[quote="mr.miyagi":d38cb]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trunks
Eames, you only see half of the picture. I dont doubt the US military might, however, think about the US civil war. The South was supposed to have lost within a couple months, and yet because of their superior tacticians and generals they were able to hd out for 4 years... I am not saying that they have better commanders, I am merely implying that underestimating them could end in a heavy loss of life. Plus there is the fact that if there is a war, most likely it will be on N. Korea territory, and they will be fighting for their country, to protect it from invaders, they will be fighting for the cities in which they grew up in, and the places in which they shared so many memories... This will give them quite a bit of morale, and morale is a very important factor to consider as well.
|
In depths of World War One, as the red-faced, potbellied generals dithered safely behind the lines and British losses mounted frighteningly , Churchill referred to the brave British Tommies embattled in the muddy trenches as
"Lions led by donkeys …"[/quote:d38cb]Well, personally, I think that officers should be at the battlefield along with their men, it would again, provide much needed morale boosts, and it is much easier to coordinate a defense/offense if you are right there. And if I was a high ranking military officer, that is wat I would do. Unfortunately, it would be a bit rash to do this, because a general/admiral is usually somebody with an enormous amount of tactical skill, and who has a tremendous amount of experience in warfare, and harsh as it may seem, a regular soldier is expendable, but a high ranking commander, is not. I do not mean to offend anyone by saying this, but it is true.