Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
As we all know. Therefor, it seems to me that it is incumbent on everyone who engages in warfare at any level, from the politician who sends units forth to the last Snuffy (yes, even him...) to read as much as possible on the topic and to discuss with others the various potentials and probabilities. Everyone who addresses war should be noted to the extent possible. Discussion is important but I've learned far more over a couple of drinks than I've learned in structured discussions. The important thing is to kick it around.

We are confronted with the fact that most of our political masters will not do this, therefor it's important that all practitioners do it and be thorough in their study so they can give the best possible advice. I think, though, that two thoughts should always remain in mind:

1. The theoreticians are human, that means they have experience (or not), education, heredity and environmental factors that have shaped them and their thoughts and thus, consciously or not, are subject to have some biases and possibly some gaps in knowledge. They also write for a specialist audience -- more frequently for other theorists than for practitioners --and thus these two factors can skew what they write or say and one is well advised to read or listen, evaluate and take that which ones instincts say are valuable while not hewing to anyone's line. That simply because no one has all the answers.
This is why I find myself hesitant to sign off on consistantly re-terming and putting the information in different contexts until it gains acceptance By the time we get that buy-in, will what they heard or accepted be very similar to what we were trying to say at all?

I think about how so many have taken the phrase " there is not a military solution to Iraq " and it has been twisted and prodded to mean so many different things; many of which are not much help to us.

People hear, learn, or take what they want from dialogue thus the more they get to choose from the more the choices reflect what they want and not necessarily what is or was intended.

I have now finished the paper and all in all it speaks succesfully to much of what has and is being debated at echelons above reality. I cannot find much that doesn't ring true in many contexts, yet I would love to have seen them tie in how current international players much larger than Hezbollah and Hamas are truly utilizing the capabiliies of networking and synchronous irregular and more conventional warfare as well as many other aspects of the UW / IW / WK(who knows) what else n efforts to affect ,transform, or otherwise just plain make trouble in any and all ways possible in order to acheive their goals.
IE( Iran, Russia, AQ , Hezbollah, Hamas, Half a dozen groups minimum in Africa, Libya Etc)

If you bring answers to the table without the readers getting an eyefull of what it really means now, in your face then they will generally look at it from a predictive vantage point. And as most humans do they will figure that they are about as good at seeing the future as you are.

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
2. At the end of the day, you'll be on a hill watching your Division deploy to meet the Screaming Horde approaching at from 3 to 300 kilometers per hour. Or you'll deplane with your company or troop in the middle of nowhere with skulking opponents everywhere. Or you'll be on a lonely street at Oh-dark-thirty wondering whether to shoot the two vaguely human shapes that seem to be approaching you. None of the theoreticians will be there with you...
You are as always eloquent in the simplicity of truth