Warfare all over

[mike.patterson at unb.ca (Mike Patterson)]

Jack Daniel wrote on 1/1/09 9:36 PM:
> I have a couple of real problems with the whole "warfare" analogy-
> first, as expressed before, it trivializes actual warfare, which is
> disrespectful and desensitizing.
> On a more "tactical" level, those of us who work to defend are not
> allowed counterstrikes, much less preemptive attacks to secure
> ourselves.

Jack, yep, that's part of what I was getting at - thanks.

My other objection is that talking about studying a few tactics as
"military history" offends the historian in me.  To use a term familiar
to list-readers, it's kind of skiddie-ish to read a few Sun Tzu quotes
and call that "studying military history."  At least branch out a little!

I don't want to insult people, as there's people much smarter than me
doing exactly what I'm saying we shouldn't (like Richard Bejtlich), but
it bothers me quite a bit and has for years.

That's not to say that there's no value at all in seeing what analogies
one can draw from the study of the military - but calling that history
doesn't really do the actual study of history much justice.  It could be
we could find better analogies, or more of them (and so increase our
chances of education, as Arch Angel pointed out) if we cast our thoughts
farther afield.

Mike

-- 
I love the way that Microsoft follows standards . . . in the same way
that fish follow migrating caribou.  - Paul Tomblin, monk