Click to Subscribe
▶  More from
Lord of the Neocon Nazgul
Max Boot: Lessons from the History of Guerrilla Warfare
I have no problem with Max’s oversimplification of the subject of unconventional warfare. The information he gives to this group of reptilian overlords is good. I even own a copy of this book of his. The thing I have a big, big problem with, is this guy being on my side!
Max is one of the brain trusts that our owners go to when they are cooking up a scheme for owning us more thoroughly at the point of a gun. This geek’s forced enthusiasm for the subject is as unappealing as his awkwardly obnoxious attempts at humor. Max is a top tier cheerleader for perpetual global war, and he’s brilliant, fully imbedded in the toxic establishment.
His best point in this talk is that the loss of Britain’s American colonies was primarily due to a lack of political will, and that the Roman’s would have crucified the founding fathers.
His weakest point is holding up Che Guevara as a formidable foe. The segment on the French in Algeria is morbidly interesting and will most likely be ignored. His explanation of 'hearts and minds' policy is something that I do think American leaders are well adapted to implement in the face of any potential insurgency.
One reason why I encourage readers to try playing a table top war game designed as a simulation, is that the members of the World Affairs Council, and other groups who host the likes of Mister Boot, is that these people are engaged in gaming, gaming with your life, and the life of your people, who he would deride as a tribe. The problem with any game is, that the experts become obsessed with the tools at their disposal, and begin to see their material means as something more, something sacred.
prev:  Reign of Fire     ‹  gaming  ›     next:  ‘Working Class Man Movies?’

Add a new comment below:
Jeremy BenthamAugust 19, 2015 12:55 PM UTC

“Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.”-Josef Stalin

The thing to understand about neocons is that they are not conservative and they are not new. The so-called neocons are really Liberals / Progressives who espouse an interventionist U.S. foreign policy to "fix" what's wrong in the world because they believe America has something good to offer the rest of Humanity. You know, like Woodrow Wilson. The rest of the radical Left, our President included, believe that America has NOTHING good to offer the rest of the world and should have its power diminished so it will NOT be able to intervene in anyone else's affairs (that's what the Iran deal is all about). Other than that the neocons agree with the Left on nearly everything else. Many of these neocons are Jews who support Israel. Since supporting Israel has gone out fashion with the rest of the radical Left that earns them the enmity of the Leftist social justice warriors and the snarky moniker of "neocon". One of the insane dichotomies of Leftism is that most Jews are Liberal / Leftist (about 80%) and yet radical Leftism is anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli. The neocons are attributed with some kind of Jedi mind control power that enables them to talk people into supporting military adventures against their will. That's why all the Democrats in Congress supported the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, don't you know? They were for it before they were against it. Keep in in mind that Leftists are only opposed to military interventions that do not support "The Cause". To the Left military action can be useful EVEN (or especially) when the USA loses. For a military defeat will cause domestic unrest that will enable the Left to grow in influence and seize political power and control. Like after Vietnam. And now after Iraq, Afghanistan and the sham war against ISIS. As for the war on ISIS, we don't have to win, we just have to keep ISIS from winning until after 20 January, 2017 when the issue becomes someone else's problem. As our President observed, the USA is big enough that it can absorb a hit. I mean, it's not like we'd have to cede Baltimore or something to ISIS if we lost to them, is it?
PRAugust 18, 2015 2:01 AM UTC

" In my view Boot seems to be framing a case for global top down class war."

This is the neocon MO: impose your views on the rest of the world by military force. Thomas PM Barnett is another such neoconservative 'expert'
responds:August 18, 2015 11:18 PM UTC

Thank you for the link—another ugly mind to stock the crowded rogues gallery of our foes.
KwyjiboAugust 17, 2015 4:09 AM UTC

This is an interesting article about a war game from 2002, where a Vietnam vet called Paul van Riper annihilated the US forces using unconventional tactics. The US ultimately won, but only after they cheated by refloating their fleet and other nefarious doings.
PRAugust 17, 2015 12:32 AM UTC

Also, Boot asserts that politics, propaganda, and public opinion are large factors in modern war unlike in the ancient world. This is untrue. Chinghiss Khan used propaganda heavily to terrify cities ahead of his invading hordes so that they would surrender and he wouldn't have to kill all of them. The fact that propaganda wasn't printed on a printing press matters little when word travels quicker verbally on horseback.

I know you like a lot of what this guy says but it's better to discredit any member of the elite rather than promote them.
responds:August 17, 2015 12:38 PM UTC

I was depending on him to discredit himself.

I used the term oversimplified, but I think your cherry picking assessment is better.
PRAugust 17, 2015 12:26 AM UTC

His "conventional versus unconventional warfare" comparison is a false dichotomy. War is fundamentally about amassing your forces where they are strong against enemy weaknesses faster than the enemy can react. It matters little whether your forces are organized into paid legions or are paid through plunder, wives, or glory.

George Washington, Robert E. Lee, and Patton fought essentially the same way the Huns and Chinghiss Khan fought: used their strengths against enemy weakness and evaded counterpunches. It's no different than boxing.

Boot cherry picks historical data to make his case amongst the SmartSet(TM) who pay his appearance fees. True experts make far more nuanced and qualified statements than Boot.
responds:August 17, 2015 12:42 PM UTC

It is notable that Nathan Bedford Forest and Mosby did not regard themselves as engaging in guerilla war, and both refused to sanction the desire of some of their men to continue fighting after Lee's surrender. They were simply fighting with the means at their disposal.

In my view Boot seems to be framing a case for global top down class war.