[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Moderator please lock (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/12/2012 11:01:48 AM EDT
| ... |
|
I know when to go out And when to stay in Get things done I catch a paper boy But things don't really change I'm standing in the wind But I never wave bye-bye But I try I try There's no sign of life It's just the power to charm I'm lying in the rain But I never wave bye-bye But I try I try Never gonna fall for Modern war walks beside me Modern war walks on by Modern war gets me to the Church on Time Church on Time terrifies me Church on Time makes me party Church on Time puts my trust in God and Man God and Man no confessions God and Man no religion God and Man don't believe In Modern war |
|
We can start by what it is not. It is not asymmetric. Nearly all warfare is asymmetric. Very rarely will two completely analog militaries met to duke it out. With that out of the way.... In modern contexts, there is a "Muslim," "Chinese" and I'd even say "Latin American" way of war that is very different than ours. As the world goes multipolar, these difference will matter. What constitutes "strategic" warfare has morphed away from nukes to nukes plus cyber, ISR, Space, and Missile defense, and often requires the General Purpose and Special Operations forces to execute. The 21st century will likely remain free of major power kinetic war for the first part, but proxy wars, civil wars masking proxy wars, and mass movement ethnic warfare will rise. This is concurrent with, or perhaps because of the slow decrease in the size of militaries due to their cost. The weakness of the American military is nearly entirely mental. Until the Baby Boomer generation is out of uniform and out of the bureaucracy, I think we'll be less flexible and supple than we can be. |
|
Quoted: We can start by what it is not. It is not asymmetric. Nearly all warfare is asymmetric. Very rarely will two completely analog militaries met to duke it out. With that out of the way.... In modern contexts, there is a "Muslim," "Chinese" and I'd even say "Latin American" way of war that is very different than ours. As the world goes multipolar, these difference will matter. What constitutes "strategic" warfare has morphed away from nukes to nukes plus cyber, ISR, Space, and Missile defense, and often requires the General Purpose and Special Operations forces to execute. The 21st century will likely remain free of major power kinetic war for the first part, but proxy wars, civil wars masking proxy wars, and mass movement ethnic warfare will rise. This is concurrent with, or perhaps because of the slow decrease in the size of militaries due to their cost. The weakness of the American military is nearly entirely mental. Until the Baby Boomer generation is out of uniform and out of the bureaucracy, I think we'll be less flexible and supple than we can be. No. Modern Warfare is a video game damnit.  |
|
Quoted:
We can start by what it is not. It is not asymmetric. Nearly all warfare is asymmetric. Very rarely will two completely analog militaries met to duke it out. With that out of the way.... In modern contexts, there is a "Muslim," "Chinese" and I'd even say "Latin American" way of war that is very different than ours. As the world goes multipolar, these difference will matter. What constitutes "strategic" warfare has morphed away from nukes to nukes plus cyber, ISR, Space, and Missile defense, and often requires the General Purpose and Special Operations forces to execute. The 21st century will likely remain free of major power kinetic war for the first part, but proxy wars, civil wars masking proxy wars, and mass movement ethnic warfare will rise. This is concurrent with, or perhaps because of the slow decrease in the size of militaries due to their cost. The weakness of the American military is nearly entirely mental. Until the Baby Boomer generation is out of uniform and out of the bureaucracy, I think we'll be less flexible and supple than we can be. What is the "Muslim" way of war? |
|
Quoted:
What is the "Muslim" way of war? Short answer would be, "It depends."  Its a pretty broad question, and asking it in certain circles is to invite charges of racism. FWIW, there is an African way of war, as well.
However, Islam is a way of life for a billion people, even those who aren't that religious still are influenced by Muslim values/virtues. I think the depends part then rests upon some pretty significant cultural elements. I would say that among the major civilizations, the Muslim civilization has retained a link between religion and the state, thus the Army more than anyone else. For example, the Pakistani Army, which is a pretty secularized beast, thinks nothing of referring to its KIA as "shaheed." |
|
Greatest game franchise in my opinion. Join the online sensation...
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_119/1253576_Official_MW3_CLAN_FOR_XBOX__Mostly_ARFCOM_Members___Clan_Operations_Active_.html |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is the "Muslim" way of war? Short answer would be, "It depends." Its a pretty broad question, and asking it in certain circles is to invite charges of racism. FWIW, there is an African way of war, as well.
However, Islam is a way of life for a billion people, even those who aren't that religious still are influenced by Muslim values/virtues. I think the depends part then rests upon some pretty significant cultural elements. I would say that among the major civilizations, the Muslim civilization has retained a link between religion and the state, thus the Army more than anyone else. For example, the Pakistani Army, which is a pretty secularized beast, thinks nothing of referring to its KIA as "shaheed." We also refer to our KIA as "shaheed". Makes it easier for the public to accept them. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: And you were searching for what exactly when you "stumbled upon" that and saved it "on a lark"?Quoted: http://www.b3talent.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/.pond/Arabian_Nights_dancers.jpg.w300h400.jpgQuoted: What is the "Muslim" way of war? Speed  No save. I was searching Arabian Nights...for some reason I thought I could find a pic of a sortie of Arabians on flying carpets, but, that works too Speed |
|
Quoted:
We also refer to our KIA as "shaheed". Makes it easier for the public to accept them. Try doing that in the Netherlands.  See my point?
More than martyrs for Turkey, the perception is they were martyrs in a holy struggle of which Turkey is but a tool for Allah. Another case in point, plenty of religion/sect based military and non-state-actor armed groups within the Muslim world. When I say "Lebanese Hezbollah" you think "Shia." When I say "Saudi National Guard" you think "Ikhwan." This cultural/religious nature to the military force within much of the Muslim world changes the way it operates, depending on the national culture (which was shaped by Islam, so its a little chicken/egg.) |
|
Quoted:
I don't think there's a uniform, single, Muslim way of war. Albania is -mostly- Muslim, so is Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kazakhstan -eh kinda-, Pakistan. They are also completely distinct from each other. But I would say that all of these nations view war and the military and the state in fundamentally different terms then their non-Muslim neighbors. That there is great variation within the group doesn't mean that there isn't comparative value in judging that to non-Muslim neighbors. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
We also refer to our KIA as "shaheed". Makes it easier for the public to accept them. Try doing that in the Netherlands. See my point?
More than martyrs for Turkey, the perception is they were martyrs in a holy struggle of which Turkey is but a tool for Allah. Another case in point, plenty of religion/sect based military and non-state-actor armed groups within the Muslim world. When I say "Lebanese Hezbollah" you think "Shia." When I say "Saudi National Guard" you think "Ikhwan." This cultural/religious nature to the military force within much of the Muslim world changes the way it operates, depending on the national culture (which was shaped by Islam, so its a little chicken/egg.) The part in red is not true.  There's no public justification given in such lines. There's no such public opinion, few and far between individuals may think so, but for the most part the Turkish public don't have that feudal stance on the nature of their republic.
But your other points are worth pondering. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
We can start by what it is not. It is not asymmetric. Nearly all warfare is asymmetric. Very rarely will two completely analog militaries met to duke it out. With that out of the way.... In modern contexts, there is a "Muslim," "Chinese" and I'd even say "Latin American" way of war that is very different than ours. As the world goes multipolar, these difference will matter. What constitutes "strategic" warfare has morphed away from nukes to nukes plus cyber, ISR, Space, and Missile defense, and often requires the General Purpose and Special Operations forces to execute. The 21st century will likely remain free of major power kinetic war for the first part, but proxy wars, civil wars masking proxy wars, and mass movement ethnic warfare will rise. This is concurrent with, or perhaps because of the slow decrease in the size of militaries due to their cost. The weakness of the American military is nearly entirely mental. Until the Baby Boomer generation is out of uniform and out of the bureaucracy, I think we'll be less flexible and supple than we can be. What is the "Muslim" way of war? Allah guides the bullets |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think there's a uniform, single, Muslim way of war. Albania is -mostly- Muslim, so is Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kazakhstan -eh kinda-, Pakistan. They are also completely distinct from each other. But I would say that all of these nations view war and the military and the state in fundamentally different terms then their non-Muslim neighbors. That there is great variation within the group doesn't mean that there isn't comparative value in judging that to non-Muslim neighbors. You would be wrong that thinking the overwhelmingly secular and almost atheistic but "culturally" Muslim Kazakhstan shares fundamental views about the nature of their militaries and the role of martial power in their lives in any similar way with a Pakistani or an Albanian or a Bosnian or a Turk. Can you discern the views of an Armenian on those matters and an Uzbek? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We can start by what it is not. It is not asymmetric. Nearly all warfare is asymmetric. Very rarely will two completely analog militaries met to duke it out. With that out of the way.... In modern contexts, there is a "Muslim," "Chinese" and I'd even say "Latin American" way of war that is very different than ours. As the world goes multipolar, these difference will matter. What constitutes "strategic" warfare has morphed away from nukes to nukes plus cyber, ISR, Space, and Missile defense, and often requires the General Purpose and Special Operations forces to execute. The 21st century will likely remain free of major power kinetic war for the first part, but proxy wars, civil wars masking proxy wars, and mass movement ethnic warfare will rise. This is concurrent with, or perhaps because of the slow decrease in the size of militaries due to their cost. The weakness of the American military is nearly entirely mental. Until the Baby Boomer generation is out of uniform and out of the bureaucracy, I think we'll be less flexible and supple than we can be. What is the "Muslim" way of war? Allah guides the bullets I've seen a lot of Turks lean into the scopes of Accuracy International rifles and adjust their scopes according to the wind and distance. 
|
|
Quoted:
The part in red is not true. There's no public justification given in such lines. There's no such public opinion, few and far between individuals may think so, but for the most part the Turkish public don't have that feudal stance on the nature of their republic.
But your other points are worth pondering. Then why use a religious term at all, especially in a place like Turkey? Its not just Turkey, What kind of theocracy would have this stanza in its National Anthem... Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The part in red is not true. There's no public justification given in such lines. There's no such public opinion, few and far between individuals may think so, but for the most part the Turkish public don't have that feudal stance on the nature of their republic.
But your other points are worth pondering. Then why use a religious term at all, especially in a place like Turkey? Its not just Turkey, What kind of theocracy would have this stanza in its National Anthem... Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation! Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation. Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: "In God is our trust." I don't care NO PRAYERS AT PUBLIC SCHOOLS DOMMOT 
|
|
Quoted:
Then why use a religious term at all, especially in a place like Turkey? Its not just Turkey, What kind of theocracy would have this stanza in its National Anthem... There's a very fine but important difference between a theocracy claiming to have a "god" given right to power and anyone opposing it are actually enemies of religion and a secular state claiming that the dead's death was justified because they're killed by lawless people. Martyrdom for Muslims can be reached in many ways, not all are dead in the face of the enemies of religion. If someone is murdered, he is a martyr too. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We can start by what it is not. It is not asymmetric. Nearly all warfare is asymmetric. Very rarely will two completely analog militaries met to duke it out. With that out of the way.... In modern contexts, there is a "Muslim," "Chinese" and I'd even say "Latin American" way of war that is very different than ours. As the world goes multipolar, these difference will matter. What constitutes "strategic" warfare has morphed away from nukes to nukes plus cyber, ISR, Space, and Missile defense, and often requires the General Purpose and Special Operations forces to execute. The 21st century will likely remain free of major power kinetic war for the first part, but proxy wars, civil wars masking proxy wars, and mass movement ethnic warfare will rise. This is concurrent with, or perhaps because of the slow decrease in the size of militaries due to their cost. The weakness of the American military is nearly entirely mental. Until the Baby Boomer generation is out of uniform and out of the bureaucracy, I think we'll be less flexible and supple than we can be. What is the "Muslim" way of war? Allah guides the bullets I've seen a lot of Turks lean into the scopes of Accuracy International rifles and adjust their scopes according to the wind and distance. Well there are Christians in Turkey too 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think there's a uniform, single, Muslim way of war. Albania is -mostly- Muslim, so is Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kazakhstan -eh kinda-, Pakistan. They are also completely distinct from each other. But I would say that all of these nations view war and the military and the state in fundamentally different terms then their non-Muslim neighbors. That there is great variation within the group doesn't mean that there isn't comparative value in judging that to non-Muslim neighbors. You would be wrong that thinking the overwhelmingly secular and almost atheistic but "culturally" Muslim Kazakhstan shares fundamental views about the nature of their militaries and the role of martial power in their lives in any similar way with a Pakistani or an Albanian or a Bosnian or a Turk. Can you discern the views of an Armenian on those matters and an Uzbek? Central Asia, even more than the Pacific Muslim states, are an outlier because the Soviet influence, and the Soviet influence authoritarianism that followed. I would argue that the average Kazakh, if pressed, would care more about a Uiyger than a Tibetean, if not so much as to take Chinese money for natural gas. I could also make an argument that these nations are still being built, have yet to have two or three generations of post-Soviet soldiers and officers, and thus are not the most representative of Islam. Malaysia and Indonesia would be better examples for your argument, though in their specific cases, I'd say their "Muslimness" manifests itself at the strategic, versus operational or tactical levels. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then why use a religious term at all, especially in a place like Turkey? Its not just Turkey, What kind of theocracy would have this stanza in its National Anthem... There's a very fine but important difference between a theocracy claiming to have a "god" given right to power and anyone opposing it are actually enemies of religion and a secular state claiming that the dead's death was justified because they're killed by lawless people. Martyrdom for Muslims can be reached in many ways, not all are dead in the face of the enemies of religion. If someone is murdered, he is a martyr too. I'd say that's a cultural artifact of Islam without analog in the West, certainly, and I'd wager in plenty of non-Western places as well. This isn't a bad thing, in any event. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We can start by what it is not. It is not asymmetric. Nearly all warfare is asymmetric. Very rarely will two completely analog militaries met to duke it out. With that out of the way.... In modern contexts, there is a "Muslim," "Chinese" and I'd even say "Latin American" way of war that is very different than ours. As the world goes multipolar, these difference will matter. What constitutes "strategic" warfare has morphed away from nukes to nukes plus cyber, ISR, Space, and Missile defense, and often requires the General Purpose and Special Operations forces to execute. The 21st century will likely remain free of major power kinetic war for the first part, but proxy wars, civil wars masking proxy wars, and mass movement ethnic warfare will rise. This is concurrent with, or perhaps because of the slow decrease in the size of militaries due to their cost. The weakness of the American military is nearly entirely mental. Until the Baby Boomer generation is out of uniform and out of the bureaucracy, I think we'll be less flexible and supple than we can be. What is the "Muslim" way of war? Allah guides the bullets I've seen a lot of Turks lean into the scopes of Accuracy International rifles and adjust their scopes according to the wind and distance. Well there are Christians in Turkey too We decided in an earlier thread that all two of them sell rugs for a living in Istanbul.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a very encouraging prediction.
In the 21st century, I think mercenaries and militias will make a comeback for the same operational and environmental reasons they were popular in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Depends on your business, I suppose. The Leviathans that ensured public order for a century are retreating. Look at Detroit. How authority fails is an interesting side discussion. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think there's a uniform, single, Muslim way of war. Albania is -mostly- Muslim, so is Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kazakhstan -eh kinda-, Pakistan. They are also completely distinct from each other. But I would say that all of these nations view war and the military and the state in fundamentally different terms then their non-Muslim neighbors. That there is great variation within the group doesn't mean that there isn't comparative value in judging that to non-Muslim neighbors. You would be wrong that thinking the overwhelmingly secular and almost atheistic but "culturally" Muslim Kazakhstan shares fundamental views about the nature of their militaries and the role of martial power in their lives in any similar way with a Pakistani or an Albanian or a Bosnian or a Turk. Can you discern the views of an Armenian on those matters and an Uzbek? Central Asia, even more than the Pacific Muslim states, are an outlier because the Soviet influence, and the Soviet influence authoritarianism that followed. I would argue that the average Kazakh, if pressed, would care more about a Uiyger than a Tibetean, if not so much as to take Chinese money for natural gas. I could also make an argument that these nations are still being built, have yet to have two or three generations of post-Soviet soldiers and officers, and thus are not the most representative of Islam. Malaysia and Indonesia would be better examples for your argument, though in their specific cases, I'd say their "Muslimness" manifests itself at the strategic, versus operational or tactical levels. Then we're arguing a moot point. How a public perceives war and it's warfighters is determined by the sum of it's culture which religion is a part. If tomorrow say, Christians in India banded together and fought against the Hindus, they too would sing an equivalent of "Onward Christians Soldiers" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a very encouraging prediction.
In the 21st century, I think mercenaries and militias will make a comeback for the same operational and environmental reasons they were popular in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Mercs have worked well in many conflicts. Hell, they did better in Sierra Leone than the UN ever did. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a very encouraging prediction.
In the 21st century, I think mercenaries and militias will make a comeback for the same operational and environmental reasons they were popular in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Depends on your business, I suppose. The Leviathans that ensured public order for a century are retreating. Look at Detroit. How authority fails is an interesting side discussion. There's absolutely no way authorities will fail in the next century. They have access to actual pan-opticon style technology now. I predict central authorities will be much more powerful in the coming century. There will be fever micro-states stirring shit and more central authorities ruling over competing empires. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a very encouraging prediction.
In the 21st century, I think mercenaries and militias will make a comeback for the same operational and environmental reasons they were popular in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Mercs have worked well in many conflicts. Hell, they did better in Sierra Leone than the UN ever did. If there is a hope for UN Peacekeeping, it is mercenaries. That is, if UN operations were designed to be successful. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a very encouraging prediction.
In the 21st century, I think mercenaries and militias will make a comeback for the same operational and environmental reasons they were popular in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Depends on your business, I suppose. The Leviathans that ensured public order for a century are retreating. Look at Detroit. How authority fails is an interesting side discussion. There's absolutely no way authorities will fail in the next century. They have access to actual pan-opticon style technology now. I predict central authorities will be much more powerful in the coming century. There will be fever micro-states stirring shit and more central authorities ruling over competing empires. Assuming they can pay for it, and that people who can pay taxes will stay in such environments. |
|
Quoted:
Then we're arguing a moot point. How a public perceives war and it's warfighters is determined by the sum of it's culture which religion is a part. If tomorrow say, Christians in India banded together and fought against the Hindus, they too would sing an equivalent of "Onward Christians Soldiers" We're arguing that different religious and ethnic groups view warfare differently. I honestly don't see the controversy. LH sees warfare differently than I do, and I see it differently than a PLAN officer. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a very encouraging prediction.
In the 21st century, I think mercenaries and militias will make a comeback for the same operational and environmental reasons they were popular in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Mercs have worked well in many conflicts. Hell, they did better in Sierra Leone than the UN ever did. If there is a hope for UN Peacekeeping, it is mercenaries. That is, if UN operations were designed to be successful. I always thought UN peacekeepers as a way to BORE the fighting sides until they just gave up and went home.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not a very encouraging prediction.
In the 21st century, I think mercenaries and militias will make a comeback for the same operational and environmental reasons they were popular in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries. Depends on your business, I suppose. The Leviathans that ensured public order for a century are retreating. Look at Detroit. How authority fails is an interesting side discussion. There's absolutely no way authorities will fail in the next century. They have access to actual pan-opticon style technology now. I predict central authorities will be much more powerful in the coming century. There will be fever micro-states stirring shit and more central authorities ruling over competing empires. Assuming they can pay for it, and that people who can pay taxes will stay in such environments. LOL you're such a democrat, if they can't pay for it, you just take their shit.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Then we're arguing a moot point. How a public perceives war and it's warfighters is determined by the sum of it's culture which religion is a part. If tomorrow say, Christians in India banded together and fought against the Hindus, they too would sing an equivalent of "Onward Christians Soldiers" We're arguing that different religious and ethnic groups view warfare differently. I honestly don't see the controversy. LH sees warfare differently than I do, and I see it differently than a PLAN officer. No controversy but I don't see the commonality between many different Muslim nations, especially when they're of different races. You could argue that modern Arabs -regardless of their religion- have very lackluster attitudes towards these matters though, I'd agree with that. |