Deception
plays a big part in the conduct of a war. If you use a well-planned deceptive
trick once, you can win big. But if you repeat the same trick on the enemy you
have targeted previously, the chances are good that the enemy will be prepared,
and will make the deception backfire on you.
Deceptive
or not, another way that you can fall victim to your war tactics, is to talk
about them openly and then use them against someone. The chances are good that
before your next attack, the enemy will have set-up an ambush, and sat waiting
for you. The moment that his forces will spot your forces, they'll open fire
from all directions and decimate your forces before the latter realize what hit
them.
But
why would someone be so careless as to use the same deceptive tricks on the
same target more than once? Or use tactics he discussed openly, on someone that
was listening? The answer to those questions can be given in one word:
arrogance.
There
was a time when the gap between the power of those that had it, and those that
sought it — called asymmetry — was so wide,
the first could pull a trick, brag about it and pull it again without suffering
any serious consequence. And then someone named Molotov found a cheap way to
narrow that gap. He filled a bottle with gasoline, stuffed a piece of cloth in
its mouth, lit the cloth and hurled the bottle at the enemy. The concoction
worked as an effective weapon, and was called Molotov cocktail. It became a
weapon that anyone can produce cheaply and use as an incendiary hand grenade.
Much
has happened since that time to level the playing field between those that have
access to the most sophisticated weapons, and those that don't. The asymmetric
gap has narrowed so much that an advanced army using tanks, for example, cannot
be certain it will prevail in a ground battle against a primitive force that
uses improvised explosive devices. However, an advanced military still has a
small edge when it comes to air power, but the gap is narrowing there too.
The
new realities have created problems for the United States of America, the power
that still wants to act as policeman of the world. Warned in Korea that the
glory days of the Second World War were over, the lesson was not heeded by
America. The lesson became hard to deny in Vietnam, but America still kept
itself in the denial mode. America then tried its hand a few more times in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and elsewhere in Africa where it went to kick asses
but got its own ass kicked … not once but again and again.
You
would think that after all this, no amount of incitement will again persuade
America to get involved in a war that's none of its business, but you would be
wrong. Two articles illustrate the points discussed above, also show that
America has not fully digested the lessons of the past. One article came under
the title: “How the US might stay in Syria, and leave at the same time,”
written by David Ignatius, and published on February 25, 2019 in The Washington
Post. The other article came under the title: “Wars ending badly,” written by
Jed Babbin, and published on February 17, 2019 in The Washington Times.
In
a screaming display of the moronic state to which the so-called democracies
have fallen, David Ignatius is showing how the democratic poison, known as
“trying to have it both ways”, is eating at America's internal organs. Look
what comes in the first paragraph of the Ignatius article: Is there a way for
the US and allies to remain in Syria and leave at the same time? Officials are
struggling to devise a workaround strategy, but it could carry more risks than
maintaining the status quo.
Ignatius
goes on to discuss the various elements of that strategy, much of which consist
of trying to deceive the enemy, using tactics that were used previously — or using strategies that were discussed publicly.
Being in the group that wants America to remain in the Middle East and protect
Israel's mischievous conduct, David Ignatius ended the article with this
advice: The best course would be for Trump simply to acknowledge that his
earlier decision to withdraw from Syria was unwise and reverse it.
Would
that be wise? Apparently not according to Jed Babbin who looks at America's
involvement in foreign wars through the lens of the Vietnam humiliation. Here
is what he says:
“The
United States and the Taliban have agreed in principle to a roadmap for peace …
The Taliban's intentions mirror those of the North Vietnamese at the end of the
war … The accord supposedly preserved South Vietnam's right to
self-determination. But the North attacked and conquered the South anyway ...
In Iraq and Syria, the prospects for peace are not any better … The result of
the Afghan War will be the same as that of Vietnam whose lesson isn't that a
better approach to nation-building could make it successful”.