Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
Sun Tzu said (roughly):
If you defeat his plan you defeat your enemy.
If the enemy isn't sure what your plan is, that makes his efforts more difficult.
If you cover your plan with a smokescreen of noise, or dust, it also makes his efforts more difficult.
Then again, if you don't know your own plan, you may defeat yourself.
And lastly: Ike has an infamous aphorism -
"Plans are worthless, but planning is everything".
(Pretty much every staff officer has had this as part of their syllabus).
This means that while rigid, written plans often fail when reality sets in (like in battle or crisis), the process of planning is indispensable because it builds adaptability, knowledge, and readiness for unexpected.
Originally Posted by
dead_pan
Per my earlier post, and in light of Trump's latest social media brainf*rt, perhaps I should now say that both parties may consider various armageddon options in the event that things don't go their way.
Maybe that's part of Trump's grand plan: "You think you're the craziest?? I can out-crazy anyone!!"
Brain aero poop? Nope, that is the strategy of the Emperor to divide and rule, within the same sentence. It is easier and far more rewarding to listen to a 4-year old explain QED than to follow a sentence from the C-I-C of the USA. What commences the sentence drifts into inanity mid field, and then is contradicted by the end of the very same utterance. Sun Tzu (fictional or otherwise) would appreciate the inherent OPSEC that arises from hiding your intentions, but as LW says, it hardly assists the home team in their contingency planning. A circular firing squad, Russian roulette with a Glock comes to mind.
WRT "crazy" man strategy applied by Nixon and Kissinger, that didn't go so well there, although it was certainly great for sound bites and LB-II gave lots of screen time. (LB-II did achieve the goal of attrition of the SAM-2 stockpiles in Hanoi, at a considerable cost of USAF/USN crews and civilians). Mr T has a head start in the field of crazy which most other countries fortuitously do not enjoy.
A revisionist might do well to go back and read the words of FDR in December 1941 (the 8th, in front of Congress... the body that used to be part of the US Govt, remember?), the comment "
A date which will live in infamy" and reflect on the actions of the B&T show in recent times WRT international law and order. Going out and acting as a mob boss and whacking the head of state of any regime is rather odious, particularly before a "War" is declared. Wasn't part of that the bit that offended FDR?
We have gone a long way since 7th December 1941, not sure the direction is what was expected.
When Turkey is the responsible party, some self reflection might be in order.
In the meantime, taking Kharg Island might make Mr T feel good, it won't be appreciated by the future gold star families that arise from what used to be described as larceny. Doing that to Venezuela hasn't quite turned out as expected, as far as plans go, giving a justification for an expanded and protracted asymmetric war will end about as well as it did in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam. A stated strategy to plunder the resources of a sovereign state won't look good on a resume in the future, nor will it plead well in the court when there is an accounting which on occasions does catch up to perpetrators of crimes. Not often, but occasionally.
If war was so damned simple to win at, there would be no need for bone spurs.