- Domestic (922)
- Foreign Policy and International (330)
- Uncategorized (69)
- Change Requires Change Agents & Islam Hasn’t Any February 14, 2017
- Changing the Rules February 11, 2017
- Acknowledging Our Pertinent History February 9, 2017
- The Immorality of Not Using Our Most Productive Weapons in War February 8, 2017
- Strengthening our Conventional Military February 5, 2017
Author Archives: Alex Scipio
In every group of people – nation, religion, Rotary Club, PTA, etc. – three major subgroups exist: Leaders/Activists, Followers and Change Agents. The largest group, Followers, as expected by the definition, is too apathetic to support outright either the Leaders or the Change Agents, but implicitly is supportive of the Leaders by not joining the Change Agents, by not ruffling any feathers and by letting the Leader/Activist cohort take the group wherever it wants.
This is pretty pedestrian stuff: Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way.
In islam these three groups can be defined as:
- Leaders/Activists: ISIS, Al Qaeda,
When one takes the long look of history, two errors of Western Civilization stand out above all others.
The first, US entry into WW1, birthed the USSR, Weimar Republic, NAZIs, WW2 ETO, Red China, Cold War, Korea & Vietnam, and Left hundreds of millions dead.
The second, Kuwait, with a familial epilogue of Afghanistan & Iraq, destroyed S Asia & the Middle East, created the largest immigration outside of war in human history and is in the process of destroying European civilization and attacking America.
Both of these mistakes were by individuals insisting on defining the roles of other nations […]
It is a truism that the window breakers and car-fire setters are ignorant of history. Too many of us are. The Right, having allowed the Left to take academia in full-frontal assault in the 1960s, its ramparts undefended by adults who ought to have known better, bears more than a bit of blame for this.
Nonetheless, the history that adults find it tiring that the Left refuses to grasp (“Progressive” policies that have been tried in every geography, culture and time always degrade, rather than improve, human lives) is only half, and not the most important half, of the history […]
The purpose of war is to alter the behavior of an opponent. The fewer lives lost in doing so the better. One not only should strive to lose as few of one’s own lives as possible, one should strive to kill as few of the enemy as necessary to achieve the goal of altering his behavior, and to ensure a post-war peace. The latter may require killing many more of the enemy than the former, which was why Eisenhower pursued his “Broad Front” strategy rather than just race to Berlin as Patton wanted. Such a “Broad Front” would […]
This is an interesting column on conventional military structure and results. It is at best tangential to the discussion that must take place.
There’s a larger problem, and that is a nation for the first time in history choosing the sacrifice of its soldiers over the use of its most productive weapons. Ike announced his policy of “Massive Retaliation” and kept us out of war his entire time in office. An acquaintance at the National War College states bluntly that MR is the only reason Parisians don’t speak Russian today.
Re-adopting MR will reduce our defense budgets, rid […]