Building Snowmobiles: For Total War And Netwar, You Need Both A ‘Defense Industry’ And An ‘Offense Industry’ | Feral Jundi

Building Snowmobiles: For Total War And Netwar, You Need Both A ‘Defense Industry’ And An ‘Offense Industry’ | Feral Jundi.

I tried commenting and got

Sorry

Your comment is a little too long. Try splitting it into multiple comments.

So I’ll comment on my own blog and feraljundi can read what I have to say over here.

What about the police, both federal and state?  With transnational terrorists, criminal organizations etc., are there enough law enforcement to keep up with the deluge? In both the military and police examples, I do not think that they can match the size, spread and scope of today’s miscreants.  An example is the drug war against the cartels. It is overwhelming the Mexican government, and the US is not doing that great of a job either, despite all the efforts of law enforcement.

The “drug war” down in Mexico is really just a turf battle between the cartel calling itself los Estados Unidos Mexicanos and the other cartels. The “drug war” in America is just Prohibition, rebranded from anti-booze to anti-“drug.” Think about when in American history opium, cocaine, & all the other “drugs” were demonized, outlawed, and “made war” upon. The “war on drugs” serves a purpose for those profiting from fighting it, & for that reason is unlikely to be won until all the junkies & recreational users are too broke to buy.

In the war against these folks like Al Qaeda, pirates or the cartels, I have doubts that there are enough military, police or intelligence assets to keep up with the formation of all of these networks.

I am absolutely certain there are not “enough” military, police or intelligence assets to keep up with the formation of all of these networks. Who would decide how many are “enough?” Enough to prevent another 9/11? Enough to prevent a cyber Pearl Harbor? There will never be “enough.” Not having “enough” is the default CYA excuse for not getting the job done with what they already have & the rationale for expanding their empire.

What I think is missing in this war, is a licensed and regulated market that profits from our enemy’s destruction. One created to promote netwar (or whatever works). That last part is crucial.

What I think is missing in this war is leadership that sincerely wants to destroy our enemies & can coherently communicate to the American taxpayer who those enemies are, what we’re doing to destroy them, when we can reasonably expect their destruction to be completed, where we intend to destroy them and why they need to be destroyed.

Also, it should be the goal of politicians and war planners to win the war as quickly as possible, once a war has been deemed necessary to fight.

Should be, but the real goal of  politicians in power is to take credit for a successful and cheap war, while the real goal of politicians out of power is to make the politicians in power look like such douche bags that the voters turn them out next election, and the real goal of war planners is to protect their rice bowl and make their service/branch more respected and better funded.

Total war means no holds barred, no quarter given, no sacrifice too great, employment of Weapons of Mass Destruction, conscription, internment of enemy nationals, assumption of dictatorial powers by the Commander-in-Chief, government control of just about everything.  You only want to go that far when the survival of your Westphalian nation-state is in doubt.  Al Qaeda isn’t worth all that.

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under G-2

3 responses to “Building Snowmobiles: For Total War And Netwar, You Need Both A ‘Defense Industry’ And An ‘Offense Industry’ | Feral Jundi

  1. Good points and sorry that the comments section cut you off. Although I am not sure why it is doing that and that is the first I have ever heard of it doing that.

    As to the drug war, I think that is a personal opinion you are expressing. From my point of view, legalizing alcohol was a massive mistake. I point to the amount of death and injury, the health care costs, the broken families, etc. all attributed to the legal use of alcohol in today’s society. I detest the stuff, and do not drink it, but live in a society that is absolutely obsessed with that stuff. You complain about the demonization of drugs, well I complain about the glorification of these substances by society. But that is my personal opinion on the stuff, just like you have your personal opinion. So to me, I am more than comfortable with demonizing drugs and doing all we can to stop it’s proliferation in society.

    Your comment about the size of the military is interesting. I haven’t a clue, nor could even make a guess as to how many we possibly need. All I know is that if there was an industry created out of the process of destroying the enemy, the market would dictate how many forces would be needed. The more enemies, the more companies or individuals would join the effort because there is a reasonable chance of a return on investment. As enemies decrease, the market would contract. So can the the military or police expand and contract that fast, organize or dissolve, flex and innovate as fast private industry? I don’t think so, but I also don’t think that private industry should do it all alone either. I believe there is room on the battlefield for both parties–a blended workforce, a public and private partnership, etc. It worked out fine in the Revolutionary War and War of 1812, and framers of the constitution liked the concept enough to make it a law (Letter of Marque– Art. 1, Sec. 8, Para 11)

    I agree about what is missing in this war. Leadership, Ideas, and Hardware, and in that order. That is what Boyd preached, and I am all about good leadership as a priority of a nation during times of war. Then the ideas and hardware can be created, formed, improved upon, etc. But as you can see, over the course of the war we have had two presidents from different parties, who are virtually the same when it comes to the prosecution of the war. What I am offering is just one more tool or idea to use, that has not been used.

    I agree that Total War should include everything that you listed. All things must be considered. It is my assessment that most of today’s leader’s idea of Total War (internment camps, nuclear, the draft, etc.) does not include the concept of Offense Industry. All I am doing here with my post is to remind folks that Offense Industries were something countries used to do for hundreds of years, on top of raising their own armies and navies. It is a tool that went out of style because of the vanity of nations, and the ego of it’s military’s and navies.
    I say share the work load, break up the monopoly on the use of force, and create an industry that doesn’t just profit from war (Defense Industry), but profits from the destruction of enemies (Offense Industry).
    So one last question and thought. Why was Offense Industry left out of your list of Total War? Technically speaking, Offense Industry should absolutely be on that list, because it is an option of war fighting. As to whether or not we should be fighting the war against Al Qaeda, or the cartels, or pirates, is of another discussion and purely opinion. Or even the legalization of drugs is another discussion and opinion as well. But what I am most concerned with on this particular post, is the concepts and ideas. The how, and not necessarily the why. So what say you?

    • I went back over to your blog and tried to comment again. Think it went but is still in you authorizaton queue.

      You might what to check your comment settings for comment length restrictions.

      All I know is that if there was an industry created out of the process of destroying the enemy, the market would dictate how many forces would be needed.

      How do you know that?
      What does “destroying the enemy” really mean? Genocide? Blowing up or burning everything he has? Seizing from him everything of value?
      In conventional warfare between Westphalian nation-states the victors usually kill only enough of the enemy population to break their morale. Rarely is the objective of the war total destruction of the enemy.

      In the old pre-Westphalian days kings could hire, contract, recruit and otherwise acquire the services of all manner of irregular practitioners of violence by promising them free rein to loot, plunder and rape the vanquished enemy. Destroying enemies for profit via mercenaries and privateers is too politically incorrect for what’s left of Western Civilization in the 21st Century.

    • Offense Industry was left off my list of Total War because the industrial capacity to build war machines has little to do with offense or defense. Nearly all war machines that I can think of can be usefully employed in both offensive and defensive operations.