Quote:

---

14. OVERWHELM RESISTANCE WITH SPEED AND SUDDENNESS: THE BLITZKRIEG STRATEGY

In a world in which many people are indecisive and overly cautious, the use of speed will bring you untold power. Striking first, before your opponents have time to think or prepare, will make them emotional, unbalanced, and prone to error.

---

Roman use of "pre-emtive strikes" or Passive/Defensive Imperialism. Invasions of Corcica and Sardis, Spain, Gaul, Greece, and even Carthage were all based on the idea of striking first, and establishing a dominant position before the enemy could do the same.

Also see, "The Ghost Division", which is one of my personal favorite things to study outside Psychology and Classical Civilizations.

You know you're good when your OWN high command doesn't even know where you're at.... Blitzkrieg at its best!

(Had to throw in the WWII reference, especially since the Strategy itself mmakes the same reference. Rommel kicked some serious ass.....)

Quote:

---

I've ordered the book and it should be in this week. Having read The Art of War, Mastering the Art of War, The Lost Art of War, The Silver Sparrow Art of War, On War, and Hannibal, I hope I have another tactical book in my arsenal that I hardly ever use. I disliked Machiavelli's Art of War.

---

hehe, his Art of War is deeply grounded in his own time - it's not so much a strategy book as an 'ultimate army' book... his plan was to have a line of swiss pikemen in front of spanish swordsmen from what I remember. I recommend The Prince, however, as a highly influential work on the importance of real politik. It's funny how Machiavelli has been villainised over the last few hundred years, quite unfairly in my opinion. Machiavelli's central moral position is still an essentially Aristotelian Virtue system - and Virtue theory has, over the last century, very much come into vogue. Personally, I was quite impressed by bits of Art of War, although I agree that it is deeply anachronistic now (and possibly even in his day, given the increasing use of gunpowder). Also, one of the central points it makes is still valid today: don't trust mercenaries to do a country's dirty work for you - have a citizen's army. Sure, they aren't always as efficient, but it's in their best interest to get conflict over with.

Quote:

---

15. CONTROL THE DYNAMIC: FORCING STRATEGIES

People are constantly struggling to control you. The only way to get the upper hand is to make your play for control more intelligent and insidious. Instead of trying to dominate the other side's every move, work to define the nature of the relationship itself. Maneuver to control your opponents' minds, pushing their emotional buttons and compelling them to make mistakes.

---

Quote:

---

16. HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS: THE CENTER OF GRAVITY STRATEGY

Everyone has a source of power on which he or she depends. when you look at your rivals, search below the surface for that source, the center of gravity that holds the entire structure together. Hitting them there will inflict disproportionate pain. Find what the other side most cherishes and protects - that is where you must strike.

---

Well, this is one I see a problem with - mostly the last bit, actually. In World War 2, the Nazis used the Vengeance Ballistic Missile to target civilians in London. I do not mention the Blitz here because that was predominately aimed at strategic targets - ie. factories, airfields, infrastructure. Anyway, the British certainly didn't like this. It killed a fair few civilians. But was it worth it? No. Allied strategic bombing of civillians also wasn't worth it because, frankly, civilian loss of life doesn't cause short-term loss of ability to fight. In fact, it can galvanise soldiers and civilians-under-arms to resist attackers more fiercely, creating an 'existential' conflict if you like (existential because they view it as a war for existence itself).

Now, my point is that an enemy can value something a lot, but hitting it won't necessarily win you a war. A simple example might be having a fight with someone carrying a very expensive gold watch. He isn't going to like you damaging his watch - it's what he 'cherishes and protects' most. But guess what, if you go for the watch, he's going to kick your head in anyway

So, what I would replace this point with is:

16: ATTACK WHAT THE ENEMY NEEDS: THE CENTRE OF GRAVITY STRATEGY
Everyone has things upon which they depend. Whether it's food, water, ammunition, ego, linear combat or Queensbury Rules, find out what he relies on and attack it. He doesn't have to realise he needs it for it to be worth attacking - in fact, the less he realises he needs it, the more likely you can take it away.

Whaddya think? Do I have a chance to get this in?

Quote:

---

It's a different lexis, but this is what I was talking about earlier - control the initiative. Lock down your opponent's choices, make sure you hold all the aces. It's an old rule, and I don't think it's particularly eloquently put here, but kudos for saying it.

---

Quote:

---

So, what I would replace this point with is:

16: ATTACK WHAT THE ENEMY NEEDS: THE CENTRE OF GRAVITY STRATEGY
Everyone has things upon which they depend. Whether it's food, water, ammunition, ego, linear combat or Queensbury Rules, find out what he relies on and attack it. He doesn't have to realise he needs it for it to be worth attacking - in fact, the less he realises he needs it, the more likely you can take it away.

Whaddya think? Do I have a chance to get this in?

---

Ladies and Gents, I think we have a winner!