Our success is maneuverability

[john_anderson_ii]

From a tactical point of view, we are going to win or come really damned close. I've been an enthusiastic student of warfare strategy every since I cracked open my first tactics correspondence course as a Lance Corporal in the USMC. I can tell you we are doing things so right, its uncanny that its spontaneous. If you have a few minutes, I'll explain why.

In warfare, there are two main groups of strategy Attrition and Maneuver. Attrition is where you stack your strength against the strength of your enemy and hope to break more equipment and produce more bodies. Maneuver is where you mass your strength against the enemies weaknesses while attempting to avoid their strength. In reality, the tactic you choose is often somewhere in between, so Attrition and Maneuver is a sliding scale like the political spectrum. Attrition requires massive amounts of men, equipment and funding and is used when you have superior numbers of inferior soldiers. Maneuver requires speedy communication, autonomous operation and superior soldiers. It usually helps maneuver if you have the technological edge as well.

To relate that to our struggle, picture a battle between the establishment and the Ron Paulers. The establishment is a big, bulky powerful juggernaut. It is fueled by deep pockets, a large quantity of unenthusiastic soldiers, and very superior firepower (the MSM). We, on the other hand, are lighter and more flexible. Our technological edge, the internet, gives us speedy communication and allows us to mass firepower where and when needed. The establishment requires more time and resources to make a point through its mouthpieces. By the time that salvo is fired we have already avoided it, countered it, or are seeking new avenues of weakness to attack. Most importantly, we are largely leaderless. That makes us several autonomous units. Once mired in a course of action, the establishment's rigid command structure cannot change directions easily. However, our independent groups can dart like hummingbirds from one crisis to the next.

As an example, lets put the debate smear tactics against the Arab newspaper ad. The establishment spent a ton of treasure in both money and reputation to smear Ron Paul that way, and in the end the audience was relatively small and scattered. The Arab newspaper ad on the other hand was a precision strike that cost comparatively nothing and generated more hits. An autonomous unit of the greater Ron Paul effort noticed that the treatment of Arabs by the establishment was a weakness. Without waiting on approval from any central command, that agent chose to strike that weakness, spending almost no resources compared to the establishment's debate tactic. Without a doubt the Arab newspaper ad scored more hits than the debate tactic. How many regular joes did that debate win over for a particular "front-runner"? How many Arabs did that ad win over for Ron Paul?

I think we need to speed things up. Find an establishment weakness and exploit it. Not hard. Avoid their strengths. More difficult. We need to increase the pace and intensity. We want them running around in circles chasing their tail and spending like crazy to counter us. Only to find out that they are too late to counter anything, the damage has been done, and we have moved on to another avenue of approach.

If you are bashing heads with neo-con pundits, you are pitting your strength against theirs, and its consuming more resources (time). Instead assault the fence-sitters in that particular segment and subvert the pundit entirely. Why bash through the front lines to destroy ignorance when you can envelop and cut off the supply of ignorance these pundits feed upon?

If you have an idea that can make a targeted assault on a segment, don't wait for an "O.K" or "This is a good idea". Especially don't argue your case on the internet. That just spends more time with no net gain. Time is our most valuable resource at this point, so don't waste it. Just take the initiative and hope for the best.

I'm really impressed with what we supporters are capable of.

P.S. Here's the exact definition the USMC gives to maneuver warfare doctrine: "warfighting philosophy that seeks to shatter the enemy’s cohesion through a variety of rapid, focused, and unexpected actions which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot cope."

I think we are working towards something like that. :D

[dspectre]

Nice Post!!

[a_european]

Wow,a genius post.
I can't add much to it, but maybe another weakness of the other candidates and the establishment: medical marijuana
How much possible ways is there to spin bone cancer?
I also liked the food spams.
But thats just little examples.


@sig Andrew Ryan rocks.

[freelance]

Instead assault the fence-sitters in that particular segment and subvert the pundit entirely. Why bash through the front lines to destroy ignorance when you can envelop and cut off the supply of ignorance these pundits feed upon?


Go for the low-hanging fruit! Don't waste time on the hard-cores.

Any sales person (and, I'm not one) will tell you that it's nothing more than a numbers game. If we're stubborn and take on hard-cores like some kind of personal project, then we lose.

[Brutus]

I like the post. I think the strength of Dr. Paul's arguments mean he can go toe-to-toe with the neo-cons, but you are right that it isn't the best use of time.

[john_anderson_ii]

.
@sig Andrew Ryan rocks.

I wish I had more to play that game. The campaign takes priority though. :o




Any sales person (and, I'm not one) will tell you that it's nothing more than a numbers game. If we're stubborn and take on hard-cores like some kind of personal project, then we lose.


Precisely, I'm racking my brain trying to think of anything that will cost us very little to execute, but will cost the establishment a whole lot to counter. I think the Philly Rally will be a fine example of this strategy. It has to be a huge success. The MSM, being forced to report on the success of RP will cost them an incredible amount of respect.

I think we need projects similar to the Philly Rally, smaller in scale of course, but still as effective.



I like the post. I think the strength of Dr. Paul's arguments mean he can go toe-to-toe with the neo-cons, but you are right that it isn't the best use of time.


I agree that Ron Paul's arguments are strong , but that's a "one at a time" battle. The MSM & Establishment's main weapon is ignorance, and they can get 20 talking heads spouting nonsense to our 1 talking head spouting logic. When you measure casualties in terms of lost supporters, that's a loosing recipe. However, if you are going toe-to-toe with a pundit, do it LOUDLY AND PUBLICLY. You won't win over the pundit, but you may win over everyone within earshot. And cost the pundit reputation at the same time.

[ClockwiseSpark]

Great post, thank you. :D

[nayjevin]

great post.

many good points, but i like this one particularly:


If you are bashing heads with neo-con pundits, you are pitting your strength against theirs, and its consuming more resources (time). Instead assault the fence-sitters in that particular segment and subvert the pundit entirely. Why bash through the front lines to destroy ignorance when you can envelop and cut off the supply of ignorance these pundits feed upon?

[Politicallore]

would you like to blog on my blog? lol
alex@politicallore.com

[nayjevin]

perhaps one good strategy is websites like this:

www.taxhikemike.com

and what's the romney flip-flop one?

[john_anderson_ii]

would you like to blog on my blog? lol
alex@politicallore.com

Sure, I blogged on myspace once. Apparently the only people who read it are people who want to sell me viagra and timeshares.

[jonahtrainer]

Nice Post!!

This is a great post. In terms of warfare, we are putting up a good fight. The colossus may soon fall.

For example, in August the credit crises really shook the world financial markets. So the ECB and Fed inject $500B. They can inject liquidity but they cannot inject confidence. So it is with the MSM they can inject opinions but they cannot inject trust. I always subtly attack the creditability of the MSM. I love Ron Paul's line "Why believe them?" I have now turned many former hard-core multi-year Hannity listeners against him.

Combined with our force multiplier techniques we are making a serious dent in the Establishment. Ron Paul is General Washington and we are the Militia. We hide behind a few trees, take out a few redcoats and then melt back into everyday life. The tighter the Establishment attempts to grip the People the more blowback they get and the more join our forces. This is a truly exciting time. Keep up the good work.

[NewEnd]

You would have really enjoyed the articel about how our campagin is much like a restance.

the fighters are motivated, and techniques by the enemy to stop us only strengthen us and our resolve. We now feed off of the unfairness. The more they treat us wrong, the more peopel see it, and wonder why.

[john_anderson_ii]

You would have really enjoyed the articel about how our campagin is much like a restance.


Do you have a link or know which site it was published on? I'd appreciate reading it.

[NewEnd]

Do you have a link or know which site it was published on? I'd appreciate reading it.


If I did, I would send it to you.

[G-khan]

I like the post. I think the strength of Dr. Paul's arguments mean he can go toe-to-toe with the neo-cons, but you are right that it isn't the best use of time.

Dr. Paul distracts them while we do our work...

[a_european]

"Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend;
march swiftly to places where you are not expected."
Sun Tzu, Art of War

bump

[john_anderson_ii]

"Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend;
march swiftly to places where you are not expected."
Sun Tzu, Art of War

bump

I think he should have appended, "And when the enemy shows up to defend that place, march swiftly to another point in the line while they are preparing their defense."

:)

[a_european]

Maybe the page got lost :D

It should be replaced with a new one.
"And when the enemy shows up to defend that place, march swiftly to another point in the line while they are preparing their defense."
john_anderson_ii

[Blowback]

Very good post.

One of the weakness with a centralized organization is that information must flow up the chain of command and then back down. It bottlenecks at the top and takes longer.

With our decentralized organization, decisions are made instantly and there is no bottleneck. Also, decisions are not made on a one-size-fits-all approach but in an infinitely targeted way.

We are going to win for the same reasons why our policies are superior. Very cool.

[moonbat]

Brilliant post! :)

[francisco]

Great post!

An interesting read that relates to your topic and the Ron Paul campaign is the science fiction classic "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein. It's the story of lunar colonists who conduct a clever revolution against their oppressors. A key role is played by a sentient computer which performs in some ways like the internet.

[Politicallore]

bump
John I emailed you back... Are you on?

[Andrew76]

""Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend;
march swiftly to places where you are not expected."
Sun Tzu, Art of War"

Great quote, and great original post!
So then, what "points should we appear at which our enemy must defend?"

I suppose the first part, and perhaps easiest, requires defining the enemy, or rather, enemies. Obviously, Rudy McRomney, the MSM and their supporters. Others?

Where are they weakest? Where are we not expected? Anyone have any thoughts on this one?

The two events in my mind are the Nov. 5th mass donation campaign, and the Philly rally. As someone else pointed out, Nov. 6th there will be another debate. If Ron can issue a press release that he's defied all expectations and raised more than a million in a single day - it would be breathtakingly huge. This cannot be underestimated. The hugeness of that event would eclipse the possibility of any negative connotations ala "V." In fact, lets just stop beating a dead horse over that one. We need to do everything we can to make this happen!

The Philly rally. C'mon people! There's been so many emails and message board posts for various rallies to attend over the last few months no matter where you live. Let's throw a dart at this Philly rally and all say, "If I attend only one R.P. rally, let it be this one." We need to draw a line somewhere and say, "this is the one!" The location is symbolic, Ron Paul will be there, and thousands of us will be there. Will it work out as planned? Maybe, maybe not, but if we don't make an effort then the outcome is certain. If it doesn't go as planned, let it not be because we didn't make some sacrifices and put forth some real effort.

[john_anderson_ii]

The two events in my mind are the Nov. 5th mass donation campaign, and the Philly rally. As someone else pointed out, Nov. 6th there will be another debate. If Ron can issue a press release that he's defied all expectations and raised more than a million in a single day - it would be breathtakingly huge. This cannot be underestimated. The hugeness of that event would eclipse the possibility of any negative connotations ala "V." In fact, lets just stop beating a dead horse over that one. We need to do everything we can to make this happen!


Money & fundraising. Definite weak spot. How can the MSM, the mouthpiece of "The Establishment" continue to report that RP is a kook, and has no support when his money is competing with Rudy's? That kills two birds with one stone. The media then looses credibility, the pundits have to eat crow and backtrack. People who thought they trusted the likes of Hannity and O'Reilly would begin to question.



The Philly rally. C'mon people! There's been so many emails and message board posts for various rallies to attend over the last few months no matter where you live. Let's throw a dart at this Philly rally and all say, "If I attend only one R.P. rally, let it be this one." We need to draw a line somewhere and say, "this is the one!" The location is symbolic, Ron Paul will be there, and thousands of us will be there. Will it work out as planned? Maybe, maybe not, but if we don't make an effort then the outcome is certain. If it doesn't go as planned, let it not be because we didn't make some sacrifices and put forth some real effort.

Another excellent weakness. They don't expect to have to defend their claim that Ron Paul can't win, and that he has no support. We MUST make them start to defend it, and when we see them defensive concerning this claim on the nightly news, we know we've already won....We can then move on to his electability against Hillary while the MSM is still trying to sort out if he can win or not.


Another area we can attack is the we must Win or we must Have Victory supporters. I've posted some logic that can be used to counter this argument in the "strategies for success forum". Pick up that logic, add your own, go undercover as a "Joe Republican Non-RP supporter" and start spreading the logic among political pundits listener forums.

[eloquensanity]

Great post. :)

[Energy]

Splendid post.

Another way we can take advantage of the establishment's time/money expenditure and its bureaucratic organization is through jujitsu: the principle of using an opponents's energy against him, rather than directly opposing it.

One effective way is called reframing: expanding the range of possible meanings or interpretations of an event or idea - it can happen instantly.

An example of reframing is the booing during the last debate. One can look at it as a negative for Ron Paul, but it was instantly reframed by this YouTube video titled "Republicans Boo The American People" http://youtube.com/watch?v=5DmvKVVVX1o - in which the booing is reduced to absurdity.

Ron Paul expertly reframed Hannity's accusation of the botched text polling by saying, "You mean your poll isn't any good?"

A famous reframe that arguably got Reagan's 2nd term:

"With questions about Reagan's age, and a weak performance in the first presidential debate, many wondered if he was up to the task of being president for another term. Reagan rebounded in the second debate, and confronted questions about his age, stating, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," which generated applause and laughter from members of the audience, and even from Mondale himself." (wikipedia)

[TVMH]

The OP made me giggle like a little girl. :D

[john_anderson_ii]

Splendid post.

Another way we can take advantage of the establishment's time/money expenditure is through jujitsu: the principle of using an opponents's energy against him, rather than directly opposing it.

One effective way is called reframing: expanding the range of possible meanings or interpretations of an event or idea - it can happen instantly.

An example of reframing is the booing during the last debate. One can look at it as a negative for Ron Paul, but it was instantly reframed by this YouTube video titled "Republicans Boo The American People" http://youtube.com/watch?v=5DmvKVVVX1o - in which the booing is reduced to absurdity.

A famous reframe that arguably got Reagan's 2nd term:

"With questions about Reagan's age, and a weak performance in the first presidential debate, many wondered if he was up to the task of being president for another term. Reagan rebounded in the second debate, and confronted questions about his age, stating, "I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience," which generated applause and laughter from members of the audience, and even from Mondale himself." (wikipedia)

I like your thinking :D How can we reframe the debate booing beyond youtube? I'm thinking but drawing blanks. Maybe we can find a democrat mouthpiece and pass it off to him as an example of the GOPs division? Prod him or her into presenting it in such a way that to liberals and republicans alike RP seems to be the noble underdog he is.

[TVMH]

I think we need to speed things up. Find an establishment weakness and exploit it. Not hard. Avoid their strengths. More difficult. We need to increase the pace and intensity. We want them running around in circles chasing their tail and spending like crazy to counter us. Only to find out that they are too late to counter anything, the damage has been done, and we have moved on to another avenue of approach.

If you are bashing heads with neo-con pundits, you are pitting your strength against theirs, and its consuming more resources (time). Instead assault the fence-sitters in that particular segment and subvert the pundit entirely. Why bash through the front lines to destroy ignorance when you can envelop and cut off the supply of ignorance these pundits feed upon?

Serious questions:

Would you consider a flood of quick retorts to hit-pieces (as opposed to drawn out debates) a precision strike?

Is it worthwhile for us to get them to consume their resources spending time acknowledging, however begrudgingly, the name "Ron Paul"?

[TVMH]

I like your thinking :D How can we reframe the debate booing beyond youtube? I'm thinking but drawing blanks. Maybe we can find a democrat mouthpiece and pass it off to him as an example of the GOPs division? Prod him or her into presenting it in such a way that to liberals and republicans alike RP seems to be the noble underdog he is.

Call the booing what it is...shameful.

[JDouglasFisher]

Something else to REMEMBER in this battle

It is said (In New Jersey anyway) that only %15 of registered republicans actually take the time to vote in the Republican Primary (which I assume is similar across the nation)..

Yet, %100 of Ron Paul's supporters are going out there to vote in their respective primaries.

Now, I don't know about anywhere else, but in NJ, I think we the people are going to ram-rod Ron Paul right down the GOP's throat come February, just like Molly Pitcher during the battle of Monmouth Courthouse.

The odd are in our favor. Many republicans are L A Z Y and won't vote in primaries. Exploit this by garnering as many Ron Paul supporters as possible.

Remember, the Neo-Cons %15
RP Supporters %100.

it truely is a numbers game.

Joe.

[john_anderson_ii]

Serious questions:

Would you consider a flood of quick retorts to hit-pieces (as opposed to drawn out debates) a precision strike?

Not exactly. Think strategically. No matter how many resources you spend arguing your point, you are not going to convince the poster of the hit-piece. A.k.A The pundit of anything.

Online: Its best to logically and calmly state your position with the express purpose of convincing the pundits' listener/viewer circle, without being seen as combative toward the pundit. Remember, you don't want the support of the pundit, you want the pundit's supporters. Once your points are made, move on to the next place. You might also want to tap another well-spoken supporter to check back on the online situation, forum, whatever, in a few minutes. His job will be to agree with you, and reinforce your points. The purpose is to develop the same group mentality bond between your ideas and the pundit's listeners that the listeners have with the pundits ideas.

Offline: Be loud, courteous, professional, and logical. Oh, and be loud without sounding crazy. Did I say be loud? The point here is that once again you are NOT going to convince the pundit. However, you might convince many others within earshot.

In both cases its very important to be perceived as being on the sane side of the issues. Not tinfoil hat stuff here. In this way you can transform a would be anti-Ron Paul pundit into a conversation piece. A tool that can be used to gain Ron Paul support. You just have to be logical and tactful.



Is it worthwhile for us to get them to consume their resources spending time acknowledging, however begrudgingly, the name "Ron Paul"?

Definitely. It costs us nearly nothing online, and we own the internet and can move freely. However, I think we need to greatly step it up online. Remember, we want to run them ragged with news like the Philly Rally. Make the poor anchorman so tired of the name Ron Paul that he says accidentally when he's supposed to say Thompson if you know what I mean. Its important to spend the resources wisely though.

[expatriot]

Bravo,
bravo


This was a 5-star post, brilliantly explained, John.

Two items pop to the surface immediately,

1. Unaddressable events. There is not a single candidate who can respond
to the November 5 event without being recognized as part of the 'Establishment'
There is simply no way they can steal that particular morsel from us.

In the same vein - Boston Tea Party, Bunker Hill, and any other event
associated with the original Revolutionary history is ours to OWN and theirs to envy,
simply because the other candidates are all for more government and not less.

Seize these and similar calendar dates for notable actions and point out to anyone and everyone
who witnesses that Ron Paul is the only true answer to the
Empire of King George and his cronies.

2.
Flash Mobs if properly and tastefully choreographed could really stir the pot.
This is an event media cannot and must not predict.

Remember - media which omits Ron Paul must have its credibility undermined,
not by vicious attacks or tirades but by simple events which defy their coverage.
Paint the town Ron is a perfect example of this.

Point out to any witnesses how the controlled media is hiding something
from public exposure and discourse and this will undermine their credibility.
Already CNN and Fox are becoming known for their omissions, and not just
in regards to Ron Paul but a lot more social and historical issues as well.
The simple fact is they are outgunned by the rapid news-spreading ability of the
internet and they know and fear this. It's up to us to ensure that average guy
on the street sees us and our message and then goes home and wonders
why it doesn't show up on the nightly news.
That is a devastating blow to controlled media credibility.
We are already doing this, I know, so well it is now beginning to have impact.

3. An interesting thought occurs - what if before Clinton/Obama/Rudy/Freddy etc
show up, our people mob a venue with signs,
only to evaporate during the event to avoid any type of confrontational controversy,
and then magically reappear as the event concludes?
(mental image: we are still here, your candidate's appearance had no effect)

Being slightly off-center does have its attention-drawing advantages, as well.

Cheers

[devil21]

Tremendous post. Sticky?

[deezblast]

Great Post!

[moonbat]

I just wanted to bump this up. It's a great post that got lost in the early hours of the morning.

[werdd]

cool analogy

[a_european]

Focus is needed. Read the Original Post!

[freelance]

John,

That was superb, but my head is spinning over the IA debate right now. Can you specifically recommend how to best handle that situation.

Do we go all out and try to get the poll numbers up? Do we work on a plan B? WHAT?

TIA

[Hurricane Bruiser]

Great post. Unconventional warfare is our ally. Trying to maximize our time and energy is sometimes difficult to figure out. So far, we are on the right track it seems. Name recognition is key but it can't be tied to negatives.

[john_anderson_ii]

That's why I posted the fact finding thread.

We need to know where to focus are efforts. The number 1 question should be, "Are these Iowa only polls? Are these national polls?" Which poll do we need to be above 5% in.

Then we find the requirements to participate in that poll.

Then we stack that poll.

For example: If it's an Iowa poll, that you must be registered republican, yadda, yadda, yadda, and have voted in the last primary or whatever, we have no choice but to canvas the fence sitters.

[a_european]

John, i like how youre rational while others get emotional (including me).

I agree, first identify and find the enemy, then blow it up.

[Energy]

Bump.

One of the more relevant posts I've seen on dealing with our battle with old media.

[rodmannn]

I'm a Catholic(more agnostic now though, but i do know how I was raised). Go after the Catholics. Especially midwestern Catholics. There are many many many of us Catholics. Cincy, St Louis, Chicago have heavy Catholic Populaces. The Catholics can be ours.

Talk to your Priests. Get them on board and maybe just a few will promote Paul during services. I think this is possible.

[Energy]

bump

[Primbs]

From a tactical point of view, we are going to win or come really damned close. I've been an enthusiastic student of warfare strategy every since I cracked open my first tactics correspondence course as a Lance Corporal in the USMC. I can tell you we are doing things so right, its uncanny that its spontaneous. If you have a few minutes, I'll explain why.

In warfare, there are two main groups of strategy Attrition and Maneuver. Attrition is where you stack your strength against the strength of your enemy and hope to break more equipment and produce more bodies. Maneuver is where you mass your strength against the enemies weaknesses while attempting to avoid their strength. In reality, the tactic you choose is often somewhere in between, so Attrition and Maneuver is a sliding scale like the political spectrum. Attrition requires massive amounts of men, equipment and funding and is used when you have superior numbers of inferior soldiers. Maneuver requires speedy communication, autonomous operation and superior soldiers. It usually helps maneuver if you have the technological edge as well.

To relate that to our struggle, picture a battle between the establishment and the Ron Paulers. The establishment is a big, bulky powerful juggernaut. It is fueled by deep pockets, a large quantity of unenthusiastic soldiers, and very superior firepower (the MSM). We, on the other hand, are lighter and more flexible. Our technological edge, the internet, gives us speedy communication and allows us to mass firepower where and when needed. The establishment requires more time and resources to make a point through its mouthpieces. By the time that salvo is fired we have already avoided it, countered it, or are seeking new avenues of weakness to attack. Most importantly, we are largely leaderless. That makes us several autonomous units. Once mired in a course of action, the establishment's rigid command structure cannot change directions easily. However, our independent groups can dart like hummingbirds from one crisis to the next.

As an example, lets put the debate smear tactics against the Arab newspaper ad. The establishment spent a ton of treasure in both money and reputation to smear Ron Paul that way, and in the end the audience was relatively small and scattered. The Arab newspaper ad on the other hand was a precision strike that cost comparatively nothing and generated more hits. An autonomous unit of the greater Ron Paul effort noticed that the treatment of Arabs by the establishment was a weakness. Without waiting on approval from any central command, that agent chose to strike that weakness, spending almost no resources compared to the establishment's debate tactic. Without a doubt the Arab newspaper ad scored more hits than the debate tactic. How many regular joes did that debate win over for a particular "front-runner"? How many Arabs did that ad win over for Ron Paul?

I think we need to speed things up. Find an establishment weakness and exploit it. Not hard. Avoid their strengths. More difficult. We need to increase the pace and intensity. We want them running around in circles chasing their tail and spending like crazy to counter us. Only to find out that they are too late to counter anything, the damage has been done, and we have moved on to another avenue of approach.

If you are bashing heads with neo-con pundits, you are pitting your strength against theirs, and its consuming more resources (time). Instead assault the fence-sitters in that particular segment and subvert the pundit entirely. Why bash through the front lines to destroy ignorance when you can envelop and cut off the supply of ignorance these pundits feed upon?

If you have an idea that can make a targeted assault on a segment, don't wait for an "O.K" or "This is a good idea". Especially don't argue your case on the internet. That just spends more time with no net gain. Time is our most valuable resource at this point, so don't waste it. Just take the initiative and hope for the best.

I'm really impressed with what we supporters are capable of.

P.S. Here's the exact definition the USMC gives to maneuver warfare doctrine: "warfighting philosophy that seeks to shatter the enemy’s cohesion through a variety of rapid, focused, and unexpected actions which create a turbulent and rapidly deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot cope."

I think we are working towards something like that. :D

This post is an oldie but a goodie. Hopefully the new phase of the campaign applies this type of strategy and tactics.

[Tenbatsu]

^ Epic Bump.

[american.swan]

Op "post Of The Year" Nomination 2008

[MusoSpuso]

Damn, I totally thought this was brand new when I started reading it. It's pure genius though, sorry I missed it the first time around.

Good point about the relevance to the new strategy going forward! March on troops! :D