Dear friends,
My friends at South Front want to make a high quality video on the basis of this article of mine:
https://10.16.86.131/the-end-of-the-wars-on-the-cheap-for-the-united-states/
However, the current total length of this article is too long for a script of that video. I simply don’t have the material time to do the script so what I need is a “shortener”, i.e. a person who would be willing to sit down and “squeeze” this article into one shorter text. The requirements for this task are:
- good/decent technical understanding of military affairs
- good/decent command of written English
- the ability to see what is crucial/essential to an argument and what is not
If you think you can help please email me at vineyardsaker@gmail and put “SHORTENER” in the subject heading.
Hugs and cheers, (and thanks!!)
The Saker
UPDATE: thanks to all those who wrote in to offer their help. Next either I or SF will contact you all to tell you if you have been selected. Again, thanks A LOT!!!
How much are you looking to cut it down by? Next section, with ~20% cut down:
The ideal scenario
The Empire’s preference is to find some weak country, subvert it, accuse it of human right violations, slap on economic sanctions, trigger riots and militarily intervene in “defense” of “democracy”, “freedom” and “self-determination” (or similar spin). That’s the ‘political recipe’. What needs to be looked at more closely is “the American way of war”: the way US commanders like to fight.
Most US planning in the Cold War, for procurement, doctrine and training, was focused on a large conventional war against the Soviet Union with the possibility that this could escalate into a nuclear war. The conventional dimension of such a war would be “heavy”: centered on large formations (divisions, brigades), involving a lot of armor and artillery. This kind of warfare would involve immense logistical efforts on both sides and would include deep-strikes on second echelon forces, supply dumps, strategic axes of communications (roads, railways, bridges, etc.) and defense in depth in key sectors. The battlefield would be huge, hundreds of kilometers away on both sides of the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area, or “front line”). On all levels, tactical, operational and strategic, defenses would be prepared in two, possibly three, echelons. For an idea of the distances involved, the Soviet 2nd strategic echelon in Europe was deployed as far back as the Ukraine! (this is why the Ukraine inherited huge ammo dumps from the Soviet Union, and why there was no shortage of weapons on either side in the Ukrainian civil war). With the collapse of the Soviet Union, this threat disappeared almost overnight. Of course, the Gulf War gave the US and NATO one last big, “goodbye party” (against an already defeated enemy). Subsequently, it became clear to US strategists that the “heavy war” was over and “Zitadelle”-like operations were futile. (Include this reference and link to Kursk battle, if acceptable to Saker.)
Thus arose what I call “war on the cheap” in Special Operations Forces thinking. First, get CIA to fund, arm and train local insurgents (or bring from abroad); next embed these with US Special Forces and provide with FACs (forward air controllers, frontline soldiers trained to direct close support fixed and rotary wing aircraft to strike enemy forces contacting US and “friendlies”); finally, deploy enough aircraft in and around the combat zone (on aircraft carriers, neighboring countries or seized local airstrips) to support operations day and night. The key idea: provide friendly insurgents with overwhelming advantage in firepower. See it on YouTube: US and “coalition” forces advance until they meet firefight and, unless they rapidly prevail, they call in an airstrike that results into a huge BOOM!!! following by cheering Americans and friendlies and total disappearance opposition. Repeat enough times, and you get easy, cheap and rapid victory over a completely outgunned enemy. This approach can be enhanced by “supplements” such as providing insurgents with better gear (antitank weapons, night vision, communications, etc.) and bringing in US, allied forces, or mercenaries, to take on really tough targets.
Many in the US forces were deeply skeptical of this approach, but the dominance by Special Forces types and the apparent success of this “war on the cheap” in Afghanistan made it very popular with US politicians and propagandists. Best of all, there were very few Americans casualties and a high degree of “plausible deniability” should something go wrong. Of course, the various three letter spooks loved it too.
What many failed to realize in early euphoria of US invincibility was, this “war on the cheap” made three very risky assumptions:
First and foremost, it relied on a deeply demoralized enemy; like in “Star Trek”, resistance to the Borg (aka the USA) was futile. Even if actual US forces deployed were limited in size and capabilities, Americans would, no doubt, escalate until the opposition was crushed.
Second, this assumes the US can get air superiority over the entire battlefield. Americans do not like to provide close air support if they risk being downed by enemy aircraft or missiles.
Third, the existence of local insurgents as “boots on the ground” to actually occupy and control territory. We will now see these assumptions cannot be guaranteed. Have AngloZionists run out of countries in which these assumptions still apply? Let’s look at specific cases.
I went back and read your report. It’s good as far as it goes but what is not discussed is the next logical step, now being taken in Afganistan and Yemen for example, of privatising the war.
The US military sets up the war, not to win it, but to create the conditions for fighting a long term insurgency, then turns the business over to Blackwater, so the situation and misery can be milked by the Military Industrial Complex for all it’s worth.
Very soon media forget the war and with no state actor to be blamed, Blackwater, G4S and etc. get carte blanche to do as they please. This is already the setup that Eric Prince and his well placed friends at the Whitehouse have proposed and I already mentioned, is more or less implemented in Afganistan and Yemen — and off the top of my head Libya and perhaps soon to be in Venezuela.
The Zionist deep state cares not for winning wars, nor even of the fate of the United States. What it cares for is full spectrum dominance, of it’s class, and it has already been decided to divide the planet into two worlds — one of war, chaos and misery — the other milking it for all it’s worth, including manipulating refugee flows for various social and economic goals, or using ‘blowback’ terrorism and a long list of other consequences to achieve domestic goals, most importantly the making a total surveillance and
security state.
So while the US might have a problem finding the money for 1 trillion per annum military expenditures when the US dollar is destroyed, the deep state will never have a problem maintaining largely self financing conflicts, by heroin in Afganistan or oil in the middle east, to the ultimate detriment of all humanity.
Finally I would say that this situation is planned to last for decades, because a great world war in our present technological environment would upset Zionist oligarchical power terribly, while slow burn wars will take an equal number of victims, create far more profit, and ultimately reinforce yhe present power structure.
Simply put, we are frogs and they are boiling us slowly.
The Saker,
Quite willing to assist in editing this piece or others.
I offer extensive experience.
Let me know if interested.
Thanks,
Gunnar