AMERICAS AFGHANISTAN 2
*note: I haven't read it, but it looks interesting. Irregular warfare. click here
*
When we talk about our
economic decline and our failing infrastructure, there is mention of the
decrepit power lines ( brought up by the EMP doomers ) and failing sewer and
water pipes, but no mention is made of our military. I’m not sure what cultural trait allowed us
to see the quicksand that was Vietnam, what a charnel house it was, and yet
view Iraq and Afghanistan as patriotic and sensible ( deaths in terms of
percentage of total armed forces personnel are not dissimilar to Vietnam
). Yes, I understand we now have an all
volunteer force as opposed to a conscripted one, and they are mostly White so
the PC Princesses could give a crap less if Honky Mo-Fo’s come home in coffins
or dragging colostomy bags ( good thing they love their darker complexioned
brethren so they live next to them, making them the first target in the race
wars-good riddance ), and I’m aware the news is controlled from the battlefield
so only propaganda makes its way back home, but there has to be another aspect
of another useless expensive war being viewed with such jingoistic fervor. Off the top of my head I can only think it
is panic or hubris.
*
All the dissent in this
war seems to be over the lack of medical care after the vets return home (
which is as it should be-of course, after the Civil War all the Southerners
were sent back home to Sherman devastated farms with no support or compensation
for wounds, so this isn’t a complete surprise.
You might be squawking about rebels not being entitled, but just recall
that if you survived the genocidal wars against the Indians you were better
provided for. Yankees have a very poor
record with their first conquered civilized country ), and nothing being
discussed about even continuing the conflict in the first place. Partially that might be to excuse the First
Negro from his lies over ending the thing ( like FDR, the floppy ear prick can
do absolutely no wrong ), but I can’t help wondering if the general, if at
times begrudging, support isn’t over the acknowledgment that all protestations
to the contrary the invasion was about oil and we need more to keep driving
around. That is basically what our
economy is, isn’t it? Mostly just
driving around wasting gas ( it is about wasting petroleum above and beyond the
commuter level, but the gist is close enough ).
Americans probably figured if we control the middle east we can never
run out of oil ( an assumption such dinguses as National Geographic and The
Economist do nothing to dispel, flogging the notion Saudi Arabia will have vast
reserves for another fifty years, flying in the face of all past performances
of all oil producing regions. Seen much
oil come out of L.A. lately? Why
not? According to all our misconceptions
the worlds leading oil producer in 1920 should still be going strong! ).
*
Delusion and hubris are
two sides of the same coin. Well, if you
could have a three sides coin you could also add award winning levels of dumb
assness, but you can’t so we’ll ignore that for now. We delude ourselves into thinking we now own
all the middle east oil, and that makes the occupation okay ( never mind the
lack of oil in Afghanistan, the more informed ones would likely counter that we
need to be there because, ah, well, probably because of the Axis Of Evil member
Iran right next to it. Yeh! That’s it! I don’t really buy the natural gas
pipeline theory. I won’t get into that
now as I’m sure I can squeeze another article out of my rectum on that one )
and even if the Average American couldn’t say Peak Oil if you put a gun to his
head, he does know we need to own as much oil as possible to keep things
running. So stealing is okay, which means
we’ll never run out. Problem solved,
when I’m old enough to be on life support on the Arizona golf course I’ll get
all my petroleum dependent medications and treatments and live my miserable
life forever! Groovy, dude! I didn’t want to go to Vietnam but I don’t
mind sending your son to Iraq, since it keeps me alive.
*
“But, I digress” should be
the official tag line for this blog.
Okay, to continue on our military being one of our infrastructure
systems that is failing, I defy you to explain how our military could survive
without nuclear weapons. We over
computerized everything to the point our ships and planes cost billions of
dollars, and simply don’t work. At
all. This isn’t just the odd weapon
program being a lemon, and we’ve had plenty of those. Working badly and not working at all are two
different things ( days prior to writing this was the incident where a cargo
container and one of our warships collided.
In case you are wondering, a cargo container ship is a really big
bastard. Kind of hard to miss. We missed it.
Now there is talk of taking older ships out of mouthballs. We have the Keystone Cops protecting our
nation ). Our military started thinking
high tech was a substitute for large numbers of low tech weapons, a sure cost
cutting formula. We could cut our
military from nine million to one, and have a fifth of that one million be
women. What could possibly go wrong?
*
My question is, and how do
you think our military with all its past performance issues is a force to be
reckoned with? We invaded Grenada. Badly.
We can’t fight guerrillas even after fifty years of practice. We can’t even pull off a scorched earth
policy, another War Of Northern Aggression, to defeat our enemies. One wonders if we could have even won World
War Two if it hadn’t been for Hitler’s mistakes and the Soviets meat grinder (
of course, you could argue there were good indications Russia was going to
attack first, or you could argue Hitler was too blinded by his political
promises of transforming the nations boundaries and made a mistake [ he should
have kept relations with Russian while invading the middle east-but Monday
morning quarterbacks easily forget the geography of the region when they
discount the fears of the Germans as regards Russia ] ). We applied private company profits, banker
controls, centralized bureaucracy and Civil War strategy and tactics to the
conflict and it is amazing we won. And
we’ve only gotten worse since.
*
We never won Korea, and
you could imply that was because we needed to continue our Cold War for
economic reasons ( all the Iraq and Afghanistan war might be is just Cold War
Economy spending, a panic attack knee jerk reaction to the Tech Wreck, the
Housing Bubble and the War On Terror Bubble keeping the economy afloat. Yes, that justification involved the
PetroDollar, but the last thing it was was the de facto control of oil
itself. As with every decision there are
always multiple factors. You don’t JUST
buy a car for commuting, but to show your peacock feathers, enable yourself to
be lazy, sooth your fear of being run over on a bike, your inclination to avoid
winter weather and also to piss me off personally. See-multiple reasons ) or you could guess
that we couldn’t actually win it. We had
no way to defeat our former allies and all our military was busy garrisoning
elsewhere. We were also focusing on
nuclear war rather than conventional.
All the reasons were rational, but also blinded us at the time. Suddenly, our conventional military sucked
and we just ignored that. No worries,
eh? We’ll just nuke their asses.
*
I would argue that the
Vietnam era actually had a top notch military organization which would have
been great in Korea. But it wasn’t worth
jack against guerrillas. We learned from
the last war to build up our military to a suitable level for fighting a
regular war. We screwed up in Korea,
learned our lesson, and was ready for another Asian war. Against conventional Chinese and Russian
backed armies, just like Korea. Well,
the problem was two fold. We had shot
our economic wad in WWII, and twenty years later we had no way to pay for
another overseas war, the economy having spend all the capital left over from
the earlier war. The WWII factories that
led us to victory were too far aged and we were neglected too long. The other issue was of course our inability
to fight a guerrilla war. We tried. We emulated the Nazi’s with scorched earth
genocidal fighting. It wasn’t enough,
and the supply lines were too long. Our
Korea Era army never had much of a chance.
Not because the political will to win was lacking but because the
economic backing was. And, very
importantly, this was the death knell of the nation state.
*
Which, you might remember,
was the predominate economic and political organization which came about for
colonization. The wealth pump of
empires, to use the apt phrase of the Druid Dude ( I don’t remember if he got
it elsewhere himself. Good bye, you
selfish bastard. It was nice while it
lasted ), was colonies. Remember that
nice little country named Rome? It
lasted and prospered when it figured out how to colonize its neighbors. The surplus wealth made Rome great. Once the resources from the colonies, the
wheat and slaves, started declining in volume, it was all over but the crying,
or for that matter the fat lady getting her broad ass off the opera stage. If you assume Rome was, roughly, a five
century empire, and compare that not to individual entities but the western
powers as a whole, you could call the last five hundred years another empire so
as to basically emulate the first one, Rome.
They started out repeating the conventional resource wealth pump then
just got lucky and stumbled onto the Carbon Fuel wealth bonanza to extend and
pretend.
*
You could think of the
bankers as the originating power and the nation states as their territorial
administrative units. The bankers, after
all, were behind the central banks of the nations which financed said
units. Without the banks, the nations
couldn’t expand and conquer and draw in wealth nearly as well. Nations were like competing cousins in the
Rothschild family. And if you recall the
last five hundred years of colonization, gunpowder, the original nuclear
weapons due to its revolutionary nature and its need for a centralized government
to found and maintain the industry ( with the accompanying metal industry ),
proved to be so superior to native resistance that nobody could stand in the
way of the armies yielding it. Natives
and guerrilla forces, even when well equipped with gunpowder themselves, were
easily ( relatively. And, no, our
colonial war for independence was not won by guerrillas but by conventional
armies-like Frances ) defeated. My
contention is that was because of the surplus wealth able to run the occupation
and saturate the battlefield with the new super weapon. Not necessarily the weapons themselves, but
the means to deploy them. It didn’t have
to be deployed with all that much finesse.
They just had to make an appearance with an overwhelming force. And have the wealth to continue the
occupation.
*
That was why Britain and
France and the Netherlands lost their colonies.
They couldn’t afford to defeat the guerrillas. There were ALWAYS guerrillas and ALWAYS
guerrilla war. But whereas before there
was enough surplus wealth to defeat them, now there wasn’t. Not because a single gun is effective. Look how long it took the Americans to defeat
the Indians that way. It is through
gunpowder equipped armies, primarily using cannon as well as navies, with the
economic system with surplus wealth backing that, that colonies are pacified,
occupied and exploited. Colonization is
expensive and needs wealth to produce wealth.
Lack of wealth means no colonies.
And Vietnam was started as our wealth had started evaporating. We then used the last of our treasure to try
to reverse that. There was no real
adequate reason to invade the country.
It had no oil. It was not
strategically placed to deny us oil from elsewhere. But it wasn’t such a strategic blunder to
invade it, as it was an economic one. We
screwed our economy by taking a weak aging economy and adding a huge
conventional war to it ( we shipped over a conventional army even if it didn’t
fight another conventional army ).
*
Britain and France killed
their economy by fighting a war for colonies against other colony holders. Germany lost its few colonies ( which is why
it wanted to fight, never having adequately conquered enough viable ones ) and
was actually blessed by that event, leaving enough to reequip for the next war
amongst the colonial powers. Her enemies
continued to be bleed by the colonies, even if they were still somewhat
productive, and entered the next war less powerful. We fought Vietnam, and that was our version
of wasting our treasury on a colony.
Economically, it is hard to deny that this was the war that broke us as
a colonial power. However, I’d also like
to add that far more importantly, this was the war that began the process of
the end of the nation state itself.
Globally. The colonial wealth
pump was broken. We retained our nation
state, not our functioning economy, with the last of the petroleum extraction
world wide. What you see as a strength
of controlling the oil is merely a symptom of the last grasp of our nation
state ( and others are following our path-many already failed states and others
like China soon to follow as its economic problems portend food import issues,
or Russia which gained new life through colony surrender to buy it time ).
*
America drawing down the
global oil is akin to Rome stripping the soil of all its North African and
middle east colonies for the last of the wheat.
They continued in power for quite some time, but on a downward slope. America started hers during the Vietnam War
and despite more and more oil has been failing ever since then. She, like all other nation states, is failing
due to the surplus wealth, the wealth pump, the very function of the empire, is
breaking down. We’ll continue tomorrow.
END
Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon ad graphics at the top of the page. ***You can support me through Patreon ( go to www.patreon.com/bison )***You can make donations or book purchases through PayPal ( www.paypal.me/jimd303 )
*** Unless you are in extreme poverty, spend a buck a month here, by the above donation methods or buy a book. If you don't do Kindle, send me a buck and I'll e-mail it to you. Or, send an extra buck and I'll send you a CD ( the file is in PDF. I’ll waive this fee if you order three or more books at one time ). My e-mail is: jimd303@reagan.com My address is: James M Dakin, 181 W Bullion Rd #12, Elko NV 89801-4184
*** Pay your author-no one works for free. I’m nice enough to publish for barely above Mere Book Money, so do your part.*** Land In Elko* Lord Bison* my bio & biblio* my web site is www.bisonprepper.com *** Wal-Mart wheat***Amazon Author Page
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there
"days prior to writing this was the incident where a cargo container and one of our warships collided."
ReplyDeleteI'm not hearing much about how the investigation is going. Almost as if there is a media blackout. Imagine that?!?
I wonder if the Officer in Charge was named Mohammad or Akmed?
Idaho Homesteader
The officer in charge was busy teaching a mandatory difference gender acceptability class to pregnant single mothers of color.
Delete“Mouthballs”?
ReplyDeleteI thought that was an affliction suffered by hollywood starlets on their rise to the top :D
I think I made this mistake before :) Thanks for not being a Grammar Nazi.
DeleteGuerrilla tactics are real tough to combat. Large, wide open areas like the middle east are probably not quite as bad to deal with, but in mountainous regions such as Afghanistan, forget about it. The south should have engaged in Guerrilla tactics from the beginning, and just kept it up until they finally wore the federals down. When you’re outnumbered and out funded, conventional warfare is a fools game.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the southern plantation owners feared they would become the front lines, as they would be the obvious source of funding. Do as the rich always do, get the peasants to fight.
DeleteActually Guerrilla warfare is extremely easy to counter : you have to exterminate every living being in the vicinity of the attack.
ReplyDeleteIt was done on a massive scale during the French Revolution in Vendée, for instance. And in other serious counterinsurgencies in space and time (The Second Boer War was quite horrendous in that regard).
The reason counterinsurgency didn't work in the second half of the 20th century was because the population at home was against these principles, be it in France or in the USA.
Also, there wasn't any need to, to be honest. Nowadays, the first private employer in Vietnam is NIKE. So Vietnam won the war... and ? Look at them now.
Hey, at least they have some employment :)
DeleteI thought the reason for wars for the USA was the profits to be had by the CIA, DIA, DEA,Special Forces in the drug trade. Heroin (Viet Nam), Cocaine(South America), Heroin (Afghanistan).
ReplyDeleteONE of the reasons, not the only one. I'd say war was healthy for much bigger players ( I don't know if the drugs are for the benefit of the bankers as some claim, but an interesting hypothesis ) and the above are bit players. The knights and barons to the king.
DeleteIIRC Afghanistan, while having little oil does have 2 things to warrant its invasion.
ReplyDelete1) a strategic spot geographically. Controlling it gives access to Asia, the Middle East, etc.
2) a LOT of rare earth metals necessary for solar PV and other alternative energy sources. With control of these metals a nation may be able to reduce its domestic dependence on petroleum to be sufficient to be the last military to have enough petroleum to fight a war. (and they are also good for computer chips).
That second point may be why we are really still there. We got Osama, and enough of the Taliban we could keep them suppressed with locally bought troops, but we also have to have control of and protect the rare earth mines and refineries.
The problem I see with this is: Afghanistan as the pivot point might be an anachronism from Spice and Blackpowder. Rare earth metals are for much higher tech than our economy is going to support. Not saying you are wrong, just that your points may not justify the cost we are paying.
DeleteSolar PV panels last far longer than most people think (60+ years of nearly 50% rated max power) that's more than long enough to see a nation and civilization make a major transition to less/no petroleum. The problem is that the solar PV requires rare earths that are hard to find and very - well - rare on the earth, there are not enough to equip every person on earth with enough PV panels for a European level energy usage. Wind, water, and solar thermal power could take up SOME of the slack but things will get very poor in energy even for the richest people UNLESS your country has all the PV power it could possibly need ASAP. AKA - own the rare earth minerals NOW, and get your nation into a better state for the gearing down, and enjoy your luxuries for longer, and keep/get your country dominant. Mind you I think that is more depth than the politicians giving the orders can think, but the people they are really working for ~might~ be that clever.
DeleteI'd say China was clever. They invested in panel production surges to get unit price down. Nearly every Chinese home had a solar water heater, cheaply bought, and that was years ago. The US, capable of that kind of foresight? I spit blood as I gaffaw!
DeleteBison wrote: " Russia which gained new life through colony surrender to buy it time )."
ReplyDeleteI remember Orlov writing that the USSR was being economically drained by its colonies. So, just as you wrote, getting rid of them was a survival mechanism.
Who knows? I could have gotten that from Orlovs first book. I consume, my brain mixes and matches years later, and I have no idea where I got the stuff from. Good Brain! Biscuit for you.
Delete