That was before the advent of modern guerilla warfare, my
dear man. Such tactics nowadays in Iraq and other Muslim
countries would only result in greater losses because they
would allow the guerillas to become better organized. As
long as a guerilla force is disorganized they are highly
vulnerable. I just got done watching "Collateral Damage"
so I should know.

Libertarian ideals are not bad ideals, as a matter of fact,
they are good ideals. But, that doesn't change the fact
that probably over 95 percent of the American people
don't think they apply any more.


"Gilligan" wrote in message news
Did you know that George Washington was a libertarian? Libertarian ideals
are perfectly embodied in the US Constitution. Are you saying the US
Constitution is antiquated?

I've only cited the use of feigning tactics in the Revolutionary War. Would
you care for some modern examples where a smaller force slaughtered a much
larger force using feigning tactics?

Hitler through the Ardenne. McArthur at Inchon. Japanese Navy vs Russia
Navy. The US Marine Corps did a great job of fighting while retreating from
the Chosin Reservoir in Korea. They were outnumbered ten to one. Do you
think they lost?

"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
George Washington, in case you've forgotten, lived over two hundred
years ago. His tactics are as antiquated as libertarian ideals.

FACT: No armed conflict has ever been lost by the overwhelming
and aggressive use of force. Retreating does not fit either use.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
George Washington must be an idiot then:


http://hoover.archives.gov/exhibits/...Washington.htm

GEORGE WASHINGTON realized he could not win the war by engaging in huge
battles. He devised a new strategy of defensive war designed to allow
small
victories against British power, often by feigning retreat and then
circling
back for unexpected strikes. When Congress turned over full military
responsibility to Washington in 1777, he could easily have controlled
all of
America. Instead he wielded the authority necessary to make command
decisions but kept Congress fully updated to the needs and actions of
his
army. His calm, tough realism won over many a detractor.

As I said, retreat then go back.



"Simple Simon" wrote in message
...
Stupid suggestion. One does not win a war against
terrorism by retreating.


"Gilligan" wrote in message
thlink.net...
If what you say is true, then wouldn't it be more effective to pull
completely out of Iraq so Saddam and his supporters would take over
again
and then go back in and kill them?
It would cost less American lives, tax dollars and give our over
extended
military a needed rest.