Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] the cowards at the Pentagon

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] the cowards at the Pentagon
  • Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:33:46 -0500


On Tuesday, Dec 9, 2003, at 22:36 US/Eastern, Tom Caswell wrote:

This is an interesting discussion of military science.  While most of it is true on paper, not much of it is true in practice.
 
I'm interested in where you picked up your information.  I can't tell how much of it is generalization so I'll wait to comment. It seems to me that much of your comments mirror a video game's perspective.

That's an interesting assumption, or perspective, for two reasons.

First, I rarely play video games. Don't get me wrong: I love Sid Meyer's Civilization, and own multiple versions, for both PC and Mac. I played Half-Life for a brief period - two weeks? - against a roommate a couple years ago, and once downloaded the Quake II demo from C|Net back in the '90's, but it only went to level four, and I never actually played the full release.

Of course, I love Ms. Pac Man and Galaga. Classics never die. Just as kids are still reading Vergil for school, I fully expect in 2,000 years that game designers will have to master the intricacies of these two products of human genius before earning their Ph.D.'s. Otherwise, though I've tried various games from Duck Hunter and Super Mario Brothers through an NHL Hockey game and a futuristic motorcycle game (both owned by a friend with a - Sega? Nintendo?), I haven't really played video games since the Atari days. Pong, Frogger - not much in the way of military theory, but then what does a fourth-grader care?

Second, summarizing the lessons of a few thousand years of military history and theory in two or three email messages requires a bit of -- shall we say, "gloss"? As a result, I figured quoting Clausewitz or Thucydides at length might turn off the bulk of readers. Had I, in some self-indulgent fit of pique, given in completely to my temptations, I might've ended up citing chapter and paragraph numbers from the Discourses on Livy, no doubt inflaming the sensitivities of list managers, who might then have gotten around to mentioning that the topic was actually off-topic, and could we please take it off-list?

As casual as the above paragraphs may seem, they mask a deeper truth: I suspect your question is intended to draw me out, for one of three reasons.

First, you know a lot more than I do about military theory and history. This is eminently possible. At least 1,000, and maybe as many as 1,000,000,000 people are in that position. However arrogant this may seem, I doubt more than a sixth of the world's population are better-informed than I am on topics of interest to me. Reverse those ratios for topics in which I have little interest - say, the life cycle of the African condor. (*Are* there African condors? Are all condors actually African? Whatever.)

Second, you think I'm an ass. This, too, is eminently possible. In fact, it's even more possible than the possibility described in the preceding paragraph. I come across that way to people I've just met - and even more so to people I've never met. I'm a little rough around the edges, and tend towards formality or humor, depending which humour dominates at the moment. Either way, some people hate formal discourse, and the rest seem to hate my sense of humor. In person, it's much funnier - and more sincere. I promise.

Third, you're actually curious, and wish we'd stop skimming the surface of the discussion. Mr. MacHett, for one, has more practical experience with specific technologies and institutions than I do. I would defer to him on most such questions.

If you're actually interested in the subject, though, google for "military history" or "military historian" and see what kind of reading lists the professors are recommending. Other really interesting stuff includes RMA - Revolution in Military Affairs or "Transformational" technology - much of which can be found at <http://www.comw.org/rma/index.html>. The Army War College publishes a bunch of stuff, much of it available at <http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/pubs.html>. Many of the Army's manuals are available at the Army's Training & Doctrine Web site <http://www.adtdl.army.mil/atdls.htm>.

I haven't had a chance to read the recently reissued USMC Small Wars Manual. I haven't mentioned Naval or Air Force resources at all, but Mahan's _Influence of Sea Power On History_ is a good start. When it comes to the Air Force, I'm more interested in the space, materials science, and information warfare aspects than the tactical concerns. A former professor of mine, though, keeps getting his name in places like Foreign Affairs and the like, analyzing aerial strategy and tactics in Kosovo, Bosnia, and so forth. He's definitely in that group of 1,000-to-1,000,000,000 people who are smarter and better-informed than me.

Hope that helps.

And now, to bed.

*Yawn*




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page