Undermining the Military In a Time of War

Divisive, subversive nasty policy-shaking attitudes are being made by open sexualists towards our military in a time when our energy should be spent on fighting the enemy.

Open sexualists?

Sexual morality is a cause for another weblog, but I tell you the truth: I don't care what you do in the bedroom. Nobody who doesn't have a signed obligation to God has an obligation for anything except perhaps whatever obligation they signed to our military in this instance. If you obligation is to fight and die for my country than perhaps what is best is not having the nasty distractions. Of course that's just me saying it. I'm not a student of history or anything. Right. I am.

The presence of open homosexuals (and women) in the close confines of ships or military units opens the possibility that eros will be unleashed into an environment based on philia, creating friction and corroding the very source of military excellence itself. It does so by undermining the non-sexual bonding essential to unit cohesion as described by Gray. Unlike philia, eros is sexual, and therefore individual and exclusive. Eros manifests itself as sexual competition, protectiveness, and favoritism, all of which undermine order, discipline, and morale. These are issues of life and death, and help to explain why open homosexuality and homosexual behavior traditionally have been considered incompatible with military service.

No distractions to the brotherhood. No selfishness or sexual drive is to be injected into the fighting forces, and if anything the people who want to have homosexuals in the military, the homosexuals among them are the one whos selfishly exhibit their sexuality.

Most research has shown unit cohesion is critical to military effectiveness and battlefield success. The key to cohesion is what the Greeks called philia — friendship, comradeship, or brotherly love. Philia is the bond among disparate individuals who have nothing in common but facing death and misery together.

At the very best this idea demonstrates a division in our country to our enemies, even if we don't weaken our combat units from within.

Success in the Philippines Against An Insurgency

Under President McKinley the United States was sold the Philippines for approximately $20 million in the Treaty of Paris, concluding the Spanish-American War.

President William McKinley decided, after some vacillation, to take the islands for the United States. There were other claimants. A Filipino army, led by revolutionary Emilio Aguinaldo, was besieging Manila by the time American Army units reached the archipelago. Aguinaldo and the Filipinos were not pleased when the Spanish essentially handed the capital city over to the Americans in August 1898, and were even less pleased when Spain and the United States negotiated the Treaty of Paris, which included the sale of the Philippines to the United States for $20 million. It was enough to start a shooting war. On Feb. 4 and 5, 1899, American and Filipino forces clashed around Manila. The day of Feb. 5 ended in an overwhelming American victory that sent the Filipino army reeling backward.

Eventually a straightforward war ended and then started a war with "insurrectos". This is obviously a comparison with our present war in Iraq.

a long neglected one, is the Philippine-American War of 1899-1902. It was a war that the United States had not planned, and did not expect, to fight. It was a war in which the superiority of American civilization was supposed to bring grace to a foreign people. It was a war that the United States seemed to win quickly and with ease, but that somehow did not end. It was a war that aroused controversy at home and abroad. It was a war in which the United States was accused of great cruelty, and one that mixed conventional fighting and counterinsurgency in equal measures, fought against an enemy who attacked and then faded back into the mass of civilians.

And yet, in the Philippines, the United States won with relatively few casualties. A little more than three years after the start of the war, President Theodore Roosevelt could declare victory and, unlike George W. Bush, not be undercut by a continuing insurrection. America succeeded less by waging war and more by waging politics, politics that co-opted much of the Filipino population and isolated the revolutionaries.

What is writer David Silbey's point/thesis?

That victory offers a central lesson for our current involvement in Iraq: Counterinsurgency is less about conquest and more about persuasion.

I'm not certain that that is absolutely true or if that martial philosophy is effective against our current enemy, given that a fidelity to Allah, as an Evil Muslim (Islamofascist, Radical Extremist, pick one), sees it, precludes any other interest which would drive an individual to pledge a peaceful non-violent loyalty to a non-Jihad-type political regime. Broadly speaking the Slate article is certainly accurate, and civilization can be bought, more than it can be inflicted. Some of the people who are enemies now will always be enemies and should be treated as such, but others are potential or future friends.

the Concern of Victory

"Never give in, never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force, never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." - Winston Churchill

dedication and purpose

Victory Solutions is dedicated to determining and discussing, in an itellectual manner, the best way(s) to deal with the enemies of this nation; the best manner of finding this is to study history