You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Civil War’ category.
An old American was reprocessing his old studies of Brezhnev-Soviet-Military thinking and brought back interesting points of discussion that directly relate to Syria.
The old Soviets had a classification for different types of wars:
“Many of these—such as the categorization of wars in ideological terms (including wars between imperialism and socialism, civil wars between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, wars between bourgeois states, national liberation wars)—now appear quaint and irrelevant for understanding today’s (and perhaps even yesterday’s) world.”
There was one other: wars between the people and a regime of extreme reaction
“What they understood about these conflicts between a dictatorial regime and its opponents was that they were not conflicts between two parties, but among three”
“In wars between the people and a regime of extreme reaction…both communists and non-communists united to fight the dictatorship, with each group hoping later to establish its preferred form of government (dictatorship of the proletariat or republican democracy).
In these conflicts, once the dictator was overthrown, the Soviets knew they eventually had the upper hand because their supported group had outside support, whereas the moderates would be (abandoned by the United States who had been propping up the dictator) forced to fend for themselves. With all factors being equal, the extra force could make a minority within the initial revolt, grab power after all was done.
Back then, it was America supporting the regimes of extreme reaction; the Soviets were seen the revolutionaries. Today it is Russia and Iran, who support these dictatorial regimes, and moderates and a few islamists who are those engaged in making change.
The lesson taught was that once Assad falls, without America’s strong continued support of the moderates, the otherwise strong support of Saudi’s Sunnis behind the Islamists will tip the balance to their favor. For as in the past, when moderates took on an American supported regime of extreme reaction, and the communists joined in the fight, it became viewed as part of the bipolar tug of war between the Communists and Capitalistic USA. Therefore even though the moderates usually far outnumbered the splinter cells of Communists, because the ending conflict was deemed a Soviet victory over the US, the communists had tremendous clout and enough support to take over power.
This certainly makes Syria clear. In their battle against Assad, the Islamists supported by the Radical Sunni movements are few in number compared to the moderates who want a democratic republic after Assad leaves.
If Assad gets pushed out, the Islamists because of their unlimited funding and support can push themselves into power quickly, meanwhile the moderates sit around and try to figure out their next step. In that vacuum the organized faction always wins. The US then as now, could prevent this from happening by throwing its weight behind the moderates after the dictator is removed by being a counterbalancing force.
Our success in Western Europe after the Second World War by doing just that, never translated itself afterwards over to East Asia, Africa, or Central America. Instead of immediately inserting ourselves as a civilian presence when moderates and radicals toppled a regime, we sat on our hands, and only later would then send military hardware in our feeble attempt to contain the outbreak our own inaction created.
The lesson for the US is that we really need to not focus so much first on the war itself and then immediately extricate ourselves after the conflict when we are needed most, but we actually we need to use our debacle in Iraq as a self-taught lesson to create a civilian team we can move in at a moment’s notice with all the backing and assistance exhibited by the Marshall Plan, to quickly mend broken services, return to normalcy, and stifle the unrest that allows civil wars to fester and continue among both factions of winners long after the regime of extreme reaction is overthrown.
We need to focus on reacting immediately with ways to get a nation quickly back on its own feet as soon as the Dictator is disposed.
Our opponents of 40 years ago figured this out. If we can learn this, that may be the most valuable legacy the Brezhnev era can ever pass on to us.
Courtesy of lolsnaps.com
When attacking an enemy it is best to hit them at their most vulnerable part….
With North Korea, that would be to sever the support their leader and the military gets from it’s people. The entire extravaganza is being perpetuated for domestic consumption.. There are some serious cracks appearing in the North’s support for the “kid”. And why wouldn’t there be? What legitimacy does he bring as the head of state?
In the past year, things have gotten worse for the citizens of North Korea. This saber rattling is the “kid’s” last chance to lead… Rumors abound of multiple future plots being devised against him….
It is in the US and the rest of the world’s best interest to make this dissolution happen. Someone less irrational, smarter, and a lot more stable would make everything in that region settled and stable.
Aggressive Military action has the opposite effect. When the state is threatened people flock to the leader. Just look how democrats flocked to George W. Bush. Engaging the “kid” in military fashion will solidify the people behind him….
Our goal is to have the people solidify behind someone else. At the same time, keep our military prowess at top proficiency to prevent others from taking us on simply thinking we are weak….
Here is how.
If provoked, we take out North Korea’s air defenses. Then we airdrop food by having it parachuted into starving neighborhoods with the words, from your friends the United States of America….
We do and the point gets made.;. Gee North Korea, if you’d just take care of the “kid”, your lives will quickly get a lot better.
The only recourse the kid would have, would be… see I made them drop food for you….
North Korean’s aren’t dumb. Just knowing that the world is pulling for them to rid the “kid” might be enough to make one of those current rumors swirling around the impoverished countryside, turn into reality…..
Such a great line spoken by General Sherman. Here is the history behind it.
Sherman was deeply troubled. Stationed in Kentucky, Sherman grew despondent over failures of Union forces and what he perceived as his superiors’ ineptitude. He was plagued by anxiety, often pronouncing, incorrectly, that Confederate forces vastly outnumbered his own. Pacing through his hotel at all hours of the night, he looked haggard and worried. He worked almost around the clock, rarely ate, and continued pacing during daylight hours as well. Sherman’s extreme behavior and habit of wearing the same unlaundered clothes for days sparked rumors about his mental state, rumors he fueled by becoming obsessed with reporters. Worried in the winter of 1862-63 that they might ferret out information that he thought shouldn’t be published, he tried to banish journalists from his presence, even threatening one New York reporter with hanging.
Seemingly doomed, he was assigned to Grant’s command. Here was a general, at last, who seemed organized, acted decisively, and had realistic goals for how to win. Far from shunning Sherman, Grant encouraged him. They fought together and won at Shiloh, and gradually Sherman recovered a sense of balance and confidence. Later, when Grant was lampooned for excessive drinking, Sherman jumped to his defense. “General Grant is a great general,” he said. “I know him well. He stood by me when I was crazy and I stood by him when he was drunk; and now, sir, we stand by each other always.”
Lincoln also jumped to Grant’s defense. In reply to comments about General Grant’s drinking problems, Lincoln said: “Find out what whiskey he drinks and send all of my generals a case, if it will get the same results.” –
kavips 