Experts attribute demential hostility to feeling frightened or humiliated, feeling frustrated at being unable to understand others, loss of judgement and self-control, loss of inhibitions and decreased awareness of reality. Any form of dementia can be upsetting, but the most important thing to remember is that it is not deliberate. Before you react, take a deep breath, step back and count to ten. Try to stay calm and don't enter into an argument. I shall follow the advise.
HaAretz says that the blood of the poor is cheaper than the middle class, and the IDF discriminates between classes and races. That is blood slander, and totally untrue, and its purpose is to undermine IDF's morale. The truth is that IDF tries to reject conscripts of lower social and educational levels, because they make unreliable fighters and are uneducable (they cannot learn to operate IDL's technical weapons). But that is politically impossible and they spend much effort in integrating everybody. In my time, the repository of cognitively challenged boys was the transport unit, where they became lorry drivers. We always had problems with them. The kitchen was another refuge, but IDF now uses catering services. As for minorities, whose blood is the cheapest according to HaAretz, they are not conscripted to fighting units, and if they volunteer, they are sent to civil support units.
Truth is that the burden of Israel's defense falls on the secular middle class, with the kibutzim and upper middle class towns like Raanana and Ramat HaSharon supplying the vanguard, the special units, the pilots. That is the reason of Lapid's popularity - the resentment that the defense burden is not shared by the ultraOrtodox Ashkenazim, who except for their voluntary poverty, have all the characteristics of middle class people. The article observes that lately the Zionist Religious youth is volunteering for officer and special courses, competing with the urban and rural secular middle class, which is - for HaAretz - is a most negative and dangerous development. Why are they doing this, reflects HaAretz? Love of their country? HaAretz doesnt know what that is and imagines that they are risking their lives for the love of ... money and social advancement. Where sees HaAretz more Arab and lumpen Jewish youth dying for the country? In its sick imagination. But this slander certainly may weaken the IDF. Why should HaAretz wish that?
The article also calls the last operation against the Hamas (aimed at stopping bombarding civilian populations in the South) as a "colossal defeat". How come? The thousands of rockets fired by the Hamas from Gaza caused much distress in the population, but little physical damage and only ONE death (an unfortunate fellow that did not seek refuge at time). I dont count how many terrorists we killed because that is not what we are looking for, but to stop the fire and let the people live. And that was achieved. How come "colossal defeat"? Shay points his finger to the celebrations in Gaza when the ceasefire was signed (the pic illustrates better the concept of "cargo cult" than anything I have seen since the fake Iranian missiles). If they are celebrating and are so happy, it follows that they must have won and we must have lost. A valid argument is one in which the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of its conclusion. The premise here is true so according to the rules of deductive logic, the conclusion must be valid, that is, if deductive logic works, but that I leave to professional phylosophers. One can understand and forgive Palestinians (who had been losing war after war since 1930) and Arabs in general for trying to make look their impotence as victory, but why HaAretz? The answer cannot be other than mental disease: dementia. J, remember to keep calm, step back and count to ten. Take a deep breath. Thanks, I am already feeling better.
41 comments:
Israel can survive its Arab enemies. But demented Jewish liberals? I'm not so sure.
Based upon the last election results, the Israeli left is no longer a factor. I wish the same was true in America.
K
When you are surrounded by enemies, the Centre is in fact the Left, and the Right is in fact the Centre.
Anon.
As you know, Haaretz copies its concerns from the American left. The US left had the same issues with the lower classes and the military, complete with accusations that they were being used for cannon fodder in Vietnam. Of course, this was not true either - the casualties were disproportionately white. The US mostly solved its problems by having an all volunteer army and by ruining the economy so that the military is an attractive career. Because they get to pick and choose, the average intelligence of blacks in the US military is higher than the general population and they have fewer problems with them than they did in the days of the draft when they represented a true cross section.
K
lower classes and the military, complete with accusations that they were being used for cannon fodder in Vietnam. Of course, this was not true either - the casualties were disproportionately white
The way you phrased makes it sound like you are using "lower classes" synonymously with "non-white." While non-whites are over-represented in the lower classes, there have always been a large number of whites in the lower classes simply due to numerical preponderance in the population.
Yes and no. If you look at those with the deepest pathologies such as violent criminals, blacks and hispanics dominate even though they are (for now) a minority of the total population. A lot of crime listed as "white" is actually committed by hispanics. The contrast between murder rates in minority dominated cities and the surrounding white suburbs is striking - in the cities there are murders literally every day, in some suburban (white) communities, literally years go by without any murders.
K
That is my main point: HaAretz is imitating American leftist arguments a generation ago. I was in America during the Vietnam war, and most of my friends were excepted as university students. But that was America 1970. Israel 2013 has not the remotest resemblance with that, which makes me believe that the Israeli left imagines that they are Americans fighting for peace, justice, love, etc. or whatever was the cause of the seventies's hippies. They surely did not serve in the IDF, where there are no underclass representatives in the front fighting units. The sad fact is that the number of underclass soldiers killed in 65 years of Israel's wars is very low, while the kibbutz cemeteries are well peopled.
Yes, upper class whites, esp. Jews, were missing from the enlisted troops in Vietnam, but the overwhelming # of casualties were whites from the working classes, not minorities.
Although some Jews fled to Canada or managed to get medical deferments (in addition to college deferments), a lot ended up in the National Guard reserves (which in those days was never set overseas) or serving in places other than Vietnam. The military is always looking for talent - modern IQ testing was basically invented jut for them and there were lots of stateside jobs or postings in Germany, Korea, Japan, or safely in HQ in Saigon, etc. for someone who could be trained in computers or typing or some skill that Jews are usually strong in. Or they could have gone into the Navy or Air Force, where unless you were a pilot you were pretty safe.
A lot of the college student/Jewish panic that going into the military automatically meant that they were going to be killed in some rice paddy was based on total ignorance of how the military really operated.
K
In a modern war, most casualties are accidents and suicides. In Israel, there are always more civilian casualties than military.
Yes, even during the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, suicide and accidents (esp. transportation accidents) have outweighed battlefield death. On the other hand, the leading cause of death for young black males in the US is gunshot, so such a youth is probably safer in Afghanistan than he is if he stayed home in Detroit.
K
>Yes, even during the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, suicide and accidents (esp. transportation accidents) have outweighed battlefield death.
No. Not even close.
>On the other hand, the leading cause of death for young black males in the US is gunshot, so such a youth is probably safer in Afghanistan than he is if he stayed home in Detroit.
It depends. First of all, if he is capable of getting a high enough grade on the ASVAB to get in, he is capable of getting a scholarship and getting out of Detroit. Second, within the military, refueling planes and filtering water on a massive base is one thing, and walking up and down grape fields sowed with IEDs while angry Pashtuns try to shoot your nuts off is another. The latter is more hazardous than being in Detroit-the Pashtuns are more competent.
Here are the stats:
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/pages-from-05-12msmr.pdf
http://nahic.ucsf.edu/downloads/Mortality.pdf
Even in the very worst year (2007), combat deaths were no more than 43% of the total.
The total military death rate including from combat peaked at around 120 per 100,000. The death rate for all males age 20-24 is 140 per 100,000 and the death rate for black males is around double that, so statistically T'quan is safer in the armed forces than in Detroit. He may even be safer in that grape field in Khost because 60 vs 280 is such a large disparity. Gunshot wound is the leading cause of death for young black males (the fact that they tend to live in cities and don't ride in cars as much probably helps).
At least the Army gives you body armor - this partly makes up for the fact that the Pashtuns are better shots. Also, they usually have to operate from farther away than the average homie who pops a cap in your ass from 6 feet - this makes it hard to miss even if he is holding the pistol sideways.
On the other hand, the military is way ahead in the number of people with limbs blown off, although you do see a lot of young men wheelchair bound in the ghetto because the bullet hit their spine.
I would say for the average black youth with AVSAB high enough to get in but not much higher, he is probably better off in the Army than in college. Someone with an AVSAB 35 or 40 is probably not good college material.
K
Keep in mind that the study about military mortality does not separate service members deployed to a combat zone and at home station. If it did, it would become obvious that when you are at war, you are much more likely to die from hostile action than from an accident. For instance, in Iraq accidents accounted for about 800 dead US servicemembers out of 4400. And that's without accounting for the huge disparity in risk between the 80% of the US military which spends its deployments on MegaFOBs and the other 20%. So, technically, D'meanor is safer if he serves as a clerk or supply guy, and especially if he doesn't leave the states to deploy to a combat zone than if he stays in the hood. The second he is in a combat MOS and goes downrange, that math changes.
As well as being better shots, the Talibs are good at emplacing IEDs, from little ones that rip off your lower extremities and send their bone fragments up into your pelvis to honking big ones that destroy MRAPs. The homies have nothing like this.
The majority of military specialties require a score way above 35 or 40.
"The latter is more hazardous than being in Detroit-the Pashtuns are more competent."
:):)
Tribal warfare has also different levels of difficulty. The one perfected in tropical central Africa does not work so well in resource constrained central Asia.
Interesting study you two made.
But there is something else. Anglo presence on one side.
We should also compare Zaire/Congo - whatever they call it today -, or Nigeria with Afghanistan.
We measure Afro Americans with a Euro measuring unit. Mortality levels of young males in Detroit are strictly connected to the Anglo involvement distorting the local community behavior.
But for the example you gave it seems that for an Afro American young male is better to be in Anglo army in a war zone then back home with the tribe.
The African model involves mostly ritualistic posturing and displays of aggression. When someone gets killed, it's as part of a display of social dominance. They're not much at persistent, disciplined and organized warfare. In the presence of a persistent, disciplined and organized force, they always fold.
The Pashtuns are Indoeuropeans, direct heirs of (for instance) Alexander's Greek armies. Though they suck at shooting, they've got persistence, discipline and organization. They can compete with an organization like the US military (on their own turf)-the Africans can't and never could (without massive amounts of foreign advisors and aid.)
In the 19th century, the Zulus held their own against the British until the Maxim gun tipped the balance.
Wars are very hard to fight in modern times where every "civilian casualty" is touted in the media and further alienates the locals. If we had fought WWII on that basis, we wouldn't have won that one either.
Then there is the question of "why bother?" - even if we were to "win" in Afghanistan, what is it that we would win and is it remotely worth the cost? Germany and Japan were nice prizes and they send us luxury sedans and electronics. What will the Afghans send us besides opium?
K
B is right again (I usually disagree with him on this board but not lately). K, freak events like Isandhlwana aside, Zulus sucked against European armies, whether professional British infantry or Boer settlers. Check out battle of Blood River and casualties on both sides.
"The Battle of Blood River (Afrikaans: Slag van Bloedrivier; Zulu: iMpi yaseNcome) is the name given for the battle fought between 470 Voortrekkers led by Andries Pretorius, and an estimated 10,000–15,000 Zulu attackers on the bank of the Ncome River on 16 December 1838, in what is today KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Casualties amounted to three thousand of king Dingane's soldiers dead, including two Zulu princes competing with prince Mpande for the Zulu throne. Three Trekker commando members were lightly wounded, including Pretorius himself."
This was way before the Maxim gun, and it was a pattern. A pattern that continues in modern times when both sides have equal technology (check out Rhodesian Bush Wars).
Zulus were somewhat unlike other African tribes in their bravery, but B is right. Check out Victor Hanson's book for an explanation of Zulu fighting style.
>Wars are very hard to fight in modern times where every "civilian casualty" is touted in the media and further alienates the locals.
Oh, only the civilian casualties in the Pentagon's wars. Since the heirs of the OWI and OSS have reconciled, we don't hear much about the other civilian casualties.
>If we had fought WWII on that basis, we wouldn't have won that one either.
During WW2, the military was a bastion of the American socialist elite, and answered to its most prominent representatives. Hence, you don't see lots of whining about civilians dying en masse in the Cathedral's wars.
>Then there is the question of "why bother?" - even if we were to "win" in Afghanistan, what is it that we would win and is it remotely worth the cost?
1. The world's perception of the US as a power with the will and ability to solve problems like Pashtuns with RPGs.
2. A very strategically convenient piece of land between Iran, Russia, China and Pakistan.
3. Massive mineral wealth.
Were those things "worth it" in relation to the cost in blood and treasure? And none of them were the stated goals, which all rhymed with "bid Laden".
For 150+ years, people have been going after Afghanistan for some combination of those goals and as yet no one has ever gotten anything out of it except opium ,tsuris and few badly woven carpets.
K
>Were those things "worth it" in relation to the cost in blood and treasure?
Your phrasing is off-not "were," but "would have been."
The Brits did quite well conquering Afghanistan and installing their puppet. And why not? It's not like the place has some sort of magical force field around it-it's just another barren third world hellhole. The people are not ten feet tall or anything.
"The Brits did quite well conquering Afghanistan and installing their puppet."
Actually they didn't but that was not the purpose anyway. It was a buffer between the raj and Russian central Asia.
Emir got too cozy with the Russians so Brits got in to show that is a bad idea.
In the 80s same same. Just that in the mean time Russsian buld infrastructure. So they could go in and change the buffer into a power base. Didn't work out.
Now the Western team - Brits brought friends - went in. Russians got railways and highways. The new/old team which returned thought that having lots of air power is enough and tried to take over Central Asia. Overreach it seems. Anglos will retreat southwards. Nothing new. Happened before. In fact the same process got repeated few times already.
Only new development is the presence of a new participant from the East. If it can replicate the successful Turkic and Mongol expansions from same direction into Central Asia remains to be seen.
Until now frontier was quite stable.
Russians stayed on the Northern frontier and Anglos on the Southern one. When one of them thought he has the upper hand tried to move it.
The people are not ten feet tall or anything.
The average Vietnamese male weighs 120 lbs. soaking wet - in America they shop for clothes in the boys dept. But they beat the crap out of us anyway. Just like the Pushtuns they wanted it more. We have attention spans tuned to 22 minute sitcoms and video games, they were in it for the long run and could wait us out and wear us out. They were willing to take millions of casualties - maybe 10% of the male population. We cried uncle after a few thousands out of a population of 200 million.
K
It's not that they wanted it more. It's that their allies were the most important parts of the American government, including its media and universities. Tell me, what do you think the odds of beating the Soviet Union would be if you had Pravda, Izvestia and half the KGB on your side?
People's convictions follow calculations. When you're choosing between two sides, the one that is having public debates with itself about the point of fighting, the use of winning etc. is the weak horse. Vietnam, like all American wars after WW2, was an American civil war by proxy.
US tried to win. It really tried. Managed to kill some 3-4 million natives.
Spent an enormous amount of resources. And got branded an evil empire for all the trouble. It was a losing game.
About the internal side there was a particular mistake made I think.
Normal people can become good soldiers. But it is best avoided to use them to kill little girls.
What makes a good paratrooper makes a lousy baby killer. Both Adolf and the Soviets understood very well this truth.
Special dedicated organizations have to be employed for the pretty unpleasant part of tackling civilians. Different type of people. Different values.
If you get involved into something messy where torture and terror are a must and you really can't avoid sometimes killing little girls then you need Internal troops(soviet) or SS-Totenkopfverbände (SS-TV)(german).
Never ever you use line troops for repression. You separate.
If you make such a mistake you get cases like the Americal division. A heroic history it has. Defending Henderson field on Guadalcanal
and taking the offensive over the Matanikau and pushing back the Japanese army in what is close to being hell on Earth. A glorious page of military history. But they were not good at baby killing. People like lt. Calley should have been taken into special units. Normal people, the ones who can fight in hell and push back an Empire would have been better left out of it.
Inevitably the division broke.
Einsatzgruppen maned by people like Calley kill kids. They are good at it. Assault troops suck at that. They don't like it. Get demoralized. System looses legitimacy in their eyes. They break.
US could not accept at a political level this necessary act. You can't have something similar to the Belorussian terror campaign and use normal line troops. Einsatzgruppen needed. There are rules. You either do it competently or quit.US managed to kill incompetently few million Vietnamese - not the right ones it seems, not killed by the right people also - and then left.
They are repeating the story with professional troops now. They are clearly much better at killing civies and pissing on corpses.
But.
If they specialize in this type of performances - insurgency war is about these mainly - they stop being high quality assault troops. Instead of paratrooper units you get Einsatzgruppen. Even if on paper the name and designation are the same, for bureaucracy they are absolutely identical, they are no longer the same.
Some applications back home in US clearly showed that. No longer assault troops.
The Army has to be taken out. As soon as possible. Even if a professional mercenary one is much more resilient at the messy side of an insurgency war it is also affected.
Albright I think had a similar discussion with Colin Powell.
The army is a very powerful and yet fragile structure.
What Afghanistan War shows us among other things the limits of military structures be they Soviet or American then some strange Afghan qualities. If the largely conscript based Soviet army was not able to solve the problem US leadership thought that the US professional one had a better chance. Reality showed us that it was even less efficient then the conscript one. Less political problems though. Much more expensive. And less results. Incredibly little.
In modern war we can avoid demoralizing the troops. Call in a drone strike or air support to do the dirty work. Pilots are specialists in this kind of thing and see the results only from a distance (especially if you are flying the drone from somewhere in Nevada). Prince Harry said it was like playing video games. Yes, once in a while the soldiers in the field lose it when their buddies get blown up by the backstabbing locals, but these are rare events that get magnified by the leftist media.
K
"the one that is having public debates with itself about the point of fighting, the use of winning etc. is the weak horse."
You have the Yeats problem: The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.
Or as Mencken said, For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Yes the American left is a 5th column but they provide a useful check, like the slave who would whisper into the Roman emperor's ear - remember thou art mortal. Once you start believing your own bullshit about how you are fulfilling some prophetic destiny or something you are in danger and need a reality check.
bid Laden was the guy worried about strong and weak horses. I guess his horse wasn't so strong after all. At least for him personally.
K
"In modern war we can avoid demoralizing the troops. Call in a drone strike or air support to do the dirty work."
happening right now. It was quite impossible to avoid. How things will evolve we do not know yet.
What I think we know is that new stuff is coming on line. Stuff that kills. And this usually brings a time of changes.
These new toys. Are they going to be a game changer or not?
Before the ones with most planes and bombs were stronger. Very simple. And the entrance ticket was very very high.
So we got a pretty stable system.
Like very very ancient people in ME had before the Iron age. Kaboooom new toys on sale.
Everything changed.
Now the new precision guided weapons are an equalizer. How when who - if I am right, we do mot know. But the weak - ones who do not muster big continental resources for decades, can have a chance again. Drones robots?
I almost laugh when I see US propaganda talking enthusiastically about them.
Fouls. Their power rested on the big expensive items. Air armies, tank divisions, aircraft battlegroups. Expensive stuff. Expensive entrance ticket. Now cheap - they are becoming increasingly so, smart weapons will cancel that advantage. Why are they happy about is beyond my imagination. I can't think of no reason at all. Madness?
The Greek saying about Gods taking ones mind if they want to destroy him?
I have no answer to that. I simply can not accept that such stupidity can exist at so high social levels. (feeling like Cassandra now).
"these are rare events that get magnified by the leftist media."
"American left is a 5th column"
What is that? the American left?
According to official definitions they are in power now. And it looks like a nice police state - corporate symbiosis. Looks like fascism to me. FDR warned about it. He feared it.
(Adolf is a different animal, we can not make distinctions between fascism which can have an American shape like today and that maniac's murder spree). I have leftist tendencies. But the structure with Obama as a figure head is the definition of Fascism. I do not see anything wrong with that. Just correcting an ideological mistake.
" Once you start believing your own bullshit about how you are fulfilling some prophetic destiny or something you are in danger and need a reality check."
You need it. But you never accept it. Hubris can not be cured. Nature does the reality check. By very brutal methods. That is how it has always happened.
America runs best when you have a rightist president and leftist everything else. They cancel each other out and nothing gets done. Since most of what gov. does is destructive (they take $1 of resources and transform it into less than $1 of value), the less they get done the better.
When it is leftists as far as the eye can see, that's a dangerous situation. If McCain was the President he would have had to close Guantanamo long ago or the press would have screamed bloody murder. But Obama can keep Guantanamo open forever without a peep.
K
>Managed to kill some 3-4 million natives.
I don't really buy these figures. Wikipedia says 700K civilian South Vietnamese dead. Of these, the majority were killed by the Viet Cong as they were establishing and maintaining control over the population. Another 50,000-182,000 civilian dead and 533,000 – 1,489,000 military for North Vietnam.
>But it is best avoided to use them to kill little girls.
You are taking sporadic and uncommon events and calling them business as usual. The murder of civilians en masse by US troops was the exception, not the rule. Which is why, for instance, a helicopter pilot passing by landed and put a halt to the massacre. In any case, you are wrong both with regards to the need for mass murder to end an insurgency (it is a very coarse measure and completely unnecessary for total population control-see, for instance, the Battle of Algiers and Trinquier/Aussaresses' memoirs on it) and the incompatibility of brutality with being a good combat soldier (the same Waffen SS did fine on the front lines, and Genghis Khan and Timur's troops fulfilled both roles quite handily.) But as I said, it is unnecessary. All you need to do is to establish total control of the population, set up mixed colonial structures, etc.
>the American left is a 5th column
The American left is not a 5th column. It is practically the entire civil service, legal system, Congressional staff, media, universities and financial sector. The right controls some small islands, the largest of which are in the DoD. Even there, the dominant groups are far left-see GEN Dempsey's recent comment on what they will do if women have trouble meeting combat arms standards, GEN Casey's comments after the Fort Hood shootings, the military's stance on gays, the COIN fiasco, etc. The equality of left and right in America is like the equality of a cat and mouse-sure, they're both involved in the game and crucial to it.
>FDR warned about it. He feared it.
FDR embodied it. He loved Mussolini (before things went south,) and the New Deal State is very similar to fascism, only more oriented towards the American social elite.
>the structure with Obama as a figure head is the definition of Fascism. I do not see anything wrong with that.
It is not-Fascism (the Italian kind) was much more honest and healthy in terms of its relationship with the host population. I can't picture Mussolini appointing Wise Latinas to a Supreme Court, or importing a new Italian people from the shores of Africa. Quite the opposite-the remains of the Italian colonial institutions were productive long after the end of Italian colonialism.
Well Mussolini's style of fascism had a nationalistic streak. Adolf's style had a genocidal one.
Japanese style had well hard to define that incoherent mix. Definitely different.
Present day US has it's peculiarities. Nationalism is not one of them. It seems that it is mated with a lot of Soviet traits.
At least formally. Necessity forced the US system to borrow a lot from the opposing force.
It was a good idea because it led to victory.
The racist xenofobic US of the 40s had no chance to survive. They knew it back then and adapted accordingly.
As FDR said to - British I think, can check if needed, : well gentlemen 1.5 billion enemies is too much.
He was talking about the attempt to keep the colonial empires in their shape from that time and the number represents the peoples of colour from the period.
It became 2, then 3 etc now something like 6 billion. Can't maintain the empire and behave like the racist xenofobic US of the 40s. Pretty clear.
As FDR would say hmmmm 6 billion enemies is too much.
But the empire can be maintained. It just has to adapt. And it did adapt. Quite well I might say.
It's easy to imagine grand conspiracy theories on how the composition of the US was changed because the left wanted to elect a new people (and maybe by now they have gotten the hint that this is really a good idea for them) or Frankfurt School Jews wanted to undermine capitalism or the Rockefellers want a source of cheap labor or whatever, but the sad truth I think is that we just fell into it without really thinking about it one way or the other and now here we are.
K
I can not decide about conspiracies. Pretty clearly upper class has actively took all the necessary measures to bring in as many people as possible. Maybe economic interests were the reason.
After I bought some rentals I observed my perceptions changed. And I am quite objective I believe. I could clearly feel how my way of thinking changed. In real time.
Upper classes own property. Assets. Their way of thinking is clearly twisted by that. It was purely theory until I could feel the power of individual interest changing my value system.
So maybe not exactly a conspiracy. Some following their interests. Majority having nothing to gain and apparently not losing anything not reacting. And so a lot of new people who need to rent show up. If even a tiny bug like me can feel this the ones who own real assets must have felt the urge to bring in as many people as possible much more acutely.
Racism being a losing hand is quite clearly explained by US leadership itself. Kissinger gives quite nice quotations in his book about Diplomacy. I took the liberty to borrow his and FDR/Truman's ideas(do not remember exactly which of them counted the colored people).
"the incompatibility of brutality with being a good combat soldier (the same Waffen SS did fine on the front lines"
Yes it did fine on the front lines. But no so good in counterinsurgency. Because Waffen SS did not do that.
You do not use assault troops for that. Adolf understood perfectly.
"Genghis Khan and Timur's troops fulfilled both roles quite handily'
That is another issue. I was talking about normal middle class young boys from modern urban societies.
What Mongol shepards did , treating humans like cattle , is a different subject.
Of course you can control completely a population without mass murder. Just a few are enough. But for that you need competent people doing it and a degree of legitimacy in front of at least a part of the population. Preferably the majority but can do with a minority.
That is why Soviets could take over large areas with minimal use of killings.
US could not do it even killing millions. Some CIA guy said something about our example. He said : " In Vietnam the war separated honest people from the scum. We took all the scum. "
That is what a complete lack of legitimacy brings. Only robbers and thieves join the occupants. Adolf encountered the same problem.
Indirect actions are a different matter. And there I think US has started to perform greatly.
Salafis can do the dirty job much cheaper and better. That is the way of the future.
Current government is quite apt at running an empire.
> It seems that it is mated with a lot of Soviet traits.
At least formally. Necessity forced the US system to borrow a lot from the opposing force.
You've got it backwards. The Russians were infected with Communism by the British and American socialite elites. I can point you to some sources if you would like, or you could look it up yourself.
>That is why Soviets could take over large areas with minimal use of killings.
I recommend you read up on the Basmachi, the Bryansk rebellion and others in Central Russia, the behavior of the Soviets in the Baltic states pre- and post-Barbarossa.
>" In Vietnam the war separated honest people from the scum. We took all the scum. "
Horseshit. Many of those fighting the Communists were good men, religious and principled. See: Vang Pao, General Ky, etc.
>Only robbers and thieves join the occupants.
Again, horseshit. It is the opposite-after you lose, it turns out that you were deeply immoral, all your allies were robbers and thieves, etc. Once you've won, all of your allies turn out to have been great patriots and heroes of the resistance. Legitimacy follows power, cooperation follows calculation.
>1.5 billion enemies is too much.
And this is typical American Communist horseshit. The colonial subjects were not the enemies of the metropole, did not see themselves as such and were not treated as such. The minority who did were trained, supplied and supported by the Soviets and Americans (jointly or separately-see the Algerian War, Nasser, the African post WW2 decolonization.)
>Salafis can do the dirty job much cheaper and better
And then what? Will they pump the oil for you? Better than those they replaced? Or will they try to hook you up the same way they hooked up the previous dictator? What possible advantage to the US is having Morsi instead of Mubarak?
I'm with B on this one. It's nice to have this aloof, "the Russians and Americans were both the same", or even "the Americans were worse than the Russians" attitude but it's just not true. My father lived under the Germans and my mother lived under the Russians and it's hard to say which one was more evil and murderous (luckily Stalin died before he could carry out his genocidal plans against the Jews) but the Americans were incomparably better than either. If you can't tell the difference, you need a new pair of spectacles.
K
B sens to understand the Mongols. The Hungarian descriptions of their fighting tactics (and Hungarians were not very far from them) emphatize that they rounded up their enemies exactly like with cattle herds, and channelled them towards the killing zone. They never came close enough to get hurt. They used the topography, the rivers, fire walls, shouts, and other cattle driving methods. The Hungarian had forgotten those tactics and built up defensive positions, that were surrounded. The Mongols were genocydicl because they never considered their enemies other than cattle.
The Mongols were genocidal because there were not enough of them to fuck around at all. They needed some way to ensure that the risk-benefit analysis to their enemies always came out to one thing-"it's better to surrender." Thus, they were very magnanimous to those of their enemies who surrendered, and massacred those who didn't. This made for a great counterinsurgency policy.
Incidentally, they didn't just shine at maneuver warfare. They did siegecraft very well. See their campaign in Sistan, or Mesopotamia. Of course, they themselves didn't have the engineering expertise, but their allies did. And how did they get those allies? See above-it's better to join them than to be massacred.
By the way, the Mongols' descendants, Timurlane and Babur, did quite well at this game as well-Babur, a minor prince who was dispossessed of his one holding (Samarkand) by the Uzbeks coming from Siberia, conquered Afghanistan with a tiny force and held it until he got tired of the shitty weather, at which point he conquered India and founded the Mogul Dynasty. Have you ever read the Baburname, J? Worthwhile read.
Post a Comment