Zen Pundit on American Spartan


Here’s my review of Mark’s review.



Mark points out one clue, that MAJ Gant’s experience is typical of the US military since at least the end of WW II.


My solution, as I’ve outlined in all my books, is simple: If something has continued the same pattern of behavior despite both changes in the environment and repeated attempts to fix it, then you should suspect that more attempts to fix it will produce the same results. The only reasonable solution is to break the thing down into component parts, keep those that work — and in the case of the US Army, there are many — and throw away the basic structure and remaining parts.

Mark also identifies another aspect of our problem, that we have a long and sordid history of abandoning our friends:




  • Support national goal;
  • End conflict on favorable terms;
  • Ensure that conflict and peace terms do not provide seeds for (unfavorable) future conflict. Patterns 139

Or, put another way:






To some extent, we do choose allies that share our underlying values, and these alliances can be very “premanent.” If we honored our stated values when dealing with the rest of the world, instead of backing tin-horn dictators who claim to be anti-communist or anti-terrorist or anti-whatever-the-bad-ideology-du-jour is, we could avoid the problem that Mark highlights at the end of his review: “Nor have we done right by those who have helped us. By that I do not mean the corrupt and incompetent Karzai and Maliki regimes, but of the ordinary Iraqis and Afghans who stuck out their necks to fight with Americans against the enemy as interpreters, allied units or tribal irregulars.” Get enough of these folks on your side and you don’t have to worry about Karzai, Maliki, Saddam, bin Laden, Caliph Ibrahim, or the Taliban.

It’s an old idea:

Princes must not complain of the faults committed by the people under their authority, for they result entirely from their own negligence or bad example … The best fortress which a prince can hold is the affection of his people. Machiavelli, The Discourses and The Prince.

Here’s one more from Boyd:


The problem with not living according to your stated ideals is that soon your potential allies catch on and work with you only so long as they see something in it for them. As time goes on, you become isolated from your real friends and eventually from yourself.

2 thoughts on “Zen Pundit on American Spartan

  1. You know, it’s interesting to note that this is the exact opposite of the effective grand strategy that Boyd once described.

    Be what you say you are at home:
    I fear that one of the defining characteristics of America right now is that it is quite far from what it claims to be right now. The US claims to be THE model that every other nation should aspire to be. There’s a lot to be disagreed with on that one.

    There is a huge culture of mistrust towards Washington from the rest of the US (well deserved by the way), a lot of discord, and a general lack of harmony. Perhaps a nation like Sweden could claim to be closer to what it idealizes.

    Increase resolve of allies:
    At the same time, there’s a huge case to be made that this does not increase the resolve of any allies (from the betrayals described in the review) to other actions, most notably leading up to the Iraq War. There’s also the fact that the US does not treat others like equals, but merely nations that should be grateful that the US is giving them any attention. This is true even for nations close to the US like the Western Europeans or Canada.

    Divert resolve from adversaries:
    Worsening this, the actions of the US appear to be increasing the resolve of the purported adversary – Islamic fundamentalist groups, owing to its actions. Torture, the use of drone strikes, the nightly raids, the various actions committed during the occupations of Iraq/Afghanistan, the falsified reason to invade Iraq, and so on. Many see fundamentalists as the “lesser evil”.

    Attract the uncommitted to you:
    By its actions, the US is doing quite the opposite.

    The US is not demonstrating that it bears neutral parties no harm through both actions and words (most notably the “you are either with us or against us” by the Bush administration.

    It has managed to alienate a substantial proportion of the international community. Even neutral nations that would otherwise have been sympathetic are worried. After 9-11 there was a ton of outpouring of sympathy. That was squandered.

    End combat on favorable terms that does not provoke future wars:
    Well, the Iraqi war ended because the Iraqis wanted the US gone. To some extent so did the Afghan people. Fiscal realities may have prevented the war from going on anyways. So I guess this is not really favorable terms in a sense.

    The fact that ISIS was able to take over Iraq’s Sunni areas seems to show that it too has not ended well for the US. I strongly suspect that the Taliban will regain Afghanistan after the US leaves.

    As far as preventing future conflict, the US has done the opposite. ISIS is a testament to that. Worse, there appear to be factions in the US (the neoconservatives especially) that seem to relish the idea of future war and want to provoke more wars on purpose.

    Globally, I suspect that anti-Americanism will be strong for decades to come, for a number of different reasons. That too may sow the seeds for something we do not expect.

    So in summary, it looks like the US has done the exact opposite of what Boyd would have suggested.

    It’s interesting. At the end of WWII, the US was at its apex, with 50% of the world’s wealth. But WWII also played a key role in creating the military industrial complex. That which has sent the US into decline, along with a multitude of other policy missteps.

    – Chris

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s
