Monday, June 18, 2007
Friday, June 8, 2007
The Great Stonehenge Swindel:
"From 1901 to 1964, the majority of the stone circle was restored in a series of makeovers which have left it, in the words of one archaeologist, as 'a product of the 20th century heritage industry'. But the information is markedly absent from the guidebooks and info-phones used by tourists at the site. Coming in the wake of the news that the nearby Avebury stone circle was almost totally rebuilt in the 1920s, the revelation about Stonehenge has caused embarrassment among archaelogists. English Heritage, the guardian of the monument, is to rewrite the official guide, which dismisses the Henge's recent history in a few words. Dave Batchelor, English Heritage's senior archaeologist said he would personally rewrite the official guide. 'The detail was dropped in the Sixties', he admitted. 'But times have changed and we now believe this is an important piece of the Stonehenge story and must be told'."
Accept the veracity of this claim with a boulder of salt.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Or, the New Western doctrine of Unbelievable Restraint.
* Keep your forces static
* Burden them with insane Rules of Engagement wherein the soldiers can only respond once already under attack
* Keep your best weapons and tactics rusting on the shelf
* Ambiguous, "feel-good" equivocations about a campaign's objectives
Any of this sound familiar?
Kill ratios and force multipliers, while important tactical and strategic concerns to be considered, are not paramount. In fact, I'd rather see a 3:1 or 2:1 ratio with a mobile force heading toward a well-defined set of objectives than a force producing 15:1 to 30:1 kill ratios standing around waiting for the one lucky nuclear/chem/bio strike.