john_anderson_ii
Member
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,080
From a tactical point of view, we are going to win or come really damned close. I've been an enthusiastic student of warfare strategy every since I cracked open my first tactics correspondence course as a Lance Corporal in the USMC. I can tell you we are doing things so right, its uncanny that its spontaneous. If you have a few minutes, I'll explain why.
In warfare, there are two main groups of strategy Attrition and Maneuver. Attrition is where you stack your strength against the strength of your enemy and hope to break more equipment and produce more bodies. Maneuver is where you mass your strength against the enemies weaknesses while attempting to avoid their strength. In reality, the tactic you choose is often somewhere in between, so Attrition and Maneuver is a sliding scale like the political spectrum. Attrition requires massive amounts of men, equipment and funding and is used when you have superior numbers of inferior soldiers. Maneuver requires speedy communication, autonomous operation and superior soldiers. It usually helps maneuver if you have the technological edge as well.
To relate that to our struggle, picture a battle between the establishment and the Ron Paulers. The establishment is a big, bulky powerful juggernaut. It is fueled by deep pockets, a large quantity of unenthusiastic soldiers, and very superior firepower (the MSM). We, on the other hand, are lighter and more flexible. Our technological edge, the internet, gives us speedy communication and allows us to mass firepower where and when needed. The establishment requires more time and resources to make a point through its mouthpieces. By the time that salvo is fired we have already avoided it, countered it, or are seeking new avenues of weakness to attack. Most importantly, we are largely leaderless. That makes us several autonomous units. Once mired in a course of action, the establishment's rigid command structure cannot change directions easily. However, our independent groups can dart like hummingbirds from one crisis to the next.
As an example, lets put the debate smear tactics against the Arab newspaper ad. The establishment spent a ton of treasure in both money and reputation to smear Ron Paul that way, and in the end the audience was relatively small and scattered. The Arab newspaper ad on the other hand was a precision strike that cost comparatively nothing and generated more hits. An autonomous unit of the greater Ron Paul effort noticed that the treatment of Arabs by the establishment was a weakness. Without waiting on approval from any central command, that agent chose to strike that weakness, spending almost no resources compared to the establishment's debate tactic. Without a doubt the Arab newspaper ad scored more hits than the debate tactic. How many regular joes did that debate win over for a particular "front-runner"? How many Arabs did that ad win over for Ron Paul?
I think we need to speed things up. Find an establishment weakness and exploit it. Not hard. Avoid their strengths. More difficult. We need to increase the pace and intensity. We want them running around in circles chasing their tail and spending like crazy to counter us. Only to find out that they are too late to counter anything, the damage has been done, and we have moved on to another avenue of approach.
If you are bashing heads with neo-con pundits, you are pitting your strength against theirs, and its consuming more resources (time). Instead assault the fence-sitters in that particular segment and subvert the pundit entirely. Why bash through the front lines to destroy ignorance when you can envelop and cut off the supply of ignorance these pundits feed upon?
If you have an idea that can make a targeted assault on a segment, don't wait for an "O.K" or "This is a good idea". Especially don't argue your case on the internet. That just spends more time with no net gain. Time is our most valuable resource at this point, so don't waste it. Just take the initiative and hope for the best.
I'm really impressed with what we supporters are capable of.
P.S. Here's the exact definition the USMC gives to maneuver warfare doctrine: "warfighting philosophy that seeks to shatter the enemy’s cohesion through a variety of rapid, focused, and unexpected actions which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot cope."
I think we are working towards something like that.
In warfare, there are two main groups of strategy Attrition and Maneuver. Attrition is where you stack your strength against the strength of your enemy and hope to break more equipment and produce more bodies. Maneuver is where you mass your strength against the enemies weaknesses while attempting to avoid their strength. In reality, the tactic you choose is often somewhere in between, so Attrition and Maneuver is a sliding scale like the political spectrum. Attrition requires massive amounts of men, equipment and funding and is used when you have superior numbers of inferior soldiers. Maneuver requires speedy communication, autonomous operation and superior soldiers. It usually helps maneuver if you have the technological edge as well.
To relate that to our struggle, picture a battle between the establishment and the Ron Paulers. The establishment is a big, bulky powerful juggernaut. It is fueled by deep pockets, a large quantity of unenthusiastic soldiers, and very superior firepower (the MSM). We, on the other hand, are lighter and more flexible. Our technological edge, the internet, gives us speedy communication and allows us to mass firepower where and when needed. The establishment requires more time and resources to make a point through its mouthpieces. By the time that salvo is fired we have already avoided it, countered it, or are seeking new avenues of weakness to attack. Most importantly, we are largely leaderless. That makes us several autonomous units. Once mired in a course of action, the establishment's rigid command structure cannot change directions easily. However, our independent groups can dart like hummingbirds from one crisis to the next.
As an example, lets put the debate smear tactics against the Arab newspaper ad. The establishment spent a ton of treasure in both money and reputation to smear Ron Paul that way, and in the end the audience was relatively small and scattered. The Arab newspaper ad on the other hand was a precision strike that cost comparatively nothing and generated more hits. An autonomous unit of the greater Ron Paul effort noticed that the treatment of Arabs by the establishment was a weakness. Without waiting on approval from any central command, that agent chose to strike that weakness, spending almost no resources compared to the establishment's debate tactic. Without a doubt the Arab newspaper ad scored more hits than the debate tactic. How many regular joes did that debate win over for a particular "front-runner"? How many Arabs did that ad win over for Ron Paul?
I think we need to speed things up. Find an establishment weakness and exploit it. Not hard. Avoid their strengths. More difficult. We need to increase the pace and intensity. We want them running around in circles chasing their tail and spending like crazy to counter us. Only to find out that they are too late to counter anything, the damage has been done, and we have moved on to another avenue of approach.
If you are bashing heads with neo-con pundits, you are pitting your strength against theirs, and its consuming more resources (time). Instead assault the fence-sitters in that particular segment and subvert the pundit entirely. Why bash through the front lines to destroy ignorance when you can envelop and cut off the supply of ignorance these pundits feed upon?
If you have an idea that can make a targeted assault on a segment, don't wait for an "O.K" or "This is a good idea". Especially don't argue your case on the internet. That just spends more time with no net gain. Time is our most valuable resource at this point, so don't waste it. Just take the initiative and hope for the best.
I'm really impressed with what we supporters are capable of.
P.S. Here's the exact definition the USMC gives to maneuver warfare doctrine: "warfighting philosophy that seeks to shatter the enemy’s cohesion through a variety of rapid, focused, and unexpected actions which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot cope."
I think we are working towards something like that.
Last edited:
