Both men used the understanding of warfare as a key part of their income earning. The man on the left, John Michael Young, expressed his knowledge in terms of great wargames that leaves you with an understanding of the challenges and surprises you can face in battle. The awesome PRESTAGS series shows many battles where the mighty have offered battle full of confidence that it will be their crowning achievement, only to see their dreams fade in a field of other people's blood.
The man on the right has initiated two wars with the same confidence as the past and largely forgotten commanders. His limited wars (unlike my failed Outreach strategy), brought more territory into Russia, but has not yet solved any real problems.
Its the old trick to winning a few wars to keep the malcontents quiet and the focus of the needs of the people. As Churchill quipped in his 1938 book "While England Slept", "Dictators ride to and fro on tigers from which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry."
Do not get me wrong, I am not saying Putin is much worse than the US or European foreign policy...
... but that the focus on limited war to achieve political goals is morally unacceptable, and ultimately will fail, because limited war is very expensive and doesn't really change anything.
Ultimately, the piper must be paid!
Comments