Before GAB redefines "Shock and Awe" let's set the record straight
was Re: Newspeak
jbone at deepfile.com
Wed Apr 9 17:56:00 PDT 2003
On Wednesday, Apr 9, 2003, at 16:37 US/Central, Gregory Alan Bolcer
> 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.
> 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.
This is not your father's "surgical strike" doctrine...
> 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.
More information about the FoRK