PREV
NEXT
(0)
The newspapers worldwide do a disservice to the truth on the ground, but they have one thing correct: it has turned into a slugfest, a war of attrition, and it is coming down - as wars do – to a battle of supply. I wrote before, quoting (I believe) Von Clausewitz, who opined that true professionals study logistics, and leave the tactics to the lower-order thinkers. Truth is, they are both parts of an equally important team, with respect to the old Prussian. Strategy is tactics on a large scale, but actually acts as a synthesis between logistics and tactics. Myanmar could put the best, most intelligently wrought plan for world domination out, but logistically speaking, perhaps they should first ensure that they have a good supply of electricity and drinking water. Von Clausewitz also
wrote, in On War, WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER
MEANS; We
see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real
political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of
the same by other means. The
old Junker did not mean, I wager, anything remotely like what has happened with
respect to the F-35, which if you have read anything I wrote relating to it,
you know I don't like. It is not that I don't respect the capabilities it has
an as aircraft; they are incredible. But it does seem amazingly expensive and
hard to maintain, and this was backed up by something I was astounded to see in
my “Early Morning Briefing,” delivered courtesy of Lockheed Martin. Instead of
touting the fact that it can do things almost no other aircraft can do,
instead, the Early Briefing instead pointed out that the F-35 is strengthening
our supply chain, and securing our future. “F-35 production provides for 298,000
advanced manufacturing jobs across America and has an economic impact of $65
billion yearly through US communities.” Now, how did they arrive at that
figure? They counted up all the money the US pays them and their suppliers. That's
not an economic impact: that's a knockout blow. The
United States was never the world power it became until after the Second World
War, when the “Sleeping Tiger” that Admiral Yamamoto so sagely warned about
before he reluctantly gave the order for the bombers and their escorts to fly
off the carriers – “Climb Mount Niitaka” – did not settle down, nor repose: it
kept eating. But remember that having a tiger under your control is only
possible for a period of limited time. Tigers, by their nature, are
uncontrollable, sometimes even by themselves. And that is what happened with
the American economy. If you watch a wonderful video on Youtube about American
life in 1957, it is easy to see how, at least for the white middle class, and
even for others to a certain extent, life was paradise. Men who had survived
the churning machine of the South Pacific and the Bulge were within their
rights to expect a little repose, and soon enough came the Great Society;
things were getting easier all the time, America was living better through
science, the overhaul of the Church by Vatican II made it possible to not have
to check the paper to see if the Diocesan authorities had approved a movie
before you could see it: things were great! Then came Viet Nam, and the gradual
descent into the moribund late Seventies and early Eighties, where the notion
of a job for life, a good and healthy pension after twenty years and Social
Security all started to slip. It has become a society in decline, wrought with
factionalism and strife. I recall when a political disagreement was ended
amongst my college friends by someone proposing a beer. Now people want to kill
each other. How
does the situation in America relate to the one here? Because Russia has lost
sight of what a sensible societal objective is much as the United States has.
We were a manufacturing and military power; now we produce tech and are a
service industry, reliant on Keynesian spending, which sounds great, until the
check finally comes due and cannot be put off. The Kremlin I believe was
emboldened by the strife in America; Mr. Putin is no fool, nor is he too sick
to continue. He wants to be the Czar, and has fundamentally crowned himself
thusly; after all, what is a president for life but a Czar? Pretty good for the
son of a chef. We
need to get back to basics. We need to understand the world has changed, and
for all our strict constructionism and adherence to weird and truthfully absurd
policies – I mean, a combat Marine with five tours under his belt cannot keep a
rifle on post without the Provost Marshall knowing everything about it, so why
can civilians? Especially when those weapons are not for shooting,
respectfully, a deer, or a little paper target; they are weapons of war. I have
heard one hundred thousand arguments from the pro-Second Amendment (except not
really; they only like the second half) crew about why Americans need to have
military weaponry in their homes., and not a single one has made any sense. I
actually got stopped by some idiotic shill for the pro-gun crowd at Union
Square who had been picking out “liberals” from the crowd and asking them what
they thought an “assault rifle” was. Sure, people who do not know gave silly
answers, and since by some coincidence of fate I saw the video later on (but
not MY interview) and I tried to reach to out the interviewer; no response.
When he asked me, my considered response was “…well, I guess you could really
consider any semi-auto rifle with capacity for conversion to full auto possible
with a box fed magazine and a pistol grip an assault rifle.” He looked down.
“Don't run off with the camera,” I said. “You asked, so I am going to tell you.
The classic assault rifle is the Armalite – now Colt - AR-15, derived from the
original design by Gene Stoner in 1957, the XM-177, who made it to chamber
5.56mm or .223 caliber…hey! Where are you going?” Captain
NRA didn't like it that someone of a somewhat liberal bent knew not what he
just what he was talking about but knew far more than him. Why not? It is a
tool of my trade. Yes.
The military trade. It does not belong in the hands of civilians, for they have
no need of such a thing. And at some remove, I believe that it is this divorce
from plain good sense that we have undergone in the City on the Hill, as the
King James Version put it, the beacon of Democracy and Justice, to a place
roiling with dissent that has emboldened Mr. Putin. And thus every dead child
in Ukraine is a stain on the honor of the USA. We
owe it to them to get it together and help. We have vast, vast stockpiles of materiel,
and every single day ships steam from Bayonne, Norfolk, and other ports to
points east. With an intelligent resupply system, we would be able to keep our
word to these wonderful people, whom I have come to love and respect in a short
time, and start to regain not some tom fool's notion of a great America that
never existed, where the darkies knew their place and Mom be damned if dinner
wasn't ready by 5:45 when Dad came home, but a real, live democracy,
strengthened by internal integrity, the chief proof of which is keeping your
word. Did
we cause it? We did not. Do we bear some complicity in it? I believe we do, for
if we were still the bellwether of freedom we were for some of my life, I don't
think Mr. Putin would be so cocksure. “Confusion
to the King's Enemies, confusion to Boney (parte),” was a toast during the
Napoleonic wars. Confusion is the enemy of good sense and words agreeing with
actions. It is necessary that the two match up perfectly, in politics as in
life, for if they do not, people cease to trust you. We
can do so much, but so little gets done; we have mired ourselves in red tape,
and it makes no sense to us and even less to outside observers, but they do
understand one thing – while we are confused, they needn't confuse us. They are
too busy raping and pillaging, while we worry about pronouns and other madness.
Live and let live; if a fighter pilot wants to wear a tutu and dance Swan Lake
in the privacy of his home, it is his castle. Clean thy own mantle first.
And
if we had been doing that instead of eating each other alive, there is no way
Mr. Putin would have had the temerity to Cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of
war. (Julius Caeser, Act 3, Scene 1, Line 273; Shakespeare, William; 1604,
London, England, First Folio) The writer is a former military man, now researching and writing about the Ukrainian Conflict. Questions can be sent directly to lhaesten@gmail.com.
| |||||||||||||||
Welcome to the discussion.
| |||||||
