I agree. I apologise if my phrasing implied approval of this strategy, that was not my intent.
Our current leader suffer the same weakness as our past leaders: Failure to foresee the consequences of their preferred (and tested) strategies in new environments.
The First World War as practically fought as a classic European war initially. And it was assumed by everyone that it would be just that; another quick decisive war. And it looked like it might almost have been that, had it not been for some strategic blunders by German HQ. Blunders that were sparked by conservative ideas and classic defence strategy.
When the war became entrenched, no side truly knew how to advance. They knew how to defend their position (machine guns), but not how to take the other's positions. That first really changed with the introduction of the tank. But that arrived too late to partake in many battles in that war. The Second World War proved its usefulness to its fullest.
Traditional geopolitical, strategic thinking and military schools turned the First World War into a far bloodier than it could have been. New technology, new warfare tactics among other things have changed they dynamic for war.
Today, new ideologies, again new warfare tactics (think urban warfare), new opponents (not nation states anymore) among other things are again changing the dynamic.
When the First World War ended, the solution to it was the same as always; war reparation without considerations to their consequences. The same thing is happening today; old strategy and military schools are being applied to conflicts to which they do not apply.
It might be because our current leaders are politicians first, and need to secure their popularity among voters. Moreso than our past leaders. But it might also just be history repeating itself. In a way.
> The First World War as practically fought as a classic European war initially. And it was assumed by everyone that it would be just that; another quick decisive war.
Our current leader suffer the same weakness as our past leaders: Failure to foresee the consequences of their preferred (and tested) strategies in new environments.
The First World War as practically fought as a classic European war initially. And it was assumed by everyone that it would be just that; another quick decisive war. And it looked like it might almost have been that, had it not been for some strategic blunders by German HQ. Blunders that were sparked by conservative ideas and classic defence strategy.
When the war became entrenched, no side truly knew how to advance. They knew how to defend their position (machine guns), but not how to take the other's positions. That first really changed with the introduction of the tank. But that arrived too late to partake in many battles in that war. The Second World War proved its usefulness to its fullest.
Traditional geopolitical, strategic thinking and military schools turned the First World War into a far bloodier than it could have been. New technology, new warfare tactics among other things have changed they dynamic for war.
Today, new ideologies, again new warfare tactics (think urban warfare), new opponents (not nation states anymore) among other things are again changing the dynamic.
When the First World War ended, the solution to it was the same as always; war reparation without considerations to their consequences. The same thing is happening today; old strategy and military schools are being applied to conflicts to which they do not apply.
It might be because our current leaders are politicians first, and need to secure their popularity among voters. Moreso than our past leaders. But it might also just be history repeating itself. In a way.