Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
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]
Discussion (16)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
That's right. The distance from Iwo Jima to Japan is about half the distance from Tinian in the Marianas.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
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.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
First, always know which one of you is the fool.
Then, always know when to shut up.
You're seeing five of 16 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.