A community consists of people + artifacts + organization, Carroll Quigly argues in Weapons Systems and Political Stability, and when two communities are in conflict, each trying to impose its will on the other, this can be achieved by destroying the organization of the other:
That means that the purpose of their conflict will be to destroy the organization but leave the people and artifacts remaining, except to the degree that these are destroyed incidentally in the process of disrupting their organization in order to reduce their capacity to resist. In European history, with its industrialized cities, complex division of labor, and dense population, the efforts to disrupt organization have led to weapons systems of mass destruction of people and artifacts, which could, in fact, so disrupt European industrial society, that the will to resist is eventually destroyed.
But these same weapons, applied to a different geographical and social context, such as the jungles of southeast Asia, may not disrupt their patterns sufficiently to lower their wills to resist to the point where the people are willing to submit their wills to those of Wester communities; rather they may be forced to abandon forms of organization which are susceptible to disruption by Western weapons for quite different and dispersed forms of organization on which Western weapons are relatively ineffective.
Quigley was a scion of the same bluetribe inner party that made sure the redtribe outer party had no chance of winning in vietnam.
It is trivially true that capturing a people means destroying the ability of rival organizations to organize and replacing them with your own forms of organization.
But the irony of pointing this out is that that is the very thing a ‘democratic’ army was ideologicaly precluded from doing by it’s priestly dominators. A state of war is ended by the establishment of an order of rulership; but rulership is undemocratic, so the violence of chaos can never end.
A further payload of his squidink is to imply that ‘dumb redneck warriors dont realise that throwing bombs on peoples heads doesnt work’ — but of course, throwing bombs on people’s heads is extremely effective, which is the whole point of the gaslighting; invidious pseudopriests attempting to neuter their warrior class neighbors by denying them any means of expressing power.
Pseudo-Chrysostom says, “[all his remarks]”
Yep. Exactly so. Here’s a quote by Jerry Pournelle that fairly puts the situation in order,
“And in Viet Nam the North sent 150,000 men south with as much armor as the Wehrmacht had in many WW II engagements. That was in 1973, and of that 150,000 fewer than 50,000 men and no armor returned to the North, at a cost of under 1,000 American casualties. Most would count that an outstanding victory. (Alas, in 1975 North Viet Nam had another army of over 100,000 and sent it South; the Democratic Congress voted our South Vietnamese 20 cartridges and 2 hand grenades per man, but refused naval and air support; Saigon predictably became Ho Chi Minh city as we pushed helicopters off the decks of our carriers in our frantic evacuation; but that is hardly the fault of the US military).”
In fairness to Quigly he may not and is likely not spreading squidink. He actually believes this.
The Democrat party told us over and over we couldn’t win in Vietnam so when they got in power they made sure they were right.