Why is it that every time our side takes a loss, it is ALWAYS spun as some sort of 49D-Law-of-War chess move?
I may not have ever read The Law Of War, but I am still confident in saying that I'm sure it doesn't say anything about being able to win a war by losing battle after battle.
Want to know why winning actual battles is so important?
It does wonders for troop morale!
Like the vampire hunter Blade (from the movies) and his serum: he could only ingest so much of it before he would actually need the real thing to survive.
I brought that up to make a point: there is only so much spinning of failure and loss that can be done before actual/SIGNIFICANT victories must be won in order to build and sustain troop morale. Empty rhetoric may be able to somewhat build troop morale, but you need actual solid victories to sustain it.
Even if this is an "information war", the same rules still apply: you can't win a war by constantly losing battles.
Why is it that every time our side takes a loss, it is ALWAYS spun as some sort of 49D-Law-of-War chess move?
I may not have ever read The Law Of War, but I am still confident in saying that I'm sure it doesn't say anything about being able to win a war by losing battle after battle.
Want to know why winning actual battles is so important?
It does wonders for troop morale!
Like the vampire hunter Blade (from the movies) and his serum: he could only ingest so much of it before he would actually need the real thing to survive.
I brought that up to make a point: there is only so much spinning of failure and loss that can be done before actual/SIGNIFICANT victories must be won to build and sustain troop morale. Empty rhetoric may be able to somewhat build troop morale, but you need actual solid victories to sustain it.
Even if this is an "information war", the same rules still apply: you can't win a war by constantly losing battles.
Why is it that every time our side takes a loss, it is ALWAYS spun as some sort of 49D-Law-of-War chess move?
I may not have ever read The Law Of War, but I am still confident in saying that I'm sure it doesn't say anything about being able to win a war by losing battle after battle.
Want to know why winning actual battles is so important?
It does wonders for troop morale!
Like the vampire hunter Blade (from the movies) and his serum: he could only ingest so much of it before he would actually need the real thing to survive.
I brought that up to make a point: there is only so much spinning of failure and loss that can be done before actual/SIGNIFICANT victories must be won to build and sustain troop morale.
Even if this is an "information war", the same rules still apply: you can't win a war by constantly losing battles.