Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
When Not to Fight
During World War II, Douglas MacArthur mapped a strategy called “island hopping” to win the war in the Pacific theatre. To achieve the ultimate objective of defeating Japan, MacArthur decided to only attack islands that would benefit the ultimate objective of victory. But the real advantage of skipping an attack on some islands was that they were heavily fortified. Instead of attacking Japanese strongholds MacArthur bypassed them, saving lives on both sides. Sometimes the best strategy for dealing with those ready to fight might be not to fight at all.
A person might be wise by the battles he doesn’t fight. Maybe you have been in situations like I have where the person with whom I have a disagreement is very good with words. The wisest way for me to respond to that individual is not with more words. Piling my words on top of their words will just continue the fight. Perhaps the better way to counter the conflict would be to do something nice. Proverbs 25 says that kindness heaps “burning coals” on my adversary, meaning, he is ashamed that his attacks have been countered with unexpected goodness.
Or maybe you have been in a situation, like me, where a foolish person has done something that has hurt you. Proverbs 29 says that a wise person knows it is pointless to argue with a fool. The fool’s only response to my words is rage and ridicule. Proverbs 23 says I should not even speak wisdom within earshot of a fool, who will only despise the “good sense” of my words.
As we anticipate Veterans Day, honoring American soldiers for their service to our country, it might be wise to remember MacArthur’s principle: sometimes the best strategy is finding a way to win without fighting every battle. For Truth in Two, this is Dr. Mark Eckel, president of the Comenius Institute, personally seeking truth, but not needing to always say it. [First published at MarkEckel.com]
Published in General
And yet MacArthur still invaded far too many islands. Iwo Jima was not needed.
The Navy was carrying around Marines, and would dump them anywhere they could get rid of them. A waste of good lives.
The head was always the homeland, and the Navy fell into too many traps fighting the war like it was a land war and you had to conquer territory first. Once Tokyo fell, all the Japanese conquests would/did, too. Islands without naval support were no threat to the rear of the US navy.
Iwo Jima was within fighter range of Japan, so fighters could accompany the bombers. In addition, damaged bombers didn’t have to fly so far to land.
It was a nasty battle that’s for sure. But, we drew closer to Japan.
That’s right. The distance from Iwo Jima to Japan is about half the distance from Tinian in the Marianas.
Iwo was absolutely needed. Along with being a fighter escort base, it served as an emergency landing strip for damaged B-29s. (Without looking it up, I believe the first B-29 landed on Iwo within the first week of the invasion, while major fighting was still going on).
More significantly, MacArthur wasn’t involved in the invasion of Iwo. It was a Navy/Marine operation. The Army was fighting a separate track up the Western Pacific and he was busy in the Philippines at the time.
First, always know which one of you is the fool.
Then, always know when to shut up.
The reason McArthur could bypass island fortresses in the Pacific was that he knew he was on his way to cut off the head of the snake and force Japan into unconditional surrender. If he thought that the forces on those islands would attack the allies and cause significant harm later on, he would not have bypassed them.
As it was those fortress islands lay down their arms in obedience to their Emperor’s command to do so when Japan surrendered.
But how do we know which one is the fool?
Before answering, read and re-read the paragraph of Mark Eckel that @jose quotes here until you recognize the answer. It’s in there.
Professor Eckel,
I hope you learned a lesson from this little incident!
If you have some wisdom to pass on, and decide to introduce it with a metaphorical anecdote from history, make sure that the history isn’t interesting by itself.
* * *
Details
Think of us your students as bright, active golden retrievers whom you have taken out into the field to train to fetch pheasant.
First, make sure there are no squirrels.
Lt. Col. Earl Ellis, USMC.
Marine Lt. Col. Earl Ellis (not MacArthur) developed the island-hopping strategy, which was published in 1920. It was a Marine Corps-Navy plan. MacArthur was smart enough to adopt it.
Um. Do the cost-benefit of lives lost for B-29 crews saved? Not close.
I know people like to justify history because it honors those who risked or lost their lives. And I intend no disrespect to the 26,000 US casualties – on the contrary! But 26 thousand casualties for an island that saved a few bomber crew?
Indefensible.
In hindsight it’s clear that the cost of 26,000 casualties was not worth the gain of an airbase and emergency landing strip. But the US did not expect that the Japanese had refined their island defense tactics and prepared so thoroughly and that the cost would be so high. Maybe they should have after the bloody assault on Pelelieu. The US failed to adjust after Japan changed its tactics.
How much longer the war would last was also an open question: Absent the atom bomb, how many more months of conventional bombing? And without fighter escort?
1: It was more than “a few” crews.
2: You’re forgetting to include the opposite side of the calculation – taking Iwo Jima also denied the Japanese a strategically located airbase from which to launch Kamikaze attacks against the American fleet approaching the Japanese home islands.
Over two thousand B-29 landings on Iwo Jima.
And I forgot that Iwo would also have been essential for shorter-range B-24 bombers, which would have been utilized if the atomic bomb had not existed or had failed to persuade the Japanese to surrender.
Also: In the grim calculations of war, the cost to find and train aircrews was much higher than the same number of infantry.
Arguing with someone is a valuable expense. You choose to give the time and thought into an argument which becomes an investment in the hope it will pay off. The payoff is changing someone’s mind or just the satisfaction of letting off some steam. It’s your idea of payback.
MacArthur was driven out of the Philippines with his family in disgrace and I believe your pic is when he returned in triumph. Just like the expense of arguing mentioned above, our thought and time is a valuable resource that shouldn’t be underestimated by ourselves. The island hopping was an excellent analogy of the best use of resources but @MarkCamp was right on. Squirrel!