thanks, Global Scout
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.
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.Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus
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”.
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.
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
Brief intro
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.
let's try again with Stan!
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.
Subject As Above
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
Insert Catchy Phrase from your previous posts here
Hello FM !
FM, I stand corrected…my apologies. Your post to Goesh was accurate and a tad conceded.
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.That was directed at Global Scout, not you. I’m a Soldier and not into quoting myself.
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
good, can we finally kill this thread?
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.
Don't wear out your welcome...
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
Forsaking The Fire Watch Ribbon
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.
Ad hominem attacks vs. rational debate
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)
I swore not to post in this thread....
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....
Example is better than precept.
I swore not to post in this thread, also...
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.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Plugging the Gap(s)
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 !
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...
Last edited by Stan; 11-13-2007 at 08:32 PM. Reason: confusion with real O-5s and other O-4s
4GW, like RMA, is a Self-Digging, Self-Filling Hole in the Ground
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.
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.
Last edited by Sage; 11-14-2007 at 07:29 PM. Reason: Grammar
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks