The View From Olympus: The Pensacola Shootings

On December 6, a Saudi pilot trainee shot and killed three American sailors and wounded eight other people in a mass shooting at the Navy’s premier pilot training base in Pensacola, Florida.  That should no longer shock us. The spectacle of a Moslem killing innocent people in Europe or the U.S. has become, if not an everyday occurrence, one we see with depressing regularity. What is shocking, or should be, was the response, or lack thereof.  Why, on a military base, did people have to wait until sheriff’s deputies arrived to take out the shooter? If our military cannot defend itself, how can it hope to defend our country?

The reason was not a lack of courage on the part of our sailors.  One of those killed, Ensign Kaleb Watson, a recent Annapolis graduate, did what every man should do in an active shooter situation: he attacked the gunman, saving the lives of others in the process.  According to the December 9 New York Times, he had previously told his parents that if confronted with an active shooter, “I’m going in full force.”  He did exactly that. Airman Haithim, who also died, reportedly did the same.

But with all these military men around, why did no one just shoot the Moslem gunman?  Because, as the December 7 New York Times wrote, “Weapons are not allowed on the base other than for security personnel.”  In other words, we do not trust American sailors to carry guns.

The reason, I’m sure, is “safety”.  Well, war is dangerous. If you’re looking for safety, join the Salvation Army.  A case might be made that letting the most junior servicemen carry weapons on base could result in some of them shooting themselves in the foot (remember, their generation can’t stop their thumbs from moving, even if said thumb is on safety).  But why is it not routine for staff NCOs and officers to carry pistols? A sidearm, whether sword or pistol (even swords would be better for confronting a gunman than bare hands) are traditionally a sign of an officer’s or staff NCO’s authority.  So, for the latter, is a spontoon, a short spear. And yes, the guns should be loaded. As a Marine friend of mine said recently, “An unloaded gun is just a stick.”

What has led to the bizarre situation where our military has disarmed itself?  The answer is to be found in two broad phenomena, both of which undermine our ability to fight.  Because of the “up-or-out” promotion system, officers soon discover that the way to get ahead is to avoid making decisions or taking action.  The higher you go in rank, the greater the desire to avoid responsibility. I might call it Verantwortungsfeindlichkeit, hostility to taking responsibility. 

“Joy in taking responsibility,” was the single most important quality sought in officers in the old German army.  By consistently rewarding our officers for the opposite, we end up with senior military “leaders” who are really just managers and whose first instinct in a crisis is to hide under the bed.  Who among them is likely to reverse current policy and let our officers and staff NCOs carry loaded weapons? Not one.

The second reason we have disarmed our military is the womanization of our armed services.  The feminist script is always the same. First, demand women be allowed to join what, for good reasons, has traditionally been men’s fields of endeavor.  Then, demand those places be made comfortable for women. Well, women are genetically programmed to have safety as their highest value. So now we have to have a safe military where women don’t see nasty things like guns.  I mean, good heavens, a woman might get hurt! That a military full of women arms itself with feather-dusters should not surprise us.

With the exception of the sailors who fought the gunman, the Naval Air Base Pensacola’s response to an active shooter was little different from what we would expect from a convent.  They waited for the cops to come and rescue them. And we expect a military like that to defeat 4GW fighters who from age five had to scrounge and scrap every day in a dump for their dinner?

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

The Left’s Cognitive Dissonance

The November 20, 2019 New York Times ran two stories on its front page.  One was about a Hispanic woman who had won a seat on the Yakima, Washington city council.  The Times reported that Miss Gutierrez became:

Among the first Latino politicians ever elected in the Central Washington community of nearly 94,000 where the number of Latinos has doubled in just one generation, now making up almost half of the total population.

Lower down on the same page, in a story about a “racist manifesto” at Syracuse University, the Times said the manifesto “warned of ‘the great replacement,’ a right-wing conspiracy theory that predicts white genocide at the hands of minority groups.”

Apparently the Times does not read its own front page.  Or if it does, its thinking is so compartmentalized by ideology that it cannot see the contradiction between calling a replacement of whites by other races and ethnic groups a “conspiracy theory” on the same page where it reports exactly that in Yakima, Washington.  This is cognitive dissonance on a grand scale.

A few facts may be in order here.  History reports many cases where one people has replaced another.  The Germanii the Romans fought no longer exist. They were replaced by other peoples migrating from the east.  The Celts who made up the main population in Roman Gaul and Britain were driven back into remote enclaves by arriving Angles, Saxons, and Franks, although there was some intermarriage.   The Bible records how the Jews replaced other people in Palestine, as they are doing again in our own time (ask the Palestinians what they mean by the “right to return”.) In Burma, the Buddhists are driving out the Moslem Rohingya because the latter’s much higher birth rate means they will otherwise eventually drive out the Buddhists.  The Chinese government is flooding Xinjiang province with Han people to overwhelm the Uighurs, as India is probably going to do in Kashmir by moving masses of Hindus. Replacement is an old, old story, not a “conspiracy theory”.

More, when one people replaces another, everything changes.  Even if the newly arrived people do not kill all the people they replaced, it’s no longer their country.  What defines a country is less its borders, rivers, and resources than its culture. When the Franks took over Roman Gaul, Roman culture was replaced by, well, barbarism.  Living in second century Arles was different from living in sixth century Arles. Some Romanitas did survive, just enough so people remembered how much better life used to be under the Roman Empire.  Back then, plumbing still worked.

When American conservatives warn the masses of immigrants from cultures who come here and do not adopt traditional American culture, with its Anglo-Saxon roots, are dangerous invaders, their warnings are well-grounded in history.  And while Western culture is almost uniquely open to people from other races and ethnic groups–no one who is not born Han can become Chinese–culture and ethnicity can be different when dealing with large masses of people, numbering in the millions.  Individuals may acculturate perfectly, but because most people prefer to live among and socialize with people like themselves–segregation is built into human nature–large groups of ethnically distinct immigrants often do end up replacing natives and their culture.  That is what the Times unwittingly reported happening in the Yakima, Washington, a place traditionally known for its apples, not its tacos.

The “great replacement” is an old story that is happening again, especially in Europe, where native Europeans have low birthrates and Islamic immigrants have high birth rates.  What cultural Marxists call a “conspiracy theory” is a fact, one Islamic leaders talk about openly as central to their strategy for destroying the Christian West. In the cultural Marxists’ lexicon, “conspiracy theory” is the term for facts you do not like.

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

The View From Olympus: Spreading Disorder and 4GW

In the United States, the number of mass shootings continues to climb.  In Lebanon, Iraq, Hong Kong, and Chile, demonstrators fill the streets for weeks or months on end.  In France, that cradle of disorder, the yellow vests have gone quiet for now, but probably not for long.  What is going on? And what, if anything, does it have to do with Fourth Generation war?

To address the latter question, we need to remember that Fourth Generation war is rooted in a crisis of legitimacy of the state.  As people shift their primary loyalty away from the state to a wide variety of other things, the state loses its monopoly on war and on social organization.  And as those monopolies vanish, disorder spreads.

What we are seeing in spreading disorder is not Fourth Generation war itself.  But it is a failure of the state. As Martin van Creveld argues in The Rise and Decline of the State, the state arose for only one purpose: to establish and maintain order and safety of persons and property.  States that cannot do that lose their legitimacy.

Here is where we see an answer to our first question, what is going on?  In more and more places, states are failing to maintain order but remain as vehicles of the New Class, the Establishment.  The Establishment runs the state, not to provide security of persons and property for all, but for its own benefit. It uses its control of the state to give itself careers, money (lots of it), power, prestige, etc.  It then employs these to exempt itself from the consequences of state failure, i.e., it lives in gated communities, its kids go to private schools and its jobs don’t get shipped overseas.

One of the interesting characteristics of the new world disorder is that it is coming primarily from the middle class.  The yellow vests are a striking example. But the young people filling the streets of Baghdad and Hong Kong are also often of middle class background.  They are college students or recent college graduates. They are taking to the streets because around the world, the middle class is under ever growing pressure.  College degrees no longer bring good jobs. Pensions and paychecks no longer last to the end of the month. Maintaining even a vestige of a middle class standard of living requires going even deeper into debt.  The state arose to provide security, but it now yields growing insecurity for the middle class.

So far, the disorder appears to be directed against the Establishment that runs the state, not the state itself.  That is why it is not Fourth Generation war. If it proves possible to boot the Establishment out and replace it with governors who serve the middle class instead of themselves, the state is likely to remain.  However, if the Establishment is able to hold on to power despite its failure in governance, then at some point people are likely to start giving up on the state itself. At that point we will be looking at 4GW, and lots of it.

One of the few benefits of the circus that is the impeachment of President Trump is that it has compelled the Washington Establishment, America’s Deep State, to manifest itself.  The “witnesses” against the President (none of whom seem to have actually witnessed anything) are in highly paid, high prestige jobs. They have had distinguished careers, from the “right schools” on up.  They are all deeply committed to the Globalist world order. And they loathe the President because he is not one of them.

Should the Establishment succeed in driving President Trump from office, one way or another, the message to the people who voted for him will be simple: you don’t count and you never will.  At that point, many of those voters will begin to question the system itself, if they are not doing so already. And that system is the state.

In the end, states cannot remain both legitimate and a private hunting preserve of the New Class.  As Martin van Creveld said to me years ago in my Capitol Hill office, everyone can see it except the people in the capital cities.

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

The Anti-White Party

An outtake in an article in the November 14 New York Times about the Iowa caucuses caused me to do a double take: “Democrats question the status of a state that’s 90% white.”

Imagine that the Times had instead said, “Republicans question the status of a state that’s heavily black,” or “GOP questions the status of a state that’s largely Hispanic.”  The crises of outrage would reach to the heavens. Every Establishment organ would demand the Republicans pee all over themselves, grovel in the dust, and kiss the feet of so-called black and Hispanic “leaders”, most of whom are con artists.  But when the Democrats dismiss a state because it’s largely white? Not a murmur of protest arose from any quarter.

Along with a growing number of other white Americans, I find myself saying, “Wait a minute, whites built this country. We took a vast wilderness inhabited by a few million howling savages (who unlike their cousins in Mexico and Central America had built no civilizations) and turned it into what was, as recently as the 1950s, the best country on earth of all time.  The contribution of other races was mostly muscle, not brains. In that respect, they stand well back from the ox, mule, and horse. And now we are to stand mute as Democrats make us a despised minority in our own country? I don’t think so.”

The Democratic Party’s hostility toward whites is a product of the broader ideology that party has embraced, the ideology of cultural Marxism, which is commonly known as “political correctness” or “multiculturalism”.  Like Moscow’s old Marxism-Leninism, cultural Marxism says certain kinds of people are a priori good and others evil, regardless of what individuals do.  In Marxism-Leninism, workers and peasants are good while landlords, capitalists and members of the middle class, the bourgeoisie, are evil.  The latter are fit only to be “liquidated”, which Soviet Communism did on a scale that put Hitler to shame: not six million dead, but sixty million.  (Ever notice how people on the Left swoon at the sight of a swastika but find the hammer and sickle gently amusing?)

Cultural Marxism says whites are inherently evil “oppressors” who must constantly beg blacks, Indians, immigrants, etc. to forgive their “white privilege”.  The average white family living paycheck-to-paycheck doesn’t see a lot of privilege in being white. In fact, it seems our “privilege” is to pay the bills, through our taxes, of non-whites who can’t or won’t pay their own.  If there is “injustice” here, it’s toward whites, who should be privileged in a country we made out of nothing. And by the way, when we ran the place, it worked pretty well. In the 1950s, the black inner city was safe.

It is now virtually impossible to be a Democrat and not embrace cultural Marxism.  That ideology condemns not only whites, but males, non-feminist women, straights, and Christians.  All are fit only to be–what? Liquidated, like Russia’s middle and upper classes? From what we see on university campuses where cultural Marxists hold power, it seems there are no limits on how far their hatred of whites will go.

What this all adds up to is that, for the 2020 elections, there is really only one issue.  The Democratic Party is anti-white, anti-male, anti-straight, and anti-Christian. Logically, that means no white, male, straight, or Christian should vote Democrat.  To do so would be to vote for their own persecution and eventual extinction in a country they created. If we really want to commit suicide, there are better ways to do it than by handing political power over to our enemies.

More and more white Americans are coming to understand this.  That’s why President Trump, if he runs in 2020, is likely to win in a landslide, regardless of who the Democrats nominate.  If you don’t think so, look at the racial breakdown among likely voters in the swing states.

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

The View From Olympus: Two Presidents, Both Wrong

The recent massacre in Mexico of nine American citizens, all women and children, by drug cartel gunmen elicited two very different reactions from the American and Mexican Presidents.  President Trump said, according to the November 9th Cleveland Plain Dealer,

The great new President of Mexico has made this a big issue, but the cartels have become so large and powerful that you sometimes need an army to defeat an army.  This is the time for Mexico, with the help of the United States, to wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth.

In contrast, Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said,

It hurts a lot.  But are we going to want to solve the problem in the same way?  Declaring war? That, in the case of our country, has been shown not to work.  That was a failure, that caused more violence. . . 

If we understand Fourth Generation war, we know both Presidents are wrong, although both show some insight into the situation.

President Trump is correct that the Mexican drug cartels are large and powerful.  But he underestimates the degree. Some of them are now more powerful than the Mexican state.  They have more money than the state, they have a much faster OODA Loop than the state’s forces, and, in classic 4GW fashion, they have penetrated the state’s forces to the point where they control many of them, in large part by paying higher “salaries” than the states.  If Mexico declares war on the cartels, it will lose.

President Lopez Obrador is right that warring with the cartels has been shown not to work.  But he does not appear to see any alternative but his famous line, “Hugs, not gunshots,” which has also been shown not to work, as the nine dead Americans testify.  So what is to be done?

Obviously, the best answer is to stop the cartels before they grow more powerful than the states.  But it is too late for that, in Mexico, in much of Central America, and around the world where many types of 4GW entities have become more powerful than their host states, e.g., Hezbollah in Lebanon.

For states that find themselves in that situation, 4GW theory suggests another approach: establish the rules of the game.  From the state’s perspective, gunmen from one cartel killing gunmen from a rival is not a big problem. As one Russian said to me in Moscow years ago when I asked about Chechnya, “Well, now Chechens are killing Chechens, so who cares?”

The problem is that sometimes civilians are killed, or kidnapped, or robbed, which reveals the hollowness of the state and undermines its legitimacy.  A President of Mexico or another country where non-state elements have become more powerful than the state might offer them a deal: if you avoid civilian casualties, we will stay out of the way of whatever is your top priority.  For drug cartels, that is making money by selling drugs.

While the state is not strong enough to wage war on and defeat the cartels, it can still raise or lower the cost of their doing business.  Like most businessmen, I suspect the cartels’ leaders want to lower costs. They might be open to a deal on those terms. Of course it is a worse solution from the state’s standpoint than destroying the cartels.  But it may be the best deal weak states can get.

If Mexico had a “rules of the game” agreement with at least the major cartels, an incident such as the massacre of nine American women and children would see the cartel whose gunmen did it execute those gunmen itself.

As always in 4GW, the war with drug cartels is at root a contest for legitimacy.  When civilians are killed in the war among cartels, both the state and the cartels suffer a blow to their legitimacy.  The state arose to bring order: safety of persons and property. States that cannot or will not do that lose their legitimacy.  In turn, smart 4GW entities such as Hezbollah know their legitimacy depends on providing safety and other services to the civilian sea in which they swim.  When they kill civilians, they hurt themselves.

Bismarck described politics as “the art of the possible”.  To preserve public peace and civilian safety in places where the state is weak, a deal with 4GW forces laying out the rules of the game may not be the best solution, but it may be the only possible solution.

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

A Rash Prediction

An old German saying warns that prediction is extremely difficult, especially when it involves the future.  But my track record so far has been pretty good, so here goes. I predict that Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee in 2020.

I don’t think this will happen because of impeachment.  The House will impeach the President, because the Democrats control the House.  But unless they come up with something far more serious than a few words in a telephone conversation, the Senate will not vote to convict.  Nor should they; this impeachment is partisan politics, nothing more. The Founders intended impeachment as a remedy only for the most dire cases, and this does not come close to qualifying.  Both Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton probably committed murder, and neither was removed from office by impeachment.

Could we see some other type of action by the Deep State to remove the President?  It’s possible, but they would need a legal fig leaf of some sort to cover up the coup, and it is difficult to see what that might be.

More likely is a crisis in the President’s health.  He is not a young man, his diet does not appear to be a healthy one, and the stress he faces every day as the Establishment howls for his head must be enormous.  Donald Trump is a fighter, and to some extent he relishes a fight. But when you find yourself undermined, spied on, and sabotaged by everyone around you–just how many people were listening in to that phone conversation?–it must be wearing, to say the least.  How long his frame can take it is an open question.

The most likely reason Mr. Trump will not be the Republican nominee is related to the health issue.  He will decide not to run because it just isn’t fun anymore.

The stress and strain from being under constant attack is part of that.  But there’s more. Mr. Trump is guided largely by his instincts. And for the most part, his instincts lead him in good directions.  He has avoided another war, despite the fervent desire of the neo-cons to push him into one (or two or three). He wants to get out of the wars we are in, though so far he cannot overcome the Establishment’s desire that we stay the course, presumably ‘till hell freezes over.  He has confronted China about its unfair trade practices, something previous Presidents should have done but were chicken. He recognizes that the main threat we face is excessive immigration, and is finally getting some results in his efforts to control our borders. 

But a man guided by his instincts is also impulsive.  President Trump has shown that is true of him. And I can easily see him making an impulsive decision, possibly quite late in the game, to say the hell with the whole mess that is Washington and not run.  He would need an assurance from the Republican nominee of a Presidential pardon, should he require one. That should not be difficult to obtain. In fact, it would be smart of the Democrats to offer the same, since he will most likely defeat whomever they nominate if he does run.  But they aren’t that smart. 

If my prediction proves correct, who should the Republicans nominate?  It must be someone who is anti-Establishment, because the real political division now is Establishment/anti-Establishment, much more than Democrat/Republican or even liberal/conservative.  Vice President Pence is conservative but Establishmentarian. He is also a wooden public speaker with no charisma or evident leadership potential. The Bob Dole nomination should be fresh enough in the Republican Party’s memory not to repeat that blunder.

My suggestion would be a Tucker Carlson/Tulsi Gabbard ticket.  Carlson is anti-Establishment, conservative (not neocon), and a major public figure.  Coming from outside Washington is a plus. Rep. Gabbard must know she will never get a Democratic Party nomination.  The ticket could present itself as bi-partisan, which would appeal to the millions of Americans sick of partisanship.  It would be an anti-war ticket, and also anti-Wall Street; Carlson recognizes that the concentration of wealth in the .1% is a populist issue.  It would offer everything President Trump does, without the Trumpian downsides. Most important, the voters who usually don’t vote but did come out to vote for Trump would do the same for Carlson. 

Such is my rash prediction.  If I’m wrong, it won’t be the first time.  But if I’m right, it won’t be the first time for that either, especially when everyone else predicted the opposite.

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

The View From Olympus: A Big Win for 4GW

A recent event in Culiacan, Mexico should have drawn a lot of attention but didn’t: a Fourth Generation entity, the Sinaloa Cartel, took on the Mexican state and beat it, not just strategically but tactically.  It did so by demonstrating a remarkably rapid OODA Loop, far faster than the state’s. This is a sign of things to come, not just in Mexico but in many places.

The most perceptive piece I have seen on these events was in the October 20 Cleveland Plain Dealer, “Gun battle involving El Chapo’s son highlights challenges to government” by Mary Beth Sheridan of the Washington Post.  It states,

What happened this past week was unprecedented.  When Mexican authorities tried to detain one of El Chapo’s sons, hundreds of gunmen with automatic weapons swept through the city, sealing off its exits, taking security officials hostage and battling authorities.

After several hours, the besieged government forces released Ovidio Guzman, who was wanted on U.S. federal drug-trafficking charges. . .

The offensive in Culiacan. . . exposed one of the country’s foremost problems: the government’s slipping control over parts of the territory.

There are an increasing number of areas “where you effectively have a state presence, but under negotiated terms with whoever runs the show locally,” said Falko Ernst, the senior Mexico analyst for the International Crisis Group. . .

Thursday afternoon’s attack came on the heels of several incidents highlighting the ability of organized crime groups to challenge the government.  On Monday, gunmen ambushed a convoy of state police in the western state of Michoacan, killing 14. Last month, the Northeast Cartel ordered gas stations in the border city of Nuevo Laredo to deny service to police or military vehicles, leaving them desperate for fuel.

All this is happening not in the Hindu Kush but on our immediate southern border.  That alone should have drawn greater attention from a defense establishment fixated on non-threats from Russia and China.  But there is more here than meets the eye.

Normally, when states fight non-state forces in Fourth Generation war, the state loses strategically but wins tactically.  Here, non-state forces won tactically as well, and won big. They were at least as well equipped as the Mexican state forces.  But what was really impressive was their speed in the OODA Loop. Apparently caught by surprise by the state’s seizure of one of their leaders, they were able to respond massively within a few hours.  They took complete control of a city of about a million people, isolating and surrounding the unit that had captured Ovidio Guzman. The President of Mexico was forced to order his release.

The cartel’s ability to observe, orient, decide, and act much faster than the state is not a surprise.  Years ago, when John Boyd was still alive, a friend of mine who was a Marine officer was in Bolivia on a counter-drug mission.  I asked him how the Bolivian state’s OODA Loop compared with the traffickers. He said, “They go through it six times in the time it takes for us to go through it once.”  When I told Boyd that, he said, “Then you’re not even in the game.”

4GW forces’ superior speed through the OODA Loop, in turn, has several causes.  They are fighting Second Generation militaries, where decision-making is centralized and therefore slow.  States are bureaucratic entities, and bureaucrats avoid making decisions and acting because it can endanger their careers.  The motivation of state forces is often poor because they have little loyalty to the corrupt and incompetent states they serve; mostly, to them its a job that offers a paycheck. In contrast, most 4GW forces have no bureaucracy, decentralize decision-making because they have to, and have fighters with genuine loyalty to what they represent.  Why? Money, plus what local women cited in the PD article explained:

 She acknowledged that the cartel members were part of the social fabric, sometimes more effective at resolving problems than authorities.  For example, if your car is stolen, it is more likely you would get it back by contacting cartel members through an acquaintance than by waiting for the police to crack the case, she said.

The drug cartels represent the future in many respects.  They do not seek to replace the state or openly capture it, which would make them vulnerable to other states; rather, they hide within its hollowed-out structures and are protected by its formal sovereignty.  They make lots of money while states go begging. They provide social services the state is supposed to offer but does not. Their highly-motivated forces with flat command structures have a faster OODA Loop than the state’s.  And locally, they often appear more legitimate than the state.

Again, all this is happening right next door.  Why can our national security establishment not read the words already written on the border wall we so desperately need?  Those words are, “Fourth Generation war.”

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

The View From Olympus: A 4GW Impeachment?

As I have said many times, Fourth Generation war is at root a contest for legitimacy.  On one side is the state. On the other is a vast array of alternate primary loyalties: religion, race, tribe, gang, and locality, among others.  Around the world, the contest is going poorly for the state as a growing number of people shift their primary loyalty to one of the many alternatives, for which they are willing to fight.

Washington does not perceive it, absorbed as it is in its own struggles for power and money, but the same contest is going on in this country.  So far, to our great benefit, it has remained on the peripheries. Urban police know they are confronting it in the form of ethnically-based gangs, which are illegal business enterprises that fight.  But the mass of the American people appear still loyal to the state.

The appearance is, I think, deceptive.  On both the Left and the Right, doubts about the legitimacy of the federal government are growing.  Mostly, the doubts are about the legitimacy of the current President, although polls show public perception of Congress is also strongly negative.  There is no question many on the Left regard President Trump as illegitimate. Should a hard-Left figure such as Warren win in 2020, the Right will doubt her legitimacy.  But considering the current President illegitimate is different from thinking the state itself has lost its legitimacy.

Impeachment could change that.  President Trump’s supporters regard his election as proof their voices can be heard, that their interests will be considered in Washington.  They know that to virtually all Democrats and some Republicans, they are “unpersons”. Why? Because they are White, male, or non-feminist female, straight, and mostly Christian.  They are also struggling economically, which means they are not contributors to politicians’ campaigns. The coastal elites dismiss them as rubes and hicks inhabiting “flyover land”.  The Democratic Party, which has embraced the ideology of cultural Marxism, considers them all inherently evil “oppressors” fit only to kiss the feet of blacks, immigrants, gays, feminists, etc.,  PC’s sainted “victims” groups.

Again, should a Warren win in 2020, President Trump’s supporters will not consider her (or him) a legitimate President.  But if the unholy alliance between Democrats and the Deep State succeeds in driving President Trump from office through impeachment or some other means, that will be a very different story.  At that point, the message to President Trump’s supporters will be, “Your votes don’t matter, because even if you elect a President, we will drive him from office and reduce you to a silent serfdom.  You and your views are entitled to no representation. You are and will remain ‘unpersons.’”

At that point, in the vast electoral sea that is red America, the legitimacy of the system itself, i.e., the state, will be brought into serious question.  And when that happens, the chance of Fourth Generation war here on a large scale will rise dramatically. When you tell people they cannot achieve representation through ballots, they start to think about doing it with bullets.

That electoral map, the one that shows the results of the 2016 election by county, has significant military meaning.  The blue votes are concentrated in cities, which cannot feed themselves. As Chairman Mao said, “Take the countryside and the cities will fall.”  Nor can they be supplied from the sea, because most of the people in the military are Trump supporters, which means the red side will get most of the ships and planes.  The military problem is really quite simple, and need involve virtually no shooting or destruction. You just put the cities under siege and wait for the starving people to come out.  It won’t take long.

The message to Washington is clear and direct: if President Trump is driven from office by anything other than a loss in the 2020 election (if he runs), the legitimacy of the state will be brought into question.  That is a dangerous business that politicians of both parties would be wise to avoid. After all, they will be the first people hanged from the nearest lamppost if widespread 4GW comes here. An impeachment that leads to the checkpoints going up all over rural America is a very bad idea.

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

The View From Olympus: A Comprehensive Settlement

President Trump’s decision to pull all U.S. troops out of Syria is wise and, in fact, long overdue.  There is no natural end-point for serving as a buffer between the Turks and the Kurds; their feud will go on forever.  We should never have gotten ourselves into it in the first place.

Similarly, the President was correct in refusing to attack Iran in response to the Houthis’ strike on Saudi oil facilities.  His refusal to pull the Saudis’ chestnuts out of the fire has led them to approach Iran about reducing mutual tensions, which is just the outcome we should desire.  As the New York Times reported on October 5, “Any reconciliation between Saudi Arabia and Iran could have far-reaching consequences for conflicts across the region.”

President Trump understands that our involvement in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf should be minimized.  It brings us no benefits and carries the risk of high costs, i.e., more wars in which our interests are not really at stake.  What we need is a comprehensive settlement of all major disputes across the region. This is what Bismark sought and reached in the face of a number of European crises that could have brought on a general war.

So what might Bismarck do?  His approach was well illustrated by the Congress of Berlin.  His rule was, everyone gets something they want but nobody gets everything.  In the case of the Middle East, an outline of a comprehensive settlement might look something like this:

Iran gets most sanctions on the sale of oil lifted.  In return, Iran stops hostile acts aimed at Saudi Arabia, largely withdraws from Syria, where the Assad government (which Iran and Russia support) has won, and pushes the Houthis to accept a deal to end the fighting in Yemen.

The Saudis get an end to Iranian threats, an end to the war they have lost in Yemen, and the regional stability they crave.  In return, they cease exporting Salafism through their funding of extremist schools and organizations throughout the region, which is one of the main sources of upheaval.

Syria gets an end to its civil war, restoration of the Assad government and financial help in rebuilding.  Iraq receives a U.N. mission to help get the country working again, i.e., the electricity on, the water safe to drink, and jobs.  The Saudis pick up the tab for both, or most of it. The Gulf states get renewed cordial relations (including with Qatar), tranquility and a chance to make even more money.  Everyone agrees to ignore the Israeli-Palestinian standoff, which is what they are already doing.

The question is, how do we get all the parties to agree on a deal like this?  Again, what would Bismarck do? He would call a conference of the Powers. In his day, those were Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, France, and Britain.  Today, the Powers are the U.S., Russia, and China. They craft the terms of the deal, largely without reference to what the local parties want, beyond the rule that everybody gets something but nobody gets everything.  Then, they impose the settlement. Anyone who refuses it gets hit with massive trade and financial sanctions, enforced by all three Powers together. This is less brutal than it seems, because it allows the local politicians to blame the Powers for aspects of the deal their citizens do not like.  They can say, “Hey, don’t blame me. Who can stand up to the U.S., Russia, and China acting together?”

But, you may ask, what do the Powers themselves get out of it?  The U.S. gets to pull out of a region where, if we stay long enough, we are guaranteed to get into more wars we don’t want and can’t afford.  Russia gets de facto recognition as a major player in the region, including American acceptance of Russia resuming her 19th century role as protector of the region’s Christians (it is in that role Russia intervened in Syria).  China gets regional stability in an area she depends on for oil plus an OK from the U.S. and Russia to push her One Belt, One Road initiative there.

In the end, nobody is completely happy, but no one is so unhappy as to go to war.  Children sing, doves are released, bands play, and everyone goes home grumbling but at the same time relieved.  Chaos and Old Night have been pushed off, at least for a time. As a realist, Bismarck understood that was the most diplomacy can do.

So, Mr. President and Secretary Pompeo, it’s time to call a conference.  May I suggest it meets in Berlin?

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

The View From Olympus: President Trump, Iran, and the Indirect Approach

The neo-cons and neo-libs are jointly crying to the heavens that President Trump’s refusal to attack Iran shows weakness.  In their elementary school understanding of the world, unless we are the biggest bully on the playground, other bullies will come after us.  The fruits of their puerility include Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

Fortunately, President Trump is wiser.  He understands that, as a maritime power (which our geography dictates we must be), we will accomplish our objectives better with an indirect approach.

The indirect approach is traditionally British, and the man who understood it best was the great maritime historian and theorist Sir Julian Corbett.  His book on the principles of maritime strategy, and his masterful history of Britain in the Seven Years’ War, both explain how it works. It works just the way President Trump has been applying it to Iran.

Through the economic and financial sanctions that the President has placed on Iran he has caused the ruling circles of that country to face real problems–especially since he has repeatedly offered to sit down and negotiate with them, which they have refused to do.  The combination has led the Iranians to have growing doubts about their country’s leadership. They suffer, their leaders can do nothing to relieve their sufferings, yet they won’t agree to talks that might reduce or even eliminate the sanctions. This is exactly the kind of pressure the indirect approach excels at creating–and we haven’t had to fire a shot.

In World War I, this is what finally defeated Germany.  The British distant blockade that included (illegally) food caused mass hunger in Germany.  More Germans starved to death than in World War II. The German government was unable to improve the food situation, and eventually the people revolted and overthrew that government–tragically for the world, because the fall of the German monarchy opened the door to Hitler.  At the same time, because the British departed from maritime strategy and sent a large army to fight on the Continent, the war also brought the end of the British Empire, another disaster for the world.

It is of central importance that President Trump stick to the indirect approach and not get sucked in to taking less effective but more dramatic military action.  Some pinprick attacks on Iran by cruise missiles or aircraft will lead the Iranian people to rally around their government, which is the opposite of the result we are seeking and achieving through the sanctions.  I hope someone reminds the President of one of Machiavelli’s wiser sayings: never do an enemy a small injury.

The strategy of the indirect approach applies equally to China.  Should China grow so belligerent we must respond, perhaps by attacking an American ship or aircraft and thereby killing Americans (something the Iranians have so far been careful to avoid), instead of sending in the Marines to attempt to take some Chinese islands, we should apply a distant blockade.  A distant blockade, like that in the British used in World War I, would be beyond China’s reach–say, in the Indian Ocean. It would cut off China’s oil and food supplies, which would be a very large problem indeed for the leadership in Beijing. But as is the case with the sanctions on Iran, we would probably not have to fire a shot.

When President Trump responds to his critics who cry for war, he should continue to say what he has been saying: that his refusal to attack Iran is a policy of strength, not weakness.  That is exactly correct, because the sanctions exert real pressure on Tehran while some minor military attacks would work in their favor. This should be a no-brainer. Regrettably, as they have shown over and over, the neo-cons and neo-libs have no brains.

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