Tick, Tock

I've mentioned Leonhard's Fighting by Minutes before in a frivolous vein. Today, as I skimmed it to help with a paper I'm writing, I found this sage idea:

. . . In the past, commanders have tended to either ignore time considerations completely or think about them only in terms of time required. With only a spatial perspective on warfare, it is easy for the soldier to think about a given objective--for example, the destruction of an enemy army--and then to calculate that the friendly force will require two months to execute. In other words, the spatial objective is the independent variable and time is the dependent variable. The amount of time to be used depends on the amount of space to be conquested.

In ancient and medieval times, a spatial perspective could bear fruit. If the warring society were primarily oriented toward military conquest (as opposed to economic growth), and if the the field commander were also the head of state, it was a simple matter to require one or more campaigning seasons to attain the objectives in war. But in the modern world, the frequency of life has quickened. Electronic communications, rapid and volatile economic growth, and political power sharing within societies has made the duration of warfare a vital concern. To an ever-increasing degree, the commander must come to view the campaign not in terms of time required, but rather in terms of time available. Time is now the independent variable, and spatial considerations must conform to the new priorities, or all the dangers of long-duration warring will be realized (p. 174).

A little overly simplistic, but, then, it is a general statement. Anyhow, it certainly holds true for the Iraq campaign. If the generals were told we had to about of Iraq by 2008 at the very beginning, that would probably have changed our strategy and aims a heck of a lot. Fickle populaces and lengthy wars don't exactly go hand in hand. That fact probably should have been taken into account and had better in our next great adventure.