Check out the store. Stickers, mugs, hoodies, shirts, etc.
Check out the podcast: anchor.fm/beau-of-the-fifth-column
Well howdy there internet, people it's beau again.
So today we're going to talk about some developments over there.
That are not getting the coverage.
I believe they should um.
This is one of those little events that changes the dynamics of things it's a good marking point to show how things have shifted and it's one of those things that isn't getting coverage but in two months people are going to be like how did we go down this chain and this is this is where it really started okay so for continuity sake if you're watching these videos in hindsight from this point forward what we have been calling the opposition is now the de facto government okay they have they have shored up their support pretty well and they are negotiating with foreign powers as a state okay one of those negotiations has led to a pledge of safe passage that extends beyond august 31st beyond the deadline the de facto government there, is saying they will offer safe passage to those who are western citizens? Citizens of other countries.
There's almost 100 nations involved in this or those who have documentation from those countries.
Okay? So in the little coverage that has occurred of this at time of filming, I'm, hoping it will pick up later.
The big question is, why should we trust them? Why would they do this? Why would they do us this favor? This is a holdover from people listening to trump.
Talk about foreign policy.
Trump was really bad at foreign policy.
It's, not transactional.
It isn't that they're doing us a huge favor sometimes interests.
Align you've heard that saying politics makes strange bedfellows here's.
A perfect example who actually benefits the most from this is it.
The united states does the u.s benefit, the most from getting afghan nationals who want to leave the country from getting them out or does the de facto government benefit, the most rather than framing this as the u.s negotiation team showing up and saying, oh, please pretty please with a cherry on top.
Will you let us take our friends with us? Perhaps the other side, they're, not ignorant hill.
People maybe what they're hearing is, hey, you're, a newly minted government that has active opposition from several groups and there's.
A whole bunch of people who are terrified of you, which may kind of motivate them to fight against you and make them ready recruits for those opposition groups.
How about we just take them with us? They'd probably want to do that the united states and any country that's involved in this operation is is helping remove the dissidents from the country that's only good for the de facto government that there's no downside to that for them.
Okay? And then we have to understand that after all of this time of viewing them in a certain way they are now.
The de facto government.
They have their hands on those levers of power.
They have to show that they can maintain the peace.
If they want any legitimacy on the international scene.
And even if they don't, you know what they want power, you know, what power comes from money? Do you know what money comes from their minerals if they can show that they can guarantee safe passage decently? Well, it will encourage mining operations to come in if they can't provide that, and they can't provide security.
Then those mining operations are going to have to bring in private contractors, maybe even foreign state militaries, which makes them look bad.
Because their whole thing is to get foreign occupations out.
But now we have to let them in to help mine, because we can't do our job.
It makes them look bad, but more importantly, to them if they're having to pay contractors and all this stuff, well, it lowers their cut and just like any politician anywhere in the world once they're sitting in that presidential palace, once they are sitting at those levels of power.
They want that money.
We don't necessarily have to trust them.
You trust, but verify.
It is in their interests to do this.
It is in their interest to do this.
It removes dissidents, it legitimizes them on the international scene, and it gets some money.
What more do you want what more of a motivation? Do you want for them to have done this? Yeah, they're probably going to do everything they can to maintain that safe passage for as long as possible.
Now this leads into another question that I got, it says, bo I'm, a student of military history.
And you've got it wrong.
Can you name a single other time? The united states sat down with the bad guys, quote, immediately after the conflict ended and just started negotiating and having tea together student of military history.
I would get your tuition back because the answer to that is pretty much all of them always from the beginning, the the uh, the biggest hint to the answer to your question can be found on the shores of tripoli that was the first major military engagement, the united states engaged in as far as real force projection military operation, overseas we're, discounting, rebellions wars against natives, and any little quasi war that popped up along the way that's really funny.
And that was that was unintentional.
Okay, um google quasi war.
So that conflict which incidentally was over a group of pirates, not providing safe passage.
Um went over.
There fought the war at the end of the war, sat down negotiated and uh signed a deal to get american troops back and pay a ransom to do.
So from the very beginning, that's that's, how it worked and pretty much every conflict since then it's common war is a continuation of politics.
By other means, when the war ends politics returns, um, this isn't, unusual it's, pretty much.
What always happens.
They are now the de facto government.
And at this point basically entering into a joint statement with a hundred other countries, they're, the government it's, not really even de facto anymore.
They have the levers of power in that country.
So, yeah, we're going to talk to them why? Because I mean we'd kind of like to have some of those minerals too it's, a poker game and everybody's cheating.
The propaganda gets disseminated in a country during war.
The people that put that propaganda out, they don't believe it that's, just for us.
Our bettors see the big picture.
Our bettors view it as another tool in the foreign policy toolbox.
They don't become mortal enemies.
It's all about influence power and money.
So, yeah, it really is I'm I'm hard-pressed to think of any time when we didn't sit down and negotiate with the opposition right? After the war that pretty much always happens, um.
So this little chain of events right here.
It is very defining in the sense of it is solidifying.
The de facto government's position if they do a good job of this.
It is likely that a whole bunch of foreign investment comes back that they're going to get a cut up if they do a good job of it.
It is unlikely that western intelligence provides support to those opposition groups, it's in their best interest to provide safe passage.
It is in their best interest to show that they can behave like a legitimate.
Government it's, not about trust it's about politics, it's about foreign policy and trust really doesn't have anything to do with that.
Anyway, it's just a thought, y'all have a good day.
As a theorist, Carl Von Clausewitz is often reduced to his dictum that “war is a continuation of politics by other means,” (pp. 280). This reductive image of the Prussian General obscures the vast insight carried in his work.Do you agree with the view that war is a continuation of politics by other means? ›
WAR IS A MERE CONTINUATION OF POLICY BY OTHER MEANS.
We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.
STRATEGIC THOUGHT Carl von Clausewitz (1780–1831), modern Europe's great strategist, considered the purpose of war to be the imposition of the victor's will over the enemy (strategy), and the destruction of the adversary's main force in decisive battle (tactics).What is the connection between war and politics why is it important? ›
Wars are fought to satisfy the political benefits of a nation; Clausewitz argued that policies not only help in determining the objective that military or army will look to achieve by engaging in a war and that such combats are political instruments to conquer land, people, or money.What does politics mean to Aristotle? ›
In the ancient Greek conception of politics, "administration should be democratic and law-making the work of experts", which is in contrast to modern liberal notions in which "[w]e think… of law-making as the special right of the people and administration as necessarily confined to experts." Aristotle's Politics is in ...What does the word politics actually mean? ›
Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) 'affairs of the cities') is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.What is war as a continuation of policy by other means Clausewitzian theory in the Persian Gulf war? ›
In Clausewitz's most famous words: War is merely the continuation of policy by other means. We see, therefore, that. war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of. political intercourse, carried on with other means.What are the main ideas of Clausewitz? ›
Clausewitz's theory of war strategy is divided into three primary objectives: overcome the enemy's armed power, take possession of material and other sources of strength, and win public support.
Clausewitz's On War and Sun Tzu's Art of War in one volume. The translation of Clausewitz's On War is the 1943 version done by German literary scholar O.J. Matthijs Jolles at the University of Chicago during World War II—not today's standard translation, but certainly the most accurate of the unsatisfactory lot.What is Trinity theory of Clausewitz? ›
Clausewitz argues that war is a phenomenon consisting of three central elements or dominant tendencies. This triad, or trinity, is a paradoxical relationship “composed of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity . . .
Whereas this book examines the theory of war, Clausewitz emphasizes the importance of combat experience. The author argues that no books or even field training could replace a soldier's participation in a war, and that it is from real-life experience that theorists should generalize war theory.What is the criticism of Clausewitz theory of war? ›
Criticism of Clausewitz' theory of war, however, has been built upon two false presuppositions: (1) that Clausewitzian thought is inherently state-centric, and (2) that changes in the modes of war are equal to changes in the nature of war (i.e. warfare versus war).What are Clausewitz's principles of war? ›
There are nine Principles of War. They are objective, offensive, mass, economy of force, maneuver, unity of command, security, surprise, and simplicity.Why is Clausewitz important? ›
Carl Von Clausewitz was a Prussian General during the 18th and 19th centuries who fought in the Napoleonic Wars. He is most renowned for the development of military theory in his strategy manuscript, On War, which was compiled following his death by his wife, Marie Von Clausewitz in 1832.How does Clausewitz describe the relationship between war and policy? ›
The Ambiguity of Policy
Finally, Clausewitz believed the influence of policy on war was essentially ambiguous in relation to the rise of extremes: the political purpose neither necessarily causes a rise to extremes nor limits war, but it is the central, though not only, determinant of both.
In a coup, it is the military, paramilitary, or opposing political faction that deposes the current government and assumes power; whereas, in the pronunciamiento, the military deposes the existing government and installs an ostensibly civilian government.Which of the following described war as the continuation of politics by other means quizlet? ›
Clausewitz had 3 key ideas: war is a continuation of politics by other means, understand the war that you're in, and war is an inherently unpredictable human activity.What is the paradox of politics? ›
Wollheim's paradox is a problem in political philosophy that points to an inherent contradiction in the concept of democracy. The paradox highlights the fact that a person can simultaneously advocate two conflicting policy options A and B, provided that the person believes that democratic decisions should be followed.What is political theory and other interrelated terms? ›
Political theory is a theory that involves the analysis of ideas and values related to the state, individuals, group, and power, as well as the relationships between all of them. Normative political theory and empirical political theory are two major approaches toward analyzing the government of a state.