The fatal flaw most people have in their understanding of military science, is that war is not a science or an art, as Clausewitz would remind us. It's ugly, it's fraught with little white lies that add up to military-destroying miscalculations, and complete events of chance for which no one can predict. Even if the brass-balls might use words like "strategic significance" and "operationa efficiency", they're just very pretty turns of phrase to paint over a sea of death, shit, and failure that occasionally, occasionally makes progress based on the plans from above.
Also, cities are not just locations on a map that change colour. Infrastructure damage within the city renders it at least half as useful every time it changes hands -- to take back land is to take back devestated ground that will cost more to rebuild than to leave alone. Media victories aside, it's always better to take out a general than push back an army if you're the "little guy" in the equation.
Also, cities are not just locations on a map that change colour. Infrastructure damage within the city renders it at least half as useful every time it changes hands -- to take back land is to take back devestated ground that will cost more to rebuild than to leave alone. Media victories aside, it's always better to take out a general than push back an army if you're the "little guy" in the equation.
Follow
@7 fortune plays a huge role, but luck is opportunity plus preparation.
one of the themes that stuck with me from the Godfather (Puzo's book, not the movie) was the continual references to "playing the percentage points" - small incremental decisions and wise acts of foresight, none of which alone would ensure success but compounded to the benefit of whoever had better insight
this example not the basis of my saying that but it's the only way I can describe it; this is why there is such an emphasis on military tradition - success in war, for all it's sordid filth, is the result of cultural ethos difficult to fake.
