The answer is straightforward:&
Social insularity: Our leaders know fellow insiders around the world; our enemies know everyone else.
The mandarin’s distaste for physicality: We are led through blood-smeared times by those who’ve never suffered a bloody nose.
And last but not least, bad educations in our very best schools: Our leadership has been educated in chaste political theory, while our enemies know, firsthand, the stuff of life.
Put another way: We are led by men and women educated to believe in the irresistible authority of their own words. When they encounter others who use words solely to deflect and defraud, or, worse, when their opposite numbers ignore words completely and revel in ferocious violence, our best and brightest go into an intellectual stall and keep repeating the same empty phrases (in increasingly tortured tones):This article sings to me, perhaps because I'm of the unwashed masses. Or perhaps it sings because it affirms closely held beliefs.
“Violence never solves anything.” “There’s no military solution.” “War is never the answer.” “Only a negotiated solution can resolve this crisis.” “It isn’t about religion.”
Or the latest and lamest: “We need to have strategic patience,” and “Terrorists need jobs.”
Every one of those statements is, demonstrably, nonsense most — or all — of the time. But the end result of very expensive educations is a Manchurian Candidate effect that kicks in whenever the core convictions of the old regime are questioned. So we find ourselves with leaders who would rather defend platitudes than defend their country.
Either way it begins to touch on what I see as two decades of civilian/military failure.
To be frank, the article that I posted yesterday has me startled. The idea that after this "procurement trainwreck" we're now faced with a "procurement bow wave" is the final straw.
The danger? The US military could very well be operating with the equipment that was bought during the late 80's and early 90's into 2020 and beyond.
Why?
Because our civilian and military leadership did not properly plan. Even now we're getting platitudes about the danger of sequestration but they've lost so much credibility that no one is listening. Hell, I'm a strong military supporter and even I have my doubts.
But back to the article. Are our current leaders so busy talking to each other that they no longer listen to "we the people"? Is that why common sense is so uncommon in Washington?
Fun part - thousands of years of human history actually teach us that war is the ultimate answer. It is not the best solution, and usually the costliest. But it always works, and solves everything. It is undesired, and yet, unwillingness and resentment towards war does not mean that you will never have to fight.
ReplyDeleteHello.
ReplyDeleteNot only History, tells us about the necessity to prepare, but the Wise Men too. One of them, Nicolas Machiavel, simply say (in a book) to the Princes and the City-Republics "si vis pacem para bellum".
Dima, you tell the same in a modern way :-).
We live in a world of "Prince minded" leader (guess who's the first i think now ;-) ). Most of the structure of the islamism is feodal. This is The same for the communism "autocratic structure".
There are over developped Cities-region, like the Republic of Venice was in Machiavel time. They don't act as military , AND they don't want to. BUT They don't want to hear about the idea of a conflict. They influence deeply the country they are part of, to stay blind.
I Say : The war is not a fact or an action. It is a global background, We cant'get out of it. It's like the weather. You can't stop it. As long as there is a player, even a single, you get the core of WARS.
The domestic reality that won't be faced is that the system is totally corrupt. This "democracy" thing just isn't working when getting rich trumps everything else and people can be bought, as in the Congress. And the Pentagon is no better, with revolving-door personnel and sweetheart contracts to "consultants" with ties to or past employment in the pentagonal puzzle palace. There is no better example than F-35.
ReplyDeleteTo get a view of this on the lighter side, check out Mark Thompson's daily twitter feed here. His first entry today is obviously a "sweetheart" contract for sure:
Fitness Retail and Smoothie/Juice Bar Concessionaire Single Source Justification, Air Force, Yokota Air Base, Japan
There are some old-school (far less "representative") Republics, like Singapore that seem to actually work in the interests of their people. But yeah, "Democracy" is worthless when the people voting have no expertise (or skin) whatsoever in what they're voting for or against.
ReplyDeleteWell, that was before the advent of Nuclear weapons. They guarantee peace (and the resulting corruption) for anyone that has them.
ReplyDelete“The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.” -sam worthington
ReplyDeleteYou know the saying "Who dares, wins." Democracy kills this. If a government is unconcerned with looking good and re-election, they can take unpopular but beneficial policies and ram it through for the overall good. Try that in a democracy and the government is gone next election. So what happens becomes "Who hides the bad news wins". And we all seen how GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) systems like that work in the really, really authoritarian countries.
ReplyDelete:) So... if we were all, for example, Chinese, we won't be using oil, wood and CFCs?
ReplyDeleteDuring the "Cold War", The nuclear weapons were owned by worldwide representative group. They "play" "Theory of Game" each against another. (URSS was so big that it was representative). They Know what they "loose" on a global conflict. The same apply for China, India and their "satellites".It was a frozen area in time where Peace could grow. And it did!
ReplyDeleteThe Middle East and small Asian Nuclear Power countries, see the nuclear bomb just as a powerfull tactical weapon THAT THEY WILL USE IN A LARGE SCALE. No doubt about that.
This is because of the size and cleverness of their Thinktank team (Guess i know what Solomon think about those groups ;-) ). They are too small. They can't take over their religion. And they are under the cup of their Prince, which has always the last word.
Then in fact, If the Mutual Assured Destruction, protect us in the 20th century, It's not working at all in the 21st.
All of this because of the power of small countries governed by lonely Prince.
If The mass destruction weapons were not the target of the recent conflict. What is it? or Who is it? The Princes ARE. They are the MDW evryone is looking for !
We get rid of Kadhafi Hussein Ben Laden. They are the real target of the present conflicts.
A few more to go!
This article sings to me, perhaps because I'm of the unwashed masses. Or perhaps it sings because it affirms closely held beliefs." It does Solomon, the only thing I disagree with is with the best and brightest affirmation, I doubt Psaki, Obama and Clinton are the best american society has to offer, even if the come from Ivy League collegues. No american men I know would ever bow like a f$%%ing lapdog to the degenerate Saudi King, like Obama did.
ReplyDelete"The mandarin’s distaste for physicality: We are led through blood-smeared times by those who’ve never suffered a bloody nose." "if you didn’t go to the right prep school and elite university, you couldn’t possibly be capable of comprehending, let alone changing, the world." Yeah the article nails it in this one, the politicians today seem to have become a caste of vote baiting nobles, they have long are the days of the roman consuls that were confortable plowing their fields, debating with fellow citizens or chopping barbarian heads.
>They guarantee peace (and the resulting corruption) for anyone that has them.
ReplyDeleteI would correct it to "it guarantee that possible losses will not be unacceptable". Usage of a nuclear weaponry can lead, well, to political disaster, I guess. While there is almost no experience of Country A nukes Country B(except of Japan) - hell knows how world will react.
Also, soviet view of a nuke says that actually it is just a big bomb. If you plan your operations carefully, use every technique designed for mitigation - then losses from enemy 1-4 nukes can be just acceptable. Missile Defence of region(THAAD++ or S-300VM, etc), just a good SAMs to shoot down cruise missiles - nuke is not that easy to perform, in the first place.
>they can take unpopular but beneficial policies and ram it through for the overall good.
ReplyDeleteOur military was reformed this way. Old bearded faggots, who was thrown out of army, started a 5 years campaign against a former minister of defence and overall defence politics. Hundreds of "experts" everywhere were screaming about how bad is it and how chinese will come tomorrow and kill us all.
And now DoD blows a whistle - 3.5k armored vehicles are on high alert, about 70 thousand people are on the move. It itook more than eight years to achieve this. And still a long way to go.
However, opposing site is very problematic. People in regions sometimes forced to block the roads and crash the local administrators houses to be heard. And when they are heard - everything suddenly becomes as it should.
My guess that democracy is must-have for some regional level - city, town, village, and possibly a region(kind of State is U.S.A. terminology). Still - placing a military and external matters on democratic rails can be dangerous because of possible inconsistency of a country's course.