The View From Olympus: The Mainz Affair

Earlier this summer the Marine Corps relieved its best battalion commander, Lt. Col. Marcus Mainz, because in speaking to his Marines he used a politically incorrect word.  Far from being an isolated incident, this militarily idiotic act – gifted trainers and combat leaders are any military service’s most precious and most rare assets – reflects a general moral cowardice in the face of political correctness on the part of senior American officers.  That, in turn, feeds the unfortunate reality that throughout our armed services, including the Marine Corps, preparing for war is the lowest priority.  For more discussion of the Mainz Affair see my column at The American Conservative.

The Marine Corps’ leadership undoubtedly hopes the Mainz Affair will go away if they ignore their blunder long enough.  I don’t think that will happen.  Internally, Lt. Col. Mainz deservedly had a large following among Marines of all ranks who take preparing for war seriously.  They are not taking his relief with silent resignation.  I have never seen such push-back from junior and field-grade officers against a decision by Headquarters Marine Corps.

Externally, the obvious injustice of his relief (which ends his career) and the fact that President Donald Trump won his office by defying the great clay god, political correctness, not groveling to it, suggest the Mainz Affair has a ways to run.  I would not be surprised if either the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the White House, or both got involved, and Capital Hill may also join in.  Not everyone in Washington is a coward in the face of cultural Marxism.

So what should be done?  A just resolution of the Mainz Affair requires three actions:

  1. Give Lt. Col. Mainz his battalion back, with additional command time added to make up for that which he lost.
  2. Identify every officer above Lt. Col. Mainz who proposed or concurred in his relief and relieve them all simultaneously.  The Russians call this “the vertical stroke” and it gets a bureaucracy’s attention.  It is important to go all the way to the top – if necessary, up through the Commandant.  It is hard to believe he did not have to approve Lt. Col. Mainz’s relief.
  3. Headquarters Marine Corps should issue a statement that the Marine Corps does not attempt to dictate the personal political views of individual Marines.  Like any other American citizens, they retain the freedom to make up their minds on political questions.  Those include questions about race, gender, and sexual politics.  A Marine, or any other federal employee, is free to adopt or reject any ideology (conservatives reject them all).

 These actions would resolve the Mainz Affair.  But while they would send some powerful signals on the larger question, they would not be sufficient to resolve it.  That larger question is, how does the Marine Corps (and our other services, who suffer from the same problem) make preparing for war its top priority instead of the lowest?

The single most effective action would be to mandate that, say, 60% of all training time must be devoted to free-play exercises, exercises where a serious opponent is allowed to do whatever he can to win.  That means the T&R Manual, which now eats up all the training time and reduces all training to rote procedures and techniques, is restricted to 40% of total training time.  This action would be fully consistent with Marine Corps doctrine (though at present few Marines ever see any).

Once this is all done, training time should be increased by reducing the time devoted to “sexual harassment awareness”, “alcohol awareness” (I’ve usually found Marines aware of alcohol), and the rest of such crap better suited to a finishing school than to a military service.  In addition, “dog and pony shows” should be replaced with genuine military exercises where the opponent is large enough to be a serious challenger and is unrestrained.

This effort at training reform should be headed by a Marine who has demonstrated creativity in training his own unit and a willingness to cut “the faggot stuff” to make training for war the top priority.  After he completes his tour as a battalion commander, I nominate Lt. Col. Marcus Mainz.

 

Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like? Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.

The View From Olympus: Paradigm Shifts

The Establishment’s hysterical reaction to President Trump’s successful summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin is driven not by outrage but by fear.  The Establishment knows how to succeed in obtaining what it cares about, power and money, within the current paradigms.  Those paradigms include America as the only real world power, before which all other nations must bow; an endless supply of money; Wilsonianism, i.e. forcing “democracy” down all other countries’ throats; and cultural Marxism, which seeks to put women over men, blacks over whites, and gays over straights (where they conflict, cultural Marxism takes precedence over democracy).  But those paradigms are all beginning to shift.  President Trump represents, at least in part, new paradigms which leave today’s Establishment irrelevant, isolated, and powerless.  In response, the Establishment howls in fear and in hatred, especially hatred of a President who represents the heartland instead of the coastal elites.

If we look at each of the above paradigms, we can see the shifts occurring.  Not only does America lack the military power, money, and moral credit to dictate to every other country, all countries now face the challenge of Fourth Generation war, war waged by entities other than states.  This challenge renders competition between states obsolete, something President Trump seems instinctively to grasp, at least in part.  He knows a post-Communism Russian-American rivalry makes no strategic sense; he correctly thinks NATO is obsolete; and he may sense that states everywhere face crises of legitimacy, although of widely varying intensity.  The Establishment howls because one of its major components, the Military-Industrial-Congressional complex must have “peer competitors”, other states it can inflate as threats, in order to justify the trillion dollars a year we spend on national security.  F-35s, Ford-class aircraft carriers, and opposed amphibious landings have little relevance to 4GW.  This paradigm shift promises to reduce the swill in the M-I-C’s trough and the pigs don’t like it.

Meanwhile, the money is running out.  The U.S., and most of the rest of the world, is heading for a colossal debt crisis.  When it hits, we may not be able to afford $100 billion a year in defense, much less a trillion.

This points to a third paradigm shift: the end of Wilsonianism.  Our “defense” budget is really an offense budget.  It supports a military that is supposed to force “democratic capitalism”, which is really oligarchic rent-seeking, down the throats of every people on earth — along with cultural Marxism and its definitions of “human rights”.  Even if the money were not about to run out, Wilsonianism would be doomed from the start.  Russell Kirk wrote, “There is no surer way to make a man your enemy than telling him you are going to remake him in your image for his own good.”  Even Robespierre, too late, said that missionaries with bayonets are seldom welcome.

President Trump grasps that attempts to turn places such as Afghanistan into Switzerland are foolish nonsense.  Yet at the same time, he chose a neo-con, one of the people who tried to turn Iraq into a peaceful, secular democracy by invading it and destroying the state, as his national security advisor.  So he still has a ways to go to ride this paradigm shift.

The last shift he not only grasps but rode into the White House on:  the revolt of America’s heartland against political correctness, e.i., cultural Marxism.  The Establishment either believes in cultural Marxism (most democrats) or is too cowardly to challenge it (most Republicans).  Heartland voters are fed up with it, its advocates, and its sacred “victims” groups, most of whom distinguish themselves by their bad behavior.  In a political battle between the coastal elites and their clients on the one hand and the heartland on the other, the heartland will win.  Look at the percentage of whites among people who actually vote in all the swing states.  The collapse of white acquiescence in cultural Marxism, both here and in Europe, may be the biggest paradigm shift of them all.

And so, faced with irrelevance, the Establishment howls, froths at the mouth and chews the carpet, raging at President Trump. Like a madman whose derangement is killing him, it screams meaningless words, most ending in “ism”, as it dies.  I’m sure the President will give it a grand funeral.

 

Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like?  Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.

The View From Olympus: The Real Cost of NATO

President Trump is right to raise the issue of Europe’s NATO members not spending enough on defense.  For decades, those countries have been NATO’s welfare queens, expecting the U.S. to defend them when they have been entirely capable of defending themselves.  They’ve had the ships, they’ve had the men, they’ve had the money, too.  Since the 1960s they have also had their own nuclear umbrella in the form of France’s nuclear weapons.  Quite apart from the American deterrent, the Soviet Union could not risk invading Western Europe because a nuclear exchange with France would have reduced the USSR to a tenth-rate power, unable to compete with America or even China.  But why should Europe’s welfare queens go off the dole so long as America is dumb enough to keep paying the bill?  President Trump is doing what earlier American presidents should have done but didn’t, mainly because the Washington Military-Industrial-Congressional complex feeds richly off the NATO game.

But mere billions of wasted dollars are not the principal cost of NATO to the United States.  Greater is the strategic price we pay for NATO: it locks us into an obsolete grand strategic orientation.

NATO was formed for only one purpose: containing Communism.  After World War II, Europe was exhausted.  It lacked the military, financial, or industrial strength to take on the Red Army or even Soviet attempts at subversion such as that in Greece.  The U.S. made what was intended to be a temporary commitment to defend Europe, a commitment that was intended to last only until Europe could again defend itself.  When NATO was founded, then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower said that if we were still defending Europe after ten years, NATO would have proven a mistake.  That was seventy years ago.

When Communism fell, NATO’s purpose fell with it.  There was no threat from the east for NATO to defend against.  At that point NATO should have been dissolved.  Failing such a dissolution, the U.S. should have pulled out, leaving Europe to defend itself against—what?

Europe did, and does, face a threat, one at least as dangerous as Communism: the threat from the south.  The new enemy is Islam, the invaders are labelled “refugees” or “asylum-seekers”, and they come armed with a violent religion, defective cultures, or both.  Immigrants who cannot or will not acculturate are a greater threat than invading armies.  The armies eventually go home, but immigrants stay and permanently change the cultural landscape, often in highly undesirable ways.  European women will not enjoy living under Sharia.

In re-orienting to the south, Europe should have either formed a new alliance including Russia or invited Russia into NATO.  Russia holds Christendom’s vast flank that stretches from the Black Sea to Vladivostok.  Should that flank collapse, the West would suffer a defeat at least as damaging as the fall of Constantinople to the Turks.  Thanks to President Putin’s efforts to strengthen the Russian state, that now seems unlikely. 

But Western elites’ ideology of cultural Marxism forbids them to acknowledge the threat from the south: to do so is to reject “multiculturalism” and embrace “racism”.  Cultural Marxism welcomes any and all allies in its battle to destroy Western culture and the Christian religion, even allies such as Islam that will cut the cultural Marxists’ own throats.

So instead those elites have moved heaven and earth to re-start the Cold War, again presenting Russia as a threat, which is absurd.  It is to be expected that Russia will seek to reabsorb areas on her periphery that were historically part of the Russian Empire, especially those which have a predominantly Russian population.  But this is no threat to Europe or the United States.  The likelihood of Russian divisions again rolling into Berlin is small.

President Trump senses that NATO’s anti-Russian orientation is strategically wrong, and he wants normal relations between Moscow and Washington.  Yet both his Secretary of Defense and his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have proclaimed that the U.S. armed forces are to de-emphasize the real threat, which comes from Fourth Generation, non-state elements of many kinds, and instead puff up nonexistent dangers from Russia and China.  Why such strategic lunacy from obviously intelligent men?  Because Fourth Generation war does not justify vast defense budgets.  The demands of the M-I-C complex trump strategy — unless President Trump trumps the M-I-C game.

 

Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like?  Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.

The View From Olympus: Fake Military Exercises

The mice of the Washington foreign policy establishment are trying to nibble around the edges of President Trump’s successful summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.  One of their squeaks is that the President gave up too much when he ordered the suspension of major U.S.-South Korean military exercises.  The June 16 New York Times reported that:

“You could probably cancel a single major exercise, like this one (Ulchi Freedom Guardian, planned for August) without doing major damage to the alliance and its readiness,” said Robert Daly, director of the Kissinger Institute on China and the United States at the Wilson Center.

But that cannot become the standard… 

If several major war games were cancelled for more than a year, the impact could be significant, officials said.

Balderdash.  Giving up our joint war games with South Korea entails no military risk whatsoever.  Why?  Because the games are fake.

The reasons are two.  First, the enemy or Opposing Force (OPFOR) is trivial.  It is tiny, ill-armed and amounts to little more than a tethered goat.  It bears no relation to North Korea’s armed forces.  Second, the exercises are scripted.  The OPFOR has to lose; it’s in the script.  Real war is not scripted.  What makes war is the “independent, hostile will of the enemy.”  That is scripted out in these so called “war games”.  They may be games (with rigged outcomes), but they are not war.

A timely book speaks directly to the Korean war games.  American Cobra Pilot, written by Marine Captain Jeff Groom (and timed for release the day after he left the Corps) is the detailed account of one such exercise, Operation Ssang Young in 2014.  Its subtitle, appropriately, is “A Marine Remembers a Dog and Pony Show.”  Right at the outset he records,

Before heading to my stateroom (on the U.S.S. Bonhomme Richard), I attended a preliminary briefing for the exercise and as I scan my notes it dawns on me that I haven’t taken anything down on the enemy situation.I understand we were going to do some shooting at one of the southern ranges in the vicinity of Pohang.But there is no mention of the enemy.Nothing, the word “enemy” isn’t even written…

Luckily, as if almost from heaven above, my inbox populates and I read words of my salvation from our executive officer…

“Everyone needs to realize this is NOT a tactical exercise.  This is a political exercise to show that even in fiscally constrained times we (Uncle Sam) can still throw together a dozen ships and do a beach assault with all of our toys.  What actually makes it to the beach is mostly irrelevant…” 

I breathe a sigh of relief…There just isn’t an enemy situation.  None.  My life is so much easier now…

Later in the book, when Capt. Groom offers a detailed description of the exercise, he writes,

I found out after the exercise that there was actually a small contingent of South Korean soldiers playing the role of the enemy on the beach.  They dug some shallow holes about 50 meters from the water and waited to be run over.  I don’t know if they did their homework on that one, but even by the battle of Okinawa, the Japanese figured out it was more advantageous to move into the center of the island and wait.  But then again that would make it hard if not downright impossible to get a picture of both the opposing force and the amphibious landing at the same time.  Taking pictures is of course the main goal of the exercise.  The pictures are then edited and reported on by the propaganda division of the Marine Corps, the Public Affairs Office.

It is typical that Washington foreign policy types would accept this show as real.  They know nothing about war, and they peddle the same kind of baloney themselves, in a city where one hand washes the other.  But the fact of the matter is exactly as President Trump stated it: we lose nothing by cancelling the Korean war games, and we save many millions of taxpayer dollars.

Sadly, the factors that make the Korean exercises poor simulations of war affect almost all U.S. military training.  The OPFOR is trivial and even that small force is constrained to follow a script in which it just sits there and gets pounded.

Decades ago, on a visit to the Army’s supposedly premier school, the School of Advanced Military Studies at Ft. Leavenworth (God help us if it is), the students were playing a war game set in the Persian Gulf.  The OPFOR was two majors with a tiny force.  I met with them and suggested some things they could do, small as their force was, that would cause the Americans some problems.  They got excited but said, “we have to ask permission.”  (Obviously, this was not the Kriegsakademie.)  They came back to me and said, “We were told, just follow the script.”

There is an old military saying, you fight the way you train.  We will, whether we want to or not.

 

Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like?  Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.

The View From Olympus: The Crying Child

In its quest to swamp native-born Americans in a sea of third world immigrants, the Left last week deployed one of its most powerful weapons: a crying child.  You have all seen the photo: the illegal immigrant, the Border Patrol officer and the small child bawling.  At that sight, we are all supposed to dissolve into tears ourselves and do something, anything so the child does not cry.

This is the sort of drivel one gets in a feminized society.  Facts and reason are to yield to feelings.  It matters not that this day and every day somewhere around a billion children cry.  If thirty seconds later the officer handed the brat a sucker and the tears turned to smiles, there was no picture of that.  A feminized society indulges in a culture of emotion, of pathos, of weakness.

In a world of Fourth Generation war, such societies will not survive.  While most people think of the 4GW threat in terms of terrorism, that is a very small threat compared to the threat of invasion by immigration.  We would do well to remember that the barbarians who overwhelmed and destroyed the Roman Empire were immigrants.  With the exception of the Vandals, most of them did not come to destroy the Empire.  They were trying to move in and enjoy its benefits.  But they came in such numbers that Rome was overwhelmed.

The 21st century is likely to see similar flows of whole peoples.  A combination of climate change, state collapse, and famine will see not millions, but tens of millions and hundreds of millions of refugees.  Few are going to flee to India or Africa.  They will head to places where life is good, Europe and North America.  Unless we are prepared to do whatever is necessary to keep them out, we, like Rome, will be swamped, and all will end up in a new Dark Age.  The immigrants may be seeking our way of life, but their numbers will be such that they will turn us into whatever they are fleeing.  This has already happened along much of our southern border.

President Trump’s policy of separating children from their families was a disincentive for illegal immigrants to come here.  We need every such disincentive we can devise.  If the policy seemed cruel—again, to a feminized society—it was very moderate compared to what the U.S. and Europe will eventually have to do to stem the human tide.  When most of a flooded Bangladesh boards a fleet of rust bucket ships and heads for Europe, Europe will either have to sink the ships or watch The Camp of the Saints scenario play out.  We will need, along with our southern border, not a wall but something like the old East-West German border.  Anyone who tries to cross dies.

That is, after all, what borders meant well up into the post-World War II era.  Border patrols did not arrest people trying to cross illegally.  They shot them.

A practical measure we need to revive immediately is to prohibit all entry to anyone without prior approval, including asylum-seekers.  In the case of legitimate travel, this means bringing back visas.  If we are talking about immigrants, we should return to the policy we followed from 1920 until the 1960s.  Anyone wishing to immigrate into the United States had to be examined, tested, and pre-approved, under a quota system and with an American citizen’s sponsorship.  The sponsor was required to take responsibility for the new immigrant, which meant helping them find a place to live and a job.  They weren’t just dumped on the American taxpayer.

A feminized society can do none of these things because, well, a child might cry.  Someone might feel bad.  To America’s good fortune, feminization and the broader cultural Marxism into which feminism has been subsumed in recent decades is largely confined to the coastal elites.  Heartland Americans, men and women, know the world is a tough place.  A culture of sentiment and of weakness does not appeal to them.  They know their children and grandchildren will pay the price if we leave the floodgates open.  And, as President Trump’s election showed, the Heartland is rising as the coastal elites, sobbing all the way, lose their grips.  Heartland people’s answer to a crying child is the one their parents gave them:  “Keep it up and I’ll give you something to cry about.”  Starting with getting sent home.

  

Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like?  Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.

The View From Olympus: Resources for Maneuver Warfare

Now and then it happens that a commander at some level in the U.S. military wants to move whatever he is in charge of toward Third Generation maneuver warfare.  The results are usually meager, because the military personnel system moves him after a year or two and his replacement invariably neither understands nor has any interest in what he was trying to accomplish. 

However, those leaders making the attempt will accomplish more if they draw on work that has already been done rather than trying to reinvent the tank tread.  A number of publications offer the “Cliff Notes” on maneuver warfare, i.e., they boil the general literature down and offer the basics without requiring too much reading.  The most important such works are:

  • The Marine Corp’s foundational doctrinal manual, MCDP-1, Warfighting.  An updated version is now being written, but the existing one is excellent (and maybe better; I haven’t seen the new one yet).  Published when General Al Grey was Commandant, Warfighting is probably the best summary of maneuver warfare in print anywhere. 
  • Other capstone Marine Corps manuals issued during the Al Grey years, including Tactics, Campaigning, which is devoted to operational art, and Command and Control.  Make sure you use the original version of FMFM 1-3 Tactics, as the Marine Corps subsequently ruined it.
  • My own Maneuver Warfare Handbook, which is still in print and available from Westview Press.  It is also in print in several other languages, including Spanish, Swedish, and Estonian.
  • The Marine Corps’ five-volume Warfighting Skills Program, MCI 7400-7404, which is designed for self-study.  The only maneuverist MCI self-study course the Corps ever produced, the Warfighting Skills Program may now be hard to find as it is no longer offered.  It is worth the search.

For those commanders who want to look beyond Third Generation war to Fourth, Cliff Notes are scantier.  The best is the Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook, which I co-authored with Marine Lt. Col. Greg Thiele and is published by Castalia House.  Also see the series of Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Marine Corps field manuals on 4GW.  The Marine Corps still has not officially recognized Fourth Generation War (nor successfully institutionalized Third), so it has nothing to offer here.  The other American armed services are stuck in the Second Generation and their doctrinal publications are useful only as fire-starters.  I’ve heard the Taliban regularly roasts goats over piles of them.

 For those who want to get more depth on either maneuver warfare or 4GW, you should start reading “the canon” in the stipulated order.  You will find an annotated bibliography discussing each book as an appendix to the 4GW Handbook.  The list is:

  • C.E. White, The Enlightened Soldier
  • Robert Doughty, The Seeds of Disaster
  • Bruce Gudmundsson, Stormtroop Tactics
  • Martin Samuels, Command or Control
  • Robert Doughty, The Breaking Point
  • Martin van Creveld, Fighting Power
  • Martin van Creveld, The Transformation of War

As a Marine infantry captain who was then the instructor development officer at The Basic School at Quantico said, “Unless he’s a rock, no one can read these books in the right order and not get it.”

   

Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like?  Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.

The View From Olympus: The Big One

The 2008-09 financial crisis was a warning Washington has not heeded.  We have continued in our profligate ways, increasing our federal deficit and national debt.  Far from bringing back Glass-Steagal and adding new measures to keep banks from pursuing risky business, we have de-regulated them while offering new incentives for moral hazard.  Seemingly secure in the knowledge they can buy enough Members of Congress to privatize profits while socializing losses, banks and other financial companies are doing everything that brought on the previous crisis.  The party is still roaring, the champagne is flowing, and everybody is still wearing a lampshade.  But in the east, the sky is beginning to brighten.

The Big One is coming, and I think soon.  What is the Big One?  An international debt crisis.  When it hits, everything will change, including for the Department of Defense.  DoD will no longer have spare trillions to throw around.

History has seen debt crises many times, and they follow a similar course.  First, lenders start to worry that a state’s ever-increasing debt may not get paid back.  That leads them to demand higher rates of interest.  As interest rates rise (and no, the Fed does not control long term rates), so does the percentage of the state’s budget that goes to paying the interest.  Soon, the state finds itself borrowing money to pay the interest on money it borrowed earlier.  That makes lenders really nervous and rates rise to the point where the state cannot afford to borrow more (or lenders simply refuse to lend).  At that point, the state does not have enough money to pay its obligations: not only interest on the existing debt, but the salaries of its employees, including the military, pensions, welfare payments, the cost of whatever it is procuring, and so on.  The cupboard is bare, and the state is in the grip of a full-fledged debt crisis.

For the U.S. military, which at present requires enormous financial inputs for not much output — we should be able to buy failures for less than a trillion dollars a year — everything will change.  The vast armies of contractors and DoD civilians will have to go.  Expensive procurement programs will be terminated.  Force structure will shrink — and the bureaucracy will seek to save itself by cutting what few actual fighters we have.  So enormous has that bureaucracy become that we could find ourselves with a “military” that has hundreds of thousands of people but no combat forces whatsoever.  If you think that can’t happen, take a look at Europe’s militaries today, including the Bundeswehr.

A state has two ways out of a debt crisis (kings had a third way, repudiating the debt, but republics find that difficult).  The first is to cut expenditures until they are below tax revenues and use the surplus to start paying back the debt.  If you want to see what that brings, look at Greece.  The other way, assuming a state has its own currency (Greece does not; it’s on the Euro), is to inflate that currency and pay the debt back in worthless paper money.  Which way is easier in a democracy?  Obviously, inflation, so that’s what we will get.  Inflation soon becomes hyperinflation and the middle class, or what is left of it, is wiped out.

States and individuals living above their incomes are not just an American phenomenon.  I think the international debt crisis is less likely to begin here than in China or even Europe.  But wherever it starts, it will hit here too, and quickly.  In 2008, we were within hours of, as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke put it, “not having an economy” as all lending abruptly stopped.  Since we did not heed the warning, this time that will happen.  Overnight, we will find ourselves in a world depression.  Economists will say you cannot simultaneously have inflation and depression, but that is as disconnected from reality as most of what economists tell you.  Look at Venezuela.

Now take a new Great Depression, hyperinflation, and a complete loss of what legitimacy Washington still possesses and add in the fracturing of America we already see on religious, cultural, and racial lines.  What do you get?  Fourth Generation war, here — the worst possible outcome.  If you want to see what that looks like, read Thomas Hobbes’ new book, Victoria.

The War on Men

People have long spoken or written on “the war between the sexes.”  No one ever imagined that the “war” in question was anything but a metaphor.  Usually, it was waged over the thermostat, with men wanting to set it colder and women, warmer.

A few weeks ago in Toronto, the war became literal.  A man drove a van down the sidewalk, attempting to kill a woman.  About a dozen people died.  A more recent killing in Portland, Oregon, may have been an assault on women.  How could such things be happening?  For as long back as history can remember, men and women, love and marriage, have gone together like a horse and carriage.

The origin of this new and dreadful real war between men and women lies, like most bad things these days, in cultural Marxism, and in the feminist movement it has subsumed (19th century feminism was pro-family).  Today’s feminism is openly hostile to men.  More, it has launched its own, non-violent but still devastating, war on men. 

The path that war follows is everywhere the same.  First, feminists demand that women be admitted to traditionally male career fields – cops, firemen, soldiers, construction, etc.—as equals.  When that happens, the women don’t become “one of the boys”.  On the contrary, the men are supposed to become eunuchs.  Men, including young men, are supposed to work cheek-by-jowl with women without showing the slightest interest in them as the opposite sex.  Since most men, especially young men, cannot do that – human nature makes it impossible – the women are empowered over the men because they can accuse any man who notices their femininity as “sexual harassment”.  Cultural Marxism denounces this as a sin and a crime, the man is presumed guilty until proven innocent, and men must now live in constant fear of the women with whom they share a workplace.

Of course, the man does not need to so much as look at woman to be accused of “sexual harassment”.  If he gives a woman an order she does not like, if he takes over because she can’t do the job right, or if he fails to notice her sexually when she wants to be noticed, she can charge him with the fatal accusation.  Men are put in a situation where they cannot work without women around them and simultaneously cannot work with them present.  What’s a guy to do?

The answer is, turn violent.  Here is a difference between men and women (there are many) that the magical incantation “equality” cannot nullify.  When pressed beyond endurance, men, but not women, resort to force.  Again, this is part of human nature.  No ideology can overcome it.  And, it works.  Hollywood may produce program after program in which lovely, petite women beat up big men.  The reality is otherwise.  If it turns physical, men almost always win.

To prevent it from turning violent, women rely on male chivalry.  But feminism pours scorn on male chivalry.  The man who opens a door for a feminist may get a kick in the shins.  But the same (hypocritical) feminist relies on the chivalry the man showed by opening the door to prevent him from grabbing her by her hair and breaking her neck.

Of all the “experiments against reality”, to borrow Roger Kimball’s phrase, that cultural Marxism has mandated, none is more absurd than pretending there are no differences between men and women.  Because those differences are real, inherent, and powerful, it may be that feminism’s absurd pretensions are the final straw that break cultural Marxism’s back.  More and more young men are gravitating to the alt-right in response to the impossible position they find themselves in vis-à-vis women.  And non- and anti-feminist women, who are a majority, are lining up with the men.  They like being different from men, they welcome both male chivalry and the well-mannered advances it includes, and they look forward to fulfilling women’s traditional roles as wives (in a lifetime marriage), mothers, and homemakers.

Reality says that men and women are inherently different and their traditional social roles reflect their inherent differences.  All experiments against this or any other reality fail.

 

Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like? Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.

      

The View From Olympus: A Disastrous Decision–Or Is It?

On the surface, President Trump’s decision to abandon the nuclear accord with Iran is a disaster.  If Iran considers the accord null and void without U.S. participation and resumes uranium enrichment on a large scale – Tehran for now says it will stick with the deal – we would be on the road to yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East.  President Trump was elected to get us out of the wars we are in, not start new ones.

Meanwhile, revived and new U.S. economic sanctions on Iran may put us on a collision course with Europe.  Will Europe allow Washington to dictate to European companies and banks whom they can do business with?  If not, American sanctions on European businesses may be met with European sanctions on U.S. firms.  Europe, China, and Russia have already said they will continue to honor the accord, which leaves the U.S. diplomatically isolated.  Couple diplomatic with economic isolation and we will have a problem.

Some supporters of President Trump’s action hope the damage it will bring to Iran’s economy may inspire the Iranian people to revolt and overthrow the clerical regime.  That is a possibility, although most peoples rally around the flag in response to outside pressure.  But it is possible that, in the face of a widespread revolt, the Iranian state could collapse altogether.  That would be a disastrous outcome for all concerned, because it would be a great victory for the Fourth Generation war entities that would fill the vacuum created by yet another American-facilitated state collapse.  If Washington had any understanding of 4GW – which it doesn’t – it would realize a collapse of the Iranian state is far a greater danger than that state can ever pose.

But there is another way to read President Trump’s action.  Both on North Korea and on some trade issues he has gotten good results by using a standard business technique: going in with maximalist demands, threats, etc., then backing off as part of a deal.  In diplomacy, this is known as brinksmanship.  You push a situation to the brink of disaster, then pull a rabbit out of the hat in the form of an agreement that leaves everyone satisfied and the situation more stable than it was before.

If that is the game here – I have no way of knowing – then the President’s action was not a disaster.  But it is still a high risk.  The whole performance may have been coordinated with the Europeans in advance, in which case everyone is just following a script.  Again, that could lead to a renewed and improved accord with Iran.  But if not and our diplomatic isolation is real, the risks go up.  And if Iran responds by tearing up the whole deal and going for the bomb, again, we face another unnecessary war.  In that war, all the American troops in Syria and Iraq and perhaps those in Afghanistan as well will become Iranian hostages.  What then, Mr. President?

President Trump’s brinksmanship with North Korea appears to have worked well, so far at least.  If he comes out of his summit with Kim Jong-Un with an agreement that denuclearizes North Korea, ends the Korean war with a formal peace treaty, allows and helps North Korea to join the world economy and gets U.S. troops out of South Korea, he will indeed deserve, with Mr. Kim and Mr. Moon, the Nobel Peace Prize.  Should he be able to build on that by making a similar deal with Tehran, one allowing Iran to improve its economy while reducing its considerable regional military and diplomatic overreach, he would at least be a candidate for sainthood.  Has the President or anyone around him thought all this through?  God only knows.  And I’m not sure He is paying attention.

The View From Olympus: Israel, Gaza, and 4GW

Hamas, which rules the Gaza strip, has traditionally been less competent than Hezbollah at Fourth Generation war.  Its rocket attacks on Israel, although they have frightened Israelis, have done little physical damage while they have created a moral equivalence between Hamas and Israel that hurts the former.  Now, however, it is beginning to look as if Hamas has gotten smarter in a way that poses a real 4GW strategic threat to Israel.

On successive Fridays, Hamas has sponsored demonstrations at the border fence between Gaza and Israel.  On April 27, the demonstrators broke through the fence.  Israel responded, as it has before, with live fire that killed several Gazans.  Anytime that happens, Israel suffers a defeat at the moral level, which in 4GW is the decisive level.

Hamas’s challenge is to push that defeat up from the tactical to the strategic.  Conditions may be ripe for it to do so.  Israel, Egypt, and Fatah have combined their efforts to degrade the quality of life in Gaza to the point where people there feel they have nothing to lose.  When everyday life is hell, risking that life is a modest risk.  Hamas may be able to mobilize, not hundreds of demonstrators, but hundreds of thousands.

The scenario is not hard to envision.  Hamas mobilizes, let us say, 150,000 Gazans to start marching towards the border fence.  If Hamas really understands the moral level of 4GW, it will make sure none are armed.  No one throws stones or firebombs.  People have wire cutters and other equipment to go through or over the fence, but not a single demonstrator takes any action that could hurt an Israeli, soldier or civilian.  Perhaps they carry flags, flowers, or gifts of food from hungry Gaza. 

What does Israel do?  Modern firepower can kill most if not all of the 150,000.  But if Israel does that, its strategic position in the rest of the world collapses.  In a supreme irony, Israel looks like Nazi Germany.  But if Israel does not turn on the firepower, it is invaded by an unarmed army that nonetheless seeks to occupy its land.

It is in Israel’s interest to avoid this strategic dilemma at the moral level of war.  I think it is not too late to do so.  The key is to de-motivate Gazans from risking their lives.  That, in turn, requires improving living conditions and economic opportunities in Gaza.

To pull Hamas’s fangs, Israel, ideally in cooperation with Egypt (Fatah won’t play), should announce a major program to help the people of Gaza.  That should include a steady and adequate supply of electricity, supplies, and so on.  Life in Gaza will never be easy, but it can be made tolerable, as it was not too long ago.

The question is whether a Likud government can bring itself to do this.  Its political base will react negatively.  That base does not grasp 4GW and wants Israel to mow down invading Gazans like wheat.  If Likud does not do that, other parties will seek to go around it on its right.  Critics will point out, correctly, that Hamas may use materials that Israel allows to flow into Gaza to attack Israel.  The fact that this is a tactical, physical threat as opposed to a far more dangerous strategic and moral dilemma will be lost on most of the Israeli public.  So Likud faces another dilemma: does it avert a moral strategic threat to Israel or does it act to please its political base?

I am not optimistic Likud will act for Israel rather than for itself.  Its inability to grasp Fourth Generation war has long been evident.  It sees the problem purely in terms of the physical, tactical level.  It cannot understand John Boyd’s point that this is the weakest level of war, while the most powerful level is the moral, strategic level.  (See “the grid” in Fourth Generation Warfare Handbook for more on this.)

Hamas may blow its opportunity by reverting to violence.  But if it employs the power of weakness effectively, Israel could be on the verge of strategic disaster.  I have been to Israel.  I like the country, I like the people, I have Israeli friends.  I don’t want to see that happen.  But as is so easy in 4GW, if it does happen, Israel will have defeated itself.

 

Interested in what Fourth Generation war in America might look like? Read Thomas Hobbes’ new future history, Victoria.