Limited War
In Clausewitz Revisted, the author, Tom Snodgrass, argues that we are fighting a limited war and that is a losing proposition.
posted by Jason Pappas at 10:08 PM
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Previous Posts
- The Anglosphere
- What the Subprime Crisis Shows
- Culture Is the Explanation
- The 300
- Ayaan Again
- Cicero on Man, Society, and Nature
- India and Her Critics
- Honor in Western Civilization
- Arab Honor and Shame
- It Takes An Individual
Articles
- Is Islam Evil?
- The Left's Response to Islam
- The Left's New Lie
- The Right's Response to Islam
- References on Islam
Major Posts
Links
- Liberty and Culture
- Front Page Magazine
- Ayn Rand Intitute
- To The Point
- QandO
- Jihad Watch
- Daniel Pipes
- Arts & Letters Daily
- Capitalist Magazine
- International Free Press
- New English Review
Blogs plus
- Victor Davis Hanson
- Pamela's Atlas Shrugs
- Gates of Vienna
- Counter Terrorism
- Infidel Alliance
- Mark Alexander
- Up Pompeii
- Freie Radikale
- Fawstin
- Sixth Column
- Llano Estacado
- Amber Pawlik
- Thrutch
- Conservative Swede
- Ronbo Soldier
- A Western Heart
- Solomonia
- Jeremayakovka
Feedback
Jason Pappas, proprietor
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Who Links Here Top blogs
3 Comments:
I respectfully disagree. What Clausewitz doesn't cover, Sun Tzu does.
We're doing everything we can to achieve war aims without fighting - in effect, we're letting Iran script the pretext for us taking the war in Baghdad to Tehran.
Now, that might not be a problem if the Democratic Party wasn't beholden to campaign contributions from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, but the Democrats ain't in charge. Not yet.
If we're not bombing the frack out of Iran by the end of August 2007, we're not going to.
Not unless Bush wants the entire 2008 election season to be defined by it.
Ronbo says REVOLUTION!
The Second American Revolution: The End Of The Beginning
I appreciate the sentiments expressed by "The time has come, Freedom Fighters of the World, in particular Americans, to admit that the time of open rebellion against The State has arrived."
Nonetheless, I view such suggestions as premature. In Patrick Henry's day there was a critical mass of say one third of the populace, ready for action. Equally important, they were armed with outlooks that had been promulgated for over a generation. Thus they had the motives, means and opportunities, to engage in action. Today, there is a small minority of people who are armed, with a cogent set of theories and principles, by which to forge a strategy for victory.
Were action to be taken against the state, it would be the rebels who would be decimated. I recall the time when Gingrich shut down the government, for a brief period of time. Rather than notice the enormous reduction of costs, the public was infuriated that some places such as museums were closed. Americans are not yet ready to acknowledge that we are at war, let alone prepared to reduce our sacrifices.
So instead of action, I submit that we first ought to get our concepts & values clarified and promulgated, while hoping it will not be too late to act on them before we are destroyed.
Post a Comment
<< Home