ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Friday, June 05, 2015

A juxstaposition

If there is one lesson, just one, from all of Martin van Creveld's books, it is that technology does not guarantee military victory. Here is a vivid comparison that shows why things are looking rather grim for the US military if it is ordered to intervene in the Middle East for a third time in three decades in order to take on the Islamic State there:
  1. Let Transgender Troops Serve Openly by THE EDITORIAL BOARD. The Pentagon’s ban on transgender troops is based on obsolete policies and must be rescinded.  The Williams Institute at the U.C.L.A. School of Law, which researches gender issues, estimates there are about 15,500 transgender troops serving in uniform.
  2. Using Violence and Persuasion, ISIS Makes Political Gains. Amid punishing American-backed airstrikes, the Islamic State militants have advanced in Iraq and Syria using a dual strategy of purporting to represent Sunni interests and attacking any group that vies to play the same role.
Military history clearly demonstrates that the side that executes homosexuals, whether throwing them off buildings or having their fellow soldiers beat them to death, reliably defeats the side that allows its soldiers to dress up and pretend they are women.

Yes, wealth and technology are on the side of the crossdressing military. But attrition, geography, and history are on the side that does not tolerate effeminacy.

It's true that the US military roundly defeated the Soviet-trained, Soviet-equipped Iraqi army twice, the second time largely without a fight. But then, the Islamic State has defeated the US-trained, US-equipped Iraqi army.

Labels:

79 Comments:

Blogger Matt June 05, 2015 8:05 AM  

Then why is Robert KING? Not Tywinn Lanni--- oh sorry

Anonymous Stephen J. June 05, 2015 8:06 AM  

Technology does not guarantee victory, no . . . but it helps a lot. Two words: Rorke's Drift.

Blogger Salt June 05, 2015 8:18 AM  

Technology does not guarantee victory, no . . . but it helps a lot. Two words: Rorke's Drift.

Rorke's Drift was a fortified redoubt. Ishlandwana, out in the open, now the Brits got their asses kicked by shield and spear. Their technology did not save them.

Blogger pdwalker June 05, 2015 8:21 AM  

Clearly, ISIS would be more successful if they implemented affirmative action.

Blogger Casual Brutality June 05, 2015 8:30 AM  

Has there actually been an example from history where an anti-effeminacy, traditionalist force has engaged a military force that allows its soldiers to dress up and pretend they are women?

I can't recall one. It's kind of a weird idea.

Blogger Jourdan June 05, 2015 8:32 AM  

Tech is useless absent a will to win.

However, if such will arises, tech advantages are largely determinative.

I think this is why people have such a hard time judging what tech means for armies.

Anonymous Samson J. June 05, 2015 8:33 AM  

Rorke's Drift.

Rorke's Drift was 1st-generation warfare, thus irrelevant. (I've been reading William Lind, can you tell?).

Blogger AmyJ June 05, 2015 8:47 AM  

Hey, at least a "woman"would have a chance at passing ranger school then?

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo June 05, 2015 8:48 AM  

I just want to point out that a 1st World army is going to be a lot more disciplined than ISIS troops will be. If it comes down to pitched battle, ISIS will likely lose on that factor alone. This is why the strategy under Bush of pushing engagements with al-Qaida was so effective: Muslims are bad at heavy infantry combat.

But they've *always* been bad at that. Light-cavalry and harassment tactics have always been the Muslim strength. Hence al-Qaida's success when it was able to avoid pitched battle. I can't say I know how well Muslims historically do at political battles, but that's where Obama is especially weak: the voters will want him to win, but *he* doesn't want to fight (he has no more spine than any other Leftist), so he won't be able to fight well.

American support for military engagements has always depended on public perception of success: Americans don't like committing resources and men to battles that we don't believe we can win; hence why public support for Iraq2 dropped off after the media pulled out the embedded reporters. While the reporters were actually there, public support for the war was high, because the reporters couldn't find much defeat there.

Which means America v ISIS will likely come down to how well the American military can force ISIS into actual battles versus the ability of the ISIS leadership to take lessons from the NVA about convincing the American media to run pessimistic stories.. Large, well-trained and disciplined armies like ours can absorb hit-and-run tactics, and with modern tech we can respond much better than before, but 1st World militaries are much more vulnerable to political weapons than 3rd World militaries are.

Basically I'm saying we could easily pull another Vietnam: win every actual battle but still lose the war because politics gets in the way of actually accomplishing military objectives.

Anonymous Tom June 05, 2015 8:50 AM  

This is such a paradigm shift from what I had thought growing up. Everyone was worried about who had the better technology, USA or USSR.

But, it makes total sense that war being fought by human beings comes down to which decisions those human beings are willing to make.

The USA could wipe out ISIS in about 30 seconds with coordinated nuclear strikes. But obviously no one has the will to do that. Well, except maybe Kratman.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo June 05, 2015 8:52 AM  

Yaron Brook said something similar about a potential war with China when he was on PJ Media not too long ago. Militarily, China doesn't stand a chance. And they know it.
But he was very pessimistic about the fighting spirit - so to speak - of the American political leadership. What's the point, after all, of having a giant military if no one has the guts to actually order them to fire?

Anonymous Alexander June 05, 2015 8:54 AM  

Jokes aside, Rorke's Drift was not technology vs. masculinity. The Anglo-Saxon was, in the late 19th century, still quite sure of his place in the world, and that place was at the top.

This was the era of Cecil Rhodes, not If Our Soldiers Wore Pantyhose, My Love.

Technology + Defensible Position... is no guarantee when held by the effeminate. You think UN bufoons in that position would hold strong? Or a battalion of Lady Rangers?

Blogger Harsh June 05, 2015 8:57 AM  

Has there actually been an example from history where an anti-effeminacy, traditionalist force has engaged a military force that allows its soldiers to dress up and pretend they are women?

Persia versus the Spartans.

Thank you, folks, I'll be here all week.

Anonymous PhillipGeorge©2015 June 05, 2015 9:01 AM  

Who are any of them? ISIS, USA? Does one exist without the other?

H8074 in the Strongs:- Adomination of Desolation

to be desolated, be deflowered, be deserted, be appalled
to be appalled, be awestruck
to be desolated, be made desolate
to be stunned
appalling, causing horror
horror-causer, appaller
to devastate, ravage, make desolated
to appal, show horror
to lay desolate, be desolated
to cause to be desolate
to be appalled, be astounded
to cause oneself desolation, cause oneself ruin

look at the photo of Barack in the Church of the nativity 22 March 2013.

Martin Amis nailed it for all time " stupefied by relativism " like a deer in the head lights; or that the moment realization that the cars can't not collide.

desexed is an interesting connotation with Caitlyn crowned Ms Vanity. Eunuchs.



Blogger Quizzer W June 05, 2015 9:13 AM  

A month in the field without hormone treatments will turn them into fighting men.

Anonymous smedley butler June 05, 2015 9:14 AM  

Does this mean that some men who are trans can now choose to take the women's physical fitness test qualifications? Also, does that mean that women who are trans must take the men's portion of the PFT? (With problems like these, we don't need enemies to destroy us).

For an idea of the difference, in the Navy-Marine Corps, men are required to do at least 3 dead-hang pull ups with 20 being a perfect score. Women are not required to do any pull ups but are required to just do a timed dead-hang on the pull up bar.

Anonymous Musashi #0350 June 05, 2015 9:15 AM  

This national validation of all things homo is an affront to God and we will witness the resulting consequences. This is arrogance, pride, and most of all, rebellion. So now we pollute the military and somehow expect there will be no negative outcome.

We will lose our next war, and rightly so.

Blogger skiballa June 05, 2015 9:16 AM  

@WhiteKnightLeo
"I just want to point out that a 1st World army is going to be a lot more disciplined than ISIS troops will be."

While this is generally true, discipline doesn't guarantee victory. Especially if the 1st world army follows a restrictive UOF/ROE policy.

Bear in mind that the "tip of the spear" of US forces are among the least diverse groups of the US Govt. Support troops are both more diverse and less disciplined, I shudder to think what MOAR DIVERSITY might do.

Anonymous Stg58 / Animal Mother June 05, 2015 9:21 AM  

Smedley, the pull up requirement isn't in the Navy, just in the Marines. And if you can only do 3 pull ups you're regarded as worthless. Study up, Gimlet Eye.

Blogger Alexander June 05, 2015 9:21 AM  

Let's see how long discipline lasts when mentally ill individuals have the power of the state behind them to remove their commanders from their positions, on the basis that said commanders don't tolerate the private prancing about in heels and stockings.

Or conversely, when the officers insist upon it.

Blogger Conscientia Republicae June 05, 2015 9:21 AM  

Conan's father and Thulsa Doom are right again. The riddle of steel holds true.

Anonymous Nemo Maximus June 05, 2015 9:22 AM  

@Tom

In Caliphate, Kratman implied President Buckman should have been hanged for doing just that.

@Harsh

Wasn't Thermopolae 300 butch Homos vs. the effeminate army of Persians? Not sure what the lesson is there.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo June 05, 2015 9:29 AM  

@skiballa Yes, I'm aware of that. You might want to read the rest of my comment. And I was including 'battlefield discipline' in that, meaning the ability to keep fighting in an organized fashion even as you are taking losses and casualties. Like the Iraqi military, ISIS isn't very good at that. Like most Muslim armies, they are only brave when they are winning. Whereas like Romans and Greeks, Americans are brave even when losing. A lot of this comes down to culture; Islamic culture - from what I've seen and read - is not conducive to producing such people.

Its obviously not an insurmountable advantage, or else we would never lose. Stupidity is unfortunately common to all cultures, and there clearly aren't enough structural factors in our military training to prevent idiots from achieving command ranks.

There's also the problem that our political leadership isn't all that brave, but that's just what you'd expect when you have an entire political party whose supporters don't want to have any public discussion of ideas. Having a hideously poor electorate tends to reduce the amount of nonsense the voters will tolerate, hence the 3rd World's distaste for enacting any "anti-global warming" initiatives.

But a wealthy electorate will tolerate a lot of nonsense, because the consequences are easier to absorb/ignore.

Blogger John Wright June 05, 2015 9:30 AM  

Rorke's Drift was also fought by Victorians, the most bad assed of bad asses in history, except for the Spartans. There was a reason why the sun never set on the British Empire, and if you think it was all due to technological advantage, and none to their fighting spirit, discipline, training, rigorous honor-bound culture, think again. The gentlemen knew honor and Tommy Aktins knew discipline.

Blogger Owen June 05, 2015 9:32 AM  

Bear in mind that the "tip of the spear" of US forces are among the least diverse groups of the US Govt.

The closer to the tip, the less and less diverse it becomes. When I served in a SOF unit in Germany in the 90s, I think there was one POC in the line companies of the battalion.

Blogger Harsh June 05, 2015 9:33 AM  

Wasn't Thermopolae 300 butch Homos vs. the effeminate army of Persians? Not sure what the lesson is there.

Some people know a joke when they see one?

Blogger Cail Corishev June 05, 2015 9:37 AM  

We will lose our next war, and rightly so.

Just imagine if we (meaning the US govt. military) came up against a Christian army -- not just a heathen army that God might use to chastise us, but a Christian army that could ask for His favor directly.

Anonymous JN June 05, 2015 9:48 AM  

We are well on our way to this:

Precision Drilling

Blogger skiballa June 05, 2015 9:50 AM  

@WhiteKnightLeo

I read the whole comment.

It's true enough, ISIS doesn't quite have the discipline required for attrition warfare. I have a hard time accepting that as a weakness, and they do quite well with their current tactics. I seem to recall some warning on this site about the different generations of warfare and expecting others to fight like we do.

Anonymous The other robot June 05, 2015 9:53 AM  

It's true that the US military roundly defeated the Soviet-trained, Soviet-equipped Iraqi army twice, the second time largely without a fight. But then, the Islamic State has defeated the US-trained, US-equipped Iraqi army.

Doesn't that just mean that the Iraqis are simply pathetic?

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 05, 2015 9:57 AM  

Assuming that the people who order the military to go back give a damn about winning or losing. As the world's most avaricious opportunists, winning is used as a rationale for invading some other place, losing is always depicted as "we were betrayed by politicians at home".

In no case, ever, has the US government or the Pentagon accepted that a military response was simply wrong-headed, inappropriate to the circumstances, over-reactive, or any other sign of wisdom or the capacity to acquire it.

They are "wise guys" only in the criminal sense; insiders with seats at the table of power, deciding on which criminal enterprise offers the best risk/return ratio.

Anonymous Athor Pel June 05, 2015 9:59 AM  

"3. Salt June 05, 2015 8:18 AM
Technology does not guarantee victory, no . . . but it helps a lot. Two words: Rorke's Drift.

Rorke's Drift was a fortified redoubt. Ishlandwana, out in the open, now the Brits got their a"



The Ishlandwana battle site has memorial markers where particular units fought. It also has some markers in Google Earth/Google Maps. There are quite a few photos posted that allow you see things from ground level, some are 360 degree panoramas.

Here are the coords:
-28.355262,30.652775

Anonymous ticticboom June 05, 2015 10:03 AM  

Sparta was hetero compared to Athens and Thebes. Who won the Peloponesian War again?

Romans beat to death gays in the Legions. They steamrolled over the Greeks. I read a quote from a Legionaire of the time, that the only time he felt fear was when fighting the Macedonians, who'd previously conquered Greece. The Greeks themselves were an afterthought.

Blogger skiballa June 05, 2015 10:03 AM  

@The other robot
"Doesn't that just mean that the Iraqis are simply pathetic?"

Not pathetic, they just have very little sense of nationalism, and certainly not enough to die for it. They have a much stronger bond to family/tribe and religious sect, that's what they'd fight and die for.

Blogger Alexander June 05, 2015 10:23 AM  

They have a much stronger bond to family/tribe and religious sect, that's what they'd fight and die for.

Well, they've certainly been doing a bang-up job dying for it.

Though to be fair, if Red Dawn were to happen tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't be willing to fight and die to defend the beaches of Los Atzlangelos. Or Puerto Rico -upon - Hudson. So it's hard to blame a Kurd or a Sunnis or a Shiite or Mohammad of Clan Camel for not getting himself killed and leaving his family defenseless in the face of the other three groups.

So I suppose the anti-nationalists won. Unfortunately, the net result was smaller circles, not one happy brothe... personhood of the Earth.

Blogger Alexander June 05, 2015 10:30 AM  

On an interesting note, according to google I have invented the term "Los Atzlangelos". Go me.

Blogger Chad June 05, 2015 10:30 AM  

"It's true enough, ISIS doesn't quite have the discipline required for attrition warfare. I have a hard time accepting that as a weakness, and they do quite well with their current tactics. I seem to recall some warning on this site about the different generations of warfare and expecting others to fight like we do. "

The winning army will not be determined by the discipline of its fighters. Thats all 2nd generation, with it only being a tertiary factor in adaptable 3rd generation armies.

It is of no relevance to the fourth generation army. Rather, it is the discipline and determination of the people as a whole.

Blogger skiballa June 05, 2015 10:31 AM  

Alexander, exactly that, plus part of the Iraqi Army is probably sympathetic to ISIS. Not a few feel that the Iraqi govt. is not exactly legitimate, where the declared Caliphate could be.

I might not fight against a group that had beliefs that aligned with mine in order to preserve what we've become.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo June 05, 2015 10:34 AM  

@ScuzzaMan When was the last time that an American military defeat *wasn't* the result of a failure of political will? Remember, the military doesn't set its own objectives. That's a necessary feature of a republican form of government: civilian control of the military.

If "a military response was simply wrong-headed, inappropriate to the circumstances, over-reactive, or any other sign of wisdom or the capacity to acquire it", THAT ISN'T THE MILITARY'S CALL TO MAKE. The job of a general is to win the wars a politician starts, not to decide when and where a military response is warranted or not. I don't want to live in a world where the military gets to decide whether/when/who it fights or not, and neither do you.

And since the politicians are elected by the populace, it is ultimately THE VOTERS' fault, and the voters' lesson to learn.



@skiballa ISIS isn't winning against the Kurds, and the Kurds have a number of American volunteers who are helping them directly. They are beating people who are like them, and they are doing it because they understand the people they are beating. Islamic tactics work against other Islamists, just like Western tactics work against other Westerners.

As far as generations of war go, I agree. I think I said something like that. ISIS couldn't win a battle with the American military, but like the NVA it doesn't have to, because wars aren't decided by battles. Wars are won when the enemy is no longer willing to commit its resources to fighting. That can be accomplished without ever fighting a battle. The various generations of warfare are about various sides using the means they have to build a power-projection institution in order to accomplish its military objectives. ISIS can't match us for 2nd generation warfare, and they know it, so they won't try if it comes down to that.

But ultimately ISIS doesn't *have* to fight like us in order for us to win. Their attacks are aimed largely at our cultural weaknesses, and most of those are created by the Left. Strike hard enough at the enemy's culture, and he won't fight even if he could literally flatten you and your entire military in the span of an hour (see German invasion of Sudetenland, and the political buildup to it, for historical example).


I also wasn't saying that the Iraqis are pathetic. What you said about them not having any sense of nationalism is precisely my point. Islam has never bred any kind of nationalism; there has always been a lot more infighting amongst Islamic nations than among Western nations, and never enough solidarity to breed actual nation-states in the Western sense of the word.

This may have to do with the lack of a separation of religious and national identities among Muslims: a French papist was both French AND Christian, and while he might fight for Christendom, he might also fight for France, because they are separate things to him. He might fight Turkish Muslims, but he could also fight German Catholics. In each instance he is defending different aspects of his identity.

But a to a Muslim in Saudi Arabia, there isn't a separation between his being Saudi and being Muslim (he probably doesn't think of himself as being Saudi at all, because the Saudis are just the ruling family). They are one and the same. And Allah is a lot more important to him than his political leader is (although political and religious leaders in the Muslim world are usually the same person, another example of a lack of separation).

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales June 05, 2015 10:37 AM  

@skiballa

So, yeah: pathetic. Just like any regular arab army.

Anonymous zen0 June 05, 2015 10:51 AM  

Isandlwana was made possible by failures of command, as far as I can tell from reading.
Arrogance and ignorance playing a large part.

When the Brits woke up, the Zulu were done.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic June 05, 2015 10:52 AM  

Aren't most of the ISIS unit commanders Chechen? This seems to be an overlooked point.

I have a three-point plan for defeating ISIS:
1. kill all the fighting age men
2. impregnate all the fertile women
3. enslave everybody else.

Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Now, where's my $150K/yr think tank-sinecure?

Anonymous Alexander June 05, 2015 10:56 AM  

I see a flaw in your plan.

Number 2 would nonetheless require keeping the women firmly in hand and denying the children any of their maternal heritage. Otherwise you'll just end up with a slightly paler, slightly more time horizon aware, jihadists.

The women are as much a problem as the men - more so, in strictly biological terms - of perpetuating the culture.

Blogger skiballa June 05, 2015 11:11 AM  

@WhiteKnightLeo

I don't exactly disagree, but I see a bit of "this time it will be different" in your line of reasoning. US involvement will not help anymore than it has in the past. I spent 3.5 years of my life in the Sunni Triangle. At this point, I, like many other vets, wonder why we wasted time, resources, and lives doing what we did. The US always does well tactically, but loses on a moral and political level. Supporting the Kurds with more material assets would be most effective, but if the US were to do so it would likely upset Turkey. There is no clear winning strategy here if we want to maintain relations with other countries in the area.

The US is very unlikely to commit to doing what it would take to defeat ISIS.

Anonymous Bz June 05, 2015 11:21 AM  

"estimates there are about 15,500 transgender troops serving in uniform."

I'm surprised there are 15,000 transgenders in the entire US population. But perhaps it's a tactical career choice in this case.

Blogger The Anti-Gnostic June 05, 2015 11:22 AM  

Otherwise you'll just end up with a slightly paler, slightly more time horizon aware, jihadists.

IOW, Chechens. Well, back to the drawing board.

Anonymous Feh June 05, 2015 11:24 AM  

I have a three-point plan for defeating ISIS:
1. kill all the fighting age men
2. impregnate all the fertile women
3. enslave everybody else.

Don't say I didn't tell you so.

Now, where's my $150K/yr think tank-sinecure?


All the think tanks are run by, and funded by, the Left, so you won't get a dime by proposing solutions that actually work, especially if it involves lots of killing.

"Moar feelgood cultural sensitivity, education, and economic opportunity!" is what gets funded these days.

Blogger Alexander June 05, 2015 11:45 AM  

IOW, Chechens. Well, back to the drawing board.

I laughed. Well played.


But I think with a few edits your base plan can stay. You just need to broaden your categories and a few modifications.

1. Kill all the men.
2. Sterilize all the fertile women.
3. Enslave everybody.

ISIS loses!

Blogger Cail Corishev June 05, 2015 11:47 AM  

I'm surprised there are 15,000 transgenders in the entire US population.

s/'m surprised/ don't believe/

What are the odds that a university group that "researches transgender issues" isn't going to overstate its estimate radically, first by counting every guy who admits he got wasted and wore his sister's panties one time on a dare, and then by flat out guessing (lying) on how many men refuse to admit it?

Blogger Alexander June 05, 2015 11:52 AM  

Transgender questionaire, soon to be brought to you by The University of Damien

1. Do you currently identify as 'male'?
2. Have you ever played a female character in an RPG?

Conclusion: America has millions of transgendered persons!

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 05, 2015 11:57 AM  

Yeah, I don't see trannys beating down the recruiting office doors. In the days of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the gay kids always Told.


The thing about ISIS is that it isn't really a fourth generation warfare polity, like al Qaeda is.

It is something of a cross between a first generation warfare kingdom and an apocalyptic death cult.

“The Islamic State has attached great importance to the Syrian city of Dabiq, near Aleppo. It named its propaganda magazine after the town, and celebrated madly when (at great cost) it conquered Dabiq’s strategically unimportant plains. It is here, the Prophet reportedly said, that the armies of Rome will set up their camp. The armies of Islam will meet them, and Dabiq will be Rome’s Waterloo or its Antietam...


... Now that it has taken Dabiq, the Islamic State awaits the arrival of an enemy army there, whose defeat will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.”


That my friends it where America comes in. You see the Caliphate is supposed to defeat the armies of Rome. This next bit is complicated so bear with me.


The Salafist version of the apocalypse goes something like this. The armies of the Caliph defeats the armies Rome on the Plains of Dabiq. The Caliphate then proceeds to sweep all before them until in Eastern Iran a (sort of) Anti-Christ arises; the Dajjal. The Dajjal will hammer the Caliphate until there are only 5,000 of the faithful remaining hold up in Jerusalem. Just as the Dajjal is about to destroy them, Jesus Christ will return to Earth and spear him.


So you see the ISIS doesn't really mind losing gobs of men to bombings because they are fated to lose almost all of their men to the Dajjal anyway.

Those that get bombed are just leaving early to avoid the rush.

However where ISIS differs from AQ is that the Caliph has to hold territory, he has to expand his territory and he has to win a major battle on the plains of Dabiq, otherwise he loses credibility.

Blogger Corvinus June 05, 2015 12:19 PM  

The Salafist version of the apocalypse goes something like this. The armies of the Caliph defeats the armies Rome on the Plains of Dabiq. The Caliphate then proceeds to sweep all before them until in Eastern Iran a (sort of) Anti-Christ arises; the Dajjal. The Dajjal will hammer the Caliphate until there are only 5,000 of the faithful remaining hold up in Jerusalem. Just as the Dajjal is about to destroy them, Jesus Christ will return to Earth and spear him.

Two points:
1) I wonder if this Dajjal fellow is why Muslims are so allergic to those hippy Baha'is.

2) Doesn't seem all that different from Hal Lindsey's Left Behind series.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) June 05, 2015 12:23 PM  

I fear the day is coming where the US gov't will pay for the mutilatiotional surgery that the sexually confused think will make them happy and the US military is flooded with transgenders seeking pretend surgical reassignment

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo June 05, 2015 12:23 PM  

More than a few people have drawn parallels between Islam and Imperial Shintoism, especially their status as death cults.

Blogger ajw308 (#98) June 05, 2015 12:30 PM  

Muslims are bad at heavy infantry combat
But they don't care and the reason they don't care is, as Dr. van Creveld pointed out, they will win a war of attrition. Hell, many of them seek death. They may suck at heavy infantry combat, but they don't care.

Anonymous WhiteKnightLeo June 05, 2015 12:42 PM  

@skiballa

I'm actually not saying "this time it will be different". I don't know that it will be. It might go exactly the same. All I was doing was outlining the conditions.

I think Vox is overly pessimistic on a number of issues, especially re: the decline of the West. I think there are a number of positive trends that he's ignoring. One is the historic beating that anti-gun activists have been taking since 1987 (all 50 states AND DC are now shall-issue, and the two largest states are now open-carry friendly). Another is the EPA's recent public admission that fracking is safe.

Another is the dramatically increased speed at which Leftist media narratives are collapsing now (I would specify 'false narratives', but I see no need for redundancy). It used to take years for even a small number of people to become aware of a false Leftist narrative - how many people today know that Cronkite's reporting on the Tet Offensive was false? - but now the destruction of those narratives happens in days, and is often front-page news (re: Rolling Stone). Obviously the overall picture is still resoundingly negative, but I'm becoming hopeful that the tide is turning.

He may be ignoring them because he deems them inconsequential. But I don't. Hence why I go out of my way to flesh out what I see somewhat overly-simplified pictures painted by Vox. He leaves things out because he doesn't think they will make a difference. I include them because I think they will.

Blogger ScuzzaMan June 05, 2015 12:47 PM  

"That's a necessary feature of a republican form of government: civilian control of the military. "

You haven't been paying attention.

You already dont live in that world.

Blogger skiballa June 05, 2015 12:54 PM  

@WhiteKnightLeo

Again, I mostly agree. My point about "it will be different this time" was only referring to the Kurds. Here we have ISIS armed indirectly by the US, Iraqi forces armed by the US, and another group seeking autonomy wishing they would be armed by the US. This historically doesn't work well for us.

And as far as your other points, I too enjoy seeing some of the things you listed. I fear though that it's just a sign of the deeper divide between different groups in the US. It remains to be seen what the end result will be, I will make no predictions to that end.

Blogger skiballa June 05, 2015 12:57 PM  

@ Scuzzaman

True, war is a racket, they certainly wouldn't want to leave that in the hands of the unwashed masses when there is so much money to be made.

Anonymous cheddarman June 05, 2015 1:00 PM  

"Ishlandwana, out in the open, now the Brits got their asses kicked by shield and spear. Their technology did not save them." - Salt

The Brits lost the battle due to hubris and unbelievable idiotic logistics. They did not have a means of quickly resupplying the soldiers with rifle bullets, so most of them died with empty rifles in hand, a few dozen yards or a few hundred yards from locked ammunition cases to which they did not have the proper keys....

Anonymous Quartermaster June 05, 2015 1:06 PM  

"Now, where's my $150K/yr think tank-sinecure?"

My, you work cheap.

"2) Doesn't seem all that different from Hal Lindsey's Left Behind series."

Hal Lindsey didn't write the Left Behind series, although he does agree with the eschatology of the series.

Blogger Alex N June 05, 2015 1:17 PM  

a well put argument this is not

Blogger Nobody June 05, 2015 2:05 PM  

Our SOG/CIA troops have been training the "moderates" in conventional/unconventional warfare. In turn, those "moderates" have been switching sides and taking their training with them disseminating lessons learned. (Organize, train, equip, advise, and assist indigenous and surrogate forces in military and paramilitary operations normally of long duration). Couple that with the Chechens who have years of lessons learned fighting the Russians, not to mention centuries of other invaders, training and fighting along side ISIS. ISIS is not a ragtag army of a bunch of radical Islamic baffoons with guns. Not to mention others who taken up the cause of ISIS who also have that experience. In other words, they have the hands on training right out of the SOF Guerrilla Warfare Manual, plus lessons learned.

Anonymous Teenage Jail June 05, 2015 2:30 PM  

@WhiteKnightLeo

One is the historic beating that anti-gun activists have been taking since 1987 (all 50 states AND DC are now shall-issue, and the two largest states are now open-carry friendly).

Huh? I thought that about 10 states (8 in the Northeast, California, and Hawaii) still had may-issue (ranging from nearly shall-issue in some jurisdictions to no-issue unless you know the right people in others). Of course, the pro-gun side has had great successes, but let's not exaggerate.

Blogger Nobody June 05, 2015 2:34 PM  

Now imagine our entire Special Operations Forces radicalized by Islam. (Close enough).

Anonymous Ain June 05, 2015 2:37 PM  

One of the interesting things Martin van Creveld said last week was that while he doesn't know why states went from almost never losing insurrections to almost never winning them, he suspects it has to do with the mechanization of the military, a large technological advancement. This deserves more exploration, perhaps in a future interview.

Anonymous BigGaySteve June 05, 2015 2:48 PM  

wipe out ISIS in about 30 seconds with coordinated nuclear strikes. But obviously no one has the will to do that. Well, except maybe Kratman.

Make it fuel air bombs so we don't raise gas prices and I will push that button.

A month in the field without hormone treatments will turn them into fighting men.

I would say the band of Thebes but they didn't wear dresses. For modern gays many have no will to defend themselves, a 90lb guy could beat up a 6' weightlifting gym bunny that wouldn't fight back.

remove their commanders from their positions, on the basis that said commanders don't tolerate the private prancing about in heels and stockings

We are already there an aircraft carrier captain who was promoted from 2nd in command to 1st had his career ended, as did as a 17years of service airman when a lesbian asked him his thoughts about gay marriage. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/02/17/christian-airman-relieved-of-duty-for-marriage-beliefs-now-granted-military-honors/

But then, the Islamic State has defeated the US-trained, US-equipped Iraqi army. To be fair IS IS was trained and equipped by the US. "In any war between the civilized man and the savage support the civilized man".- Ayn Rand.

A friend who was a tanker in the military told me that they never left rounds in the main gun but Arab tankers always did because if attacked they might be able to get more than that one shot if everyone else ran.

Blogger Nobody June 05, 2015 2:52 PM  

Come to think of it, all those beheadings and executions by other means by ISIS reminds me of our Phoenix Program.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 05, 2015 2:57 PM  

One of the interesting things Martin van Creveld said last week was that while he doesn't know why states went from almost never losing insurrections to almost never winning them, he suspects it has to do with the mechanization of the military, a large technological advancement. This deserves more exploration, perhaps in a future interview.

Interesting thought. Technology acts as a powerful force multiplier for state vs. state contests. (Tanks, jets, trucks, atomic bombs, etc) But now the military has a correspondingly large dependency on technology prerequisites - factories, workers, scientists, engineers, bureaucracy - which hampers its ability to act independently of the rest of society, which is necessary to deal with insurrection.

Another possibility is that technology helps insurrectionists by a far greater degree (survivability, recruiting) than it helps states. Defeating an insurrection is about suppressing all alternatives to Submit to the State; but technology provides options that the state can only suppress at great cost; ineffective or incomplete suppression communicates weakness that breeds more insurrection.

Anonymous Sam the Man June 05, 2015 2:59 PM  

On gun control it has been a mixed bag. In 1987 self loading rifles were not restricted in any state or city.

Now California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland have banned those rifles and magazines over 10 rounds. In addition a lot of cities have as well.

I think it would be fairer to say the areas that approve of guns have become less restrictive, while those under control of the Dems have become more restrictive. Which bodes well as the common ground or possibility of some agreement on the issue is gone. The gun people are arming and are not willing to back down, the lefty anti-gun folks continue to make more stuff illegal when they can, regardless of the fact these laws are not being followed.

Not exactly a positive thing...the two sides are getting ready for a civil war. if such breaks out it will be very bloody, neither side is willing to compromise.

Anonymous map June 05, 2015 3:19 PM  

Ain,

I think you have a very good point about the mechanization of the military.

To square the circle, my idea is that mechanization has resulted in a proliferation of "crew-based" weapon systems that are mere;y binary in their effect: there is either the threat of total destruction or the actual total destruction. Nothing in-between.

Soldiers, on the other hand, are surgical. Boots-on-the-ground allow many different gradients of destruction, from the mere threat to the various nuances of destruction up toward total destruction.

A move away fro surgical armies reduces the effectiveness of the military when dealing with an insurgency.

This, btw, also reduces the effectiveness of tyranny in subjugating a population.

Anonymous Too-Soon-ami June 05, 2015 3:23 PM  

Alexander: "On an interesting note, according to google I have invented the term "Los Atzlangelos". Go me."

Not to pee on your parade, but you misspelled both Aztlan and Angeles. Even the other beaners who coined Aztlangeles knew how to spell them.

But I still tip my hat to you. I never heard it before, and it works.

Blogger Alexander June 05, 2015 3:55 PM  

Well... can't argue with that.

Blogger SirHamster (#201) June 05, 2015 4:01 PM  

Soldiers, on the other hand, are surgical. Boots-on-the-ground allow many different gradients of destruction, from the mere threat to the various nuances of destruction up toward total destruction.

Heh, my first thought as an engineer was precision weapons. "What if we use a smaller bomb, precisely delivered, to accomplish finer gradations of destruction?"

Which misses the point that sometimes you don't want to bomb the target at all. Technology encourages a certain type of thinking. "I have a hammer. That now looks like a nail."

The unintended consequences of a technophilic culture may be part of understanding that observed relationship between technology and insurrection.

Anonymous Athor Pel June 05, 2015 4:21 PM  

"66. Ain June 05, 2015 2:37 PM
One of the interesting things Martin van Creveld said last week was that while he doesn't know why states went from almost never losing insurrections to almost never winning them, he suspects it has to do with the mechanization of the military, a large technological advancement. This deserves more exploration, perhaps in a future interview."



It might have something to do with the technology but don't just look at that side of it. Legitimacy of the ruling class in the minds of those ruled is just as important if not more.

Modern states are fundamentally different animals than their ancient ancestors. Modern states don't use the family as an ally in governance, most are actively trying to destroy it. The one reliable earthly method for gaining legitimacy and they spit on it.

Blogger Nobody June 05, 2015 4:28 PM  

So there you have hundreds of captured vehicles being victory paraded after the fall Ramadi in broad daylight. Humvees, cargo trucks, MRAPS, tanks, heavy artillery, rocket propelled launchers, and Toyota's. Yet not one single strafing run. Not by the Iraqis, not by the coalition forces.

Maybe someone can explain that away?

Anyhow, amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics: http://duffelblog.com/3cZQ4

Blogger Tom Kratman June 06, 2015 1:10 AM  

"In Caliphate, Kratman implied President Buckman should have been hanged for doing just that."

Are you familiar with Nivens' observation, Nemo? "There is a technical, literary term for those who mistake the opinions and beliefs of characters in a novel for those of the author. The term is 'idiot'."

I don't think it's much of a stretch to apply that to fictional non-fiction works that may describe a common feeling of a given day. See, for another example, the tidbits of propaganda in BBDC.

Blogger Technomad June 06, 2015 2:00 AM  

The place for "transgender" people is not the military. Instead, I would recommend Arkham Asylum. Let them tell their sad tales of woe to the Joker. He can always use a good laugh.

Blogger Mark Citadel June 15, 2015 8:41 AM  

Bravo Vox! Excellent article, and you are very much correct. American troops in Japan recently had a drag show! I bet the Chinese are literally shaking in their boots. I very much doubt Russia fears the pathetic militaries of Western Europe.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts