Archive for February 2008

Future Challenges to American power

February 29, 2008

Grim wrote a piece at Blackfive that I agreed with, which is not, of course, a rare incident. After that, I started reading a blackfive post I linked to at Book’s piece about the military in Afghanistan. The point is, the after action report in the second link spells out, quite clearly, why America with all our advantages has not yet won the war for Iraq. I recommend going back to the links after reading the below portion.

We’ve talked a lot about what future challenges face the world. Imagine what that army would be worth, in a decade or two. What investment would be worth having that army, that ally?

There are a couple of advantages that an Iraqi and Afghan army has over American forces that I was thinking about in 2004 or 5. John Ringo also proposed a similar system of sepoy armies based upon these elements.

For one thing, Iraqis and Afghans are tribal in nature, that is their national character. Politically, this has many disadvantages, but militaristically speaking, it is a great advantage if their logistics are secured. For one thing, tribal cultures have the blood vendetta, which means the more of them you kill, the more they fight back. The dumber the tribal leaders are, the more they resist. Tribes value the tribe more than the individual, so that means they do not have the Western obsession with casualties. Their birth rates are higher and they have witnessed extermination/genocide policies applied to them first hand, so they won’t have too much against serving in an actual military that can fight back against their enemies.

Iraqis and indigenous auxiliary troops also have a better grasp of their local environments and people. Thus they can adapt faster to fighting in a desert climate than we can, where delay can mean the difference between a quick and painless victory and a quagmire. Often the Roman Empire had to use indigenous cavalry and archers to supplement their heavy infantry legions. The best archers and horse archers came from the Mongols and the steppe people, who were also tribal compared to the republican nature of Rome.

For another thing, Arabs in general don’t have a respect for human rights, which makes them troublesome in police roles, but it makes them extremely resistant to Code Pink and Leftist insurgency tactics designed to overthrow a government. The Shah of Iran was met with Western condemnation of his polices and brutality, but it was the Shah’s own unwise mercy and clemency given to the leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary group that spelled his end. Western condemnation about human rights just doesn’t really penetrate to the conscience of the Middle Easterner… unless the target wants to adhere to human rights. It is convenient, in a sense, not to have to worry about both insurgencies and Leftist propaganda apparatuses operating in Iraq. And it is also advantageous to America to know that if brutal war is required, you can field an Iraqi or Afghan army that will be highly resistant to propaganda attempts made by the international media. The tribes may object to effective tactics used inside Iraq, but they won’t object if we use such tactics, along with the Iraqi army, on say… Syria or Iran. Neither Syria nor Iran are their “tribe”, so they don’t particularly care if we authorize their death. While they did care about Shia and Sunni divisions inside Iraq.

Back when America was fighting the Amerindians, they had to use Apache scouts and N Indians, for their tracking skills could not be equaled by the white man. To track an Apache, you must use an Apache or someone with equal abilities.

These considerations are extremely long term and based upon providing a military advantage to future Americans. Which is why, in a way, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats focused on it. The former because they neither realized nor wanted to realize the potentials of a foreign military that is welded to America’s destiny through loyalty and trust. The latter because they don’t want America to benefit too much from a strong military presence in the world.

Mall Ninjas

February 29, 2008

This is good for when you need to laugh your face off. It is even funnier if you can sense the two underlying reality layers at work here. The stuff about security operations and the stuff about weapons is funnier the more inconsistent it gets.

How to Reform Criminals

February 24, 2008

This was a comment I left here, along with some others.

People make choices for reasons that they think are best or at least real, to them that is. It may not be optimum to us, for us or them, but they don’t see it that way. Thus there is a fundamental disagreement which can be solved by talking or it can be solved, in a more permanent and consistent fashion, by violence and the test of violence which on the macroscopic form is called warfare. On the microscopic, violence can be anywhere from society’s disapproval and fear of punishment from the whole of society, or a slice of society, to massive brute force approaches such as execution or what the Code Pink products produced from indoctrination and propaganda programs demonstrate. Either way, you can convince by gentle persuasion, hard core coercion and indoctrination, or simply a direct modification of behavior through efficient use of violence.

For most people, they live under the values and society they were born in. For some others, a minority at the most, they seek something new and different, propelled by the genetic need for diversity and newness, even if it is at the risk of self-destruction of that particular genotype. And for a few scattered remnants of some defunct ancient world mentality, like the Arab tribes, the only thing that exists to them is their people. You, are not their people, and thus they can do all kinds of illegal actions that would be forbidden against one of their own.

These themes can connect, as you can see with people born in an Islamic tribal culture that refuses to treat people outside the tribe as actual human beings deserving of equal respect or treatment. But there is a strict different to the dupes, to the people born in a society that they have no will nor particular interest in challenging, from the leaders and operators in terrorist organizations that know exactly what their society is, yet chooses to maintain and even expand the reach of that society’s control over humanity.

In order to zealously expand your sphere of influence and your society’s reach across the human world, you must believe or understand that your system is superior to all others. The multiculturalists and decadent suicide in-waiting useful tools we call the Left and their Democrat allies no longer believe, if they ever did, that any system could be superior to everyone or even most of everyone at the same time. This sets up the specific tier of feudalism which justifies rich and luxurious benefits to the upper class of Democrats, but denies it to the poor and the disenfranchised tools of the Democrats. But in the end, it is ultimately a different way of achieving the same results as what the Islamic war against humanity has done. Which is to separate human beings into separate camps called “us” and “the enemy”. All rewards go to us and everybody else is either an obstacle, a tool, or an enemy to be destroyed. Arabs and Persians and Bedouin tribes accomplish this by believing in the righteousness of their system, in the goodness and justice of their system over and above the decadent weaknesses of us, the West. The Democrats and the Left achieve their particular nihilism and love of death by believing in the inferiority of the system that gave them birth, instead prefering to render superior that which will ultimately destroy human progress towards any future of security, prosperity, and liberty on planet Earth.

Whether your belief is negative or positive does not really matter. All that matters is that you believe, that you believe in something strong enough that you will fight for it. Most people don’t, thus we see how bureaucracies and tyrannies self-perpetuate, like Cuba for example. If nothing happens and no new variable enters into the picture, the rule of dictators is for life. And even if you do get a person that wants to resist, there is no guarantee that person will then choose to further the cause of humanity rather than humanity’s enemies. Many Democrats and Arabs have broken through their societal conditioning. Al Qaeda would have to nullify inshallah, at least to some extent, for them to be able to organize and launch attacks instead of waiting for Allah to give victory to them just for existing. Take the examples of Zar man who got liquidated in a bombing strike on his safe house and Zawahiri. Zawahiri sees more clearly than the fanatic Zarq man what his actions were doing and producing, because Zawahiri has broken through his societal conditioning. Zawahiri chooses actions he deems best, not because Arab society says it is the will of Allah. Thus you have the difference between a strategist and a religious fanatic. But the only ones who totally break through their societal conditioning are the ones who choose to further the cause of human liberty and progression towards a better future.

Many folks come to America already formed in mind and body, yet they adopt a particular set of values we call American. They are an example of the correct decision a person can make from breaking free of the society they were born in.

<B>If, however, people are constantly choosing between their inner angels and inner demons, how does one rehabilitate someone if they have gone over to the dark side?</b>

Nothing will make a George Soros or Al Gore turn to the light. Perhaps, not even they themselves. The necessary ingredient to making choices for yourself is that you must have free will. What you do must be of your own free will, not the will of your parents, your society, or anything else. It is a choice you make, if only a choice to obey the laws of your society and to follow the moral code of those that you love.

What is important about this facet is that once you make a decision, free of societal restrictions or hereditary learning, to pursue the destruction of human liberty, you have already in effect destroyed much of your own free will. Because you are now consigned to repressing and distorting and killing the free will of others. Yet your own will is no longer free either, because you have chosen your purpose, and your purpose now dictates to you what shall be done. You have no choice, any longer, in the matter. You have chosen your duty and it will only end with success or your death. Very similar to the code of the samurai and the duty of military protectors. In fact, to any kind of duty you have chosen to devote your to life, it does not have to be the duty to destroy human liberty after all. It can be the duty to protect human liberty. The effects of duty on a person, if not the actual consequences, are very similar in nature. Next topic, rehabilitation.

In order to turn around your life, you must destroy your life. You must make the conscious choice to turn away from the life you have led, in effect destroying your own philosophy that lead you to this point and turning to another philosophy. This is just like suicide, in one fashion, as it is you killing yourself to remake yourself. Both the human mind and the human body have strict controls in place to prevent such things from occuring, since genetically nature does not particularly care if you, the individual, succedes or not. Both your success and failure will prove benefits to the species in the end. So nature acquires no benefit from you changing your mind or dying in order to go to heaven. Next topic, criminal psychology.

In most cases, criminals follow their own rules and laws, like that of the gang, because they believe it to be superior and more effective than the laws of greater society. This, in effect, is simply an extrapolation of warfare down to a smaller scale. The side that wins by demonstrating absolute power, skill, control, and victory will convince people that they had God and righteousness on their side all along. For many criminals, the only power structure they had ever seen or experienced that benefited them was the neighborhood gang and criminal enterprises. Their peers, also, whom were also gang members and career criminals.

Thus your problem is not that criminals reject society’s laws, it is that criminals do not accept the suzerainty of our society at all. They believe their society to be superior; they believe their system to be more right and just. Just like Democrats and the Islamic war against humanity. And when you cease to believe it, when people like Bookworm and Neo Neocon cease to believe that the Democrat party is the party of righteousness and justice for all, then there is a chance of changing a person’s basic philosophy. Never until then, however.

So one way you could get criminals to switch allegiances to demonstrate the power and ruthlessness of our society. If our rules are cumbersome and inefficient compared to the mob enforcer, then we need to compete against that enforcer and defeat that enforcer’s methods by increasing the efficiency of our own. It is the same principle in warfare. You cannot convince the other side that they must surrender to you and obey your commands until you demonstrate that you and you alone have mastery of violence and warfare.

Humans are a stubborn breed, in the end. With a DNA template that favors striving against the inevitable, against death itself, when all seems futile. When a human being has one hope of victory, he will take it and thus resist you.

I have said what most criminals in my view operate under. A small select few of the criminal population are what I call sociopathic. Meaning, they do not recognize any societal restrictions on themselves, neither ours or anyone else’s. They are true serial killers and murderers, out for themselves and nobody else. The mores of society, or even of the mob or the underground society, do not hold them. These are the people who can committ mass murder and enjoy it, because it justifies their existence since all societies have rejected them.

Those people, are of course, automatically enemies of humanity. If you find one of them, the best course of action is immediate extermination of them and their like. Because while these folks abide under no morality or ethics, they can at times work together for convenience and mutual interests’ sake. Which would be an apt description of piracy and explain why pirates were tried and executed as enemies of humanity. They abided by no national law, unless they were privateers.

Criminals respect each other and criminal organizations and syndicates more than they respect the police, because criminals know that police cannot and will not exterminate enemies of humanity. Why should criminals help the police gain status while putting criminals in jail, when the enemies of both police and thieves are running around free and treated as if they were also criminals? Enemies of humanity are not criminals. They no longer accept the validation of any society. They are not violators of civil law because they do not recognize your right to enforce any laws over them.

Criminals are often seen as disobeying and violating the law, but they are still members of society, or a society, in the end. They still have ethics and restrictions. If they totally rejected society, what we would have would be called a revolution. Look at Cuba, France, and Russia for examples, if you need them.

This kind of situation was often the justification for one nation declaring war on another. One nation is not looking out for the interests of the other nation, so the logical conclusion was that in oder to preserve the society of our nation, we must defeat and render invalid the society of another nation through war and conquest. The same dynamic functions between the police and the criminals.

The only way to bring the two together would be to find a mutual enemy that both have. As seen in the example of Soviet Russia and Winston Churchill, who knew Stalin for what he really was. And also as seen in the example of the Al Anbar Awakening.

In order to convince criminals that they have a vested interest in obeying our society and working with us, we must give them a reason to do so. We must give them a mutual enemy that we both have in common or convince them that we already have one we should work together against. And they know what our mutual enemy is, they just understand that we, operating under lawfare and police restrictions, won’t do anything permanent or effective about the megalomaniacs, rapists, killers, and serial child murderers in the end. Thus why should criminals, petty or just those that made lethal mistakes, reconcile with our society, that neither protects them nor looks out for their interests or eliminates their enemies?

Indoctrination is a very fast way to determine whether someone really wants to belong to a society or whether he thinks no society limits him. Then using that distinction, you eliminate the enemies of humanity and acquire a very good chance of rehabilitating individuals that have now seen and been convinced by the power and efficacy of America. Are our criminals here in America any less foolish and rebellious than the Sunnis of Al Anbar? No, they are not.

Such things can be accomplished through any number of actions: indoctrination is just one of them. Amnesty to soft core criminals and resistance fighters is another method. In the case of prisons, amnesty kind of defeats the entire purpose of prison though. Who wouldn’t agree to abide by society’s laws in order to be pardoned? And what will prevent them from killing again once free? Nothing.

In the case of insurgents, they are already free, to an extent. Amnesty simply gives them another option, so that they are not manipulated into attacking us solely because they believe they have no choice but victory or defeat.

Israel and Judea were also great examples of how punishment and execution, when considered unjust by the punished, has no positive effect on the behavior of Jews. The Roman Empire crucified thousands of Jewish leaders and hundreds of villages when Judea attempted to rebel against Roman might. The Jews were still at it decades later, though. Why? Because the Jews did not accept the justice of their punishment. They did not accept the right of Rome to dictate to Jerusalem where they should worship or what they should worship.

If your society and government and laws are just, then for the most part you won’t have to care what decisions they make. Who they vote into office or what god they worship. So long as they obey the just and equal treatment under law that all voluntary members of society are under, they can do as they please. The problem is convincing people outside our society that our society is best for them.

Forever Peace and Tranquility

February 24, 2008

It was an old tenet of the peace lover that the madness of
the violent people had no end. So never get involved. Make
no counter moves. Avoid reacting.
Let them win.
Easy winning softened aggressors. True it was sometimes
inconvenient, but still if you could avoid getting involved
afterwards, or as little as possible, it was better to keep the
peace that way. Even if a few people got hurt, it was better.
With that reaffirmation of his most basic truth, Modyun
slowed back to a walk.

“I am a general of the Gerd. Doer is my name.”
“General Doer, I represent the … Earth
ship. Let us stop the carnage.”

There was a long pause. Then, grimly, the reply: “The
battle will be stopped only with the total annihilation or total
surrender of the invading force.”

Modyun sighed as he had seen Ichdozh do, by opening his
mouth and exhaling. What he finally said was, “That is an
unnecessary solution. After all, we both know the only people
being hurt are dupes. Naturally, the leaders will neither surrender
nor expose themselves to annihilation. So your alternatives
are unrealistic.”

“The punishment must fit the crime.” Savagely. “They are
members of an invading, aggressive force, and it was their intention
to take over Gunya.”

“Dupes have no meaningful intentions,” said Modyun.
“Besides, whatever the individual responsibility, the conditions
have changed. They are now willing to withdraw from
this planet and this attack, if your bridgehead group will get
off the ship and we are allowed to reembark our men.”
The thought-form of the creature facing him showed the
same grim attitude. “War, once engaged in,” he said, “is not
that easy to disengage from. We require the total surrender of
this ship and of the planet—Earth, did you call it?—which
dared to send forces to invade Gunya.”

Modyun shook his head. “These are old-fashioned
thoughts,” he said. “War is not fixed one way or another. It’s
just something that should never start in the first place. But,
if started, should be ended as soon as possible. It is your good
fortune that the attack has failed. The sooner you think of it
from that point of view, the sooner you’ll see that nothing is
to be gained by your adamant answer. End this war while my
group feels defeated. It is possible they may think of something
or get charged up with the same emotion that you have,
and then they won’t give up.”

There was a long pause. General Doer stood and stared at
him from those deep-set eyes. He seemed to be grappling
with the meaning of what the human being had said. Finally:
“Are we discussing the same subject?” he asked.

These are excerpts from AE Van Vogt’s Battle of Forever. The main character is an artificially evolved human being that obeys the tenets of pacifism. The link, btw, goes to a chronological and by series look at his entire life’s work.

In the course of things, we see how people who believe in total war, violence as being a definite solution to things, compares to those that believe in peace, decadence, multiculturalism, and moral relativism. If everything is the same, why fight about it? If everything is the same, one way or another in this universe, why should you persist in preserving your life?

This was written around the 1950s, so you must surely understand that socialism and the philosophy of self-extinction have been around human history for awhile now.

Correction, this book was written in 1971. After AE had seen the rise of Communism and the advent of the peace and non-guilt crowd. The ending, for those that want a hint about, will satisfy American Total War students and philosophers.

Legend of Galactic Heroes

February 17, 2008

[I only knew of LOGH because a comment left on my blog, so here is the credit and the comment in question:

Dee: Sailor Moon is the "Magic Girl" genre....

As for the stories and characters, I've always compared them to Greek theater, complete with stock characters, plots, and the supporting chorus.

Watching the stock characters and plots deviate from their archetypes is what keeps me watching anime.

As for a good sci-fi, space opera series, look up "Legend of Galactic Heroes."

It's really interesting if you can get past the older style of 80's animation (which is very good). It has an extremely involved plot, incredible character development, humor, and bus loads of tragedy to go around...]

LOGH is amazing. If you have ever seen Babylon 5 and loved how they did the character sketches, content on war and peace, in addition to side plots concerning how individual motivation factors unto the political grandstage, then you will find yourself in very familiar territory with this anime from last century. You can download all 110 episodes in English subtitles here. Apparently they never released it for an American or English market. Or they didn’t until recently, but I don’t know whether this is real or not.

There are a lot of elements that you might find worthwhile in this show. For one thing, it utilizes an amazing, yet rare, insight that only the best military strategists, authors, and statesmen have shown. That insight is the ability to see the perspective, to understand the perspective and motivation, of both your allies, your enemies, and anybody in between.

LOGH is the tale of two political bodies at war for over 150 years. It explores indepth the reasons for that war as well as why it continues on. The political dynamic between the pro-war party and the pro-peace party is present and well developed.

But, if you are like me, you are probably interested in the character development and the battle tactics. Both are very nice, and I have only watched 10 episodes so far. It is not a slice of life movie set in a war zone. Meaning you don’t have the heroes being junior high or high school aged folks, discovering that they are thrust into a war situation or have to save the Empire or something.

What you get is something similar, something that might have inspired the various Slice of Life anime in which the young hero or heroine shows extraordinary leadership abilities or battle prowess. Except in this case, your character development comes through war. Through leadership in war. If you don’t know what leadership in war is about, then this anime is a good introduction. Because it explains to you, as David Weber in his sci fi naval fleet series explained to me, the fundaments of command responsibility and battle tactics.

If you are a fan of David Weber, then you will be very familiar here. You have plenty of admirals running their little “defeat with honor” programs, prefering to go out in a blaze of glory, doing no damage to the enemy, instead of preserving their forces in order to fullfill their sworn duty to protect. Banzai! That is one uttered excuse for patriotic sentiment that is the same as selfishness and cowardice. There are many types of cowardice after all. Ordering your fleet to engage the enemy in a suicide clash because you are afraid of going home in dishonor, is just as cowardly as refusing to face the enemy when you need to. And you get both types, sometimes in the same person and battle, in this show.

As a comment on modern times, this show also demonstrates an interesting and insightful perspective. Like David Weber, the show does not glorify war or make it into something other than what it is. War is cruelty, and that is why it should end. For if war was ever made into the sterilized product fit for tea parties and socialite groups that folks wish it to be, war would be perpetual. It is only because war makes human beings suffer, that human beings are motivated into ending it. But that doesn’t prevent war profiteers from doing their part, of course. It doesn’t prevent people with political ambition or greed from taking advantage of those fighting in war, to prolong that war or to make more people suffer for the personal self-aggrandizement of their personal clique.

I won’t spoil the surprise for you by recounting what characters are for what or what the political dynamics are. It is more fun for you to see it yourself demonstrated, but simply understand that David Weber or classical liberals like me does not particular care whether we support the war party for Iraq or the anti-war party against Bush and his tyrannical regime. What we care about is improving the condition of humanity; not the nature of humanity mind you. We wish to help people that are suffering make their lives better. And if we can do it through war, we’ll do that and sue for peace. If that can be better accomplished by having peace instead of continuing to fight, then that should be what is promoted and sought after. We, thus, are just like America’s anti-war supporters. We support or deny a cause based upon our belief in the cause or about the cause. If we don’t believe, we deny it our support and attempt to deny it of support from everywhere else.

So it all comes down to belief. Belief in what your duty is. Belief in what honor is and whether it is honorable to continue the war or to end the war right now. Do you believe the United States military is the best hope for mankind? Do you believe that no other organization equals the power and competency of the US military in helping women, children, and men on this planet?

Belief, violence, and political slogans are just tools. They can be used for good or ill. What matters is who do you trust with the tools of violence and power? Who will make the best use of it? Who will be able to bring most of his men back alive because he was both competent and courageous? Because nothing matters more than a person’s intent, character, and abilities. He can have the best intentions in the world, but if he is incompetent and without ability, then he will simply bring red ruin to the people that counted upon him. If his intent is strong and his abilities stronger, but his character is flawed and egotistical, then what we have is tyranny. Efficient tyranny perhaps, but still tyranny: the enslavement of individual human beings for the personal gain of the tyrant.

Like David Weber did, LOGH portrays men and women who want peace, but they are going to get it by conducting a competent war first That means if war has no purpose any longer, there is no point to prolonging it. Which is why in David Weber’s Honor Harrington, the Progressive Party threw away a chance for peace with haven because the Progressive Party in Grand Alliance mode with the Conservatives wanted to withheld parliamentary elections until the moment was right. They were more concerned about domestic political matters than ensuring that future men and women of their nation no longer had to die in this war.

Whether a person is truly a lover of war is to be seen in the actions he and she chooses. In the situation that actually exists. If the situation is different, then your support for war should be reconsidered if not changed. And that’s the point. Classical liberals and military commanders that care for their people, that care enough to become competent and to do a good job, will always fix the problems that currently exist, rather than making new problems exist for other people to solve.

In the end, there have been times in our mutual human past where Peace Activists were traitors. And in the end, there have been times in our mutual past where War Activists were the true traitors. It all depends. It all depends upon what kind of people you have in those camps. Do you have true and honorable folks committed to true freedom and love of country? Or do you have greedy egotistical folks interested in nothing but power so they can lord it over everybody else?

Download uTorrent program here.

Download via bittorrent here.

Open bittorrent file with uTorrent program.

I just completed watching the first story arc of the series, some 30 episodes out of about 110. And I just got to say that this is truly Honor Harrington in anime. Which is high praise, if you know my views concerning David Weber and Honor Harrington.

Here’s a review of the entire series for those that have seen the series. Even if you haven’t, you can go pretty far down since the review is more or less in chronological order. So if you have seen 1/4 or 1/2 of the series, you can pretty much tell where in the review you should stop reading. The review focuses on the dichotomy between representative government and autocracy.

High Heels

February 17, 2008

There’s an interesting enlarged photo description and explanation about the effects of wearing high heels on women’s legs.

Courtesy of KaChing

Book Memes

February 14, 2008

Via Soob this latest meme in which I’m invited to:

1. Pick up the nearest book ( of at least 123 pages).
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the next three sentences.
5. Tag five people.

 The drive and emissions signatures look kind of like a Saint parasite cruiser, but if that’s so, that means the Saints have had a Line carrier in-system.”

“And that means the Saints have probably taken the system,” Pahner snarled.
The ship captain smiled thinly and sniffed, tapping the edge of the crippled tactical display. “Yes, it does.”

From March Upcountry by David Weber and John Ringo


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.