Originally Posted by Coldstreamer
Well we could put in another way, and that is these pictures became emblematic of US Strategic failure, but I can't see how a picture of very minor tactical actions can inflate the worth of the tactical action.And I disagree! I think all your examples are have strategic effect - its a question of degree.
Whose legitimacy. Legitimacy, as used by the 4GW crowd is an entirely cultural construct. Legitimacy is really only relevant in that it causes political action.The Vietnam pics most definately had a negative impact on the perception of the war, the opinion (right or otherwise) of the legitimacy of the US. And in all these things, Legitimacy, and the perception of it - is the most important strategic factor of all.
How many is enough?I think enough Lindie Englands probably can lose the war for you.
Seriously, yes you are correct, but only when they cause your side to change the policy or the other sides leadership change their intent.
Example: The PIRA killing Lord Mountbatten caused not a blip in UK policy to Ulster, yet there was massive public outrage.
Now did the Sergeants Affair get the UK to leave Palestine. Some say it did, but the evidence is doubtful.
Basically the argument that some News coverage, of a purely tactical act, can alter the course of a conflict means strategic and operational planning is useless since it has to account for a degree of prediction that is essentially impossible. What is more there is no evidence from history that this is the case.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand, was strategically significant. If the nutty Balkan has shot the Archduke's French Bulldog, "Scipio" no one would have cared... except the British....
War has always been infinitely complex. It cannot become more complex.I thinks are more complex (and yet more simple) than the old state on state 'big event' paradigm.
Bookmarks