Zenpundit Comments

Zenpundit is always worth reading at his eponymous blog or at Chicago Boyz. Both are already on my blogroll. Imagine my surprise when only a day after he surveyed the work of Fabius Maximus, esteemed Roman general, at his site he mentioned some of my recent 4GW postings.

Wolf Pangloss has a series of interesting posts on 4GW and information operations that readers might care to consider in light of the discussion that has ensued in the comments section of the post on the strategic analysis of Fabius Maximus.

The comments consist of a dispute between those who appear to use 4GW theory in a pro-Iraq-war way and those who appear to use 4GW theory in an anti-Iraq-war way. I see myself as neither. Instead, I’m one of those whose intent is to use the theoretical framework to influence those who can be influenced when they are ready (if not before). This is not restricted to the military itself, to military thinkers (Fabius Maximus‘ audience), or to the enemy and the population that supports the enemy in this war, but also to the population around us and its institutions. We in the West have (at least in public) lost touch with our moral and martial traditions, banished from the common discourse by the nihilism of multiculturalism within the academy, the courts, and media. Whether we, the sovereign people of the west, choose to go to war or not, we must clear the multicultural fog from our perceptors before we make that choice. That requires a new Hercules to clean the Augean Stables of this age.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Advertisements

3 responses to “Zenpundit Comments

  1. “We in the West have (at least in public) lost touch with our moral and martial traditions, banished from the common discourse by the nihilism of multiculturalism within the academy, the courts, and media.”

    I strongly agree with this, although from a different perspective. Have you read Allen Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind? It is imho the best analysis of how American culture has drifted off its foundation. The first half is a fun look at the symptoms; the second a deep look at how this happened.

    I like this description, which I believe fits me also (great expression; you are an excellent writer): “I’m one of those whose intent is to use the theoretical framework to influence those who can be influenced when they are ready (if not before). “

  2. AQ and Iran/NK/Pakistan/Syria/Saudi Arabia are sort of like different fronts or rather flanks in a battle. When one flank weakens, that doesn’t mean the battle is automatically ours. It simply means there is an opportunity.

    It might even end up with mutual flanks, where AQ might get outflanked by the US but the US would at the same time be outflanked by the Iranians and their allies. The middle would then represent the actual territory of the US and their enemies.

    To use a convenient example, Hannibal’s double envelopment tactic worked even though his own center was dissolved by Roman forces.

  3. We are not ready to take on all of them at once (except with nukes). Luckily they aren’t strong enough to take on us either (because of the nukes).

    This gives us some time to gather up our strength, and part of our goal must be to stir up passions in ourselves and focus them using the traditions we must also revitalize. I fear unless we are careful, certainly if we do nothing and wait to be stirred up by spectacular attacks from the enemy, the traditions that are stirred up will not be the Christian traditions but the pagan traditions that preceded them or the totalitarian currents that killed so many in the 20th century, and I really don’t want to bring back the days of the old celtic and nordic gods with their demands for human sacrifice, or a new reich or soviet. Sure it might fend off the Jihad, but at what cost? A world ruled by Viking berserkers, Celtic headhunters, Nazi Waffen SS, Cheka, or Roman imperators would be no better than a world under sharia.

    None of those choices are free. They are all tied to a system of massive enslavement. None provide liberty to free men and women of property and responsibility.