BlackHat's Journal: Automated autonomy/ Playing on his mind

Let's see todays theme is...Throwing the Wolf[owitz] out of the sled to distract the chasing wolves. Perle before swine? [no pork surely!] Interesting developments aside, I continue with this notions on/about/of nations thingie, news and toon.

Quote:
A people's war in civilised Europe is a phenomenon of the nineteenth century. It has its advocates and its opponents: the latter either considering it in a political sense as a revolutionary means, a state of anarchy declared lawful, which is as dangerous as a foreign enemy to social order at home; or on military grounds, conceiving that the result is not commensurate with the expenditure of the nation's strength.

The first point does not concern us here, for we look upon a people's war merely as a means of fighting, therefore, in its connection with the enemy; but with regard to the latter point, we must observe that a people's war in general is to be regarded as a consequence of the outburst which the military element in our day has made through its old formal limits; as an expansion and strengthening of the whole fermentation-process which we call war. The requisition system, the immense increase in the size of armies by means of that system, and the general liability to military service, the employment of militia, are all things which lie in the same direction, if we make the limited military system of former days our starting-point; and the levee en masse, or arming of the people, now lies also in the same direction.

If the first named of these new aids to war are the natural and necessary consequences of barriers thrown down; and if they have so enormously increased the power of those who first used them, that the enemy has been carried along in the current, and obliged to adopt them likewise, this will be the case also with people-wars. In the generality of cases, the people who make judicious use of this means will gain a proportionate superiority over those who despise its use. If this be so, then the only question is whether this modern intensification of the military element is, upon the whole, salutary for the interests of humanity or otherwise -- a question which it would be about as easy to answer as the question of war itself -- we leave both to philosophers. But the opinion may be advanced, that the resources swallowed up in people's wars might be more profitably employed, if used in providing other military means; no very deep investigation, however, is necessary to be convinced that these resources are for the most part not disposable, and cannot be utilised in an arbitrary manner at pleasure. One essential part, that is the moral element, is not called into existence until this kind of employment for it arises.

We therefore do not ask again: how much does the resistance which the whole nation in arms is capable of making, cost that nation? but we ask: what is the effect which such a resistance can produce? What are its conditions, and how is it to be used?

It follows from the very nature of the thing that defensive means thus widely dispersed, are not suited to great blows requiring concentrated action in time and space. Its operation, like the process of evaporation in physical nature, is according to the surface. The greater that surface and the greater the contact with the enemy's army, consequently the more that army spreads itself out, so much the greater will be the effects of arming the nation. Like a slow gradual heat, it destroys the foundations of the enemy's army. As it requires time to produce its effects, therefore whilst the hostile elements are working on each other, there is a state of tension which either gradually wears out if the people's war is extinguished at some points, and burns slowly away at others, or leads to a crisis, if the flames of this general conflagration envelop the enemy's army, and compel it to evacuate the country to save itself from utter destruction.

In order that this result should be produced by a national war alone, we must suppose either a surface-extent of the dominions invaded, exceeding that of any country in Europe, except Russia, or suppose a disproportion between the strength of the invading army and the extent of the country, such as never occurs in reality. Therefore, to avoid following a phantom, we must imagine a people-war always in combination with a war carried on by a regular army, and both carried on according to a plan embracing the operations of the whole.

The conditions under which alone the people's war can become effective are the following:

1 That the war is carried on in the heart of the country.
2 That it cannot be decided by a single catastrophe.
3 That the theatre of war embraces a considerable extent of country.
4 That the national character is favourable to the measure.
5 That the country is of a broken and difficult nature; either from being mountainous, or by reason of woods and marshes, or from the peculiar mode of cultivation in use.

Whether the population is dense or otherwise, is of little consequence, as there is less likelihood of a want of men than of anything else. Whether the inhabitants are rich or poor is also a point by no means decisive, at least it should not be; but it must be admitted that a poor population accustomed to hard work and privations usually shows itself more vigorous and better suited for war. ...

The compulsion which we must use towards our enemy will be regulated by the proportions of our own and his political demands. In so far as these are mutually known they will give the measure of the mutual efforts; but they are not always quite so evident, and this may be a first ground of difference in the means adopted by each.

The situation and relations of the states are not like each other; this may become a second cause.

The strength of will, the character and capabilities of the governments are as little like; this is a third cause.

These three elements cause an uncertainty in the calculation of the amount of resistance to be expected, consequently an uncertainty as to the amount of means to be applied and the object to be chosen.

As in war the want of sufficient exertion may result not only in failure but in positive harm, therefore, the two sides respectively seek to outstrip each other, which produces a reciprocal action.

This might lead to the utmost extremity of exertion, if it were possible to define such a point. But then regard for the amount of the political demands would be lost, the means would lose all relation to the end, and in most cases this aim at an extreme effort would be wrecked by the opposing weight of forces within itself.

In this manner, he who undertakes war is brought back again into a middle course, in which he acts to a certain extent upon the principle of only applying so much force and aiming at such an object in war as is just sufficient for the attainment of its political object. To make this principle practicable he must renounce every absolute necessity of result, and throw out of the calculation remote contingencies.

Here, therefore, the action of the mind leaves the province of science, strictly speaking, of logic and mathematics, and becomes in the widest sense of the term an art, that is, skill in discriminating, by the tact of judgement among an infinite multitude of objects and relations, that which is the most important and decisive. This tact of judgement consists unquestionably more or less in some intuitive comparison of things and relations by which the remote and unimportant are more quickly set aside, and the more immediate and important are sooner discovered than they could be by strictly logical deduction.

In order to ascertain the real scale of the means which we must put forth for war, we must think over the political object both on our own side and on the enemy's side; we must consider the power and position of the enemy's state as well as of our own, the character of his government and of his people, and the capacities of both, and all that again on our own side, and the political connections of other states, and the effect which the war will produce on those states. That the determination of these diverse circumstances and their diverse connections with each other is an immense problem, that it is the true flash of genius which discovers here in a moment what is right, and that it would be quite out of the question to become master of the complexity merely by a methodical study, it is easy to conceive.

In this sense Bonaparte was quite right when he said that it would be a problem in algebra before which a Newton might stand aghast. --Carl von Clausewitz

I disagree on many points above and in particular the last point. Newton was a light weight and a flake. He gets the rep' cuz' First Post counted then, as now, jack!

No system is too complex and no chain of data is too long. We have the tools and skills to deal with it. However, quibbles are just that. He touches above on the central question of what it means to be a national power. Moreover he shows what a society must do to its self to reach for those utopian goals. It's not very pretty and blood filled the streets more often than not.

As I mentioned before, in previous JE threads, this is not a scholastic nor an educational experience. I'm not trying to teach, instruct or put forward any single view or system of analysis. There will be no test and you need not read all these quotes to follow along.

Many of you already have far more knowledge than I, on the[most] subjects I present, and not a small number of you younger readers will likely be at that point in the future [I got code and shit to do]. Therefore, I have been careful to restrict any overall points to an illustration 'of what has come before' and 'how we got to where we are today'. Each of the thinkers presented, so far, have been selected to give each camp [amorphous as they may be] their best of show. [and] Even if they end up sounding like nutters from todays viewpoint. Yeah, I'm looking at you Mr. Paine.

I have about four or five more quotes I'd like to share with you before I make an Index for "Notions On Nations" and move on to a new theme. One is a synopsis of most of the events already touched on. The others help shows when and why the thinking, again, moved into a new phase. Until then.

News with a global perspective:
66 lower ranks let out. Simon Mann, the leader of the failed Equatorial Guinea coup attempt that led to the arrest of Sir Mark Thatcher, was last night facing up to 10 years in jail after being found guilty of attempting to possess dangerous weapons by a court in Zimbabwe. The Old Etonian and former SAS officer, who was arrested on the tarmac at Harare airport in March along with a plane full of mercenaries while waiting for a delivery of weapons, will be sentenced next month. The latest twist in the saga comes at the end of an extraordinary week in which the attempted coup in a forgotten but oil rich corner of West Africa has sucked in several establishment figures and a rightwing coterie of businessmen, including Sir Mark, oil millionaire Ely Calil and Lord Archer. No the twist may be Anzar and Bush clan connections. Connections are all the rage it seems. Snippets only, as of yet. BBC's item. Popcorn!!!

International Economic-Warfare & Old [white]Boys Network gets new powers. US President George W Bush has given the CIA director new powers, including some control over other intelligence agencies, the White House says. He signed executive orders that would also launch a national counter-terrorism centre. Spokesman Scott McClellan said the CIA chief would have temporary authority to act as national intelligence director. But the orders do not create the post itself - a key recommendation by the independent 9/11 commission. The blessings of the sainted Brothers Dullas were assured by attaching the severed hand of a Honduran child to the document.

But why protest? Aren't they bringing peace to Iraq?

The old man speaks. Prompt action is needed to fund pensions for the ageing US population, the head of Federal Reserve has said. Alan Greenspan told a Fed-sponsored symposium that workers face the prospect of either higher taxes or a raised retirement age. The age was picked, with care [by Hindenburg & Co.], to make sure no one [or at least damn few] was still living to collect. Modern medical wonders ruined that whole game. Any guess as to where the pressure is applied now as a result? How easy is it to change the talking point from; "why does your government actively restrict medical coverage based on its own political criteria?" to "does everyone need medical coverage?" or on to "why should the government provide or be involved in health care at all?" Food and shelter is never to be thought of as having any impact on the health of the populus, on pain of death, by order of the Stone Cutters and Followers of Mammon Plc.

OYAITJ:
43918 : First step on the whitewash cycle --Intelligence chief John Scarlett today told the Hutton inquiry into Dr Kelly's death he had known immediately that Andrew Gilligan's BBC report alleging the dossier on Iraq weapons had been "sexed up" by Downing Street was "completely untrue". Mr Scarlett, the chairman of the joint intelligence committee, said he had been sitting at his desk on the morning of May 29 when the Radio 4 Today programme broadcast the claim that the deployment of weapons within 45 minutes had been inserted by Downing Street. He said he had been alerted to the allegations by a No 10 press officer and had been "a bit surprised to hear of them". , Olga's dream of being the Belle of Al-Belle shattered-- Foreign women will be banned from performing belly dancing in Egypt, the state newspaper al-Gomhouriya reports. The ruling by the minister for labour and immigration will prevent non-Egyptians from getting belly dancing licences from 1 January, says the newspaper. Egyptian belly dancers are thought to have pushed for the ruling to prevent foreign dancers from taking their work. and a few more bits.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of Colin Powell talking to the press. Overlayed speech bubble has him singing; "Put on a gown that touches the ground/ Hah-woo/ Float on a river forever and ever/ Emily/ There is no other day/ Let's try it another way/ You'll lose your mind and play/ Free games for may/ See Emily play/". Inset oval with a video grab of 'The Larch' from Monty Python:TS.