To save ourselves, we must save the cities.
The Anaconda Always Wins
The Anaconda Always Wins
(John Slaughter, The Old South Repository) - The people who are best at fighting wars are often the worst at winning them. As far as I can tell, this statement can be attributed to Mr. Paul Fahrenheidt. Whether he is the originator of the idea or not is largely irrelevant, and since he is the first person that I heard elucidate the concept, I will give him credit.
History is littered with nations and peoples that are tactically gifted, personally brave, ferocious on the battlefield, and able to make the enemy pay for every inch of ground, yet in the end lie defeated. Victory eludes them not because they lacked courage or strength, but because they misunderstood what winning actually requires.
Once you start looking for this pattern, you see it everywhere, across centuries, across continents, across different technological eras. The Confederates, Deutsches Heer (the Imperial German Army), the Wehrmacht, Rhodisia, Attila the Hun, Hannibal. As different as they all may be, the shape of their stories remains remarkably consistent.
And the reason it stays consistent is that winning wars is less about valor than it is about…
While some very valid concepts and considerations, there is more to it. Possessing the cities is not the only way to logistics, especially in todays world where US Empire cities have little to no production. Long term combat capabilities and logistics must be answered properly to be victorious for any side. The South had as big a problem in its philosophy that beat it as its lack of long term industry and resilience. The South wanted to be left alone and acted as if the North got enough drubbings they would do that. That would only have worked if they had taken Washington DC in the opener capturing the Federal leadership and forcing a peace. It would have been temporary, but it would have bought time for more industrial development. I would note the same Empire has been defeated by rural rice farmers with SKS's and goat herders with AK47's. They lacked the big industry, but developed a logistic chain to support their form of warfare. Financially that same Empire was bankrupted by the South, leading to its incorporation into the Rothschild banking conglomerate. The original 13 seceding colonies from Great Britain lacked industry but were able to develop their own logistic chain for their requirements. A guerilla war is a long term war with its own parameters. The South's resistance to that concept and insisting on fighting a conventional rules based fight was a guaranteed long term loss. It played to the strength of the Empire. Just additional thoughts.