War: How to Defeat Jihadists

Von Clauswitz famously said that one way to win a war is to convince the enemy to stop fighting. He went on to say that the destruction of the enemy’s armed forces is necessary. He was not talking about a major defeat on the battlefield. He was talking about the complete destruction of those forces.

The US has won two wars by destroying the enemy’s forces and then lost those wars in short order by failing to convince the enemy to stop fighting. Vietnam was the first. When Nixon pulled us out of Vietnam the North had been reduced to less than four understrength divisions down from over a hundred at the height of the 1968 Tet Offensive. Within five years of the US pull-out the North savagely defeated the South uniting the country under one government. In effect, by not convincing the North to stop fighting the US snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Of course the American people were not willing to support the necessary actions to destroy the will of the North even though we had destroyed their armed forces.

The second time we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory is in the current conflict in Iraq. (Afghanistan is still an open question at this writing.) We destroyed the Iraqi army, but failed to recognize the real enemy: Jihadists. By this failure and by US actions following the initial victory, we can see that the will to fights was never seriously challenged. Thus the rise of ISIS and the current destruction of both Iraq and Syria.

What’s the point? Modern warfare is asymmetric in that ridiculously under-armed forces continue to fight in whatever manner possible to them while equally ridiculously over-armed forces are helpless to gain a decisive victory. By decisive I mean a victory that would challenge the will to fight.

The Jihadists have been fighting each other for more than a thousand years. Never once has there been peace in their part of the earth because they were never able to seriously challenge the will of their various religious sects to fight. Such a challenge is difficult to arrange when the fight is over issues more properly related to the afterlife than to the life in the earth.

It is axiomatic since Clauswitz that victory requires the victor to eliminate the vanquished will to fight. All the depredations of war, all of the terrible consequences have this one purpose — to force the enemy to stop fighting. There are only three ways to do this. First you may assimilate the enemy into your own culture.

Failing that you may enslave through conquest the enemy by force of arms.

Failing that you are left with the option of killing all members of the enemy camp, military, militia, and civilian.

Our current enemies refuse assimilation. Our current friends refuse to enslave by conquest. There can be no victory in the war against the Jihadists until we kill all of them, military, militia, and civilian.

Posted in politics | Leave a comment

The Real Difference: Trump

There is a system in place. It takes a billion dollars to get elected president and we get only the choice between two in the final vote. The complex primary process allows anyone with the money and resources to attempt to make the finals, but in the American sports tradition the game always comes down to the top two teams. This year the top two teams appear to be Hillary and the Donald.

What does this say about the system? What does this say about the people who elect the winners?

On the democrat side it has become clear that the system is designed for the insiders. The shear number of “super delegates” unbalances the electoral process in the primaries and the various rules and odd selection criteria serve to make these super delegates the main force in the final selection. I cannot remember a Democrat Party election where the final winner of the nomination was not the best connected, connected to the party apparatus, not the voters. This year the most connected is Hillary and it seems at this point to be a done deal. I’m not sure how many states are left, but the pundits seem convinced that her challenger needs 95% of the remaining delegates to win. That is not impossible. On the other hand it is nearly impossible given the level of division in the party and the people over the left and more left choices the Democrats have chosen to offer their supporters.

On the Republican side it started out as a free-for-all. Seventeen candidates made a serious attempt at the nomination. A few were never taken seriously by the voters. Most were rejected by the voters. It seems strange to me that all of the defeated primary candidates had one factor in common: they were all more connected to the GOP establishment than the man who finally won the contest. This year the voters who have become more disillusioned with the Republicans with every passing election have shown a depth of distrust for the Establishment that surprises most of the pundits. The depth of this schism is so great that many in the Establishment are still desperately planning ways to deprive the winner of his winnings.

Here’s a different take. For the first time a true outsider is in a position to win the final contest in November. Whatever else one may say we must recognize what it is about Trump that has carried him to this point. It’s not his radical statements because those statements are not really radical. He is only voicing the thoughts of the majority of the people, you know, those of us who don’t do government as a career. It sounds radical when a politician says we need to build a wall, but to most Americans it sounds like common sense. It sounds radical to say ban Muslim immigration temporarily, but to most Americans it sounds like common sense.

It’s all in the view. It is something I call “political speak”, a way of speaking that hints at solutions while never actually saying what any of those solutions should be. The real strength of Trump in this primary election is the fact that he does not do political speak. He does business speak, a more direct, less secretive way of talking.

And that is one part of the American Tradition we have not yet lost. As a nation we all value the honest person who speaks truth. This is Trump’s strength and it appears that the year of speaking the simple truth in a straightforward manner is about to begin.

His propensity for speaking his mind is his strongest feature and it is also the real reason the career politicians hate him. They fear honest talk. Perhaps Trump is naive to the realities of politics in Washington, but for the time being he is the only one to simply say out loud what most Americans have been thinking for years.

Posted in politics | 2 Comments

Cruz Cannot Govern This Country

It occurs to me that Washington politics is a money machine. Those who hold office cannot get rich on their measly couple of hundred thousand dollars a year. They depend on the contributions of wealthier people to their campaigns and to an extent they depend on the same people to contribute to their business dealings. I won’t offer proof other than the obvious that over 500 of the members of Congress are millionaires. Some of them were rich before taking office. After all it is expensive to run for national office on any level. Many no doubt are richer now than when they took office and that is the result of favorable consideration from politically interested investors.

In short, our government is so obviously bought and sold as to require no proof beyond a little common sense. But why should this affect a Cruz presidency?

Cruz is the darling of the Tea Party Conservatives. He is heralded by Christian Conservatives and Social Conservatives of all stripes. The sad fact is that our richest Republicans, indeed our entire elite class, do not share his conservative principles. No matter how much lip service they may be willing to give, which is not much of late, the nobility of America are not conservatives except perhaps when it comes to money.

Because of this fundamental difference in the way Cruz supporters look at the world and the way the noble rich look at the world their political aims will always be different. The wealthiest among us have no need of such concepts as freedom, equality, or fair play. Their money buys them all the freedom they can handle. Equality would be a catastrophic come-down for them. And fair play would deprive them of the ability to buy all that freedom and all the extra privileges that come with great wealth. In all fairness, one could say most of them are woefully uninformed about the daily struggles of life the rest of us must perform to survive in the world. It is not necessarily their fault they don’t know what it’s like to work for a living, to work for survival. Their money shields them from the work-a-day aspects of being human. They have no experience of it and therefore no real understanding.

This does not keep them from making decisions. Indeed most, if not all probably feel natural and right about the power they wield never giving a serious second thought to the rest of us unless in the aggregate as this or that minority group or as this and that special interest group. We are viewed quite naturally by the monied elites in this country as little more than the various herds that must be moved along whatever paths they may believe are best at the time.

At this point I must proclaim loudly that I am not a socialist. The sheer power of the monied elites does not automatically make them evil, just very insensitive. And they have brought this profound insensitivity to the realm of Washington Politics where they buy and sell influence as easily as another may buy and sell used cars. I believe in capitalism everywhere except in government service. A thing that is bought and sold gets used by the owner. It is the natural order of things and ownership of the government is no different in this regard. Constitutional Government in this nation was supposed to be a sacred trust held at the pleasure of the electorate, not just the few with the money to buy it.

All this is bad news for Cruz. His social conservatism and his strict adherence to Christian principles of right and wrong run counter to the idea that a government can or even should be owned. This is the reason the GOP Establishment is having trouble with both Cruz and Trump, but it is more problematic for Cruz. Trump is an old hand insider to this game the rich play around government. As the ultimate insider they fear he may beat them at their own game.

The problem for Cruz is more fundamental. His entire political ideology of Constitutional Government and his respect for the concept of public service is anathema to the existing system in Washington. John Boehner’s recent vulgar insults typify the attitude of the GOP establishment toward Cruz. They hate his honesty. They hate his devotion to an absolute concept of right and wrong. But most of all they hate the fact that Cruz actually believes the statements he makes regarding government. It has become legend that a politician will say whatever he must say to get elected with the full knowledge that some of the things he will way on campaign are not only impossible, but completely ridiculous. Cruz is a believer. He is perhaps the most honest candidate on the national scene since Ronald Reagan’s first term came to an end.

And that is his problem. As president Cruz will be the only member of government with his vision. The democrats will ravage him worse than they ravaged G.W. Bush. The GOP Establishment will avoid him, especially when he stands on principle. His congressional constituency will be the Tea Party Caucus and they will always be in the minority against the monied interests of the combined Democrat and Republican parties. He will be ignored. His vetoes will be overridden. His speeches will be ridiculed.

Cruz cannot be the president he wants to be because of this essential dynamic in Washington. He will have to compromise to get anything at all done and the first time he steps away from his principles he is a lame duck president. Congress and the Courts will run roughshod over his entire agenda.

Cruz might be able to win, but it is my considered opinion that if he wins Cruz will never be able to govern in the manner expected.

Posted in politics | Leave a comment

Needful Things

When needful things become illegal do not be surprised to discover there are no longer any lawful men in your kingdom.

Posted in Essays on Freedom, Ethics, politics | Leave a comment

Lesser of Two …

It has been said that when a man chooses the lesser of two evils, evil still wins. The statement is so obviously true that realists often ignore this basic principle, often justifying the choice as “incremental change for the better”. I ask you to consider that choosing between a lesser and a greater evil is in fact incremental change for the worse.

Other choices in say, a political contest, may not be apparent especially in a climate of compromise. In such a climate the usual negotiation begins with two sides offering positions with no hope of acceptance, both sides understanding that the game is to arrive as close as possible to their preferred positions. While this works quite well in a negotiation between two equals there are many factors altering the balance, or the relative negotiating strength of the contestants.

Imagine, if you will, the classic unbalanced negotiation: the hostage crisis. One negotiator threatens to kill the hostage if he doesn’t get a million dollars while the other negotiator has to avoid giving the money and at the same time must keep the hostage alive. These things have been known to go on for days at a time before resolution. The resolution is often a bad one for the hostage and for the first negotiator. While it appears that the perpetrator has the more powerful position, the reality is that the police have the superior position. The police suffer no harm if the bad guy kills the hostage. Other than their altruistic desire to see the hostage survive there is no incentive. Add to that lack of incentive the police willingness to kill the perpetrator and we see that taking hostages is generally speaking a very weak, if not completely desperate way to enter a negotiation. The police have the time, the firepower, and the conviction of purpose to kill while the perpetrator does not. If he had such conviction there would be no hostage crisis.

Now consider our Federal Government. We have a tricameral organization, three independent and co-equal branches. One wields the power of law without enforcement ability. Another wields enforcement ability without the power of law. And the third, the congress, wields the power of the purse coupled with a near unlimited power to make or purge the power of law. (Law in this case is man-made law.)

Discounting the Judicial as the weakest of the three, let us consider the Executive and the Congressional as negotiators. We can consider a wide variety of issues. The most egregious examples in recent years occurred when a single power controlled both branches. Those were not negotiations by any stretch. Ask then why more recently did a Congress approve a budget that was submitted by the Executive along with a great many special authorizations and by some reports containing more appropriations than the Executive requested. Why do we have a 1.1 trillion dollar budget with 500 billion in deficit spending?

As a negotiation the Executive determined what it wanted in order to finance the programs it wanted to finance. In a typical negotiation this would have been more than the Executive expected to get and there would have been a plan to give up some of the requests in order to preserve the essential programs. Congress essentially approved the budget without much debate, certainly without any serious challenge to the requested numbers.

What factor in a negotiation lead one party to surrender all of its opening position so completely as Congress has been doing for the last seven years or so? The answer is simple. This is not a negotiation. Congress for whatever reason believes the Executive holds all the advantages.

In other words, Congress is our hostage taker unwilling to shoot the hostage, unwilling to even threaten to shoot the hostage. Congress today exists with the mindset of our hostage taker minutes, perhaps seconds before he throws down his weapon and surrenders. And Congress exists perpetually in that state of mind.

When the Executive chooses evil and the Congress chooses the lesser of two evils then evil wins in Washington. Only two things can change the balance back in favor of the good, in favor of freedom in America:

Congress must shoot the hostage and shut down the government, play out the political gunfight, or …


Posted in Essays on Freedom, Ethics, politics | Leave a comment

Racism Camoflaged

I find “African” used as a substitute for “Black” or “negroid” somewhat grating, especially when one considers North Africa, South Africa, and to a lesser extent Northeast Africa where the numerically greater racial designation is often properly “caucasoid”. The proper designation for Australian Aborigines is a hybrid between “caucasoid” and “negroid”; strictly speaking and using the taxonomy from an 1890s study on ethnicity from the Department of the Interior (originally published 1888-1896 in 12 volumes), they are “caucasoid”. One may argue that many of the North Africans and Northeast Africans are “semitic” (yes, both Arabs and Jews are “semitic”), but that classification is a sub-class of “caucasoid”. And just to be complete, most asian peoples are “mongoloid” (a racial designation, not the birth defect).

On this point it is obvious that speakers who use “African-American” are engaging in a cheap ploy, being racist without sounding racist, while “Black” on the other hand, makes it clear in most modern usages that the speaker is racist.

I don’t like making unnecessary and inaccurate distinctions, but I’m sitting at home alone so I’m a little more than usual pissed off at Political Correctness right now.

Posted in Ethics, politics | Leave a comment

The Election’s New Clothes

It is possible to win the election with only 11 states, the most populous including CA and NY (blue states) and 9 others. In reality, since at least one of those states is Texas (red state), it is unlikely this would happen. Nonetheless, almost all presidential campaigns in recent history have focused on the dozen or so states with the most electoral college votes.

Since the electoral college is largely based on relative population, the popular vote generally will yield the same results. Only in close elections where there is no real difference between the two candidates will there likely be any discrepancy between the electoral college and the popular vote. Most of our elections since Reagan have been of this close, no real difference nature. 2008 and 2012 are the exceptions.

In the 2012 election the youth vote and the disenfranchised vote (irony real) favored a socialist over a capitalist (Romney). In the 2008 election these two groups defeated a nationalistic candidate (McCain). Both elections pitted socialism against one of its eternal enemies and reflected an ideological decision by the youth and disenfranchised.

Today the leaders in the GOP race are a capitalist (Trump) and an evangelical (Cruz), but the issues do not revolve around the ideology. Immigration and national security along with the false government reports of economic prosperity combine to make this election about safety. While socialists are strong on equal rights and shared sacrifice they falter when the question of safety is raised because they, the socialists, have no good ideological response to any real threat to citizen safety.

So, Trump and Cruz have claimed the high ground on the citizen safety issue. At this late date it is unlikely that the Democrats, the Republican Elites, or the media will recognize what has happened until the election is over. If historic post-election analysis is any indication, at least the two parties will draw the wrong conclusions from a Trump or a Cruz victory.

But that should trouble nobody who understands. They still don’t understand that Reagan did pretty much the same thing only his issues were the economy and national security. In short, it’s happening again and the Elites are just as clueless as they were back in 1979.

Posted in Essays on Freedom, Ethics, politics | Leave a comment

Do We Get a Vote This Time?

In the news — Both Trump and Carson are talking about leaving the Republican Party again. Talk of a Brokered Convention is rampant.

My thoughts — The GOP is trying to limit our choices to the Approved Slate. How is that different from Chinese elections where the government decides who may stand for election and votes for unapproved candidates are not counted.

I don’t believe Trump or Carson, or even a Trump/Carson ticket, would win as a third party candidate. I do believe such a candidacy would guarantee President Hillary. But would that be any worse than being forced to choose from among the Approved Group?

There is madness in the nation and it looks more every day as if the madness is incurable.

Posted in Essays on Freedom, Ethics, politics | Leave a comment

Five Times a Day

Tonight, Thursday November 19, 2015, on his evening radio show Mark Levin declared that World War III is now in full swing. The idea seems extreme, but I have been thinking about it for a couple of hours now.

World War I started when the Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated. Austria demanded reparations and Serbia refused. When the Austo-Hungarian empire mobilized to exact revenge upon Serbia the Great Powers honored their mutual defense treaties one after the other until every nation in Europe was aligned on one side or the other. Historians often cite “interlocking treaties and alliances” as the proximate cause of the war. This seems an odd lesson to learn to me because without those alliances the Austro-Hungarians would not doubt simply have added Serbia to their empire.

World War II started when Germany and the Soviet Union subdivided Poland by force of arms. Historians in this case almost universally blame Hitler for starting the war ignoring the “interlocking treaties and alliances” that once again strung all of Europe together, or apart as the case may be. In short order the Japanese Wars of Conquest, ongoing since 1934, get lumped in with the European War, but the two were unrelated started for completely different reasons. Even the German-Japanese alliance was one of information and propaganda rather than any material or military support.

What do we have to support the threshold of World War III? The web of treaties and alliances exists as before. Instead of a prideful emperor or a delusional megalomaniac we have a religion.

Before you say, “you can’t fight a religion”, consider that the religion in question is doctinally a religion of domination and regression. It is the only major religion that prescribes the death sentence for all non-believers. The religion is fighting Western Civilization under a holy commandment to conquer the earth. (If you doubt that assertion I challenge you to prove me wrong from the Holy Qu’ran or the Hadith.)

The only new feature in this world war is the concept of Disseminated Leadership. There is no emperor, no fuhrer, no supreme soviet. There are only those who read the book. And the book is an “end times prophecy”, something that should be familiar to US Christians.

The muslim is commanded to fight against the infidel, the kufir, and the apostate in order to bring about the end times. Christians wait for the end times and then rise up while Muslims rise up in order to make the end times happen.

We are at war. We did not declare this war. It was declared 1400 years ago and has been waged with enthusiasm ever since.

Is there a way to fight a religion? The answer will determine whether we end this century more advanced, more technological, and more enlightened …

… or we finish this century in the 7th century bowing to Mecca five times a day.

Posted in politics | Leave a comment


Stand for the right. Stand for the right with determination. Stand for the right with violence when necessary.
— Stan Helton

“One day we shall die. But all the other days we shall be alive.”
― Per Olov Enquist

Posted in politics | Leave a comment