Democracies and War

[Gustav Kuriga]

Just to point out a point where individual victories in battle matter less than the overall picture, one needs to only look at the American Civil War.

[Vellos]

Just to point out a point where individual victories in battle matter less than the overall picture, one needs to only look at the American Civil War.

Which war also demonstrates that casualties and soldiers lost in battle don't matter: your ability to replace losses is what matters.

[Lanyon]

Or you could say that even against superior forces, good generalling is what matters.

[Vellos]

Or you could say that even against superior forces, good generalling is what matters.

Um.

The south lost.

What matters is superior forces.

[Kwanstein]

If superior forces are what matters then why'd America lose in Vietnam? Common sense tells me it's a combination of many factors varying from scenario to scenario that determines the outcomes of wars.

In the Marrocidenian War's case I'd predict a stalemate. Terran is unable to mount an offensive by itself and I'd reckon that most of her allies couldn't sustain a campaign far enough South to hit Aurvandil's core. Aurvandil for it's part can only raid the Southern portions of Terran due to logistics and the fact that there are a couple of fortesses blocking off the Northern 2/3rds.

Victories in this war matter insofar as that it's fun to win battles and unfun to lose them.

[Gustav Kuriga]

If superior forces are what matters then why'd America lose in Vietnam? Common sense tells me it's a combination of many factors varying from scenario to scenario that determines the outcomes of wars.

Technically America didn't "lose" anything, military-wise. The Tet Offensive wiped out the vietcong, and the NVA was in tatters as well. Unfortunately, this is where civilians began protesting the war, leading to a situation where a military victory strategically was turned into a defeat morale-wise by the sensationalist media and the counter-culture movement. This is one of the reasons that Sun-Tzu said that war fighting should be left in the hands of the generals once it is declared. Nothing stifles a military campaign more than outside intervention by civilians who most of the time have no clue as to what they are doing.

[Zakilevo]

Technically America didn't "lose" anything, military-wise. The Tet Offensive wiped out the vietcong, and the NVA was in tatters as well. Unfortunately, this is where civilians began protesting the war, leading to a situation where a military victory strategically was turned into a defeat morale-wise by the sensationalist media and the counter-culture movement. This is one of the reasons that Sun-Tzu said that war fighting should be left in the hands of the generals once it is declared. Nothing stifles a military campaign more than outside intervention by civilians who most of the time have no clue as to what they are doing.

Dictatorship FTW?

[Gustav Kuriga]

If you honestly can't tell the difference with letting military men make military decisions during times of war, and having them in complete control of a country during peacetime, I'm not going to even bother. Please read with a brain in your head from now on, what I say usually isn't quantum mechanics in difficulty to comprehend.

[Chenier]

If you honestly can't tell the difference with letting military men make military decisions during times of war, and having them in complete control of a country during peacetime, I'm not going to even bother. Please read with a brain in your head from now on, what I say usually isn't quantum mechanics in difficulty to comprehend.

Do you not see a problem with giving the military full control during war time, while not even giving the civilians the choice of when to go to war or not, when to stop war or not? There are no referendums to start a war. People really don't have a say in them.

Military victory is not primordial.

I'm with Zaki on this one. Democracy isn't something you do part-time.

[Poliorketes]

If you honestly can't tell the difference with letting military men make military decisions during times of war, and having them in complete control of a country during peacetime, I'm not going to even bother. Please read with a brain in your head from now on, what I say usually isn't quantum mechanics in difficulty to comprehend.

Military takes military decisions, BUT they MUST be ALWAYS in complete control under the civil government. Churchill and Roosevelt... not Montgomery nor Patton.

[Stabbity]

Because civilians are SUCH capable people when it comes to military decisions. I won't bother citing the mountain of examples, but in war time, let the warriors do the thinking. Its what we get paid to do. I agree though, peace time decisions should be made by those who haven't ever left its comforts.

[DamnTaffer]

Do you not see a problem with giving the military full control during war time, while not even giving the civilians the choice of when to go to war or not, when to stop war or not? There are no referendums to start a war. People really don't have a say in them.

Military victory is not primordial.

I'm with Zaki on this one. Democracy isn't something you do part-time.

it isn't something you should do at all... its utterly retarded

Because civilians are SUCH capable people when it comes to military decisions. I won't bother citing the mountain of examples, but in war time, let the warriors do the thinking. Its what we get paid to do. I agree though, peace time decisions should be made by those who haven't ever left its comforts.

Also this

[Marlboro]

This is one of the reasons that Sun-Tzu said that war fighting should be left in the hands of the generals once it is declared. Nothing stifles a military campaign more than outside intervention by civilians who most of the time have no clue as to what they are doing.

The American President is both a civilian and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Also, Sun Tzu was as sincere in his writings as Machiavelli; he was anti-war, and his teachings were meant to lead armies to victory with a minimum of actual battle.

[Kwanstein]

Technically America didn't "lose" anything, military-wise. The Tet Offensive wiped out the vietcong, and the NVA was in tatters as well. Unfortunately, this is where civilians began protesting the war, leading to a situation where a military victory strategically was turned into a defeat morale-wise by the sensationalist media and the counter-culture movement. This is one of the reasons that Sun-Tzu said that war fighting should be left in the hands of the generals once it is declared. Nothing stifles a military campaign more than outside intervention by civilians who most of the time have no clue as to what they are doing.

Correction: people were protesting the war beforehand too. The Tet Offensive served to increase disillusionment in the American government, because previously the American government had made claims that the NVA was incapable of mounting such an operation.

[Chenier]

Because civilians are SUCH capable people when it comes to military decisions. I won't bother citing the mountain of examples, but in war time, let the warriors do the thinking. Its what we get paid to do. I agree though, peace time decisions should be made by those who haven't ever left its comforts.

Soldiers are paid to obey, not think.

Generals are obsessed with victory.

No, no thank you. Power should never ever be given to the military.

You say that were it not for the civilians, the US army would have defeated the Viet Cong and NVA? Who the hell cares about victory or defeat? What made that war justified to begin with? What hurt Vietnam wasn't the civil war or the government that followed, it was the invading armies with their abusive use of chemicals like Agent Orange. For military leaders, it totally makes sense to dump a ton of herbicides to remove the hideouts of the rebels. The soviets did it too, they cut down all the trees in Afghanistan. Totally makes sense when all you care about is killing the "enemy".