oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (02/07/86)
>> That concern leads many israeli leaders to adopt the >> axiom "The best defense is the attack or offense". ... >> ... >> History teaches that many nations and leaders got trapped in that >> axiom whenever they adopted it. Eventually, it caused their downfall. >> From a politico-military point of view, Hanibal, Neron, Hitler ... [Chedley Aouriri] ------------------------------ I perceive that lumping of historical figures as proof by mishmash coupled with "proof" of some unrelated premise. [I'll exclude Neron cuz I dunno who he was.] Of Hannibal and Hitler, the claim (that best defense = attack) could only apply to Hitler. (I'm not sure it does.) Hannibal's strategy was to threaten his enemy's link between resources and home base, then force a battle of his choosing. He first attacked Rome by cutting its link with Spain (source of metals), forcing the Romans to send an expeditionary force after him, then defeating that force. In crossing the Alps and Appenines, he cut Rome's land lines with its eastern empire, again forcing his opponent to attack. He then sacked Rome itself, obligating the Romans to attack again from southern Italy, once more at his schedule, on his choice of turf. What a smart fellow! The reason he lost was that Scipio Africanus proved too apt a student: He sat at Canae, between Carthage and its port - suddenly the tables were turned and Hannibal had to restore his capital's viability by attacking where the Romans had cased the joint and set up shop. That was the end of him, and of Carthage. [Liddell-Hart, Sir Henry Basil; STRATEGY: THE INDIRECT APPROACH]. Mr. Aouriri may come closer to truth on the Hitler analysis, but such a simpleminded assignation of causes ignores many dimensions of Hitler's mania, as well as the rest of the world. In any case, the "similarities" between Hitler and Israeli is AT BEST farfetched. A trivial counterexample - Israel's failure to "attack" in time to forestall the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Your best proof methodology, Mr. Aouriri? I am underwhelmed. (Then again, at least you're consistent.) -- ---------- Oded Feingold MIT AI Lab. 545 Tech Square Cambridge, Mass. 02139 OAF%OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA {harvard, ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mit-vax!oaf 617-253-8598 ---------- If we can send a woman to the moon, why can't we send all of them?
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (02/11/86)
> >> That concern leads many israeli leaders to adopt the > >> axiom "The best defense is the attack or offense". ... > >> ... > >> History teaches that many nations and leaders got trapped in that > >> axiom whenever they adopted it. Eventually, it caused their downfall. > >> From a politico-military point of view, Hanibal, Neron, Hitler ... > [Chedley Aouriri] > ------------------------------ > I perceive that lumping of historical figures as proof by mishmash > coupled with "proof" of some unrelated premise. [I'll exclude Neron cuz > I dunno who he was.] > Nero was a Roman emperor, famous of his antiques (feeding lions with Chrictians, for example). Not involved in any major war personally. > Of Hannibal and Hitler, the claim (that best defense = attack) could > only apply to Hitler. (I'm not sure it does.) Hannibal's strategy was > to threaten his enemy's link between resources and home base, then force > a battle of his choosing. He first attacked Rome by cutting its link > with Spain (source of metals), forcing the Romans to send an > expeditionary force after him, then defeating that force. This is not true. Spain was conquered by Hannibal's father. There Karthagina exploited large wealth in the silver mines. Rome at this time had no teritories outside Italy, Sicyly and Sardinia. > In crossing > the Alps and Appenines, he cut Rome's land lines with its eastern > empire, again forcing his opponent to attack. He then sacked Rome > itself, obligating the Romans to attack again from southern Italy, once > more at his schedule, on his choice of turf. What a smart fellow! Again, no eastern empire of Rome was in existence at this moment, although it was quick to come. The point was that Roman naval superiority was complete, so Hannibal could attack only on land. He recruited large number of barbarians from Gaul plus some Italian opponents of Roman rule. For many years he was trying to destroy the core of Roman state, but to no avail, in spite of spectacular field victories. Barbaric army of Hannibal was unable to capture fortified cities. > The reason he lost was that Scipio Africanus proved too apt a > student: He sat at Canae, between Carthage and its port - suddenly the > tables were turned and Hannibal had to restore his capital's viability > by attacking where the Romans had cased the joint and set up shop. That > was the end of him, and of Carthage. [Liddell-Hart, Sir Henry Basil; > STRATEGY: THE INDIRECT APPROACH]. > This is again a mistatement: Carthage was a port, and Canea is a place in Italy, where Hannibal massacred a Roman army larger than its own. The reason that he lost was more profound: Roman state had much greater resources, large pool of recruits and complete naval superiority. After ten years of field defeats they assimilated the Hannibal field tactics and then Hannibal had no trump cards left. To rebut Aouriri one should rather point that Rome was attacking much more frequently than Carthage, and it worked for many centuries. > Mr. Aouriri may come closer to truth on the Hitler analysis, but > such a simpleminded assignation of causes ignores many dimensions of > Hitler's mania, as well as the rest of the world. In any case, the > "similarities" between Hitler and Israeli is AT BEST farfetched. A > trivial counterexample - Israel's failure to "attack" in time to > forestall the 1973 Yom Kippur war. > Again, you missed the greates deficiency in this example of Aouriri: for Hitler the attack was not a method of defence, but of conquest. For example, would Israel try to emulate his example, she would try to conquer the Arab lands "from Nile to Euphrates", and the results would have to be similar. > Your best proof methodology, Mr. Aouriri? I am underwhelmed. (Then > again, at least you're consistent.) > > Oded Feingold MIT AI Lab. 545 Tech Square Cambridge, Mass. 02139 > ---------- Both Feingold and Aouriri are seriously undereducated in history. Aouriry should rather point to Crusader's conquest of Palestine and Lebanon. As long as Arabs were split into a multitude of small states, the Crusaders managed pretty well. Once Salah-ed-Din unified Egypt and Syria, they were doomed. One may imagine that in 50 years Israel's position may weaken dangerously. But this assumes that after 50 years Arabs will be attracted to a militaristic nationalist trying to emulate Salah-ed-Din. Regionalism seems to be a much more persistent tradition for Arabs than "Arab unity" though, and modernization may have requirements to the contrary of militarization (like open, democratic society). Piotr Berman