War in the context of everything else

I wonder whether there is an underlying subversion from within ourselves.

This thought came to mind after finding out that the amount of people who die from committing suicide far exceeds the amount of people who are killed in war’s, or murder’s. Indeed, statistics suggest over one million people suffer this kind of death each year. This is predominately an issue for advanced, typically western civilisations where the pressure from society makes under-achievers feel outcast. But, it is not just under-achievers is it? Occasionally, we hear of seemingly successful high-achievers falling into the trap of depression, and despair ultimately deciding to ‘end it all’. If the same amount of people were to be killed in terrorist attacks, or even in conflict these days there would be an outcry.

Most people these days would be alarmed if more than a handful of soldiers were killed in Afghanistan. Let’s take this back though, and look to a time before modern warfare tactics, and armour; soldiers were considered dispensable! They were thrown into battle, with tacticians having made calculations of how many could be lost before defeat could be achieved. Death’s of thousands on a single day wouldn’t be out of the ordinary. The first world war was probably the peak of large numbers of death’s on a single day. However, all through history, there have been wars that have claimed millions. The last war to cost the lives of more than a hundred thousand was the Vietnam war, where American leaders decided to give up rather than risk losing even more men, and face the political disgrace this would bring. People were generally happier though, in the days of poverty and cheap lives. It appears the more we have, the more miserable we become.

So, what am I trying to say here? I’m try to point out that we are at war, even if it is only with ourselves. We face external threats from strangers, friends, and even our family on a daily basis. More so these days, than ever before. The ability and opportunity for anyone to achieve has only made those people who do not have ability more discontent. This is the nature of being alive in modern times. As Plato said “Only the dead have seen the end of war”. This is as true today as it ever has been. It seems we have traded war with other nations for a war with ones self.

The other day I was a guest on the Vocal Local radio program with William Roberts.  He asked me ‘What is a War in the Context of Everything Else’?  It was a natural question to ask since the subject of the program was a 5-part paper I did titled, ‘War in the Context of Everything Else’.  Silly me that I didn’t have a ready answer but in my defense, it’s really just a bizarre twist of fate that I walked into being a citizen analyst in the ‘War in the Context of Everything Else’ because I needed answers to questions that weren’t forthcoming in the mainstream media.  Everything I’ve done has been seat of the pants driven by instinct and insatiable curiosity.  I’m learning as I go.

The answer to Will’s question is not so easy.  A ‘War in the Context of Everything Else’ can be described by simple labels and phrases: propaganda, terrorism, psychological warfare, etc. all occurring in a civilian context.  It’s a secret war by stealth against civilians – women and children included.    Officially, it’s called ‘Low Intensity Conflict’.  But none of the labels convey the complexity of this type of warfare.  It’s a coward’s war with no honor.  It’s hit and run for the purpose of creating fear.  It’s a method for a minority to impose it’s will on a majority through terror.

The difficulty of the analysis is that nothing is straightforward.  The objectives of the terrorism are inverted or lateral.  Symbolism becomes very important because symbols are coded language to the people ‘in the know’ and virtually impossible to explain to the average person. That which is subtle becomes key while that which is obvious becomes important only in the inverse or not at all because it’s a misdirection.  The analysis is a game of mental gymnastics which is why I said at the beginning of my paper:

When somebody is shooting at you, there is no doubt in your mind that you’re life is at risk so you take cover – and hopefully, you have the means to shoot back.  In a “War in the Context of Everything Else” (WICEE) war, the enemy can come at you from all directions, in ways limited only by the imagination of the enemy and because of that, you don’t know who they are or how they are coming and the war is well underway before you even realize there is one – so fighting back requires that you meet the enemy on the battlefield of the mind before you can formulate a response strategy.

The battlefield is in the mind because there is no battlefield.  There are no uniforms.  There are no boundaries. There are no rules.  There are only actions and responses like scenarios in a play; truth-tellers and liars; players, useful idiots and innocent bystanders.  For any given event, the world of possibilities must be reduced to probabilities and a score card maintained to build a case of preponderance of the evidence.

The next obvious question is who are the “terrorists” by a preponderance of the evidence?  The evidence I’ve seen and gathered seems to point to the CIA and possibly their foreign counterparts (trading places – you terrorize ours – and we’ll terrorize yours).  They were established to carry out covert warfare and simply because they draw an American paycheck doesn’t mean that they are loyal to America.  In fact, since they work with the State Department and the State Department publicly works against American interests it’s embarrassingly obvious.  I have no doubt that the only people in the world who don’t know are the majority of the American people.

The research line of inquiry that led me to that conclusion is the “supply chain” beginning with the U.S. State Department prior to World War II.  Follow the development of the idea of controlling the supply chain and transportation systems in Europe to when it began here in the United States with the Defense Highway System (Interstate), the ISTEA of 1991 and forward.  It’s the most fundamental of military principles:  Control the Supply Lines – Control the Enemy.

This view was stated by Vicky Davis in July 2, 2009