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

[James Dasher <jdasher AT ibiblio.org>]

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*