Thursday, July 09, 2009

Legitimacy and nuclear massacre

Achieving legitimacy

According to the theories of military experts such as Mr. Martin van Creveld and Mr. William Lind, wars between states are replaced by conflicts where non-state actors are involved. This is the theory of non-Trinitarian War of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW). Non-state actors are organisations such as religious organisations, criminal gangs, ethnic groups and other forms of social organisation. Non-state actors are competing with the states for legitimacy in the eyes of the populations they serve. As the story of David and Goliath illustrates the underdog has a greater possibility to win legitimacy than the giant. In any conflict it is therefore important to appear to be an underdog. Use of heavy weapons to achieve goals has to be avoided. Heavy weapons give a contender the appearance of a Goliath. In addition heavy weapons have a tendency to cause unintended victims amongst civilian populations. Good weapons in the effort to win legitimacy are light, precise and easy to hide.

New leadership for European societies

In the previous post "Hells Angels on the March" this blog feature a commentary on a piece by Baron Bodissey of the GoV blog. The piece by Baron Bodissey is titled "Drawing the Line" on Biker War in Denmark and draws an anology on the beginning of the feudal era in Europe and the present day conditions. The idea is that groups like the Hells Angels can be the new leadership of European society, due to their willingness to provide security for the Europeans against Muslims. This while the authorities are losing their legitimacy in the eyes of their populations as they are unwilling to enforce law and order, especially not against non-muslims.

This fits in well with the theories of non-Trinitarian and 4th Generation Warfare.

Still many people cling to the idea of state militaries delivering the West by its fire power. One commenter at GoV called Zenster uses the comment thread on Bikers and Feudal Europe to start advocating his idea of a takeover of the USA by the military. After the coup the military must:
Conduct simultaneous nuclear strikes against Cairo, Damascus, Tehran, Islamabad, Sana'a and Riyadh. Possibly with Jakarta and Kuala Lumpur thrown in for good measure. Then, while Muslims crawl out of the ashes, inform Islam that there's plenty more where that came from while setting about the fortification of Western civilization.
This scenario has nothing to do with Biker gangs providing security to Europeans. But it is also a real bad strategy to gain legitimacy. So I wrote back:
This is an argument for a effortless massacre of mostly civilians.There is a difference between a massacre and war. War has a aspect of a duel and personal sacrifice, which is absent in massacre.

Any nation who undertakes this action will utterly lose legitimacy in its own eyes. The spirit of this action is also against the spirit of the European knighthood, who took great pride in personal bravery and protection of the weak.

Zenster was not easily fazed, replying:
While you are talking about an "effortless massacre", perhaps you might pause and reflect upon the outcome if it was Islam that had all of the nuclear weapons and us in the West who did not.
Snouck: lets examine the record of a muslim country with nuclear weapons. Pakistan has had nuclear weapons since 1974. They have not used them.

Zenster continues:

Your talk of how, "War has a aspect of a duel ..." is sheer nonsense in the modern context of warfare. Were the concept still applicable, American soldiers would be engaging in hand-to-hand combat with the Taliban. A ridiculous notion at best.
Snouck: Zenster misconstrues my statement "war has aspect of a duel" that I think that war must consist of duels. What I mean is that there has to be a perception of equal and fair combat between opposing forces. When this is absent the weaker party feels it is not bound by the same rules since it is set up for defeat in a conventional fight.

Zenster continues:
As General Patton said about war:

No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country.
However coarse it might sound, war is about killing people. Islam absolutely refuses to field an army in uniform in its assault upon the West. There is a price that must be paid for such perfidy.

If Islam wishes its civilian population and warriors to be indistinguishable from each other, then we are not obliged to distinguish between them, now are we?
Snouck: Well, we are. That is if we wish our forces and our civilization to remain legitimate in the eyes of ourselves and our descendants.

What are the targets that Zenster wants to see nuked in muslim capitals?

The large Islamic capitals are not just "civilian populations". They are home to some of the most extensive terrorist facilities in the world. Cairo's El Azhar university is a prime example. This one institution alone continues to churn out jihadist imams by the hundreds.

Each of these Muslim seats of power represent a nexus of global terrorism. None of them have the least claim to innocence. All of them are actively funding international terrorism and their collective leadership remains one of the singular most enabling forces with respect to jihad.
Snouck: an agressive action of the magnitude of a nuclear strike must be effective in stopping the training of jihadist imams. I'll hencefort call them imams. Al Azar and the other centres must have the monopoly of imam production in order for the strike to have lasting results. But imam training is not monopolized by Al Azar. These imams can be produced anywhere where there are a few huts plus a few imams.

Zenster opinioned:
Islam is clearly fascist in nature and fascism is a bastion of elitism
It is true that Islam is elitist and that removing the most influential imams will leave a vacuum. But Islam does not have a clearly defined hierarchy. If the top imams are removed, imams with less prestige will take their place. They will continue to preach Sharia and Jihad. So a strike will not have a decisive effect. Meanwhile other powers will fear and hate the US for having attacked Islam with nukes. They will be assisted by a backlash against the military government by the population. Isolated at home and abroad the military government of the US will find it impossible to rule. Once they have been removed from power their actions will be the target of the propaganda by the media. The media will show the footage of destroyed muslim cities on TV for years, causing a storm of national self hatred.

I did not pursue the debate with Zenster due to lack of time and the fact that the post had moved beyond the weekly range of posts which is well read by visitors.

Zenster continues:
Furthermore, it would instantly remove from power a huge number of America's very worst enemies.
Snouck: Muslim manpower is the second target for Zenster's zestful nuke plans.

There are 1,3 Billion Muslims in the world. In order to just half their manpower 650 million muslims have to be killed. There is no way that the West would survive committing such incredible slaughter.

Loss of civilizational self confidence

An important cause for the loss of civilisation self confidence was the overstepping of the boundary between state violence against militaries and state violence against civilians. The massacres of civilians in the Soviet camps system, the carpet bombing of cities and the victims of the German camp system during the Second World War undermined the belief of Westerners in Western civilization. Thus the wanton killing of civilians goes against the interest of Western civilizations nation state system.

Better look like David

The interest of the West is best served by a strategy that hurts only the evil doers, such as the terrorists or the muslim criminals that prowl the streets of Europe. The less formidable the force that handles the terrorists the more advantegeous it is. Better look like a herdsman than like a mighty warrior.

Or as the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu said about the art of war:
O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands
The military organisations of the future will not posess large bases, installations or expensive crew served weapons. They will blend in with the population. Disperse. They will not offer a target for nuclear weapons. That way they remain legitimate and the population will be prepared to support them with funding and recruits.

Western civilization can flourish under those circumstances.

No comments: