BenTarZ - Serving the heart of your mind

 
HOME BOOKS GALLERIES DIBULS PHOTOBLOGGS SALES CONTACT | ABOUT

The Dibuls List

11
Captain K

Back - 10
⇐ The Holy

Next - 12
War Components ⇒

Captain K

An Enterprise of Conflict

The beautiful young woman walking toward me must have been the daughter of one of my friends. Why else would she be smiling at me? Sure enough, she stopped in front of me and held out her hand.
"Hi," she said as we shook hands, "I'm Katherine."
"Hi," I responded and said no more hoping for some clue as to her parents.
"My friends call me Kate, Katie or just K. Otherwise I'm known as Captain K."
I must have looked like one of those cartoon figures whose jaw drops to the ground in surprise. Kate giggled.
"The Holy (see previous Dibullet) said I'd contact you, but didn't say anything other than Captain K?" guessed Kate correctly.
"And that you were an expert on war and had written about a principle," I added.
"That's right," said Kate. "The Holy enjoys comedy."
"Comedy and comedy," I said. "Something's wrong here. How can you be an expert on war? You can't be more that 20-something."
"Eighteen. I'm also known as Saint Catherine. I was killed 1700 years ago. I've been studying war for the past 1000 years."
"You're an angel."
"Something like that. It's not important. Let's get started," she said embracing my arm as though she were my daughter or lover.
We started walking.

"What is war?"
"Armed conflict," I answered reflexively.
"That's one part of war," said Kate. "War is an enterprise of conquest, AND..., never forget the 'and', an enterprise of liberation."
"Armed conflict says the same thing. You are just giving it an academic sound."
"That would be very naughty of me. Calling war an armed conflict dilutes the nature of war and hides its main aspect."
"Which is armed conflict!"
"No." said Kate affectionately. "The military aspect of war may be the horrible teeth of the monster, but it doesn't consider the beast itself."
"Does it make any difference?" I asked trying to mimic her affectionate tone.
"War is a very large and complex undertaking. The military or weapon section of this massive project accounts for a minor part of the whole operation. Not only is it a minor part, but an expensive and inefficient part at that."

I waited for her to continue, but she remained silent.
"Isn't there more to tell me?" I asked after a couple of minutes.
"Quite," she said. "A great deal. But I'm waiting for a response from you so that I know how to continue."
Kate made me feel like a little boy.
"If weapon conflict is a minor part of the ENTERPRISE, what is the main part?"

Kate smiled at me and I realized why she had such a firm grip on my arm - to keep me from falling.

"Everything revolves around economics," she said. "That's what the conquest is all about. The enterprise provides the means of carrying out economic conquest. Monsters go to war to enrich themselves. Or to extend their power or maintain their control... which is a means of enriching themselves."
A light lit up in my head.
"Oh, I get it. That's what you meant when you said armed conflict hides the real nature of war. Saying 'armed conflict' is nearly a euphemism. It's like talking of civilian deaths as 'collateral damage'."
"Well, yes," Kate responded. "You see..."
"If we establish that war is an enterprise of conquest, no one can start a war and claim it's for a good reason."

Now it was my turn to smile. The child was proud of learning his lesson.
"It can be depressing to see how people fall for the lame excuses for war in any case," said Kate. "Actually, most people don't fall for them nowadays, but the monsters go right ahead any way."
"But it would be more difficult if everyone learned in school that war is an enterprise of conquest."
"If children were properly educated in the nature of war, there wouldn't be any. War is the most destructive and deadly of human undertakings. It commands supreme attention. Yet it never appears on the curriculum."

It took a few moments of silence before I realized that I was expected to say something.
"Is it suitable to teach school children about war?" I asked.
"I'd make it a major course of study during the year when they're 15-16 year-olds."
"Are you and I going to spend a year talking about war?" I asked.
"No. We have this afternoon. I'm going to tell you the basics to get you started. The rest is up to you."

I imagined that I hid my disappointment and asked as neutrally as I could, "What are the basics?"
"War is a great and complicated enterprise that includes economic, political, military, cultural, ideological, psychological and diplomatic components connected and coordinated with communications and logistics. Soldiers, for instance, must be recruited, trained, clothed, fed, housed, equipped, transported, organized, commanded and paid. Soldiers spend a tiny percentage of their military lives fighting, that is to say, in armed conflict. When war is considered in its entirety, the military aspect, the armed conflict part of the whole, accounts for a minor portion."
"That minor portion has an enormous and terrible effect," I injected.
"Oh, yes, that's true. The terrible effect, however, can be eliminated by eliminating the components. Basic tactics of war involve attacking the components of the enterprise."

We walked in silence for a few minutes while Kate let me think about what she had said.
"You are right! I think I understand and I agree that war should be regarded in all its aspects, or components as you say. But I can't stop thinking of the military, or armed conflict, part. It seems like the most important part no matter how I turn it. You said it was a minor part that was both expensive and ineffective. If that's true, why use it? Why not just use the other components to gain economic advantage?"

"There are three reasons.
Number 1: It's not possible. Exploitation eventually runs into opposition that can only be broken with force.
Number 2: Stupidity, pure high-grade stupidity. You probably doubt that, don't you?"
"Yeh, well, kind of."
"Let me give you an example," said Kate. "The other day another 11 people, including two children, were killed in Pakistan by hellfire missiles launched from a drone. Each missile costs about $40 000. Add to that the salaries of the mercenaries who load the missiles onto the drones plus the costs to produce the drones as well as the advanced machinery to guide them. There are additional costs for personnel and maintenance. I have no idea what the final sum amounts to, but the entire operation runs up to hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps more than a million. For what? To kill a couple of kids along with a few neighbors and relatives, and in the process create 100s if not 1000s of bitter enemies. This is beyond stupid; asinine, foolish, dim-witted, obtuse, slow as a slug... there should be a new term to define such sub-logical behavior. They exert great effort and expense to kill a few people and produce many enemies. Can you grasp the extent of their stupidity?"

Kate had maintained her pleasant tone of voice despite the dramatic seriousness of her explanation. The effect was overwhelming and I could hardly speak.
"Yes," I whispered forcing myself to speak pleasantly.

War Without Weapons

"Let me tell you about 6W," she said.
"Your principle that the Holy mentioned?"
"Yes, it..."
"What about the third reason?" I interrupted. "You said there were three reasons for using 'expensive and ineffective' military force, but only mentioned two."
"I haven't forgotten. I'll get to that. 6W will help explain the third reason. 6W stands for War Without Weapons for a World Without War. Remember when I first defined war I said that it was an enterprise of conquest AND an enterprise of liberation."
"Now that you mention it, yes"
"Even though both sides labor under common laws of war, each fights in a different way depending on their conditions, resources and possibilities. ...

"Why are you smiling?" asked Kate.
"It's the way you talk. 'Labor under common laws of war, '" I quoted. "Earlier you said, 'commands supreme attention.' And you speak so gently, so pleasantly, even when talking about war and weapons."
"Would you say I speak lovingly?" asked Kate.
"Yes."
"Thank you. That's the way to go. Speak lovingly. It's a primary tool, like a photographer's camera, a carpenter's hammer or a painter's brush. It's a tool more powerful than any weapon."
"Yeh, OK, whatever," I said.
"You're doubting me again," said Kate playfully.
"If I looked like you and was speaking to a guy, I can understand the power of speaking lovingly. Most of us however are not gorgeous. And how are you going to speak to the guy in a helicopter about to launch some rockets?"

Kate didn't say anything.
"It's your turn to say something," I said.
"Yes, you must give me a moment. We have gotten into a dialogue knot. It must be untangled if we are to get things straight between us. OK, let's try.
"Speaking lovingly is a primary tool, but many tools are necessary. A carpenter won't get far with just a primary hammer. Are we clear so far?" she asked.
"Yes."
"Stating that speaking lovingly is a tool more powerful than any weapon, begs explanation."
I kept myself from smiling at 'begs explanation.'
"First of all, weapons destroy whereas tools build," continued Kate. "That makes any tool more powerful than any weapon. The tool, or art, of speaking lovingly possesses unique power. It unites.
"It unites," she repeated softly.

"And...?" I asked to break the silence.
"I'd like to hear you say that," said Kate.
"It unites?"
"The whole phrase, speaking loving unites."
"Speaking lovingly unites," I repeated obediently.
"Once more with more love!"
"Speaking lovingly unites," I said as if proposing marriage.
Kate's smile hit me like a hallelujah choir shouting guarantees of truth, love and justice.

"Uniting is the key to all victories; the victory of love between two people; the victory of peace in a struggle of liberation; the victory of humanity in building a better world. Yet turn your ear to the discourse around you and what do you hear? You hear people arguing instead of discussing; trying to win a debate rather than trying to unite. They speak to defend their own uncertainty, rather than seek common ground. They speak hotly and poisonously as soon as they discover a point of contention, rather than attempt to join on points of agreement. They jump on mistakes as though they were deadly sins.
"Divide and conquer, unite and win," she continued. "It's the oldest and most basic strategy of all conflict. Speaking lovingly unites."
"That strategy of divide and conquer, unite and win is used by both sides," I said. Lovingly.
"Yes, that's right", said Kate in happy agreement. "The side that succeeds emerges victorious."
"And speaking lovingly promotes success."
"Very much so."
"It's not that easy," I said.
"It's not easy at all," emphasized Kate. "Necessity is seldom easy. Some things need to be done regardless of the degree of difficulty."
"Are we talking about the same thing?" I asked.
"I'm not sure. What are we talking about?"

I had been thinking about how to talk lovingly or even calmly with angry, aggressive people, but Kate's question deleted my thoughts."
"War," I said in default.
"Yes, of course," said Kate. "Let's return to 6W, War Without Weapons for a World Without War. The enemy, that is to say, the executives of the enterprise of conquest, rely heavily on weapons and the military machinery. This is their strength. But it is also their weakness. While it gives them initial success, it destroys chances to complete the conquest. Weaponry and the military aspect of war has become an obstacle rather than an asset of modern conflict."

Contradiction & Confusion

Silence.
"The military as an obstacle of war! That's a hard sell, Kate."
"Did overwhelming military force deliver a victory in Vietnam? Do you, or anyone else for that matter, envision a victory for the foreign forces in Iraq or Afghanistan? The mightiest military power in history has been battling in these relatively poor and practically unarmed countries longer than the duration of WWII and still have no victory in sight. Do you see what I mean?"
"You certainly know how to make a point. Put in that light, I tend to agree with you."
"Let's play a little game," said Kate. "I'll quote someone and you try to guess who. OK?"
"Do it!"
Here's the quote:
Western militaries too often neglect the study of insurgency. They falsely believe that armies trained to large conventional war are automatically prepared to win small, unconventional ones. In fact, ... the ability to execute operational maneuver and employ massive firepower may be of limited utility or even counterproductive. ... They almost always fail.
The side that learns faster and adapts more rapidly wins.
"Guess who said that!"
"Ho Chi Minh," I blurted out. "Or Che Guevara!"
"Good guesses! I won't toy with you any further. General David H. Petraeus, chief of the US forces in Iraq. He wrote that in the Counterinsurgency manual in 2006."

"Wow," I said.
"Wow, indeed," said Kate.
"That doesn't sound so stupid as you claimed earlier."
"Aren't you a clever boy. What can you surmise from this?"
"That you were wrong."
"Excellent. Never assume that the authorities or experts are always right. Not even the ones you respect and trust. Everyone, everyone," she repeated, "makes mistakes. Disasters have visited many organizations because people have lined up behind mistakes of their leaders."

"I don't know if it's comforting or disturbing to learn that you're not perfect."
"Let's assume that I'm not perfect. But I was not mistaken about the stupidity of using military force in cases such as the drone attacks in Pakistan. General Petraeus agrees with me. He states that such attacks can be counterproductive and almost always fail."
"I'm confused."
"Good! You should be confused. A top general states that it's counterproductive to employ massive firepower against insurgents, and the military employs massive firepower against insurgents. Confusion answers adequately to this contradiction. When you drive this confusion away, when you work things out, you will have climbed to a new level clarity. Let's take a break so that you can think about what we have talked about and contemplate the contradiction. I'll give you a hint to the solution of this apparent paradox. The answer lies in the third reason why expensive and ineffective weaponry enjoys frequent usage in the present enterprise of conquest."

© Joel Miller/BenTarZ

⇐  Back - 10 The Holy       Next - 12 War Components ⇒