How To Boyd Slap A Country
Maneuver Warfare theory states that one of it's goals is to generate confusion and disorder in the enemy system until it can no longer effectively respond. So how do you do that.
4 steps to do a Boyd Slap on a whole country:eek:
1-Demoralize
2-Destabilize
3-Crisis
4-Normalize
Link to video on how to brainwash a nation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZG...eature=related
What step is America in?
This is not a smart aleck answer...
We generate our own confusion and disorder on a daily basis, therefor we are constantly in all those states. That's a design feature, not a bug. :cool:
Of course, as it is a feature, the level of those states changes fairly frequently in an almost random pattern and it is my considered opinion that we concurrently and as is normal occupy all four states. However, by a slight margin our highest state at this time is just below 'Destabilize' to which we recently moved from full 'Demoralize.'
The question now is whether we will descend to 'Crisis' or raise to 'Normalize.' That will likely take about a year or two to be accurately determined.
My belief and bet would be we're headed yet again to 'Normalize.'
Gotta love Roller Coasters...:D
I meant what I said in accordance with the normal US definition of the words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
I know what you said but did you mean that? The 4 steps are from a Soviet Subversion Agent, their Perspective and Definitions are very different than the American version and definitions. Point being from the Soviet perspective step 4 is.......Martial Law:eek:
I'm not a Soviet Subversion Agent, just a dumb American. :wry:
We're not anywhere near Martial Law barring something totally unforeseen.:eek:
As an aside, I'll see your Video and raise you four books: “The Sword and the Shield,” by Vasili Mitrokhin, LINK; “KGB” by Christopher Andrew; "The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World" by Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin; and “Perjury” by Allen Weinstein. The first in particualr tells how said Soviet subversion types neatly wormed into the US Education milieu over three generations to bring about their version of "normalize." That effort that may yet be successful.
Or it may lead to proving correct the definition of 'Grapeshot' by Ambrose Bierce (so you may not be off too far...). :D
The understanding was good, it was the manipulation I found troublesome
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
Bob's World, you really,really need to watch the whole thing. A lot of what you talk about he talks about. The most important part is that the "New Kind of Warfare" was always composed of 2 sections... Violent and Non-Violent. Also everything he talks about actually happened and in that sense it is propaganda but it is also true. Check the sources and references he talks about they are still there.
What we are calling Terrorist movements(or what ever we are calling it now) are know different than the Communist movement. The methods are exactly the same both Violent and Non Violent and both were and are financed by Rich Special Interest groups. The Re-branding of Communism is what we are now calling Globalization....no borders, no countries, no rules, no governments, it is the same thing.
Slap, agree, in many ways his understanding was spot on, particularly in regards to not becoming overly focused on violence as the one measure of insurgency, that often, in fact, insurgency is very subtle and or non-violent in its execution.
It was his "blame shifting" PSYOP campaign that I found hard to swallow; and that is the same thing we do today. Back then we blamed our problems on communism and its proponents just as today we blame them on Islamism and its proponents. You can get a lot of Americans to buy into the line, even today, but particularly in '69/70 when this was apparently made, that the war in Vietnam was about expanding communism rather than liberating and unifying Vietnam from western colonialism. But it is a harder sell to then make the case that the rebellion that we call the American Civil Rights Movement was also about expanding communism and that the claims of discrimination were just overplayed propaganda by communist instigators to fire up the otherwise happy, satisfied African American populace. Pure and evil bull####.
A very similar dynamic is going on today, and yes, if we suppress violent approaches well, then it will likely seek non-violent approaches and likely prevail. Or if we take out AQ, another organization will emerge with a different ideology (still based in Islam, as that is the target populace) and new tactics, and may well prevail as well. It is not the leader, the organization, or the ideology that causes these conflicts. If the conditions of insurgency are not ripe within the target populace such efforts will fall flat. So the key metric that one has conditions of insurgency to deal with is when such efforts take root, in whatever from.
I wouldn't go so far as to call this guy the anti-Christ, but he is smart, knowledgeable, and convincingly effective in his delivery. But he is so dangerously wrong in how he then spins those talents to his purposes. He tells you what you want to hear, then he leads you where he wants you to go. I just advise caution, that's all. But he does make some great points, but you need to be well versed to sort them out. An audience that is not versed in the topic in advance would quickly be led down the primrose path he sets out for them. He absolves them of their sins, and then offers them salvation. Effective.
Pete, clearly 65 years of containment is not simple
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete
It was more complicated than that. During the first Eisenhower administration there was talk of rolling back Communism, but that ended when Soviet tanks entered Budapest in 1954. It's one thing to encourage dissent with propaganda and empty promises but quite another thing to start World War III.
By chance, a couple weeks ago I picked up a copy of "American Foreign Policy Since World War II" by John Spannier and Steven W. Hook. I was expecting a dry painful tome, but in fact, it was an easy and fascinating read. I highly recommend it, as it gives you the greater context and thinking that these events fell into, and how they shaped the ever-changing variations of "Containment."
1954 was indeed a big year. That is also the year that we resolved the Koreas in their current form and decided to partition Vietnam into a North and South along an armistice line, to pull forces to either side of the line and to conduct a nation-wide election in 1956 to decide who would govern the whole. (an election we later canceled after a massive campaign led by Lansdale to convince hundreds of thousands of Catholics to move south of the line, etc) But it was the kick in the nads delivered by the fall of our great ally and friend, Nationalist China in 1949; followed by the pure shock that Maoist China did not share our view of ourselves in regards to China, and in fact saw us as evil, that really set us on our heels. That is what drove the change of Containment from realist focus on soviet expansion to an idealist focus on containing the idea instead.