Rummy and "The Art of War"

[quade 4]

First read . . . THIS.
Then read . . . THIS.
So, how would you say we're doing?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zenister 0]

grrrr your going to make me register with the washington post arent you?
lol btw the earliest you can be born for the WApost is 1900

as far as the deception part were not doing very well at all, but thats a concession to modern media that SunTzu never could have imagined..

how about these though?

Quote

(1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued
with the Moral law?
(2) Which of the two generals has most ability?
(3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven
and Earth?
(4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?
(5) Which army is stronger?
(6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?
(7) In which army is there the greater constancy
both in reward and punishment?

i think were doing ok by these criteria..

thanks for another good e-art of war link too!

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[quade 4]

Just register for the Post would ya . . . it's like the main paper for D.C. and you really ought to read it.
Anyway the Post article was about how Rumsfield didn't listen to a lot of his generals about war prep and how he tried to "cheap out" on it -- this, of course, is in opposition with Sun Tzu.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Zenister 0]

lol i did, and your exactly right Rummy has ignored one of the fundamental principles.

"let your generals do their job"

youd think after vietnam we'd have learned that politicians should just set the objectives, not the manner in which they are taken..

a few pertinent qoutes

Quote

1. Sun Tzu said: In the operations of war,
where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots,
as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand
mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them
a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front,
including entertainment of guests, small items such as
glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor,
will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day.
Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.

7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted
with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand
the profitable way of carrying it on.

8. The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy,
neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.

17. Thus we may know that there are five essentials
for victory:
(1) He will win who knows when to fight and when
not to fight.
(2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior
and inferior forces.
(3) He will win whose army is animated by the same
spirit throughout all its ranks.
(4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take
the enemy unprepared.
(5) He will win who has military capacity and is
not interfered with by the sovereign.

theres lots more in there, even some that apply better to Saddam than us..such as

Quote

18. Hiding order beneath the cloak of disorder is
simply a question of subdivision; concealing courage under
a show of timidity presupposes a fund of latent energy;
masking strength with weakness is to be effected
by tactical dispositions.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[Kinaa 0]

And if this Washington post article is truth, then your government really made military mistake by attacking Iraq so early.

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Anyway the Post article was about how Rumsfield didn't listen to a lot of his generals about war prep and how he tried to "cheap out" on it -- this, of course, is in opposition with Sun Tzu.

Not only in opposition to Sun Tzu, but in opposition to the Powell Doctrine... Which I find even more interesting. It seems like yet another example of conflict between Rumsfield who wants to just go, and Powell who was always pushing the diplomacy angle.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Jib 0]

It's nice to see that the Washington Post can be counted on to continue its tradition of biased reporting.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

It's nice to see that the Washington Post can be counted on to continue its tradition of biased reporting.

It's reassuring to see the right continuing to ignore the ideas they don't agree with.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[JYorkster 0]

Somehow, I think that Donald Rumsfeld is much more familiar with Sun Tzu than most of the readers of this forum, ans are his generals. I also doubt that there are an overwhelming number of battle planners posting here.

Don't believe everything you read. If you actually believe that we are at a stalemate with Iraqi forces, you need to start finding another news source.

It's not over 'til the fat lady sings.

Rock

[nathaniel 0]

I read a report from the RAND corporation on Russian urban combat experiences in Chechnya...haven't decided whether it makes me feel better or worse about Baghdad. Definitely makes me think Rumsfeld is an idiot.

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1289/index.html

It's a long read ( ~ 100 pages ) but well worth it.

nathaniel

My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

Don't believe everything you read. If you actually believe that we are at a stalemate with Iraqi forces, you need to start finding another news source.

Nobody is suggesting a stalemate. There are a ton of reports coming out of Iraq that they're essentially taking a 'breather' - waiting for supply lines and reinforments to catch up. There's a very big difference between waiting for more ammunition because you ran out, and a "stalemate". There's even reports that marines on the front lines are running out of rations. What I find most interesting is the stories of the aircraft carrieriers running out of Cruise missles and "smart bombs". The story is that supplies are stuck in the Suez canal for a bit.

If you've got some wildly contradictory news source, please post it. I've seen these stories written from at least 4 different newspapers, in three different countries - all with reporters on the front line.

On the other hand, General Tommy Franks is denying both that there is a pause, and reports that he had asked Rumsfeld for more troups before the invasion.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Zenister 0]

Quote

I also doubt that there are an overwhelming number of battle planners posting here.

i wouldnt be quite so sure of that.

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[JYorkster 0]

Quote

Hersh, however, quoted the former intelligence official as saying the war was now a stalemate.

This was in the article directed by the original post. Often reporters or 'war correspondents' see any change in the tactics as a 'lull' or as a result of previous tactics not working. Historically, war reporting is highly inaccurate, and the truth is often revealed later.

I just doubt there have been any real unanticipated surprises as the media would lead us to believe. I have also read and heard the reports of some troops being down to 'one meal a day'. Guess what...that's the way MREs were designed; Enough to sustain troops on one a day. Just another example of non-military journalists getting it wrong simply due to lack of understanding.

The pause in the advancement of troops is necessary for the air power to now provide full effectiveness. It was in the plan. I don't think that most of the reporting is "wrong', just not given in the right context.

Rock

[JYorkster 0]

No doubt there are some, but I think we are a minority.

Rock

[Zenister 0]

Quote

[heard the reports of some troops being down to 'one meal a day'. Guess what..

actually i was told that particular report was a case of a reporter talking to ONE soldier who said he only got 1 MRE the day before, of course given the need for each reporter to "out do" each other in getting the scoop..

as someone else pointed out these guys have a really skewed perspective of military action..the report about marines being "pinned down in a heavy firefight" was laughed at in the toc i was just in.. sure its intense, but nothing about that particular video was a "heavy fire fight" nbor were the marines "lounging" around against the walls there by any means "pinned down"

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[quade 4]

Quote

Somehow, I think that Donald Rumsfeld is much more familiar with Sun Tzu than most of the readers of this forum, ans are his generals. I also doubt that there are an overwhelming number of battle planners posting here.

Of course . . .that's irrelevant.
Then again, one would expect him to have better knowledge in the area than most posters here on dropzone.com. That's why we're paying him the big bucks.
Rummy's led a pretty interesting life and you can make up your own mind as to how much actual battle planning HE has done.. He served 3 years as a naval aviator from 1954 to 1957 and from that point forward held a series of bizarrely odd jobs none of which seem to have any correlation to one another; Congressional Admin Assistant, Investment Banker, U.S. Congressman, Ambassador, Chief of Staff, Sec. of Defense (the first time was with Ford) Ok, so far that sounds pretty good, but then it gets pretty weird when the Dems are in office; CEO, Pres, & COB for Searle, a Pharmaceutical company and then CEO of General Instuments a high-tech electronics company. Then, oddly enough, back to Secretary of Defense again with GWB. So, um, clearly he's been chosen because of his party affiliation. Either that or you can choose to believe he was ousted by the Dems and redeemed by the Republicans.
His official bio can be found HERE.
Of course, my entire point WASN'T to second guess Rummy, but rather just to bring your attention to a couple fo articles so that you could make up your own minds.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

It's nice to see that the Washington Post can be counted on to continue its tradition of biased reporting.

That's kind of vague. Can you be more specific?

What part did you think was biased?

The part where the Washington Post ran a Reuters article about a New Yorker article? Or the part where the Reuters reporter couldn't get anyone at the Pentagon to comment on it?

I guess what I'm saying is . . . The Post didn't really have a lot to do with the actual reportage and your accusation that this somehow continues a tradition of bias is unfounded at best.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Jib 0]

Quote

Quote

It's nice to see that the Washington Post can be counted on to continue its tradition of biased reporting.

That's kind of vague. Can you be more specific?

What part did you think was biased?

The part where the Washington Post ran a Reuters article about a New Yorker article? Or the part where the Reuters reporter couldn't get anyone at the Pentagon to comment on it?

I guess what I'm saying is . . . The Post didn't really have a lot to do with the actual reportage and your accusation that this somehow continues a tradition of bias is unfounded at best.

Initially, I wrote a lengthy reply to this article, but decided that like the Pentagon, it wasn't worth much comment. Since you decided to ask, here we go.

You're quite right. I do have a problem with an article citing another article citing a FORMER nameless source whose source is similarly undisclosed. That's four levels of hearsay. I wonder why that's necessary? Hmmm... There's no shortage of immediate information in this world of imbedded reporters, video and briefings. But, the base article is written by a weekly and needs something to print about the war. Do you recall the reporter's dismay (I think it was the same magazine) that Centcom wasn't providing anything different than the Pentagon was. The Washington Post should have no such problem. (And for good measure, the New Yorker is biased too.)

Your argument that “The Post didn't really have a lot to do with the actual reportage” is unpersuasive. It chose to print this article. To adopt your argument would mean that short of an editorial, a newspaper could never be biased. So, let's look at what the Washington Post CHOSE to publish as news.

First, let's look at the first source. "RUMMY?" Yep, that's an objective word chosen by the unnamed Pentagon planner.

The article “also said Rumsfeld had overruled advice from war commander Gen. Tommy Franks to delay the invasion until troops denied access through Turkey could be brought in by another route….” What other route? Through Syria or Iraq? Or extend the supply lines from Kuwait through Baghdad to the north? We did drop paratroopers into Northern Iraq to secure an airfield. We did secure other airfields (H2 & 3, I think) and helped the Kurds help us. Turkey isn’t cooperating with us because of its own Kurds!

Next, it accuses Rumfeld “miscalculated the level of Iraqi resistance.” I guess that means that he thought the Republican guard was going to roll over?

The article cites a FORMER unnamed source – “an unnamed former high-level intelligence official.” FORMER official -- so, where's he getting his information from? What is the basis for calling it a stalemate? Do you seriously think that the US is out of bombs and missiles? I don’t think I’d comment on that if I were at the Pentagon either. After launching thousands of attacks on Iraq, it may not be surprising that ships need to restock, but that’s not what was said. “Much of the supply of Tomahawk cruise missiles has been expended, aircraft carriers were going to run out of precision guided bombs…” Uh-oh, the sky is falling!

"The only hope is that they can hold out until reinforcements arrive," the former official said. What are these ships holding out for? Are they under attack? Have you seen any cessation in the bombing? “The ONLY hope…” Where’s Obi Wan? What sensationlist bs.

Next, the source accuses Rumsfeld of “wanting to ‘do the war on the cheap.’" Are smart bombs cheap? Oh, the article in the above meant that the troops need reinforcement. (250k in theater now?) While smart bombs are cheap when compared to a single soldier’s life, that’s not what the article says, but it very well may be what Rumsfeld meant.

So, if this article doesn’t support an anti-war agenda, what does it do? It adds nothing to the analysis of the issue and merely attacks Rumsfeld and decisions made at the top.

I’m not going to convince you that the Post is a biased newspaper; so, I’m not going to try. The Washington Post chose to publish another biased article, like I said.

As for Sun Tzu's Art of War, it's a great book. My favorite quote is:
Subtle & insubstantial
The expert leaves no trace
Dively mysterious, he is inaudible
Thus he is master of his enemy's fate.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt