Common Sense Barrage

Search This Blog

A Little Humor to Start the Week

March 08, 2010

Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

humor

Get link
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps

Comments

Is history still relevant today?

The teaching and writing of history will always be important, if not always appreciated, part of the human intellect. Simplistically, history is the collected sum of knowledge of the events and people that have brought us to where we are today. History tries to tell the truth about both events in time and human nature while grappling with an ever-changing body of source material and new interpretations in how history should be considered. The history profession is at a crossroads today in my opinion. The overspecialization and unfiltered influence of the Annales school and structuralism have caused history to be overly obsessed with what I call “revisionist” history. The desire to tell history from a gender, racial, or ethnic point of view can quickly cross a line from presenting untapped points of view on historical events to proselytizing against “traditional, patriarchic, and Euro-centric” history. In spite of this tendency, history is more important today than ever as Americans

Asymmetric Warfare-A Timeless Classic

Asymmetric warfare, although certainly the current rage among strategic thinkers, is not really a new concept in warfare. The basic definition of asymmetry-‘having two sides or halves that are not the same: not symmetrical’ really applies to warfare from antiquity. Generals have always sought an advantage during warfare, whether at the strategic or tactical level, and the current discussion of asymmetric warfare is really only a discussion of means, not ends in warfare. The great philosophers would have quite a bit to say about “asymmetric warfare.” Sun Tzu in particular was a great proponent of using psychological warfare, intelligence, maneuver and deception to bring about military victory. Clausewitz would probably have labeled asymmetric warfare to be ‘warfare by another means’ and would likely to have put a different spin on it, but basically agreed with Sun Tzu on the advantages in waging this type of combat. Sun Tzu provides a great deal of discussion on asym

America's Strategy in the Pacific War

The U.S. counteroffensive across the Pacific was driven by three major factors: geography, resources and personalities. The simultaneous drives began with limited operations designed to secure the approaches and security of Australia, America’s prime Pacific ally; then diverged as America’s capabilities and resources increased and reconnected again in the final phases of the war as the U.S. prepared for an invasion of the Japanese islands. Personalities were the early driving factor in how command was allocated in the Pacific Theater and how the war would be fought on a strategic level. After being driven from the Philippines, General Douglas MacArthur was sent to Australia to organize the first American troops in theater and prepare to defend the continent. Even though naval power would be the major weapon in the drive through the central and northern Pacific to an eventual invasion of Japan, MacArthur was not about to report to Adm. Chester Nimitz, so a convoluted command structu

Powered by Blogger

All posts copyright by ME--The Grouchy Historian. Feel free to link, but provide that linkback