I would always make the case that the US internally resembles Iran right after the 1979 revolution. There's actually a book called "Iranian military in revolution and war", which talks about what happened to the army when Khomeini took over. Lots of potential parallels.
One big difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Iranian regime was "revolutionary"; it rejects the "unfolkish" elements of communism while appealing to the struggles of the masses. It seek to replace the ineffective and corrupt "secular" laws with a legal system that is more "folkish" and is based on more politically acceptable grounds for a jumping board for world revolution.
Khomeini was thinking about spreading the revolution across the Islamic world, as seen by his refusal to make peace in 1982 and his conduct of the hostage crisis in Tehran.
As soon as the regime established itself, it was challenged by a plethora of enemies, and hence, a Revolutionary Guards Corps was established. One thing to remember is that the nascent Khomeinist regime was challenged by all kinds of separatist and revolutionary movements and it took a lot of force to suppress those.
The training and capability of the Revolutionary Guard are very varied. Leadership generally contains some veteran Palestine Fedayeen and such factions, while the lower ranks are populated by barely literate urban lower classes. A chunk of early revolutionary guards were in fact bodyguards for prominent clerics.
Alternatively, you could also say that what's happening in the West with the rise of populism resembles more of Algeria in 1992 at the onset of civil war. Or the line of the Arab Spring, which Algeria serves as a forerunner of what is to come.
But lessons from those conflicts are chilling, to say at least...
The premise that a '249-year' consensus is now broken overlooks a deeply contentious history (e.g., Reconstruction, labor disputes). This feels less like a unique rupture and more like a new, acute phase of an old tension.
Look, Jolani's Syria is what "conservative revolution" turns into in the end. It almost never won. Salazar's Portugal ended up liberalizing after the whole of Portugal turned into a third-world shithold. Franco ended up the same. Finland invented social democracy after the Continuation War and had to live with the Soviet Union throughout their career. Taliban's Afghanistan is kinda working, but are you really suggesting they are a role model?
I do think the libs and left crying about police militarization without mentioning Waco and Ruby Ridge is hypocritical. But crying about Waco and Ruby Ridge without mentioning MOVE bombing or the Battle of Blair Mountain is equally, if not more, hypocritical. At this point, maybe Hobbes was right...
One of the potential future scenarios is transforming into an Iran-style state where you have a revolutionary guard (JSOC, XVIII Airborne Corps, CIA, and State Department rolled into one) enforcing their rule over everyone else to keep the American Empire running, as this is technically the only way to preserve the "traditions". Just look at how they are doing now and tell me it's a good idea.
Alternatively, just go full Middle East/North Africa shithole route where you do some Arab Spring style revolution and get whacked by global capitalism backed regime operating on domestic counterinsurgency, survivors radicalize into indecipherable schizos and get whacked in the following decades (see Algeria after 1992, Syria, and a couples others), special variation is Somalia 1992 where whole country disintegrates and you have an ineffective central government subservient to the global capitalist/imperialist system, a bunch of religious populist revolutionaries (Al-Shabaab/IS-Somalia), slightly more well off local government with autonomy (Puntland), and such.
Finally, there's the hidden history of American COIN since the 2000s that Petraeus really doesn't want you to know: When the French government wanted to do their Afghan withdrawal, the professional parts of the armed force literally started a whole terrorist movement. As much as I despise Foucault and much of the left, they got one thing right: Imperialism is a Boomerang; what you give, you get.
But what's the alternative? If COIN as expeditionary warfare is a bad idea, then what's the alternative? Bury one's head in the sand when the next 9/11 happens? March into Afghanistan and seize the whole country as a "democratized war" would call for?
Look, Saddam's Iraqi army was considerably less capable at causing headaches to US army compared to the Iraqi insurgency, but does it mean the insurgency and civil war actually unlocks some sort of mysterious "5th gen warfare" potential in the Iraqi people?
Similar thing for Iran and Hezbollah, especially the latter as poster child for "5th gen warfare", over the years they steadily built a portfolio of irregular warfare capabilities that don't rely on massive economy that is required for raising a conventional force with jets and high end air defenses. And what it got for them? Getting whacked by F-35s?
The earliest case study for "civil war creates gigachad warrior people" is perhaps Chechnya and the result is indeed "mixed". On one hand the Chechen dissolution of state authority since its independence did create so many weird groups ranging from gangs to regular people cosplaying Red Dawn to nationalist former military officers to crazy jihadis from Afghanistan and this indeed introduces more flexibility than Russian armed forces can handle. After their win in 1996 they kind of doubled down on that with further breakdown of state authority to the point it resembles the "civil war 2.0" scenario you mentioned. Various militant groups, lots of them wackos like the Basayev types, indeed got some pretty crazy capabilities in terms of unconventional warfighting. But the thing is that this all come at the cost of basic industry and other state resources. Without a proper state they can't maintain a coherent national defense strategy or to adapt to the changing world, and in 1998 after their failed "5th generation warfare" to SMO Dagestan they got whacked. I'd still make the edge case that because of Basayev and friends Russian government indeed paid more money to Chechnya and Kadyrov is indeed what the average armed group in Chechyna between 1996-1999 wanted, and with Russian money. But again, they lost against Russian armed forces in 1999.
My "case study" for "civil war 2.0" was actually Somalia after Siad Barre. Even assume "best case scenario", see Finnish Civil War, it's the Socdems that rule after WW2.
"Weird case" of revolution would be Revolutionary France, where a proto-world war broke out because of it.
Regarding the modern Russian state, it's kind of two things rolled into one; you see a lot of posturing towards traditionally right-wing, but you also see a gigaton of Mohammeds everywhere, including the fucking head of the 76th guard airborne division. And just look at the absolute shitshow in Crocus. And there's the Chinese down south. Thinking they are some sort of West savior is the same as Algerian Islamists in the 90s thinking Saudi Arabians are some sort of Islamic paradise and a model to study. (yeah, that's what they believe)
Algeria is about as French as you could get, honestly. Algeria Francais is not "just some words". They are about as French as Kaliningrad. The thing about "French Imperialism" is that it never left technically. The French were what kept the FLN up and running throughout the Cold War and to the 21st century. The whole "France bad" is just what happens when the population of a certain third-world country believes in what the elite says... (usually it won't end well for all involved)
I remember a certain incident that involved a certain someone burning a Quran in Russia, the son of Kadyrov, and some physical altercations. It wasn't pretty... And there was a video of someone kissing the holy Islamic book...
Also are you really that sure about the last of your claims?
But again, the "magical Russian" is a powerful cultural artefact with American thinking.
The Crocus attack does not fit in the Ukrainian modus operandi that relies mostly on paying the local criminal/marginalized population against usually members of the military.
ISKP usually relies more on ranting on TikTok. Also, there was a lesser attack in Dagestan that involved the sons of some local big shot and a synagogue. Also, a jail riot that comes with a pretty nasty throat-slicing. Do they all plan to bug out to Ukraine? And CENTCOM is obsessed with whacking ISKP to the point they are totally willing to work with anyone.
Damn, and I thought your long articles were downers.
I’ll try to write about Hegel and Girl Pop again for the next one
I'm doing my writing 121 narrative essay on you and the rock and the discourse community around left of center mil shit
I would always make the case that the US internally resembles Iran right after the 1979 revolution. There's actually a book called "Iranian military in revolution and war", which talks about what happened to the army when Khomeini took over. Lots of potential parallels.
I actually thought about mentioning Iran, but I figured I made the point I was going for. (also still quite exaggerated by comparison, though)
One big difference between Iran and Iraq is that the Iranian regime was "revolutionary"; it rejects the "unfolkish" elements of communism while appealing to the struggles of the masses. It seek to replace the ineffective and corrupt "secular" laws with a legal system that is more "folkish" and is based on more politically acceptable grounds for a jumping board for world revolution.
Khomeini was thinking about spreading the revolution across the Islamic world, as seen by his refusal to make peace in 1982 and his conduct of the hostage crisis in Tehran.
As soon as the regime established itself, it was challenged by a plethora of enemies, and hence, a Revolutionary Guards Corps was established. One thing to remember is that the nascent Khomeinist regime was challenged by all kinds of separatist and revolutionary movements and it took a lot of force to suppress those.
The training and capability of the Revolutionary Guard are very varied. Leadership generally contains some veteran Palestine Fedayeen and such factions, while the lower ranks are populated by barely literate urban lower classes. A chunk of early revolutionary guards were in fact bodyguards for prominent clerics.
Alternatively, you could also say that what's happening in the West with the rise of populism resembles more of Algeria in 1992 at the onset of civil war. Or the line of the Arab Spring, which Algeria serves as a forerunner of what is to come.
But lessons from those conflicts are chilling, to say at least...
Yeah that was a good album
The premise that a '249-year' consensus is now broken overlooks a deeply contentious history (e.g., Reconstruction, labor disputes). This feels less like a unique rupture and more like a new, acute phase of an old tension.
Look, Jolani's Syria is what "conservative revolution" turns into in the end. It almost never won. Salazar's Portugal ended up liberalizing after the whole of Portugal turned into a third-world shithold. Franco ended up the same. Finland invented social democracy after the Continuation War and had to live with the Soviet Union throughout their career. Taliban's Afghanistan is kinda working, but are you really suggesting they are a role model?
I do think the libs and left crying about police militarization without mentioning Waco and Ruby Ridge is hypocritical. But crying about Waco and Ruby Ridge without mentioning MOVE bombing or the Battle of Blair Mountain is equally, if not more, hypocritical. At this point, maybe Hobbes was right...
One of the potential future scenarios is transforming into an Iran-style state where you have a revolutionary guard (JSOC, XVIII Airborne Corps, CIA, and State Department rolled into one) enforcing their rule over everyone else to keep the American Empire running, as this is technically the only way to preserve the "traditions". Just look at how they are doing now and tell me it's a good idea.
Alternatively, just go full Middle East/North Africa shithole route where you do some Arab Spring style revolution and get whacked by global capitalism backed regime operating on domestic counterinsurgency, survivors radicalize into indecipherable schizos and get whacked in the following decades (see Algeria after 1992, Syria, and a couples others), special variation is Somalia 1992 where whole country disintegrates and you have an ineffective central government subservient to the global capitalist/imperialist system, a bunch of religious populist revolutionaries (Al-Shabaab/IS-Somalia), slightly more well off local government with autonomy (Puntland), and such.
Finally, there's the hidden history of American COIN since the 2000s that Petraeus really doesn't want you to know: When the French government wanted to do their Afghan withdrawal, the professional parts of the armed force literally started a whole terrorist movement. As much as I despise Foucault and much of the left, they got one thing right: Imperialism is a Boomerang; what you give, you get.
But what's the alternative? If COIN as expeditionary warfare is a bad idea, then what's the alternative? Bury one's head in the sand when the next 9/11 happens? March into Afghanistan and seize the whole country as a "democratized war" would call for?
Look, Saddam's Iraqi army was considerably less capable at causing headaches to US army compared to the Iraqi insurgency, but does it mean the insurgency and civil war actually unlocks some sort of mysterious "5th gen warfare" potential in the Iraqi people?
Similar thing for Iran and Hezbollah, especially the latter as poster child for "5th gen warfare", over the years they steadily built a portfolio of irregular warfare capabilities that don't rely on massive economy that is required for raising a conventional force with jets and high end air defenses. And what it got for them? Getting whacked by F-35s?
The earliest case study for "civil war creates gigachad warrior people" is perhaps Chechnya and the result is indeed "mixed". On one hand the Chechen dissolution of state authority since its independence did create so many weird groups ranging from gangs to regular people cosplaying Red Dawn to nationalist former military officers to crazy jihadis from Afghanistan and this indeed introduces more flexibility than Russian armed forces can handle. After their win in 1996 they kind of doubled down on that with further breakdown of state authority to the point it resembles the "civil war 2.0" scenario you mentioned. Various militant groups, lots of them wackos like the Basayev types, indeed got some pretty crazy capabilities in terms of unconventional warfighting. But the thing is that this all come at the cost of basic industry and other state resources. Without a proper state they can't maintain a coherent national defense strategy or to adapt to the changing world, and in 1998 after their failed "5th generation warfare" to SMO Dagestan they got whacked. I'd still make the edge case that because of Basayev and friends Russian government indeed paid more money to Chechnya and Kadyrov is indeed what the average armed group in Chechyna between 1996-1999 wanted, and with Russian money. But again, they lost against Russian armed forces in 1999.
My "case study" for "civil war 2.0" was actually Somalia after Siad Barre. Even assume "best case scenario", see Finnish Civil War, it's the Socdems that rule after WW2.
"Weird case" of revolution would be Revolutionary France, where a proto-world war broke out because of it.
Regarding the modern Russian state, it's kind of two things rolled into one; you see a lot of posturing towards traditionally right-wing, but you also see a gigaton of Mohammeds everywhere, including the fucking head of the 76th guard airborne division. And just look at the absolute shitshow in Crocus. And there's the Chinese down south. Thinking they are some sort of West savior is the same as Algerian Islamists in the 90s thinking Saudi Arabians are some sort of Islamic paradise and a model to study. (yeah, that's what they believe)
Algeria is about as French as you could get, honestly. Algeria Francais is not "just some words". They are about as French as Kaliningrad. The thing about "French Imperialism" is that it never left technically. The French were what kept the FLN up and running throughout the Cold War and to the 21st century. The whole "France bad" is just what happens when the population of a certain third-world country believes in what the elite says... (usually it won't end well for all involved)
I remember a certain incident that involved a certain someone burning a Quran in Russia, the son of Kadyrov, and some physical altercations. It wasn't pretty... And there was a video of someone kissing the holy Islamic book...
Also are you really that sure about the last of your claims?
But again, the "magical Russian" is a powerful cultural artefact with American thinking.
The Crocus attack does not fit in the Ukrainian modus operandi that relies mostly on paying the local criminal/marginalized population against usually members of the military.
ISKP usually relies more on ranting on TikTok. Also, there was a lesser attack in Dagestan that involved the sons of some local big shot and a synagogue. Also, a jail riot that comes with a pretty nasty throat-slicing. Do they all plan to bug out to Ukraine? And CENTCOM is obsessed with whacking ISKP to the point they are totally willing to work with anyone.