components: The first component of protection is OPSEC [Operations Security] and deception operations, which help keep the enemy from locating friendly units. Skillful reconnaissance and counterreconnaissance aid force protection … Proper dispersion helps reduce losses from enemy fires as does the use of camouflage, discipline, counterreconnaissance, security operations, and fortified fighting positions. These measures help commanders protect their force from enemy observation and are used throughout the conduct of operations. … These are mostly passive measures, but they should also be combined with such active measures as cunning, guile, and craftiness. … The second component of protection keeps soldiers healthy and maintains their fighting morale. It includes guarding their equipment and supplies from loss or damage. Tactical commanders take care of their soldiers’ basic health needs and prevent unnecessary exposure to debilitating conditions. They consider the welfare, morale, and spirit of soldiers as they build cohesion and esprit in units. They supervise preventive maintenance and quick repair of equipment. … The third component of protection, safety, is part of all combat operations and operations other than war. Commanders at all levels should embrace safety as a principal element in all they do. Sustained, high-tempo operations can put soldiers at risk. Strong command and high levels of discipline and training lessen those risks … Safety in training, planning, and operations is crucial to successful combat operations and the preservation of combat power, … The fourth component of protection is the avoidance of fratricide – the unintentional killing or wounding of friendly personnel by fire. The destructive power and range of modern weapons, coupled with the high intensity and rapid tempo of the battlefield, increase the likelihood of fratricide. Commanders must be aware of those tactical maneuvers and terrain and weather conditions that increase the probability of fratricide and take measures to reduce those probabilities … Commanders seek to lower the probability of fratricide without overly constricting boldness and audacity in combat. … Leadership The most essential dynamic of combat power is competent and confident officer and noncommissioned officer leadership. Leaders inspire soldiers with the will to win. They provide purpose, direction, and motivation in combat. Leaders determine how maneuver, firepower, and protection are used, ensuring these elements are effectively employed against the enemy. Thus, no peacetime duty is more important for leaders than studying their profession, understanding the human dimension of leadership, becoming tactically and technically proficient, and preparing for war. These help them understand the effects of battle on soldiers, units, and leaders. The regular study and teaching of military doctrine, theory, history, and biographies of military leaders are invaluable. … Commanders are selected for their tasks because of their moral character, firm willpower, and professional ability. They must imbue their commands with their ideas, desires, energy, and methods. … Professional competence, personality, and the will of strong commanders represent a significant part of any unit’s combat power. … all leaders must demonstrate character and ethical standards. Leaders are first soldiers, and they must know and understand their subordinates. They must act with courage and conviction in battle. Leaders build trust and teamwork. During operations they know where to be to make decisions or to influence the action by their personal presence. … Strong leaders and trained, dedicated soldiers are the greatest combat multipliers. When opposing forces are nearly equal, the moral qualities of soldiers and leaders … provide the decisive edge. … Once the force is engaged, superior combat power derives from the courage and competence of soldiers, the excellence of their training, the capability of their equipment, the soundness of their combined arms doctrine, and, above all, the quality of their leadership. …
Five minutes and six responses! Okay, I will start a thread!
I find it truly amazing how many hits this site gets. How many private emails I receive with questions about this or that. So few post responses…
Anyways, several have asked that I start writing on strategy and tactics, as in Military Science. Let me know folks, if there is enough interest I will take on the task. I don’t talk about my background as many are aware and if you are not good to go with it, then you do not have a need to know. My work will show where of I speak.
St. George Tucker’s Second Amendment: Deconstructing ‘The True Palladium of Liberty’
Download the Paper (PDF format) – October 11, 2006
Tell a colleague about it.
Printing Tips: Select ‘print as image’ in the Acrobat print dialog if you have trouble printing.
St. George Tucker, known as “America’s Blackstone” and author of the first commentary on the Constitution in 1803, described the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms as “the true palladium of liberty.” In a recent symposium at the William and Mary College of Law, Prof. Saul Cornell presented Tucker as an adherent of the view that the Amendment guarantees a collective or civic right to bear arms in the militia, not an individual right to have arms for self defense or as a dissuasion to tyranny. In response, my article scrutinizes Tucker’s work in detail to demonstrate that Tucker did indeed interpret the Amendment as protecting individual rights, and that Tucker’s views are a significant reflection of the intent of the Framers.
Constitutional Law; Law and Society; Legal History
Stephen P. Halbrook, “St. George Tucker’s Second Amendment: Deconstructing ‘The True Palladium of Liberty’” (October 11, 2006). ExpressO Preprint Series. Working Paper 1824.
The work noted above is must reading for anyone concerned about the meaning of the Second Amendment. As the anti gun Democrat machine lies dormant until they control all three branches of government it behooves all of us to actually think about todays world.
- As reported by the Congress Hezbola has succeeded in placing agents within the United States.
- The Drug War has fueled gang violence in the cities and towns of America.
- The Supreme Court has ruled that police have no duty to protect you.
I submit that the above is reason (any of them alone much less in concert) to relax or abolish the laws on the books restricting armaments that civilians can own and possess. Terrorists will not be applying for Class 3 permits for their full auto AK 47’s. Nor will the drug gangsters, and the Police will still only act after the fact.
I would go so far as to offer, if not require firearms safety and defense, including basic tactics for dealing with armed attacks in High School curriculum’s. As for concealed carry; Can someone, anyone, please adequately explain why a person needs a permit for a “Right?”
We will soon be confronted in our very streets with armed opponents. We need to prepare for when, not if, it happens.
WASHINGTON — A young Marine who fell on a hand grenade in Iraq two years ago, giving his life to save comrades, was given the Medal of Honor Thursday by President Bush, becoming only the second Iraq war recipient of the prestigious award.Bush awarded the medal, the nation’s highest military decoration, to the late Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham of Scio, N.Y. Dunham’s parents accepted on their son’s behalf during the somber ceremony in the White House’s East Room.
“He was the guy who signed on for an extra two months in Iraq so he could stay with his squad. As he explained it, he wanted to ‘make sure that everyone makes it home alive,’ ” the president said. “Corporal Dunham took that promise seriously and would give his own life to make it good.”
Immediately after, Bush left for an Army fort in Georgia that must now send troops off to Iraq more quickly than expected.
Thursday’s agenda of military themes came as Bush’s new Iraq war plan faced a showdown with the Democrats who lead Congress and oppose the plan’s centerpiece — another escalation in the American force level. In a speech to the nation Wednesday night, Bush said he would send 21,500 additional U.S. forces to Iraq to try to stabilize Baghdad and troubled Anbar province, despite objections from lawmakers, some of his own generals and the public.
In April 2004, Dunham, a 22-year-old corporal, received a report that a Marine convoy had been ambushed, according to a Marine Corps account. Dunham led his men to the site near Husaybah, halting a convoy of departing cars. An insurgent in one of the vehicles grabbed him by the throat when he went to search the car and the two fought. A grenade was dropped, and Dunham covered the explosive with his Kevlar helmet, which along with his chest plate absorbed some of the blast.
He died a few days later.
“I’ve lost my son but he became a part of history,” Dunham’s mother, Deb, said after the ceremony. “It still hurts as a parent, but the pride that you have from knowing he did the right thing makes it easier.”
At Fort Benning, Ga., Bush was to have lunch with about 200 soldiers and 100 of their family members before delivering a speech that revisits his retooled war strategy.
The president also was to watch a demonstration of infantry training and meet privately with families who have lost loved ones.
The 3rd Brigade of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Benning, will deploy early to Iraq to support Bush’s plan. Soldiers there were in line to go to Iraq in the coming months, and that timetable has been accelerated.
Sally was driving home from one of her business
trips in Northern Arizona when she saw an elderly
Navajo woman walking on the side of the road.
As the trip was a long and quiet one, she stopped
the car and asked the Navajo woman if she would like
With a silent nod of thanks, the woman got into
Resuming the journey, Sally tried in vain to make
a bit of small talk with the Navajo woman. The old
woman just sat silently, looking intently at
everything she saw, studying every little detail,
until she noticed a brown bag on the seat next to
“What in bag?” asked the old woman.
Sally looked down at the brown bag and said, “It’s
a bottle of wine. I got it for my husband.”
The Navajo woman was silent for another moment or
Then speaking with the quiet wisdom of an elder,