In a previous column we discussed the six
forms of maneuver warfare with a particular focus on infiltration.
You might recall the Army manual that covered that topic was titled Offense
and Defense. The particular
way my mind is warped has caused me to dwell on that title – “Offense and
Defense” – for the past couple of weeks. It is as if they are mutually
exclusive, yet obviously related.
The other thought that has been churning in my mind is the old maxim, “The best defense is a good offense.” As I tested that hypothesis using historical examples, modern military engagements, and my understanding of the “art and science” of war, I’m not so sure that old adage is accurate.
The way the introduction of FM 3-90-1 (Offense and Defense) deals with
the tactics embodied in that title certainly suggests they are discreet. The intro says, “These offensive
and defensive combined arms tactics and considerations apply to the conduct of
decisive action across the range of military operations…Part One contains five
chapters and addresses the conduct of offensive tasks. Part Two contains four chapters and addresses
the conduct of defensive tasks.” Although
they may be interrelated, they are clearly divided.
We can see this division more
clearly in American football. In that
sport we have two specific squads, each task organized to fulfill their
specific functions. Only one of the two formations
from each team is on the field at a given time.
Contrast this with basketball; the same players play both offense and
defense. In sports where the winner is
determined by amassing points it is difficult to win with only a good
defense.
One historical approach to warfare
that has served us well is the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD). This doctrine has achieved peace in the
nuclear realm by asserting that we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons (to
include preemptively); in an overwhelming manner should another nation dare to
consider offensive use. The underlying
logic of this MAD doctrine is that neither side dares launch as the resultant
destruction would be unacceptable to either side. Reagan called this “peace
through strength.” All that said,
this might be best characterized as, “the best offense is a good offense.”
Paradoxically, in this instance “a good
defense” (counter missile capabilities, nuclear shelters, etc.) that make
survivability more plausible, really only makes the MAD doctrine less likely to
work, such that one might conclude “the best defense (to keep the doctrine
effective) is no defense.”
Sun Tzu, the ancient Chinese
military strategist and philosopher might choose to say, “The best offense is a
good strategy.” The translation of his
thoughts says it this way, “The best strategy in warfare is to capture an enemy country whole and
intact without having to resort to arms. To conquer it by force is the second
best way…Accordingly, the best way in directing military operations is to
defeat the enemy through strategic superiority, the second best way is to
defeat the enemy through diplomatic means; the next best method is resorting to
arms to conquer the enemy army, and it is always the least desirable method to
besiege a fortified city.” So for Sun
Tzu the best way to win is to defeat
the enemy through strategic superiority.
One could only wish America’s current leaders would rediscover that truth.
When the
hypothesis that “the best defense is a good offense” is tested in the area of
interpersonal relationships it seems to have the greatest probability for
failure. The weak and wounded seem to
lash out at the least provocation. We’ve
seen that in the recent irrational acts of several shooters, the cold-blooded
killing of the Texas policeman putting petrol in his
patrol car being
one. The absolutely senseless shooting
of the reporter and her cameraman is another.
In these cases the worst defense was a “good” offense. A sound mind in the attacker was what was
wanting.
There is one realm where it is neither offense nor
defense that achieves victory – that is in the spiritual realm. There is no offense that can win against God,
nor any defense that can hold Him off – only unconditional surrender works. Jesus said it this way, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and
take up his cross daily and follow me. For whoever would save his life will
lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”
Surrendering
to the Savior is the only sure strategy.
Sweet Surrender! Thank you, Colonel, for this timely word. We hear the lament of our Lord Jesus who made Himself vulnerable to suffering and death in order to defend those who would surrender to Him, saying, "How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!" (Matthew 23:37). That same lamentation is heard from the broken heart of God in the Old Testament, crying, "Oh that my people had hearkened unto me, and Israel had walked in my ways! I should soon have subdued their enemies, and turned my hand against their adversaries. The haters of the LORD should have submitted themselves unto him: but their time should have endured for ever. He should have fed them also with the finest of the wheat: and with honey out of the rock should I have satisfied thee" (Psalm 81:13-16). There is no safer, sweeter defense in time or eternity than to dwell beneath the protective wings under the shadow of the Almighty. -Psalm 91:1-7
ReplyDelete