Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Rapid Dominance

  1. #1
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Rapid Dominance

    "The basis for Rapid Dominance rests in the ability to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary through imposing sufficient Shock and Awe to achieve the necessary political, strategic, and operational goals of the conflict or crisis that led to the use of force. War, of course, in the broadest sense has been characterized by Clausewitz to include substantial elements of "fog, friction, and fear." In the Clausewitzian view, "shock and awe" were necessary effects arising from application of military power and were aimed at destroying the will of an adversary to resist. Earlier and similar observations had been made by the great Chinese military writer Sun Tzu around 500 B.C. Sun Tzu observed that disarming an adversary before battle was joined was the most effective outcome a commander could achieve. Sun Tzu was well aware of the crucial importance of achieving Shock and Awe prior to, during, and in ending battle. He also observed that "war is deception," implying that Shock and Awe were greatly leveraged through clever, if not brilliant, employment of force. "

  2. #2
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    And, your point would be???

    While you've made it abundantly clear through your posts that you're adamantly opposed to the war in Iraq (a perfectly valid position to take, by the way, and I don't necessarily disagree with you there), I'm at a loss as to why you would be similiarly opposed to our employing the concept of "Rapid Dominance" in the conduct of this or, for that matter, any other war that we might find ourselves involved. The basic concept has been understood for many, many centuries (as the description you've posted notes), and though it has been referred to and/or described by many names/phrases, the fundamentals remain unchanged: maximum violence on the objective is not only the quickest, but ultimately the most humane way to conduct war, as it invariably brings about an end to hostilities in the most rapid manner possible.

    Being against this war in particular or, for that matter, all war in general is fine... BUT, when we do decide to go, we've learned from much experience that there's nothing whatsoever to be gained by prolonging the process and/or by going at anything less than full speed.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  3. #3
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Love me some Clausewitz; he was a hundred years before his time.

    maximum violence on the objective is not only the quickest, but ultimately the most humane way to conduct war, as it invariably brings about an end to hostilities in the most rapid manner possible.
    Amen.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  4. #4
    Banned BigGreenMnM's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Virginia countryside.
    Posts
    3,299
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance


    That post deserves a drink GnB

  5. #5
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Without reading the article, there's no doubt that just in terms of military conquests, our forays into Afghanistan and Iraq were about as good as things get, military-wise. Our continued presence is another matter, but the military aspect was astounding.

    After over 100,000 Russian military deaths in Afghanistan that went into a military defeat, the Russian military must be scratching its collective heads and going, "Well........ damn," when looking at our operation there.

  6. #6
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by Tigerlilly
    I posted this one because I thought it would make for an interesting discussion for others---- about the subject--- not the person who posted it.
    Also it might be worth noting that I did not add a single personal comment for or against the subject.

    Carry on..........
    You're right - I was at a loss as to why you had posted it and, based on your other posts re Iraq, etc., I made the mistake of assuming that your post was intended to be construed as an attack on the U.S. military's adoption and use of the basic concept in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Mea culpa... and I apologize.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  7. #7
    Banned
    Joined
    Jan 2003
    Location
    B.C & USA
    Posts
    1,869
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Apology from the gentleman accepted -- Enjoy the discussion

  8. #8
    Featured Member Wwanderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Most of the time in N. America, Asia, Europe or Australia
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    our forays into Afghanistan and Iraq were about as good as things get, military-wise.
    Imo, Afghanistan and Iraq are EXTREMELY different stories militarily (also politically, but that is a different issue):

    Afghanistan looked to be an extremely tough fight. The Taliban and al Qaeda had been preparing to defend the country for years and indeed were actively staving off low intensity attacks by "the Northern Alliance" (great name...sounds like it comes straight out of some war gaming exercise). They had extensive light infantry assets, including all those 10s of thousands of "terrorists" trained in the famous al Qaeda camps. (I put "terrorists" in quotes because no more than a tiny fraction of them were, or could have been, trained as the sort of infiltrating terrorists that carried out the 9/11 and similar attacks. Rather they were being trained as light infantry units to fight in support of internal fundamentalist Islamic revolutions in other countries in the region...much in the spirit of the old Cuban "volunteer" Freedom Brigades.) The Taliban/alQ military was led, from the top down to what would be the non-com level in a western army, by fighters hardened and experienced via the Soviet invasion which they succesfully repelled. Afghanistan itself has a long history of defeating foreign invaders from many lands and was about as geographically and politically inaccessible to the US and its allies as any country could have hoped to have been. Amazingly, it took the US and British (mostly those two) just over 3 months, beginning with no warning from a "standing start", to essentially destroy the Taliban/alQ militarily and politically and to drive them out of Afghanistan or into deep hiding. The flag that was flown over the WTC site on 9/11 was raised over Mullah Omar's (remember him? leader of the Taliban and effectively ruler of Afghanistan) personal residence by the year's end (I think...if not, very shortly thereafter). Imo it should go down as one of history's greatest and most surprising (to the experts) military accomplishments.

    Iraq could have hardly been more different. For one thing, the US invasion was long and carefully prepared, at both the strategic and tactical level. For another, Iraq was exquisitely and easily accessible to US forces...coming from several directions. For yet another, Iraqi military capabilities were decaying and declining in the wake of the Gulf War and that defeat convinced nearly everyone (including probably most importantly, the Iraqi officer corp and professional military) that there was no chance of Iraq successfully repelling a US/British attack in a conventional military fight. And, most significantly, although the invading forces did indeed achieve a quick and complete victory over the Iraqi armed forces, the fight did NOT go as they intended. In particular, the Iraqi army basically melted away into the civilian population (taking their light arms with them) without the stand-up fight the Allies sought. Recall the expected large scale armored battles with the Republican Guard divisions and the bloody block-by-block, "laast stand" battle for Baghdad (that the media were comparing to Stalingrad!) that were much anticipated but never actually happened. What transpired instead is that Iraq defended itself against the invasion via guerilla tactics, basically hit-and-run (or hit-and-die in the case of the suicide bombers) attacks by small units on US or British forces which seemed to be particularly exposed, isolated or otherwise vulnerable. It is unclear, to me anyway, whether this strategy was adopted consciously or whether it simply happened naturally because it was so practical/obvious. But in any case, it is still the basic approach of "the insurgents", and it is far from clear how, when or if it will be defeated.

    In short, we (the US and its allies) won decisively and extremely impressively in Afghanistan but could still lose ignominiously in Iraq, imo....but very very different stories whatever the final outcomes.

    -Ww
    "At this moment what more need we seek?
    As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
    This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
    This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
    - Zazen Wasan

  9. #9
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Sure. All I meant was maximum real estate in minimum time with minimal losses on our side.

  10. #10
    Featured Member Wwanderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Most of the time in N. America, Asia, Europe or Australia
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
    Sure. All I meant was maximum real estate in minimum time with minimal losses on our side.
    JZ, it probably seemed that I was jumping all over your comment that I quoted. Actually I meant only to use it to motivate/frame my own. I think that conventional wisdom in the US (media and public opinion) sort of thoughtlessly lump Afghanistan and Iraq together and in many ways equate them as two parts of the same "war or terrorism". I think this is a big misconception on almost every possible level - moral, logical, political, military, diplomatic, etc. Personally I give the Bush admin huge credit for handling the war in Afghanistan so effectively, and even brilliantly, but great blame for what I consider to be a series of idiotic and immoral blunders re Iraq.

    -Ww
    "At this moment what more need we seek?
    As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
    This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
    This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
    - Zazen Wasan

  11. #11
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    Love me some Clausewitz; he was a hundred years before his time.
    maximum violence on the objective is not only the quickest, but ultimately the most humane way to conduct war, as it invariably brings about an end to hostilities in the most rapid manner possible.

    Amen.

    I've heard this adage before, and in the nuclear age, it is patently false. Dominance and violence are absolutely not the same. The US has the capability to impart total and absolute destruction on any country. "Kill them all", like the bumper sticker says. It's called nuclear war. A humane way to end hostilities? Kill everyone, then stroll in once the radiation blows over to the neighbors'.

    "That's different!" Is the inevitable and nonsensical response. Oh? So I guess "all's fair in love and war" should be modified, to say, "most is fair, except the really bad stuff."

    When a theory fails based on facts, it's time to abandon it. As a species, we better damn well come to grips with the fact that this theory is dead wrong before someone with the power to use nuclear weapons believes it's humane.

    Maximum violence begets peace is wrong. Anachronistic hawks continue to embrace this nonsense because it allows them an outlet for their bitterness against their numerous failures of the recent past. A Vietnam war mulligan is the excersize of a truly pathetic loser. We need to find a new theory that actually matches reality. Hmmm. A theory of non-violent social change? I think I've heard of a couple people who used to promote that concept.

    Not really a new theory after all.

    The American and to a lesser degree international societal and cultural investment in *violence as conflict resolution*, is so absolutely pervasive, that even decades beyond its obvious extinction, like creationism, it lives on. Creationism? Time to evolve maybe.

    Amen indeed.
    Last edited by stant; 02-15-2005 at 09:06 AM.

  12. #12
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    I've heard this adage before, and in the nuclear age, it is patently false. Dominance and violence are absolutely not the same. The US has the capability to impart total and absolute destruction on any country. "Kill them all", like the bumper sticker says. It's called nuclear war. A humane way to end hostilities? Kill everyone, then stroll in once the radiation blows over to the neighbors'.

    "That's different!" Is the inevitable and nonsensical response. Oh? So I guess "all's fair in love and war" should be modified, to say, "most is fair, except the really bad stuff."
    You're mixing apples and oranges - and there is a marked difference between killing everyone and strolling in afterwards vs. building a military that is capable of bringing such overwhelming force to bear on an objective that it is able to rapidly and efficiently destroy the enemy with not only minimal losses of life on our side, but also minimal collateral damage on theirs. This is a large part of the reason we've spent so much on building up the capabilities we now have, i.e., so we wouldn't have to rely on nuclear capability and/or ever find ourselves in a poisition where we might be tempted to use it. It's also one of the major reasons that we're working so hard to stop nuclear proliferation.

    No offense, but as beautiful as your thoughts of how things ought to be are, the fact of the matter is that war has always, is still, and at least for the foreseeable future, will continue to be a fact of life that we have to deal with... and that being the case, if/when we find ourselves in the position of having to go to war (and remember, it's not necessarily the case that we'll always be given a choice in the matter either), we need to be able to win... 'cause the alternative really sucks bad.
    Last edited by GnBeret; 02-15-2005 at 03:25 PM.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  13. #13
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    I believe in peaceful and harmonious coexistence. But all it takes is one guy to fuck it up. Then you better know how to fight, in case it gets too ugly.

  14. #14
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    When a theory fails based on facts, it's time to abandon it. As a species, we better damn well come to grips with the fact that this theory is dead wrong before someone with the power to use nuclear weapons believes it's humane.

    Maximum violence begets peace is wrong.

    Aja... and as far as I can see from what's been posted so far in this thread, neither I nor anyone else has tried to make any claim to the contrary. What has been asserted is that in addition to what may be best characterized as "purely military" advantages, there are several other beneficial "collateral advantages" to the adoption and use of the "Rapid Dominance" or "Maximum Violence On The Objective" form of warfare, i.e., it tends to ultimately result in a shorter war with a lower body count and less property damage... in other words, "maximum violence begets least harm possible is right" - and that's all that's being asserted, K?

    As for the nuclear weapons issue, while I would like to hope the problem will be solved via the worldwide "realization" of just how precarious our position really is, such that we decide as a species to truly change our ways... I simply don't have enough faith in man to bet everything on that hope. So, while I'm all for working towards that goal, in the interim I suspect the only real solution to the problem will be to maintain a military that's capable of going into any country trying to produce such weapons and then using the threat of same to keep them from doing so... and, of course, also actually doing so where necessary.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  15. #15
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by GnBeret
    ....I suspect the only real solution to the problem will be to maintain a military that's capable of going into any country trying to produce such weapons and then using the threat of same to keep them from doing so... and, of course, also actually doing so where necessary.
    You're missing the much larger picture I'm getting at.

    maximum violence begets least harm possible is right" - and that's all that's being asserted, K?
    Violence? This is absurd. Maximum violence is nuclear weapons. Every time.

    Why not use neutron bombs? Overwhelming force, maximum violence? No damage to structures? Sounds perfect. All bad guys dead at that! Viva le Nuke!

    Why not? 1) Because the military-industrial complex would collapse. 2) We really like guns. and 3) Killing everyone isn't cool.

    I understand the doctrine of dominance you refer to earlier, but to simplfy this notion to "maximum violence is ...humane" is offensively mistaken. Your recent clarification departs substantially from this, but still misses the purpose of my post.

    I'm not naive enough to believe we can possibly evolve into some quasi-utopian peace loving bunch of hippie freaks overnight. Or ever. What I find disturbing, however, is a general trend in the opposite direction. Our culture grows more provincial, more illiterate, more reptillian, more shallow, and more violent and warlike each day it seems. War and weapons are here for the forseeable future.

    An immediate danger arises, however, when leaders ascribe to such an outdated and fallacial doctrine as "maximum VIOLENCE ...is humane", rather than peace as their knee-jerk reaction to a dispute. THe masses seem to have a growing simplistic, almost juvenile affection for violence, not truly understanding the nature of carnage even with the incidental modern weapons (toys).

    Ironically, the military itself I believe to be among some of the most peace loving citizens and possibly best hope for a less violent future. But they do like their toys.

    I'm not suggesting we dismantle our military by any means. I agree with both your recent post and Jay. I'm suggesting, however, that the notion of linking maximum violence with compassion is very wrong and will lead to our extinction soon, if not abandoned. Force =/ Violence

  16. #16
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    You're mixing apples and oranges - and there is a marked difference between killing everyone and strolling in afterwards vs. building a military that is capable of bringing such overwhelming force to bear on an objective that it is able to rapidly and efficiently destroy the enemy with not only minimal losses of life on our side, but also minimal collateral damage on theirs. This is a large part of the reason we've spent so much on building up the capabilities we now have, i.e., so we wouldn't have to rely on nuclear capability and/or ever find ourselves in a poisition where we might be tempted to use it. It's also one of the major reasons that we're working so hard to stop nuclear proliferation.
    Exactly. Could not have said it better.

    Maximum violence is nuclear weapons. Every time.
    You're confusing scale of violence with intensity, effectiveness and direction of violence. I don't need a sledgehammer to kill a rat, but the death snap of a trap kills it just as dead, just as quickly. Pretending there are no variations in the delivery of violence that can be maximized at their own level is ignoring the history of human conflict. Flexibility is not academic in the execution of war.

    You're also ignoring basic Clausewitzian principles of warfare that transcend the means of waging war. For example, if you will all turn to page 579 of your Howard and Paret translation of Clausewitz's On War:

    No one starts a war--or rather, no one in his senses should do so--without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it.
    Nuclear weapons achieve their primary function--that of deterence, in which Clausewitz would have seen intrinsic value since, as he notes in On War you can place "an unacceptably high cost" (pg 91) on the political objectives of your opponent, thereby deterring him from pursing those objectives. In Clausewitz's view, unfought engagements are just as decisive, significant and valuable as engagements that are fought.

    Now if you'll turn to your copy of Michael Howard's Clausewitz: A Very Short Introduction, and look at page 74:

    The political aim, the object (Zweck) of the war, was thus even more significant than it had been in Clausewitz's day. But whereas Clausewitz visualized the political object as something which, if sufficiently grandiose, would enable the commander to break through the barriers of human weakness that normally limited war; in the nuclear age the political object had to be kept in mind in order to impose limits on an activity whose destructiveness, left to itself, will rapidly escalate to extremes of a kind such as Clausewitz had never conceived.
    You modify your violence to the political objective at hand in every instance, in every application because your political objective is the reason for war. You can maximize violence at every scale--from hostage situations to conquering nations and everything in etween. Friction, fog and moral factors affect the duration and effectiveness of the conduct of war, but the political objective throughout any war determines the military means of achieving the political goal.

    A theory of non-violent social change? I think I've heard of a couple people who used to promote that concept.
    You're equating social change with great power politics? Please. Let's at least use the same meter stick here.

    Why not use neutron bombs? Overwhelming force, maximum violence? No damage to structures? Sounds perfect. All bad guys dead at that! Viva le Nuke!
    Because you may not be able to achieve your political goal with a neutron bomb in the same way that you can with say, an armored division supported by electronic warfare wings. It's about the political goal and how to achieve that in the most efficient, effective means possible.

    From Clausewitz:

    The political object of war can be of two kinds; either to totally destroy the adversary, to eliminate his existence as a State, or else to prescribe peace terms to him.
    Ironically, the military itself I believe to be among some of the most peace loving citizens and possibly best hope for a less violent future. But they do like their toys.
    This is because the military members are the ones doing the fighting and the killing and the dying. It's also why they like to practice concepts of overwhelming force and maximum violence. General Nathan Beford Forrest once said that victory goes to "whomever gets there the firstest with the mostest."

    Our culture grows more provincial, more illiterate, more reptillian, more shallow, and more violent and warlike each day it seems. War and weapons are here for the forseeable future.
    No, we're getting more humane about our means of waging war with every passing day, so we can insulate ourselves as best as possible from the negative effects of war, especially losing.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  17. #17
    Featured Member Wwanderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Most of the time in N. America, Asia, Europe or Australia
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    A few comments:

    Clearly neither Clausewitz nor Sun Tsu could have imagined modern WMDs, nukes especially, so it is a little bizarre to imagine that everything they ever said will still make sense in the modern context.

    Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the aphorism "maximum violence on the objective" is not simply equivalent to "maximum violence"; the "on the objective" part is a significant modification. In other words, while nukes may be maximally violent, they are not necessarily well focused on the objective.

    It is also worth noticing that Clausewitz and especially Sun Tsu have a lot to say about avoiding the necessity of fighting in the first place...of detering, pressuring, persuading, tricking...

    Anyway, long dead military theorist aside, as a matter of current reality, military technology is simultaneously developing in two opposite directions: A) WMDs (both nukes and engineered bios) increasingly provide the capability of inflicting massive and indiscriminate death and damage on an opponent relatively easily. B) Precision guided, remote and IT sophisticated weapons increasingly confer the capability of destroying very specific targets with minimum risks of both collateral damage and losses to one's own forces. Imo, both of these trends are worrisome to some extent, the former (A) because it could lead to such massive destruction and the latter (B) because it makes the initiation of a war so much easier, cheaper and more acceptable.

    In the B context, it is not so hard to imagine a grim future in which what amount to "robot armies" from the First World impose its will on the Third World which will have no viable options to defend itself, except perhaps via type A weapons (WMD)...maybe delivered by terrorist means or maybe more directly. To my eyes, that looks like the clearest writing on the wall at the moment.

    -Ww
    "At this moment what more need we seek?
    As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
    This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
    This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
    - Zazen Wasan

  18. #18
    God/dess Casual Observer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Boston MA
    Posts
    5,670
    Thanks
    35
    Thanked 144 Times in 74 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Clearly neither Clausewitz nor Sun Tsu could have imagined modern WMDs, nukes especially, so it is a little bizarre to imagine that everything they ever said will still make sense in the modern context.
    I would disagree entirely; the difference in scale of destruction only makes Clausewitz's primary tenet that much more applicable, that much more important:

    War is nothing but the continuation of policy with other means...(pg 69)


    Nuclear weapons don't change the basic premises of policy directing the course of wars, they only add a mitigating factor when it comes to fashioning those policy objectives in the first place.
    Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

  19. #19
    Featured Member Wwanderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Most of the time in N. America, Asia, Europe or Australia
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    I would disagree entirely; the difference in scale of destruction only makes Clausewitz's primary tenet that much more applicable, that much more important:
    Note that I did not say that nukes or other technilogical changes rendered everything Clausewitz said irrelevant, only that it might not all still be applicable since he clearly was not thinking about modern WMDs and such.

    Basically I think that this issue is a bit like reading the Constitution or other writings of the "Founding Fathers" and trying to apply them to some modern issue which they obviously never considered and probably could not even have imagined. The document is wise and general enough that one may well be able to find some useful guidance, especially if you do not insist on too literal an interpretation, but it is nevertheless an uncertain and usually controversial source. People will differ on what was meant and how it applies, etc. stant's equating nuclear weapons with "maximum violence" (not a crazy association) is an example. Interpretation or religious texts tend to have similar problems. Imo, anyway.

    For example:

    Nuclear weapons don't change the basic premises of policy directing the course of wars, they only add a mitigating factor when it comes to fashioning those policy objectives in the first place.
    I could argue that they do because Clausewitz was implicitly assuming that the basic policy driven entity, the state or nation, would still exist and would still have the same fundamental goals/interests after the conclusion of a war. Nuclear weapons potentially violate this basic assumption. I realize that this interpretation could easily be debated, but that is just the point.

    -Ww
    "At this moment what more need we seek?
    As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
    This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
    This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
    - Zazen Wasan

  20. #20
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    No, we're getting more humane about our means of waging war with every passing day, so we can insulate ourselves as best as possible from the negative effects of war, especially losing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wwanderer
    Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the aphorism "maximum violence on the objective" is not simply equivalent to "maximum violence"; the "on the objective" part is a significant modification. In other words, while nukes may be maximally violent, they are not necessarily well focused on the objective.
    Exactly. And between the two of you, I suspect you've managed to identify the reason for stant's misunderstanding of the scale/scope of the basic assertion being made herein, i.e., I failed to explicitly explain/describe the manner and degree to which the "on the objective" part of the assertion is intended to function as a qualification of the "maximum violence" part of the assertion. Mea culpa... I just assumed it would be generally understood that "maximum violence" = "method/manner" of prosecution, not "scale/scope" of engagement, whereas "on the objective" = "prosecute in surgical manner to limit scale/scope of engagement as much as possible," and never even considered the possibility that the assertion could be erroneously construed as advocating the infliction of any more death and destruction than is absolutely necessary to accomplish the overall objective. Thanks for the help guys - hope this clears things up a bit.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  21. #21
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by Casual Observer
    ...You're confusing scale of violence with intensity, effectiveness and direction of violence. I don't need a sledgehammer to kill a rat, but the death snap of a trap kills it just as dead, just as quickly.
    I'm confusing nothing. Your quote from Clausewitz was taken in the context it was given. You are now backpeddling from an absurd premise by defining a clear phrase "maximum violence" to mean something other than its obvious definition. Rather than use your contrived construction, the plain meaning is:

    Maximum: The greatest possible quantity or degree.
    Violence: intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force

    You see, violence is an action or force, not a result. Using a sledgehammer to kill a rat is not the use of maximum violence. Using a nuclear bomb to kill one is. The term maximum has no connotation of efficiency limitations as you describe. In fact, the connotation is that efficiency is disregarded. Pedal to the metal. The remainder of your argument brings in a host of other principles absent from your original quote.

    Your pontifications about other topics and modifications to the original quote are cute, but irrellevant. Pulling this quote in the way that you did I found to be typical of a dangerous growing mindset that turns to violence as a first solution, notwithstanding other teachings of these men.

    I know how fond you are of the so-called "strict constructionist" school of constitutional [mis]interpretation. Try applying it here.

    We're getting more humane about our means of waging war with every passing day,
    Clearly you miss the irony of using humane as a modifier to "means of waging war". I understand your point, CO. I did from the outset. What disturbed me was the casual use of the phrase "maximum violence ...is humane" that I observed.

  22. #22
    Veteran Member stant's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    613
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by GnBeret
    I just assumed it would be generally understood that "maximum violence" = "method/manner" of prosecution, not "scale/scope" of engagement,...

    erroneously construed as advocating the infliction of any more death and destruction than is absolutely necessary to accomplish the overall objective. Thanks for the help guys - hope this clears things up a bit.
    OK, so you assumed it would be generally understood that the words used would mean something other than their accepted definitions?

    An interpretation by the plain and accepted meaning is erroneously construed?

    I understand your new and substantially modified dictum emphasizes the minimization of violence. Well, maximum violence and minimum violence aren't quite the same thing. I'll accept the latter as an improvement. I doubt the bumbling, failed neo-cons will agree.

  23. #23
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by stant
    I understand your new and substantially modified dictum emphasizes the minimization of violence.
    No, no, no... it emphasizes the point that while the level of violence to be employed is in the extreme, to say the least, it will only be employed on those objectives considered "key" to victory. In other words, instead of doing things like firebombing Dresden to make it too painful for the enemy to continue, we identify specific objectives which, if attained, will make it impossible for the enemy to continue - but insofar as those objectives go, we employ tactics and weapons systems that are disturbingly violent, unbelievably efficient, and absolutely merciless and indiscriminate if you should make the mistake of attempting to stand your ground and defend the objective.
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

  24. #24
    Featured Member Wwanderer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Most of the time in N. America, Asia, Europe or Australia
    Posts
    1,337
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    I see a bit of both sides on this one. I agree with stant that the view that it "is time to kick ass, chew bubble gum, and take names" (as Deogol put it in a different thread and which I take to mean employing something more closely resembling the "maximum violence" of which our military is capable, whether or not it includes nukes) is becoming increasingly and perhaps even dangerously prevalent. Imo, it is the consequence of increasing frustrations with fighting what is basically a guerilla war by conventional means (a notoriously frustrating and difficult military task) and the perception that we could resort to "maximum violence" without serious consequences, aside from those to our consciences. I also agree with stant that Clausewitzian (what a word!) maxims about "maximum violence on the objective" could be misunderstood/distorted as supporting such "kick ass" approaches to our current military problems.

    However, I don't think that Clausewitz, Sun Tsu or GnBeret (how do you like the company that you keep in this sentence, GB?) ever meant to advocate such indiscriminate use of force, and I (at least) have certainly never understood any of them in that way. The "total war" approach in which one simple attempts to do maximum indiscriminate damage to an opponent, with no particularly clear focus or objective (beyond the damage itself), is sometimes attributed to W. T. Sherman but is, in fact, much older...going back to the Third Punic War at least. Who knows what Clausewitz or Sun Tsu would have said about nukes, had they known, but I think that anyone who reads their stuff beyond the one sentence aphorism level can see that they were neither imagining nor discussing such "total war" philosophies. They advocated killing rats with neither nukes nor sledge hammers, but rather with the military equivalent of a scalpel and only when really necessary.

    -Ww
    "At this moment what more need we seek?
    As the Truth eternally reveals itself,
    This very place is the Lotus Land of Purity,
    This very body is the Body of the Buddha."
    - Zazen Wasan

  25. #25
    Featured Member GnBeret's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    796
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Default Re: Rapid Dominance

    Quote Originally Posted by Wwanderer
    However, I don't think that Clausewitz, Sun Tsu or GnBeret (how do you like the company that you keep in this sentence, GB?) ever meant to advocate such indiscriminate use of force, and I (at least) have certainly never understood any of them in that way.
    Re: "the company...," umm, like "I wish!...," 'cause I have no illusions as to "which name doesn't belong in this group?"

    As for their advocating the indiscriminate use of force, I agree - that's neither my personal view nor my intertpretation of their respective writings. That said, there is one small "caveat" of sorts, to wit: on the "micro" level, at some point it may well come down to differences of opinion as to the definition of "indiscriminate..."
    "That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
    - Luke
    "Some men, you just can't reach...."
    - Boss, re Luke

    If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
    it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
    -Cowboy Junkies

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-08-2010, 03:13 PM
  2. The 100 point Bondage/Dominance Sadism/Masochism purity test
    By aussiepunkshocker in forum Sex Talk
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-13-2006, 11:22 PM
  3. Risks involved in Rapid Weight Loss
    By Juliette_deSade in forum Body Business
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-29-2003, 03:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •