Converging trends
Posted by aogFriday, 22 December 2006 at 10:13 TrackBack Ping URL

Warfare is decided in the mind, as some has recently re-iterated in discussing the current Long War. I don’t find that, by itself, a very useful observation because that has been true and known for a very long time, back to at least the time of Sun Tzu.

What might be considered different now is that one side in a conflict has forsworn collateral damage as a means of changing the minds of its opponents, but even that is not unique — for instance, the passive resistance of Ghandi is an example of half a century ago. What may be historically different is that the more powerful side has done so.

A point I made earlier is that the choice of the Anglosphere to not engage in responses that create a lot of collateral damage is supported by the innate tolerance and forbearance of the USA and that such restraint is a limited resource. It is a question of which will run out first, that or the obliviousness of the Caliphascists and their fellow travelers.

It seems that it’s still a race. On one side, we have things like this anti-jihad nu-metal video, and on the other parts of the ummah accepting the existence and evil of the Holocaust. The former I have expected, but the latter is a bit surprising. I had mostly written off the ummah, deciding based on the evidence that its capacity for change would not meet the demands of our age, but perhaps I am wrong in that1.


1 The Washington Post article has complaints about no explicit condemnation of the Iranian denial conference, but that’s at best quibbling. If, as these Muslims did, accept the existence of and condemn the Holocaust, the rest is petty details. Should the situations have been reversed, I would have wanted to avoid the road of having to track every gathering of idiots and thereby open myself up to claims of support if I didn’t rush out sufficiently rapidly for such a thing in the future. Best to set a precedent of going right to the meat of the matter.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
cjm Friday, 22 December 2006 at 14:22

the machiavelli in me thinks that we planned all along to open up saudi arabia to iran by taking out saddam. we now stand between the sunnis and their future masters in iran. “well, which will it be ?” i also think that by forcing the hajis to do their nasty business in arab countries (for the most part) instead of other countries, we have sharpened the minds of those countries’ citizens. people typically don’t change without extreme forces being at work. still, i’ll take it as a good sign.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 22 December 2006 at 16:11

I think there’s no doubt that bringing Caliphascism “home to roost” is something will be a large contribution to avoiding the Three Conjectures in the future.

cjm Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 11:00

looks like the new model for war fighting is being tested in somalia right now. while u.s. troops might be hindered by PC rules of engagement, foreign shock troops backed my u.s. air and logistics certainly won’t be.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 27 December 2006 at 18:52

Didn’t we run the invasion of Afghanistan that way? Perhaps this is one place OJ is correct and that it was the post-invasion occupation that was root mistake.

cjm Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 09:32

imo, the u.s. lost all momentum after winning the short war. bush clearly hasn’t any idea of how to move forward — a family trait. the occupation was premature because the country had not been pacified, and still hasn’t. we should have used Roman rules until all resistance was crushed. taking over all the food and fuel, and putting all fighting age males in camps would have been a good move too. i suspect the u.s. will be using the new model almost exclusively in the future.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 28 December 2006 at 10:55

On the other hand, there is something to be said for (part of) OJ’s view on the matter, which is that Caliphascism is unsustainable in a technological world and that we can just wait them out. The only real question is what the respective casualty rates are between active and passive resistance.

cjm Friday, 29 December 2006 at 09:47

i am of the school that puts out a fire at the earliest opportunity. islamic fascism like communism can’t sustain itself, but they are perfectly capable of consuming everything in their path. those 100m people that died under communism didn’t kill themselves. as in all things, judd is wrong in this area too.

Jeff Guinn Friday, 29 December 2006 at 10:34

AOG:

Is that the same OJ that said we should have nuked the Soviets after WWII?

Post a comment