Simplicity

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger,
more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius
— and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction
--E. F. Schumacker

Everything should be made as simple as possible,
but not simpler
--Albert Einstein

A little simplification would be the first step
toward rational living, I think
--Eleanor Roosevelt
_____________

Military theory is simplicity itself. Warfare is logic reduced to its lowest common denominator; this is its beauty. It is so simple that soldiers can understand it, so surely President Bush, the Commander in Chief, should grasp its essential elements.

A down-and-dirty summation:

In warfare, there are only three essential actions. You shoot, move and communicate.

When you are shooting, moving and communicating, you are also either attacking or defending. The latter are necessary choices. There is no nihilism on the battlefield; you must prepare either to attack or defend. Defense is often the preparation of an attack.

If you defend it is either an area/mobile defense or a static defense. It is either planned or hasty.

If you attack, it too is either planned or hasty. Attacks are always maneuver right, maneuver left or up the middle, or a combination thereof. The main attack is always weighted and given priority of fires, of movement and other assets.

Failure is never re-enforced and success is always exploited.

Whether attacking or defending, strategically or tactically, there is always a reserve force to exploit success or to staunch the effects of failure should things go wrong. The usual formula is 2:1: two elements forward and engaged and one in reserve and prepared to engage, on order.

The main attack is always weighted to favor success, but the key point is that there is always a reserve, just in case.

There comes a time on the battlefield as there does in life that the battle must be fought, either win or lose. There is a military concept called decisively engaged in which it is no longer possible to maneuver, and the battle is either won or lost with the assets present.

That is warfare in a nutshell. Not so hard to understand. Simplicity itself.

Since so many folks are slavering over the efficiency of our military model, why not apply their practices to the economy and see if the rules apply there.

The concept of decisive engagement can be applied off the battlefield, als0. The sub-prime mortgage debacle illustrates the concept in the non-combat arena well.

Potential home buyers (=commanders) were attacking (=buying) without having assets (=money) with which to support their attack. In addition, they possessed no reserve forces (=monetary assets) to support their onslaught in the case of less-than-optimal results. In effect, they lost their freedom of maneuver even before the battle was joined.

Reserve forces add to flexibility and ensure freedom of maneuver to a battlefield commander. Monetary assets provide the same benefit to a civilian project. All the assets of the sub prime mortgage holders were forward. This is no way to fight a battle, and it is clearly no way to plan a financial campaign.

However, it is the new American plan, and it is bankrupt out of the starting gate. Whether in Afghanistan, or Iraq or the economic sphere, all our assets are forward and the reserves are not adequate to support the commander's objectives.

Soldiers don't understand much, but they know when to attack and when to fall back.

By these protocols George W. Bush is, like the sub prime mortgage holders, a bad commander. We read today he is handing off responsibility to his relief command, and will not do any of the heavy lifting (Bush's Budget Projects Deficits.) The WaPo reports Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said the next administration will "inherit a fiscal meltdown. It's just as clear as it can be."

President Bush has presented a fantasy budget which freezes domestic spending and fails to include the funds required for the bloated war projects he initiated. It still presents tax breaks, even in the face of outstanding deficits. It does not even the meet the needs of a hypothetical freshman economic project.

It is all so simple.