Tag Archives: cheap trick

The Operational Level Of War Does Not Exist

Posted by

0

Armies are destroyed or defeat by tactics. Wars are won and lost by strategy.

Yes but, all strategy is flawed, so to win at war you always need to keep up with the process, i.e. the OODA loop, and change, i.e. Destruction and Construction (D&C in the quantum movement of energy that the OODA loop represents).

I mean at the same time you are relying so heavily on strategy, one needs to be able to look at the energy not available in the system and compare it to the energy available, and decide, “how healthy are you?”

Hannibal couldn’t do it, neither could Napoleon.

Today’s military commanders can do it, because they not only have access to open-source intelligence (OSI) that are able to Observe the flaws in the narrative, but are able to judge what they are doing, because OSI are able to compare the narrative to a specific time/space in the future/past.

via The Operational Level Of War Does Not Exist.

The Economics of the Indo-Pacific Pivot

Posted by

0

As I have said before, all war is about economic considerations and fought by people with few economic consideration.

Much has been said, in our pivot towards the Asian Pacific, about the people with few economic considerations.

We have heard about the saber-rattling of China in the disputed South China Sea and elsewhere.  This saber-rattling doesn’t really seem to be much about economics. Perhaps now is the time we need to talk about the economic considerations in the Pivot.

Basically, economically we are going to do for those nations under our Indo-Pacific pivot what we did for the Middle East. We are going to use our military to uphold the relevancy of the US dollar.

Perhaps the quip used by one of the characters in the movie “Tinker, Tailor,  Soldier,  Spy” can be used to clarify what I mean by “doing” to the Indo-Pacific what we did for the Middle East.

In the movie there was a change of leadership in the “Circus”. The Circus is where  the odd performers of the British secret service get together and put on a show for everyone else in the Service to see. The new Ringleader, to show his knowledge of how things are in the world made the statement that, “you can rent an Arab, but never buy one.”

I don’t know if that statement is true or not, but by literally throwing billions of dollars into the environment of Iraq, after our invasion,  we “rented” thousands of Arabs. (I know the dollars in my wallet are mainly there for me to rent. They never stay in my wallet long enough to actually own.)

In other words, economics is not just about interest (which collecting interest is not popular in most areas of the Middle East) but a strong economy also depends a great deal on whose hard currency runs the show.

While there were many reason made for going to war in Iraq, strategically it was in the US’s interest to make sure “petrol dollars” also meant the US dollar.

As many experts have said, the Iraq war wasn’t about the US grabbing Iraq’s oil. The US doesn’t get its oil from the Middle East. The oil coming out of the Middle East is mostly going to China and other developing nations.

But what is important,economically for the US is that whoever buys oil in the Middle East uses US dollars. The US economy depends on the fact that they do.

With Turkey threatening to join the EU, France heavily into buying oil from Saddam, and rumors of Russia and China making gold the currency for oil, the relevancy of the US dollar was disappearing. I suggest that is no longer true.

While all strategy is flawed, and there is an on-going civil war throughout the Middle East, in the most part the US currency is still “the” currency of the world.

My guess is that the US dollar is the most relevant it has ever been in the Middle East, but the same cannot be said in the Asian Pacific.

http://www.ibtimes.com/sorry-mates-strictly-business-australia-wants-cut-out-us-dollar-trade-china-1161287#

A 1.6 billion infusion of US dollars and an occupation of US Marines may counteract that train of thought.

Offline

Posted by

0

My online activity has been eating into my time, so I have deleted my Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn accounts. I have found no willpower to resist engaging online, so I hope this drastic action will help focus my activity locally.

I am in the process of remodeling our home. I have made my wife live in this shack too long, and now that she is retiring, I hope to give her something more worthy for her to retire in.

But to accomplish this task we basically have to move out, and that is what I am up to. We not only have to pack and move our stuff (read here cherished belongings) and put them mostly in storage, but we also need to find temporary living accommodations. So far these temporary living accommodations have gone from building a home on our bare lot next door to erecting a yurt.

I also placed my web site into private, but have decided to open it again to the public for those of you who like to check in every so often.

Beauty sent my a message on LinkedIn, but because my account is closed I can’t reply.

So far everything is good. Will post changing conditions on this web page if I find the time.

The Strategic Advantage in Fighting on Only One Front

Posted by

0

“It is a concern to me, it’s a concern to any veteran, anybody in the military,” Hagel said during his first appearance on Capitol Hill since being confirmed as defense secretary.

I think it is significant that this is the only news I found coming out of Fox News, but maybe I just didn’t look hard enough. I guess Fox couldn’t find anything more important coming out of the House Armed Service’s committee than this one issue, who deserves a medal more, those with or without “skin” in battle.

Taking medals away from someone that actually might have earned them is not something I imagine Fox wants to be behind of. Fox better hope Hagel doesn’t come to the conclusion that someone fighting in a Nintendo environment needs to be reward with this medal, as someone in the Service that Hagel talks about in this quote did. If they do deserve it, then Fox should ask why.

As it is, anyone getting the “Nintendo Medal” with Hagel as the top administrator will deserve it. Fox should figure out why he/she would deserve such a medal, before they get on the wrong side of  the strategy behind the giving out of this medal.

But then Fox is owned by someone that wasn’t, if I understand correctly, born or raised  as a North America. Apparently their owner wants America to follow the Rightwing Conservative principles of another nation, in another hemisphere.

The nation he was or still is a citizen of has gone from calling China a totalitarian nation to aggressor nation, and now an assertive nation. It kinda makes me wonder what the Fox’s owner thinks of his own nation, as their Conservative principles change.

It doesn’t appear that China has changed all that much, at least in structure. The Right is a structure, not a culture, and China doesn’t appear to be changing its structure anytime soon.

It also appears that China’s culture is going to need more time for change. China is a very complex culture in which change doesn’t culturally seem to happen, unless there is a revolution. China’s structure is geared towards stopping revolutions.

But then, Fox’s owner is not a North American. He is Australia by culture, so what would he know about strategy anyway?

I think North American people’s advantage has always been that they think more strategic. After reading “Empire of the Summer Moon, I think strategy has always been the North’s advantage, as it presents itself to the world historically.

To that end, I never really understood the significance of Lincoln’s strategy, of using people from both sides of the aisle to fill some of the executive positions within his administration. That was until I watched this hearing on CSPAN yesterday.

The strategy that Lincoln used has the advantage of using an executive, such as Hagle, from the opposition  positioned as a handle to a lever that pushes against the force of the opposition and the POTUS forces as well. Kinda of a twofer.

In the House yesterday, Hagel not only tore into the Republican Chairman of the House Armed Service Committee, who wanted Hagle to take something like a 100 billion more dollars, but Hagle also tore into the smug Democrat who thought Hagel was a force pushing Democratic issues as well. The Republicans and Democrats both got their asses kicked.

In politics, the enemy isn’t in front of the POTUS, but positions themselves behind the leader. The people infront represent an image of change, as the image of Hagel in front of the POTUS.

Lincoln’s strategy handles those behind the POTUS (today they are called Democrats) as well as those in front of the POTUS (today they are called Republicans). Hagel with Dempsey at his side, tore up the House yesterday and made mincemeat out of all who were in front of him.

I would like to see him do the same in the Senate.

Really? The Republicans want to come out on the side of spending more money at the expense of our civilian society, while at the same time the Democrats want to come out on the side that says spending cut aren’t hurting our military, as our civil society takes a pass on having to make any sacrifices?

All Hagel and Dempsey are asking for is time to reposition our forces. I mean everyone realizes that Iran is in Asia, right?

When falling back to a defencive position, as our resources go bye-bye, there is some advantage to be had in having to defend only one front, and that front should be “pivoting” across the Pacific.

The Pacific is the position our debt is centered in. This center can be called a pivot point. While Boehner has come out in favor of paying our debt, I am not sure the Red States agree with him.

I mean, if they really want to secede from the US, aren’t they independent of the debt? If the Red States what to take advantage of our nukes and not pay back our debt, who’s to stop them, Obama?

Oh, right! If they did secede it wouldn’t be their decision, but that ain’t going to happen now, is it.

via Hagel Decision on ‘Nintendo Medal’ Expected Next Week – Fox News.

With Friends Like These…

Posted by

1

“Over here, China is doing all it can, trying to erect a stage for a six-party talk; over there, Pyongyang is bombing the stage with a nuclear weapon.”

The thing is, China is losing most of the “six-party” players, because Korea has threatened to bomb them.

I mean, sure, MaCarthur got pulled back from using nukes by his president.  I am not sure we can say the same for any other “leader”.

What’s the budget like for Obama, anyway, Mr. Ryan? Is the war going to come down to China and Korea against everyone else, where we have to use nukes? I don’t think so.

China is going to move to the same side as everyone else, and when that happens North Korea will go ballistic, unless it can join with the South.

In that case, now we can handle them. We don’t have to worry about destroying one side with the other.

via With Friends Like These… – By Helen Gao | Foreign Policy.

Enduring Values

Posted by

0

I believe those were the words the guy in charge of Obama’s legacy used to describe the US military’s pivot towards, or what is now called, the “Indo-Pacific”.

The words used to describe the pivot was changed from “Asia-Pacific” to “Indo-Pacific”. The words were changed to highlight the most important partner in the area included in the pivot.

I believe the guy in charged used “enduring values” (if that was the correct quote) in his conversation about the  ”pivot”,  because a “pivot” with “enduring values” in its narrative has no change in momentum nor values.

The US military representing the values of the U.S.A isn’t turning towards the Pacific, because it never really left. All the US military needs to know is whose with them in this pivot.

In other words, in order for the US to pivot towards the Pacific, we don’t have to fight the momentum of changing values to get there. Our values are in the pivot, and they are highlighted in India.

So I guess the guy was basically saying “stuff it”, we are pivoting towards an area of the globe in which our values are the same as India’s and everyone else within the area of the Indo-Pacific Pivot.

For a nation such as the US, who are supposed to be sons of Abraham,  this is quite a big deal. For an area that owns most of our debt, it is a reassurance of the repaying of that debt.

I think this repaying of debt is going to surprize a bunch of people in the US, who thought nukes countered debt (rock over paper).

North Korea first.

.

Japan to order shooting down of N Korea missile

Posted by

0

TOKYO – Japan will order its armed forces to shoot down any North Korean missile headed towards its territory, press reports said Sunday as Pyongyang was reportedly readying to fire one.

If you are a gamer, such as the North and South Korean military seems to be, “headed towards” is a very big statement.

If the missile is flying over Japan and projected to land somewhere on the other side of Japan, then is it actually “heading towards” Japan?

Not really unless there is a failure in its propulsion system. Then Japan should shoot it down, if Korea is unable to destroy the missile itself.

You see the problem with Japan’s order is that force and mass in a distribution of energy are not necessarily related in direction. As the missile flies over Japan the force of gravity is towards Japan, but the mass of the missile is not “headed” towards Japan.

So if the Japanese destroys the missile flying over Japan, unless the propulsion system is not functioning correctly, they are not destroying a missile that is headed towards Japan, they are destroying a missile that is heading somewhere else.

As Gamers, North Korea would be obliged to retaliate against Japan, as Japan’s politicians enter the “game”.

Could it be that Japan’s politicians don’t understand that it’s a game? If they don’t, they should update quickly.

via Japan to order shooting down of N Korea missile.

Historical Military Provocations Prove North and South Korea Tolerance

Posted by

0

In 2010, a South Korean Island known as Yeonpyeong was struck by dozens of North Korean artillery shells. Two South Korean soldiers were killed and more than a dozen persons were injured. The atrocity raised international brows waiting for South Korea to retaliate.

Tolerance between each other, maybe, but I believe the North and South Korea have been gaming each other for years. So the tolerance is between players, but not in the situation each player finds themselves in. Each player has different relationship to the common environment.

China has always had a love for North Korea’s ability to control their people. But after 60 years of war, North Korea hasn’t changed much, but China has. It is this change in China that makes the “proof”  in provocations no longer valid.

China is moving the center of gravity of the Military Industrial Governmental Complex (MIGC), once centered in the US, to Asia. What a MIGC centered in Asia needs most is war.

In a Complex and to get rid of entropy that is inherited in the creation of the weapons of war, war is needed to simplify the environment the old Complex is moving towards and the environment the new Complex is moving away from.

So what China needs first and foremost is a war that will once and for all tranfer the center of gravity to Asia.

But China doesn’t need a war that involves the center gravity of old (USA and its allies).

A war that involves the US or its allies will not help in the new alignment. The alignment needs to be completed with precision and accuracy. War that involves the US or its allies will prove very sloppy.

In fact, because the outcome of war is an unknown,  what China needs now is a war that will not include the US, nor South Korea. What China needs now is a war with North Korea. I believe China is building up towards that goal.

In contrast, what North Korea needs now is help from South Korea to keep China from taking over the Korean peninsula, and creating another Hong Kong in the process.

South Korea is very nationalist and becoming another Hong Kong is something they will not take without a fight.

What North Korea needs now is the skills of a master gamer, and unite the peninsula under the Korean brand. It is yet to be seen if the Kim dynasty will be able to provide those skills.

If I am correct and things are heating up like they have never before, then it will be hard to see what is happening, unless you are a master gamer.

This is something the US military has not shown any skills in of late, and probably should just pass on.

via Kerry Patton: Historical Military Provocations Prove North and South Korea Tolerance.

The U.S. is running out of fancy planes to send to Korea

Posted by

0

It would appear that if U.S. muscle-flexing is to continue, military planners will have to come up with something more creative than dusting off the latest hangar trophies.

If you’re like me, and has watched the Iraq and Afghanistan through the portal called the internet, then the advances in the military hasn’t been in its fancy technology, but by the leadership that is represented by the military.

The leadership represents a total top-down to bottom-up advancement in the mobilization of forces. To me it is highlighted in what took place in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11. If you want symbols to represent the future, then this is it. Benghazi represents the look in the future of the US military.

And the biggest news there was that the US Marines came under fire by Afghan forces, as there were some in the vicinity of the fight, and created another front in the WOT. No wait! that is exactly what didn’t happen.

I am sure any other administration would have quickly brought to bare a Marine expeditionary force on those who took part in the killings, or would have been crucified for not taking action against those people who killed Americans in Libya  not this administration.

As I have said before, Afghanistan represent the center of a religious movement, which is why it is a strategic position for our troops to be in. We have learned how to fight Afghans, and the best way to do that is to let them go back to their country, and bring the 15th century with them.

I mean it doesn’t look like, or the opposition party would have taken advantage of it, that any of the Americans who died could have been saved by an expeditionary force.

They all seemed to have ventured out of the network that was protecting them, and apparently the network really wanted these guys alive. In fact some of those in the networked died also, which is kind of a big deal.

So what has Benghazi to do with Korea, you may ask?  Well the world has now seen the military might that the US military is able to bring to a fight over the skies of Korea, so now where is the leadership?

Well maybe here:

via The U.S. is running out of fancy planes to send to Korea | FP Passport.

Bayesian Strategy

Posted by

1

By the 1980’s, the seams started to show.  When Jack Welch took the helm of General Electric he largely dismantled the strategic planning process, because, as he said at the time,”the books got thicker, the printing got more sophisticated, the covers got harder and the drawing got better,” but none of that improved how the company performed.

Oh he is so right!

Strategy is over process (the process in this case is Observing, Orientation, Decision, and Action or the OODA loop) not inside the process.

Strategy doesn’t really do anything to the process, but it does affect the outcome.

Process has no vision other than the one on the path the process is on–strategy has two vision, one of the process’s past and one of the process’s future.

Combining these two visions, of the same pathway, using strategy creates a process that is being destroyed by the vision of what the process (corporation) was and an new vision is created of the future of the corporation, as the process moves through time.

Guys like Welch are like rats abandoning ship, only they don’t jump over-board, the simply find another ship, heading in another direction.

To guys like Welch, it is far easier to find corporations, like Bain Capital, to act as salvage agents, who either sell off anything worth selling (such as their employees) in a sinking ship or feed more resources into the process of rebuilding the ship at sea.

These increases of new resource by a non-strategic person can give the process new life–strategy can change the path the process is on by destroying resources that are mostly caught up in entropy and releasing them in a new direction.

Process and strategy are both successful paths to follow.

Process is even more successful, if Welch is correct, if the corporations under a leader’s command function with out strategy to begin with.

via Bayesian Strategy | Digital Tonto.