Writes David Brooks, in "We Deserve Pete Hegseth" (NYT).
Here's Colonel Jessup:
And here's Carl von Clausewitz:
- the dialectical approach to military analysis
- the methods of "critical analysis"
- the economic profit-seeking logic of commercial enterprise is equally applicable to the waging of war and negotiating for peace
- the nature of the balance-of-power mechanism
- the relationship between political objectives and military objectives in war
- the asymmetrical relationship between attack and defense
- the nature of "military genius" (involving matters of personality and character, beyond intellect)
- the "fascinating trinity" (wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit) of war
- philosophical distinctions between "absolute war," "ideal war," and "real war"
- in "real war," the distinctive poles of a) limited objectives (political and/or military) and b) war to "render the enemy helpless"
- the idea that war and its conduct belong fundamentally to the social realm rather than to the realms of art or science
- "strategy" belongs primarily to the realm of art, but is constrained by quantitative analyses of political benefits versus military costs & losses
- "tactics" belongs primarily to the realm of science (most obvious in the development of siege warfare)
- the importance of "moral forces" (more than simply "morale") as opposed to quantifiable physical elements
- the "military virtues" of professional armies (which do not necessarily trump the rather different virtues of other kinds of fighting forces)
- conversely, the very real effects of a superiority in numbers and "mass"
- the essential unpredictability of war
- the "fog of war"
- "friction" – the disparity between the ideal performance of units, organisations or systems and their actual performance in real-world scenarios
- strategic and operational "centers of gravity"
- the "culminating point of the offensive"
- the "culminating point of victory"
83 comments:
Those who can, do. Those who can't, piss and moan.
Pete learned plenty at Princeton and Harvard. It was clear from the hearings that he is way smarter than those Dem US Senators. And as the Sen. from OK noted, plenty of them have been drunk on the floor of the Senate voting the party line.
Pete is the ideal leader of warriors: educated, experienced, a change agent and tough. Very much unlike Mad Dog Mattis.
Brooks - AS Elon Musk would say - go F yourself.
Sort of related, and you can delete it if you think it irrelevant, I just had cause to post this clip from Wag the Dog in a BlueSky conversation
William Macy is telling Deniro "The spy satellites show it Mr Breen. There is no war." To which Deniro replies, "Then what good are they if they show no war?"
https://youtu.be/wwgPnYVg74Y?si=KduD6XwffmCLOMJ3&t=72
John Henry
I suspect that Hegseth, like most field grades - is a big fan of Murphy's Laws of Combat, especially #7:
Murphy's Laws of Combat
1. If the enemy is in range, so are you.
2. Incoming fire has the right of way.
3. Don't look conspicuous, it draws fire.
4. There is always a way.
5. The easy way is always mined.
6. Try to look unimportant, they may be low on ammo.
7. Professionals are predictable, it's the amateurs that are dangerous.
8. The enemy invariably attacks on two occasions: when you're ready for them, and when you're not ready for them.
9. Teamwork is essential, it gives them someone else to shoot at.
10. If you can't remember, the claymore is pointed at you.
11. The enemy diversion you have been ignoring will be the main attack.
12. A "sucking chest wound" is natures way of telling you to slow down.
13. If your attack is going well, you have walked into an ambush.
14. Never draw fire, it irritates everyone around you.
15. Anything you do can get you shot, including nothing.
16. Make it tough enough for the enemy to get in and you won't be able to get out.
17. Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than yourself.
18. If you are short of everything but the enemy, you are in a combat zone.
19. When you have secured an area, don't forget to tell the enemy.
20. Never forget that your weapon is made by the lowest bidder.
21. Friendly Fire Isn't.
Brooks is an idiot incapable of the maneuver he’s trying to pull of- falling back on the old trope that the Democrat is always the superior ‘intellectual’ when the opposition has the far superior cv in every respect.
Don’t interrupt them when they’re repeating the same mistake…
The difference between Murphy's Laws of Combat and Skippy's Rules is smaller than it should be. https://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~shane/dokumentasjon/skippy.html
David Brooks....P**** man. Another democrat lilliputian.
Yes, indeed. Go iron your capris, Brooksie!
"In a healthy democracy people revere great learning on substantive issues; they understand the world is too complex to be captured in bite-size slogans." Which is why Senate confirmation theater as currently practiced is so worthless. Elected idiots and grandstanders pretend to ask questions and then when allowed (after multiple blurtations of "It's my time!") the nominee pretends to answer them, Soundbite for soundbite made for consumption in the tik tok era.
Jessup is good, Patton's "cocksucker" speech is even better. Clausewitz reminds me of Trump--negotiating skills are more of an asset than a college education. Brooks is ... never mind.
David Brooks, Prince of Self-Satisfied Midwits, writing that someone with accomplishments in the non-negotiable real world is below "mediocre" is an almost perfect public failure in self-awareness.
Brooks' entire dutiful lapdog career is based on putting a pseudo-intellectual veneer on basically trivial observations that flatter his audience of the selfish, incompetent, smug, self-righteous administrative/management class.
"20. I must not taunt the French anymore."
Clearly made up. Instructions for taunting the French is in the manual TF-124-51 (TF = "Taunting French").
The reference to Carl von Clausewitz is reminiscent of Dennis Miller, but without much sense of humor or self-awareness.
Everyone loves that old movie line in A few Good men -It's a great line.
"You want me on that wall!"
but the reality is - in the movie, that was all used to cover up a murder.
So - it's an a$$hole comparison from Brooks.
Again - Brooks - go F yourself.
I wish mediocre talents would quit lecturing the rest of us on what mediocre is. Dude! I'm looking right at you.
Oh. And. War is logistics.
Brooks is writing for New York Times’ readers, so he has to condescend.
The Pentagon woke up a day or two ago, and realized that their Apple cart gets turned over next week. The (soon to be former) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs announced that they may be able to work for Trump and Hegseth. I don’t see that working out for him, and his 3 and 4 star colleagues very well. I think that Hegseth gave it away when he said that enlisted, when they lose their rifles, have hell to pay, while generals, who lose wars get promoted. Trump remembers when, on 1/6/21, he ordered the Pentagon to protect the Capital with the National Guard, and nothing happened. And then, the Pentagon went on, and gave the Taliban $billions$ in arms, by withdrawing through the Kabul airport, and not through Bagrahm, while jumping on DEI, transgendered troops, etc, for all that they were worth. I fully expect to see a lot of 3 and 4 star billets opening up in the near future, starting with the Chairman.
“Amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics.” - Omar Bradley
If you dropped Brooks into a combat situation you’d be able to identify his foxhole from the stench of him shitting himself.
Just remember that Robert Strange McNamara was regarded as brilliant but his strategy of a war of attrition cost us the Vietnam War, and 58,000 military service members their lives.
Looks to me like Brooks wants to date him.
The good part of A Few Good Men was Jessup expanding in the presence of Cruise and a woman officer who outranked Cruise on there being nothing better than a BJ from a woman officer who outranks you. The fuck PC moment of virtue in the film.
@Bruce Hayden, shorter version of what you wrote: the generals and admirals do not work with the President and the Secretary of Defense, they work for the President and the Secretary of Defense.
"Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance."
General Milley needs to be ordered back into uniform and court martialed for insubordination and dereliction of duty, to bring the point home that in the US of A the military is subordinate to civilian leadership.
FWIW, Colonel Jessup was right.
Hegseth is a leader of men, something foreign to people like Brooks, so he can go piss up a rope.
Trump remembers when, on 1/6/21, he ordered the Pentagon to protect the Capital with the National Guard, and nothing happened.
Milley should face a court-martial for that, and be busted to private. I'd like to see Trump himself rip the stars off his shoulders in front of a TV camera.
We need about two dozen Admiral Byngs to get the second Trump term off to a good start. I think it would be popular with the trigger-pullers.
Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres
In Clauswitz (sic) also said "Everything in war is very simple. But the simplest thing is difficult." You don't need a Genius to head DoD. You need someone who can be loyal to Trump, and implement the simple and correct ideas.
Brookes is just doing what he normally does, write about life in the DC-NYC bubble. He hasn't a clue what really goes on outside the bubble, and he doesn't know any active military other than the cocktail circuit generals, admirals etc.
I've read that we have more Generals and Admirals now than in WW2, when we had 12 million man army.
Confirmation hearing meme: If Pete can handle this, he can handle anything Here’s looking at Rh.
David brooks looks down from his lofty perch and adapts an attitude of superiority. No doubt shared by his NYT's readers. Brooks isn't wise, but he is supercillious and that counts for a lot.
I want Pete on that wall! I need Pete on that wall!
Nobody was smarter than Robert MacNamera. and...
Perhaps the ultimate proof of Brooks lacking self-awareness is his ability to dismiss someone as being in no danger of rising to the level of mediocrity. I think failing to rise of mediocrity defines David Brooks's contribution to political discourse for the past quarter century. Assuming some sense returns to the profession of historians in the future I think Brooks will be remembered solely for having noticed the crease in Obama's pants leg. An occurrence in his oeuvre that should have been greeted with a universal "I ask you," spoken with the disdain that could have been summoned only by an Upper U Brit.
My God, is this man full of himself. One longs for a Henry II to cry out "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome (fill in the blank).
I think I just one upped Brooks's Clausewitz reference by calling up Henry II. Give me a column in the Times.
The man wasted years at Princeton and Harvard...
What Pete learned in war can't even be comprehended in the halls of Princeton and Harvard let alone taught. Brooks is a nimrod.
Mediocre? Someone needs to send David Brooks a fucking mirror.
"The man wasted years at Princeton and Harvard when he could have learned everything he knows by...." You remember that scene in 'The Hunt for Red October' where the Soviet sub captain disables the failsafe on his torpedos and then sinks himself? David Brooks just inadvertently fired a shot at the vaunted ivy league education credential.
At one time, Chairmen of the JCS (and theater commanders) used to pay a call on the President elect. I'm guessing that no longer happens.
Is David Brooks trying to be a silly man? He started his column by noting that we live in dangerous times, with the bulk of the column talking about the stupid questions from senators. That's all true enough.
When Brooks says that Hegseth is up for SecDef because he was a TV host, that is just blatantly dishonest. Denigrate Hegseth's military service if you want, but at least acknowledge it.
Does Brooks understand how stupid he sounds when he says, "Like everybody in my social class, I support women in combat,..."? Support combat women or not, but at least imply that you can think for yourself.
So painfully true! One of my favorites -whether Napoleon said it or not - is “Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
The reason why Trump is hated so much is that no one else can figure out what people want as well as Trump can, and have the willingness to give it to us.
Blogger's being an ass again. Second try.
Narr's Corollary: No plan survives contact with your subordinates.
David Brooks is a useless neocon asshole. Fuck him.
Brooks is on the outside looking in. He'll take a few ineffectual potshots that please his clientele, but he has no influence in the corridors of power as they are currently configured. Time has passed him by, leaving him admiring Obama's trouser crease.
What makes you think historians of the future will notice David Brooks?
"A Few Good Men" is overrated as a window into warriordom, IMHO.
Of course, that's no distinction when it comes to movies.
More like Carl von Closeted, amirite?
You do deserve him, NYT, and if you were smarter you'd realize that Colonel Jessep had humiliated the talentless Harvard lawyer trying to pin him down. Sorkin had to give Kaffee the victory by fiat: and while an author's saving throw works against Romney Republicans, it made generations of Democrats profoundly ill-equipped to fight Donald Trump.
Brooks appears to be still blinded by the crease in Obama's pants.
Can you imagine young men wanting to sign up for an army led by Thoroughly Modern Milley or Sec. Lloyd (AWOL) Austin. Chairman of JCS General (DEI) Brown is on the hotseat because he apparently thinks that his job is to "work with" his commander-in-chief. Is Brooks OK with this leadership? Hegseth may succeed or fail, but changes need to be made.
As with JD Vance it's interesting to note just how rapidly our betters have decided that Ivy League degrees don't mean very much when the wrong people have them which, I believe, is why they try so hard to make sure the wrong people *don't* get them.
And don't even ask about Frederick the Great. Don't ask, don't tell Prussian style.
They have been caught in worse circumstances than being drunk on the floor of the Senate. I sure would like to know who has availed themselves of the special discretionary fund they use to paper over their indiscretions. Democrat=hypocrite
There was a poster here--a big fan of Sir John Keegan's--who told us all that among all the thousands of pages and millions of words that Clausewitz wrote, there was no mention of logistics and supply, which might help explain why Clausewitz's descendants lost their wars.
I referred him to Book V, Chapters 9 through 14 of On War, and hope he looked it up. Hell, he could have skimmed through Clausewitz's account of the 1812 Campaign and found logistics everywhere.
It's somewhat ironic, since what Clausewitz had to say described the way things were done in his day, and would not have helped the soldiers who had to make war in the 20th Century.
He stated clearly that he never used historical examples older than a century or so if he could help it, since the economic and social conditions of say, the ancient and medieval words were so different from each other and from his own day.
"they understand the world is too complex to be captured in bite-size slogans"
Yes We Can
Let's see Brooksie. Hegseth went to Harvard. Senator Liawatha is a Harvard law professor. Who taught whom in the Hegseth-Warren exchange? Tough to call it an exchange since it was mostly Fauxcahontas screeching like a drunken Indian on the warpath.
As for field grade officers--who haven't learned to be perfumed political princes on the Potomac scrabbling for another star, they rarely have a good crease in their BDUs after a day in the field. They might have a few enemy scalps though (as long as we're talking Indians).
"there was no mention of logistics and supply"
Clausewitz learned his trade during the Napoleonic Wars when "logistics and supply" mean weevily hardtack, living off the land, plundering the peasants, eating your horses and mules if the land and peasants failed you, and learning to love gastrointestinal distress. I'm imaging Von Clausewitz having his own Obama moment, "Mein soldaten, if you like your dysentery ,you can keep your dysentery!"
"The reason why Trump is hated so much is that no one else can figure out what people want as well as Trump can, and have the willingness to give it to us."
Well said, and thank you, LVB.
I took note in the Brooks quote* of the word "populist," which always seems included and said with an implicit snigger of elitist condescension and denigration. As though "what people want" does not bear any semblance or relationship to either people's rational interests writ broad, or to "We the People," who, after all, are the ultimate empowered entity under the U.S. Constitution.
What I think is particularly interesting (and hypocritical) is that it's called the "Democrat" party, from the Greek "demos," meaning "the common people."
* I could not bring myself to read the entire piece -- can't stand Brooks.
In a healthy democracy people revere great learning on substantive issues; they understand the world is too complex to be captured in bite-size slogans;
Yep, which is why the grunts, who've learned what actually matters, are more important than "the best and brightest" in their DC circle jerks.
So good of Borrks to display that, once again, he's the idiot
"In a healthy democracy people revere great learning on substantive issues; they understand the world is too complex to be captured in bite-size slogans."
Couple of unfounded assumptions there:
1. We're a democracy.
2. We're a "healthy" democracy.
3. The hearing involved "great learning on substantive issues."
4. The non-Brooks side is the one that attempts to capture substantive issues in bite-size slogans (was it MayBee in this thread who pithily responded "Yes we can"? My first thought was "Love is love," but the examples are beyond number.
kaffee was based on david iglesias, who would foolishly be selected by W as US Attorney and would investigate Bill Richardson who was crooked as all out,
now Russian basic training is brutal, called devdochina, if you survive it, many don't its presumed you make a good soldier, I imagine the PLA is similarly rigorous,
Jeez, guys! Isn't anyone going to defend Brooksie? Look, you need to understand the guy's incentive structure. His editor has promised him that if he writes six more excruciatingly vapid "conservative" columns, they will get him a new "research assistant" popsie. The one he dumped his wife for is getting a little long in the tooth. I hope she has a pre-nup.
We may deserve Pete Hegseth; we certainly don’t deserve David Brooks
And he fucked up so terribly.
Brooks took in Obama's "perfectly creased pant" and had a premonition of Obama's " very good" presidency, yet he is unstirred by Hegseth's "carefully buttoned shirtsleeves."
And Brooks definitely knows mediocrity, having reached its pinnacle long ago.
At what point does a commentator/pundit find themselves on the scrap heap? Seems to me like Brooks is really trying to find the limits of that...
Credentials mean everything to the left until someone on the right has them, then it is "wasting years at Princeton and Harvard..."
It’s long since time for Brooks to move to Substack.
We shall never cease taunting the French, and we shall not flag or fail. We shall taunt them to the end. We shall taunt the French on the seas and oceans, we shall taunt them with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, whatever the cost may be. We shall taunt them on the beaches, we shall taunt them on the landing grounds, we shall taunt them in the fields and in the streets, we shall taunt them in the hills, 'that they will always surrender!' And even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this nation or a large part of it were taunted by the French, then our taunting taunters beyond the seas, armed with old jabs about never-fired French rifles and white flags, would carry on the taunting! Until, in God's good time, the whole world, knowing how easily their jimmies are rustled, steps forth to taunt them about how many times they've been rescued, epic taunting that never shall grow old."
David Brooks. He respects the crease in Obama's pants. I don't think that Hegseth dismisses learning. I think David Brooks loves credentials, that may or may not indicate intelligence and knowledge, at a level higher than he should.
You degree indicates that you kept trying to get a degree and a certain level of native intelligence. Those are interesting data. It doesn't make you the only source of knowledge and wisdom.
@ RideSpaceMoutain 1/16/25 11:41 AM
"Clausewitz learned his trade during the Napoleonic Wars when "logistics and supply"..."
Interestingly the process of canning food was invented in 1809 by Nicolas Appert to win what was essentially an X prize from Napoleon to make a way to preserve rations for his army.
It's as though the establishment media and political leaders do not recognize that the entire post World war II military intelligence industrial complex that brought us numerous coups of democratically elected governments, major regional wars, millions of civilian deaths and spent many tens of trillions of dollars has always been in the best of hands with the right people with sufficient management accounting and auditing skills.
Who knows if Pete Hegseth is really and truly qualified for the job, but what we do know for certain is that he couldn't possibly be worse.
Thank goodness we have revered NYT columnists who possess great learning on substantive issues to guide us...
Ike supposedly had written "congressional-military-industrial complex" in his first draft, but took out the reference to congress in the speech.
He should have left it in.
Is there an analogy with the Los Angeles Fire Dept? The top three positions there were all held by lesbians. These women were capable of seeing the larger picture. Their goal was not to inspire the grunts or even to fight fires but rather to make the LA Fire Dept an agent of social change. While it's true that some 25 to 30 percent of their vehicles were out of repair, those vehicles that stood ready had gay pride flags painted on their sides. And isn't that the important thing. Instead of denigrating Hegseth, Brooks should write a column praising the LA Fire Dept head. Don't curse the darkness. Light a candle such as the Mayor Bass and her crack team have done.
The question is not whether we should have women in combat roles in war. The question is whether to have humans in those roles. Drones, robots, AI are the coming thing......Napoleon was the first general to use concentrated artillery shelling, and won lots of battles. The German General Staff realized that railway schedules were war weapons and thereby won a great victory in the Franco Prussian War. They had similar luck with their use of tanks against the French in WWII. Someone's going to figure out how to use drones, robots, and AI in a coordinated way. I don't know if it will be Hegseth, but generals always fight the last war and Austin and Milley didn't especially look like visionaries.
The question is not whether we should have women in combat roles in war. The question is whether to have humans in those roles. Drones, robots, AI are the coming thing......Napoleon was the first general to use concentrated artillery shelling, and won lots of battles. The German General Staff realized that railway schedules were war weapons and thereby won a great victory in the Franco Prussian War. They had similar luck with their use of tanks against the French in WWII. Someone's going to figure out how to use drones, robots, and AI in a coordinated way. I don't know if it will be Hegseth, but generals always fight the last war and Austin and Milley didn't especially look like visionaries.
Brooks needs to stay employed, and so plays to his NYT audience. Out and about yesterday, I encountered several of my progressive-liberal friends, all still in full TDS mode; still despondent that Kamala didn't win when they thought she was a shoo-in for sure.
Randomizer, I'm pretty sure that silliness comes to Brooks with little or no effort on his part.
Post a Comment