Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Has anybody ever seen any contest, from toddley-winks to global war, in which a purely defensive strategy triumphed?
B
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by aklim
How was Japan a threat? Pearl Harbor? Why did they do that again?
|
Oil.
As to the ability to do without... If your gas bills are rising, and you can't afford the cost, you insulate yourself the best you can. Any other strategy is secondary to the imperitive of long term survival. How much corporate profit in the 90's came from efficiencys and cost reductions? A sound plan for self sufficency, (and by that I mean begining to demonstrate to the players that there is a future beyond oil) to the degree it is possible, is missing from our policy... particularly when you factor the defense budget into the cost of energy, there is room to promote non-enemy energy sources. And if there is not, why muck around with democracy when the potential outcome is not necessarily in line with our real goals.
Are we unwilling to expand the war to the degree necessary to influence the outcome? If there is a sound stratagic goal then it is being executed in a fainting manner that was orchestrated by the CIC and a big part of the propagandas success is the reality on the ground.
Wether defensive or offensive, the best strategy is to weaken the enemys position relative yours. Make his position untenable and you have won. But the esscence of current policy is that his position will always be paramont.