Comments on: A long war http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/ The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy! Fri, 10 Feb 2012 01:59:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Neptunus Lex » Fukuyama: The Wall Street Journal responds http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/comment-page-1/#comment-3957 Neptunus Lex » Fukuyama: The Wall Street Journal responds Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:22:12 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/#comment-3957 [...] But why is this idea of democracy?Ǭ [...] But why is this idea of democracy?Ǭ

]]> By: Neptunus Lex » Fukuyama: The Wall Street Journal responds http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/comment-page-1/#comment-409044 Neptunus Lex » Fukuyama: The Wall Street Journal responds Tue, 28 Feb 2006 00:22:12 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/#comment-409044 [...] But why is this idea of democracy implantation so critical? It’s important precisely because we ourselves are a democracy, embarked on a world-changing experiment at great cost. We are in a “long war,” and we need to believe that something more is coming out of this than Kissengerian ”stability,” especially if by stability we mean that we once again have to shake the hands of blood-drenched tyrants who are in any case unable to deliver on their minimal committment to keep their own crazies in a box. [...] [...] But why is this idea of democracy implantation so critical? It’s important precisely because we ourselves are a democracy, embarked on a world-changing experiment at great cost. We are in a “long war,” and we need to believe that something more is coming out of this than Kissengerian ”stability,” especially if by stability we mean that we once again have to shake the hands of blood-drenched tyrants who are in any case unable to deliver on their minimal committment to keep their own crazies in a box. [...]

]]> By: Bill http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/comment-page-1/#comment-3642 Bill Thu, 16 Feb 2006 14:55:15 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/#comment-3642 Basic strategic fact: a) In a long war, demographics counts. Russia lost the Cold War in large part because about half its army was killed in WW II, and the Russian population never recovered. b) WW I and II were a disaster in large part because it cost the West Russia as a Western country. c) Western demographics are very poor. Germany does not need Islamics to destroy a quarter of its population in a generation. Demographics will do that with no outside assistance. The net effect will be similar to that of WW II on Russia. US demographics are roughly comparable. d) Middle Eastern and general Third World demographics are reported as below replacement, but the figures are not from trustworthy sources. e) The conclusion is that, enemy or no enemy, the West will vanish as an entity unless demographics change. To quote a couple of Romans, some time ago, "No peasants, no troops" Cato. and "Salus populi, suprema lex," an old legal saying not generally attributed. This advice and maxim were not effectively acted upon, and the "penuria hominem," depopulation, was instrumental in Roman loss of France and Italy, and later Byzantine loss of Anatolia. f) Western response to demographics problems has been to (1) deny that they exist and (2) spend money on force multipliers, which makes sense militarily only if forces are in short supply. Example: no followon forces after combat victory in Gulf War II. Why? Effectively, no troops. g) If demographics isn't addressed by political leadership (as it has been in Germany and Japan), and addressed effectively, then the "long war" isn't going to go as well as it might have. Basic strategic fact:
a) In a long war, demographics counts. Russia lost the Cold War in large part because about half its army was killed in WW II, and the Russian population never recovered.

b) WW I and II were a disaster in large part because it cost the West Russia as a Western country.

c) Western demographics are very poor. Germany does not need Islamics to destroy a quarter of its population in a generation. Demographics will do that with no outside assistance. The net effect will be similar to that of WW II on Russia. US demographics are roughly comparable.
d) Middle Eastern and general Third World demographics are reported as below replacement, but the figures are not from trustworthy sources.

e) The conclusion is that, enemy or no enemy, the West will vanish as an entity unless demographics change. To quote a couple of Romans, some time ago, “No peasants, no troops” Cato. and “Salus populi, suprema lex,” an old legal saying not generally attributed. This advice and maxim were not effectively acted upon, and the “penuria hominem,” depopulation, was instrumental in Roman loss of France and Italy, and later Byzantine loss of Anatolia.

f) Western response to demographics problems has been to (1) deny that they exist and (2) spend money on force multipliers, which makes sense militarily only if forces are in short supply. Example: no followon forces after combat victory in Gulf War II. Why? Effectively, no troops.

g) If demographics isn’t addressed by political leadership (as it has been in Germany and Japan), and addressed effectively, then the “long war” isn’t going to go as well as it might have.

]]> By: StormWarning http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/comment-page-1/#comment-3541 StormWarning Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:01:25 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/#comment-3541 Badbob. I hadn't seen that strategic document (I was thrown by the URL since it reads "2005" but the plan is dated 2/1/06). That document hasn't been mentioned in the press, and frankly, neither has the QDR that came out on Feb. 6th (http://www.comw.org/qdr/qdr2006.pdf) The concept of "long war" was highlighted in this strategic document from the DoD Stratfor also did a great job of summarizing the QDR, but since I'm not a "premium" subscriber, alas, I cannot link it here. But one of the statements made there is "...Ultimately, the new QDR envisions a significant transition in the military's intelligence role: from protecting only the services and their interests to protecting wider national interests as well..." I'm in the process (when I have time) of reading the QDR and looking at its implications. When done, I'll post it on my blog and link over. BTW, I found Neptunuslex via ThreatsWatch. Badbob. I hadn’t seen that strategic document (I was thrown by the URL since it reads “2005″ but the plan is dated 2/1/06). That document hasn’t been mentioned in the press, and frankly, neither has the QDR that came out on Feb. 6th (http://www.comw.org/qdr/qdr2006.pdf)
The concept of “long war” was highlighted in this strategic document from the DoD
Stratfor also did a great job of summarizing the QDR, but since I’m not a “premium” subscriber, alas, I cannot link it here. But one of the statements made there is “…Ultimately, the new QDR envisions a significant transition in the military’s intelligence role: from protecting only the services and their interests to protecting wider national interests as well…”

I’m in the process (when I have time) of reading the QDR and looking at its implications. When done, I’ll post it on my blog and link over.

BTW, I found Neptunuslex via ThreatsWatch.

]]> By: Subsunk http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/comment-page-1/#comment-3528 Subsunk Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:36:05 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/#comment-3528 CAPT Lex, Good thoughts, sir. I'll agree with almost all. "And here? CAPT Lex,

Good thoughts, sir. I’ll agree with almost all.

“And here?

]]> By: Subsunk http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/comment-page-1/#comment-409043 Subsunk Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:36:05 +0000 http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/02/06/a-long-war/#comment-409043 CAPT Lex, Good thoughts, sir. I'll agree with almost all. "And here’s the pity of it: When the dialogue ends, the Clash of Civilizations truly begins. That is a war of cultural survival, and one the West can, must and will win, if we have to. But it will be a long war, and at the ending of it, we will not be the people we had once been." I believe, at the ending of it, we will be greater than we are today, not in power, not in wealth, but in morality and courage. Character is forged and tempered in the fire of Conflict. And large conflicts, pursued with determination and dedication to ideals, even when those ideals are besmirched by inappropriate actions or events during the conflict, yield the hardest steel, the toughest metal, and the shiniest armor. We will not be the people we once were. We will be better. And AW1 Tim, you have a shipmate here for your thoughts. Clear talking and forthright speech are always superior to lies and deception. I'll follow that torch with you. Subsunk CAPT Lex,

Good thoughts, sir. I’ll agree with almost all.

“And here’s the pity of it: When the dialogue ends, the Clash of Civilizations truly begins. That is a war of cultural survival, and one the West can, must and will win, if we have to. But it will be a long war, and at the ending of it, we will not be the people we had once been.”

I believe, at the ending of it, we will be greater than we are today, not in power, not in wealth, but in morality and courage. Character is forged and tempered in the fire of Conflict. And large conflicts, pursued with determination and dedication to ideals, even when those ideals are besmirched by inappropriate actions or events during the conflict, yield the hardest steel, the toughest metal, and the shiniest armor.

We will not be the people we once were. We will be better.

And AW1 Tim, you have a shipmate here for your thoughts. Clear talking and forthright speech are always superior to lies and deception. I’ll follow that torch with you.

Subsunk

]]>