Did you study math in school in order to learn how to solve specific problems using particular strategies/ Or did you study math to learn the principles to facilitate broad application to problems that you may face throughout your subsequent career and life?
Julius Caesar's strategy and tactics exactly fit the time and tools. His methods varied by situation and were intentionally unpredictable and brilliantly effective. They varied from bloodless political intrigue to annihilation of entire villages. Just as it would be stupid to suggest that Caesar should have used Predator aircraft, it is also stupid to suggest that present commanders adopt decimation.
But what can be learned is the principles involved in dealing with a broad class of military and political problems over a varied geographical terrain and fractious, restive semi-autonomous subregions and tribes.
Read the Gallic Campaign and get back to me.
I think you enjoy missing the point at times.
Julius lived in a different time with a different set of tools. And completely different information technologies and political forces. The fact that Julius was on a mission to conquer neighboring lands plays into his strategies and the military tactics he selected to achieve his strategic goals. So what? If all the circumstances surrounding his situation differ from what we are faced with today, why suggest because he used a certain military tactic it is "precedent" for employing that tactic today when you agree the strategic goals and circumstances are different?
As for troops being used for bait, well, when I brought this up as a feature of Bush's "we are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" excuse for the invasion of Iraq long ago, it was viewed as an insult to Bush and the troops, that an American President would never engage in such a callous expenditure of the lives and well being of Americans who volunteer to protect this country with their lives. That was bullshit, and we know it because that is exactly what Bush did, and as a result more Americans have been wounded or killed since 9-11 by terrorists and their sympathizers, than were killed on 9-11. In my book American lives are all equally valuable. Just because some are either very brave or very down on their luck and have no other path open to them, and they join the military voluntarily, the President has no "right" to use those lives to bolster his Party's and his own chances in elections, or to engage in a personal grudge match with someone who is alleged to have threatened his father.
But, again, the idea that it has been done in the past makes it precedence and therefore acceptable military practice, is bullshit. We don't need to engage in that kind of deceit of the American people, or that kind of waste of brave American citizens. We can opt to just get the fuck out of Iraq and engage the terrorists more effectively through cooperative, international policing actions. And aggressive efforts to infiltrate and spy on the bastards. The reliance on a military capability built to accomplish a vastly different mission with expensive, high technology weapons where they are of little actual value is not a good military tactic. Resorting to using soldiers as bait is even worse.
My view is you don't engage in optional conflicts like Iraq. If there is a real threat you squash it, or in modern, high tech warfare terms, you nuke it. If it is not worth nuking it is optional and should be addressed with other, non-military tactics.
My opinion Bot. Nothing more and nothing more claimed of it than my opinion. Jim