Unhappy Medium: The Perils of Annoyance as Your Strategic Default

Last week saw its share of sound and fury. One again, commentators from around the globe, ranging from noted Clausewitzian to unnoted COINdinista, gathered to answer, once and for all, one question: does America conquer through love or through  death?  (hint: the answer is yes).  However, last week saw something more important: substantive and troubling hints of the reemergence of a real threat, a specter that has haunted American defense thinking since 1844: unapologetic magic bulletry.

Quoth the Committee:

Iraq 2003 was the last hurrah of the dotcom era. Echoing a classic “netizen” conceit, Pentagon planners believed that American forces would interpret the Iraqi army as damage and route around them to victory. Intensive “network-centric” warfare would combine data from each network node (soldier) into a grand central clearinghouse that would deliver total information omniscience. Commanders could then move forces to needs, on demand. Any enemy infantryman that sneezed in the night would draw instant, exactly targeted fire that would hermetically package and deliver them to Allah with the best IT driven efficiency that the private sector could provide. Light shows of dizzying precision would capture enemy eyeballs, break their will to resist, and leave Mesopotamia the newest target demographic for Madison Avenue.
 
This thought was the logical endpoint of dotcom mania. Governmental institutions, the military being one such institution, lag behind the private sector in tech mania adoption. Dotcom groupthink hit the military hardest after it had passed its peak of hysteria in the rest of American society.

In its nineties heyday, techno-opiates promised a future where U.S. forces moved freely like network packets across an antiseptic information battlespace. These force “packets” would be effectively omniscient since enemy forces would continue to unheedingly  mass Soviet style forces in large formations across flat, treeless, and unpopulated terrain. There the enemy could be  anesthetized in detail with precision, with laser-guided fluffy down pillows lulling enemy soldiers gently to sleep.  The American military would simply interpret resistance “as damage and route around it“.  The result of such thinking was an American military that could deter a large country, destroy a medium-sized country, or occupy a small country.

Read more

Quote of the Day

Douglas Feith and Seth Cropsey:

Ideas matter, and especially to intellectuals like President Obama. He is not a rigid ideologue and is capable of flexible maneuvering. But his interpretation of history, his attitude toward sovereignty, and his confidence in multilateral institutions have shaped his views of American power and of American leadership in ways that distinguish him from previous presidents. On Libya, his deference to the UN Security Council and refusal to serve as coalition leader show that he cares more about restraining America than about accomplishing any particular result in Libya. He views Libya and the whole Arab Spring as relatively small distractions from his broader strategy for breaking with the history of U.S. foreign policy as it developed in the last century. The critics who accuse Obama of being adrift in foreign policy are mistaken. He has clear ideas of where he wants to go. The problem for him is that, if his strategy is set forth plainly, most Americans will not want to follow him.

Live up to the Snake! (Name the Snake.)

I have been going off about how we have to have a countervailing image to the Obama 2012 image in the zero, on a blue field, which I am already seeing all over the place.

The Gadsden snake in the zero, on a red field, is a good placeholder until the GOP has a candidate — and hopefully after.

We need a GOP candidate whose name can proudly be matched with the snake.

We need a GOP candidate who is serious about cleaning up the mess.

We need a GOP candidate who is not a squish.

We need a GOP candidate who will live up to the snake.

We all need to live up to the snake.

We need a name for the snake.

I don’t think the snake has ever had a name.

There’s a first time for everything.

I propose Ronald Gadsden Rattlesnake, a/k/a Ronnie Rattlesnake a/k/a Ronnie Rattler.

Ronnie for obvious reasons.

Your proposals are solicited. It will have to be really good to be better than Ronnie Rattler.

Snake 2012 stuff here.

What am I missing here?

How about passing a bill that is about one page long.

It just says that any person or entity that requests a waiver of Obamacare can have it upon written request.

Since Obama is giving these out to his pals, just let everyone have it if they want.

Would this be a great issue or what?

Put it up for a vote and make the Democrats defend the bill and the waiver process.

Nice High Definition Version of the Gadsden 2012 Logo

Jeff from The Right Logic sent a nice version he describes thus: “I updated it a bit by recreating the numbers so that they were crisp around the edges. I also updated the Gadsden logo with one that wasn’t blurry. I figured if this thing takes off at least we will have a high resolution version to distribute for people to use electronically. Here is a link to my blog with the logo.”

His version is here. It is also here and below the fold.

Thanks, Jeff.

(As noted, you can now buy stuff with one or another version of the 2012 Gadsden logo. I cannot yet vouch for the quality, but I ordered a bumper sticker and I will report on it when it arrives.)

Read more