The 4GW Festival of Fabius Maximus

Council member Zenpundit at his blog by the same name - The 4GW Festival of Fabius Maximus.

Quote:

---

For some time now, an author whose nom de guerre is "Fabius Maximus", after the ancient Roman general of the Punic wars, has been a regular and at times, prolific, contributor to the Boydian and 4GW school oriented Defense & the National Interest. Fabius, who comments here at Zenpundit on occasion, also set off one of the most popular, if heated and controversial, threads at The Small Wars Council, catching the attention of noted COIN strategist Col. David Kilcullen. Kilcullen's theories later became a subject of frequent critique from Fabius in his DNI articles.

While I had hoped to meet Fabius in person at Boyd 2007, he did not attend and I am not privy to his identity or professional background. Fabius' arguments must rise or fall entirely on their own merit and he has been content to engage his critics on this basis at the SWC and elsewhere. Clearly he is a member of the 4GW school and is an admirer of Col. John Boyd, William Lind, Dr. Martin van Creveld and Dr. Chet Richards but has not shrunk from advancing his own ideas or original criticisms...

---

Much more at the link...

To quote one of our distinguished members who said it best...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTK

It is what it is; why call it an article and not call it an OP-ED? You don't site resources, other than for filler quotes. It's a mixture rich in opinion and bubbling with exaggeration.

After 4 months of reading this stuff I still don't know where you get your "fact."

---

Thanks, RTK !

The link is much appreciated Dave!

Quote:

---

"A pain in the Alpha"

---

Hi Stan,

After I posted FM, a friend who is a defense analyst and finds Fabius to be a highly aggravating internet personality, emailed me to ask, in essence, why the hell I was bothering ? There are a number of reasons.

I don't agree with the thrust of FM's grand strategy. I think it would, if implemented, vastly accelerate the rise of regional market-security blocs, encourage wars of local hegemony and derail globalization (the latter might be viewed as a positive outcome by FM). OTOH, he is an effective goad to discussion by discomforting ppl with more mainstream views, forcing them to reexamine their premises. This is a good thing. It's easy to get too comfortable with our intellectual assumptions.

Secondly, I think it's easy to underestimate how many Americans share less articulate or well-considered versions of the foreign policy assumptions of a Fabius Maximus or William Lind. The MSM does not give them the time of day but they are out there, certainly in the Midwest at least and that factors into public opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zenpundit

Hi Stan,

OTOH, he is an effective goad to discussion by discomforting ppl with more mainstream views, forcing them to reexamine their premises. This is a good thing. It's easy to get too comfortable with our intellectual assumptions.

Secondly, I think it's easy to underestimate how many Americans share less articulate or well-considered versions of the foreign policy assumptions of a Fabius Maximus or William Lind. The MSM does not give them the time of day but they are out there, certainly in the Midwest at least and that factors into public opinion.

---

I know of only one other person (MarcT) who could so eloquintly define the otherwise simple military term, Pain in the Alpha :cool: With that, I grudgingly acknowledge that FM did indeed steer some of us into rethinking (albeit for only a few minutes) !

We wondered where he'd gone ;)

Regards, Stan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

To quote one of our distinguished members who said it best...



Thanks, RTK !

---

After however long it's been since I typed that, I still haven't figured it out. It's my own mental rubix cube. And I haven't figured out how to pull the stickers off yet.

Thanks for posting the link to this. Since Labor Day I’ve adopted the Lind publishing schedule: weekly short articles. So I have not been reading much at SWC.

The folks at SWC have been my most vociferous critics on the web, and hence those that helped me the most. However, someone reading the above posts might get the wrong idea about my articles.

I’ve written 28 articles about Iraq since Sept 2003. I have given many specific forecasts and observations. They stand up quite well, in my opinion. Many forecasts which received a hot reception (esp at SWC) are now consensus wisdom. That should not surprise people of the SWC! I’m standing on the accumulated work of experts like van Creveld, Lind, Richards, and Vandergriff. (The view from up here is terrific. I wish more of you would join me.)

Just for fun, here are 2 old and 3 recent specifics. As for the last, only time will tell – but it looks accurate so far. Probably none of these are original (that’s too high a goal). This ignores the wrong ones, such as guessing that Bush would sacrifice the Iraq project to save the Republican Party’s majority in Congress.

Oct 31, 2003: We fight insurgents who learn rapidly (the Darwinian ratchet) and have gained the initiative from us. The Coalition has lost a connection between its strategy and tactics.

Nov 22, 2003: The current project to rapidly recruit locals for Iraq security forces is certain to fail, as we’re unable to screen out insurgents. Also, this is too fast for adequate training.

Nov 12, 2006: Iraq is undergoing massive ethnic cleansing, perhaps the only thing that can bring peace.

Dec 19, 2006: The Iraq national government is a shell, lacking most of the key attributes of a functioning government. This was vehemently disputed at SWC.

March 17, 2007: Iraq continues to fragment, and the pieces are developing viable governments (ditto, as above). This is probably the only path to peace for Iraq.

Also – I too like RTK’s comment “You don't site resources, other than for filler quotes.” This is what comes to mind when I think of SWC, unfairly slighting the many brilliant & well-informed posts. One can dislike my choice of sources, object to my use of sources, and disagree with my conclusions. But RTK’s quote isn’t even interestingly wrong, just bizarrely so. I cite sources frequently in my articles, perhaps obsessively so – and in SWC threads more than most.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

March 17, 2007: Iraq continues to fragment, and the pieces are developing viable governments (ditto, as above). This is probably the only path to peace for Iraq.

---

FM,

I would welcome expansion on how you have derived this view. As a counterview to its assertion, I would offer the following points as obstacles to its occurrence:

1) The difficulties that such a development would generate for Iraq's neighbours, and their likely 'vote' on such developments occuring. Specifically:

a) Turkey (and to a lesser extent, Iran) finding the development of a fully autonomous Kurdish state unacceptable.
b) Arab Sunni States finding the development of an autonomous Shia state problematic.
c) Concern throughout the region of increasing Iranian influence in any nascent 'Shiastan' in Iraq; and
d) Israel finding it all problematic.

2) Agreement on the division of resources (oil revenues) being highly problematic.

3) Agreement within the Sunni over what a Sunni 'Bantustan" would look like and who would control it.

4) The issue of Kirkuk.

5) The current trajectory of US Foreign Policy in the region is against such a development.

6) Recent opinion polls show that most Iraqis, (except the approx. 20% Kurd minority), still identify in some way with the concept of a national, unitary "Iraq".

Regards,

Mark

Mark, I fully agree with the point of your post. The road to peace for Iraq -- thru partition or another path -- will not be easy. Hence I said "fragmenting" and "developing." Nobody can tell how it will end.

My two articles on this topic (March 13 & Sept 27) analyze the same potholes as those you list:
http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/fabius_insurgency_ended.htm
http://www.defense-and-society.org/fabius/long_war_IV.htm

There are complex dynamics at work, beyond the scope of a post (hence the articles). Here is a summary of some relevant themes I (and others) have written about for the past year:

1. The mutual slaughter to date, and potential for much more -- perhaps spreading through the region -- provides powerful incentives for everyone involved to pull things together.

2. The development of local ruling elites provides a mechanism for this to happen. Ethnic cleansing makes it possible.

3. Peace is a relative state, esp in Iraq. There could be long-term border wars amongst the new Iraq mini-states, and between them and their neighbors. This is the most common scenario, historically.

4. The oil revenue is both a cause of tension and a solution. Money can be divided. Wars over ideology and religion are more difficult to settle.

5. The US is more of a passenger in Iraq than a driver.

6. Public opinion polls express people’s dreams and aspirations. For example, polls in American show broad support for both lower taxes and more public services of improved quality. These yearnings are a factor, but seldom a decisive one.

I seldom advocate fragging people these days but then none of us are in the bush here, well, the vast majority of us aren't anyway

That is a sincere post, illustrating an important aspect of today’s America.

The American ideal has always been one of open debate. The clashing of opposing viewpoints so that a stronger synthesis emerges, as a medieval smith hammers crude iron into a fine sword. Like the fierce arguments in President Washington’s cabinet. Or the Lincoln-Douglas debates. From this comes a unified spirit so that America can best face the many dangers that surround us. (This did not work for slavery, and the cost of this failure was high) (It is also a formula for a great web site)

I believe we have too little of that today, esp on the web. The large web communities, such as Little Green Footballs and The Daily Kos, mostly hurl insults at one another. Great issues are debated on two or more tracks, seldom intersecting.

Why is this? Have we become spiritually timid, afraid to debate? Or coarse intellectually, unable to respond to challenges of our basic assumptions?

Just a thought…

You don't mind if I call you Boscoe, do you? We are not spiritually timid, we are afraid to die because we have no guarentee of a good afterlife promised, the bane of Liberality if you will . The American ideal has always been one of material acquistion, not open debate, and as such, it is simply pragmatic to polarize the small fry and big fish. Since you have been confined to a couple of threads in this forum, it appears you have no choice but to debate with me for the most part. You can take the large fish end of the dichotomy if you want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

The American ideal has always been one of material acquistion, not open debate, and as such, it is simply pragmatic to polarize the small fry and big fish.

---

Some people say I am pessimistic, but your comment is one of the most depressing sentiments I have heard about America in a while. Cheer up, man – we’re not that bad.

You have only raised one issue, seemingly trivial, but one you must feel deserving of attention. It is not accurate to say I “have no choice but to debate with you” and I’ve “been confined to a couple of threads on this forum.” From a quick glance at the stats -- I’ve started 8 threads in the past 12 months, with an average volume of almost 3,500 views – far above the SWC average. Three have over 5,000 views, probably putting them in the top 50 most-viewed threads during that period (just guessing, looking at the menu). I seldom post on others’ threads unless, like the worthy Zenpundit’s here, it mentions me.

On a broader note, you obviously disagree with my views about the Iraq War and perhaps related issues. My views are shared by retired generals, former high officials of the US government, eminent academics, and tens of millions of Americans. That does not make me right. On the other hand, you are not debating the Flat Earth Society.

You’re obviously well-educated, as such typical of the posters I’ve seen at SWC. Yet you dismiss these views with a wave of your hand, as if you were Merlin. What do you expect those who disagree with you to do, applaud or genuflect?

Your comments illustrate the point I made below. How do your comments differ from those of liberals on blogs like Matthew Yglesias’, who dismiss conservative views by calling them racist, sexist, or homophobic? I believe that these strategic issues, and the widely-held opinions about them which I share, deserve more respect.

You may call me “Boscoe”. That’s strange and rude, but if it makes you happy…

Hi FM, why don't you talk about economic warfare?

It's a hot topic by email among some working with military theory, and I've exchanged many dozen notes on the subject. I think this is the very edge of new thinking about war/conflict. But it seems to have a small audience.

As I said on my blog: "In an age of {nukes &} 4GW, conventional war between major powers is unlikely — perhaps obsolete. But political stresses remain a fact of life and must be expressed. Perhaps money has replaced bullets as the new form of combat. WWII was as much a war between competing economies as between armies. Modern financial systems allow us to eliminate bombs as the intermediate step, for pure economic warfare."

From A brief note on the US Dollar. Is this like August 1914?

The first and perhaps most important work in this area was Unrestricted Warfare (1999), written by two PLA Air Force Colonels. They say, in effect, the first war of the new era was the attack by speculators on the SE Asian currencies. This wrecked their economies; people were eating bark. If these hedge funds and other traders were based in, for example, Singapore they would have been politely invited to stop. Now. If they declined, the next measures taken would have been less pleasant.

But they were based in New York and London, attacking behind the shield of western military power. Notice has been taken.

Tom Clancey's Debt of Honor describes commercial aircraft being flown into buildings as weapons. Fact. Will the earlier events in that book -- an geopolitical attack on US stocks and the US dollar, also become fact?

If you find this of interest, start a thread. I might have a few things to say on it.

Hi FM, yes I am interested about this. Having dealt with one or two drug dealers in my time and the huge cash amounts they generate some type of a financial/economic attack is not as far fetched as people may think...now to start the thread.

I thought you were restricted to only a thread or two? Wasn't that announced somewhere in the forum? Since I see no organized consent and agreement on what you postulate, most of the serious minded professionals in membership here either find you amusing but most are likely ignoring you. The phrase "former high officials of the US government" gives you away. Are you a Cockney from UK, Boscoe? That's my hunch.

100% wrong in all respects. I'm not restricted (now posting on the Econ Warfare thread; would not care if I was), I have a large email traffic with a wide range of professionals in the geopol-mil-intel fields, and am I not from the UK.

Do you read my posts? You ignore all the facts provided that contradict your assertions. If not (which appears to be the case), why bother replying?

You are, I suspect, capable of a higher level of debate. If not worth your effort, why bother with these low comments?

Jeeez, Boscoe - I don't cite and make much reference either so it takes one bull####ter to tag another. You've got the arrogance but nothing to back it up - even I get emails from the Mossad and Kremlin and a few former high officials in the US government, so what? The Roscoe and Boscoe comedy hour - how does that sound to you? I once got an email from someone so high up on the Pentagon, I had to get my step ladder to read it. (you're supposed to laugh now, Boscoe)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

even I get emails from the Mossad and Kremlin and a few former high officials in the US government

---

Not a surprise. As I said below, you appear to be a well-educated person. Too bad you don't have anything to say here other than childish insults, as I'll bet you would be interesting to debate.

The thread started well, but came to nothing -- which is always sad. I got a good blognote out of it, and hope the folks reading it also got something of interest.

The SWC thread on economic warfare started by Slapout9 is going well, with some fascinating posts. Your might find it worth a look.

Signing off.

Fabius please ignore goesh and continue pushing your points for consideration. If you're making some people uncomfortable, so much the better. We obviously don't have the correct answers, or we wouldn't be in the mess we're in executing the long war. I'm not sure why original ideas need to have sources to begin with. Must we restrict our thinking and discussion to historical ideas? I'm not saying your right (really no one in this council knows if you're right or wrong), but you do present some interesting ideas. If we can shoot holes in them so much the better, that is how progress is eventually made.

I am open to questions. My MO is to post longish excerpts from articles (sometimes drafts), the articles having substantial links to supporting evidence (the exception being forecasts, which I clearly label). I then take questions, and respond to critical comment.

I've learned a lot on SWC, and agree that in these issues nobody has answers. Just theories, at best. Sometimes just guesses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

I've learned a lot on SWC, and agree that in these issues nobody has answers. Just theories, at best. Sometimes just guesses.

---

Indeed, often the latter is the best we have to work with. But opaqueness and ambiguity are the typical conditions of War in general and Small Wars in particular. Best to prepare how to deal with them before the fact, otherwise they have to be learned the hard way - a la Iraq.

It's a shame we don't have the security clearances for you to share some tid-bits from the large traffic of emails from the wide range of professionals in the geopol-mil-intel fields you get. The last one I got from Mossad demanded another billion in aid or they stand down from Operation Mullah Masher (wink, wink, that's code for Iran). Do 'n Dare - your turn!

Hi Global Scout !
Forgive me if I don’t fully understand your first few posts. Regretfully, I know little of your experience, and your membership background indicates “N/A”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Global Scout

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21718926/

By way of introduction, this first post may appear to have a liberal slant to some…

The enclosed article has little to do with economic warfare directly…

---

Please do however go here and introduce yourself as time permits you. This helps folks like me understand your train of thought and in general, get a snapshot of your military and/or civilian background.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Global Scout

Fabius please ignore goesh and continue pushing your points for consideration. If you're making some people uncomfortable, so much the better. We obviously don't have the correct answers, or we wouldn't be in the mess we're in executing the long war. I'm not sure why original ideas need to have sources to begin with. Must we restrict our thinking and discussion to historical ideas?

---

I don’t think Goesh is asking for historical renditions, but he is asking for supporting links. One could however simply state, “I thought the entire ‘enchilada’ up all by myself, and until now, forgot to inform and subsequently save the world from its mistakes’.

What a load of malarkey!

We are not restricted to historical ideas here, but we do ask people to support their claims, opinions, etc. with substantial information and links…proof if you will.

FM recently stated that his enormous volume of posts (151) and ‘views’ would otherwise conclude he’s popular, 'read by all' and ‘he’ posts above the average herein (whatever that numeric is).

That’s pretty bold for anyone to say.

I think your 4th post could have a little more content than just “ignore and uncomfortable”, but that’s just my $0.02.

Regards, Stan

Stan,

I rather focus on the discussion points at hand, so I was hesitant to make the post you responded to, but the personal attacks on Fabius were disappointing and out of character with this otherwise outstanding website. Goesh has made several intelligent posts throughout, but for whatever reason he (and others) have elevated their disagreement with Fabius to personal attacks, instead of counter arguing his points. I guess this is human nature and I’m sure I have been guilty of it myself, so I’ll let it go. I’m sure they can work it out. In the old army we had a way of working this out behind the barracks (lol).

I want to keep my introduction short and general in nature until I’m long retired: I’m an active duty soldier with approximately 30 years in, most of them in special operations. I have a wide range of experiences and have worked in various capacities in each regional theater as either a combatant, an advisor, or some other capacity. Of course such a wide range of experiences results in a jack of all trades, and master of done, but none the less I may have experienced or observed something worth sharing and discussing.

I have been reading SWJ for a long time, and after returning from a recent OIF deployment I decided to join and hopefully contribute. A lot of folks consider my ideas unorthodox, so I may find myself in Fabius’s foxhole shortly helping him lay down final protective fire. I don’t know Fabius (apparently no one does), but I am receptive to good counter arguments and my views can be swayed by them. I think I am somewhat open minded, which unfortunately is not a common trait in my community, where as I stated in my first post agendas are confused with facts.

I'm not a psychologist, but I think this trait has something to do with the AAA personalties we assess into special operations, self included. My only advantage is a few years of doing this is starting to dull the aggression (and memory) and result in more reflection.

First, a correction. “FM recently stated that his enormous volume of posts (151) and ‘views’ would otherwise conclude he’s popular.” I never mentioned how often I’ve posted, let along anything about “an enormous volume of posts”. Or anything about my number of posts. Nor did I refer to “popularity.” Goesh stated “Since you have been confined to a couple of threads in this forum…” I presented facts in rebuttal.

Second, you state “I think your 4th post could have a little more content than just “ignore and uncomfortable”. Are you quoting yourself? I never said that. Or anything like that.

Third, this brings us to the big enchilada. What additional information would you like to see? You said “I don’t think Goesh is asking for historical renditions, but he is asking for supporting links.” I’ve written roughly a hundred thousand words in approx 30 articles. I’m willing to provide supporting data, but the request must be more specific.

To see how I answer a specific question, see Mark O’Neil below -- asking for an explanation of a forecast. I wrote a 212 word reply, with links to two articles giving additional detail.

Hey Global Scout !

I’ve been retired for nearly 11 years, so I in fact do understand you there. I hope you also understand why most of us take stock in knowing with whom we are dealing with. It only seems fair IMO. I feel you should still introduce yourself and please do read the ROE.

Personal attacks are indeed disappointing (I’m just as guilty), but the history behind most of these threads is well documented (and yes, perhaps some are unjustified). We (herein) don’t normally have an argument with ourselves…it takes two to tango.

I appreciate you coming to FM’s defense and having your own opinion (now knowing you have a physical military background…versus just another opinion).

Regards, Stan

Hello FM !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

First, a correction. “FM recently stated that his enormous volume of posts (151) and ‘views’ would otherwise conclude he’s popular.” I never mentioned how often I’ve posted, let along anything about “an enormous volume of posts”. Or anything about my number of posts. Nor did I refer to “popularity.” Goesh stated “Since you have been confined to a couple of threads in this forum…” I presented facts in rebuttal.

---

FM, I stand corrected…my apologies. Your post to Goesh was accurate and a tad conceded.

Quote:

---

From a quick glance at the stats -- I’ve started 8 threads in the past 12 months, with an average volume of almost 3,500 views – far above the SWC average. Three have over 5,000 views, probably putting them in the top 50 most-viewed threads during that period (just guessing, looking at the menu). I seldom post on others’ threads unless, like the worthy Zenpundit’s here, it mentions me.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

Second, you state “I think your 4th post could have a little more content than just “ignore and uncomfortable”. Are you quoting yourself? I never said that. Or anything like that.

---

That was directed at Global Scout, not you. I’m a Soldier and not into quoting myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

Third, this brings us to the big enchilada. What additional information would you like to see? You said “I don’t think Goesh is asking for historical renditions, but he is asking for supporting links.” I’ve written roughly a hundred thousand words in approx 30 articles. I’m willing to provide supporting data, but the request must be more specific.

---

You may need to ask Goesh what he’d like to specifically see regarding supporting links. I don’t actually count each and every word I type and conclude ‘that’ as being ‘supported’. Honestly, those posts didn’t interest me sufficiently enough to read (but you did get a ‘viewer’ by default).

Regards, Stan

I have no idea what Stan's post #27 is saying. Can anyone explain, otherwise this is a waste of everyone's time. Apparently he has no questions, makes up & embellishes quotes (Global Scout did not say "ignored and uncomfortable", in addition to the correction he acknowledges), and contributes just gratuitous insults.

Also, why is this thread getting more views than the more active and superlative thread on Economic Warfare? Some of the posts I've read there are among the best I've seen at SWC. Esp look at those by Norfolk, bourbon, kehenry1, and selil -- and those are just some of the recent ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus

I have no idea what Stan's post #27 is saying. Can anyone explain, otherwise this is a waste of everyone's time. Apparently he has no questions, makes up & embellishes quotes (Global Scout did not say "ignored and uncomfortable", in addition to the correction he acknowledges), and contributes just gratuitous insults.

Also, why is this thread getting more views than the more active and superlative thread on Economic Warfare? Some of the posts I've read there are among the best I've seen at SWC. Esp look at those by Norfolk, bourbon, kehenry1, and selil -- and those are just some of the recent ones.

---

FM, stay on topic and don't opine on why Council members post what they do and on what thread they should be viewing and commenting on. Regardless, considering the high opinion you hold of yourself, of what you may think (and seem to be trending on your personal blog), Council members are quite the informed group and don't require your condescending attitude.

Thanks in advance for toning down your self-love-fest.

Bottom line: don't wear out your welcome.

Dave

Boscoe, I think this thread is getting more views ( " why is this thread getting more views than the more active and superlative thread on Economic Warfare? " (FM)) because ultimately we must sort fact and fiction now more than ever before, as our enemies are blending fact and fiction better than we can ever hope to do. Their talent is winning in the IO theatre and in real time in the lives of real people, they continue to kill wantonly with no ROE. When someone with the 'talent' creates disharmony and not collusion, they need to be challenged and/or confronted. Comments by RTK, the reference Zenpundit made about you, something about you being an aggravating internet personality and comments just made by a forum monitor bear this out. I just call it BravoSierra, to coin a phrase from Stan. " I’ve written roughly a hundred thousand words in approx 30 articles. I’m willing to provide supporting data, but the request must be more specific/
I have a large email traffic with a wide range of professionals in the geopol-mil-intel fields" - your words. I may as well tell the readers I have parachuted at least a hundred times behind enemy lines with nothing but a jackknife clenched between my teeth and slain enemy agents and generals and garnish as much admiration as your positing. You have forsaken your fire watch ribbon, if indeed you even have one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

When someone with the 'talent' creates disharmony and not collusion, they need to be challenged and/or confronted. Comments by RTK, the reference Zenpundit made about you, something about you being an aggravating internet personality and comments just made by a forum monitor bear this out. I just call it BravoSierra, to coin a phrase from Stan.

---

Thanks for giving us a reason for your disagreement with Fabius.

You seem to believe that the arguments that Fabius advances somehow threaten or impede the war effort. ("disharmony and not collusion") I must confess I'm at a loss to see why this might be so.

(BTW, I believe you mean societal and political "cohesion" rather than "collusion". The former implies unity of the body politic behind the war effort, the latter implies conspiracy to do something improper.)

There is a difference between mindless noisy protest - a la MoveOn.org and their ilk - and legitimate debate about the best methods to achieve victory. The former does nothing except to damage the morale of the troops, and is
irresponsible in time of war. However, I submit the latter is necessary if we are to gain any sort of favorable outcome in the current mess we find ourselves. Our current methods in the GWOT don't seem to be working, at least from my limited point of view.

Fabius has advanced several unconventional - but well thought out - opinions and analyses, with a lot of data to back it up. However, he admits up front that he may or may not be correct, and invites others to post responses to the contrary.

Your approach of "challenging and confronting" him with a series of ad hominem attacks doesn't strike me as particularly honest intellectually, nor is it healthy politically. A democracy can't work unless there is honest and thoughtful debate about important issues. For my part, your name-calling isn't likely to change my (favorable) views of FM's ideas. I don't think it will do much to change others' opinions on this forum either.

I submit that your agenda would be better served by giving us some rational criticism of FM's posts, and I'd like to join Fabius in inviting you to do the same. He's right - you've posted many thoughtful and insightful messages before - and you are clearly capable of doing so again. Please don't become the "aggravating Internet personality" you accuse Fabius of being. Throw us doubters some meat and let us chew on it.

Dan Lance (ex-Maj, MC, USAF)

But I think Goesh is getting a raw deal since, for many of you, this is the first time you've seen Goesh post.

The fact of the matter is that Fabius has been asked multiple questions over many months and continuiously pulled a Heisman pose with all of them. It got to the point that Dr. Kilcullen replied with the intent to engage in a face to face meeting (to the best of my knowledge this never happened).

Despite his best answer to the contrary in post #6, his position papers are fluff at best, filled with the filler quotes of others in a hodgepodge of melodrama fit for daytime television. Still don't know his qualifications, save for this little number fit for a burger flipper's resume: A work of intellectual analysis stands on its own logic, supported by the author’s track record. I should have prefaced all my papers with that instead of my biography. This is so much easier and I don't have to substantiate any of it.

I've never asked a direct question to him that was ever answered the first time. But that's only after about 9 months of trying....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTK

A work of intellectual analysis stands on its own logic, supported by the author’s track record.

---

The problem is FM's track record. His posts never stand on their own. It seems that the reader must always go to his own site to discover what he's saying. As RTK points out, while FM responds to questions, he never (that I have seen) answers them directly. As a consequence, threads seems to degenerate into argument instead of elevating to discussion.

As a disproof, FM could always go to another thread, quote a question/post from RTK (or anyone else) and provide a clear, straight forward, self contained answer. i.e. No sending us on a chase through his essays or off to another web site.

To blend fact and fiction is a talent but it converts to arrogance when real players in the real world, i.e. Stan, RTK, Dr. Kilcullen and a SWC Monitor for starters, are forced to shore up the gap between theory and practice, fact and fiction via appropriate challenges. That's the point being missed here IMO. My challenges for blending fact and fiction in SWC have been in the form of a couple of deletions and some ass-chewings via PM by more than one Monitor, i.e. an old time butt-whuppin' administered by an Officer/NCO is what it used to be called. The assertion of ad hominem attacks on my part bears some merit but it is also a twist and turn of political correctness when in fact FM consented to me calling him Boscoe. Bosko is an old time cartoon character: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosko and later, an Irish derivation evolved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosco :

"The main character in the programme is Bosco, a small red-haired puppet with bright red cheeks and indeterminate gender"

I should not have put an E on the end of the moniker I was given permission to use but then I have never laid claim to being a gentleman and here's
a mea culpa for being intellectually dishonest. I will stand down on the Boscoe front with the contention that gentlemen don't win wars, they only prolong them.

Hello Dan !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drlmd1965

Thanks for giving us a reason for your disagreement with Fabius.
Dan Lance (ex-Maj, MC, USAF)

---

I’m often perplexed at folks that declare solidarity (with perfect strangers) and perform drive-bys herein as their first post, without providing us with an introduction. Honestly, I’m of the opinion ‘we’ have some sock puppets that all manage the same writing styles.

FM’s history for escape and evasion has led us to not only disagree, but also disbelieve. I’m not at all sure why this thread was created. It seems FM wanted back in, and used his connections for a finale (knowing good and well he was no longer welcome).

In closing, as a council member, I would ask that you introduce yourself here and read the ROE.

One last question please. What does “ex-Maj, MC, USAF” stand for ? You are a former O-4 in both the USMC and USAF ? Or, MC is Air Force Medical Corps ? Perhaps this silly little question could have been avoided by using the ‘tell me about you thread’.

BTW, I’m not the first or only one wondering if you were a Marine O-4.

Good luck and regards...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goesh

To blend fact and fiction is a talent but it converts to arrogance when real players in the real world, i.e. Stan, RTK, Dr. Kilcullen and a SWC Monitor for starters, are forced to shore up the gap between theory and practice, fact and fiction via appropriate challenges. That's the point being missed here IMO.

---

All too true and having witnessed now for myself, live, how this has turned out, whatever benefit of the doubt that I had been willing to entertain on these matters has simply evaporated. I entered into this debate on the other thread unconvinced by 4GW Theory, and have concluded it with no doubt that it is largely intellectual tripe. To be sure, there are some aspects of it that are more or less worthy; but said aspects long ago received proper treatment in more traditional (and comprehensive) strategic thought, and with firm historical evidence to back said thought up.

4GW Theory, like RMA, strikes me as more of an ideology of strategy as it should be, and seeking justification through historical "proofs" - particularly in predictions of the future (how's that for historical evidence?) - that are circumstantial at best and appallingly mistaken at worst. 4GW, like RMA and other "Peacetime Doctrine", is less of a rigorous theory trying to explain contemporary strategic trends and developments, than it is just another fashionable intellectual flavour-of-the-month.

One of the good things about theories that attempt to convince the world that history has all of a sudden utterly broken with the past and that the "old" truths are no longer relevant is that they dig their own burial pits right from the start; and what's even better about them is that those holes are self-filling. Just as RMA dug its hole in the 80's and 90's, it proceeded at double-quick time to fill it in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan. 4GW has dug its own pit and jumped in; in due course, that hole will fill itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTK

A work of intellectual analysis stands on its own logic, supported by the author’s track record.

---

And here's the problem. Authorship provides context and credibility. Anonymity, which I can appreciate as a largely anonymous internet poster, provides a false sense of security and some personal distance from the word and the writer. But it also distances readers from one's works, hinders conversation, encourages discomfort and suspicion in others, and generally relegates otherwise intelligent analysis null and void.

A name and a personal history lends weight to one's words. Seneca's writings are defined by Seneca. Hemingway's by Hemingway. Van Creveld's by Van Creveld. A rose by any other name doesn't smell as sweet. Just try handing a woman a dozen, bright red roses, introducing them as "syphilis sticks" and see how well that works out for you.

Fabius, the declaration found at the bottom of your articles, however romantic, is a fallacy.

I wish you'd found a warmer reception here, but I can't blame anyone for their dislike of what many must see as an affectation. I find your articles interesting and not entirely lacking in credibility, however, both your anonymity and your chosen persona concern me. I remember the historical Fabius not as "Maximus" but by his more famous moniker: Cunctator. And while his delaying tactics serviced him well when waging a war against Hannibal, they aren't serving you equally well now. Rather, they are cultivating consternation in your peers rather than your enemies.

I am further reminded that it took an altogether different sort of personality to win the Second Punic War. Perhaps Scipio Africanus, a man not afraid of putting his person in harm's way, might make a better historical template.

In any case, I'll continue to read your articles, but I'm afraid the lack of anonymity amongst your peers will continue, quite rightly, to lend greater credibility to their criticisms. You're an intelligent man. Surely the absurdity of having men like David Kilcullen answering to 4GW's very own version of Keyser Söze isn't lost on you.