So there’s a battle raging for Severodonetsk right now. Hopefully it’s going well. Ever since the offensive in Donbass started, things have slowed down to a slog. The Russians have advanced some 25-50 km along the frontlines of Donbass in total. That’s not really the kind of slam dunk play that gets the fans in the stands to stand up and cheer. As a result, people have moved on to talking about other hot button topics.
In the direct aftermath of the MK-Ultra shootings, the debate over gun control is raging, again, in America. It feels like Groundhog Day; how are people not tired of “debating” the issue? How can there even be a debate when the founding document of the United States of America states “shall not be infringed” on it? If Liberals believe that they no longer need to follow the provisions set forward in the Constitution, then they should come clean and admit that they are founding a new country. Consider: could a Christian deny a tenant of the Nicene Creed and still be accepted in the Church? No, he’d have to start his own religion at that point. So, how can the current “America” claim any continuity with the America that was created by the Founding Fathers if it systematically dismantles the fundamental principles on which the nation was built and goes so far as to demolish the statues of the old America’s founders? The entire country, on more levels than just laws and statues, is like the proverbial ship of Theseus, getting replaced plank by plank, until nothing of the old ship remains.
But whatever. I’m sure you guys know all that. And even if you didn’t, there are dozens of blogs lamenting the destruction of America on Substack that you can peruse at your leisure if you want to ruin your mood for the rest of the day.
Instead of moping, I think that any event whatsoever is a learning opportunity for those that have the ability to emotionally distance themselves and approach the topic with some level of objectivity. This applies to both the war in Ukraine and the continued dismantling of the Founder’s America.
Let’s start with the war. I don’t know about you, but I’ve learned a lot about war science since the conflict began.
Apparently, there are these formulas that the various militaries of the world work out to figure out whether they’re going to win individual battle and the war in general. They take various variables, like the number of troops, the terrain, the morale, and so on and plug it into an equation to determine the proper course of action. Attacking puts one at a disadvantage, and so a military scientist applies a debuff to the final force calculation. Then, cities and other natural fortifications also bolster an enemy’s power level, which has to be factored into the equation as well. Then, there’s the concept of force concentration - a simply, principle, really. Even if an enemy has a million troops, but they are spread out over a vast distance, a much smaller army of about 1000 men can take on small groupings of 100 enemies and destroy them. Much of warfare is about maneuvering troops around to gain a tactical force concentration advantage in one area or another. Being able to mass 3x the number of troops and guns in one small location can lead to a breakthrough in that sector. Surrounding your enemy means that they are forced to fight on all sides. If they are only attacked from one direction, the enemy can rotate out troops and manage a flow of supplies. Forcing them to fight from multiple directions at once leads to exhaustion and depletion of manpower and supply reserves, so it’s a highly effective technique to employ. Finally, having better weapons and more of them translates into a higher total force value.
I’m not a military expert, but this kind of basic stuff seems relatively easy enough to understand.
When discussing wars and battles and so on, it only really makes sense to discuss this equation. Are the troops well-equipped enough? Are there enough troops? Are they concentrated effectively? And so on. If, based on the information that we have, we conclude that the formulas are being disregarded or improperly calculated, then we can rightfully criticize the military and demand that incompetent generals be stripped of their posts.
Few seem to understand it, and fewer still seem to want to conceptualize it this way, but electoral politics operate on a similar principle. All political parties run similar calculations at their HQ. The difference is that politicians calculate their decisions against public opinion, and the public is treated as the enemy on the other side of the equation. In other words, politicians ask themselves what the effect of doing X on voter turnout for their supporters, undecideds and opposing voters will have. Politicians, or rather, the experts that they hire to run these calculations, make mistakes, it’s true, but generally, they act rationally and calculate an electoral force equation before going into battle. Put another way, if promoting a certain policy is expected to get 80% of the base to turn out in support of the measure and 40% of the enemy camp to turn out in protest of the measure, then it is a solid proposal worth going into battle for. Ideally, politicians try to win easy victories against minimal electoral resistance.
For awhile, I was baffled by the Democrat’s strategy of antagonizing their political opponents over hot-button, core, divisive issues like guns and abortions. Yes, these issues certainly invigorate their base, but they also antagonize the other camp, as well. Why the sudden headlong rush against their opponent’s entrenched positions? Well, perhaps the Libs work with a formula that favors going on the offensive i.e., one that gives them a force multiplier when rallying their base to go to war with their opponent’s base, an exact reverse of the military equation that we discussed earlier. Perhaps going on the offensive acts as a positive force multiplier when it comes to electoral politics i.e., the base is generally energized more than the enemy is outraged.
The conservatives, ever on the defensive, seem to always be losing, don’t they? And they never attack the liberals on their hot-button issues and instead, seem to be effecting a permanent rearguard retreat action on every single political issue of note. Attacking, in other words, seems to be more effective than defending, when it comes to electoral trench warfare.
When it comes to regular war, we immediately understand that incompetent generals who mess up the calculations and consistently lose positions or fail to pull off attacks deserve to be canned. But when it comes to politicians, we seem content to give them a lot more leeway. This is because we don’t really understand politics for what it is. We assume that it is akin to a debate, a sporting back and forth dialogue in the forum of the acropolis or something. The process is mystified and illumined by an ideological halo. The metaphor of a never-ending war raging within our nations between bitter enemies seeking to advance a few trench-lines at a time against the positions of their opponents seems to cast a deathly pallor on the whole electoral process which we hold so dear in our hearts. It can no longer be conceptualized as an ennobling and lofty exercise in moderation and civic engagement and blah-blah-blah, but a continuation of war by other means.
Anyways, from what I can tell, it seems that the Russians are gaining ground, albeit at a great cost in the Donbass. Conversely, the conservatives in America appear to be in full rout. Expect the Donbass to become Russian by the end of summer and the 2nd Amendment to be well and truly infringed upon by the time that midterms come around in America.
“Politics is the continuation of war by other means.”
Is that an original? Chapeau, if so, sir..
“How are people not tired of debating this issue?” >Well the (one of the?) latest shooting event in the US, in Uvalde, Texas, was close to home for me. Funny thing is the shooting/topic of gun control hasn’t even come up in conversation amongst my friends. I keep meaning to bring it up but then it slips my mind. I guess we are no longer shocked by events like this or the push for gun control that always follows. Just because no one I know is debating anything, that doesn’t stop the media from ‘debating’ gun control. Honestly, my small circle of friends doesn’t include any liberals so I guess the media is rousing all the liberals I don’t know..??
Anyway, Beto “I’m coming for your AK-47s’” O’Rourke is running for governor of Texas against the mildly conservative Greg Abbott. The effort to turn Texas red has been a goal of the left for years. My guess is the shooting event will be used to make a Beto win plausible. I say plausible because I, and many others I know, have little faith in the integrity of the voting system at this point. Without this event I don’t think the average Texan would believe a Beto win is legit.
I’m still voting and I hope I’m wrong about the election system, we shall see…