If war is a necessary course of action, then it is possibly the most important lesson. War is of course the least desirable course of action. But his job isn't to find peace without war. His job is to do his job (win wars) if called upon. The people responsible for peace are the political leaders. If they fail, they turn to the military.

Yes, sometimes they turn to the military without exploring all avenues to peace. Whether or not those are good decisions can be long debated. But do not put the onus for peace on him. Rather, be thankful that he is capable to do his job. The responsibility for peace lays on the shoulders of political leaders and diplomats.

Quoting the only line that ever stuck with me from Alien vs. Predator:

"Why do you have a gun?"

"It's like a condom. I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it but not have it."

> Yes, sometimes they turn to the military without exploring all avenues to peace. Whether or not those are good decisions can be long debated. But do not put the onus for peace on him.

What about all the military coups throughout history, where a general decided the politico commanding him wasn't a very good leader, and took his place?

Sure, in that case, yeah. But we're talking about a US general in the US military where that hasn't happened. Your comment expands the scope and context of the conversation, and obviously conclusions wouldn't necessarily be the same in that case.

> If war is a necessary course of action, then it is possibly the most important lesson.

I think all wars since WWI were probably unnecessary but they were fought for economic reasons. It was all about money.

Look at my second paragraph. :)

Today I learned: Fighting has only existed for 5000 years. Before that it was Haku Matata.

We've also been fighting for much longer than 5,000 years. It sounds like the General is a young-Earth creationist which, if true, doesn't give me much faith in his intellectual capacity.

Did you not read the rest of the paragraph?

> Do you not adapt because you cannot conceptualize faster than the enemy’s adaptation? (Darwin has a pretty good theory about the outcome for those who cannot adapt to changing circumstance — in the information age things can change rather abruptly and at warp speed, especially the moral high ground which our regimented thinkers cede far too quickly in our recent fights.)

Its an article about books about war.

Have you read any good books from 6,000 years ago lately?

Except he doesn't say "we've been recording fighting for 5,000 years," he says "we've been fighting for 5,000 years." There's no ambiguity there, unless you're delusional.

Today I learned: even allegedly smart posters on HN can be unable to understand context.

There is an odd phenomenon prevalent on the 'net: the presumption that a short blurb written with a small audience and particular point in mind should, somehow, contain encyclopedic completeness to every conceivable objection any twit may conjure up, no matter how ill-informed or tenuously applicable.

That´s why sometimes silence is the only viable option, any other one only receives mental onanism as a response, the conversations ends in the same place but with the OP mentally exhausted.

Fighting wars? or just fighting? His context was about fighting wars, not just a couple guys running into each other and throwing a few punches.

There's always ambiguity there, unless you're so delusional as to think you knew exactly what they were thinking and meant, and the exact context.

Pretty sure it was just a figure of speech...

Um, when a general says "we've been fighting for 5,000 years," he's referring to organized conflict, i.e. WAR. It's pretty hard for war to exist without civilization, so, yeah, around 5000 years, give or take, is the accepted number. Part of that is because writing was invented at about that time.

Now you could argue this number, but before you do, ask yourself: do you actually have any experience in this area, or are you just being a pedantic douche? The answer to that question will determine if you should reply.

I also think the guy who asked about books written 5,000 years ago is pretty funny. Well, actually, there is writing dating back to 3,200 BC. If you're going to be a pedant, at least get it right.