Military "swift"

JS Kelly JS Kelly <jskelly@jskelly.com>
Thu, 27 Mar 2003 16:03:19 -0800 (PST)


Dear James,

I must apologize to you twice -- once for making a comment a few posts
back which you found fault with -- you were right. Two -- for taking so
long to apologize to you. I actually have a personal life (grin =) and it
has been distracting me -- so apologies again. 

Well, so long as I am extending an olive branch -- I have formed a new
resolution -- not to stop believing what i believe in -- that this war is
grossly unjust -- but to do my best to understand the other side's view.
After all, our democracy was founded on the idea that we should all be
able to agree to disagree. I'd rather heal divisions than widen them.

And so I will summon all of my energies to keep this Platonic. Maybe we
might actually end up agreeing! ;)

On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Jeff Bone wrote:
> On Thursday, Mar 27, 2003, at 17:15 US/Central, James Rogers wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that the word is context sensitive and ambiguous.  
> > Since it
> > was otherwise undefined by the military (and intentionally so), it is 
> > only
> > reasonable to interpret it as "swift" in the context of a military 
> > campaign
> > even if we are using the pedestrian definition of "swift".  I read 
> > "swift"
> > to be "less than a month".  Expecting anything smaller for a campaign 
> > of
> > this size is ludicrous, whether you are a "pedestrian" or not.

OK: swift in the context of a military campaign. Here are some famous ones
that come to mind:

 American Revolution
 World War I
 World War II
 Korea
 Vietnam
 Gulf War I 

and having made that tiniest of lists, I must admit that offhand, I do not
actually know all that much about them (thanks, American public school
system! ;) That is to say, I know the gist -- my version of the gist of
course -- of each, but would be hard put to give you much info on them. 
Particularly apropos -- er, I mean, rather particularly "being at once
opportune and to the point,"* of the discussion -- I admit that offhand I
do not know much of anything about the -- what was the term? Was it
"landing stage" or something like that? 

Do any of the conflicts listed above offer a talking point for you, James?
 
> Yeah, it's completely unheard of for the ground phase of a Gulf War to 
> last, like, 100 hours or something.  Unheard of.  Anybody who was 
> expecting that (NB:  I wasn't, but anyway...) is being ridiculous.   
> Sure.
> 
> :-/

Jeff: pause and give yourself a chance to be enlightened. (grin)

James: I believe that you said that you were in the Military? This is
probably going to sound naiive but -- I must admit that, as to Military
matters -- I am indeed "Lacking worldly experience and understanding,
especially."*  

Do you study the history of warfare in the Military? Clearly there are
many examples from history -- this tendency to war seems to have been in
the nature of civilization for... er, ever? And so please do let's discuss
other wars as well -- if they serve better to throw light on the current
situation.

Yours with ***New Politeness Action!*** =)
-jsk


* These are both French words and thus are now politically incorrect ;)