[lit-ideas] Re: Worst Case Scenarios
- From: David Ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 09:21:46 -0700
On Apr 19, 2006, at 9:40 PM, John McCreery wrote:
It is a almost a truism in military history that optimistic military
planners regularly overestimate how easy it will be to defeat their
enemies. Thus, for example, before WWI German planners convinced
themselves that the German army would be in Paris in a couple of
weeks. The French planners convinced themselves that the French army
would take about the same amount of time to reach Berlin. Add the fact
that even dazzling initial successes, the Blitzkrieg in WWII, "Shock
and Awe" in Iraq can lead in time to disillusion and defeat, and the
case for paying careful attention to worst case scenarios--asking what
happens if SNAFU reigns or the enemy have some tricks up their
sleeves--is powerful, indeed.
So when I read the opening paragraphs of Victor Corpus' "If it comes
to a shooting war...." in Asia Times, the retired brigadier general
has my full attention,
In idle moments yesterday I turned the Brigadier General's argument in
my head.
"What does a Brigadier General know about naval readiness?"
"More than I do."
"Why does the argument sound so like a description of the beginning of
the U.S. involvement in World War Two--investment in obsolete ships,
destroyed by low-tech cunning. Does this suggest that the readership
is intended to be people for whom the most obvious point of reference
is Pearl Harbor? Am I reading some kind of psy-ops piece?"
The fundamental facts are these: the U.S. has a very small army and a
great faith in its technological edge. The U.S. relies for its defense
[defence] on a navy that engages potential enemies far from U.S.
shores. If it were the case that these battle groups are vulnerable to
comparatively cheap attack, this would be very awkward. (I spoke with
a friend in Silicon Valley. His view is that there is yet more whizzo
technology on the way and thus all will be well). The U.S. is
currently making policy that has to take account of two of the world's
largest armies--those of China and Iran. Diplomacy may be succeeding
behind the scenes, but the public face of matters is strained.
As a historian, I feel I ought to have something more useful to say on
the subject. But all I can do at present is, with one eye on the
world, concentrate on the "this"ness of life, wonder why my dog has
begun to snore...that level of issue. Hence the writing about fish and
daughters and so on. The situations being tackled by the current set
of World politicians cannot be ignored, and they must be ignored.
David Ritchie,
Portland, Oregon
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
