Armate de scalvi, de mercenari, sau miliții. Mai jos se poate citi o discuție comparativă a celor trei tipuri:
Doug: A militia is the best of all, because it’s one that really does come together to defend a society – the places where the people live and work. They are highly motivated by hearth and home. Militias are strictly defensive, which is good, because their very nature precludes the possibility of an aggressive overseas war. In a way, a militia is a kind of guerilla army, which is almost impossible to defeat, short of genocide.
L: You have to sterilize the area.
Doug: Exactly. And now, our mercenary armies are in Iraq and Afghanistan, fighting guerilla armies. If you’re fighting guerilla armies, you’ve got to ask yourself why you’re there, attacking their hearth and home. I mean, how would the average American react if a large army of young Muslims were on American soil, kicking doors in, shooting resisters, and so forth? There would be no end to the number of Americans willing to take up arms and fight back, with or without training, with or without leadership – which is exactly what American forces face over there.
[…] Doug: I think it was Yamamoto who said that the Japanese could never conquer America, because behind every rock, there’d be an American with a rifle. I’ve always believed that if America were a free society and the Chinese invaded and overcame our first line of defense, the surfers, the Chinese general would have someone dragged up and say, ”Take me to your leader!” And the guy would take him home to his wife. After a few months, half the Chinese army would desert to open McDonald’s franchises, and the other half would be treated as common criminals; they’d disappear at night.
L: A free society would be an armed society.
Doug: Absolutely. In today’s world of very powerful individual weapons, I don’t think that invasion of a place like America makes any sense. Some people say that enemies might launch nuclear weapons at the cities, but that makes neither military nor economic sense. In the first place, you don’t attack a society that doesn’t threaten you. And if conquest and loot were your goal, you wouldn’t vaporize everything of value. That’s why it would have served no purpose for the Russians to overrun Western Europe in the ‘60s, ‘70s and ‘80s, which many people were worried about.
It’s not like in the Roman days, when you could conquer a country and cart off all the gold, women, and cattle to fund yet more conquest. That’s not the way wealth works today; if you tried to do what the Romans did today, you would destroy the basis of wealth itself. There’s nothing to milk afterwards, and the conquered land becomes nothing but a cost to you – just as Afghanistan and Iraq are to the U.S. today. Conquest simply makes no sense in today’s world.
L: Hmmm. So. In spite of what people have said about your “anti-military” remarks, you’re not actually anti-military. You’re anti-slave-army. Not so keen on mercenary armies. And you’re pro-militia.
Doug: That’s a good summary. And it’s relevant to the future, because I think the whole concept of a national military is going to change radically in the near future. Why do I say that? First, because the nation-state as we know it, which has only been around since about 1600 or so, is on its way out.
[…] Doug: When your first loyalty is to people you have chosen to give it to, whether they live in Cambodia or Chile, because of the things you yourself think are important and that you share in common, you’re much more likely to stand by them than you are for types in America whose goal in life seems to be leaching off producers. I’m sure there are many phyles of different types coming together all over the world whose members feel more loyalty to each other than to whatever neighbors random chance has put next to them. Why should the fact some nation-state considers you both subjects automatically command your loyalty?
L: And the military implication is that it’s very unlikely that such distributed societies like this would mount physical, military invasions on one another. It’d be very difficult to do, and what would be the point?
Doug: Right. I think the world is evolving differently. And let me re-emphasize that military technology is changing too. All these aircraft carriers, B2s, M1 tanks, and so forth are basically junk. They serve no useful purpose in the kind of battle that’s likely to happen in the future. If someone wants to attack the U.S., they’re not going to use an ICBM; they’re extremely expensive, clunky, and you can see where they come from, guaranteeing retaliation. It’s total idiocy that even a maniac wouldn’t bother with. Not when you can deliver a backpack nuke by FedEx, cheap and on time. Or you could use any commercial aircraft, container ship, or truck.
But the real handwriting on the wall is the sort of thing we saw in Mumbai last year in November. There it was a matter of two dozen people with ordinary guns turning the whole city totally on its head for days. That was an extremely cheap and easy thing to do – and warfare has always been a matter of economics.
[…] L: So… how does this apply to a current conflict like Afghanistan? A militia wouldn’t work, because a militia wouldn’t go there, but the other two types of armies can and have been sent there, and they haven’t done so well.
Doug: The only way to win is not to play. You simply can’t win against a guerilla. And the worst thing about this is that the main conflict in the coming years is likely to be the West’s unadmitted war against Islam. Since there are over a billion Muslims in the world, and since as a general rule, Muslims take their religion much more seriously than most other people around the world, and since it says in the Koran, which is supposed to be the direct word of Allah, that they must spread their religion around the world, the conflict is not going to go away. Especially since there is also a small but quite virulent minority of Christians in the U.S. that have similar views, and a rather disproportionate number of them are in the military.
It’s become a redux of the Crusades, at this point. Actually, the Crusades never really ended; they’ve just waxed and waned since the Middle Ages. Using the distributed warfare tactics we’ve just discussed, the Muslims are going to win on a cost-benefit basis. The new crusaders will attack their countries with expensive junk, and the Muslims will counter with unstoppable, low-cost violence. Even though they are largely primitive societies, they are going to win both on the attack and on the defense, creating huge chaos in the process.
You can’t conquer a primitive society. There’s nothing to destroy or hold hostage. The only way to win is to commit genocide.
Everything Western governments, and the United States especially, are doing politically and militarily is counterproductive.