[lit-ideas] Re: General Picus Picus

JL:

What you write reminds me of the German strategy prior to World War One.
Tirpitz thought the German Navy would be large enough to defeat the British
Navy if it was two/thirds as large because an attacking navy needs to exceed
a defending navy by 1/3 to be successful.  It apparently never occurred to
Tirpitz or Wilhelm II that the British Navy might not fall into that trap
but stay away from European ports and catch the German navy out at sea where
it, the British Navy, would have the advantage.   Also, Tirpitz assumed that
the British wouldn't have access to its entire navy because much of it was
needed to protect its empire; whereas the first thing the British did when
war seemed likely was to call most of its Imperial navy back home, and to
come to a quick agreement with the French Navy about sharing naval duties.

Also the Schlieffen plan itself was flawed.  It didn't allow for enough
"dialogue."  It assumed a certain response from Germany's enemies and when
they didn't respond as Schlieffen predicted, Germany was at a loss.

From what I understand, there is much more flexibility in modern war-gaming,
a sort of anticipation of dialogic possibilities:  If we do this, the enemy
may do U, V, or W.  There is a remote possibility that they'll do X, Y, or
Z, but if they do we shall have an easy time of it.  Now if they do U then
we should respond as follows . . . but if they do V, we should do . . .  or
if they do W then we should . . .   If there is some way to trick them into
doing X or Y, then we should do that.  It's worth a try.  But their best bet
would be to do U; so let's do most of our planning for that.   And then the
final, "can anyone here think of any other possibilities?"

Lawrence Helm
San Jacinto

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 3:50 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] General Picus Picus

Picus Picus (Was: A Nation of Warmongers)

Helm quotes Geary

"Except he's all wrong. I can see him walking his dogs in San Hyacinth (as
JL would have it) and muttering to himself: 'War, we need more war, war to
make brave, honorable men of these sissy boys. Give me war, I want war, WE
need war.'" 

and aptly comments,

"Gad! Where is that charred spear. I can never find that thing when I need
it. Maybe it's up on that pot-shelf behind Mommsen.""

Exactly.

Incidentally, I'm reading "The Birds of the Latin Poets", and he says that
'picus picus' the wood-pecker was the Roman symbol of masculinity and the
God Mars -- whom they ALWAYS represented with his one big phallic attribute:

            the spear ---- offense

and

            the shield -- defense.

I would like to know more about the picus picus/Mars association.

Also, I wonder if there is a difference between 'strategy' and Habermas.
Habermas thinks there is a level of what he calls "communicative
rationality" ("communicative action") that has to do with what he calls
"dialogue ethics" and the United Nations. Within this rationality, nations
co-operate.

On the other hand, he says, there is a lower, "strategic rationality", which
I thought was good -- and indeed from which we could retrieve the other type
of rationality but not for Habermas. Strategic rationality is different from
means-end (instrumental) rationality, in that it's a co-ordination of a
rational subject and another rational subject, but apparently, not aimed at
cooperation.

I first thought Habermas was wrong. But now, after Loebbing a bit
("Strategica", etc.) I see that in the very word 'strategos', there _must_
be an element of _deceit_. A general wants his co-rational agent NOT to know
certain things. This would be enough for Grice to avoid the work of
'implicatures' or things like that. 

I think this is all too subtle. If we have a problem with forestation, say,
we wouldn't use a 'strategy' because a tree cannot think. But then perhaps
it can. So, if we have a problem with the quarries, say -- rocks -- then
that's different.
Unless there _is_ a God.

If you understand what I mean, maybe you can comment.

Cheers,

JL

Other related posts: