The One Is Indivisible
The Truth Is The Whole
There should be a rational grand national strategic objective (RGNSO) justifying the deployment or maintenance of US assets of statecraft (aka US citizens’ persons and wealth) outside US borders. Those assets are three in number:
Diplomacy,
Finance, and
War-Fighting.
Wanting to be somewhere is insufficient reason for going there. And being somewhere is insufficient reason for staying there.
The only reason to deploy and maintain US citizens’ assets of statecraft outside US borders is to help the US and US citizens preserve, protect, and defend their sovereign freedom. Other than that one, there is no reason at any time in heaven, on earth, or under the earth to deploy or maintain US force — Diplomacy, Finance, War-Fighting — outside US borders.
American and Americans’ sovereign freedom are the sole and sufficient definition of rational US grand national strategic objective (RGNSO).
US interests or US national security are definitionally insufficient reason to deploy US assets of statecraft anywhere altogether any time at all. US interests can include the mendacious as well as the mellifluous. US national security is a phrase without any possible content because in this world, there is no security, only opportunity.
Wolfram Lacher, writing in War On The Rocks under title DRONES, DENIABILITY, AND DISINFORMATION: WARFARE IN LIBYA AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL DISORDER, illustrates my point.
Lacher writes at length and in detail about the war in Libya without once mentioning its cause, The Moslem Brotherhood. This lacuna leaves him
(1) bereft of strategic intelligence regarding that war’s only possible settlement and
(2) wringing his hands over a pending collapse of a so-called post-WW II rules-based international order, an order so-called — assembled by Socialists (now one of three types of uneasy-lying Globalist) — which was collapsing as early as the 1950s, virtually disappeared in the late 1980s, and lives now in dotage on life-support from cheats and idlers.
War on the Rocks claims to be by insiders, for insiders. Inside what, one may ask.
The point is, new beginnings:
VDH: Is Trump’s Unorthodoxy Becoming Orthodox?
Rod Thomson: A Dramatic New Political Realignment Is Surfacing
For decades American so-called leaders have been stealing and selling American and Americans’ wealth for fun and profit, personal and national sovereign freedom be hanged. The nation — there is such a reality, potent still and indestructible — and her citizens have had enough and have means sufficient to preserve, protect, and defend their sovereign freedom.
It is all about freedom, spiritual freedom more than political freedom and religious freedom more than economic freedom.
The foregoing applies to the question of US assets (aka wealth) deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Some say leave them there. Some say get them out of there. Some want to make US assets’ being conditionally in and out, both at once, sound reasonable.
However, the question is unanswerable because it is invalid and therefore bootless. Its existence witnesses radically dangerous confusion amongst the minds of Americans’ leader cadre. Only the confused or criminally inclined would ask and debate that question.
Americans’ leader cadre should ask this question: what is America’s and Americans’ RGNSO (Rational Grand National Strategic Objective) in re Afghanistan and Iraq, nay, MENA and Africa altogether?
If a contemplated deployment of US assets of statecraft (aka wealth) may not preserve, protect, and defend America’s and Americans’ sovereign freedom, said deployment is definitionally irrational and counter-indicated.
In parallel with that question, Americans’ leader cadre should ask this one: what, in current conditions, do America and Americans consider rational in re priority of opportunities to preserve, protect, and defend their sovereign freedom?
Deploying American wealth on punitive expeditions to Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003 was rational in that it expressed the will of America and Americans to preserve, protect, and defend their sovereign freedom. However, those were tactical (punitive), not strategic (comprehensive) deployments, which Americans had authorized.
Forcing American and Americans’ wealth to stay on in Afghanistan and Iraq for social engineering projects and culture/nation building was irrational in that it neither expressed the will of America and Americans nor arose or proceeded from a grand national objective that was reasoned out and supported by America’s and Americans’ sense of how and where to preserve, protect, and defend their sovereign freedom.
In other words, Americans’ leader cadre shot them out into the blue. Rather than charging diplomats, bankers, and soldiers to destroy an aggressor’s will to aggress — the essential and only reason for deploying the force of a nation state outside its borders — Americans’ leader cadre let loose into Americans’ lives and wallets so-called social engineers and culture change practitioners (community organizers), and without Americans’ approval. This was attempted culture rape, not attempted culture change.
The conceptual error in that, as standing out from the moral one, was taking politics as upstream from culture when actually culture is upstream from politics.
Whether to stay in or pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq is an irrelevant and irrational question. Like Lacher, above, it repudiates the relevant, rational question: past a successful and citizen-approved punitive expedition, why deploy American assets/wealth to those places at all? Produce an RGNSO for doing that and Americans will approve it. That has never been done — because there is none — so no wonder it is that Americans disapprove their leader cadre’s confused flouncing about, spending wasting Americans’ blood and money.
At heart, Americans have no interest, and rightly so, in going to war beyond conducting successful punitive expeditions. Nor should they have.
Americans’ message to the nations is and always will be:
Do not harm our sovereign freedom, we will not bother you.
Harm it and you will die.
The spiritual aspirant should note the distinction between the conduct of the natural (sahaja) person and the spiritual aspirant. The natural person has no fortitude (sahana), is conceited (ahamkara), and is full of desires relating to the world (jagat), by which the person is trying to have a contented existence. Aspirants engaged in contemplation of the Lord (Sarveswara-chintana) as ceaselessly as the waves of the sea (sagara), accumulate the wealth (dhana) of equality and equal love to all, and are content in the thought that all is the Lord’s and nothing is theirs. Unlike the natural person, the spiritual seeker won’t easily bend before grief or loss, anger or hatred or selfishness, hunger, thirst or fickleness. Quarreling at every tiny little thing, losing one’s temper, becoming sad at the slightest provocation, getting angry at the smallest insult, worried at thirst, hunger, and loss of sleep — these can never be the characteristics of a true spiritual aspirant!
Sathya Sai Baba – Prema Vahini, Chapter 59 / Daily Email, Sai Inspires: Subscription
Βασιλεία του Θεού