Monday, February 24, 2014

Is War An Art or Is War A Disease? - 2

Nuclear War: the ultimate nothing
Like the sales pitch "try it you'll like it" indicates, some things we seem to have to try in order that we may grasp the subject matter.

But other things, like the nuclear war to end all wars, trying it will be the last thing civilization does.


A general jesus fan of some sort, a U.S. General, has a better solution which he preached about at length to the choir and the congregation in a church:
The Lord is a warrior and in Revelation 19 it says when he comes back, he's coming back as what? A warrior. A mighty warrior leading a mighty army, riding a white horse with a blood-stained white robe ... I believe that blood on that robe is the blood of his enemies 'cause he's coming back as a warrior carrying a sword.
"Jesus is coming with an AR-15"

And I believe now - I've checked this out - I believe that sword he'll be
carrying when he comes back is an AR-15.

Now I want you to think about this: where did the Second Amendment come from? ... From the Founding Fathers, it's in the Constitution. Well, yeah, I know that. But where did the whole concept come from? It came from Jesus when he said to his disciples 'now, if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.'

I know, everybody says that was a metaphor. IT WAS NOT A METAPHOR! He was saying in building my kingdom, you're going to have to fight at times. You won't build my kingdom with a sword, but you're going to have to defend yourself. And that was the beginning of the Second Amendment, that's where the whole thing came from. I can't prove that historically and David [Barton] will counsel me when this is over, but I know that's where it came from.

And the sword today is an AR-15, so if you don't have one, go get one. You're supposed to have one. It's biblical.
(Hypothesis: The Cultural Amygdala - 4). Now that will save a lot of lives, only killing the enemies of Mithra with AR-15 rifles from the well-stocked armory:
Today’s religious Right equates secularism with totalitarianism, and it opposes these twinned forces internationally and within the culture of the United States. Jonathan P. Herzog’s well-researched study demonstrates that the Right’s theological partisans are marshaling a system of beliefs initially forged by a coalition of conservatives, liberals, and moderates in the early Cold War. With assistance from clergy and interfaith groups, leaders in a variety of secular institutions promoted the idea that America was a covenant nation engaged in a holy war with a communist enemy whose belief system was a rival faith to Judeo-Christian democracy.
(The Virgin MOMCOM - 6). In the first post of this series we pointed out that the War Colleges teach war, religion, and when the chips are down they surge:
"The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives ...

The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom, sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness ...

By method and discipline are to be understood the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions, the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the control of military expenditure."
(Is War An Art or Is War A Disease?). So, what are we to believe is going to happen now that a shocking development, perhaps borne of reductionism, is said to be taking place:
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel will propose on Monday a reduction in the size of the U.S. Army to its smallest size since before World War Two and scrapping a class of Air Force attack jets, the New York Times reported on Sunday.

The plans, which the paper said were outlined by several Pentagon officials on condition of anonymity, would be aimed at reducing defense spending in the face of government austerity after a pledge by President Barack Obama to end U.S. involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It would leave the military capable of defeating any enemy but too small for long foreign occupations, and would involve greater risk if U.S. forces were asked to carry out two large-scale military actions at the same time.

"You have to always keep your institution prepared, but you can't carry a large land-war Defense Department when there is no large land war," the Times quoted a senior Pentagon official as saying.

It added that some of the plans may face political opposition in Congress, but quoted the officials as saying that they had the endorsement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(War Budget To Be Diminished, [by ~13.5% Guardian]; cf. Salon). Remember the last time that military austerity was on the table:
Until more money arrives, the defense apparatus is literally feeding on its own parts, pinching this and that, scrimping here and there, in order to keep the same Cold War force structure in place and the same lineup of new weapons moving through the pipeline of development. During the Cold War era, the military institution acquired a reflexive appetite for growth that it's now unwilling to give up. Instead, it lumbers toward a self-induced crisis of malnourishment, as when an addict's starving body eats its own liver.
(Is There A Shadow Government? - 2). There was a surge that doubled the budget for wars soon after that.

So, we shall see. But for now we can hope (American Feudalism - 6).

The next post in this series is here, the previous post in this series is here.