Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Han Solo Was No Vo Nguyen Giap
My cousin, a Marine Corps officer in Iraq doing whatever it is Marines do in Iraq these days (milking cows? wishing they were in Helmand?), writes in:
I'm sitting here on watch, sending some emails, and watching Return of the Jedi on my laptop. It got me thinking.
Why didn't the Rebel Alliance pursue a strategy of insurgency in their rebellion against the Galactic Empire? I would argue that they pursued a strategy of conventional war against the Empire and forwent every aspect of insurgent strategy and tactics. They finally came around a bit in the end by co-opting the Ewoks onto their side. Why hadn't they pursued that strategy on a larger scale?
Instead, they simply staged two conventional assualts on the Empire's center of gravity: the Death Star. Although both attempts were successful, I think they got lucky. I think they would have been better served had read their Mao and followed his maxims.
Why didn't the Empire follow counterinsurgency doctrine? Destroying Alderan was probably the dumbest move ever, one that the Alliance could have exploited to their advantage with the proper IO campaign. What do you think the similarities are between destroying Alderan and 4ID tactics circa 2004-5 or liberal ordnance drop policies in Afghanistan?
And neither side seemed to subordinate their tactics and strategy to political goals? Clausewitz would have been appalled. Jomini and Summers, on the other hand, would have been most proud.
My thoughts on the subject are a little incomplete, but I think a good case study awaits a more dedicated set of eyes and a higher powered brain.
In any event, I bet the next time you watch the Trilogy, this is all you'll be able to think about.
Indeed, you can imagine what family dinners are like.
These are easy questions.
These are easy questions. Why did the Empire assume that a live demonstration of the Death Star's powers would frighten the various members of the Empire into not supporting the Alliance? Because their leadership believed that, given the unsure position that the Empire had, it was necessary for a show of force to demonstrate that the US power - oops, I mean Imperial power - was not on the decline and in fact was entirely capable of maintaining its Cold War - oops, I mean Old Republic - power basis.
Why didn't the Rebel Alliance use insurgency tactics? They were past that stage and into hybrid/conventional warfare by this period. Mao suggested (I believe) there were three stages of conflict. There was the early political indoctrination, there was the insurgency phase, and then you had to finish with conventional warfare to overthrow the state. Clearly the Rebel Alliance was in the third stage of the Chinese Revolution model.
Hans Solo was the Victor Bout of the time, merely glamorized by Hollywood's rewriting of his role in the Revolution.
Size matters not, ... Look
Size matters not, ... Look at me. Judge me by size, do you?
"Instead, they simply staged
"Instead, they simply staged two conventional assualts on the Empire's center of gravity: the Death Star. Although both attempts were successful, I think they got lucky. I think they would have been better served had read their Mao and followed his maxims."
How could they have been any better served?
As you say, they took down The Empire by engaging in only a couple of battles and destroying what amounted to just one of it's weapons/bases. In what way could this have been improved ? I doubt such a perfectly decisive victory has ever even been contemplated.
On the contrary, The Empire promoted itself as an enemy that was open to exploitation of strategic vulnerability and lack of serious staying power that welcomed a single decisive blow. Putting a crucial shield generator for your master weapon on a remote, lightly guarded and unsupported outpost. Designing bases with trenches (!) on the outside that can accommodate an attack aircraft below the scope of your defenses. Air ducts that provide clear line-of-sight from the nuclear core of your base all the way out to space (where grains of sand travel at enough force to take out spacecraft).
Not to mention that the destruction of said ultimate-yet-insanely-flawed-weapon somehow resulted in the defeat of the Empire. All the battle cruisers, fighters and ground troops seen were essentially irrelevant to the survival of the Empire. Once the superweapon/base was destroyed the war was won, albeit without a reasonable explanation as to why.
Not The Onion: Iraq Air
Not The Onion: Iraq Air Force Discovered
Not The Onion: Saudi Price
Not The Onion: Saudi Price survives aQ suicide bombing, exploding genitals at 1m implicated
Maybe a strategy built to
Maybe a strategy built to fit a platform will produce spectacular results for both outgoing and incoming ordinance. Maybe what it does is to effectively isolate the holder of the platform back into its high altitude aircraft, body armour, mine resistant vehicles and base camps where all it sees and hears comes a second order generation and translation loss from mechanical or electronic but always remote sensors.
Correction, genitals in the
Correction, genitals in the clear, arse now considered suspect:
"In one version of the events, Al-Arabiya, a Saudi-owned television network, said the attacker concealed the explosives in his anus, allowing him to evade detection. The network also quoted an expert as saying that the method of concealment aimed the blast away from the target, while blowing the bomber to bits. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/30/AR200908...
@kilo Well if we've trained
@kilo
Well if we've trained dolphins to look for underwater mines.... guess this means gerbils will soon be in demand.
highest powered fart of all
highest powered fart of all time.
I think Jason's comments
I think Jason's comments about the Rebels having advanced past the the insurgency level of war are pretty spot on. Also worth considering is the Rebellion's 'nice guy' status in the movies - the leaders might not have had the stomach for it. This isn't without historical precedent, as during the American Revolution George Washington specifically chose to avoid insurgent tactics because he anticipated a vicious civil war would be the result (as indeed it was in the Carolinas).
I found it refreshing to
I found it refreshing to assume Bill Keller's somewhat cryptic comment above was in response to the exploding genitals post immediately above it.
My
My take:
http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2009/08/coin-in-space.html
1. A movie showing Luke and
1. A movie showing Luke and Leia surreptitiously planting and then exploding a nail bomb in a Tatooine cantina frequented by Imperials would lack a certain amount of drama.
2. In order for thing to turn out as they did in the movie, the Empire would have to be much weaker than they appeared. So perhaps at the time of the movie the legitimacy of the Empire is seriously threatened, the majority of the Imperial fleet is disaffected or wavering, and most of the Imperial ships we see are from the praetorian guard or loyal units.
Against this backdrop, the primary purpose of the death star not so much to defeat the rebels (although that is *a* purpose), but to establish the legitimacy of the Empire through its military feats. Likewise, the destruction of the death star is of significance not so much because it is a threat to the rebels (although that is an issue), but because destroying the death star will further delegitimize the Empire, possibly causing its downfall.
IOW, the decision to build the death star was like General Galtieri's plan to bolster the junta's legitimacy by invading the Falklands. The destruction of the death star is the equivalent of the loss of the Falklands war, which led to the defeat of the military junta and the reinstitution of, well, the (Arg.) republic.
First, if you're familiar
First, if you're familiar with the Star Wars Expanded Universe (as opposed to just the movies) you'll see that the Alliance built up to the conventional stage through a combination of insurgency and direct action. Insurgency on the tactical level was also seen in the Star Wars films, most dramatically with the defeat of the Imperial garrison on Endor--the Dien Bien Phu of Star Wars.
The reason for the Alliance's conventional strategy lies in the political will of the imperial elites. Given that the Empire was willing to destroy entire planets to get at the Rebels, it is obvious that an incrementalist approach (insurgency) would be be met with a campaign of extermination. The Empire's elites have little goal other than their own survival. Holding together an integalactic imperium through absolute force is a precarious thing. Waver on one planet and you'll be challenged everywhere. Even with limitless stormtroopers they would find themselves in trouble if the entire Galactic Empire rose up at once.
The Death Star was the solution to this problem. It could destroy a planet instantly. And there was every indication that the Empire was planning on building more. Time and resources were on their side. Most insurgencies have the advantage of time, and the Alliance did not. The Empire's regime elites were willing to pay any price and bear any burden to survive as a political entity. And they had a limitless set of resources to expend in such a task and the willingness to exterminate their adversaries.
Their chief weakness, however, lies in the extreme centralization of the leadership and the need to constantly assert power to lesser regime elites. The decisionmaking power of the Empire's elites as well as the locus of its political legitimacy lies in the body of the Emperor and his retainers. The symbol of the Emperor's power is the Death Star. When the Emperor's power is broken, the other regime elites will either attempt to seize power for themselves or cut their own deals with local power brokers.. This is what happened in the Expanded Universe after Return of the Jedi--quite realistically the New Republic emerged having to make deals with various imperial remnants and fought off two Imperial revivalist movements composed of disaffected regime elites.
Yes, the Alliance might have been able to "turn" some wavering lesser regime elites---it is likely that the local governors on planets might have different agendas and priorities than the elites concentrated around the Emperor and his retainers, but in the series it ultimately took a demonstration of the Alliance's power and the destruction of the Empire's central regime elites to construct a new political order. Additionally, gaining wider support for the Alliance would have been impossible without some demonstration of power. As another poster pointed out, the size of the Alliance dramatically increased after the destruction of the first Death Star.
So the Alliance was right to pour all of their resources into destroying the Death Star twice, even if it meant risking their own destruction. As along as the Empire remained a politically coherent entity, the Alliance would be at constant risk of destruction. The Empire's C4ISR capabilities were extremely advanced, rendering even the nominal safe haven of Hoth a death trap. They could gain support covertly, but after Alderaan it is unlikely that they would be granted another inhabited safe haven.
Ack, Peter W. got to the
Ack, Peter W. got to the point before I did :)
As destroying Alderan
As destroying Alderan reminds us, pop-centric COIN isn't the only way you can do it.
As Hama (1982) reminds us, devastating demonstrations of a regime's willingness to use massive force can bring an insurgency to its knees. Whether Hafiz al-Asad was a Sith, however, I'm afraid I don't know.
Of course, the untold part of the Rebel insurgency against the Empire was the role played by Valley girls:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy8ZjhnijgM&feature=related
As well as the secret Imperial plan to sink the Titanic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35vT-xWMkBU
Hard to know where to begin
Hard to know where to begin when critiquing the empire. As a non-military man, I would sugest that they could have improved their body armour.. and maybe improved their shooting skills.
Shows the critical
Shows the critical importance of having chicks in combat.
It was Leia who turned the tide by charming the Ewoks into alliance.
@A.E, "Their chief weakness,
@A.E,
"Their chief weakness, however, lies in the extreme centralization of the leadership and the need to constantly assert power to lesser regime elites."
You're talking about the Pentagon? D.C? Half our Commanders?
if AE is Andrew Exum.....dude, you really gotta start dating again, cooking, something.....get away from the laptop. And the LEGO's.
George Lucas is more of an
George Lucas is more of an expert than Andrew Exum.
When you fight your enemies, you don't fiddle-fuck your way through, you destroy them with all available resources. You don't engage them, you don't turn your first-world military into a third-world force and fight the way your opponent does. You fight them where they are, and destroy them. Take away their safe havens, deny them their ability to hide amongst the civilian population, make the situation so untenable for the Taliban that their will and ability to fight is destroyed.
One or more of three things is happening here:
1. Exum doesn't know what the fuck he is talking about
2. Exum knows that that the shit dispensed on this website is wrong, but is being done simply to carry on a war that is killing scores of our nation's finest men - men that Exum purportedly served with - only to the benefit of politicians and this far-left CNAS think tank
3. Exum knows that the shit dispensed on this website is wrong, but is being done for the benefit of our enemies - the same fucking enemies Exum fought in Afghanistan. The same ones who kill innocent women and children, who throw acid on the faces of little girls trying to go to school, the same cowardly monsters that shoot little schoolgirls with automatic rifles and then speed off on motorcycles.
Based on this blog's following, I lean more toward #3. Reading past comments show that this readership is far more sympathetic to the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Anything that could be considered pro-American has no place here. Found on the recommended links is Hezbollah's own newspaper, and the very name of this website is "Father of the Islamic Resistance" - certainly not what someone on our side would entitle their website. This turncoat must have picked up a lot more during his studies in Beirut than he is letting on.
Andrew Exum is a traitor to the country and the men he served with and is a discredit to the United States Army.
Re Elf: No I'm not Andrew
Re Elf: No I'm not Andrew Exum.
Added extra initial to
Added extra initial to signify that I'm most certainly not Exum. Anyway, I think that it's also significant that ideas about pop-centric COIN and Maoist insurgency are being applied to a sci-fi story with little to do with either. Shows the influence of that paradigm and its hold on the defense imagination.
That's nothing. . .
That's nothing. . . Mississippi Burning (though highly dramaticized) is a fantastic example of all the policing-related problems of intelligence and COIN. . . .
Matt
AME, those are my initials
AME, those are my initials as well. Duke, you are an American hero. I have been accused of a lot of things over the past few months, but being "soft" on Afghanistan is not one of them!D'oh. Then I'll stick with
D'oh. Then I'll stick with these. I'd link to my own blog in the signature line, but not sure how the commenter form lets you do that.
Anyway, maybe a good follow-up post would be the irregular warfare implications of Snow Crash, Neuromancer, or Ghost in the Shell. That's the gold standard for sci-fi in my opinion.
The Empire was so highly
The Empire was so highly centralized that if fell to a simple decapitation attack when, in the end, Darth Vadar turned against the Emperor and killed him.
Global guerrilla theory is interesting, but you are better off in this context studying Italian Renaissance palace politics. Star Wars is best understood as a successful intrigue by the Skywalker family to oust the emperor.
Darth Vadar is fully aware of this intrigue. He urges Luke to join him because it is their destiny to overthrow the Emperor. He intervenes with the Emperor on Luke's behalf.
No clear eyed Machiavellian would be misled by Star Wars' twaddle about the "Dark Side" and such. He would grasp instantly that the core issue is a variation of the Pazzi Conspiracy, or other plots involving the Borgias, the Sforzas, or their peers.
I once took a 'political
I once took a 'political science fiction' class and a 'politics of war' class at the same time. Would you believe that, until today, it never occurred to me to combine the two? This could be as good a class exercise as Dan Drezner using a zombie outbreak to illustrate competing IR theories
For what it's worth - and
For what it's worth - and I've hawked him and his book enough in (an)other post(s) - Stathis Kalyvas teaches a Politics and Film class.
ADTS
"The same ones who kill
"The same ones who kill innocent women and children, who throw acid on the faces of little girls trying to go to school, the same cowardly monsters that shoot little schoolgirls with automatic rifles and then speed off on motorcycles."
Gee, I never will forget the picture of a naked child running down a dustry road, mouth opened in a scream silent to the newspaper reader. Or of hearing a radio news report, dateline Waco, Texas. More recently, there was something about a broomstick, a rectum, and... let's see, police brutality?
Wish Pogo still was syndicated.
Keep in mind that they did
Keep in mind that they did probably pursue in part an insurgency campaign, and that's from the movie - Mon Mothma (the female leader who speaks before Admiral Ackbar in the "preparation" scene with the hologram of Endor) mentions that the Empire was spread out all over the galaxy trying to put down the Rebellion, which (when Palpatine made the mistake of traveling to Endor) left them open to a decapitation strike. They gambled to some degree (and since it was a trap, it could have easily gone the other way and effectively killed the Rebellion's core), and they succeeded - as the EU makes clear, the Emperor had more or less built the Empire so that it all depended on him for stability, and when he died, it blew apart into feuding warlords and factions.
It's almost like as if the Vietcong had, rather than the Tet Offensive, somehow carried out a strike directly on American military headquarters in Vietnam (or further - say if they had wiped out not only that but the President when he was visiting Vietnam), and succeeded in not only killing the leadership, but killing the President as well.
...killing the
...killing the President
"Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me"
"Gee, I never will forget
"Gee, I never will forget the picture of a naked child running down a dustry road, mouth opened in a scream silent to the newspaper reader."
From Wikipedia, "Phan Thị Kim Phúc":
Kim Phúc and her family were residents of the village of Trang Bang, South Vietnam. On June 8, 1972, South Vietnamese planes, in coordination with the American military, dropped a napalm bomb on Trang Bang, which had been attacked and occupied by North Vietnamese forces. Phúc joined a group of civilians and South Vietnamese soldiers who were fleeing from the Cao Dai Temple to the safety of South Vietnamese held positions. A South Vietnamese Air Force pilot mistook the group for enemy soldiers and diverted to attack. The bombing killed two of Phúc's cousins and two other villagers.
It's called a tragic accident.
"Or of hearing a radio news report, dateline Waco, Texas."
You mean about a pedophiliac religious cult that had built a fortress, assembled an armory and stored mountains of ammunition that eventually cooked off when gas grenades went through, turning the place into a death trap? If I remember correctly, the cult leader ordered his followers not to leave as the fire spread.
"More recently, there was something about a broomstick, a rectum, and... let's see, police brutality?"
You mean the case of Abner Louima? All the officers involved were prosecuted and the two most directly responsible given 30 and 15 years in prison. In addition, Mr. Louima won $8.75 million in a civil suit.
Is there a point in recounting these things, or do you just throw out random straw men out of habit?
3 observations.... 1 - The
3 observations....
1 - The idea of an intergalactic rebellion would necessitate knowing how to communicate with, let alone engage, co-opt, enlist, train, etc all the various squid headed / glowing eyed / gurgling creatures that inhabit all these regions. IIRC the human-shaped characters in the movies consisted of most of the rebellion + the entire Empire and all its forces.
If getting some muppets to throw rocks on Endor that one time was the shining example that of the possibilities of such a strategy, this is less than convincing.
2. Comment by diablotakahe on August 31, 2009 - 3:42pm
"Shows the critical importance of having chicks in combat. It was Leia who turned the tide by charming the Ewoks into alliance."
As I mentioned, the Ewok alliance wasn't much of a contribution to start with. All it did was save on the fuel that would have been involved in sending some actual troops there to take out those several guards without the use of booby traps.
However, this accomplishment would seem to be offset by the fact that when she thought the Empire let her go so that they could track them to the Rebel's secret base........... sheeeeeeee........... led them to the Rebels secret base. "Them" being the Empire with the planet destroying space station.
http://www.cracked.com/article_17546_7-classic-star-wars-characters-who-...
3 - How nice to see that nobody has acknowledged the existence of the later 3 prequels.
David Marcoe it clear that
David Marcoe it clear that this blog's readership is just as I said - for the enemy. I point out the atrocities performed by the Taliban, and what does this crew do? Oh the US is just as bad... the tired and phony moral equivalence. I AM HAVING A TOUGH TIME FINDING ANYTHING NEGATIVE ON THE TALIBAN IN THIS BLOG!
I used to think that Exum and his toadies didn't have two brain cells to rub together, but it has become clear to me that this blog is not a counterinsurgency blog, but a pro-insurgency (PROIN) one as has been brought up in the comments section previously.
Exum - I am sure John Podesta and George Soros are proud of you!
It's a sad day when a veteran can have more respect for the guys gunning down little children than this EX Ranger.
Leaving aside the expanded
Leaving aside the expanded universe, I think the problem is that we aren't thinking outside the box. We are assuming the Empire is a top down totally controlled 'nation' similiar to the old USSR.
This doesn't make much sense IMO. This would mean hundreds of billions of people would be taxed, conscripted and forced into the Empire's service. Yet the entire fleet seems to consist of a few dozen capital ships? In the Old Republic discovering a 'clone army' of a few hundred thousand is a big deal? This was further reinforced by the casual indifference people seemed to have to the Republic and its laws in the 'outer rim' territories.
What if, though, the Empire's control of the galaxy is much, much looser. Suppose the Empire consists only of controlling a few major ports and trade routes. It has enough power to put down any system that tries to raise its own fleet and enough power to tax those involved in large scale commerce but for the most part it leaves everyone alone.
Bringing in a bit of the expanded universe, we know that the galaxy cannot be navigated the way 'warp drive' works in Star Trek. Hyperspace routes are difficult to discover which means most commerce utilizes a few major hyperspace 'highways'. To me this sounds like the old maritime powers of Europe that competeted with each other before the British Empire. Sea lanes and ports were important to control because thats where big time commerce had to travel. Go in a few dozen miles from shore, though, and you were with the uncivilized natives who couldn't care less about global politics.
why no Rebel insurgency? Because there was nothing to apply an insurgency against. Most planets probably had no Empire troops or institutions on it to attack. That left only the major commerce centers and the capital which were manned by heavy capital ships and assets.
Likewise we know something else. The original Rebellion against the Old Republic was done with droids. The Old Republic couldn't raise 100,000 troops unless they were clones. This is a society with very little centralized power. It does not seem able to raise either a volunteer or draft force easily. This model agains eems like the old maritime rivalies of Europe. Armies were expensive and difficult to raise hence standing armies were viewed as suspect and were rarely very large unless a war was happening. Power in this galaxy consists in being able to cut a planet off from the mainstream trade and commerce via the hyperspace routes. It does not seem to consist in being able to control a planet 'on the ground'.
Leaving aside the expanded
Leaving aside the expanded universe, I think the problem is that we aren't thinking outside the box. We are assuming the Empire is a top down totally controlled 'nation' similiar to the old USSR.
This doesn't make much sense IMO. This would mean hundreds of billions of people would be taxed, conscripted and forced into the Empire's service. Yet the entire fleet seems to consist of a few dozen capital ships? In the Old Republic discovering a 'clone army' of a few hundred thousand is a big deal? This was further reinforced by the casual indifference people seemed to have to the Republic and its laws in the 'outer rim' territories.
What if, though, the Empire's control of the galaxy is much, much looser. Suppose the Empire consists only of controlling a few major ports and trade routes. It has enough power to put down any system that tries to raise its own fleet and enough power to tax those involved in large scale commerce but for the most part it leaves everyone alone.
Bringing in a bit of the expanded universe, we know that the galaxy cannot be navigated the way 'warp drive' works in Star Trek. Hyperspace routes are difficult to discover which means most commerce utilizes a few major hyperspace 'highways'. To me this sounds like the old maritime powers of Europe that competeted with each other before the British Empire. Sea lanes and ports were important to control because thats where big time commerce had to travel. Go in a few dozen miles from shore, though, and you were with the uncivilized natives who couldn't care less about global politics.
why no Rebel insurgency? Because there was nothing to apply an insurgency against. Most planets probably had no Empire troops or institutions on it to attack. That left only the major commerce centers and the capital which were manned by heavy capital ships and assets.
Likewise we know something else. The original Rebellion against the Old Republic was done with droids. The Old Republic couldn't raise 100,000 troops unless they were clones. This is a society with very little centralized power. It does not seem able to raise either a volunteer or draft force easily. This model agains eems like the old maritime rivalies of Europe. Armies were expensive and difficult to raise hence standing armies were viewed as suspect and were rarely very large unless a war was happening. Power in this galaxy consists in being able to cut a planet off from the mainstream trade and commerce via the hyperspace routes. It does not seem to consist in being able to control a planet 'on the ground'.
Probably a more concrete
Probably a more concrete example of the Empire's failure to wage a successful counterinsurgency is the example of the Mon Calamari (i.e. Admiral Ackbar) who revolted from heavy-handed Imperial rule to join the Rebellion. The primary consequence of this was that the Mon Calamari brought their significant ship-building talents to the Empire, and were able to endow the Rebellion with the impressive fleet seen in Return of the Jedi. In short, they were able to wage a conventional attack because they had the means of doing so (a conventional fleet capable of engaging the Empire in ship-to-ship combat).
"AM HAVING A TOUGH TIME
"AM HAVING A TOUGH TIME FINDING ANYTHING NEGATIVE ON THE TALIBAN IN THIS BLOG!" - DUKE
I do not see anything on this site by Duke that is anti-Hitler. Duke is therefore obviously pro-Hitler.
Mon Calamari brought their
Mon Calamari brought their significant ship-building talents to the Empire, and were able to endow the Rebellion with the impressive fleet seen in Return of the Jedi.
But this isn't an impressive fleet. We are talking maybe a dozen major capital ships versus two dozen ships. In Empire the 'fleet' sent to wipe out the new Rebel base seems to consist of 3 major ships. Even the Death Star itself defies logic. If you controlled a galaxy of hundreds of billions wouldn't you want to put down insurrgencies with ground troops numbering in the millions? Blowing up a planet would appear to be a major waste of resources...unless.....
Both the Empire and Rebellion are massively starved for manpower. The planets of the galaxy have a great deal of freedom to make mischief in the form of dodging taxes and laws, smuggling etc. They are limited in that open rebellion against the Empire put them at risk of a concentrated attack or closing them off from trade w/the rest of the galaxy. And it would appear most of them have either no interest in open warfare to 'control the galaxy' nor do any but a small portion of the galaxies citizens are willing to be members of armed forces on either side. While George Lucus was inspired by WWII stock footage in his special effects, it is easy to conclude that the Star Wars galaxy has not experienced anything like the total war mobilization of a world war. Their wars are in the big scheme of things trivial affairs that probably pass by all but a tiny portion of the galaxy.
I wonder if exum ever gets
I wonder if exum ever gets tired of sucking arab dick? He is more like a second rate politician than a military "expert"
He strokes himself, shamelessly tries to promote himself, and when discovered to know diddly to shit about his supposed subjects, he changes the orientation of the site to geopolitical.
Ya think he has a mind toward the next dictators scraps? Don't bump your head on the desk now Andrew!!!!!
Abu M Mate if your critics
Abu M
Mate if your critics are of the calibre seen in this thread you know you're doing something right!
Comment by Duke on September
Comment by Duke on September 1, 2009 - 10:38am
"I AM HAVING A TOUGH TIME FINDING ANYTHING NEGATIVE ON THE TALIBAN IN THIS BLOG!"
What a small mind you must have. That you require reassurance and pledges that "the Taliban are bad" in order to judge the character of more substantial writings, that have somewhat moved on from the need for that. It is 2009 you crazy little man. Who apart from you needs a constant introduction to the Taliban when discussing them ? I suspect though you don't even mean this. You're actually asking where is the weekly post about how the Taliban is bad, aren't you. I hope you are also visiting blogs about Nth Korea's nuclear program and asking where is the regular post that says why this is a bad thing.
Here's a really good blog for analysis of North Korea's nuclear program: http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/
Now that you mention it, I notice that nowhere do they stop and say why NK having deployable nuclear weapons may be a bad thing. It's as though "it goes without saying" is a concept that works for everyone except you. How extraordinary. Anyways, chalk up another on the list of traitors your simple arse is compiling eh.
Even without this kind of for-the-slow-kids explicit explanation, apparently discussions here which -- apart from the odd Iraq post -- focus on how to defeat the Taliban will somehow still appear to be in the Taliban's favour to you, should those discussions not include an anecdote about acid throwing or head chopping.
What a strange and frightening place the world must be for you. Vaccination shots presented without a full accounting of the dangers of the illness met with "OMG this bitch with the needle is pro-Measles". I hope you're not considering breeding.
Comment by Ramzi Nohra on
Comment by Ramzi Nohra on September 1, 2009 - 4:04pm
"Mate if your critics are of the calibre seen in this thread you know you're doing something right!"
Attracting people on the internet who think you're a traitor, funded by george soros or believe racial-sexual insults score points really isn't a big achievement. Pretty much just having a comments section will get you that.
Kilo: Thanks for the kind
Kilo:
Thanks for the kind words about my reproductive habits.
I certainly don't need reassurance from the likes of you to know that the Taliban is bad. What you have failed to grasp is that my point is that this blog is ever so subtly an outpost of support for groups like the Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. Why else call it abu Muqawama - the FATHER OF ISLAMIC RESISTANCE!!!
And I sure don't see yourself or anyone else at this blog distancing themselves from it. How can this blog be considered a counterinsurgency blog when there it contains nothing that actually counters the insurgency?
Oh and Kilo, just having a
Oh and Kilo, just having a comment section doesn't automatically earn you the title "traitor." That is something that must be earned, not given. Words have meanings, Kilo - traitor isn't something that is lightly thrown around in this profession!
http://yglesias.thinkprogress
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/08/star-wars-and-the-lim...
this is a tad late
There was a comment that
There was a comment that since the battles take place in space, traditional insurgency would not work.
There is an analogy to this in Vietnam: Americans prevailed in the river-boat war against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. There is no guerilla war on the water because there is nowhere to hide or blend in on the water.
Ah young Padawan, you fail
Ah young Padawan, you fail to comprehend. The Rebellion did use insurgency tactics against the Empire. You just don't see them in the movies. The films are focused on the trials and tribulations of the Skywalker family and the part they play in bringing balance to the Force. What the fleet actions that you see are demonstrating is the GROWTH OF THE REBELLION, to the point that they could indeed challenge the Empire one on one. However, if you read the books, you realize mostly what the Rebels did was launch small attacks against Imperial Installations. The Empire would respond with overwhelming force thus turning the local populace against them.
"I AM HAVING A TOUGH TIME
"I AM HAVING A TOUGH TIME FINDING ANYTHING NEGATIVE ON THE TALIBAN IN THIS BLOG!" re: The Comment by Duke on September 1.
It is implicit in the blog. You don't have to spell it out.
There was a comment that
There was a comment that since the battles take place in space, traditional insurgency would not work.
There is an analogy to this in Vietnam: Americans prevailed in the river-boat war against the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. There is no guerilla war on the water because there is nowhere to hide or blend in on the water.
Clearly, you missed Han Solo's attempt to hide the Millennium Falcon inside an asteroid field.
Add your comment