US Government, Pentagon, members of the United States House and Senate, members of the American Armed Forces, FBI, CIA, NSA, UN, and international governments and military bodies, this blog is for you. Call Senators: 202-224-3121.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Clearly, peace is the answer, and described have been the ways to get it to happen wonderfully throughout the world.

But in the event of forced war, it may be an interesting tactic for a government or military to immediately surrender to an enemy and begin a guerilla 'second stage' war right away, or after short weeks of primary non-engagement or complication warfare.

Let me chart the possible advancement of a highly pitched war of a large force launched against a very small force in comparison, on a small interestingly terrained oil bearing nation. The goal in all situations is peace, and even a small defending nation must remember this. This is to outline the defense of a small and righteous nation against a large aggressor.

The first choice of the small nation would be to cease production and sabotage its own oil reserves. This would complicate world oil markets and if the giant nation relied heavily on oil for its civilian, economic, military, or diplomatic pursuits, this would weaken the enemy considerably before the first shot was fired, and provide them with international and intranational pressure on the war effort. If the war is truly necessary, it will likely continue and justice will be pursued, but if it is a sidetrack, its strength will be sapped and the war eventually retracted.

Primary fighting between the militaries of the large and small nation would be foolishness. The small nation has no hope of defeating the large nation directly. The better choice for the small military would intuitively be to engage the large military forces at prime opportunities, and to abandon all defensive targets. No ground can effectively be held by the small nation. This should be accounted for and the choicest defensive areas used most wisely.

After a short period of standing resistance, perhaps an incidence of using shoulder fired rockets against planes and enemy hardware and making the best possible use of existing military hardware, and then abandoning the battle and the war itself to presuppose disbanding the defensive government and military in favor of becoming militant NGO's by division, each with the common core of the previous establishment. The ex-government would not be fighters but instead become foreign diplomatic forces, and national/international communication nexus for the defensive population and for the support/cessation of the war. Upon disbanding, the ex-forces can call upon international diplomacy organizations to extert diplomatic pressure upon the aggressor and to bring international aid to help the people of the occupied defensive nation.

The desired goal of the defensive organizations would be to get the aggressor nation out of the area militarily and to someday resume the defending nation's free sovereign status. The previous leaders are unimportant, any previous defensive goals can be reachieved by the surviving people and the remaining landmasses and borders. L'eta^t? C'est personne.

This would not happen to a violent or wrongful dictatorship because of the profusion of media and the education of ethical righteousness from freedom of information and pursuit, and God's blessing. The people's natural desire to be free from the brutality of any dictatorship would arise in the freedom and basically force a revolution among the people during forced engagement wartime. The people would then have the difficulty of forming a new government and national ethic [or ethics] while effectively at war and occupied.

This would also not happen to a large nation fighting a despotic small nation, as was demonstrated in the first months of the war in Iraq. Indeed Saddam Hussein and his military forces were players of evil and destroying them came with righteousness, but shortly after that event, their power dispersed and we found ourselves fighting a GOOD FORCE of the Iraqi people and their love. We still fight that good, and the good American people will not fight the good Iraqi people. As the aggressors, we face the blame and our military efforts are misdirected, producing considerable internal friction, as is righteous when a good person is forced to do bad things to another good person. This will result in the good person rejecting the bad forces and defending the fellow good people, or in the good person surrendering goodness if they are not strong enough to recognize what is good or are tricked.


Post a Comment

<< Home