Surrender Strategy

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.

Invasions, Assimilation, and Salt

For some reason, I have been gripped by the topic of “invasive species” for the last few days.    Down here in the south, the example of kudzu immediately comes to mind.  The UN Council on Bio Diversity defines an invasive species as, “a plant or animal that is not native to a specific location; and has a tendency to spread, which is believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy and/or human health.”  

 

The European Union uses the term "Invasive Alien Species."  One doesn’t need to be a recent graduate of our modern academic system to realize just how offensive and politically incorrect the term "Invasive Alien Species" could be.  In fact, two researchers, Robert I. Colautti and Hugh J. MacIsaac in a paper titled, “A Neutral Terminology to Define ‘Invasive’ Species” come to the aid of those oppressed aliens.  

Their paper’s abstract explains, “The use of simple terms to articulate ecological concepts can confuse ideological debates and undermine management efforts. This problem is particularly acute in studies of nonindigenous species, which alternatively have been called ‘exotic’, ‘introduced’, ‘invasive’ and ‘naturalised’, among others…”  Instead they, “propose a neutral terminology.”  Perhaps they should be called “undocumented species” or “uninvited, but welcome anyways species” or “refugee species.”  Some species were probably brought here by their parents, through no fault of their own – some might call that species a “dreamer” perhaps.

Dr. David Tilman finds, “Typically, an introduced species must survive at low population densities before it becomes invasive in a new location.”  Then there is a “tipping point” where the invasive species becomes a problem.  However, this doesn’t just happen; there are preconditions that make an ecosystem susceptible to invasion.  The Department of Agriculture insightfully explains, “Invaded ecosystems may have experienced disturbance, typically human-induced.  Such a disturbance may give invasive species a chance to establish themselves with less competition from natives less able to adapt to a disturbed ecosystem.”   In the case of the American ecosystem, that disturbance is the result of unconstitutional executive actions.

As PJ Media reports, “President Obama’s amnesty by edict has always been about adding new Democrats to the voter rolls, and recent action by the Department of Homeland Security provides further proof. Sources at the DHS report that the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services is reallocating significant resources away from a computer system — the “Electronic Immigration System” — to sending letters to all 9,000,000 green card holders urging them to naturalize prior to the 2016 election.”

 

And the invasion will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.  The Washington Examiner reports, “Legal and illegal immigrants will hit a record high of 51 million in just eight years and eventually account for an astounding 82 percent of all population growth in America, according to new U.S. Census figures.”  

The Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the new Census says, “These numbers have important implications for workers, schools, infrastructure, congestion and the environment…They also may have implications for our ability to successfully assimilate and integrate immigrants. Yet there has been almost no national debate about bringing in so many people..."

There was a President that unashamedly loved America; he described her using the metaphor Jesus used in His Sermon on the Mount.  In his farewell speech to the nation, Ronald Reagan said, “I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace…”

In that same speech, Reagan warned us that it was effectual assimilation that would prevent an invasion from leading to annihilation.  He cautioned, “An informed patriotism is what we want…are we doing a good enough job teaching our children what America is and what she represents in the long history of the world?...freedom is special and rare. It's fragile; it needs protection.”  Social scientists define successful assimilation as “new members of a society become indistinguishable from members of the other group.”

  

Immediately before His “City on a Hill” illustration, Jesus told his followers, “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.”  

 

If our country is going to be preserved, Americans must pour on the salt.  No matter how irritating some might find it.

This column also appears in the 29 APR 2015 Upson Beacon.