Monday 11 May 2009

The second rule of warfare

Don't give a militarily superior opponent up to one year's warning beforehand.

The first rule is don't start, of course.

My latest blogpost: The second rule of warfareTweet this! Posted by Mark Wadsworth at 17:12

Labels: , ,

5 comments:

AntiCitizenOne said...

Maybe the answer is to let Israel counter attack and take the entire middle east (like last time)?

11 May 2009 at 21:15
Stan said...

Actually, the first rule of warfare is "know your enemy and know yourself".

Your second rule doesn't really matter because it's pretty hard to disguise the fact that you're preparing a major offensive.

Going back to your first rule - I really don't go in for this nation building rubbish. It only worked in Germany and Japan post WW2 because those nations were utterly crushed and occupied by overwhelmingly superior forces. They really had no choice but to accept it.

The best thing to do is to ensure your national defence is so strong that nobody in their right mind would attack you and make sure that if they do your response is swift, decisive and overwhelming. Proportionality has no place in warfare

12 May 2009 at 12:18
Mark Wadsworth said...

S, agreed, the nation building worked well in Germany & Japan, but, applying the First Rule, they started, so they had to lose, so kicking them into shape after the event was (relatively) easy.

On the second rule, I think this makes the difference between 6 Day War (the Israelis knew something was afoot and so went for 'first strike') and Yom Kippur* War (when the Arabs just attacked without warning).

* Interestingly, this is the Israeli celebration of the day that the first fisherman realised how tasty smoked fish are - as in "Yum! Kipper!"

12 May 2009 at 18:50
Andrew Zalotocky said...

The key strategic issue in the Middle East at the moment is the Iranian nuclear weapons programme. A nuclear Iran wouldn't just be a threat to Israel. It would also be in a position to dominate its Arab neighbours, and for the major Sunni Arab powers the prospect of being pushed around by non-Arab Shiites is particularly alarming.

It follows that the interests of the Arab states currently lie in co-operation with Israel against their common enemy. Even if this fact were never openly acknowledged, any co-operation between them would be much easier and more effective if there was a public normalisation of relations between the Arab regimes and Israel.

But to get their people to accept such a deal - or at least, not protest violently enough to be any real threat to the regime - the Arab rulers need to deliver something significant for the Palestinians. They need to threaten and bluster, and make it look like they are forcing the Israelis to the negotiating table. Ideally, they need to make it look as though there is no possible alternative.

Hence the King's dramatic comments about war. It's political theatre to prepare the way for a "peace deal" that has probably already been agreed.

Of course, President Obama will be desperately keen to portray himself as the great peacemaker who has made all this possible, and the other parties to the negotiations will probably find it expedient to let him do so. But in reality it will be a matter of realpolitik in which the personalities and ideologies of the individual leaders are almost entirely irrelevant.

13 May 2009 at 01:00
M said...

According to my old history teacher the first rule of warfare is: cheat!

13 May 2009 at 09:22

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)