6. WINNING WORLD WAR IV

 

World War IV is the war against Global Islamic Jihad.  This is a war against highly organized, highly armed, highly skilled, high tech, and increasingly effective and  lethal international Catastrophic Terrorism.   We are losing that war.  For, we are not even fighting it.  We are not combatting terrorism — we are combatting only terror — and do not even know the difference.  To win this war, to  defeat terrorism, requires applying Ideologic Defense methods, especially Reductive Nullification.  That is discussed in Page 6, War, Peace And Arms Control In The Bronze Age, and is exemplified in other Pages.  Appropriate agencies, organizations, institutions, and NGOs should get in touch with this writer and developer of Ideologic Defense Systems, via the I D Center in Dover, NJ.  “I D” stands for Ideologics, Ideologic Defense, Ideologic Disarmament, and Ideologic Determinism.

 The fundamental principle underlying application of ID to fighting wars as distinguished from preventing them has been well expressed by the late great French General of the Army Andre Beaufre as ‘Indirect Strategy,’ especially in his work AN INTRODUCTION TO STRATEGY (London: Faber and Faber, 1965).  In his various works Beaufre frequently uses the term ‘psychological,’ but by a more complete reading of his works we find that the terms ‘ideological’ and ‘philosophical’ are also used, and in such ways as to make clear that ideological/philosophical factors and forces are his focus. The following excerpts from his AN INTRODUCTION TO STRATEGY will suffice for now.

1.  This pattern of strategy, violent conflict aiming at military victory, is the classic strategy of the Napoleonic era. Its principal theorist is Clausewitz…This was the dominant European strategy of the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries. Wrongly it was held to be the only orthodox strategy and therefore gave birth to the two great World Wars of 1914-18 and 1939-45, both of which showed up the limitations of the Clausewitz-Napoleon strategy.  [28]

2. Strategy can no longer proceed by a process of firmly based objective deduction; it must work by hypothesis and produce solutions by truly original thought…The consequence must be a fundamental change in our thinking habits.  [45]

3. The essential feature of indirect strategy is that it seeks to obtain military results by methods other than military victory.  [108]

4.  In the realm of ideology an offensive line of policy implies a capacity effectively to attack the weak points in the enemy’s ideological system. It is therefore these weak points and not our own moral or philosophical ideas which must be the starting point. (123)

5.  Strategy can in fact be reduced to a universal Einstein-type formula as follows:  S = KFΨt .

K is any specific factor applicable to the case concerned; F stands for material force, Ψ for the psychological factor and t for time. In direct strategy the predominant factor is F, the factor Ψ of considerably less importance and the factor t comparatively small. In indirect strategy the exact reverse is the case, the dominant factor being Ψ. In fact the psychological factor Ψ, which invariably plays some part in any form of strategy, in indirect strategy becomes dominant…Grey matter in fact takes over from brute force. (129)

6.  I am convinced that in strategy, as in all human affairs, it is ideas which must be the dominant and guiding force. But that brings us into the realm of philosophy. [emphasis supplied]

In his LA NATURE DES CHOSES (Paris: Plon, 1969), Beaufre declares:

Tout concept d’action relève d’un concept philosophique. Toute philosophie repose sur une conception de la vie. C’est par là qu’il faut commencer.  (143)

That is a brief, direct, simply-stated expression of the most fundamental and most major principle of personal, group, local, regional, national and international affairs. Fundamental to ID in all its forms.  It is equivalent to the key principle in Sun Tzu’s Art of War, John 1.1 in the New Testament, and the Charter of UNESCO.

All told, as Sun Tzu averred almost twenty-four hundred years ago, it is better to win without fighting.  The means are now available: Ideologic Defense. 

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: