Comments on: The Principles of War: 3. Offensive Action http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/ Speak Victorian, Think Pagan Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:19:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Mark http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/#comment-384002 Mark Thu, 29 May 2008 20:50:55 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/#comment-384002 With today's warfare, when a state starts attacking, that is the beginning of losing for them. Power belongs to the people-who fight back and never give up, because the state always gives up eventually. With today’s warfare, when a state starts attacking, that is the beginning of losing for them. Power belongs to the people-who fight back and never give up, because the state always gives up eventually.

]]> By: Younghusband http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/#comment-383983 Younghusband Thu, 29 May 2008 02:01:29 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/#comment-383983 Benjamin, hold on until the sixth principle, Concentration of Force. I think your arguments will be very valid then. Benjamin, hold on until the sixth principle, Concentration of Force. I think your arguments will be very valid then.

]]> By: Benjamin Walthrop http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/#comment-383965 Benjamin Walthrop Tue, 27 May 2008 16:12:38 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/#comment-383965 This may or may not be true in my opinion. Whether or not this is a principle of war hinges upon the relative strength of the participants. In the current situation, the jihad movement was bound by this principle because of the movement's relative weakness. The United States and other coalition forces are not necessarily bound by this principle because of their relative strength. In other words if a relatively weaker actor decides to stage a war and no one shows up, who has achieved victory? This may or may not be true in my opinion. Whether or not this is a principle of war hinges upon the relative strength of the participants. In the current situation, the jihad movement was bound by this principle because of the movement’s relative weakness. The United States and other coalition forces are not necessarily bound by this principle because of their relative strength. In other words if a relatively weaker actor decides to stage a war and no one shows up, who has achieved victory?

]]> By: Joe Jones http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/#comment-383958 Joe Jones Tue, 27 May 2008 01:52:00 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/#comment-383958 Starcraft really does drive this point home. While one could theoretically win a battle on defense by wearing their enemy out, it seems almost impossible in practice. If you defend, your enemy will come right up to your home base, and even if you can hold them off forever you will still spend an unjustifiable amount of time and effort in keeping them away from your core. (I'm looking at you, TSA inspectors!) Taking the fight to the enemy, on the other hand, frees up your home base, secures your production backbone and keeps your forces stronger than they would be if they were backed into a corner. Starcraft really does drive this point home. While one could theoretically win a battle on defense by wearing their enemy out, it seems almost impossible in practice. If you defend, your enemy will come right up to your home base, and even if you can hold them off forever you will still spend an unjustifiable amount of time and effort in keeping them away from your core. (I’m looking at you, TSA inspectors!) Taking the fight to the enemy, on the other hand, frees up your home base, secures your production backbone and keeps your forces stronger than they would be if they were backed into a corner.

]]> By: Curzon http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/#comment-383944 Curzon Mon, 26 May 2008 02:24:58 +0000 http://cominganarchy.com/2008/05/25/the-principles-of-war-3-offensive-action/#comment-383944 Interestingly enough, that's a reality that I understood playing Starcraft and similar simulation strategy computer games. No matter how perfect my defense of positions and bases was against all possible avenues of attack, I never made any gains unless I took the offensive intiative. <br /><br /> Two other things I learnt here were:<br /><br /> - No matter how perfect a defense, the enemy has the uncanny tendency to carefully evaluate fortifications and attack where strengths are weakest, often in a way the defender could not even expect. <br /><br /> - Even when a bold offensive appears to be a failure with loss of men and treasure for the attacker, it can inflict such damage that the defender is either too wounded to retalliate, or the next attack easily finishes the job once all the "hard work" is done. <br /><br /> The old adage is true -- the best defense is a good offense. Interestingly enough, that’s a reality that I understood playing Starcraft and similar simulation strategy computer games. No matter how perfect my defense of positions and bases was against all possible avenues of attack, I never made any gains unless I took the offensive intiative.

Two other things I learnt here were:

– No matter how perfect a defense, the enemy has the uncanny tendency to carefully evaluate fortifications and attack where strengths are weakest, often in a way the defender could not even expect.

– Even when a bold offensive appears to be a failure with loss of men and treasure for the attacker, it can inflict such damage that the defender is either too wounded to retalliate, or the next attack easily finishes the job once all the “hard work” is done.

The old adage is true—the best defense is a good offense.

]]>