Military Combat down the ages.

A.Mookerjee

Banned Member
What has been the nature of human interaction in military combat down the ages? Is military combat the same today, as it was when groups of armed men, gave themselves the license to engage in military aggression with whom they identified as their enemies, many, many millennia ago? When groups of men give themselves the duty of protecting the lives and belongings of others, who belong to the same larger group, then, there is usually very little objection from the larger group. Hence, we see, that from time immemorial, the duty of a soldier, may be seen to be the world's second oldest occupation. What causes one to take the responsibility of fighting for another, who is disinclined to fight? If one looks at the idea, then soldering is indeed a noble profession. The person who does not fight, is honored in honoring those who fight for them. A man may be disinclined to fight, but that does not make him stop another, who is as inclined to fight for him.
When does military conflict take place? Military conflict takes place, when no other means of reconciliation is possible, but the outstanding issues must be resolved, as urgently as possible. Today, if we look at the lethal nature of the weaponry used, then I am drawn to consider, that what was settled by the skill in the wielding of the club, mace, sword, bow and arrow in the past, is settled by certain parameters in the operation of weaponry, which may make combat more predictable, but all the same, very much more lethal, than in the past. If the soldier fought in the past, because he needed to resolve an issue, even against an opponent who was at a disadvantage in combat, then the soldier fights today, in an environment where he is as likely to loose life and limb, as is his army likely to win the battle or war. The parameters of winning a war, is very different from the parameters of a unit, or of more than one unit, engaging in combat. If one considers the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, then the Soviets should have had the upper hand in the war against the Mujahideen. What then caused the debacle? The war was won by the Mujahideen, because the Soviet armed forces, did not accept the terms of combat, necessary to engage the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The Soviets could not fight a never ending battle in Afghanistan, and that was precisely the terms they set themselves in fighting the war. Najibullah was not a friend of the Soviets, because he had no other friend to support him, in Afghanistan. The Soviets were fighting, but they were fighting their perceptions, except the perception of themselves. Very soon, they fought even their own perception of themselves, as soldiers. They believed, that the war was going to be lost, because of their inability in the combat environment of Afghanistan. Perhaps, Alexander, many millennia ago, experienced the same situation with his invincible army.
This makes me want to believe, that any war, not fought for the sake of defense, of either the self, or of others, is a war, which is fought for the sake of secondary considerations, which are made null, because the primary consideration of self defense is non existent. One does not fight for the territory of others, if one wants to win a war. One fights on equal terms pertaining to self defense, if one wants to fight a protracted war, and if one ever wants to win a war.
 
Top