Joined: Mar 18, 2006 Posts: 1211 Location: Last outpost of Civilisation
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: Blistered Whippet Reports
Jack wrote:
JPL wrote:
It's like watching a Marx Brothers film. Seriously...
History repeats itself; the first time is tragic, the second is a farce. Thus, your Marx brothers analogy is apropos.
But I think we should consider a different film; Chaplain's "Little Dictator" comes to mind.
I also suspect there will be plenty of wars, with plenty of people coming up with great reasons for those wars. It's too bad you've lost your appetite after the first course....in a 10 course meal.
The primary role of a modern soldier is to deter war. Stupid-sounding, but true.
The primary role of politicians (in a time of crises) is to persuade soldiers to forget their primary role and do the opposite which was their ancient role of killing people.
This is why wars now take years & decades wheras in the medieval period the whole thing was over in a few weeks (i.e. because soldiers back then knew what they were supposed to be doing and also it was an opportunity to get rich fast).
How long do you thing the next one will last? Now that neither soldiers or politicians know what to do with a war if you hit them over the head with it.
This next war will be settled not by bullets but by economists & politicians and you & I both know that.
And strangely enough the body count will also be higher than in any previous conflict.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4302 Location: Graceland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:20 pm Post subject: Re: Blistered Whippet Reports
Part of the problem with the modern military industrial complex is that the contractors need to test their equipment under live fire conditions from time to time and the career soldiers have to get some combat time in order to move up in rank.
These two factors draw modern armies into conflict like a magnet.
Once the shooting starts, war is just another big government program. _________________
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: Blistered Whippet Reports
JPL wrote:
The primary role of a modern soldier is to deter war. Stupid-sounding, but true.
I'm sorry, but we're not in agreement on this one. The primary role of a modern soldier is to kill people and break things - just like always. Now if you were to say that the primary role of modern armed forces is to deter war, I could agree with that.
JPL wrote:
The primary role of politicians (in a time of crises) is to persuade soldiers to forget their primary role and do the opposite which was their ancient role of killing people.
Again, we see things differently. The problem is, the politicians want the soldiers to do things like social work, police work, humanitarian aid, nation building, and winning hearts and minds. You will notice that this detracts from the primary duty, which was and is to kill people and break things.
But it gets worse. The military is commanded by generals, who are appointed by congress. Appointment to general rank is highly political. Now, here's the problem - senior rank in the military is political.
Note that the politicians do not do a good job of defining a mission. We do not know what we want to accomplish or when.
When has Iraq been "rebuilt"? When is it "peaceful and safe"? In a month? A year? A century? Who knows!
The soldiers have been taken from a simple direct role (kill & break) to a complex and ill-defined role by political machinations.
JPL wrote:
This is why wars now take years & decades wheras in the medieval period the whole thing was over in a few weeks (i.e. because soldiers back then knew what they were supposed to be doing and also it was an opportunity to get rich fast).
See above. The war in Iraq was over quickly. The occupation, nation building, winning hearts and minds - those take time. Lots of time. By the way, the extended (and poorly defined) missions open up many opportunities for profit. Just ask Halliburton.
JPL wrote:
How long do you thing the next one will last? Now that neither soldiers or politicians know what to do with a war if you hit them over the head with it.
The next war will last indefinitely. As domestic problems in various nations increase, an external enemy will become essential. In addition, competition for scarce resources guarantees an abundance of potential enemies - as well as the opportunity for ever-shifting alliances. The existence of war can serve as a mask for domestic control measures, laws, rationing - all manner of useful tools that will be needed in the years ahead.
Neither you, nor I will see the end of that war. Your children may; all sides may have finally exhausted themselves, and resource depletion may finish the job.
JPL wrote:
This next war will be settled not by bullets but by economists & politicians and you & I both know that.
They always have been, and always will be.
JPL wrote:
And strangely enough the body count will also be higher than in any previous conflict.
Frustrated yet?
JP
Of course it will. Add in indirect deaths due to destruction of infrastructure and we should get quite an impressive body count.
Frustrated? No. It is the world I have expected and prepared for; and many of my preparations are never posted.
I will survive, at least for a time. Others may not be so fortunate.
Joined: Aug 03, 2006 Posts: 4302 Location: Graceland
Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Blistered Whippet Reports
Jack, a lot of your posts are described as coming from a "surgical steel perspective", and that sort of thing. To me, though, it seems to be more a reflection of what I would call "well pruned emotions."
The overall tone reminds me of a line I read in a book about the Samurai:
"A great warrior is subtle to the point of formlessness."
Reading about Stonewall Jackson's leadership reminds me, too, of that notion of creating in the mind of the opponent the sense that you are everywhere and nowhere at the same time.
There was a time when I was far more mentally disciplined than I am now. Fewer responsibilities, fewer kids, more rest, etc. But I would do mental exercises based upon a lot of the Eastern philosophy I studied and one of the most interesting ones was to practice splitting the attention in a given situation into two parts--the first perspective was simply the world as I saw it through my eyes, and the second perspective was that of a third party looking on (sort of like a surveillance camera monitor inside my head viewing the situation). To do this required a high level of relaxation and focus, but when it really started to click it was amazing. It was like I was seeing both the subjective and the objective perspective on a situation simultaneously.
A relaxed and focused mind can do some amazing things. _________________
Joined: Mar 18, 2006 Posts: 1211 Location: Last outpost of Civilisation
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 12:03 pm Post subject: Re: Blistered Whippet Reports
Hi Jack,
Very good reply - thanks.
Jack wrote:
The war in Iraq was over quickly. The occupation, nation building, winning hearts and minds - those take time. Lots of time. By the way, the extended (and poorly defined) missions open up many opportunities for profit. Just ask Halliburton.
Ahh well you & I may have a different definition of war. From where I'm standing the war in Iraq is still ongoing (and not so well).
I am wondering if conflicts like Vietnam, the Soviets in Afganistan, Iraq etc prove that a conventional 'bullets' war (even if you have the best equipped army in the world, and your opponent is a tiny, poor, poorly-led country) just doesn't work anymore.
Is fighting a shooting war in the 21'st century even possible? Recent evidence suggests not, perhaps? Oh you can kill a lot of people, sure, but geographical boundries, creeds & cultures just don't seem change like they used to. Everything just snaps back into shape like it's on elastic.
Maybe a smart politician could exploit this to advantage and realise that the war that's starting now is not being fought over food & energy but with food & energy. Then conservation becomes a weapon. Commodity trading screens become WMD's. Vegeteranism would be a winning war stratagy.
Posted: Fri May 23, 2008 1:08 pm Post subject: Re: Blistered Whippet Reports
JPL wrote:
Ahh well you & I may have a different definition of war. From where I'm standing the war in Iraq is still ongoing (and not so well).
Precisely. My definition is a conflict between nation-states. In the case of Iraq, the conflict between nation-states (Iraq and the Coalition of the willing ) was over in short order.
The occupation was bungled, is being bungled, and will end badly. The enemies of the U.S. will probably be stronger; the Iraqis who helped the U.S. will be abandoned, thus rendering future cooperation by others in the region less likely.
So, you see, we can both be right. Just not far right.
JPL wrote:
I am wondering if conflicts like Vietnam, the Soviets in Afganistan, Iraq etc prove that a conventional 'bullets' war (even if you have the best equipped army in the world, and your opponent is a tiny, poor, poorly-led country) just doesn't work anymore.
But the opponent is not a tiny country. The opponent is an ideology, along with a dispersed enemy engaging in resistance and supported by the population. Defeating the country is easy. Defeating the ideology requires special operations troops who are well trained in developing cooperation with indigenous forces. That takes time. It requires patience. It takes large numbers of elite soldiers, very well trained elite soldiers, who are diplomats as well as fighters.
It is worth noting that the U.S. is generally not patient. We have the special operations soldiers who can succeed in such a mission - just not enough. And it takes time to get more into the pipeline, and thence to the field.
Conventional forces do not work in an asymmetric warfare situation, as you suggest.
JPL wrote:
Is fighting a shooting war in the 21'st century even possible? Recent evidence suggests not, perhaps? Oh you can kill a lot of people, sure, but geographical boundries, creeds & cultures just don't seem change like they used to. Everything just snaps back into shape like it's on elastic.
Sure. But the mission needs to be defined properly, and the right resources focused on the right task.
JPL wrote:
Maybe a smart politician could exploit this to advantage and realise that the war that's starting now is not being fought over food & energy but with food & energy. Then conservation becomes a weapon. Commodity trading screens become WMD's. Vegeteranism would be a winning war stratagy.
In a sense, vegetarianism is (and has always been) a winning war strategy. If the civilian population will accept privation over time, additional resources can be focused on the war. This increases the likelihood of victory. During WWII, many civilians embraced a simpler, more austere lifestyle, and governments imposed rationing to further the military goals. Modern populations are not presently committed to sacrifice in order to achieve victory.
Joined: Sep 02, 2005 Posts: 2970 Location: In a Nigerian compound surrounded by mighty dignataries
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: Re: Blistered Whippet Reports
btu2012 wrote:
BlisteredWhippet wrote:
I hope for the best, but expect the worst, optimistically aiming for somewhere in the middle: a competent militant, fascist vegan state.
Mr Whippet,
I think that EnergyUnlimited's nuclear solution would be better. Time to ask a Nigerian.
Militants? Facists? Vegans(Yams)? All are in abundance in Nigeria!
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic28756-105.html _________________ In other words, it's a huge sh*t sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite.-from Full Metal Jacket
Competent? Three out of four is not bad. _________________ In other words, it's a huge sh*t sandwich, and we're all gonna have to take a bite.-from Full Metal Jacket
Joined: Mar 18, 2006 Posts: 1211 Location: Last outpost of Civilisation
Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: Re: Blistered Whippet Reports
Hi Jack,
Interesting. I think you've thought this through very well but there's a hole:
Jack wrote:
Defeating the ideology requires special operations troops who are well trained in developing cooperation with indigenous forces. That takes time. It requires patience. It takes large numbers of elite soldiers, very well trained elite soldiers, who are diplomats as well as fighters.
I remember a quote from a year or so ago (can't remember the source) to the effect that the Iranians could take Basra any time they wanted, with 40 fighters, 7 pick-up trucks and a mullah with a PA system.
Interesting.... When I was a young man I shared a college house with a bunch of guys from the ME. They were from Oman, Jordan & a couple of Saudis. I got on pretty well with them but after a lot of mutual arguements they finally persuaded me that I would never understand Arabian culture until read the Koran. Being an aresy-minded little git (grin) I went out & found an English version & read it from cover to cover.
Fascinating book. Interesting people too. Very black & white in some ways, but also very philosophical on the detail & quite willing to spend time explaining why it is they think the way they do.
My initial assesment is that they are less reliant on 'material stuff' than us, very quick to make value judgements but also willing to asses a man as a person rather than just what he stands for. Intellectually very lazy unless people make the first step but fanatical when roused.
Formidable opponents, in other words. So unless your elite soldiers have either mind-control weapons, or are Koran-waving Arab seperatists, this war ain't win-able.
I have a drinking buddy who is ex-UK special forces & he said to me, "The Middle East, forget it. We got no chance."
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
) was over in short order.
