Wednesday, October 26, 2005

The Most Brilliant Military Strategy Ever

I ran across the most brilliant military strategy ever. To understand the new strategy, first take a look at soon to be archaic militaristic strategies that countries are ashamedly still using today. Consider a war fought between party A and party B, where A is making very good progress and accomplishing their goals as party B is making desperation attacks because they are losing. Traditional military philosophy would be for A to push harder and continue to strengthen party C who is now an ally with party A, but who before had supported party B. Because when party C is self-supporting and can defend themselves from party B, then the war ends. Party A is victorious along with party C.

The brilliant militaristic strategy goes like this. Consider the same example war as discussed above. Instead of continuing to strengthen party C, and pushing harder to defeat party B while they have them on their heels, party A should start to withdraw from the war and start decreasing troop levels dramatically until in a short while, all of party A's troops will have been withdrawn from the battle zones. Yes, this seems so stupid at first, but it is really brilliant, I promise. By doing this, party B begins to think that they must be winning because party A is retreating. So party B continues to do what they have been doing until party A is completely gone. Meanwhile, since party C was still too weak to defend themselves when party A left the scene, they will have to surrender to party B. Then, after party B is in control, they think that they completely won. But party A knows that they didn't win and that party B just thinks they did. When party B finally figures out that they actually didn't win, party A was just tricking them psychologically and playing with their emotions, they will be so devastated that they will surely just forfeit. I told you, absolutely brilliant isn't it?

This strategy is so brilliant I am sure you won't be surprised to find out who engendered it. John F. Kerry said (as reported here),
It will be hard for this administration, but it is essential to acknowledge that the insurgency will not be defeated unless our troop levels are drawn down...
Kerry has brilliantly decided that we should start with 20,000. I don't know how he came up with that number of troops, but I am sure it comes from the same place as his genius intellect. We should just trust him.

See, it is the newest and greatest militaristic strategy ever, and such a new concept to actually bring troop levels down in the most critical stages of the war. For tens of thousands of years humans have not been able to come up with this. I sure am glad I am living in this day and age, when the human mind and human thinking has evolved into unfathomable brilliancy. This strategy will surely play psychological mind games with the opponent. And because of this, surely, emotionally and physically, the enemy must implode.

14 Comments:

At 2:02 PM, Blogger Varun said...

LOL
lets withdraw all troops from Iraq and put Kerry there on a one-mission observer mission. we do need someone as a observer, right?

 
At 3:35 PM, Blogger Susan Hartland Olmstead said...

Hilarious!
Or...
Invade land under false pretenses, start a war, increase the national debt like never before, but still manage to set a new record for most prez vacations taken.
whew! now THAT's genius.

 
At 1:02 AM, Blogger Stacy Ann said...

Hey Tim, Great post.
Suz, I really don't think Bush went into Iraq under false pretenses. Just because no WMD were found doesn't mean the war was unnecessary. All throughout Clinton's administration they admitted Saadam was a threat but never did anything about it. Saadaam needed to be taken out; he had killed so many of his own people and was a real threat to our safety. He supported terrorists and was an enemy to America and everything we believe in. My favorite analogy for the whole WMD is one I heard from Mark Davis, a radio host who visited one of my classes a couple of weeks ago. He said, if there had been a crack house in your neighborhood that was taken out but on that particular day it didn't have any crack in it, that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been taken out. Maybe there would be crack the next week or they knew about the bust and got rid of the crack. I don't want to wait for a "smoking gun". There is real evidence that Saadam had access to WMD but there was plenty of time for him to get rid of them. You can read about conspiracy theories all day long, but I believe that Bush really thought there were weapons there and we had good reasons to go in. Maybe it wasn't the best idea to focus so much on the possibility of WMD being there but that's what he did and we took out a real threat.

Now, I support Bush on the war, but I'm not too happy with all of the money he's spent. I think he's tried to work with the Dems too much. Like letting Ted Kennedy write the Education Bill. And the Medicaid Bill has been expensive as well. But once again, Bush isn't a one-man team. The budget has to be approved by the Congress and they obviously are in favor of spending so much money.

So in whole, I approve of the job Bush has been doing. More so on the war against terror than what he's done with spending or the border. That's a whole different topic though.

I hope this makes some sense to you; I'd love to talk more about this sometime.

 
At 9:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Niiiiice. I love the sarcasm; I really didn't get to see this side of you much back in high school. Thanks for the email, Stacy - you are your husband's biggest fan, and it's awesome! I think John Kerry is a big joke. I agree with Stacy's summation of the war - very nicely put. :)

How's the squirrel?

- Catherine

 
At 5:53 PM, Blogger Susan Hartland Olmstead said...

Ha, Stace!
#1 This peanut brain now knows to do its homework before spouting opinions re: govt. (especially anything anti-Bush) to you. :)

#2 I'm all about wiping out men like Saadam - Shoot, since America knows best they should routinely inspect countries. But that's not me dealio...

#3 ...It's Bush's vehement assurance to a trusting nation that Sadaam possessed WMD, etc., when it can't be proved otherwise -not now or then. I simply think it's cowardly when a Prez (or anyone) has to deceive in order to achieve. Couldn't he have found a more substantial defense for targeting such an evil man?

#4 Btw, I'm interested in your source for "real evidence that Saadam had access to WMD". Do tell Sugar bell...

 
At 6:46 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Susan, I think most people have moved on from the whole WMD thing, even Bush. I haven't heard him "vehemntly assure" that Iraq had WMD's in a long time, albeit he did at first. Find me a public speach that Bush "vehemently assured" that Iraq had WMD's dated anytime after March 2, 2004 and I'll recant. March 2, 2004 was when the UN report said they had no WMDs. But as for why Bush would assert this prior to March 2004, please read this and tell me you wouldn't be completely convinced too of Iraq's possesion of WMD's: CIA Report.

The report issued on March 2, 2004 from the UN that I am talking about, stated that actually Iraq hasn't had any WMDs since 1994. Since 1994, has not Clinton, Daschle, and Kerry (plus many more) using the same intelligence from the CIA (not necessarily the 2002 report linked to above) stated that Iraq had weapons of mass desruction? In fact, after 1994, Clinton said when speaking of his missile strike launched to take out WMD manufacturing facilities in Iraq, "You know, we launched that missile strike out there. We don't know if we got a hundred percent of them, we don't know if we got 50%, we don't know if we got 10%, because we couldn't get inspectors in there."

So Susan, please tell me why you are soooo eager to pin this one on just BUSH! So why do you think that Bush is a lone ranger when it comes to saying Iraq had WMDs? I think you need to get yourself a "new media".

Susan, we're still friends, right? :) Come on, we can debate and still be friends, you know that I think your awesome. For some reason I felt like I had to say that. Anyways, your still welcome at our apartment :)

 
At 10:27 PM, Blogger Varun said...

yeah that sounded like a civil war
;-)
so lets patch up now and leave politics for sometime

 
At 9:43 AM, Blogger Susan Hartland Olmstead said...

Whew! Glad we're still buds, I still wanted to see Libby...

For real, I'd rather you challenge me than bite your tongue. Now I just know that next time I come bunk with ya'll, I'll be prepared. ;)

 
At 11:15 PM, Blogger Stejahen said...

Heh, good post Tim

 
At 12:15 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

haha! Trust Stacy and Tim to tag team on anyone-even Stacy's best friend ("after Tim-OF COURSE") Love y'all!
Steph
P.S. I'm glad y'all are gonna be here for Christmas I'm giving really good presents this year! :)
LOL Thought I would add something decidely UN-intellectual to this comment board...:)

 
At 1:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just wait...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/02/D8DKFLGG1.html

Susan

 
At 1:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/
11/02/D8DKFLGG1.html

 
At 6:36 PM, Blogger Tim said...

Susan, Now we know what Jimmy Carter thinks, thats it. The story you linked to says nothing more. He is a liberal, of course he thinks that.

PS. I am still waiting.

 
At 6:53 PM, Blogger Stacy Ann said...

Huh, that's really interesting but I have a link too. ;) This one speaks for itself (no pun intended!). And lets see, 1999 was before Bush was President and before he "lied to and mislead" the whole world.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/stacks/democrat.guest.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home