- Joined
- 21 April 2014
- Posts
- 7,956
- Reactions
- 1,070
Sun Tzu said: "if you want to fight, proceed directly onto ground you have no familiarity with and engage an enemy whose capabilities you have no idea of." Naturally this strategy led to him becoming widely quoted.
He's widely quoted because he's one of the few generals who actually understand the entire costs and benefits of war - not just strategies, tactics and war mongering.
He was referring to a strategy where the soldiers are forced to fight - to lead them into "death ground", deep into enemy territories so that they will unite as one, have no escape, and so when faced with death they will find life. And no, he's famous for saying that to guarantee victory, to win every battle, one must know oneself and know the enemy... to know the enemy but not oneself, to know one self but not know the enemy and victory is 50/50.
To go further, this implies that warfare, like any competition or relationship, involves two parties. Strategies and tactics must revolve and change according to circumstances and people... therefore, one cannot make calculations without first knowing one's own abilities, one cannot make plans without knowing the enemy and how they would react.
The death ground discussion follow his advice on the economics, the costs, of war - that price inflation will occur with war; that the army ought to live off the enemy, for every one picu of an enemy's grain equal 20 of our own - the costs of transportation etc.; that long campaigns will decrease the state's treasury, leading to higher taxation, higher taxation will stress the thousand families... hence, the objective of war is victory, not lengthy battle; hence, there has never been an example of a State having benefited from prolonged warfare.
What did our Defence Minister say a week ago? Don't know the cost, let's kinda wait and see how it goes...
Sun Tzu said, those who fight first then seek calculations are bloody idiots.
You and a few Master of War in Canberra got some extra reading to do.
Go find out how it is funded. Alternatively, given you have so much faith in our security apparatus, please tell me why they don't deserve the funding to return to 'normal' levels. Do you have more trust in them if they are underfunded?
....which is exactly why we need to increase our national security efforts.
How much of the new fundings, wait... the old new funding, goes to recruiting new agents and how much goes to new data centres and NSA-type data retention and analytics?
Maybe the revenue side can come from starting a small unit within ASIO giving people URLs and their browsers bookmarks lost from upgrades.
I heard from Chomsky or Greenwald in one of their lectures that since the NSA metadata retention programme, the US only managed to capture 1, ONE, terrorists - a Somali in the US caught sending some $12,000 to a known terrorist in Somali through Western Union or something.
But that can't be right?
1. For all your big thinking, on pick-up trucks...sigh.
2. Can't be sure. Did the guys in Bali who lit firecrackers that took a few lives have a Boeing 737, nuclear weapons, yada yada? Let's spend some of the ASIO money and invite their leaders to an offsite and have a dialog about our differences. Maybe that will help?
Question. Do we bow our heads at them as is the Japanese custom for greeting?
Yea, people who wage war against us are evil men, doing evil deeds... and our policies, which apparently began only in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq as our PM said in a speech to Parliament... we're all just loving freedom and bikini-clad babes and they just hate us and our way of life.
I thought you love 50 shades of Grey... haha
3. You need to look up how an asymmetric war is fought...yet again. You seem to imagine that war is fought like a weird version of von Clausewitz. Or a copy of Bonnepart. That was 19th century. That's crayon war. Grab an HDTV. Actually watch it.
Ever consider the revenue side?
...Ever considered the revenue side (yet again)? Or the even larger picture that is non-monetary?
You get what you pay for I guess. It's not even a database.
Turns out I have a subscription. Golly gosh. Guess what, that's the alarmingly high figure....of the sort you repeatedly shake around when using budgets to justify anything in these contexts. In any case, do the math or at least admit you don't when making strong statements. If you did, you would find nothing in here changes the thrust of the prior statements. Back in the can for that one. Failing that, I'll just say that it is the case. You know I use data and have it for this response.
Ever thought it is us who's fighting the last war?
We're sending fighter jets and thought we're somehow going to win this thing. We barely got out of Iraq after some 10 years, some $2.5 Trillion real US dollars, some billions training and arming the Iraqis... didn't do us much good... but somehow, this time around, it's going to work with a few more bombs, a few more advisors and a couple more countries and rebel forces... voila.
OK... costs not detailed enough or too high?
Why not give us your estimates? The last one you quote a while back was... $1.5 billion for the entire year?
That liberal paper I just googled put estimate at $10 billion a year, with Obama guessing it'll take 3 years... $30 billion, or 20 times higher than original estimate.
But of course strategies and estimates must revise and adapt to changing circumstances right? Art of War and what not.