Before GAB redefines "Shock and Awe" let's set the record straight was Re: Newspeak

[Jeff Bone]

On Wednesday, Apr 9, 2003, at 16:37 US/Central, Gregory Alan Bolcer 
wrote:

> Jeff, Efficiency is the relation of output to
> input.  Effectiveness is the total output.

Thanks, I *understand* that --- and stand by my statement.  I have no 
idea how you can consider "shock and awe" to be a desirable 
relationship of output to input, vs. other other strategies and tactics 
being discussed.  Input:  $Bs.  Output:  we're still getting shot at.  
Was that the most efficient manner of achieving out goals?  I don't 
know.  But even normalizing goals, i.e. output, vs. Al Qaeda's little 
number they did on us, I assert that they achieved their goals much 
more efficiently than we are achieving ours.

> You
> missed the point which was that the CONCEPT of
> "shock and awe" is like acupuncture.

Acupuncture --- by mallet, maybe!  Nothing necessarily surgical at all 
about the "shock and awe" stratagem.  I think you need to go reread the 
original brief on which "shock and awe" is based.

	http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html

This is not your father's "surgical strike" doctrine...

> Mininalist
> input effect to maximum output effect.    Thus,
> the thread was that the term has been misapplied.

No, you have misunderstood.

> Are you saying taking out a building is the same
> as taking out hundreds of buildings, social organizations,
> real or perceived threats, and military weaponry?

Not at all.  I'm saying taking out a handful of buildings with nothing 
more than boxcutters and strength of will is, even normalizing output, 
far more efficient than what we've accomplished in Iraq with vastly 
more resources.  That's all --- it's just more efficient.  To think 
otherwise is badly broken-think.

jb