Does it bother anyone besides me?

[Occhidiangela]

Actually, I had no idea Occhy was in the military.  

Ashock, Just because someone is in the armed forces, does't necessarily make them an authority with respect to the "Art of War".  Occhy is pretty well read and informed on a lot of topics.   IMHO, it would be logical to assume military strategy is just another area of interest for him.

I also didn't realize he had fought in the Korean war in the 50's.   :whistling:
[right][snapback]81113[/snapback][/right]

FWIW:

Strategy and the Art of War, as you call it, as well as the Theory of War is something that, unlike many folks who serve, I spent some time immersed in.

As for the gray hairs, well . . . Ashock has already covered that. :blush: Though I ain't that old!

And Rinnhart:

When you attempt to describe success or failure in armed conflict by a comparison of toys, you open yourself to being shown up, because, as I suggested before YOU started this sub-argument, with this assertion

"If you take away the bow and hand the Indian a Kalashinikov, the game changes, Occi"

it is the Indian not the Arrow. Israel 1948 classic case in point. The Battle of Savo Island a better one. (1942, off of Guadalcanal, Japs versus US)

You tried to assert that it was the Arrow. It was and is the Indian, though good arrows never hurt.

The metaphor represents "the fighting man(the trained or otherwise prepared force)" versus "his equipment(toys.)" John Paul Jones added a nautical twist: "Men mean more than guns in the rating of a ship." That is still true.

The decisive difference has generally been Indian rather than the Arrrow since rocks and clubs were the coin of the realm.
Occhi