Bret Devereaux Twitterissä: "And no citizen (or citizen-soldier) in a democracy should accept political leaders who aren't willing to be up-front about what the national strategy is, and how we're trying to achieve it. Something is very wrong if nobody outside DoD/State knows WTF is going on or why. end/20"

@BretDevereaux

Ancient Historian specializing in the Roman economy and military. PhD @UNChistory. My more impressive credential is that I have, in fact, beaten Dark Souls.

Liittynyt toukokuu 2019

Maa	Koodi	Asiakkaille yrityksessä
Yhdysvallat	40404	(mikä tahansa)
Kanada	21212	(mikä tahansa)
Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta	86444	Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
Brasilia	40404	Nextel, TIM
Haiti	40404	Digicel, Voila
Irlanti	51210	Vodafone, O2
Intia	53000	Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
Indonesia	89887	AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
Italia	4880804	Wind
3424486444	Vodafone
» Näytä muiden maiden lyhytnumerot tekstiviesteille

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

Sure, if the problem is another uniformed army, conventional battles can solve it. But if the problem is centered on popular support and legitimacy (e.g. Iranian influence in Iraq), trying to 'go kinetic' on it can (emphasis, *can*) be like trying to hammer a screw. 10/20

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

The other problem is emotional responses, passed off as means, with no connection to ends. As humans, when the 'enemy' hurts us, our instinct is to hurt them back. This is where strategy is essential - if you have an end-state strongly in mind, you can stop and ask... 11/20

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

"Does retaliation get me closer to my end-state? What *kind* of retaliation would get me there?" The question isn't about 'hurting the enemy' anymore, but about getting to a specific positive goal. But it's easy to get tied up thinking about 'delivering pain' to the enemy. 12/20

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

Be suspicious of any strategy which assumes that delivering a certain amount of pain will, through no explained mechanism, force the enemy to give up. Pain can just make a people angrier, after all. 13/20

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

As an ancient historian, I do have to say that there is a certain threshold of violence which will collapse resistance merely by delivering pain, but it is *extremely* high, and with modern weapons, it's likely to leave nothing left worth having in the region... 14/20

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 4 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

'Make a desert and call it peace' is, in nearly all cases, not intended end-state (and also morally wrong), just delivering pain won't get you where you want to go. Strat. bombing falls into this trap easily, with the connection between means (dropping bombs) and ends... 15/20

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

...ends (surrender, moral collapse) being mostly wishful thinking. So the next time you see Important Leader Person getting up on a microphone and explaining what they've done, or are going to do, listen for any traces of actual strategy. 16/20

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

Ask yourself - what is the end-state here? Is it something I want? Are multiple end-states mutually exclusive (e.g. undermine influence of country Y, but also leave region) What are the means intended to produce the end-state? Are they likely to actually do that? 17/20

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 2 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

And are actions being justified on strategic grounds ('this gets us where we are going') or emotional grounds - e.g. 'he was a bad guy' or 'getting them back.' Clausewitz sets the strategic layer - w/ the political object - in the realm of *reason* deliberately. 18/20

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

Not that the emotional - will - is pointless in war. It's in that trinity too! Moral grounds matter - a strategy that requires immoral means is bad strategy and unlikely to succeed because it undermines the will to continue. But strategy is in the head, not the heart. 19/20

1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 3 tykkäystä

Näytä tämä ketju

Bret Devereaux‏ @BretDevereaux 6. tammik. 2020

And no citizen (or citizen-soldier) in a democracy should accept political leaders who aren't willing to be up-front about what the national strategy is, and how we're trying to achieve it. Something is very wrong if nobody outside DoD/State knows WTF is going on or why. end/20

14.50 - 6. tammik. 2020