The 4GW Festival of Fabius Maximus

[Fabius Maximus]

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…

[goesh]

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.

[Fabius Maximus]

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…

[slapout9]

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

[Fabius Maximus]

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.

[slapout9]

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.

[goesh]

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.