Chalmers Johnson: ”The Last Days of the American Republic.”

gg3

A conventional military force can do two things well: One, attack or defend against other conventional military forces. Two, use its logistical capabilities to provide emergency aid in natural disasters. Trying to use it for other tasks (e.g. counter-insurgency warfare, nation-building, etc.) is like trying to mix concrete with a hammer and only proves the stupidity of the civilian leadership.

An insurgency is like a weed with deep roots: for every active fighter there are numerous individuals at various stages of recruitment from "sympathizer" to "fighter-in-training". The recruits are still indistinguishable from civilians. There are two ways to successfully defeat an insurgency. One, provide economic aid that gives civilians a stake in normalcy, thereby drying up the recruitment pool. Two, conduct all-out genocide against the entire population (which can be done via a conventional military but at the cost of breaking its spirit in the process).

A war is an action where one country attacks another with the intention of defeating the latter's military and removing its government from power. We won the actual war in Iraq in three weeks, and our military did its customarily superb job, quickly accomplishing the goals of defeating the Iraqi army and removing the old regime from power. (Yes, the war was based on a set of lies and was therefore illegal, but responsiblity for that rests with the civilian government.)

What has been going on since that point has been an occupation and an insurgency, which has been an unmitigated disaster for which our civilian leadership is also 100% responsible.

And by the way, the cost of Iraq to date, of about $400 billion, could have instead built 400 gigawatts (400,000 megawatts) of climate-clean nuclear and wind power: 320 new reactors, and 800 new wind farms each having 100 utility-scale wind turbines.

---

The US military has a long tradition of professionalism, i.e. not messing with the civilian government. (Would you prefer a military that steps in any time it doesn't like the result of an election?)

However that being said, there has been extensive discussion over the past five years, among officers as well as enlisted, of the following subject: What do you do when the part of your oath about obeying the orders of the President of the United States, comes into conflict with the part of your oath about defending the United States Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic...?

Bottom line is, about 60% of the officers would appear to be "loyalists" (i.e. loyal to the Regime) and about 40% would appear to be hardcore "patriots" (i.e. defend the Constitution). In the event of serious domestic tyranny, the military would split 60-40 in that manner.

The 40% of hardcore patriots would be counting on civilian support, typically in noncombat roles that were nonetheless exposed to risk. (This, by the way, is where the 2nd Amendment comes into the picture.)

---

As for me, I hope the hell we find a way to save the Republic without going through that or even going through national bankruptcy. This starts with you and I and all of us, making darn sure we go to the voting booth and that our votes are counted.

This year, vote as if your life depends on it!

Doly · Expert Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 4034

Livewire713 · Coal Joined: Sep 30, 2005 Posts: 6

highlander

Does anybody have a real example where appeasing insurgents actually led to a ceasation of hostilities?
_________________
This is where everybody puts profound words written by another...or not so profound words written by themselves
Highlander 2007