Saturday, August 6, 2016

Obama and the Nature of Warfare

Obama's statements on his actions against ISIS in the Middle East reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of warfare. The most glaring gaffe is his touting the conventional 'gains' made on direct attacks of ISIS positions, and that ISIS is 'contained.'

WAR IS WON IN THE WILL

Wars aren't won by killing your enemies, destroying his financial support, or waging a PR campaign. These efforts are essential, don't get me wrong. But a war is won by destroying the enemy's will to fight. Obama's statements that we've been making gains against ISIS reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about the nature of armed conflict. The recent attacks in the West, and subsequent media coverage make it appear that ISIS is gaining ground in inspiring their key strategic demographic to wage fourth generational war on western civilization. Obama and the left like going back to Vietnam for every military engagement that the U.S. engages in when they're not in power, so let's indulge them in this.

WIN EVERY BATTLE, LOSE THE WAR

The United States won almost every battle. North Vietnam and the Viet Cong lost over a million soldiers, while the US lost 58,000. 58,000 is a huge number, but against killing a million, you have to think, how did we possibly lose? Plain and simple, we lost because the American people lost their will to fight. Although we won almost every battle, after being there for years with no end in sight, the American people lost their will to continue the fight. This was a complicated issue, but if the American people had resolved themselves to win at all costs, punish the media by calling them on their lack of backbone and defeatism, made the military procurement system do its job, and finally picked leaders that could build a workable strategy, it could have been won. But the stakes were lower then. One small country in the Far East, wasn't worth dying for.

"When it comes to the war on terror, we don't like home games."

This was a quote from a general that I heard during a global strategy briefing. He was referring to, our current state of affairs, constant attacks in the West. The media for the last few years has passed around the meme that the war in Iraq was a failure, because our political objectives weren't accomplished, there were no weapons of mass destruction there, and the region was destabilized. First of all, the region has never been stable. Second of all:

THE WAR IN IRAQ WAS A SUCCESS

Every jihadist in the region went to Iraq, to fight the infidel. Not just the locals, some came from Europe also. The jihadists were hard at work, fighting American soldiers, a hardened target, and they were focused on that task. The number of attacks experienced in the West on soft targets was relatively small.




It's doubtful too many of them would have gone to Afghanistan, a backwater in the Middle East, but to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the leader of the resistance to Satan's America, it was almost an irresistible target. Dan Bolger writes in his book "Why We Lost," that Osama Bin Laden wanted Afghanistan to become a graveyard for America like it did for the Soviet Union, prompting an American pullout from the region. But Afghanistan never really became the center of the conflagration that OBL wanted. Iraq became the center of attention. Strategically, it was a solid honeypot for wanna-be jihadists, they flooded in initially. American soldiers don't like being shot at, and don't like being blown up. But what they like even less, is foreign fighters blowing up or shooting our civilians on American soil. Strategically, from this perspective, Iraq was a success.

EXPORT YOUR ARMY, AND EQUIP IT WITH THE ENEMY'S MONEY

ISIS is on our shores now, and Obama is bringing in more fighters for them by importing Syrian refugees. 10,000 of them. That's what we call a division in the military. Moreover, many of them will be on public assistance for the foreseeable future. They will be armed with smart phones and computers, the primary weapons of 4th Generational warfare. Not all of them will become fighters. Maybe fewer than one percent. Maybe more. But the real problem will be the percentage of that ten thousand that support terrorism as a means to an end, and reject Judeo-Christian values.

THE END STATE

This only can end won way, and the results of the election will only control the time-table of the coming civil war.



No comments: