Clauswitz--Or, More Precisely, the Misinterpretation of Clauswitz

World War I brought, at least on the Western Front, not so much in Africa or
Russia where the war was fluid, static trench warfare. The notion drew
primarily from an Allied view that one's enemy needed to have his force
majeure beaten to a bloody pulp before victory could be assured.

Clauswitz wrote of a "center of gravity" as it pertains to war, and his
notion focused around the idea that, essentially, nation-states have
interests, and those interest must be protected or advanced through the use
of war as an element of national policy. One or more of these policies would
be considered crucial and would be protected, or sought, with the maximum
effort. To achieve this, concentration of force was required, and your enemy
would require sound defeating to ensure the desired end.

Clauswitz also talked of the need for maneuver and surprise in achieving
ends, but these seemed to be ignored by most military practitioners
following the American Civil War. The pervading theory of achieving the
maximum effort toward the center of gravity was the application of total
force on that single point. Of course, the enemy would do so as well. The
final result of this was World War I.

What is missed in all this, however, is the general speed of military
operations made it very clear who owned which parcel of land. The land was
indeed conquered by an invading power, and the use of civilian guerrillas to
challenge this change in control was used, but it was not a significant
factor in things as the ownership of a given land parcel was fairly well
assumed.

Thus it was deemed that, to succeed in warfare, the result would be the
domination and elimination of the enemy force on the field of battle.

Liddell Hart, or There Has to be a Better War

With tens of thousands dying in battles that gained territory measuring in
acres during the Great War, military theorists drew two conclusions--the
first based on erroneous reading, and the second which naturally followed.
The first conclusion, already alluded to, is that Clauswitz required the
pummeling of your enemy's army into a bloody pulp. Based on the experiences
of World War I, this was deemed untenable to the military thinkers, so,
naturally, the second conclusion--how do we get around this?

Ironically, Clauswitz already had the answer, but Liddell Hart, the leading
thinker in Britain, never noticed it--maneuver. The notion is that, by a
feint, the enemy might misinterpret how you would go after their center of
gravity and misalign their defense. Hart claimed this as his own finding.

Now, that is not to denigrate Hart, for he did introduce new concepts to the
maneuver on the battlefield--the implementation of the tank and the aircraft
to provide maximum power at the point of attack. The point of attack itself
was to be aimed against the enemy's weakest points so as to achieve a rapid
breakthrough and push deep into the enemy's rear, sowing confusion and
forcing the enemy to abandon the fight. Hart theorized that an army was like
a human--it needs food, in the form of supplies; it needs tools, the form of
weapons; it had a brain, in the form of a high command; with which to
produce a product, an impotent enemy.

Interestingly, Hart's theories would be put into practice by Britain's main
antagonist, Germany, and, fortunately, her best friend, America. Britain,
herself, would not adopt such tactics until well into 1942. The Russians
never did, substituting incredible amounts of artillery to cream their
opponents, which masked their French-style World War I tactics they
continued to use in World War II.

But this rapid maneuver on the battlefield changed the face of war. Nations
went from "conquering" territory to "controlling" territory. There is a
subtle but important distinction here. Germany, in World War II, ran through
millions of square miles, and controlled all that with her armies, but she
actually conquered very little. By moving over these huge regions, Germany
was forced to leave small garrisons in the nations she laid low, leaving
huge regions for citizen guerrilla armies to form, and to flourish--and they
did. Guerrilla warfare, particularly in France (yes, France) and Yugoslavia
was particularly potent, tying up innumerable German divisions. So while
Germany can said to have "controlled" that land, Germany could hardly have
been said to have "conquered" it.

Israel, or the Return to Slow

Realizing that a rapid conquest leaves pockets where resistance is possible,
many nations, particularly in the Mideast, began to arm groups lavishly.
These groups would leave themselves infiltrated until such time as the
enemy's force majeure passed them by. When this occurred, the now
infiltrated force would spring into action and cause no end of ill for the
advancing army. (This is actually an extension of the "hedgehog" approach
first adopted by the French in World War II, and more successfully by the
Soviets in 1941.)

The answer to such an approach is to methodically comb a region and weed out
all of the opposition. An army doing so recognizes and accepts the principle
of conquest, over mere control. The IDF is undertaking such an operation. It
is doing so, not with the mind of territorial acquisition, but with
self-preservation.

Only through this approach can one be assured anymore that territory is
truly cleansed of your enemy. The lessons of guerrilla warfare in World War
II, and reinforced by Vietnam, are being employed well by Israel's
enemies--and ours.

The Holy Warrior, or Why We Are All Combatants

Clauswitz wrote of total war, the true engagement of the entirety of the
nation-state in the defeat of their opponent, through any and all means.
Taken to the extreme, as it was during World War II, no distinction gets
drawn between the civilian and the military individual, as the civilian
provides the means both for the state to function, as well as to provide the
capability for the military force to endure and operate.

One extension of this, for which Clauswitz would surely agree, is the use
infiltration to achieve one's military aims.

We are at war with Al Qa'eda--they have declared war upon the United States,
and we acknowledge that fact. Our opponent understands total warfare--they
are attempting to win through whatever means necessary. We may loath their
attempts, but they are actually pursuing their aims with deadly and
frightening efficiency.

The tactics used by Al Qa'eda are not new--they are actually laid out above.
Exfiltration and infiltration are key to their operation, along with the
notion of being a civilian guerrilla force. The key change is that they do
not acknowledge the notion of a nation-state--theirs is a conflict without
borders in an attempt to destroy two entities: Israel and the United States.

And why should they care about the niceties of military and civilian? They
draw their lessons from history.

** The United States--their enemy--drew no such distinction during World War
II. An enemy individual was a cog in the machinery of the enemy state and
his or her destruction just brought the war that much closer to the end.

** France and Yugoslavia fielded numerous guerrilla elements within their
borders, did so successfully, and can be argued to have aided the allied war
effort. None of the guerrillas wore uniforms, and that was of no consequence
to the allies. Indeed, the Germans would treat them as spies and saboteurs
under the Geneva Conventions--and there was little argument from our side.
They were hors de combat when caught.

** Vietnam saw the extension of the guerrilla army as an element of national
policy to extend combat into another country. Another way of looking at this
was that conflict saw the care and feeding of a significant civilian
guerilla army as an extraterritorial enterprise with which to advance
national policy. It was effective. The world's greatest military power was
defeated, in large measure, from defeatism brought about by America's
reliance on Hart's theories of war, rather than Clauswitz--a fundamental
strategic error.

Our enemy has inculcated all three of these things into their thinking, and
have taken it a step further. If Vietnam showed that it was possible to
operate guerrilla elements extraterritorially, then it should be possible to
operate guerrilla units ANYWHERE. It is a logical conclusion.

The cell concept arrives. Small, self-contained units with a mission of
advancing, in their interpretation, the overall goals, missions, and
objectives of the larger organization.

In the process of doing this, the civilian guerrilla army that is Al Qa'eda
(it is time to stop calling them terrorists--it makes it sound like a law
enforcement problem than a combat element of World War III) has infiltrated
into many nations. They use as their stock in trade concealment. They blend
in, over years, to the existing population, and strike at times of their own
choosing. Al Qa'eda doesn't mind losing a dozen fighters when it can kill
thousands of enemy people (New York and Washington), or committing a handful
to repeat the process on a dozen planes (now). In their minds, that is a
very efficient (and it's hard to argue) use of resources.

But what does one do with such an opponent? Israel and Clauswitz have the
answer.

Clauswitz would argue "total commitment" (sorry for the Dr. Strangelove"
phrase) of the national resources to defeat our opponent. Al Qa'eda (while
not a nation-state, it functions as one in war) is doing this. America is
not.

Israel's actions in the war point out that every element of the civilian
guerrilla army needs to be crushed. It is like the hydra--you don't get it
all, it grows back. This requires a slow, painfully methodical approach to
obliterating the enemy, before he can do so in his accord.

We are at war. We must be fully committed to dedicating the national
treasure to crushing our enemy.

Failure is not an option. Death is the only alternative.

We must win.

...Or What Does This Man Have to Do With Iron Maiden?

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes and blood of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. - Dwight Eisenhower, 1953 speech...

 

2. 2 Minutes To Midnight

[Smith/Dickinson]

Kill for gain or shoot to maim
We don't need a reason
The Golden Goose is on the loose
And never out of season
Some blackened pride still burns inside
This shell of bloody treason
Here's my gun for a barrel of fun
For the love of living dead

The killer's breed or the Demon's seed,
The glamour, the fortune, the pain,
Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain
But don't you pray for my soul anymore.

2 minutes to midnight,
The hands that threaten doom.
2 minutes to midnight,
To kill the unborn in the womb.

The blind men shout "Let the creatures out
We'll show the unbeliverers."
The napalm screams of human flames
Of a prime time Belsen feast ... yeah!
As the reasons for the carnage cut their meat and lick the gravy
We oil the jaws of the war machine and feed it with our babies.

The killer's breed or the Demon's seed,
The glamour, the fortune, the pain,
Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain
But don't you pray for my soul anymore.

2 minutes to midnight,
The hands that threaten doom.
2 minutes to midnight,
To kill the unborn in the womb.

The body bags and little rags of children torn in two
And the jellied brains of those who remain to put the finger right on you
As the madmen play on words and make us all dance to their song
To the tune of starving millions to make a better kind of gun.

The killer's breed or the Demon's seed,
The glamour, the fortune, the pain,
Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain
But don't you pray for my soul anymore.

2 minutes to midnight,
The hands that treaten doom.
2 minutes to midnight,
To kill the unborn in the womb.

Midnight
Midnight
Midnight
It's all night

Midnight
Midnight
Midnight
It's all night

OTTAWA, October 27, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Conservative MP has discovered through documents obtained under Access to Information that Status of Women Canada has been funding anti-Christian bigotry and pro-abortion activism.  However, in a startling exchange of correspondence, the Minister responsible for the funding neither offered to pull the funding nor to apologize to Christian Canadians for funding groups which defame them.

Writing to Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women Liza Frulla last month, Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott pointed out that the documents obtained through access to information requests revealed the government granted $27,400 last year to the BC Pro-Choice Action network (pro-CAN). 

In his letter to the Minister, MP Vellacott notes:

Pro-CAN spokesperson Joyce Arthur uses derogatory labels to describe individuals who are pro-life, saying their opposition to abortion, "comes primarily from religious justifications for oppressing women" and a need to "maximize (the Catholic Church's) membership levels to maintain their worldly influence and wealth."  Pro-CAN accuses pro-life Christians of being "religious fanatics" who do "little or nothing for children once they are born."  She says pro-life Christians are "anti-woman and anti-child," have views which are "uninformed, sexist, cruel," and lack the ability to empathize which "breeds intolerance, hate crimes, and war."  Ms. Arthur says that the pro-lifer's attitude towards women is like "the slaveholder's attitude to blacks, and the Nazi's attitude to Jews."

Vellacott suggested that the Minister withdraw funding from the group and apologize to Christian Canadians for funding such bigotry.  "The government should be taking no part in spreading this sort of bigotry.  Please ensure that any current funding to Pro-CAN ceases immediately and that no future taxpayer money be given to this group.  And please have your department issue a public apology to all Christians and pro-life Canadians because of your department's financial support of this hate mongering organization," said Vellacott.

In other news Mel Gibson in a drunken fit of insanity claimed the Jews start all the wars.  Come on Mel, everyone knows that the White Christians start all of the wars.  For instance, the Civil War, started by white Christians to liberate negro slaves oppressed by the anti-christian South.  WWII where the White Christians liberated Jews from Hitler's Satanic concentration camps. White Christians start all of the wars.  That’s why White Christians have their own countries.  If the Jews could start wars, they wouldn't have gone 2000 years without a country.  It was only by the intervention of White Christians that Jews have a country and a system of self-determination.   Knock European Christianity all you want, but once civilization took a seat in Christian Europe oppression and tyranny started to fall. Stalin had to kill about 20 million Christians to convert Russia to the 'top down' government Putin enjoys today.  Tyrants hated Christianity and Europeans in Rome and they hate them today.  We’re a threat. 

---

“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned of course. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed.” --Sarah Brady, 1994

You can use mind control, monitoring, and manipulation against me all you want, but ultimately, you have two choices--kill me or set me free.  You will never gain control over me execpt enough control to throw me into a grave.