Thursday, September 4, 2008 43 Comments

How to occupy and govern a foreign country

I hate to interrupt a series, but I'm slightly worried that the titles alone of the last two posts may have scared away some of UR's red-state readers.

Obviously, if you read all the way to the bottom of the screen, let alone the rest of the blog, you realize that I am desperately fond of America, especially its middle or "flyover" section, although this fondness is based on little more than Mrs. Moldbug's Ohioan relations. And since we can expect Sarah Palin, by simple extrapolation, to be a serious candidate for UN Secretary-General by at least 2017 (perhaps indeed our first actual ruling SecGen, a prospect obviously fantastic but nonetheless enticing), I had better talk no more trash about the lady.

But I still reserve the right to refer to the red-staters, collective, as "Amerikaners." Like their lexical analogues, the Amerikaners are a cultural group of European stock, but their present-day traditions cannot be easily connected with any group in modern Europe. We cannot say this of the Universalist Eloi of the coasts, whose connection to the English Dissenters and their secular, liberal heirs has been continuous since day one. For example, American traditionalist or "fundamentalist" Christianity, which is nominally Protestant but seems almost Catholic next to the thoroughly Quakerized blue states, has historical roots which are quite obscure and thoroughly American. And besides, I can't imagine any Amerikaner who wouldn't dig this.

The future is what it is. No one can predict it. But if we could ask the future questions, and it actually answered back, and we could somehow know that it wasn't lying, we could become far more confident in our expectations. If I had some such magic 8-ball, my question would be: when will the Amerikaners decide that they've had enough?

Sixty (60) percent of American voters call themselves "conservative." Voting as an organized, disciplined bloc, it should be straightforward for them to defeat and destroy the remaining 40 - let's say 20% Eloi, 20% Morlock. Moreover, if such a majority demands a comprehensive reconstruction of government, not just a cosmetic change among a few ceremonial officials who have no real executive authority, the Eloi and Morlocks can hardly resist them. Especially since the American military class is, almost by definition, Amerikaner.

In retrospect, any such reconstruction would be accepted by all, of whatever caste. The Eloi will see the light, as they always do. As Osama put it: they like the strong horse. In an Amerikaner republic, Eloi will elbow each other out of the way to eat overpriced American food, wear marked-up knockoffs of American prole clothes, live in actual old American buildings, etc, etc.

Of course the Eloi already do these things. But in our New Albion, they will do them with flags, God and guns. (Possibly even Confederate flags.) And the Morlocks will be forced to deal - as they already are. (Although once the bar is reset, I suspect that less force will be required.)

New Albion will expose and exhume ad nauseam the crimes of the old regime, its predecessor USG. Its satellite states in Britain, Europe, Latin America, Asia and Africa will receive full independence under classical international law. The substance of the change will be obvious. The old progressive history books will be recalled. New reactionary ones will appear. (No burning or banning is necessary. Few Albioners will have the time or energy for 20th-century progressive cant.) And Sarah Palin will put together a small edition of her family's wise old Alaska sayings, bound in red, white and blue, which fits nicely in the lapel of your blazer.

You may, or may not, be thankful that this is not going to happen. It is not going to happen because the Amerikaners are not organized enough to make it happen. Given infinite time, they will certainly get organized, which is why I say "when" rather than "if." But time is not on the Amerikaners' side. Their horse has been weakening for the last century.

The Amerikaners' problem is that they're governed by their enemies, the progressives, who have converted democratic politics into a reality show and rule through the extended civil service. The civil service is nominally responsible to the elected arms, but the latter would have to put up a terrible fight to even touch them. And progressives fight the peril of a "populist" democratic reaction with two slow, but inevitably lethal, strangulation tactics: subsidized progressive education, and Morlock voter importation.

The last quasi-successful Amerikaner reaction was the "Return to Normalcy" of the 1920s. Considering the royal ass-whupping the Amerikaners have been taking since then, "normalcy" (which, in classic Amerikaner style, is not even a word) is an awful mild description of the converse. But not even a gentle, Harding-Coolidge style restoration is a real possibility today.

The fatal flaw in the democratic mind of the Amerikaner, or "conservative," is that he believes that his country's political system basically works and is the best in the world. It has just gone slightly off the rails in the last few decades. But it can be set right with a minor corrective operation, ie, replacing a few ceremonial officials with good, clean-minded, child-bearing Amerikaners.

This belief system, which has no correlation with reality, is at the heart of "conservatism." It shows no sign of going away. The fatal allure of insisting that right-wing conservatism is really the true democratic liberalism, the other having strayed, is an irresistible anglerfish lure. (The Rev. Dabney will set you straight.)

Therefore, the Amerikaners are unlikely to organize and act effectively until their electoral position has declined to the point at which a democratic restoration is not only nontrivial, but in fact impossible. At this point, USG will have imported tens if not hundreds of millions of new Third World residents. It will be obvious that military government is the only route to any kind of American restoration. The inevitable alternative is a North America indistinguishable from the rest of the Third World.

Have you been to the Third World? The armed forces will have to act. Let's hope they can all get it together to be on the same side.

A military restoration may have some advantages over a democratic one. For one, the issue of democracy is settled at the start, or at least should be. A transition from democracy to democracy may have some nontrivial restorative effects, but come on, people. Ideally this needs to be done just once.

Any transition of sovereign responsibility to the military, however temporary, is dangerous. Guns kill people, etc. And just from an aesthetic standpoint, it is much more elegant, and seems much more final, for constitutional democracy to terminate itself democratically and constitutionally. Pass an amendment which transfers sovereignty to the new authorities, and the game is over. The security forces will certainly be enthusiastic in their obedience.

But for Amerikaners, who are already second-class citizens in their own country (it is a testament to the level of morphine in the drip that only 16% of Americans believe that an Obama administration will "favor blacks over whites" - what is he, Ward Connerly on a diet? But not that any other administration would differ...) the problem is pertinent enough that it should probably be pursued in parallel, like the Manhattan Project.

A democratic reaction is the uranium bomb. A military reaction is the plutonium bomb. Two great tastes that go great together. Today, we'll be working on the plutonium side of the building.

How do you start a military coup? Start twenty years ago. Form informal groups of reactionary cadets in the military academies. Stay in touch with one another. Ally for promotion. And do nothing else until the moment is right; then strike irresistibly and with decisive force. Rocket science it ain't. Edward Luttwak's little book is a little dated, but it may still be useful.

Obviously, I can't do anything to assist (or hinder) this process. Perhaps there are already small Mencist cells forming at West Point. But probably not. Since UR specializes in candid and historically informed discussions of government policy, though, it certainly can't hurt to discuss a subject which I'd like to think would interest most military men at the moment.

Today, we'll look at the problem of occupying and governing a foreign country. I think it would be fun to use real countries, circa now, for our case study. Let's call these countries "Great Britain" and "Iran." If Britain wished to occupy and govern Iran, let's say starting in early 2010 (it's always good to have some time to prepare), how would it go about doing so? Assume, for the purposes of the problem, that Iran cannot build a nuclear weapon by then.

Of course, the conventional wisdom is that it would be completely impossible for Great Britain to occupy and govern Iran. It is even unthinkable for the US military to occupy and govern Iran. The US can't even really handle Afghanistan, and it is much bigger and tougher than the UK. And when you look at what happened when Britain tried to occupy and govern a single city in Iraq - Basra - we see that the conventional wisdom is, as usual, exactly right.

So let's say that our occupier is not the present government of the British Isles - ie, Whitehall - but a successor regime, Young Britain. Young Britain has declared independence from the United States, withdrawn from the "international community," discarded Whitehall and its Hanoverian sham-kings, and restored the Stuart line under Joseph Wenzel, with his father Alois as Prince Regent. Otherwise, its military and financial resources are unchanged.

Prince Alois, for some reason known only to himself, chooses to occupy and govern Iran, starting in the spring of 2010. Being a good Swiss businessman, Prince Alois wishes to not just succeed militarily with the venture, but actually make it turn a profit. Out of the goodness of his good Swiss heart, he will split the take 50-50 with the present citizens of Iran, each of whom will receive a non-voting, but dividend-paying, share in the profits of government. The Royal Armed Forces will rake in 25%, the citizens of Young Britain 15%, and the Prince Regent himself will be satisfied with a humble tenth.

The question is: can he do it? If so, how? Please note that this is a strictly military question. It has nothing to do with the question of whether this project reflects well, or poorly, on Prince Alois and Young Britain from a moral standpoint. Prince Alois is a true (or "absolute") sovereign, and the ethical burden of the decision rests entirely on him. And needless to say, the obedience of the military is absolute.

The conventional wisdom, of course, is the same inside the military as outside it: any such adventure is entirely impossible, and doomed to end in failure.

This is because government is only possible with the consent of the governed. Ie: success is only possible if the British armed forces can win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people. But since the Iranian people are deeply nationalistic and committed to the liberty of a free and independent Iran, they will never accept recolonization by the hated British, their former imperial overlords.

This is not thinking. It is cant. Anyone can train himself to utter these phrases, and many have. The modern military profession is especially diligent in inculcating this mindset, because its personnel are in an especially good position to see through it. But a lie is a lie. Its lifespan cannot be infinite. Truth seeps in through every crack.

The easiest way to demonstrate the truth is to explain how Young Britain can profitably occupy and govern Iran. (For convenience, let's call the new polity "New Persia.")

We all agree that Old Britain is not capable of turning present Iran into New Persia. We will see how Young Britain can. Understanding the tactics which it will use will shed considerable light on the difference between Young and Old Britains, and this will lead us back to the nature and origin of the cant.

Before Prince Alois occupies Iran, of course, he has to invade it. That is: he has to compel its present government to surrender unconditionally and accept the occupation. By military standards, I can't imagine this process being difficult in the slightest. The British military may not have as many personnel as the Iranian, but its equipment is far superior. The RAF can dominate Iranian airspace, destroy air defenses, and demolish all force concentrations with B-52 strikes from Diego Garcia. Even if an amphibious operation is needed, one British armored division on Iranian soil is victory.

Perhaps it will be slightly more difficult for Britain to invade Iran than it was for the US to invade Iraq. But the invasion of Iraq (as opposed to the subsequent occupation) was, by any fair historical standard, a cakewalk. I don't think this point is particularly disputed.

This leaves us with occupation and government. Our supposedly unsolvable problems.

While I am not an expert in the subject, my solution has been constructed with the assistance of four - two historians and two practitioners. Our historians are James Anthony Froude and Elie Kedourie. Our practitioners are Lord Cromer and Roger Trinquier. What this posse doesn't know about colonialism is known only to God.

Specifically, all Young British officers and administrators in New Persia are assigned the following reading list: Froude, The English in Ireland in the Eighteenth Century (Google Books: I, II, III); Cromer, Modern Egypt (Google Books: I, II); Trinquier, Modern Warfare (online); Kedourie, The Chatham House Version (Amazon).

But wait! Colonialism! Well, duh. Occupying and governing a foreign country is pretty much the definition of colonialism. Especially if the goal is not to "restore democracy," but to permanently institute a stable, responsible, effective and profitable administration. I suspect that New Persia will look a fair bit like Dubai, only bigger, richer, and with a better variety of weather. Dubai is more or less a survivor of the old British Empire. It is not far from Iran, and many Iranians indeed reside there. I suspect most are quite happy with it.

Let's start off with a passage from Kedourie that more or less tells the story. This is from the essay The Kingdom of Iraq: A Retrospect, describing the Sharifian monarchy of Iraq that was installed by the British in 1921 and overthrown in 1958. Needless to say, next to the present American puppet regime, the Kingdom of Iraq looks like the Prussia of Frederick the Great. But Kedourie's words still apply, squared:
When we consider the long experience of Britain in the government of eastern countries, and set beside it the miserable polity which she bestowed on the populations of Mesopotamia, we are seized with rueful wonder. It is as though India and Egypt had never existed, as though Lord Cornwallis, Munro and Metcalf, John and Henry Lawrence, Milner and Cromer had attempted in vain to bring order, justice and security to the east, as though Burke and Macaulay, Bentham and James Mill had never addressed their intelligence to the problems and prospects of oriental government. We can never cease to marvel how, in the end, all this was discarded, and Mesopotamia, conquered by British arms, was buffeted to and fro between the fluent salesmanship of Lloyd George, the intermittent, orotund and futile declamations of Lord Curzon, the hysterical mendacity of Colonel [T. E.] Lawrence, the brittle cleverness and sentimental enthusiasms of Miss [Gertrude] Bell, and the resigned acquiescence of Sir Percy Cox. What are we to say when we find a State Paper presented by a secretary of state to Parliament in 1929, declaring without the suspicion of doubt or the shadow of a qualification that 'it seemed evident... that Iraq, judged by the criteria of internal security, sound public finances, and enlightened administration, would be in every way fit for admission to the League of Nations by 1932', and fit, therefore, to exercise the unfettered sovereignty which independent states possess? What, save that the style of State Papers, like so much else, suffered during the first world war irremediable degradation?
Lord Cromer, a grown man named "Evelyn," governed an Arab country much like Iraq for 25 years, at minimal cost and without significant violence, and did such a good job that Egypt became an international boho destination for the likes of Lawrence Durrell, a sort of Edwardian Prague. His memoir is free on the Internet. He may not have been an American, but he wrote in English. And I'll bet there are fewer than a hundred people in the US military and the State Department combined who have even heard of the man, much less read his book. Those who forget history cannot even hope to repeat it.

Of course, military technology has changed. In our favor. The basic tools of the revolutionary - bombs and assassinations - are timeless. Cromer had no air force, no armor, no helicopters. He had five thousand troops to occupy a country of twenty million. He had no problem at all. Or, to put it another way, his main problem was other Englishmen. For Young Britain, this won't be an issue.

We have already laid out the pattern of anticolonialist cant. To the anticolonialist, the progressive, the only way to govern a country is to persuade its people to fall in love with its government. They say "hearts and minds," but what they really mean is "hearts." Anticolonialists believe that the hearts of the poor are always for sale, a theory leading to the concept we know as "aid." If this showed any evidence of working, it might be necessary to argue with it.

Young Britain's occupation of New Persia will be based on a very different metaphor: grasping the nettle. This is an old English metaphor known to all colonialists. As the rhyme goes:
Tender-handed, grasp the nettle, and it stings you for your pains.
Grasp it like a man of mettle, and it soft as silk remains.
(Supposedly the toxin injectors of the stinging nettle are activated by a light brush but deactivated by firm pressure. I have not tested this personally.)

The substance of the nettle metaphor comes from a theory of civil war that is the polar opposite of the "hearts and minds" theory. Under the nettle theory, insurgencies happen because, and only because, the insurgents perceive a chance of winning.

Like all men, they fight for glory, power, and plunder. Any government can prevent and/or terminate all internal violence by making it clear to its opponents that victory is impossible, and the only results of any struggle will be ignominy and imprisonment at best, mutilation and death at worst. To convey this message is to grasp the nettle "like a man of mettle."

The solution to the problem of colonial government, then, is to govern: to enforce order instantly, completely and without compromise, tolerating no challenge to the occupying authority whether military or political, religious or criminal. Lord Cromer, for instance, would have been simply aghast at the fact that the US occupation authorities tolerated not only native political parties, but parties with armed paramilitary wings. It has taken five years to mostly, sort of, pretty much correct this amazing elementary howler.

The essential tactic in a colonial occupation - it may even provide a good working definition of the word "colonialism" - is the construction of mixed authorities in which foreign officers and administrators exercise executive authority over native troops and civil servants, respectively. Mixed authorities work because they combine the independence and professionalism of foreign leadership with the low cost of native manpower.

It is instructive, in a grimly hilarious way, to note the assiduousness of American "liberations" in avoiding the construction of mixed authorities. Americans are always providing "advice" and "aid" to their free, sovereign and independent little brown brothers. They are never actually managing same. That might actually work, which would be dangerous. Indeed the present state of quasi-success in parts of Iraq has been achieved by putting Iraqi quasi-soldiers on the American payroll, which does not allow management, precisely, but gives a certain leverage.

So. Young Britain invades Iran and suppresses organized military resistance. What next?

New Persia begins with the imposition of martial law, which will persist until complete stability has been attained and there is no threat of violence. No looting is tolerated. A strict curfew is enforced - no one is on the street after dark. British troops may shoot on sight to enforce these directives. These are normal procedures for any initial occupation.

The country is under the unified command of the British general. All remaining civil and military forces of the old Iranian regime are subject to his orders, as is everyone else in the country - native or foreigner. All foreigners need a military pass, revocable at any time, to remain in the country.

Terminating direct military occupation, in which British soldiers are used as policemen, is the first imperative. Soldiers make perfectly good police, but there are not enough of them. To balance the shortage of manpower, they must be free to respond with a level of aggression that is inappropriate in most civilian contexts. This is unavoidable in an early occupation, and in fact necessary to demonstrate dominance. But while it may not invite grievance reprisals as per the "hearts and minds" theory, it hardly projects a sense of overwhelming security.

So a new constabulary, staffed by Persians and administered by Britons (with a layer of bilingual natives in the middle), is the first order of business. As in India, British administrators can and should act as judges. Initial judicial processes should be quick and lawyerless. There is no clear line between insurgency and organized crime: neither can be smashed without smashing both. Other institutions of government can form around this core of fundamental security.

New Persia certainly has no continuing need for the old civil government and military forces of the Islamic Republic. Disbanding them will create a pool of unemployed workers, but idle hands are a resource, not a curse, for any vigorous administration. Many things need to be done. With Persian labor and British supervision, they will be.

Persia's borders need to be fenced and sealed. Her population needs to be reidentified, with DNA samples and iris scanning for every man, woman and child. Everyone's residence, occupation, and biographical details must be recorded. All weapons must be confiscated. There can be no dangerous voids between British grasp and Persian nettle. New Persia will be in the farthest possible condition from Mesopotamian anarchy.

All political organization is banned until further notice. Public assemblies, "demonstrations" and other mob phenomena are prohibited Riot Act style. The crowd is ordered to disperse; if it does not, it is fired upon. Preferably with nonlethal weapons, if available, but the unprofitable nature of the activity remains clearly apparent. With effective crowd control, "people power" is not a meaningful force. The Chinese experience in this department is a good guide.

Persians have a fine local example of a modern country without politics: Dubai. If Dubai is a prison, Singapore is a prison, and China is a prison, New Persia will be a prison as well. I suspect that most peace-loving citizens of the present Iran would not mind living in such a prison. And I am confident that all of them would prefer it to the fate of Iraq.

Terrorism - bombs and assassinations - can be and will be tried. With close knowledge of the population, a modern identity system, a Trinquierian intelligence operation, and a complete absence of Fourth Amendment style legalisms, suppressing terrorist networks is not difficult. A crucial power in the suppression of terrorism is the power to involuntarily relocate and rehouse arbitrarily large populations, without punitive intent or criminal investigation.

Scalable secure relocation facilities also defeat "civil disobedience" style campaigns, in which challengers try to defeat the authorities by overwhelming them with small, technical violations of the law. Demonstrating the ability to process, discipline and rehabilitate every member of an illegal party or gang, every participant in an illegal mob, etc, is an important element of grasping the nettle and demonstrating sustainable, unchallengeable political control.

Another way to control a hostile or potentially hostile native population is to fit all persons and vehicles of interest, possibly all in some unsubjugated area, with tamper-resistant GPS trackers. These devices are cheap and getting cheaper, and tracking a person or vehicle does not in any sense count as punishment. It is quite difficult to plant an IED and get away with it when you have a GPS band on your ankle.

Perhaps the most important measure in suppressing political and military challenges, however, is the construction of a government which is designed to be permanent, not a temporary administration designed to "reconstruct" and then "liberate" the foreign country. Insurgencies and political parties under the latter plan will spring eternal, not even because they think they can seize power by driving out the occupying forces, but simply because working against the occupation creates a power base, military or political, which can contend for supremacy in the vacuum of the departure.

This is why Young Britain's occupation of New Persia is designed to create a new permanent administration. Not that British troops will be permanently required; Persians have no shortage of military skills. At the top civil and military levels, international personnel are probably always desirable, because of their independence from local politics. But New Persia is a neocameralist state which treats Persia - the country, the people, and the petroleum - as its capital, and tries to maximize the value and productivity of that capital. Liberty is a property of individuals, not countries, and New Persia has no reason not to allow its residents as much personal freedom as is consistent with security, customer service, and of course profit.

What we see in the pacification of a hostile country is a gradual transition from a state of war to a state of law. In a true war, the goal is victory and the motto is inter arma silent leges. Civilians are advised to stay out of the way, much as they are advised to avoid stepping in front of a bus. If you step in front of a bus and it hits you, the bus driver is not guilty of a "war crime."

As the outcome becomes clear and the number of dissenters drops, more costly, more reliable, and less arbitrary methods can be deployed against resistance. It is easy to render a military force ineffective by demanding a full trial before any shot is fired. But once opposition is reduced to sporadic, disorganized and unpredictable criminality, trials, appeals, defense attorneys, and the rest of the circus are not only necessary but indeed desirable. And no one is shot without it, not because no one can be shot without it, but because no one needs to be. Raw power hardens into justice, whose majesty is even more inexorable, and true freedom - freedom within order, not the false freedom of anarchy - is born.

As Prince Metternich, who is worth the whole Enlightenment put together, explained:
To me the word freedom has not the value of a starting-point, but of an actual goal to he striven for. The word order designates the starting-point. It is only on order that freedom can be based. Without order as a foundation the cry for freedom is nothing more than the endeavour of some party or other for an end it has in view.
In summary: the theory that it is impossible, in the 20th century, for an effective modern military to occupy and govern a foreign country is simply not tenable. This illusion has been fostered by a pattern of "tender-handed" occupations, combined with a "hearts and minds" theory of insurgency that prescribes more tenderness as soon as the nettle starts to sting. Unsurprisingly, this prescription does not work. By sustaining the illusion that the quack medicine of "hearts and minds" is effective, military experts sustain the illusion that no other medicine exists and no occupation can be successful.

This is not a novel observation. My point is the same as Professor Luttwak's: trying to run an occupation without "grasping the nettle" is military malpractice. His piece is certainly worth reading, and he has credentials whereas I do not. I differ with Professor Luttwak, however, in his emphasis of the Nazi analogy and the effectiveness (also noted by Col. Trinquier) of Schrecklichkeit, that is, official terrorism.

Terrorism certainly works. It works just as well for the government as it does for the insurgency. But terrorism is not the most effective demonstration of compelling authority. The need to resort to indiscriminate violence is a demonstration of weakness, not strength. If terrorism has to be fought with terrorism, so be it, but in the 21st century I don't think it does. It is whacking the nettle, not grasping it.

Rather, the most effective tools for suppressing domestic opposition, political or military, are in what might be called the Orwellian class. Identification, surveillance, intelligence. The Chinese, of course, are the world leaders today. But this only reflects a lack of competition. I am confident that American ingenuity can catch up.

Orwellian population control is simply not needed for a peaceful, civilized society with a stable political system. It is a waste of money and an affront to decent, hard-working citizens. But in any attempt to establish peace where it does not exist, Orwellian control is essential. Most of us, at least most of us who are sane, would rather allow the police to know our exact position every hour, or even every half-hour, or even every minute, and never, ever, ever have to interact with a car bomb. Believe it or not, this form of rationality is if anything more universal in non-Western populations. Especially those who have interacted with car bombs.

Weakening government by preventing it from using Orwellian tools is simply not an effective way to ensure responsible government. If a government is responsible, it will not use Orwellian tools wantonly. It will not do anything else wantonly, either. If a government is not responsible, but rather sadistic and tyrannical, correcting this by restricting its military options - even supposing this could be done, since a sadistic state has little time for restrictions - is hardly a way to make it responsible.

The simple fact of the matter is that insurgency and terrorism is a phenomenon of anarchy, that is, weak government. The cure for weak government is strong government. There is absolutely no rocket science in the matter. It is a military tautology that in a conflict between any two forces, the stronger is likely to win. Classical civil wars involve two forces which both have a plausible case to be called "the government." But in a struggle between a government and an insurgency, the government should simply win, because it should be stronger. If it's not, something is very wrong.

(Note that very seldom, when an insurgency defeats a government, does the government retreat to the hills and become an insurgency. Thus the victory of the insurgency demonstrates not that insurgency works, but that something was wrong with your government, ie, it was weak.)

So a Western government that uses its military as an occupying force in a foreign country, without a strong occupation based on the principle of mixed authority, without suppressing competing political and military activity, and with rules of engagement that mimic criminal-justice procedures designed for a civilized Western society, is abusing said military. I find this imprudent. You can kick a poodle. You can own a wolf. But if you own a wolf, don't kick it.

Worse, while Professor Luttwak's concept of "military malpractice" is technically accurate, it makes the situation sound like an accident. It is actually much worse than that.

A failed occupation, like that in Afghanistan, or a Pyrrhic half-success such as Iraq or Vietnam, is of considerable political utility to those whose theory of government predicts that military occupation of a hostile population can never succeed. This would be the "democratic," or "progressive," or simply "left," side of your radio dial. Not coincidentally, this is also the side which is vending the "hearts and minds" theory, and doing its best to eradicate the "grasp the nettle" theory from human memory. (No thanks to Google Books!)

And the cycle works. When an occupation fails, it is because it failed to win "hearts and minds." And the next occupation will be even more tender-handed. It will cower even more abjectly before the delicate flutter of the native heart. It will completely forget the fact that the native has a mind, too, and it is far easier to communicate with a mind than with a heart. It will kill more and more American soldiers, and devastate more and more foreign countries. (And other foreign countries will be devastated not by occupation, but by the lack of it - in the person of a Mugabe, a Saddam, an Idi Amin.)

Moreover, who are the soldiers who are dying in these theatrical exercises? Overwhelmingly, Amerikaners. Whose political fortunes are advanced by the repeated demonstration that "war never solves anything?" Certainly not the Amerikaners.

Thus these sabotaged occupations are revealed in their true nature: they are civil wars by proxy. The goal of war is political power. In a sabotaged occupation, the left gains political power, not in Iran or Iraq or Vietnam, but in America, by using the deaths of thousands of American soldiers to prove to the TV audience that reality and progressive reality are the same thing.

The fact that no one is thinking this consciously - progressives are overwhelmingly sincere - does not change the fact that it works. Nor does it change the extremely coup-worthy nature of the offense. However, the absence of mens rea is an excellent excuse for a general amnesty, which is a common element in all the best coups. (Do make sure your coup is successful first, though.)

And the fiction is unstable. Truth seeps in at every crack. The half-success in Iraq is a bit of truth, but far too small, and accompanied by too much failure, to do any good. One white raven is sufficient to disprove the hypothesis that all ravens are black; one successful occupation on the "grasp the nettle" principle is sufficient to disprove the "hearts and minds" hypothesis. Iraq is a black raven with a couple of gray feathers.

Not all ravens are black. In fact, most of the ravens in the world are white. Deep in their hearts, Amerikaners know this. So they leave the window open, hoping a white raven will fly in. Sometimes they even look out the window, hoping to catch one. Unfortunately, their cell is in an aviary stocked entirely with black ravens. The white raven is a necessity. But the only way to get one is to catch a black raven, hold it while it squawks, and hose it down with bleach.


Blogger G. M. Palmer said...

Though I think you take the raven a bit far, the "modern war as civil war by proxy" fits well with the "voting is civil war by proxy" point you made earlier in the year.

It certainly explains the actions and motives of the left in embroiling us in these wars. (We already know the motives of the right).

September 4, 2008 at 4:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I appreciate that you are talking about "Iran" and not Iran, I don't think it would be at all as easy as you suggest. The colonial era was mostly nationalism-free. There's a reason that the post-world war II era saw a ton of states get independence.

Secondly, if you think that terrorism only happens when they think they can win, how would "Britain" convince the insurgents that they cannot? How will they catch and punish the insurgents? With intelligence work? When they'll probably have a total of 1-200 people in country that speak the local language?

If you think about the amount of materiel that would float around "Iran" post-invasion, they could be blowing up Brits for years. "Britain" could keep it up, but I doubt it would be profitable. Piplines are soft targets that would be near impossible to defend without a massive force.

Anyway, just putting some of the practical difficulties in perspective.

September 4, 2008 at 5:22 AM  
Blogger William A. Sigler said...

'Tis a nice tale, but you don't seem to connect parts one and two of your story. The age of Colonialism ended not because liberal bureaucrats got squishy about the application of violence with their justice, but because the economic cost of the two world wars on the population that supported the endeaver made it all too clear that the cool stuff manifested by the colonial occupations was going to far too few people. What changed was not the soundness of colonial doctrine, but the ability of the increasingly heterogenous populace to swallow the rationalizations of "manifest destiny" and "white man's burden" for the amount of national resources required to enact such levels of violence.

And today's Amerikaners, as you put them, are not an audience to be swayed by appeals to sacrifice their children and future economic stability so that wealthy oil and weapons barons can increase their wealth and privilege, as the dutiful British were back in the higher profit margin days of empire. They are already profoundly confused and distrustful, which is natural since they are in a continual state of being rubed by one political party that gains their support with appeals to honor, patriotism and Christian morality only to fleece them over and over again (just as the other "party" fleeces the other side by talking about peace and justice, while working up a sweat hiding decidedly non-hearts and minds tactics like killing over a million Iraqi citizens, displacing millions more, irradiating the rest--not to mention the leveling of Fallujah and Abu Ghraib--from seeping into the American consciousness).

The new imperial imperative must be kinder and gentler on these poor souls--if there are going to be forced by economic circumstance to cooperate in these mercenary ventures they should at least have the cover of morality and threat. Hence the domestic political motivation of everything in the Iraq war--we have met the enemy, and it is us.

September 4, 2008 at 5:37 AM  
Blogger Black Sea said...

The first part of your essay deals with how the "Amerikaners" might, by means of legislative action or military coup, take (retake?)control of their country. The second deals with the conquest and occupation of 'Iran" by "Young Britain."

I hate to be dense, but what, exactly, is the connection between the two?

As to the colonization of "Iran," putting all questions of morality aside makes the scenario rather too easy, since immorality becomes defined as immorality in the human consciousness due to its frequently adverse, and often very painful, consequences. In other words, there is at least some truth to the notion that "what comes around goes around." Under the scenario you describe, I suspect that Young Britain would pretty quickly become a fairly nasty place to live, since the Young British elite would quickly realize that the lesson of Iran could be applied domestically to their benefit.

If we are truly to disregard moral considerations, I'd argue that a better way for Young Britain to administer Iran would be to require all men under the age of 50 to report for training in the New Iranian militia. Since they've already, according to your plan, been finger-printed, retina-scanned, and bar-coded, they shouldn't be dificult to locate.

Once they've all reported for duty, kill them. You've still got enough middle-aged Iranians around to keep the economy puttering along until you ultimately and completely occupy their land with your surplus population over a transition period of say 15 years. People have a lot of nasty things to say about genocide, but history shows that it often works. You know, we're not having too much trouble these days with the Catawba.

All of this having been said, I do agree that the "hearts and minds" approach is fatally flawed, both in the real and the hypothetical Iran. I'm one of the few (of for all I know, the only) people who seriously questions the notion that massive civilian airial bombardment in WWII was ineffective. It's true that neither the Japanese nor the German people rose up to demand surrender. How could they? People on the verge of starvation rarely rise up to demand anything. They lack the calories, for one thing, and under these circumstances, the struggle to survive allows them less and less enegry for political speculation. I would argue that this condition made the subsequent occupation of these two nations far less troublesome for their liberators.

September 4, 2008 at 6:13 AM  
Blogger Black Sea said...

If I could just add a bit to my previous comment, I think it's all too easy for those of us who've never been in military conflict to imagine how things could, or should, go. It can be useful to pay some attention to those who have.

I believe that, as a society, we suffer from the "Speilbergized" acount of WWII, and see all of our subsequent military misdeeds amd misadventures as a falling away from this state of grace.

Not exactly so. What we did in Vietnam, and what we've done in Iraq, were done on a far more massive scale in WWII. It just wasn't publicized.

My father, who's far from a progressive, fought in WWII, an experience which he hated from start to finish, and for which he has no discernible nostalgia. There were soldiers in his unit who killed German POWs, and who were no more than cautioned, or perhaps encouraged, not to do so in the future. This is hardly remarkable.

And of course, the circumstances in the Pacific were far worse. I have read of an American Colonel who, when presented with two Japanese POWs, furiously declaimed to their American captors, "You fucking idiots, you've ruined our record!" He meant, of course, the record of having taken no POWs during their entire campaign. The blemish was quickly rectified by having the POWs shot.

In high school, I well remember a friend of mine bringing to school one day his uncle's photo album. We were all quite intrigued by the snapshots taken by his uncle, who'd served with the First Air Cavalry in Vietnam. You see what an impression they made, I still remember the yellow and black patch on his uncle's uniformed shoulder.

But what I remember even more vividly is the photos of his uncle, posing above his Viet Cong "kills" very much in the posture of an Amerikaner hunter over a prize buck. Of course, the Viet Cong's guts or brains were spilling out all over the place, adding a certain undeniable authenticity to the composition. My friend told us that his uncle had also engaged in the collection of ears, as trophies, but we were shown no shrunken ears, so I can't verify that part of the story.

Recognizing, as one must, that certain UR readers will view all this as further evidence of the moral sewer which "Red State" or "Amerikaner" or "flyover" America inhabits, I can't resist noting thay my high school friend, David Wolfe, was an Ashkenzim, and his unle of course the same, from a large, East Coast metropolis. Yes, not all nice Jewish boys find their way to Amnesty International.

The people who prosecute these wars eventually come back to live among us. What they did, and what they were forced to do, in suppression of the natives, eventually, inevitably weaves its way into our political, social, and moral culture. This is a part of what I was trying to get at in my previous post. War is a nasty motherfucking business, and I have no regrets about never having had to fight in one.

September 4, 2008 at 7:18 AM  
Blogger Botogol said...

only the Navy and Air Force are 'Royal': the British Army is just 'The British Army'

The Royal Army was the one that got whupped in the 1640s

September 4, 2008 at 7:44 AM  
Blogger TGGP said...

How can you go quoting Bruce Walker on people identifying themselves as conservative without mentioning Philip Converse? Also note that blacks frequently identify themselves as conservative, but vote D anyway. The right doesn't lose elections because of low turnout either, higher voter turnout tends to result in D victory (because they have more support among low-voting demographics).

Bryan Caplan has some interesting bits on colonialism in Terrorism: The Relevance of the Rational Model. Some more on the economics of it all comes from Steve Sailer's dirt theory of war. Of course, colonialism wasn't about earning a profit back in the day (Leopold's Congo is an exception).

I still object to your characterization of recent conflicts as "civil war by proxy". In most civil wars both sides take action. In these the Brahmins just seem to sit back and wait for the military to lose (I'm still waiting for someone to show me where the State department has gone against Bush's will). In Victory and Recruitment Michael Neumann gave some examples of things the Left could do to disrupt wars, all of which they've failed to do.

One interesting example of a failed coup I'd like you to examine is the Kapp Putsch. D. J. Goodspeed in The Conspirators dismisses the idea that the general strike stopped them, but it's still an interesting example of a coup that had everything in its favor and was willing to kill but didn't work out.

September 4, 2008 at 10:44 AM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Perusing the Wiki entry on nettles, finding this;

"To "nettle" someone is to annoy them. Shakespeare's Hotspur urges that "out of this nettle, (danger), we grasp this flower (safety)" (Henry IV, part 1, Act II Scene 3). The common figure of speech "to grasp the nettle" probably originated as a condensation of this quotation."

Now, the Wiki editors have no reason to find this blog, so let's compare a simple Google search.

"to take action immediately in order to deal with an unpleasant situation. I've been putting off tackling the problem for too long and I think it's time to grasp the nettle."

Again, it's not like this is done intentionally.

September 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM  
Blogger Leonard said...

The first part of your essay deals with how the "Amerikaners" might, by means of legislative action or military coup, take (retake?)control of their country. The second deals with the conquest and occupation of 'Iran" by "Young Britain."

I hate to be dense, but what, exactly, is the connection between the two?

You ask this, but then immediately answer your own question:

Under the scenario you describe, I suspect that Young Britain would pretty quickly become a fairly nasty place to live, since the Young British elite would quickly realize that the lesson of Iran could be applied domestically to their benefit.

The lesson of "Iran" can also be realized by Amerikan coup-sters, or by an Amerikan Congress.

Of course, MM would argue that Young Britain (or Young Amerika) would not be a nasty place, at least after the populace got used to their barcodes. But there is no difference, to MM, in ruling "others" as vs "self". Both contain nettles that must be grasped for effective rule. "Self-rule" is a progressive idea, pure bunk, that needs to be unlearned for correct thought.

The main difference is, rule of "self" is much easier because you can communicate with all of the subjects easily, and you don't have to do anything to get the populace to believe that you intend to rule them forever.

September 4, 2008 at 12:19 PM  
Blogger AMcGuinn said...

To add to Botogol's nitpicking, the RAF doesn't have any B-52s, only small strike aircraft (Tornado GR-4 and Typhoons). There's a B-52 in Duxford, but I don't know if it's airworthy, and I suspect it, like the airbase on Diego Garcia, belongs to the US (despite both being on British territory).

If we push the schedule back to 2016, we'll have a couple of carriers, and maybe even some Lightnings to fly off them. For 2010, we'd need a nearby airbase, or else a lot more Tomahawks.

September 4, 2008 at 12:40 PM  
Blogger drank said...

If no western democracy is capable of re-colonizing "Iran" in the fashion that you describe, certainly nothing should prevent the rulers of Russia or China from employing the strategies you propose. If anything, it should be more attractive to them as they can keep far more than 10% of the proceeds from such an "acquisition".

Do you suppose that Chechnya or Tibet have been profitable for the occupiers to date?

On a related note, the idea that a new colonizer can rapidly set up an Orwellian surveillance state, complete with DNA/biometric identities and personal biographies, for a population of 70M sounds like science fiction. How many fluent Farsi speakers were you planning on bringing along?

September 4, 2008 at 1:30 PM  
Blogger Alrenous said...

Orwellian population control is simply not needed for a peaceful, civilized society with a stable political system. It is a waste of money and an affront to decent, hard-working citizens.

This is not an endorsement; as I only recently starting thinking about this myself, I don't know what the actual truth of the matter is.

I simply show that to our host, such concerns as Young Britain going all counter-insurgent against the British are not actually very concerning.

To whit, if you wish to disagree, you should do so explicitly as opposed to implicitly.

However it can be easily seen, (if you want to to see it) especially with Russia's two recent military escapades, that we already live in 1984. The fact that it's not a dystopia is probably not an accident. (Or maybe this is actually dystopia; the worst stable society possible considering the state of the human race.)

September 4, 2008 at 2:05 PM  
Anonymous Blode said...

I have to say I'm not a huge fan of Moldbug's posts from the Dark Side. I liked reading him better when he was James Q. Wilson than now that he's turned into Saruman.

He's trying to gain support for a huge and radical change in our form of government and political culture, because a milder change would be unstable. I understand his arguments ... I've been reading him for well over a year now ... I just don't know why democracy (stick it in quotes if you want) and the constitution and all that are so much more fragile than the civil service.

Because a military coup requires fewer supporters than a few election cycles worth of victories for the Libertarian and Constitution parties all levels of government? You know, to be followed by the long-dreamed-of cashiering of four-fifths of the Federal civil service, and most state and municipal equivalents...? Technically, that's true.

This site is partly futuristic fiction, and in that regard, Moldbug is the author, and he sets his own rules. Like, vampires can fly but there's got to be some way to kill them. Moldbug's hero can win over the political sympathies (dare I say hearts and minds) of enough colonels, but he can't win over a voting plurality. He's not Superman.

I'm not the author; I have no standing to object to Moldbug's gripping novel of intrigue and maybe science fiction. I'm just a much bigger fan of the non-fiction - i.e. reading lists of reactionary / anti-teleological historians, etc.

September 4, 2008 at 4:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your concern for others' welfare is touching. I can only hope that in a karmic universe you and your descendants will be treated to millennia of the 'freedom' you so willingly advocate for others; and by the very means you so enthusiastically recommend.

For myself, and mine, I thank the universe that voices like yours are on the absolute fringe of reason; and that governments like USG are indeed relatively inefficient and confused.

September 4, 2008 at 8:06 PM  
Blogger icr said...

Recognizing, as one must, that certain UR readers will view all this as further evidence of the moral sewer which "Red State" or "Amerikaner" or "flyover" America inhabits, I can't resist noting thay my high school friend, David Wolfe, was an Ashkenzim, and his unle of course the same, from a large, East Coast metropolis. Yes, not all nice Jewish boys find their way to Amnesty International.

You're getting so carried away by something or over that you're forgetting the massive Ashkenazi involvement in the Soviet NKVD and the other state organs. When it comes to Ashki behavior in the ME I always think of the two-month Siege of Beirut, the Sabra and Shatila massacre and the obviously deliberate attack on the USS Liberty. But I'm sure lots of Arabs could name many other well-documented atrocities.

I'm not surprised or shocked at all by Ashkenazi/Israeli behavior, I'm just stunned by all the "Amerikaners" who refuse to believe what is manifestly true. Me?, I'm just for "no entangling alliances" of any kind.

September 4, 2008 at 9:06 PM  
Blogger mtraven said...

Well, let's see. What existing movement is resolutely anti-progressive, is linked to Sarah Palin, and is extremely pervasive in the military and so might conceivably be the nucleus of a coup? That's right, it's Christian Dominianism. Palin has stuck her toe in the waters of theocracy by attempting to ban books during her stint as mayor of Wasilla.

Maybe a redneck theocracy is not what you have in mind as a replacement for the current regime. OK, what then? The present government is hopeless, you say, so who is going to lead us into the promised land of unlimited government violence at home and abroad? Steve Jobs? Not really his kind of gig.

September 4, 2008 at 10:26 PM  
Blogger Studd Beefpile said...

MM is 100% correct about counter insurgency warfare. If you win the mind, the heart is irrelevant. That said, I must disagree with the notion that nothing has changed since the days of the Raj. Today, we have television, radio, and cell phones. These things make organizing an insurgency easier, but that is irrelevant in the face of sufficient force. Where they doom you is videos of the riot control which will destroy any support you have at home. Can you imagine what the reaction would have been if there had been live feed from Omaha beach? In a televised world, the martial law state cannot be sustained for any length of time, after which a hearts campaign must be waged. This is inefficient and foolish, but still better for "Iran" in the long run than the previous owners.

September 4, 2008 at 10:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A few nits about invading Iran:

I'm afraid you don't accurately appreciate how powerful modern defensive weapons are. Given a populace who is willing to die wholesale, the Iranians have approximately a 1000:1 cost advantage over the US using missiles to attack high value targets (RPG-29 vs M1A3 all the way up to cruise missles vs Carriers).

While I have no doubt that the US would eventually prevail in a protracted struggle between the two nations, my guess is that Iran would be able to deal immense damage to the US's forces, mostly due to incompetent leadership (for an example, look here). Concrete and state of the art rockets make for a very effective, inexpensive defense.

September 5, 2008 at 12:52 AM  
Blogger Botogol said...

"Given a populace who is willing to die wholesale"

:-) :-)

September 5, 2008 at 2:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris Blattman said this today that made me think of this article. From

> Rather, the book has started to push me in the opposite direction: perhaps the governors of failed states should keep their agendas focused: maintain security, justice, and the rules of the market first. Put resource management and infrastructure a close second, and leave social services to the community, non-profits, and private sector. At least at first.

September 5, 2008 at 6:39 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think about this when I am dealing with my kids-- the reigning Dr Sears-Alfie Kohn "Brahmin" child-rearing ideology stipulates that you have to win the heart and mind of your child, that "understanding" is the key to proper moral child-rearing.

This produces a LOT of whining from the children. (They perceive a chance of winning.)

Progressives tend to have unbearably irritating children.

They all think it is stupid and barbaric to dispassionately whip a child for whining, defiance, tantrums, etc... but I get quite a lot more actual sweetness and light out of my kids than they do.

My kids, for the most part, know that fighting with Mama is a waste of time. And so they are sweet and compliant, as long as everyone knows who is really in charge.

I can't quite figure out how we've lost sight of this obvious insight both on the battlefield and in the home.

September 5, 2008 at 9:01 PM  
Blogger TGGP said...

Anonymous directly above me, read The Nurture Assumption by Judith Harris. As a bonus to the information in it, it's easily the best written nonfiction book I've read (Godel Escher Bach doesn't count).

mtraven, it always cracks me up when people talk about "theocracy". The State has been kicking the Church's ass since the peace of Westphalia. Despite living in a democracy where they make up the majority, creationism sympathizers can't even get their p.o.v in local public schools. Palin's own attempts at it were limited to advocating choice for parents rather than imposing it on the unwilling. Looks to me like typical baseless Jewish paranoia towards evangelicals. And as you're distracted by some folks because they believe in crazy stories about some bearded dude in the clouds, you let guys like Cheney and McCain who could hardly give a shit about religion seize real power.

September 5, 2008 at 9:32 PM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...


You rock!


September 5, 2008 at 10:34 PM  
Blogger mtraven said...

TGGP, you miss my the point. I'm not terribly worried about theocracy. But MM envisions an anti-progressive coup (where "progressive" means everybody in the mainstream power structure, apparently). Who is going to pull this off? The Christian Right seems to be the most plausible locus for some sort of revolution, perhaps through the military which is being suborned by radical fundamentalists, as I mentioned. I don't think these scenarios are particularly likely, but if not them, who?

As for the actual role of the Christian Right being useful idiots for the corporate neocon Republicans, I agree.

The notion that Sarah Palin is any sort of libertarian, as the Volokh post you linked to would have it, is simply laughable. Advocating criminalization of abortion is as automatically disqualifying as advocating criminalization of drugs, if not more so (and yes, Ron Paul himself was in favor of forced pregnancy -- which just proves that libertarianism as practiced is a nothing more than a bad joke). She's also quite comfortable with corruption, authoritarianism,c and milking the treasury for all she can get -- typical Republican actually. See here and countless other articles.

September 5, 2008 at 11:13 PM  
Anonymous anonymom said...

No, I don't rock at all. It is terribly embarrassing that it took me nearly three years to grasp what my grandmother was telling me all along, but it is difficult to turn off the fashionable "experts" and rely on the unpolished, but proven, wisdom of the old folks.

As everyone here probably already knows.

Thanks for the book rec, TGGP. I'll look it up next time I hit the library.

September 5, 2008 at 11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right, disagreeing with mtraven about when in the process of conception-and-birth a new individual is formed means you're forbidden to call yourself a libertarian. Even if you believe, as Ron Paul does, that the matter should be left to the states.

Only absolute Federal judicial control in this matter is acceptable - libertarians always believe in an interventionist, unelected, national government.

September 6, 2008 at 2:50 PM  
Blogger Cleanthes said...

As an undoubted Amerikaner, born in Brule county, the part of America that the flyover people flyover, I still had not seen the De La Rey, song.
As I was checking it out, I had the appropriate thought that Charlize Theron, sure is hot and that her most famous role, Aileen Wuornos, exemplifies "how to occupy and govern a foreign country", if cast into the very micro level of prostitute-client relations.
Alas, Ms Theron has voted with her feet and her puissant potency has fled her natal land. She was just acting anyway and Jeb Bush killed Aileen Wuornos.

September 7, 2008 at 11:26 AM  
Blogger G. M. Palmer said...


"forced pregnancy"

Are you shitting me? Really? The only cases of "forced pregnancy" would be rape. At no other time can someone say their pregnancy was forced. Stupidity does not equal coercion.

There are plenty of good arguments for abortion rights. This is certainly not one of them.


September 8, 2008 at 4:51 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shee-it, Mencius, I think you just won the Internet with this post. This just about says it all. My only hope is to hang on long enough to see the smug look on the Eloi faces turn to terror on that horrible, blessed day when the Amerikaners say “enough.” As I imagine it, the look is a lot like the look on “Latino” gang members’ faces during the LA Riots when the business-as-usual LAPD and The Criminal Justice System were suspended in favor of soldiers and Marines with full authority and public backing to put an end to this shit, right now.

Their faces were stunned, shocked. And on their little monkey faces you saw the light slowing dawning on them as they stoped aping around grabbing their crotches and hurling insults at everyone not of their race. “’re serious....I......see” was the look.

Military malpractice is not the half of it. They are sending the best to die in an obvious fool’s errand. I knew the minute I heard that there were armed forces that we were allowing to co-exist that we would lose. Everything since then has been pointless sacrifice in the name of the new Holy Trinity: Democracy, Freedom and Human Rights. The thought that these people are being expended in such a fool’s errand makes me want to scream.

And over Arabs, for God’s sakes. There has never been a people more easy to defeat. They’re natural born cowards. (There is a reason white female flight attendants were the first to be slaughtered on the morning of 9.11).

The truth will impose itself, eventually.

And some of these comments! They’re hilarious. “What about the power of nationalism?” “What about all these Muslims willing to die en masse for the cause?”


Has anyone ever—oh, I don’t know—tried to actually put the “we love death more than you love life” bit to the test? How long do you think Muslims would hold out if we opened a 24-hour can of whoop-ass and then asked in the morning if they’d like us to extend it to 48 hours?

September 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

These are Persians, not Arabs - there is a difference.

During the Iran-Iraq war, a whole bunch of Persian auxiliaries (little kids, women and old people) called 'Basij' disabled minefields for the Iranian army by walking across them.

The country's low average age (26 - CIA world fact book, 2008) and access to ME veteran leadership from Mahdi Army and Hezbollah are additional advantages.

Finally, there is very little evidence that air power works against entrenched infantry. Unless you think the US is willing to start using chemical weapons, they will have to go in on the ground.


September 9, 2008 at 7:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there is very little evidence that air power works against entrenched infantry.

Sorry, wrong (and wrong even before the advent of precision weapons). Just ask anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan if they'd like to do without their "ineffective" air support.

September 10, 2008 at 5:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What part of "entrenched" don't you understand.

From WWII, two of the most famous examples of airplanes attacking a city: Hamburg and Tokyo

After 8 days of around-the-clock bombing only 50k of 1.8m people were killed - 40k of whom were killed in the firestorm (which I would consider of the same nature as chemical weapons).

The firebombing of Tokyo killed as many as 150k people out of a population of somewhere between 3.5m and 6.5m (I couldn't find numbers more accurate than that), again with semi-chemical weapons.

This is not to say that airplanes aren't extremely effective in flat, open areas, or even mountainous open areas (somewhat less so), but against entrenched infantry, they seem to be quite ineffective.

I'm afraid I can't say anything about Afghanistan, but in Iraq, the Strykers were much better convoy escorts than the Kiowas, not that either was unappreciated.


September 11, 2008 at 10:08 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What part of "entrenched" don't you understand.

It's pretty obvious you don't understand it. I don't even know why you're introducing the irrelevant subject of Hamburg and Tokyo, since they didn't involve entrenched infantry.

Airpower was (and is) extremely effective against entrenched infantry in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom. Countless examples of this exist. I'd say go look them up yourself, but since you don't seem to be aware of them I'm not sure how good your reading comprehension is.

September 15, 2008 at 9:58 AM  
Anonymous Relocation Katy said...

i know that your worried that the titles alone of the last two posts may have scared away some of UR's red-state readers, to be honest i was a little surprised to read them but i read them all the way i must say you're a talented writer and you make beautiful points.


September 17, 2008 at 5:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mad Max 2 was "the road warrior"
Mad Max 3 was "beyond the thunderdome"

I don't remember if they had money in mad max 2, but they certainly cared a lot about petrol.

I have not seen mad max 3.

October 10, 2008 at 9:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You might almost think that the English Empire still existed.

Guess what, it doesn't.

October 12, 2008 at 2:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, this is just verbal diarrhea.

October 15, 2008 at 11:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

+runescape money runescape gold runescape money buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape itemsrunescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling eve isk eve online isk eve isk eve online isk tibia gold Fiesta Silver Fiesta Gold
Age of Conan Gold
buy Age of Conan Gold
aoc gold

December 23, 2008 at 12:02 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,美國aneros,rudeboy,英國rudeboy,英國Rocksoff,德國Fun Factory,Fun Factory,英國甜筒造型按摩座,甜筒造型按摩座,英國Rock Chic ,瑞典 Lelo ,英國Emotional Bliss,英國 E.B,荷蘭 Natural Contours,荷蘭 N C,美國 OhMiBod,美國 OMB,Naughti Nano ,音樂按摩棒,ipod按摩棒,美國 The Screaming O,美國TSO,美國TOPCO,美國Doc Johnson,美國CA Exotic,美國CEN,美國Nasstoy,美國Tonguejoy,英國Je Joue,美國Pipe Dream,美國California Exotic,美國NassToys,美國Vibropod,美國Penthouse,仿真按摩棒,矽膠按摩棒,猛男倒模,真人倒模,仿真倒模,PJUR,Zestra,適趣液,穿戴套具,日本NPG,雙頭龍,FANCARNAL,日本NIPPORI,日本GEL,日本Aqua Style,美國WET,費洛蒙,費洛蒙香水,仿真名器,av女優,打炮,做愛,性愛,口交,吹喇叭,肛交,魔女訓練大師,無線跳蛋,有線跳蛋,震動棒,震動保險套,震動套,TOY-情趣用品,情趣用品網,情趣購物網,成人用品網,情趣用品討論,成人購物網,鎖精套,鎖精環,持久環,持久套,拉珠,逼真按摩棒,名器,超名器,逼真老二,電動自慰,自慰,打手槍,仿真女郎,SM道具,SM,性感內褲,仿真按摩棒,pornograph,hunter系列,h動畫,成人動畫,成人卡通,情色動畫,情色卡通,色情動畫,色情卡通,無修正,禁斷,人妻,極悪調教,姦淫,近親相姦,顏射,盜攝,偷拍,本土自拍,素人自拍,公園露出,街道露出,野外露出,誘姦,迷姦,輪姦,凌辱,痴漢,痴女,素人娘,中出,巨乳,調教,潮吹,av,a片,成人影片,成人影音,線上影片,成人光碟,成人無碼,成人dvd,情色影音,情色影片,情色dvd,情色光碟,航空版,薄碼,色情dvd,色情影音,色情光碟,線上A片,免費A片,A片下載,成人電影,色情電影,TOKYO HOT,SKY ANGEL,一本道,SOD,S1,ALICE JAPAN,皇冠系列,老虎系列,東京熱,亞熱,武士系列,新潮館,情趣用品,約定金生,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,約定金生,情趣網站,跳蛋, 約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,約定金生,自慰套,G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,生日精品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,約定金生,潮吹,高潮,後庭,約定金生,情色論譠,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,約定金生,音樂下載, 約定金生,約定金生,開獎號碼,統一發票號碼,夜市,統一發票對獎,保險套, 約定金生,約定金生,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,約定金生,當舖,軟體下載,汽車,機車, 約定金生,手機,來電答鈴, 約定金生,週年慶,美食,約定金生,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計, 約定金生,室內設計, 約定金生,靈異照片,約定金生,同志,約定金生,聊天室,運動彩券,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解,av女優, 約定金生,小說,約定金生,民宿,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,約定金生,討論區,痴漢,懷孕, 約定金生,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情, 股市分析,租房子,成人影片,約定金生,免費影片,醫學美容, 約定金生,免費算命,算命,約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學,約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲, 約定金生,好玩遊戲,好玩遊戲區,約定金生,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,約定金生,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片, 約定金生,桌布,桌布下載,電視節目表, 約定金生,線上電視,約定金生,線上a片,約定金生,線上掃毒,線上翻譯,購物車,約定金生,身分證製造機,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車, 約定金生,約定金生,法拍屋,約定金生,歌詞,音樂,音樂網,火車,房屋,情趣用品,約定金生,情趣,情趣商品,情趣網站,跳蛋,約定金生,按摩棒,充氣娃娃,自慰套, 約定金生, G點,性感內衣,約定金生,情趣內衣,約定金生,角色扮演,生日禮物,精品,禮品,約定金生,自慰,打手槍,潮吹,高潮,約定金生,後庭,情色論譠,約定金生,影片下載,約定金生,遊戲下載,手機鈴聲,音樂下載,開獎號碼,統一發票,夜市,保險套,做愛,約定金生,減肥,美容,瘦身,當舖,約定金生,軟體下載,約定金生,汽車,機車,手機,來電答鈴,約定金生,週年慶,美食,徵信社,網頁設計,網站設計,室內設計,靈異照片, 約定金生,同志,聊天室,約定金生,運動彩券,,大樂透,約定金生,威力彩,搬家公司,除蟲,偷拍,自拍, 約定金生,無名破解, av女優,小說,民宿,約定金生,大樂透開獎號碼,大樂透中獎號碼,威力彩開獎號碼,討論區,痴漢, 約定金生,懷孕,約定金生,美女交友,約定金生,交友,日本av ,日本,機票, 約定金生,香水,股市, 約定金生,股市行情,股市分析,租房子,約定金生,成人影片,免費影片,醫學美容,免費算命,算命, 約定金生,姓名配對,姓名學, 約定金生,姓名學免費,遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲,約定金生,好玩遊戲區,線上遊戲,新遊戲,漫畫,線上漫畫,動畫,成人圖片,桌布,約定金生,桌布下載,電視節目表,線上電視, 約定金生,線上a片,線上a片,線上翻譯, 約定金生,購物車,身分證製造機,約定金生,身分證產生器,手機,二手車,中古車,法拍屋,歌詞,音樂,音樂網, 約定金生,借錢,房屋,街頭籃球,找工作,旅行社,約定金生,六合彩,整型,水噹噹,貸款,貸款,信用貸款,宜蘭民宿,花蓮民宿,未婚聯誼,網路購物,珠海,下川島,常平,珠海,澳門機票,香港機票,婚友,婚友社,未婚聯誼,交友,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友社,婚友,婚友社,單身聯誼,婚友,未婚聯誼,婚友社,未婚聯誼,單身聯誼,單身聯誼,婚友,單身聯誼,未婚聯誼,婚友,交友,交友,婚友社,婚友社,婚友社,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,大陸新娘,越南新娘,越南新娘,外籍新娘,外籍新娘,台中坐月子中心,搬家公司,搬家,搬家,搬家公司,線上客服,網頁設計,線上客服,網頁設計,網頁設計,土地貸款,免費資源,電腦教學,wordpress,人工植牙,關鍵字,關鍵字,seo,seo,網路排名,自然排序,網路排名軟體,

January 31, 2009 at 9:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,

February 12, 2009 at 1:38 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^

徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

March 2, 2009 at 10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

^^ nice blog!! ^@^

徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,

March 2, 2009 at 10:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,網頁設計,網站設計,網頁設計,網站設計,网页设计,网站设计,网站设计,网页设计

March 18, 2009 at 9:46 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home