The Price paid for mistakes

The Price for Mistakes in not following the edicts quoted at the very beginning of this essay are tremendous. The expenditure of warfare skyrockets and bleeds into a death-toll. The would-be-conqueror is defeated and also faces the prospect of being attacked. When Rameses II of Egypt took a military campaign against the Turks, mistakes (in following the rules of planning a campain) were made. That resulted in the fracture and enormous loss of the attacking force. Rameses II was only grateful to have returned back to Egypt with what little was left of his troops. This was a result of ill planning (and above all execution of what had been planned) despite the fact that Rameses II was himself a great General, Architect and Administrator.

When Adolf Hitler invaded USSR, he had made a mistake committed several times by earlier generals. He had chosen the wrong season to attack, further he had not studied the intricacies of desert warfare [the desert in this context is icy] (slow advancement by acquiring and holding supplies in camps.) He had adopted a Blitzkrieg (which was successful with bordering nations). Two mistakes added on to a third, supplying much needed food (to stand the Russian winter) to Mussolini's troops who were badly organised. These mistakes cost him his dream, of a unified Eurasian "Third Reich". The allies won and gathered evidence on his "war crimes", so today, we view Adolf Hitler in his negative, (largely) pagan and monstrous image. It avoided a possibly alternate historical timeline like the one shown in the movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109779/Fatherland.

When US troops invaded Vietnam for what was an accepted cause by the world, they faced the problem of being unable to identify the enemy. Besides, the enemy was split in factions including guerilla units. The terrain which included a rain-forest was something most of the units were unfamiliar with. The result was a heavy loss of life on the part of those who had gone to restore peace (and enforce restraint.) The troops had to be called back after a national apology (on the death toll of US soldiers and marines rising, fighting for a cause that was not its own.) This operation was a bitter reminder that getting involved to cool down a possible civil war in a region over which a nation has no stake, for the sake of global stability is a most dangerous undertaking with the least likelihood of success.

When "Operation Desert Storm" was under sway, it gained success after masterful manouvres of the military. The aggressor was put down, the neighbours who had sought for help¹ were saved. However, due to the nature of the global peace agreements and conventions of the new world era, the leader was allowed to return to his country, partially demilitarised (with a grudge against the defenders of peace.) Here the defenders of peace acted in a "righteous" manner (although uncalled for.) Had the enemy (or at least their fundamentalist leader) been vanquished then, a new war on terror against the same aggressor (for reasons whatsoever) could have been entirely avoided. "Operation Sword" (which is happening today) would not have been necessary (and the loss of civilian life in Iraq which despite media recognition, goes unnoticed).