At the risk of repeating myself again, i understand the implications long term. In context to the article, a seige situation, a battle, to object is to kill the enemy or break his will.Originally Posted by Papewaio
If your suggesting that the "long term credibility" of the U.S. should be the trump card in the efforts to win the battle, okay we disagree.
Yes there are lots of possibilities and potential outcomes, but at the moment in time the absolute is you are seiging an enemy to win a battle. Sitting back in the armchair years after the occurance and pointing out long term potential outcomes is fun to do but I find it hard to apply to the situation as its occurring, perhaps my expectation of those in combat is too low?However in real life(tm) there is a tendency for opponents to have a longer term memory. Yes, you might successfully assassinate one person. Leaving a series of successors of worse, equal or better ability at fighting yourself... leaving the strategic situation for this single set of enemies totally open and possibly setting oneself up for worse opponents.
Yet again, a broad brush against the backdrop of a very specfic battle. In addition to that the U.S. military wasnt the first to think up this tactic.Not only that, every other opponent will from now on refuse to parlay because they believe that you will assassinate them.
On a tactical level on a once off occasion it will work.I agree
He also advises that : "Victory is the main object in war. If this is long delayed, weapons are blunted and morale depressed. When troops attack cities their strenght will be exhausted".In the long run you will make your opponents feel cut off from hope... something Sun Tzu advises sternly against doing.
Seems to me that in the context of this battle, the effort was made to achieve "the main objective of war"
Bookmarks