The More Usual Reason For Adopting A

The Art Of The Indirect Approach Can Only Be Mastered, And Its Full Scope Appreciated, By Study Of And Reflection Upon The Whole History Of War. But We Can At Least Crystallize The Lessons Into Two Simple Maxims- One Negative, The Other Positive. The First Is That, In Face Of The Overwhelming Evidence Of History, No General Is Justified In Launching His Troops To A Direct Attack Upon An Enemy Firmly In Position. The Second, That Instead Of Seeking To Upset The Enemy's Equilibrium By One's Attack, It Must Be Upset Before A Real Attack Is, Or Can Be Successfully Launched

A Modern State Is Such A Complex And Interdependent Fabric That It Offers A Target Highly Sensitive To A Sudden And Overwhelming Blow From The Air.

In The Case Of A State That Is Seeking Not Conquest But The Maintenance Of Its Security, The Aim Is Fulfilled If The Threat Is Removed - If The Enemy Is Led To Abandon His Purpose.

For Even The Best Of Peace Training Is More Theoretical Than Practical Experience ... Indirect Practical Experience May Be The More Valuable Because Infinitely Wider.

It Should Be The Aim Of Grand Strategy To Discover And Pierce The Achilles' Heel Of The Opposing Government's Power To Make War. Strategy, In Turn, Should Seek To Penetrate A Joint In The Harness Of The Opposing Forces. To Apply One's Strength Where The Opponent Is Strong Weakens Oneself Disproportionately To The Effect Attained. To Strike With Strong Effect, One Must Strike At Weakness.