Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Masters
I'm not sure that fighting sub-optimally is ever a good idea on the Northwest Frontier. It sounds like a good way to end up (a) dead and (b) regarded with contempt by the locals. But certainly, good Strategy is always going to factor in the thing about war being a continuation of politics by other means, in a way that Tactics won't.
(The quote in question being from a soldier, note, not a politician. A good strategist bears in mind that the conflict has a more or less "political" objective, then gets on with the job of achieving it.)
|
What I mean is Tribe A holds a hill on the right flank, tribe B holds one on the left. Tribe A's position is better but tribe B is negotiating for a defection. So Milord Snobbybrit attacks Tribe A's position even though looking at the Pathan army from a purely tactical perspective attacking Tribe B would be better. However Milord Snobbybrit knows from intelligence outside the battle that Tribe B is a future ally and wasting lives for the purpose of gutting it's supply of warriors is kind of silly in the long run.
Of course Milord Snobbybrit could believe that Tribe B is playing them for fools and they might as well hit them where it hurts most. That is also a strategic decision, just not the most subtle and so not the best example of how tactics and strategy diverge.