search.php?keywords=Progressive+Navigation+Of+Conflict&terms=all&author=&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=Search
Umm, No Pandora, he is actually on the right track, and he us showing some rudimentary parallels to my theory of The Progressive Navigation of Conflict, it is design to eventually replace the system we used during the Iraq War to the present, he just had difficulties eludicating it, he is undoubtedly a military expert, but didn’t set out as a philosopher studying systems like I did outside the military.
Basically, if you go back to the Bush Administrations military and foreign policy, it was based on Statistical Syllogistic Curves that sought to equate the “presumed” operational capacity of a combined arms military in determining policy upon which that force could be projected upon. It was never explained that simply, I just did so. The range of your capacity to react are your options, this is a direct descendant if Powell’s Force Multipliers in military and foreign policy contexts. The DIA was the chief intelligence collector for these schemes, they had to provide a wide variety of strategies for campaigns in advance to a president on a moments notice, it is ultimately the presidents’ choice, not his, he merely chooses the best, and it is a time honored American tradition for the Commander in Chief to select the most bizarre mismash among ideas, combine elements together and say “Hey, I Got This” like Obama did in Syria with training the Free Syrian Army half assed, sending it out piecemeal to get slaughtered, then saying “I gave it a shot, didn’t think it would work”. No shit, main fault lays with the president, not the guts who designed the synergistic system below.
In his era (and ours) you still operate under the concept of “balance of power” as the guiding principle for figuring out who are potentially your friends and who is not. The most efficient pattern for “The Friend of My Enemy is my Enemy, The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend” is a checker board.
That is the most efficient pattern for that concept. We got close to that at the height if the cold war with Soviet and US bases checking one another across the planet, that is the era of Henry Kissinger, so don’t scoff at it Hillary supporters, she wanted to pull him out if retirement for it. That’s basically Chanakya’s Rajamandala if anyone is interested in a classical exposition in the theory.
He is pointing out random acts of violence on a checker field is ultimately meaningless, it is a purely negative act, while it does short term allow for a a weakening of a opponent, it also allows your allies to encroach upon your enemy, and Eve tually everyone gobbled that enemy up. With no enemy in that spot, the checkerboard magically resets all it’s colors, and your former allies will half turn enemy, while former enemies turn friends. That’s the insanity the aljazeera correspondent was trying to get at by saying “look, US us mad and chaotic and isn’t making sense in it’s alliances” when this general is in the awkward position of having to explain the balance of power next to never operates off of group feeling alone, and oftentimes states will side with pariahs just to keep the balance of power safely on their side, tolerating a detestible enemy. Syria did it with Israel prior to Israeli independence, they hated Jews but loved the check it offered to Jordan, a more realistic threat.
It is the DIA’s job to present these options, and some personality types are more attracted to the scheme of it. When he was asking “where is the Free Syria Army, Where is Al Nursa” he was getting at this. US ironically has almost always been on the verge if backing Al Nursa in Idlib (remember those helmets in your Syrian documentary Al Nursa captured (didn’t know how to adjust, or have the parts to, had we given it them, they would of been shown), compare those helmets to the brand used in Haitian Prisons for guards, they pop up in many allied countries, they jacked it from our allied supply line).
Basically, in the system we used then (and now) you want to form a popular front, get enough if those black squares together so they have critical mass, while supporting a peaceful rear that requires less man power, has training facilities, a tax base, and basic industrial and service capacity.
DIA and CIA was desperately searching it out in Syria early on, we vacillated because while some militias fought somewhat reasonably close to the basic rules of warfare, a state by all means closely related to the placement if a natural ally would do some crazy shit, like car bomb, raoe, sometimes even cannibalism… a merely 20 minute drive away.
Why? Oh, you can spend days debating the why, I assure you, the Majors and Generals did. Can you fix it in some cases? Yep. In others, fucking nope. This causes the board to reshuffle, and some of those squares become other than black and white.
That’s the fucking magic of that system.
What he is pointing out is, the force- any act of violence has to make sense within a larger strategic construct, you can’t just randomly pick to bomb all white squares (I know some who say do just that), and selecting categories of justification based on aerial justice like Clinton resurrected from the older said strategy of the British empire is deeply fucking absurd, I came out against this a few times on this forum. If you bomb, it is for the sake of removing your primary threats while congealing the strategic position of the faction you back vs others.
Classical idea, Byzantines and late Western Romans had that idea, Flavius Aetius is well known for doing it.
If you recall, Liz had asked a question about ISIS, and I created a very long, multi page following of the early days if the ISIS War, culled from middle eastern and western news sites, I didn’t want to outright state my idea back then was to pit sides against one another, cause I didn’t want that idea to get out, but provided a link to that above work, saying it worked very well in that region historically. That’s what he was researching, and the end result was the “Euphrates Volcano” movement, around the universal nucleas of the Free Syrian Army. It was working, Obama fucked it up, cause he isn’t a strategic thinker. For all his reading of Mao, for his ability to plan a campaign and backstab his opponents, he completely lacks strategic scope in military affairs. This is horrifying, because under the logic if the old system, a Free Syrian Army embedded into Euphrates Volcano with external Logistical Support and US Air Power could of very quickly collapsed ISIS and Assad under even a minimally competent commander. Obama was our worst enemy, my only conclusion. Complete piece of shit, time and time again he gets going, than falls to shit on the slightest rouse played on him, war could of been over two years ago. He is a magnificent incompetent.
Under the principles of the Progressive Navigation of Conflict, the aim of all force is controlled, only aimed at investment in a path towards enlarging your capacity to counter attack your opponents and absorb them in the fastest, least expensive and efficient manner. This doesn’t always mean Shock and Awe, it could just be a Akido misdirection or a Judo Throw, but the goal is to avoid the endless Riposte of axiomatic presumptions on if they deserve it or not, and focus more on getting them aligned into a larger, more practical and meaningful system. Remember, we are driven to pariakity and hate by group feeling, but will betray our closest kin for the smallest advantage. This is not a hinderence to peace, but rather, a nexus to navigate, and it is often fairly simple to do so, and once started, the cascade tends to swollow up the checkerboard rather fast, though per the rule if the Hairy Ball Theorum, there will always be contrary activity somewhere that simply won’t align. This isn’t a byproduct of geography but if mentally balanced symmetry, success breeds resentment, and someone always feels jealous or entitled to have it all as well. Mongol Empire started as a gay lovers feud, ended up in a continental pursuit, all chasing this one tribe, don’t underestimate it.
Unfortunately, Iran is that state, and they are desperately trying to right the balance of power, to their advantafe if power to their advantage. Hence supporting Yemen, Shia in Bahrain, in Tadjikistan, in Syria, in Lebanon, and Drawling Russia in. Problem is, Russia is more of a grey state because of Turkey and Egypt. Turkey and Egypt is worth far more to Russia than Iran ever can, as Iran is heading into China’s orbit, and both states despise Iran.
So, the balance of power ends up with the US internationally trying to restrain the Sunni Axis into a restrained detente while encouraging them not to become nuclear powers, while Iran is desperate to find nukes and use it to offset the Sunni-Shia 10-1 Ratio.
If that happens, the balance of power shifts from the US to Israel, who has nukes (look up the Third Temple Scenario, as well as a few documentaries debating if they ever managed a H Bomb, some cooperation with Apartheid South Africa and tests in the Pacific and Indian Oceans). If they do it, either the US proliferates nukes (not happening) or Pakistan or Israel does, Israel has the most to gain in terms of Sunni Proliferation and leading joint preventive strikes on Iran. This will cause Iran to overwhelm the straights in the Persian Gulf, push on Bahrain, push into Saudi Arabia through Iraq (and possibly Kuwait, how will US troops react?)
I promise you, Riyahd ceases to exist, the Iranians have non nuclear ability for that location, they will thrust hard for Mecca and Medina.
The general wasn’t at liberty to discuss US reactions to such a very probable scenario. Needless to say, unless Iran destroyed Jordan, Sinai, Cairo, and really fucked up Turkey and Pakistan very early on,it eoukd go bad fast.
This indicates that if Israel strikes before the swearing in of Trump, it will only occur when the highway between Turkey and Iran gets shut down in some random dispute (happens, all trade stops). If it happens afterwards,it would less obvioys,abd we woukd hear of Strikes in Syria and Russia scrabling fighters before we would hear of Iran blowing up.
Is Iran rebuilding nukes? Yeah,in Syria. I was down river last time Israel blew up that facility,up and running again. Geberal merely is sticking to Napoleon’s Maxim not too reveal too much of his Art of War to his opponents. I don’t know why everyone insists on war strategies veing kaid out in advance like Hilkary’s fucking plan for Aleppo- she killed Aleppo, Russians moved immeduately to avoid that possibility. She was a fucking idiot.
To anwser the intentionally confusing questions that dipshit reporter asked earky on, political Islam versus theological, Islam started off as a political theology first, hence the Constitution of Medina.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina
It later became a theological caste system, and after Muhammad’s death, the expansion out of the Hijaz wasn’t always based on the Koran, but rather strategic and political ideals. The caliphate, while Theocratic, isn’t inherently Islamic, in terms of Koran Only, and non-caliphate Islamic societies aren’t necessarily discredited as being Islamic. States rise and fall, in the manner Ibn Khaldun described, it isn’t surprising non-islamic polities clash with Islamic, that alliances are made between them (Muhammad did exactly this in Medina) and that Non-Iskamic enemy states and even allies and vassals could have legitimate sociopolitical beefs with a Islamic State while not caring necessarily to challenge the theological imperatives of Islam or the concept of the Islamic community. This reporter was intentionally being vague and rude in his ignorance, dancing around non-controversal facts. If we said no, Islam was completely unified politically and theologically, it makes a heretic out if Muhammad, because his own acts hardly followed a caliphante apology for the marriage of both, Islam always played both sides when it suited it’s leaders, starting with Muhammad.
And yes, As I’ve pointed out many times here, chemical weapons we’re in Uraw, and even plans for a nuclear bomb found in Iskandariya.
All in all, after seeing g this interview, I mostly cringed for the Generals inability to respond to aggressive questions in a clear and practiced manner. He isn’t a philosopher though, and not used to debate in such a manner. He let the adrenaline rush get to him. However, he seems remarkably enlightened, more so than most generals and colonels I’ve seen, and he does possess the basic elements already in play of The Progressive Navigation of Conflict (a lot more to the theory than what I described). I back him as he is a studied individual, rejected Obama’s policies, owns up to his past and sees a path to reform. Based on this interview alone, I endorse him. I strongly recommend staying away from the podium. I’m glad Trump took a liking to him. Says a lot about how Trump thinks.
Hairy Ball Theorem (belongs somewhere up there)
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairy_ball_theorem
Euphrates Volcano
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphrates_Volcano
And for Fixed Cross / Barbarian Horde, for posting shit in absolute ignorance of anything again, Goat Testicles
Baaahhh, bbbbaaaaahhhhhh! That’s what you understand, isn’t it? Nietzscheans claim to be the sons of Machiavelli, but tend to be the retarded child of the family. Put the hairy goat balls in your mouth Fixed Cross / BarbarianWhore.
