Fifth Generation of Warfare (5GW) is "indistinguishable from magic"

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Remembering the Past

It's instructive to look at reactions to past U.S. actions and recent Russian ones to see if an objective viewpoint is being taken. Simply read previous posts in both of these areas and see what you deduce.

This in no way supports certain incorrect U.S. actions. What's wrong is wrong, but needs to be even handed.

This may apply where side is cited but not the other for the same transgressions.

I would agree.

I think it's quite common for folks to take a blindered view of their own country's foreign policy, either only exclusively seeing the wrongs of their country, or choosing to NOT see any of them.

Balanced viewpoints from individuals can be a hard thing to find at times rather than relying on group average "wisdom of crowds".

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Remembering the Past

Your Post

I tend to take the opinions of folks who have either served and/or have "put their money and/or time where their mouth is" at the coalface of the problem a bit more seriously.

As they've got some skin in the game, beyond just words.

It's good to have some context, as there are quite a few assertively opinionated academics lacking any real world texture.

And that's the entire point of my last post is that you're obviously quite passionate( and black and white…albeit overly so in my perception of this grey world) about this topic and the related iTulip stuff.

Wherever folks fall on the spectrum who are that passionate I always try to ask the question of "Since you feel so strongly about it, what are you doing about it?"

In my experience, regret, frustration, and the negative effects of physiological stress can be alleviated by making a direct/indirect contribution towards the desired end state you desire.

In terms of my "super powers", I don't have any, unfortunately.

But I do seem to possess a suitable Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

We help where we can, we compartmentalise where we can't. I enjoy talking to nurses who work in oncology, particularly paediatrics.

Horrible stuff happens in this world. Some of it we can fight and minimise/stop. Some of it is as inevitable as a sunset.

We don't have to like it. But fighting a sunset has mental/emotional consequences.

You've got to pick your fights carefully and put some skin on the table to win the long game. Think about my previous post of how it's always just the small active ends who shape the big middle.

While I reckon some sovereign capabilities are truly frightening, it's people who are running the show.

For every einsatzgruppen wannabe, there's a whole bunch of reasonably likeminded people in need of effective leadership. Someone needs to step up or this is all a longwinded written version of staring at a tree you are going to hit while driving a car and talking about it, rather than actively avoiding the crash.

[astonas]

Re: Remembering the Past

It's instructive to look at reactions to past U.S. actions and recent Russian ones to see if an objective viewpoint is being taken. Simply read previous posts in both of these areas and see what you deduce.

This in no way supports certain incorrect U.S. actions. What's wrong is wrong, but needs to be even handed.

This may apply where side is cited but not the other for the same transgressions.

Honestly, I'm not sure this question is one where objectivity is really possible. Or frankly, always desirable.


Take my case. I fully understand that there really isn't any way for me to be objective about this subject (though I do my best).

My parents both grew up in extremely active war zones.

They saw and experienced horrible things. My mother was some combination of lucky, and strong. She came out of it fairly intact.

My father, let's just say that parts of his psyche have remained shattered. That there are whole chunks of his life that he to this day cannot discuss.

War is a terrible thing. It destroys lives in ways that propagate to subsequent generations. In this, Woodsman is entirely right. That war was present in my household every day I was growing up, though it had "ended" decades before.

And yet, I cannot in good conscience say that I wish there had been no war.

Why?

Because the war was WWII. And because my parents grew up in Germany.


So to me this isn't a contest about which side is more objective. The subjective does matter. At least to me.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a conversation worth having.

Because finding a way to end the suffering of war where that is possible, and minimize the suffering where it is not, is essential to remaining human in the kind of world where militaries are regrettably necessary.

[vt]

Re: Remembering the Past

It's instructive to look at reactions to past U.S. actions and recent Russian ones to see if an objective viewpoint is being taken. Simply read previous posts in both of these areas and see what you deduce.

This in no way supports certain incorrect U.S. actions. What's wrong is wrong, but needs to be even handed.

This may apply where side is cited but not the other for the same transgressions.

[astonas]

Re: Remembering the Past

I'm working on a more extended response to some of what's come out here, but I thought it would be worth clarifying one thing quickly, since it appears to be at least a contributing factor in the disagreement.

Woodsman, you seem to be citing a lot of links referring to reprehensible CIA actions, while lacedaemonian is speaking mostly about the military sphere.

Is it possible that your concerns are mostly applicable to the services who are able to operate shrouded in secrecy?

Or do you truly believe that it is possible for a major (focal-point) nation to exist in this world with no military strength, even of the more publicly accountable variety?

Is it possible that the problems you are concerned about exist because there are non-military institutions with the authority to operate oversees that lack the sorts of structures and training that lacedaemonian is describing? That secrecy, rather than the military, is the principal concern?

[Woodsman]

Re: Remembering the Past

Whatever insinuation you think you read in my notes is not based on any single conversation or thread, but rather a continuing process of observation and contemplation. And no, you're right that I've never been in much danger or even much discomfort.

My military service was brief and unremarkable and I was glad to have done it and behind me. I served in peacetime and was never under any great threat except from the stupidity of my fellow enlisted men and the careerism of my officers and senior NCOs. Maybe I was just unlucky, or maybe the whole thing just stinks? I was never able to figure it out at the time. Of course these days I possess a bit more certainty, but going in I had much the same impression of the military as you would expect of any red blooded 17 year old boy raised by the Mighty Wurlitzer of militarist propaganda. Of course, I ate it up in double helpings and went back for seconds. After several months of training and a couple of years of duty I came to have a different understanding and my story is hardly unique in that respect.

In truth, I was never much of a soldier; probably among the worst of the bunch, really. I'm afraid the reboot never really took with me and I remained a civilian with baggy clothes and a bad haircut. I found most of it to be bullshit and the waste, idiocy and general inhumanity of every waking second made me sick. I learned I did not care much for military life and cared even less for the folks who found it endlessly fascinating. I think it started with the first Jodie cadence I sang about feeding the grass with the blood of dead babies and it was all downhill from there. I am weak today but once I was strong and wanted to use that strength to help the weak and the powerless, to protect and shield them from aggressors. I thought that's what soldiers did. Talk about naïve. Dear God, what a boy scout I was.

So no, I'm not familiar with murder and killing first hand. I never took anyone's life, never put much of a hurt on anyone, really. I expect had the balloon gone up and I found myself facing down a 19 year old Russian draftee, I might have done as was expected of me or I might have just taken a few 7.62 slugs and been a memory to mom and dad. I don't really know and of all the things I've avoided in life, I count myself most blessed that I never experienced the insanity of war. I haven't had the privilege of smelling decomposing and burning bodies. I've never soiled my trousers in trembling, inconsolable fear. I never heard a wounded man cry for his mother or saw my friend reduced to a pink mist. I haven't really seen much of death at all, even the set pieces we lay out at the end of our comfortable lives. So not only is my knowledge gained mostly from books, articles, interviews and piles of yellowing and crumbling documents, it was gained in that clinically detached distance you mentioned, in the luxury and security of a leather bound library chair, a wood paneled seminar room, and over coffee and cookies with retired and long since past prime second bananas and also-rans. But even there one can learn something valuable that is unavailable to rough men. One thing I did learn that the rough men know too, is to take the tired old justifications of tired old spooks for the self-serving nonsense it always proves to be. As I said, I did not come in with today's newspaper.

I did have the opportunity to meet some of the victims of these adventures. I met a lady who was a child in Nagasaki and still had scars. I met a mother whose sons and daughters were murdered by Salvadoran troopers and a priest whose brother was shot by a Guatemalan paramilitary type. I met a man who survived the Nazi camps and a woman who was tortured by Brazilian military police and a man whose son was disappeared in Chile. They were short encounters and I don't think in total they would take up as much time as a couple of afternoon matinees. But their quiet dignity as survivors hit me right away as did the common thread joining together the men who did them harm, so I guess it doesn't matter that I never spent much time in their company. I've also met dozens of men, broken and damaged by war. One of them was a neighbor whom I first met staring down the muzzle of his Mossberg shotgun. He was 17 when he went to Vietnam and he looked like he was 105 when I first encountered him. Along with his shotgun, he kept a full table of pills provided to him by the VA. I don't think I ever met a more broken man but there are so many of them and we have a whole new batch in the works.

So to your question; what have I done? Well, I can't say I have done much and know I there's very little I can do. Mostly, I've not done more harm. I've not added to suffering. I hope you can say the same. I've alleviated a little bit of suffering where I could and spoke out when I thought it might make a difference. Generally, I recognize it hasn't had much of an effect either way. Worse still, I am a prideful man whose intemperance gets in the way of doing much good for anyone, as I have demonstrated here too many times. This is truth and is my own personal failing. Regrettably it seems that I've done precisely what the intellectual progenitors of the modern national security state demand of me and the rest of us outsiders - sit down, shut up and wave the flag.

There's an unbridgeable chasm between us. And I need to be strategic in my outlook. I have no idea really with whom I am corresponding. Given the position you claim - not to mention the general orientation of people in your line of work to those you perceive as enemies - you might have the means and motive to make life difficult. I really can't say what a person in your position might be able to do with a simple email or phone call and the shield of obscurity and anonymity provided here is really no shield at all. So the smart thing for me to do is act in recognition of the boundless power and impunity you represent. As such, I avert my eyes, lower my head, and drop my shoulders in a display of submission. In raising the white flag of surrender it might make me seem even more contemptible, but it at least demonstrates a lack of threat. Please don't hurt me or send others to hurt me and my loved ones.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Remembering the Past

I was wondering if lakedaemonian wouldn't mind explaining more about this, as I am genuinely confused.

Let's take the general hypothetical case: An order to (since the metaphor is already in play) "make an omelette" comes down from above. It itself is strictly speaking lawful. But the person tasked with executing it sees that it clearly requires breaking some eggs to execute. And there simply is no clearly legal way to break those particular eggs.

In how many militaries in the world today is it really a viable (not career-ending) choice for a warfighter to simply refuse?

There's a couple of pieces to this.

1)Every legal combatant(soldier, sailor, airman) likely to engage in combat operations will have been thoroughly briefed in both the Laws of Armed Conflict(generic agreements between sovereign states) as well as specific Rules of Engagement negotiated between the sovereign state deploying legal combatants and the host nation(Afghanistan for example) if at the host nation's invitation, or unilaterally if it's not(invasion).

2)If a legal combatant is presented with an unlawful order that violates LOAC(Laws of Armed Conflict) and/or ROEs(Rules of Engagement) there is an obligation to refuse such an unlawful order.

I understand that in principle this is permitted, even required. But I am wondering about the military culture, in which people are steeped in a reflexive understanding that when orders are refused, their brothers-in-arms die. I can only imagine that the pressure is immense to get the job done, legal niceties be damned, and gray areas ignored.

Am I completely backward about the military culture, or is this a real problem?

I know of a small number of examples where orders were refused by junior commanders. Reasons differ, but there was nothing nefarious(beyond ruthless focus on career advancement at high risk) or bigger conspiracy related. Even in highly vetted organizations and high performance teams you still get your 5-10% of less than ideal candidates.

We already seem to agree, for example, that it is not impossible for the commander-in-chief to at the very least not understand the nature of his command, and at most be positively intent on abusing it. If the very necessary existence of an effective military requires a culture intrinsically biased toward execution of orders without question, and we agree that some orders can be highly questionable, isn't that sword at best double-edged?

I operate in an environment where junior commanders and even individual soldiers possess incredible latitude of mission execution. This is only possible due to vetting, vetting, training, proving, vetting, verifying, testing, deploying, trusting.

Higher command orders WHAT is to be achieved, local command determines HOW it will be achieved within constraints identified, higher command is back briefed on the plan and approves or modifies it. Then the plan is executed.

It is really a cool mix of proven, albeit rigid(for interoperability translation purposes), processes matched to often quite considerable junior command latitude and well vetted and trained teams executing the mission.

The amount of command latitude that junior commanders possess is often exceptionally high. Considering the depth and breadth of complex urban operations conducted over the last 14 years and the number of negative incidents that have occurred is fairly low in my opinion(but I'm obviously biased).

There's an expression called the Strategic Corporal. Which is a concept whereby command latitude needs to be pushed down as low as possible due to the complexity of complex urban ops.

There is simply no more physically/mentally/emotionally/socially demanding position that that of a junior commander in complex urban combat operations(again I'm biased) trying to solve problems while under 360 degrees of sensory overload and stress.

One minute in contact with the enemy, the next negotiating with local centres of gravity, the next identifying and deconflicting the illicit networks and conflict entrepreneurs, the next playing soccer with some local kids while eliciting information on IEDs, and the entire time scanning for threat indicators.

I'm curious how many former or current servicemen reading this have ever refused, or would ever consider refusing, a direct order given to them. How certain would you need to be about the legal circumstances?

Quite certain.

How likely would it be that you would be furnished the information required to reach that level of certainty?

Pretty likely from your chain of command or your own "bro network".

And is exploratory questioning on issues surrounding the legality of orders really encouraged, when sufficient information isn't provided?

That would be pretty assertive, but if justified...IS justified.

Doesn't such questioning necessarily imply questioning the integrity of one's superior?

Yup. Not everyone comes homes from operations with a hero's welcome. Anyone who can't cut it can get sacked and sent home. I know numerous examples where this has happened for good reason(refer back to my reference to "5-10%").

Has that ever gone over well?

Yes and no. Dealing with the awkward fart in the room in terms of individual performance failure worthy of getting sacked and sent home is hard for many(social inertia). But once the gangrene is cut out, you wind up with a healthier team.

The good news is that in western force structures you have parallel organization structures.

Enlisted and officers.

It's like a simple multi-tasking capable structure. One structure focuses on tactics(above the squad/section level of tactical command its all officers from platoon on up), the other on training/logistics/admin/support/SME to young officers.

If a private soldier was treated inappropriately by an officer, the enlisted "NCO mafia" would push it to the senior enlisted soldier who would rip the officer into shreds. There's lots of official and unofficial control measures that have been developed over literally thousands of years.

I've been fortunate to serve in a high performance unit and I have always pursued building a network of other like minded people. They are as common as the name Chan in the Shanghai phonebook. And that includes well outside my service including Aus/US/Canada/UK and some others.

Passionate professionals who take ownership.

The failures we've seen over the last 14 years are REAL. But they are the minority and the common denominator is usually poor leadership that wasn't removed fast enough.

Imperfect(and Youtube one to zillions instantly showing the planet a Marine throwing a puppy off a cliff is FAR from perfect), but usually quite effective.

I guess I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how this works in practice.


Finally, isn't it true that even in peacetime, mutiny carries a death penalty?

Depends I suppose. Nidal Malik Hasan still isn't swinging from a rope.

I have often thought, upon seeing the classic image of the Tiananmen square hero standing in front of the tank, that the image required not one, but two, heros. The man in front of the tank is the obvious one. But somewhere, either inside the tank, or further up the chain of command, was another, who made the decision to not keep driving, probably in spite of an order. Without the second hero, the first simply would not exist.

I don't know, I wasn't there. But be careful not to confuse the possibility of heroism, with what I reckon is more likely to be a disrupted OODA Loop in an organization structure where practically zero junior command latitude exists, hence the cognitive disruption and temporary blue screen of death by the PLA armored unit.

I can only imagine that the process of instilling ever-greater discipline through ever-more training makes it harder, rather than easier, for the second sort of hero to exist. Does the most highly-trained military in the world really do enough to encourage him? Or is that exactly the sort of behavior that boot camp and all subsequent training tries to break down?


But my knowledge of the military and its culture is very limited. I hope that someone can enlighten me.

Boot camp is a "reboot" and equalizer. To move, shoot, communicate(and solve complex non-kinetic problems) in a new common language.

It's a reboot and shift from selfish individuality to voluntary selfless teamwork serving the citizens of your country.

Are soldiers taught instinctive, reactive, and rapid alignment marksmanship to very quickly engage threats? Absolutely.

Is part of this based on learning from WWII era training when citizen soldiers were found to have a low likelihood of effectively engaging enemy human beings? Absolutely.

But I reckon the dehumanizing and indoctrination accusations are largely overblown, cliched, and out of touch thinking.

It now has far more to do with very high end professional sports training and psychology(I'm deeply involved with a quite innovative program focused on inoculating soldiers from stress and enhancing their cognitive capabilities).

We conduct instinctive/repetitive training(as well as physical training) to an extraordinary degree in order to create "time and space" to defeat threats physiologically and cognitively by riding the sweet spot of the Yerkes-Dodson U curve.

The science of soldiering has more to do with the pursuit of Olympic level performance than surrendering to Orwellian indoctrination.

-----

One of the biggest problems I see with society/military is the same as in the economy.

Superstars earn the big bucks. One Google software engineer can add a billion to the bottom line.

The US and the west has largely lost it's citizen soldier history. 30 years ago every family and every neighborhood had current/prior service veterans.

Today is WAY different. Force structure numbers(total # in uniform) has collapsed, and while a professional military has fundamental overmatch against a conscript military....the professional military turns into a class or caste removed from the rest of society.

And the difference between the average professional soldier and a highly vetted/trained/specialized soldier able to act as a force multiplier is equally immense.

I get to work with(on the periphery), and learn from, some of our superstars.

I also have the great opportunity to train our young folks coming through.

If I could achieve one thing, it would be for folks too removed(and to be frank, too seemingly afraid) from those serving to be able to listen in to average conversations. Obsolete stereotypes would truly be shattered.

I think most would be genuinely stunned at how much traction the concepts of this forum as well as the general attitudes on many issues here ALREADY resonate with them.

Don't overestimate them in a Jerry Bruckheimer 'Merica shock and awe kind of way.

But don't underestimate them, especially when it comes to the big picture stuff covered in this forum.

Recently I started pushing an internal meme "problem solving is our profession". Sometimes we solve problems kinetically(bullets), most of the time we solve problems non-kinetically(brains).

In short, all of your questions are answered decisively if we can teach our future junior commanders how to operate effectively in a grey world to "think better, faster" leading with ethical audacity.

Just my 0.02c

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Remembering the Past

I'm quite familiar with "The Act of Killing" and the events it portrays, only I saw it as something a bit more than a training film.

I really don't fathom how you can make the stretch to such a clear insinuation about my original and relevant reference to the film. But if you feel the need to put me in some sort of black or white box then whatever floats your boat.




I suppose the reason I chose "Brazil" was primarily because of Gilliam's brilliant use of farce to tell a dark truth. And "Missing" is a fine film too, although Costa-Gravas pulled too many punches for my taste in comparison to "Z" and "State of Siege." Since you mentioned the great Jack Lemmon, you might also watch "Save the Tiger" to see a gripping portrayal of a man who rationalizes away his soul. It seems particularly apropos.

While I enjoy a good film, I prefer the gritty grey real world over the black and white of celluloid and academia.

But I don't think it's film criticism that interests us. And if this note seems TL;DR, I suggest the above review and the previous "condescending and patronising tirade" should give you all you need to know about my position on the matter, generally.

I wouldn't consider myself naive, no. I'm certainly not naive about the ugly realities made palpable by comforting metaphors like "breaking eggs". I like to use real words. So to me they're not eggs, they're human beings. To me, it's murder not cooking:

I'm familiar with murder en masse. The stench of bloated and burning human beings is quite unique and unmistakeable.

I'm also pretty clear on the efforts in El Salvador and its antecedents. I didn't come in with today's mail and surely have long since passed the 10,000 hour mark studying the bloody trail left by the folks some suggest we merely influence. I cut my teeth on Phoenix/Phụng Hoàng as an undergraduate and graduate student and my initial work received praise from scholars as diverse as Dale Andrade and Douglas Valentine. Happy were the days...

Did that include time at the coalface or from clinically detached distance?

I'm not expecting an answer, simply raising the accurate point that just as there are different realities between a Wall Street analyst and a John Deere factory worker the same applies for academia and folks at the coal face when it comes to geopolitical solutions.

In any event, point taken on your left/right hands. Fortunately in all places kidnapping, torture, rape and murder remain capital crimes and crimes against humanity when done on behalf of the state or similar responsible authority. And that's a fact no matter what flag it flies, creed it holds or god it prays to. Of course impunity is the name of this game and to date most of the officers, NCOs, Company men, contract employees, soldiers of fortune, freebooters and common ordinary thugs who plan or execute these crimes around the world walk free and sleep like babies at night no matter their nationality or allegiance.

Since the dawn of time, the strong have taken advantage of the weak.

Sometimes the benevolent and strong help out of something more than just self interest.

Sometimes.

Wishing for something different or better is just that....a wish.

Unless you can actually execute a plan to effect change and become(or successfully shape) a fair and benevolent incumbent.

It's like the fellow driving the cab said:



It's easy to paint the critic as one sided or even disloyal and I'll admit mine is the minority view and largely discredited in polite company. As I say like a mantra, the right won decisively and the center could not hold. The America I grew up in once had a broader view of citizenship and civic responsibility and made space for other possibilities and alternatives. Anyway, I accept your assertion that you don't condone this but find it hard to reconcile with what to me seems like consistent enthusiasm for a general theory and praxis that I just find impossible to rationalize as a good under any reasonable circumstance. I also accept your stated revulsion at people who can kill others remorselessly as one does a cockroach, but wonder how to bridge that to the reality that those same egg-breaking, omelet making head chefs of which you speak are the ones who feed these rabid beasts.

The mask was pulled off decades ago and the are still a few of us left with brains and a functional conscience to know it's a Murder Incorporated. To me it makes no difference if it's done in the name of godless communism, racial purity, or king, country and JPMorgan Chase. To paraphrase Gen. Butler

So what do YOU do about it?

Paraphrasing Dylan Thomas, I'm hearing a whole lot of raging against the dying light without a commensurate failure to go gently into the night.

Words without action all too often lead to regret in my experience.

Too much talking, not nearly enough action.


So yes, I am black and white about it.

But we live in a world of grey.

I think the people who order, plan and execute these acts are criminals who belong in the dock. And I know those people think I belong in a ditch with my hands bound behind me and a bullet in the back of my head. These are scary people doing scary things on scant evidence and no accountability. We're supposed to be scared of them and surely they frighten me, as I would expect any reasonable person. I personally would rather talk about anything else here but sometimes you read something know it's just not so.

And talk about lack of agency (no pun intended), if Uncle Sam isn't responsive to the public over regulating FIRE, do you think the cloak and dagger types spend any time worrying about what we think or say be it here on iTulip or anywhere else? So what say let's nominate this thread to be closed for posterity's sake and focus our energy toward the goal of actionable economic intelligence instead? The rest is for the historians and God to decide.

I have no interest in personal attacks. Direct or oblique. Which things all too easily turn towards when things get heated. There's no value in it.

I'm hear to learn and here to share.

[astonas]

Re: Remembering the Past

It's easy to paint the critic as one sided or even disloyal and I'll admit mine is the minority view and largely discredited in polite company. As I say like a mantra, the right won decisively and the center could not hold. The America I grew up in once had a broader view of citizenship and civic responsibility and made space for other possibilities and alternatives. Anyway, I accept your assertion that you don't condone this but find it hard to reconcile with what to me seems like consistent enthusiasm for a general theory and praxis that I just find impossible to rationalize as a good under any reasonable circumstance. I also accept your stated revulsion at people who can kill others remorselessly as one does a cockroach, but wonder how to bridge that to the reality that those same egg-breaking, omelet making head chefs of which you speak are the ones who feed these rabid beasts.

[...]

And talk about lack of agency (no pun intended), if Uncle Sam isn't responsive to the public over regulating FIRE, do you think the cloak and dagger types spend any time worrying about what we think or say be it here on iTulip or anywhere else? So what say let's nominate this thread to be closed for posterity's sake and focus our energy toward the goal of actionable economic intelligence instead? The rest is for the historians and God to decide.

I am almost ready to let this one go as well.

Almost.

But there is one nagging issue that could actually be actionable, if not by me personally, then perhaps some military readers here. And so I'll pick at the scab.

It involves the question of unlawful orders.

I have already explained my logic that causes me to place the blame, in general, at the top of the chain of command. But Woodsman, you are (I believe) implicitly raising the question of whether it makes sense for the average warfighter to assume that his orders are in fact lawful. It is a very good question.

I was wondering if lakedaemonian wouldn't mind explaining more about this, as I am genuinely confused.

Let's take the general hypothetical case: An order to (since the metaphor is already in play) "make an omelette" comes down from above. It itself is strictly speaking lawful. But the person tasked with executing it sees that it clearly requires breaking some eggs to execute. And there simply is no clearly legal way to break those particular eggs.

In how many militaries in the world today is it really a viable (not career-ending) choice for a warfighter to simply refuse?

I understand that in principle this is permitted, even required. But I am wondering about the military culture, in which people are steeped in a reflexive understanding that when orders are refused, their brothers-in-arms die. I can only imagine that the pressure is immense to get the job done, legal niceties be damned, and gray areas ignored.

Am I completely backward about the military culture, or is this a real problem?

We already seem to agree, for example, that it is not impossible for the commander-in-chief to at the very least not understand the nature of his command, and at most be positively intent on abusing it. If the very necessary existence of an effective military requires a culture intrinsically biased toward execution of orders without question, and we agree that some orders can be highly questionable, isn't that sword at best double-edged?


I'm curious how many former or current servicemen reading this have ever refused, or would ever consider refusing, a direct order given to them. How certain would you need to be about the legal circumstances? How likely would it be that you would be furnished the information required to reach that level of certainty? And is exploratory questioning on issues surrounding the legality of orders really encouraged, when sufficient information isn't provided? Doesn't such questioning necessarily imply questioning the integrity of one's superior?

Has that ever gone over well?

I guess I'm having a lot of trouble understanding how this works in practice.


Finally, isn't it true that even in peacetime, mutiny carries a death penalty?


I have often thought, upon seeing the classic image of the Tiananmen square hero standing in front of the tank, that the image required not one, but two, heros. The man in front of the tank is the obvious one. But somewhere, either inside the tank, or further up the chain of command, was another, who made the decision to not keep driving, probably in spite of an order. Without the second hero, the first simply would not exist.


I can only imagine that the process of instilling ever-greater discipline through ever-more training makes it harder, rather than easier, for the second sort of hero to exist. Does the most highly-trained military in the world really do enough to encourage him? Or is that exactly the sort of behavior that boot camp and all subsequent training tries to break down?


But my knowledge of the military and its culture is very limited. I hope that someone can enlighten me.

[astonas]

Re: the war on terror

Good post.

The only thing I would add is clarifying that not only do few(if any) folks with relevant military experience run for office for the "right reasons"(which are subjective, but I think everyone here is on the same page), but even fewer(potentially zero) would actually make it through the two political machine meat grinders.

Thanks.

Your addition is perceptive and appreciated. The system places a great many impediments to people of character (military or civilian) making it through the gauntlet. The two-party system does indeed make it even worse.

In times of peace or war(less than total war), it's typically only single digit % of the total population that are "running the machine" as well as "opposing those who run the machine".

Semi functioning democracy(US), poorly functioning democracy(Ukraine), or failed/pretend democracy(Afghanistan) all share something in common.

It's almost always a very low % of the population actively engaged in retaining power or gaining power.

Most people just want to live life and can't be bothered, even(maybe especially) as the pot they are in slowly boils.

If Maslow's basic hierarchy of needs are met, people will tolerate more than I think most are willing to admit.

[...]

I think of it like a scale with 90% of the weight in the middle and just off to either side with 5% on each extreme end of the scale bar fighting for every atom of molecular mass to slowly tip the middle temporarily in their favour.

People really are like herds of cautious sheep.

I don't mean that in a demeaning sense.

If you show sated sheep something shiny, they aren't necessarily going to come running to you.

If you show starving sheep some food, you effectively(albeit maybe only temporarily) control them.

All the more reason, I suppose, to make sure the sheep never sink too far toward starving.

I wonder if that is part of why the electorate is so partisan today. A vague, but unsettling sensation that they just don't have it quite as good as their parents (with the specific causes carefully hidden by inflation) leading to a general dissatisfaction that can easily be roused into anger by rhetoric on one side or another.

[Woodsman]

Re: Remembering the Past

I'm quite familiar with "The Act of Killing" and the events it portrays, only I saw it as something a bit more than a training film. I recall I was the first to introduce the iTulip folks to Oppenheimer's work:

What is it like? Weird. Disturbing. Surreal. Imagine Orson Welles convincing the Nazis to act in a film dramatizing their crimes. With Bollywood-style musical numbers.

Director Josh Oppenheimer has accomplished a similarly improbable feat, convincing self-confessed mass killers to perform as actors in a film dramatizing their crimes. His documentary film, "The Act of Killing" features chillingly realistic re-enactments of the murders by the actual perpetrators filmed at the actual locations where the crimes occurred. There is also singing and dancing and costumes and breathtaking scenery. And blood. Lots of blood.

Through the most improbable means of surrealistic documentary cinema, if such a thing can even be conceptualized without first seeing the film at length, "The Act of Killing" provides a frightfully chilling perspective on the Indonesian mass murders of 1965 in which upwards of 1 million people were systematically murdered in a year-long orgy of political violence. Like the pressure of a fault line giving way, Oppenheimer and his opus may well trigger the epistemological rupture that finally breaks through almost 50 years of amnesia about one of the last great genocides of the 20th Century.

With "The Act of Killing", Josh Oppenheimer has done more than merely transform documentary film making. He has obliterated the very paradigm of the documentary film. In its surreal and otherworldly juxtapositions of fact and fantasy, "The Act of Killing" has transcended into a completely novel form. It is a rare and singular work that may well take a prominent place in any future study of documentary film making. Whether the powers that be behind the glitz and billions in Hollywood recognize it as such is immaterial to the reality of Oppenheimer's achievement. Evocative of Goya's "Disasters of War," Josh Oppenheimer has rendered truth, unvarnished and unadorned, through the subversive imaginative elements of his art.

I suppose the reason I chose "Brazil" was primarily because of Gilliam's brilliant use of farce to tell a dark truth. And "Missing" is a fine film too, although Costa-Gravas pulled too many punches for my taste in comparison to "Z" and "State of Siege." Since you mentioned the great Jack Lemmon, you might also watch "Save the Tiger" to see a gripping portrayal of a man who rationalizes away his soul. It seems particularly apropos.

But I don't think it's film criticism that interests us. And if this note seems TL;DR, I suggest the above review and the previous "condescending and patronising tirade" should give you all you need to know about my position on the matter, generally.

I wouldn't consider myself naive, no. I'm certainly not naive about the ugly realities made palpable by comforting metaphors like "breaking eggs". I like to use real words. So to me they're not eggs, they're human beings. To me, it's murder not cooking:

I'm also pretty clear on the efforts in El Salvador and its antecedents. I didn't come in with today's mail and surely have long since passed the 10,000 hour mark studying the bloody trail left by the folks some suggest we merely influence. I cut my teeth on Phoenix/Phụng Hoàng as an undergraduate and graduate student and my initial work received praise from scholars as diverse as Dale Andrade and Douglas Valentine. Happy were the days...

In any event, point taken on your left/right hands. Fortunately in all places kidnapping, torture, rape and murder remain capital crimes and crimes against humanity when done on behalf of the state or similar responsible authority. And that's a fact no matter what flag it flies, creed it holds or god it prays to. Of course impunity is the name of this game and to date most of the officers, NCOs, Company men, contract employees, soldiers of fortune, freebooters and common ordinary thugs who plan or execute these crimes around the world walk free and sleep like babies at night no matter their nationality or allegiance.

It's like the fellow driving the cab said:

"War crimes are defined by the winners. I am a winner, so I can make my own definition."

It's easy to paint the critic as one sided or even disloyal and I'll admit mine is the minority view and largely discredited in polite company. As I say like a mantra, the right won decisively and the center could not hold. The America I grew up in once had a broader view of citizenship and civic responsibility and made space for other possibilities and alternatives. Anyway, I accept your assertion that you don't condone this but find it hard to reconcile with what to me seems like consistent enthusiasm for a general theory and praxis that I just find impossible to rationalize as a good under any reasonable circumstance. I also accept your stated revulsion at people who can kill others remorselessly as one does a cockroach, but wonder how to bridge that to the reality that those same egg-breaking, omelet making head chefs of which you speak are the ones who feed these rabid beasts.

The mask was pulled off decades ago and the are still a few of us left with brains and a functional conscience to know it's a Murder Incorporated. To me it makes no difference if it's done in the name of godless communism, racial purity, or king, country and JPMorgan Chase. To paraphrase Gen. Butler

POLITICAL WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

So yes, I am black and white about it. I think the people who order, plan and execute these acts are criminals who belong in the dock. And I know those people think I belong in a ditch with my hands bound behind me and a bullet in the back of my head. These are scary people doing scary things on scant evidence and no accountability. We're supposed to be scared of them and surely they frighten me, as I would expect any reasonable person. I personally would rather talk about anything else here but sometimes you read something know it's just not so.

And talk about lack of agency (no pun intended), if Uncle Sam isn't responsive to the public over regulating FIRE, do you think the cloak and dagger types spend any time worrying about what we think or say be it here on iTulip or anywhere else? So what say let's nominate this thread to be closed for posterity's sake and focus our energy toward the goal of actionable economic intelligence instead? The rest is for the historians and God to decide.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: the war on terror

Who demeans soldiers?

The cowards who, from a position of personal safety at home, demand that soldiers should be sent into pointless and unwinnable combats abroad?

Or those who point out the futile nature of such conflicts, and in so doing, seek to end the waste of soldier's lives?

I argue it is the former:


I should emphasize first that I am not a pacifist. There are some wars that are indeed necessary, and to avoid fighting at those crucial moments is neither a moral nor an ethical act. To stand aside, for example, while genocide rolls forward is to be a party to it. But before a war may be considered just, one must first be clear and honest about its motivation.


I have come to find this yardstick to be a telling one: "A war is intrinsically a crime, that can be justified only when it averts an even greater crime." In other words, a war can only be justified if the brutality it prevents (genocide, exploitation, etc.) can credibly be held up as greater than the brutality of the war itself. And there is no use pretending that a war of drones is less brutal because most of the casualties are on the other side, or entirely uncounted.

(Asymmetry of combat may make wars more politically palatable, but extrapolating that to also mean "more justified" is a terrible and ethically untenable position.)


I use the word crime deliberately above. I also want to be clear that this is NOT to denigrate soldiers to the level of criminals, but to force harsher questioning of their leaders, who I believe can and often do operate at precisely that level, thereby proving themselves unworthy of the soldiery under their command. I have come to believe that rather than being the exception, this state of affairs now constitutes the rule.


For a military to function, it is necessary that orders must be followed swiftly, and unquestioningly. The soldier is not, and arguably can never be, in a position to protest that his life is being spent to no desirable end. A necessary consequence of this is that responsibility for trading the lives of our troops for the aversion of a greater brutality must lie at the top. It is there that the decision is made, and it is there and there alone that derision should be focused. It is the heavy responsibility of the commander-in-chief to be certain that the military is deployed only when it is absolutely necessary.


Unfortunately, the initiation of the most recent spate of U.S. wars does not appear to have met this condition.


I have great respect for the soldiers who we send to fight. The sacrifice they are making is tremendous, and their willingness to make it is extraordinarily noble.

But I have very little respect for the (usually civilian) leaders who start wars to score domestic political points, abate irrational fears of terrorism in the populace, or advance the personally hallucinated agenda of their favorite deity. And even less respect when, after starting such a crusade, they invite the enemy to "bring it on" and to attack the troops they themselves have placed in harm's way. Sadly, such certainty-deluded people exist in all nations and creeds. Very often, it is exactly these people who seem to have the arrogance to believe that they deserve to lead a nation, and thereby a military.


This, then, appears to me to be the more fundamental problem. The only people who have the humility required to lead a nation's military as commander-in-chief, could never have the arrogance to seek to lead. Those who are legitimately able to balance such terrible calculus are also wise enough to avoid the task. It should come as no surprise that most who claim the responsibility are unworthy of it.


Perhaps that is the truest weakness of any government. Only those with the (intrinsically irrational) confidence that they have all the answers they'll ever need can wind up seizing the helm.


Call me crazy, but I'd rather have a leader who still has a capacity for a little self-doubt. I'm not an expert on presidential history, but the last one I can think of who was known for his doubts was Lincoln. I'm not asking for a Diocletian melon-farmer's reluctance to serve. But a little self-reflection wouldn't exactly hurt at this point either.


But just imagine trying to elect such a person today! I'm having a hard time even picturing it. We live in an era in which "often wrong, never in doubt" is actually taught, even venerated, as a way of conducting business! And for that reason, it is not only the failure of the elected, but also more importantly of the electorate, that brings us to this damnable state of affairs.

Perhaps the worst part of all this seems to be the sad fact that as much as we like to complain about our leaders, we probably are getting exactly the leadership that we the people (in aggregate) deserve. This isn't just about the failure of the American system, it is also about the failures of the American people that permitted it.

Ignorance. Irrationality. Identity politics. These are things that politicians could not play on without the tacit consent of the majority. Some part of it is indeed that the electorate is cynically manipulated by adds.


The rest, though, is that the people allow themselves to be manipulated. For some, I daresay that they even want themselves to be. It provides such a warming sense of belonging to unthinkingly rant, and point fingers.


We should strive not only to elect better, but to deserve better leaders. Without the latter, there is little-to-no hope for the former.

Good post.

The only thing I would add is clarifying that not only do few(if any) folks with relevant military experience run for office for the "right reasons"(which are subjective, but I think everyone here is on the same page), but even fewer(potentially zero) would actually make it through the two political machine meat grinders.


In times of peace or war(less than total war), it's typically only single digit % of the total population that are "running the machine" as well as "opposing those who run the machine".

Semi functioning democracy(US), poorly functioning democracy(Ukraine), or failed/pretend democracy(Afghanistan) all share something in common.

It's almost always a very low % of the population actively engaged in retaining power or gaining power.

Most people just want to live life and can't be bothered, even(maybe especially) as the pot they are in slowly boils.

If Maslow's basic hierarchy of needs are met, people will tolerate more than I think most are willing to admit.

I reckon the average person in China moving up the standard of living spectrum doesn't care if their civil liberties are being trampled on, as long as the government continues to drive growth in the Chinese franchise of "The American Dream".

I reckon the average person in the US stagnating on the standard of living spectrum doesn't care if their civil liberties are being trampled on, as long as they cam remain cocooned and immune to the attrition of American middle class wealth.

In April 1945, EVERYONE in France claimed to be in the French Resistance/Maquis since May of 1940.

The reality is that even up until June 1944, there were not that many committed members of the French Resistance/Maquis.

I'm sure every French man and woman was sympathetic(bar collaborators) to the Resistance/Maquis, but they certainly were not committed.

It wasn't until momentum was gained from the mass sympathy in the middle(passive acceptance of Nazi occupation) being shifted to increasing commitment towards the Resistance/Maquis.

I think of it like a scale with 90% of the weight in the middle and just off to either side with 5% on each extreme end of the scale bar fighting for every atom of molecular mass to slowly tip the middle temporarily in their favour.

People really are like herds of cautious sheep.

I don't mean that in a demeaning sense.

If you show sated sheep something shiny, they aren't necessarily going to come running to you.

If you show starving sheep some food, you effectively(albeit maybe only temporarily) control them.

People complain about "the 1%" and for some good reasons.

But what seems to be lacking is any productive discussion on how to develop a legal "counter 1%".

I'm genuinely quite stunned that at least 1 billionaire(say Ross Perot), hasn't left this world and donated their net worth towards building a legal "counter 1%" political network that can leverage both digital/physical networks to effect real non-partisan change for the better good of all(say single purpose non-partisan goal of genuine campaign finance reform..not so much a new political party, but a forcing function/filter).

This "5th generation warfare" isn't so much "new", as it is a rehash and reformulation of some very old as well as more recent technological developments that sit on top of very old human/social/economic/political behavior enhanced by technology.

The non-kinetic and legal aspects/slices of this 5th generation warfare will also come into play in 1st world countries political futures, including the US.

[astonas]

Re: Remembering the Past

I think it comes down to genuine realpolitik.

Not in the Kissinger(ian) sense.

It's a shame you only included one side of the equation, rather than the other(s).

Hard to blame the horrific suffering in Zimbabwe on the US or the horrific mistakes and waste caused by competing networks then and now.

Maybe it might be worth having a read about US efforts in El Salvador in the 80's/90's.

55+ people on the ground in El Salvador spent 15+ years trying to shape the countries choices for the better with a fair bit of success despite the inability to control the horror show.

I think your worldview is either too black/white or naive.

I've visited 3 genocide sites in 3 disparate locations. The horror of what happened is still palpable.

I don't condone any of it.

But like the movie "Act of Killing" portrays(at least from my perception of it) how all I think we can do is break the fewest eggs possible.

Believing recipes that don't require eggs can be concocted or leaving the "kitchen" in protest rather than trying to develop healthier recipes with the fewest eggs used is nothing short of naive.

We can only influence, we can't control.

Thanks for sharing your experience with us here, lakedaemonian. I always learn when I read your posts.

I was working on a reply to Polish's response, when I saw this one, and thought that my response might fit even better here. Rather than re-writing it, though, I'll just post this link.

[astonas]

Re: the war on terror

What I haven't figured out is how to discuss this without demeaning the soldiers. If you say the truth, you are taking away the rationale for the suffering and injury they have experienced. But if you don't say the truth, there will be more suffering and injury.

Who demeans soldiers?

The cowards who, from a position of personal safety at home, demand that soldiers should be sent into pointless and unwinnable combats abroad?

Or those who point out the futile nature of such conflicts, and in so doing, seek to end the waste of soldier's lives?

I argue it is the former:


I should emphasize first that I am not a pacifist. There are some wars that are indeed necessary, and to avoid fighting at those crucial moments is neither a moral nor an ethical act. To stand aside, for example, while genocide rolls forward is to be a party to it. But before a war may be considered just, one must first be clear and honest about its motivation.


I have come to find this yardstick to be a telling one: "A war is intrinsically a crime, that can be justified only when it averts an even greater crime." In other words, a war can only be justified if the brutality it prevents (genocide, exploitation, etc.) can credibly be held up as greater than the brutality of the war itself. And there is no use pretending that a war of drones is less brutal because most of the casualties are on the other side, or entirely uncounted.

(Asymmetry of combat may make wars more politically palatable, but extrapolating that to also mean "more justified" is a terrible and ethically untenable position.)


I use the word crime deliberately above. I also want to be clear that this is NOT to denigrate soldiers to the level of criminals, but to force harsher questioning of their leaders, who I believe can and often do operate at precisely that level, thereby proving themselves unworthy of the soldiery under their command. I have come to believe that rather than being the exception, this state of affairs now constitutes the rule.


For a military to function, it is necessary that orders must be followed swiftly, and unquestioningly. The soldier is not, and arguably can never be, in a position to protest that his life is being spent to no desirable end. A necessary consequence of this is that responsibility for trading the lives of our troops for the aversion of a greater brutality must lie at the top. It is there that the decision is made, and it is there and there alone that derision should be focused. It is the heavy responsibility of the commander-in-chief to be certain that the military is deployed only when it is absolutely necessary.


Unfortunately, the initiation of the most recent spate of U.S. wars does not appear to have met this condition.


I have great respect for the soldiers who we send to fight. The sacrifice they are making is tremendous, and their willingness to make it is extraordinarily noble.

But I have very little respect for the (usually civilian) leaders who start wars to score domestic political points, abate irrational fears of terrorism in the populace, or advance the personally hallucinated agenda of their favorite deity. And even less respect when, after starting such a crusade, they invite the enemy to "bring it on" and to attack the troops they themselves have placed in harm's way. Sadly, such certainty-deluded people exist in all nations and creeds. Very often, it is exactly these people who seem to have the arrogance to believe that they deserve to lead a nation, and thereby a military.


This, then, appears to me to be the more fundamental problem. The only people who have the humility required to lead a nation's military as commander-in-chief, could never have the arrogance to seek to lead. Those who are legitimately able to balance such terrible calculus are also wise enough to avoid the task. It should come as no surprise that most who claim the responsibility are unworthy of it.


Perhaps that is the truest weakness of any government. Only those with the (intrinsically irrational) confidence that they have all the answers they'll ever need can wind up seizing the helm.


Call me crazy, but I'd rather have a leader who still has a capacity for a little self-doubt. I'm not an expert on presidential history, but the last one I can think of who was known for his doubts was Lincoln. I'm not asking for a Diocletian melon-farmer's reluctance to serve. But a little self-reflection wouldn't exactly hurt at this point either.


But just imagine trying to elect such a person today! I'm having a hard time even picturing it. We live in an era in which "often wrong, never in doubt" is actually taught, even venerated, as a way of conducting business! And for that reason, it is not only the failure of the elected, but also more importantly of the electorate, that brings us to this damnable state of affairs.

Perhaps the worst part of all this seems to be the sad fact that as much as we like to complain about our leaders, we probably are getting exactly the leadership that we the people (in aggregate) deserve. This isn't just about the failure of the American system, it is also about the failures of the American people that permitted it.

Ignorance. Irrationality. Identity politics. These are things that politicians could not play on without the tacit consent of the majority. Some part of it is indeed that the electorate is cynically manipulated by adds.


The rest, though, is that the people allow themselves to be manipulated. For some, I daresay that they even want themselves to be. It provides such a warming sense of belonging to unthinkingly rant, and point fingers.


We should strive not only to elect better, but to deserve better leaders. Without the latter, there is little-to-no hope for the former.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Remembering the Past

Really? Do you suggest this happens under some color of law or do we create semi-private death squads to do the work?

What I'm suggesting is that humans do things that humans do. Many of the things humans do to each other can be quite horrible.

And who should we kidnap, torture and kill first?

Maybe first it would make sense to have a look throughout history, even just the 20th century, and come up with two lists.

The left hand list can include all of the countries where political violence and constriction of civil liberties and human/property rights were used by government to achieve its aims.

The right hand list can include all the countries not on the left hand list.

So which countries that are outside of the 1st world would be on this list?

Is there a kill list or some other means of identifying the usual suspects?

And do folks get on the list via some means of due process, or is that not part of the recipe for this omelet?

Please see the list above, specifically the very short right side list, and have a think about it before continuing on your condescending and patronising tirade.

What happens when a fly gets jammed in the printer and poor old cobbler Archibald Buttle gets tortured to death while arch terrorist and freelance HVAC repairman Archibald Tuttle walks free. Break more eggs and rely on secrecy and plausible deniability?

I'm a fan of Brazil. I just prefer more realistic and gritty portrayals like Jack Lemon in Missing.

Or the far more real, recent, and incredibly frightening "The Act of Killing".

Maybe watch that film and you might find the condescension and desire to patronise slip away a bit. Especially when you catch a glimpse of real and natural human behaviour where one human looks at another human like no more than a cockroach with no threat of mental PTSD consequence in murdering your neighbour.

Please get back to me with your solution on how to remedy this very real and incredibly frightening human characteristic that so many in the 1st world seem to think was extinguished with the rotary dial telephone.

I mean, if doubling down on Operation Condor and Phoenix Program is considered a serious policy option by folks in your line work, then anything goes. If it's just another arrow in the quiver, well then I think you've already answered the question you posed earlier:



If torture, murder, kidnapping, assassination and the like are mere policy options, it seems to me that your suspicion is correct - one becomes a monster, the very thing we were defending against.

But then again, who are we kidding? This isn't conjecture or speculation, is it really? Otherwise how should we account for the liberty gentlemen like Mr. Mike Townley, Mr. Orlando Bosch, and Mr. Jose Posada Carriles enjoyed?

I think it comes down to genuine realpolitik.

Not in the Kissinger(ian) sense.

But in the sense from having seen one human from one tribe treat another from another tribe with less sympathy than shown to a cockroach.

It's a shame you only included one side of the equation, rather than the other(s).

Hard to blame the horrific suffering in Zimbabwe on the US or the horrific mistakes and waste caused by competing networks then and now.

Maybe it might be worth having a read about US efforts in El Salvador in the 80's/90's.

55+ people on the ground in El Salvador spent 15+ years trying to shape the countries choices for the better with a fair bit of success despite the inability to control the horror show.

I think your worldview is either too black/white or naive.

I've visited 3 genocide sites in 3 disparate locations. The horror of what happened is still palpable.

I don't condone any of it.

But like the movie "Act of Killing" portrays(at least from my perception of it) how all I think we can do is break the fewest eggs possible.

Believing recipes that don't require eggs can be concocted or leaving the "kitchen" in protest rather than trying to develop healthier recipes with the fewest eggs used is nothing short of naive.

We can only influence, we can't control.