Tag: war

Obama vs Israel

No wonder America’s Jews are suddenly so conflicted and flirting with some of the Republican presidential contenders:

President Obama is alleged to have stopped an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014 by threatening to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets, according to reports to emerge from the Middle East at the weekend

The threat from the U.S. forced Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to abort a planned attack on Iraq, reported Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida…. The report claimed that an unnamed Israeli minister who has good ties with the US administration revealed the attack plan to Secretary of State John Kerry, and that Obama then threatened to shoot down the Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

According to the report, ‘Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army’s chief of staff, Benny Gantz, to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran’s nuclear program.

‘In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel’s security.’

The sources added that Gantz and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets reportedly even carried out experimental flights in Iran’s airspace after they managed to break through radars.

At some point, even the dimmest American Jews are going to wake up to the fact that the gelding of Christian civilization in the West and the racial diversification of the white nations is very unlikely to turn out “good for the Jews”, regardless of how it ends. Some Jews have clearly begun to realize that, as 69 percent of Jews voted for Obama in 2012, nine percent less than the 78 percent who did in 2008. But too many Jews outside Israel still appear to be caught up in the 1970’s notion that they can easily defeat an aggressive Islamic Caliphate that outnumbers them about 70 to 1.

The problem is that while speed, cleverness, and finesse are a force multiplier, they do have limits. And I suspect that far too many American Jews, unlike Israelis, don’t know how close they were to being defeated at times in the Arab-Israeli wars. A mistake here or there, a failure of nerve on the part of a political leader or a general at the wrong time, and it could have been all over. The American Jews only know that the IDF repeatedly won those wars and assume they can easily do so again.

But history is littered with the examples of defeated nations who attacked other nations in the assumption that their victory was certain. Regardless of what happens in the Middle East, it is certain that American politics is going to become less predictable as the Coalition of Diversity that was created, in part, by elite politically active Jews begins to turn against both Jews and Israel. This would imply that they will increasingly seek influence in the Republican Party, thus increasing the growing gulf there between the moderate Republican elite-for-hire and the various conservative and libertarian grass roots.

Christianity’s killers

I was not surprised there has been an amount of pushback against the idea that a Christian should do anything except sit on his ass and prayerfully expect that God will take care of everything in due time. Now, this is not to denigrate the power of prayer, which is vital and can absolutely be efficacious, but rather the idea that it is God’s will for us to always refrain from any action of any kind that might bruise the feelings of anyone, especially an enemy.

There is an intrinsic conflict between the moderates and the extremists of any movement or organization. The moderates are inward-focused, conservative, defensive, and believe that public relations is the ultimate determinant of victory or defeat. The extremists are outward-focused, creative, offensive, and believe that material conditions are the ultimate determinant of victory or defeat. These two rival perspectives tend to hold true regardless of whatever the issue might be, from politics and cultural war to sports and business affairs.

Christianity merely compounds this intrinsic conflict, it does not create it. And it is not, as some might have it, a mere intellectual difference of opinion, which is why discussing the different perspectives and attempting to come to some compromise seldom works. Consider what Maj. Dick Winters, of Band of Brothers fame, wrote about Easy Company in Beyond Band of Brothers:

On reflection, we were highly charged; we knew what to do; and we conducted ourselves as part of a well-oiled machine. Because we were so intimate with each other, I knew the strengths of each of my troopers. It was not accidental that I had selected my best men, Compton, Guarnere, and Malarkey in one group, Lipton and Ranney in the other. These men comprised Easy Company’s “killers,” soldiers who instinctively understood the intricacies of battle. In both training and combat, a leader senses who his killers are. I merely put them in a position where I could utilize their talents most effectively. Many other soldiers thought they were killers and wanted to prove it.

In reality, however, your killers are few and far between. Nor is it always possible to determine who your killers are by the results of a single engagement. In combat, a commander hopes that nonkillers will learn by their association with those soldiers who instinctively wage war without restraint and without regard to their personal safety. The problem, of course, lies in the fact that casualties are highest among your killers, hence the need to return them to the front as soon as possible in the hope that other “killers” emerge.

In other words, the dynamic between actors and non-actors is entirely normal and the latter always outnumber the former. Keep in mind that the men of Easy Company were aggressive, competitive, highly-trained young men who belonged to the absolute elite of the US military. And even there, the “killers are few and far between”. In war, physical or metaphorical, there are very few who are capable of instinctively waging it “without restraint and without regard to their personal safety”. And one important difference between actual war and cultural war is that in the case of the latter, many of the nonkillers spend a fair amount of their time sniping at the killers on their own side rather than at the other side.

Imagine how effective Easy Company would have been if instead of being expected to follow the killers’ example, its nonkillers dedicated themselves to explaining at length that instead of flanking the German gun position on D-Day and killing the German gunners, they should all prove themselves to be better than the Germans by being nice to them. And then, when the killers ignored them and began the flank attack, instead of laying down covering fire, the nonkillers started shooting at the killers. Does anyone seriously think this would be a successful way to wage war?

Why, then, does anyone imagine that the same tactical approach will succeed in cultural war? If the moderates will not at the very least provide covering fire for the extremists, they are useless. And to the extent that they open their cowardly mouths to criticize, correct, and concern-troll the only people on their side who are taking action, they are worse than useless.

As for the Christians, let us reflect upon the Biblical example that many “nonkillers” like to cite, Matthew 26:51

With
that, one of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and
struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

There is a great deal of significant information here, particularly the situation-specific aspects of the command, but with regards to the present subject, the most important point is this: Jesus knowingly chose a hot-tempered “killer” as one of his closest companions and the rock upon which he would build the Church. Like David, beloved of God, and Paul, the great evangelist, it is the “killers” whom God has historically preferred and chosen to utilize. I do not think the moderates and nonkillers who sit back and snipe in the comfortable confidence that they are doing God’s will by sitting on their plump posteriors and doing nothing that will offend anyone should be so confident that God’s Will is in line with their own.

Keep in mind that the incident is also recounted in John 18:10

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”

Clearly the relevant point is not the non-use of swords, but the non-use of a particular sword in a particular situation. As to “dying by the sword”, what of it? That doesn’t mean that one’s actions that put one at risk of it are necessarily wrong. It’s merely a factual warning. Recall what Winters pointed out: “The problem, of course, lies in the fact that casualties are highest among your killers.” Winters also wrote about the guilt he sometimes felt at reunions, as he was reminded that there were about half as many survivors of 1st platoon as there were from Easy Company’s 2nd and 3rd platoons due to the heavier casualties they took. But consider why he leaned upon them so heavily:

With thirty-five men, a platoon of Easy Company had routed two German companies of about 300 men. American casualties (including those from Fox Company) were one dead, twenty-two wounded. German casualties were fifty killed, eleven captured, about 100 wounded.

It should not be a surprise that looking into it reveals that the platoon responsible was Easy Company’s 1st platoon. Dying by the sword is not a sin. It is, in many cases, a sacrifice.

Most damning of all, I think, is the observable hypocrisy of many moderates, who flagrantly violate their own advice. They are very often more than happy to insult their nominal allies and attack their own side’s extremists with the very names they refuse to call the enemy.

Shots across the bow

Zerohedge notes that China appears to be taking sides in the Ukraine conflict and doing so in support of Russia:

Speaking in very clear and explicit language, something diplomats are
not used to doing, the Chinese ambassador said the “nature and root
cause” of the crisis was the “game” between Russia and Western powers,
including the United States and the European Union.

He said external intervention by different powers accelerated the crisis and warned that Moscow would feel it was being treated unfairly if the West did not change its approach.

“The West should abandon the zero-sum mentality, and take the real
security concerns of Russia into consideration,” Qu was quoted as
saying.

His comments were an unusually public show of understanding from China for the Russian position. China
and Russia see eye-to-eye on many international diplomatic issues but
Beijing has generally not been so willing to back Russia over Ukraine.

As noted above, China has long been very cautious not to be drawn
into the struggle between Russia and the West over Ukraine’s future, not
wanting to alienate a key ally. And yet, something changed overnight,
with this very clear language, warning some could say, that China will
no longer tolerate Pax Americana, and even the mere assumption of a
unipolar western world, let alone the reality.
Qu’s comments take place just as talks between the United States and its European allies over harsher sanctions against Moscow.

On Monday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused
Western powers of trying to dominate and impose their ideology on the
rest of world. The United States and European delegations slammed Moscow
for supporting rebels in eastern Ukraine.

Qu said Washington’s involvement in Ukraine could “become a distraction in its foreign policy”.

And then, Qu’s slap in the face of Obama: “The United States
is unwilling to see its presence in any part of the world being
weakened, but the fact is its resources are limited, and it will be to
some extent hard work to sustain its influence in external affairs.“

Very soon after which a prominent critic of Putin was shot dead in a blatant hit that doesn’t resemble the usual Russian method of dealing with their critics. Of course, trying to determine whether it is a Russian act, a CIA act meant to look like a Russian act, or a Russian act meant to look like a CIA act, is futile. But it does look as if we’re back at near-Cold War levels of hostility between the USA and Russia.

The key difference this time, in my opinion, is that the Russian people will be considerably more united against the USA and its Western allies under a Russian nationalist like Putin than they ever were under the Soviets. If the American strategists are failing to take this into account, their efforts are likely to end in disaster.

US defeat in Ukraine

Waging war by proxy runs the risk of being defeated by proxy too:

In less than a year, the United States has toppled the democratically-elected government of Ukraine, installed a Washington-backed stooge in Kiev, launched a bloody and costly war of annihilation on Russian-speaking people in the East, thrust the economy into a downward death spiral, and reduced the nation to an anarchic, failed state destined to endure a vicious fratricidal civil war for as far as the eye can see.

Last week, Washington suffered its greatest military defeat in more than a decade when Ukraine’s US-backed army was soundly routed in the major railway hub of Debaltsevo. Roughly, 8,000 Ukrainian regulars along with untold numbers of tanks and armored units were surrounded in what came to be known as “the cauldron.” The army of the Donetsk Peoples Republic led by DPR commander Alexander Zakharchenko, encircled the invading army and gradually tightened the cordon, eventually killing or capturing most of the troops within the pocket. The Ukrainian Armed Forces suffered major casualties ranging between 3,000 to 3,500 while a vast amount of lethal military hardware was left behind.

According to Zakharchenko, “The amount of equipment Ukrainian units have lost here is beyond description.”

Additionally, the US-backed proxy-army saw many of its crack troops and top-notch units destroyed in the fighting leaving Kiev unable to continue the war without assistance from allies in the US or Europe. The full impact of the defeat will not be known until angry troops returning from the front amass on the streets of the Capital and demand Petro Poroshenko’s resignation. The Ukrainian President is responsible for the massacre at Debaltsevo. He was fully aware that his army faced encirclement but ordered them to remain in order to satisfy powerful right-wing elements in his government. The disaster is even more terrible due to the fact that it was entirely avoidable and achieved no strategic purpose at all. Extreme hubris frequently impacts outcomes on the battlefield. This was the case at Debaltsevo.

Most people outside of Eastern Europe aren’t paying much attention to this, but the fact of the matter is that Russia is militarily obliterating Ukraine and they are mostly doing so by the same sort of war-by-proxy in which the USA is engaged. The DPR is a Russian proxy, but then, the Ukrainian army is a US proxy, and so far, the Russian proxies are winning.

That’s why you’re not seeing much about it on the US news.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there is soon another coup and the US puppet Poroshenko is thrown out of power, whether it is by Right Sector or someone else. The Russians have won on the moral level and now their Novorossiyan proxies are winning on the material level as well. Poroshenko’s failure to withdraw his troops from the Debaltsevo Pocket was a strategic mistake of the sort one usually only sees labeled Fuhrerbefehl; to the left is an image of what the Pocket looked like back on 25 January when 8,000 troops still had the chance to retreat from within that yellow peninsula in the middle.

From Reuters: The loss of Debaltseve is so huge only because Kiev turned it into a symbolic redoubt, said Gustav Gressel, a specialist on Eastern European defense policy and a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. Poroshenko’s biggest mistake was not to withdraw earlier, according to Gressel. The battle for Debaltseve is reminiscent of the futile struggle for the Donetsk airport, which Ukrainian forces finally gave up in January after months of bitter fighting.

#GamerGate and 4GW

Mendicant Bias has clearly read his Lind and correctly applied it to #GamerGate and society alike:

We have seen the most important and fundamental values of our society torn down and destroyed by vandals who used the tactics of cultural Marxism to subvert our society. We have seen abominations like gay “marriage”, no-fault divorce (read: his-fault), government-subsidised abortion and freely available birth control, and universal suffrage become “acceptable”—as if these cultural freak shows could ever possibly be considered “normal”. We have seen our most fundamental rights of conscience, association, freedom of thought, free exercise of religious belief, and freedom of action circumscribed, shrunk, and destroyed before our eyes. And we let it happen.

The self-aware man who looks at how this happened will come away with a certain cold appreciation for the tactics of those who imposed this ashen, burning Hell upon us.

When it comes to gaming, we have repeatedly seen how SJW tactics work. They have used the fundamental decency of the average Western gaming consumer against him, by browbeating him into believing that he is sexist if he wants “believable” (i.e. non-ridiculous) women in games, or that he is “racist” if he doesn’t want games to become some sort of absurd paean to multiculturalism, or that he is a misinformed idiot if he thinks that women can’t be just as strong and effective in an FPS game as men.

They are exquisitely good at shutting down dissent. They’ve had forty years to entrench themselves and become institutionalised. And they have succeeded. They did this by capturing the single most important and powerful level of war. The Moral Level of War

He also explains why #GamerGate has been uniquely successful in resisting the SJW onslaught when everything from the US Army to the churches have been overrun like France in 1940:

The cultural Marxists who brought us to this point have used the moral level of war brilliantly, up until now, by bludgeoning anyone who disagreed with them into submission through the threat of being branded sexist, racist, and other double-plus ungood things. To the SJW set, any deviation from “acceptable” modes of thought was and remains Badthink. Hell, they even have their own programming language! (Note the satire.)

But they grew overconfident, and made a huge mistake—giving us everything we need to destroy them, root and branch.

Until recently, gaming “journalists” had a lock on how the consumer viewed the products that they paid for. Games that promoted “social justice” narratives were given high reviews—but when the rest of us actually tried playing them, we often found them to be unplayable garbage, because they sacrificed absorbing gameplay and great storytelling for smarmy preachiness and painfully stupid messages about “tolerance”.

When #Gamergate first broke, the reason for this appalling state of affairs became perfectly clear: the gaming media were in bed, literally, with the very same game developers whose work they were reviewing.

Overnight, they lost their moral high ground in the eyes of thousands of gamers all over the world. And they have continued to lose that support as gamers have mounted a vicious backlash against their immorality.

This is a very, very important lesson to absorb. You cannot win at the moral level of war when crippled by ambiguous values and a lack of moral confidence. This is why the Christian churches that compromise their principles and turn against their own historic values rapidly collapse. Defeat at the moral level of war destroys an institutions raison d’etre; once robbed of its core reason to exist, an institution ceases to grow and rapidly begins to decline.

Mr. Lind and I had a conversation about #GamerGate. He recognized it as an obvious manifestation of 4GW, so it’s interesting to see that the students of 4GW see it clearly as well.

Red with the blood of Christians

The Middle East is red with the blood of Christians. The atrocity by Islamic State sympathisers in Libya highlights the worsening persecution of non-Muslims all over the Middle East – violence that is driving them from their Biblical homelands. The beheading of 21 Coptic Christians in Libya by forces sympathetic to Islamic State over recent days is sadly not an isolated case. On the contrary, it is the latest of countless outrages perpetrated against Christians in or near the Church’s Biblical heartlands over many years. 

It is time to end the long and suicidal Western experiment with religious tolerance. Tolerance is evil. Tolerance is “the sin of Jeroboam”. Tolerance is the death of civilization.

“As we mourn with the families of those 21 martyrs, we’d better take this warning seriously as these acts of terror will only spread throughout Europe and the United States,” warned Rev. Graham.

The 21st century is about to learn that far from being the epitomes of evil, the Crusades, the Reconquista, and the Spanish Inquisition were all right, necessary, and above all self-defensive reactions by Western civilization against aggressive Islamic expansion. The battle for the West will begin within the next two decades, and the Men of the West had better be ready for it.

The media certainly isn’t:

The morning after the much anticipated Saturday Night Live 40th anniversary special, NBC’s “Today” Show gave the SNL special more than 10 times the coverage during its first three hours Monday than the brutal beheadings of Egyptian Christians by ISIS…. “Today” thought the SNL special was of vast importance, covering the
humor-filled three and a half hour-long affair for 15 minutes and eight
seconds (908 seconds in total). Meanwhile, coverage of the ISIS
beheadings totaled a meager one minute and 28 seconds.

Go to Israel. Now.

I’ve been saying it for a while, but Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is beating the drum even more strongly:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday urged European Jews to move to Israel after a Jewish man was killed in an attack outside Copenhagen’s main synagogue.

“Israel is your home. We are preparing and calling for the absorption of mass immigration from Europe,” Netanyahu said in a statement, repeating a similar call after attacks by jihadists in Paris last month when four Jews were among the dead.

The cabinet later on Sunday submitted a plan to encourage the absorption
of Jews from France, Belgium and Ukraine, and would discuss immigration
from other European countries at a later date. 

Jews are neither Europeans nor Christians, neither are they Muslims, so they need to get the hell out of the way and stay safely out of the way of the coming wars. Too many of them have caused too much damage to themselves, to Europe, and to the USA by idiotically encouraging third world immigration in a foolish attempt to protect themselves against Christians who never had any intention of harming them.

Sam Huntington’s long-foreseen Clash of Civilizations (PDF) is approaching. Those who are opposed to Christian civilization are going to lose again; even the European seculars and pagans are beginning to understand the importance of Christian civilization. I’ve read one of his book and Netanyahu is a good student of not only history in general, but military history in particular, and he understands that if Europe’s Jews continue to stupidly stand in the way of Europeans defending their civilization against the Muslim onslaught, they’re going to be wiped out again.

That, incidentally, is why France’s prime minister is desperately arguing against the Israeli prime minister’s appeal to Europe’s Jews. Not because he loves Jews more than Netanyahu, but because he is cynically using them as a means of keeping the nationalist leadership that will replace him at bay.

Israel should no more stand in the way of Europe defending herself against Islamic expansion than Europe should interfere with Israel defending herself Islamic aggression. It appears that Netanyahu, for one, understands that strong Christian nations in Europe are considerably better for Israel than a Muslim-conquered Europe.

At the moment, I am editing a book by a brilliant Israeli military historian that will be available later this month to newsletter subscribers. And in thinking about how Man’s strategic thinking has developed, it is becoming increasingly evident that the modern militaries presently lack the theoretical means to grasp how events are taking shape or what to do with them. Forget the bromide about how generals are always fighting the last war, right now, the politicians and their military advisors are mostly caught up in entirely fictional theater based on a geopolitical structure that has very little relation to either the current reality or the global wars of the future.

Stealing honor

Now, I’m not privy to the details of either Captain Matt Golsteyn or the investigation of him, but this revoking of a Silver Star stinks of perfumed princes and their aversion to public criticism as well as the Obama administration’s hatred of the US military:

In 2011, shortly after a book by author and Marine Bing West came out that detailed Golsteyn’s heroism and quoted him making critical remarks about the American strategy in Afghanistan, I learned that the Army had launched a criminal investigation into his actions during the battle. (Again, full disclosure: I was also interviewed for that book, The Wrong War, and make a brief appearance in it.)

The investigation, apparently, had nothing to do with the acts of bravery that earned Golsteyn his medal. Instead, according to the Washington Post, which cited officials familiar with the case, it concerned “an undisclosed violation of the military’s rules of engagement in combat for killing a known enemy fighter and bomb maker.” The investigation stretched on for nearly two years, during which time the Army effectively put Golsteyn’s career on ice. In 2014, Golsteyn and his lawyer were informed that the investigation was finally complete. No charges were filed, but Golsteyn still wasn’t released from administrative limbo.

Alerted about the controversy by another Army officer, Captain Will Swenson, Congressman Duncan Hunter wrote last year to John McHugh, the secretary of the Army, asking about the status of Golsteyn’s seemingly endless career freeze. Apparently the secretary did not take kindly to the inquiry, as he responded in a letter last November that not only would he not be upgrading Golsteyn’s Silver Star to a Distinguished Service Cross, but would be revoking Golsteyn’s Silver Star entirely, a fact that Hunter revealed publicly in an article for the Daily Beast published on Tuesday.

The revocation of an award such as the Silver Star is extraordinarily rare, and typically would happen in the case of the recipient being convicted of a serious crime that in some way dishonored his service. But not only has Golsteyn not been convicted of a crime—he hasn’t even been charged with one.

McHugh would not reveal to Hunter specifically why he was taking his action beyond submitting the innuendo that he was privy to “derogatory information” regarding Golsteyn’s record. What could this information be? Who knows? Having, according to Hunter, spent years threatening Golsteyn’s men, searching for and failing “to find one piece of evidence to corroborate the allegation” that launched the investigation, the Army clearly decided to punish Golsteyn anyway, through publicly dishonoring him in a manner that allows him effectively no recourse or due process.

 It is remarkable that the US military can still find anyone willing to serve under the recent Commanders-in-Chief.

There will be war

Back in March, about a month after we launched Castalia, I contacted Jerry Pournelle with the idea of reviving his great military science fiction anthology series, THERE WILL BE WAR. He was entirely open to the idea, but he was busy and quite naturally had a lot of more important things to do than be pestered by an insignificant publisher who at the time published a single novella by Tom Kratman.

So, I gave up on the notion, contacted Tom, and we put together RIDING THE RED HORSE instead. That went rather well, as you know, and Dr. Pournelle became sufficiently interested in the project to graciously contribute two pieces to it, one fiction and one non-fiction. I was rather pleasantly surprised when, after he received a copy and had the chance to read a few reviews, he asked if I might be interested in having Castalia re-release the nine volumes of THERE WILL BE WAR in ebook format.

You can probably imagine that it didn’t take me long to indicate that, yes, we might be willing to contemplate the notion. I daresay we contemplated and cogitated at least a nanosecond or two. The result of all this cogitation was the suggestion that with war looming on nearly every horizon, it might be the right time to consider reviving THERE WILL BE WAR as an anthology series, since it had lain dormant since the end of the Cold War. Dr. Pournelle concurred, which made the timing of this Amazon review of RIDING THE RED HORSE more than a little ironic:

Should be called “There Will Be War Volume 10”, February 2, 2015
By Chris Gerrib “Author, Pirates of Mars”

Generally a very solid work, modeled after the old “There Will Be War” military SF anthologies. The difference is that there is a mixture of non-fiction and fiction in this work. I don’t agree with some of the ideas presented (others I do) but everything is thought-provoking and well-written.

On the full disclosure front, Jerry Pournelle’s contribution is “His Truth Goes Marching On” which is a classic but has been reprinted seemingly everywhere. Having said that, it’s probably Pournelle’s best short work. All in all, well worth the time and money.

I say ironic because on that very day, Dr. Pournelle agreed to revive the series with Castalia House, beginning with THERE WILL BE WAR Volume X. The two anthology series will remain entirely separate, as RIDING THE RED HORSE will consist of entirely new material while THERE WILL BE WAR, as before, will primarily consist of high-quality reprints. Tom Kratman and I will continue to edit RIDING THE RED HORSE, while Dr. Pournelle will edit THERE WILL BE WAR.

There have been a lot of military science fiction stories published since Volume IX appeared in 1989. We’re going to want to identify and feature the very best of them in Volume X, so if you happen to have any suggestions in this regard, or believe that you happen to have written one of them, please don’t hesitate to bring them to my attention.

As for the original nine volumes, we intend to release them in individual ebooks and as a set of three three-volume hardcover omnibuses, beginning later this year.

Unready for 4GW

No one serious believed that Obama was even remotely capable of handling foreign policy, but most erroneously assumed that he was smart enough to hand off responsibility for it to foreign policy veterans. That has not turned out to be the case, as Jerry Pournelle notes Peggy Noonan’s recent column in the Wall Street Journal:

No one thinks this administration is the A Team when it comes to foreign affairs, but this is unprecedented push-back from top military and intelligence players. They are fed up, they’re less afraid, they’re retired, and they’re speaking out. We are going to be seeing more of this kind of criticism, not less.

On Thursday came the testimony of three former secretaries of state, Henry Kissinger (1973-77), George Shultz (1982-89) and Madeleine Albrigh t (1997-2001). Senators asked them to think aloud about what America’s national-security strategy should be, what approaches are appropriate to the moment. It was good to hear serious, not-green, not-merely-political people give a sense of the big picture. Their comments formed a kind of bookend to the generals’ criticisms.

They seemed to be in agreement on these points:

  • We are living through a moment of monumental world change.
  • Old orders are collapsing while any new stability has yet to emerge.
  • When you’re in uncharted waters your boat must be strong.
  • If America attempts to disengage from this dangerous world it will only make all the turmoil worse.

Mr. Kissinger observed that in the Mideast, multiple upheavals are unfolding simultaneously—within states, between states, between ethnic and religious groups. Conflicts often merge and produce such a phenomenon as the Islamic State, which in the name of the caliphate is creating a power base to undo all existing patterns.

Mr. Shultz said we are seeing an attack on the state system and the rise of a “different view of how the world should work.” What’s concerning is “the scope of it.”

Correct diagnosis, wrong prescription. Observe that these foreign policy experts are more than a decade behind William Lind, who described these extra-state upheavals in both ON WAR and FOUR GENERATIONS OF MODERN WAR.

And Lind is also correct to assert that America MUST disengage from “this dangerous world”, as the very danger is primarily the result of disastrous Anglo-American meddling in the Middle East. Islam is what it is, but it would not not be resurgent and aggressively expansionary if the British, followed by the Americans, had not made it possible through their insanely inept Middle East policies.

The West needs to adopt a siege mentality, expel the non-Westerners, and let the fire burn itself out. Continued engagement only guarantees that it will be necessary to fight an indefinite number of fires within the West itself.