William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[Ken White]

containment and the like expressed by Historians and Political Scientists based on their readings.

As one who was an adult predominately engaged with and strongly interested in 'national security' but who also worked in various civilian enterprises and lived in several areas of the nation throughout the entire period, the consistent take of American attitudes expressed in such histories is well off the mark IMO.

Much of the historical 'data' is of necessity derived from period writings and media or from interviews or 'oral history' from the anointed of the era. It has been my observation over the years that the majority of academics, writers and media persons, the "anointed," do not well understand the great unwashed in so called middle America and about whom they write. That shows in much current history of the period. They may get the big events about right, sort of have to do that, however, their perceptions of public beliefs and attitudes is general significantly skewed compared to my recollections. The "idealist" approach to foreign policy has always been present amongst the power structure in this nation, all ideologies -- it has almost never been present among the hoi polloi -- tolerated, yes but endorsed or even believed for a second -- no.

Spanier, for example, back in the day was basically a proponent of "exceptionalism" and decried the ignorance and isolationism of the masses who were willing to essentailly ignore Communism as a minor annoyance, which it was. The masses weren't nearly as stupid as he perceived...

All that to say: Some Americans buy into the BS both parties and all politicians and would be demagogues spew. Most do not. Never have, really.

Rather they are in fact amazingly tolerant of the many errors of the anointed...

(and yes, I've read the book. Not the latest iteration but some years ago. )

[slapout9]

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.

Bob's World,
I think your missing the point. Revolutionary Warfare finds Gaps ( Maneuver Warfare) in any society and exploits them, it doesn't create them. And it will always use both Violent and Non-Violent means. That is why I like the film, Griffen is irrelevant.

But Communism is not about taking over Governments it is about DESTROYING all forms of government, that was the final goal and that is what most people don't understand about it. The NAFTA treaty could have been written by Karl Marx himself, it destroys the legitimacy of the State and so does Islam to certain extent.

That is why I like the Jones theory. The counter-measure is Good government, always was. The American concept of a Mission based government has built in protections against any type of Insurgency, but the more people have the concept that Government is bad, and Government can't solve problems the more vulnerable we will become and the more we will descend into Communist/Corporate Feudalism.

Kind of an interesting view of Islam here, what do you think?
http://www.youtube.com/user/HISTROIKA

[Pete]

... the ignorance and isolationism of the masses who were willing to essentailly ignore Communism as a minor annoyance, which it was.

True, but the guy who coined the phrase "Acheson's cowardly college of containment" was elected president twice, although he didn't finish his second term.

[Steve Blair]

Much of the historical 'data' is of necessity derived from period writings and media or from interviews or 'oral history' from the anointed of the era. It has been my observation over the years that the majority of academics, writers and media persons, the "anointed," do not well understand the great unwashed in so called middle America and about whom they write. That shows in much current history of the period. They may get the big events about right, sort of have to do that, however, their perceptions of public beliefs and attitudes is general significantly skewed compared to my recollections. The "idealist" approach to foreign policy has always been present amongst the power structure in this nation, all ideologies -- it has almost never been present among the hoi polloi -- tolerated, yes but endorsed or even believed for a second -- no.

I'd say that's because, Ken, too many current writers have bought into the media perpetuation of polls as actually reflecting widely-held opinions as opposed to their snapshot of the (possible) feelings of the 200 or so people who actually answered the phone. I've noticed that those sort of sweeping generalizations aren't as common in histories written about periods before widespread opinion polling.

[Ken White]

True, but the guy who coined the phrase "Acheson's cowardly college of containment" was elected president twice, although he didn't finish his second term.

is almost totally driven by domestic political party politics. As you pointed out elsewhere, rhetoric is rhetoric, WW III would be a different problem.

That guy knew that at the time, he said what he said simply to make his political opponents look wimpy. That sort of worked -- mostly because his predecessor had set the stage for that belief. Note that caused 42 and 44 to take actions they did not wish to take to in failed attempts to assuage that concern.

The fascinating thing is that guy got elected to that second term with pretty full knowledge by the American voters of what he had 'done' and then was forced to leave early -- also due almost entirely to domestic political party politics and not to what he had 'done' -- the Voters went along pretty much because he was guilty of an excess of arrogance, an American No-No.

I think the uniformed White House Secret Service / EPS detail uniforms (below) had more to do with it than any illegal acts.

Seeing a half dozen big beefy guys in that get up brought on massive guffaws nationwide. This was the only pic I could find -- I guess the SS didn't want to be embarrassed and gathered and destroyed all the photos they could...

I do believe yesterday was a gentle nudge by those American voters to remind both parties that communism isn't a big problem, minor crookedness isn't a big problem -- but arrogance is not acceptable. We'll see if DC is smart enough to take the hint. My bet is no...

[slapout9]

A native American Elder explains the first level that Boyd talks about....the Moral level. There is some chit chat at the start but it gets really good.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9piIz...eature=related

[slapout9]

I do believe yesterday was a gentle nudge by those American voters to remind both parties that communism isn't a big problem, minor crookedness isn't a big problem -- but arrogance is not acceptable. We'll see if DC is smart enough to take the hint. My bet is no...

Except it ain't so. Communism Re-Branded as Collectivism is the main problem.

Marx had an some equations. C-M-C vs. M-C-M. I will focus on the second one M=money and C=commodities. The new Corporate /Communist headquarters is the The Federal Reserve. What did the Fed just do? They printed a bunch of money out of nothing and gave it to the Bankers(Capitalist) who used it to buy existing commodities which will drive up prices, which will result in more money going to the concentrated non elected, non accountable elite. And because the Fed is not accountable to Government it doesn't matter who got elected, because the goal of Communism is and always was the destruction of National Sovereignty(Government accountability to the people within a geographic area).

[Ken White]

So is what you said essentially so. Two different things.

My point was that nudge was to avoid efforts and things like those that you cite. The point for both our stated issues is whether DC will tune in. I doubt it...

[Pete]

When Ken was a Corporal you had to know how to use a clutch in order to bring about a paradigm shift.

[slapout9]

So is what you said essentially so. Two different things.

My point was that nudge was to avoid efforts and things like those that you cite. The point for both our stated issues is whether DC will tune in. I doubt it...

Yes sir, except I think there is going to be some sparks this time. Rand Paul has already said he has more in common with Dennis Kuncinich than with the Republican party Both are Constitutional Americans....the Republi-DeCrats hate people that actually have morals

Ron Paul (Rand's father) is probably going to get to chair the Audit the Fed Committee and if that happens and the American people see Who and What is really going on at the Fed.....well it's gonna be a great day. Time some music. "Great Day To Be Alive " by Travis Tritt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcU2Hy3upBg

[Ken White]

Now that the Fed prints what it wants when it wants, thus encouraging the Mint to mint what it wants when it wants, he has a pair of quarters, hind and fore. Ah, progress...

[Pete]

Everone was poor back then. Even Adlai Stevenson had a hole in the sole of his shoe.

[Pete]

Everone was poor back then. Even Adlai Stevenson had a hole in the sole of his shoe.

DA Form 2028
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO PUBLICATIONS AND BLANK FORMS
February 1974

Change first word of first line, "everone" to "everyone."

Nothing follows.
End of message.

[Pete]

adlaiblog.jpg

That's Adlai Stevenson in 1952, the Democratic candidate for president that year, with the famous hole in the sole of his shoe. Badges of a shoe with a hole in it became a campaign button for his supporters, including my Mom, who had one.

In a biography of Stevenson I read that when he was a teenager he accidently shot a close friend with a .22 rifle -- I believe the guy died, but I might be wrong about that. It was a tube-feed .22 with a dent in the tube that had prevented a round that was inside from properly feeding into the chamber. The incident may help to explain Stevenson's unaggressive and self-effacing personality

[slapout9]

Really good article on the Moral Level of war based on The Boyd Theory. Has some nice Venn diagrams of what it would look like.

http://www.dnipogo.org/fcs/pdf/4gw_a...imperative.pdf

[Polarbear1605]

Man, Oh Man! Where do I start with this one? I think it is commendable that the author of this article (Fourth Generation Warfare and the Moral Imperative) used Boyd’s Patterns of Conflict to make his point on his moral aspects of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW). Yes, the moral aspects of war are important but remember; 4GW or not; it is still WAR. I also feel this article is a good example of how the Boyd Theory (and remember Boyd called it a discourse vs theory) can be undermined with some very bad politically correct conclusions and how good doctrine can become bad dogma. I also understand that this article is dated being published in 2003. At that time, the strategic gaps in the Iraq War were becoming as obvious as large football size sink holes on the Washington DC Beltway. For the author to jump into that demonstrates his own degree of moral courage.
In my opinion, the author would be wise to remember that wars are to be fought rigorously because a rigorously fought war is a short war and a short war makes for a moral war (if such a thing exists). The article gives me the impression that the author is professing the strategy of “Benevolent Assimilation”. Guess what! We tried that and it didn’t work because it gives the enemy too much maneuver room. If someone wants to challenge that, be my guest…but first take a look at the Balangiga Massacre (and maybe even compared it to Wanat).
I know, I know…calm down bear, calm down!
The author basically opens with Boyd’s Patterns of Conflict slide 122; ESSENCE OF MORAL CONFLICT. He concludes with his own “adaptation of John Boyd’s “essence of moral warfare” graphic” (ah…excuse me but that’s Colonel Boyd to you there LTC Wilcox). In slide 122, Col Boyd is evolving the “ideas and experiences of Clausewitz, Balack, and Falls to the Essence of Moral Conflict. The “essence of moral conflict” (according to Col Boyd) is to “create, exploit, and magnify…Menace…Uncertainty…Mistrust” in order to “Surface, fear, anxiety, and alienation in order to generate many non-cooperative centers of gravity”… with the aim to…”Destroy moral bonds that permit an organic whole to exist”.
Later in the Patterns brief Col Boyd concludes (slide 125): that the “Counterweights” to Menace, Uncertainty and Mistrust are “Initiative…Adaptability….Harmony” and also makes his point about the simultaneous aim (Cheng and Chi):
“Aim
Pump-up friction via negative factors to breed fear, anxiety, and alienation in order to generate many non-cooperative centers of gravity, as well as subvert those that adversary depends upon, thereby sever moral bonds that permit adversary to exist as an organic whole.
Simultaneously,
build-up and play counterweights against negative factors to diminish internal friction, as well as surface courage, confidence, and esprit, thereby make possible the human interactions needed to create moral bonds that permit us, as an organic whole, to shape and adapt to change.”

The author’s conclusion which is different from Col Boyd’s is that the essence of moral war is “Create, Exploit, and Magnify: Security…Certainty…Trust” with the idea…”Make life routine and ordered with guaranteed freedoms and the expectation of justice. System of governing that creates trust”…with the “Aim” to “Create moral bonds that permit an organic whole to exist.” This conclusion sounds a bit sophomoric to me when we are discussing 4GW and/or counter insurgence.
Other sophomoric conclusions:
“Army Special Forces ought to be our military force of choice, and we should withdraw our conventional forces as quickly as possible”. I thought that basic problem in Iraq was we didn’t have enough conventional forces to secure an occupied country?
“Human source intelligence (HUMINT) is the key to combating 4GW,” and the same can be said about counter insurgencies, or any other type of war. The real question is why was this ignored in Iraq?... in Afghanistan?
“Our Chaplains ought to get smart on the Koran and teach the soldiers how to I understand what it really says.” When the vehicle is not suitable for the terrain, how is changing a lug nut going to help?
“At the strategic level, the US must come to grips with the Palestinian issue and assist in its resolution.” …and I thought only beauty queens talked about world peace.
The biggest glaring mistake here is that Col Boyd would have never stated that the counterweight to uncertainty is “Certainty”. You cannot create something you will never have on any battle field but you can create “Adaptability: Power to adjust or change in order to cope with m new or unforeseen circumstances”. The same holds true that the counter weight for Menace is not Security but “Initiative: Internal drive to think and take action without being urged”; and the counterweight for Mistrust is not Trust but “Harmony: Interaction of apparently disconnected events or entities in a connected way”.
Slap, there is a lot of this stuff out there, it starts off great but leads you down a miserable dogmatic trail.

[slapout9]

Slap, there is a lot of this stuff out there, it starts off great but leads you down a miserable dogmatic trail.

That is why I put it(article) up as a target and see who shoots at it I thought you were mad because it was written by an Army Guy and not a Marine


I too thought he started off well and then he began to drift. I do think the Moral level is most important because it gives you courage to fight in uncertain environments when you know what and why you are fighting in the first place, that is the true moral bond of the organic whole IMO.

And when you have the true Moral high ground you should fight with all your might and get it over with as soon as possible. Big wars or Small wars don't matter that much to me....it is LONG wars that we seem to have the most trouble with. What do think Boyd would say about that? I don't think he would like them myself butt?????

[Dayuhan]

And when you have the true Moral high ground you should fight with all your might and get it over with as soon as possible.

In most wars all sides are convinced that they hold the "true moral high ground"; that's why they fight. Osama and Omar unquestionably believe that they hold the "true moral high ground". Who decides which "moral high ground" is the "true" one anyway?

[slapout9]

who decides which "moral high ground" is the "true" one anyway?

combat!

[Polarbear1605]

That is why I put it(article) up as a target and see who shoots at it I thought you were mad because it was written by an Army Guy and not a Marine

Well Slap, target or trap, you now know what bear bait looks like.
I really do not care if this guy is Army or Marine, in my opinion he is selling PC horse puckky based on bad analysis and shallow thinking. I will still stand by this warning: Watch out for those service publications, they tend to reinforce the current institutional propaganda (and the Marine Corps Gazette, as a rule, is not an exception).

Big wars or Small wars don't matter that much to me....it is LONG wars that we seem to have the most trouble with. What do think Boyd would say about that? I don't think he would like them myself butt?????

Remember, the “Patterns of Conflict” Discourse was born out of a study Boyd started as a LIC Study (Low Intensity Conflict, that’s what we called it back in the 70s). Boyd’s method: to take things apart, find the pieces that worked, and put it back together again is noticeably absent in the article (Wow! Look what I built! What do we call it? Maybe a…Snowmobile!). LTC Wilcox had the right references but still got it wrong (18 Taken from Franklin C. Spinney presentation on Boyd, “Evolutionary Epistemology”) and (9 Montgomery C. Meigs, “Unorthodox Thoughts about Asymmetric Warfare”, Parameters (Summer 2003) pp. 4-5.) (You need to read those, BTW). Because the author didn’t use the method, another thing that bugged me…most of his examples were negative…he offered no positive “pieces”, yet he found the moral “Holy Grail”.

What Boyd would say about the LONG war is in Patterns…go back and review Patterns again. Moral Essence is extremely important, and it is so important you/we cannot afford to get it wrong. It is much bigger than just the sound bit of “the moral high ground”…it is systemic and it is “Cheng and Chi”; whatever works for us must also work against the enemy. Whenever Boyd gives a definition, it has two parts, for example, again (as Bear stomps his foot):
“Pump-up friction via negative factors to breed fear, anxiety, and alienation in order to generate many non-cooperative centers of gravity, as well as subvert those that adversary depends upon, thereby sever moral bonds that permit adversary to exist as an organic whole.
Simultaneously,
build-up and play counterweights against negative factors to diminish internal friction, as well as surface courage, confidence, and esprit, thereby make possible the human interactions needed to create moral bonds that permit us, as an organic whole, to shape and adapt to change.”
IMO, if we followed the thinking of the article, you and I would be discussing how a platoon of pilgrims, totting bibles, got to Baghdad as part of the 2007 surge, after all, what is more moral than a pilgrim.