Pyongyang, the KKK, and Asymmetric Warfare

“That Gates is a damned fool.  He spent too many years in the British army.

Going muzzle to muzzle with redcoats in an open field.  It’s madness… this battle was over before it began.” – Benjamin Martin

This quote is from a scene from The Patriot, in which the protagonist and his son watch inexperienced Colonial militia line up against veteran British regulars during the early years of the American Revolution.

In the 18th century, this was the norm of conventional land warfare.  Tight formations of infantry supported by artillery and cavalry closed to within 50 yards (the effective range of the smooth-bore muskets) of a similarly-arrayed opponent and opened fire.  Light infantry “skirmishers” and cavalry served both to protect the flanks and to rush in to exploit weak points in the enemy’s formations.


This “line infantry” tactic had its roots in the Greek phalanx, in which heavily-armored, spear-bearing hopliteformed walls of shields and spears, moving methodically forward to slam into the enemy.  In what we might consider an arms race, this tactic led the standard infantry weapon – the spear – to grow in length from about 8′ in the 8th century BC to pikes as long as 18-20′ four hundred years later in the time of Alexander the Great.

Two thousand years later, the musket was essentially used as a 150′ spear (or with the bayonet attached, one with a bit less reach).  And line infantry tactics continued to be very similar to phalangial warfare, even capitalizing on Alexander’s innovations of calvary and light “skirmisher” infantry to protect the flanks, be a quick-reaction reserve to shore up weaknesses, and to deploy rapidly as a shock force to exploit the enemy’s weaknesses.

Such tactics required standardized equipment and armament, skilled leaders from the squad to the headquarters levels, and trained and disciplined foot soldiers.  All of these were strengths the British had and the Continental Army did not.

Benjamin Martin was correct.  It was a fool’s errand to meet the redcoats on their own terms.  The battle was over before it began.

Had the Continental Army continued to fight the British on level ground, we might still be a British colony today.  Instead, they adapted.  Instead of fighting the redcoats on their terms, they capitalized on their strengths such as familiarity with the terrain, support of the local populace, the longer effective range of the Pennsylvania Rifle over the Brown Bess musket, and others.


In contemporary military jargon, this is called “asymmetric warfare” – refusing to meet the enemy on areas in which it has an advantage or even parity, and instead using one’s strength against the enemy’s weaknesses.

What does this have to do with Pyongyang and Charlottesville?


Kim Jong Un is dangerous.  We cannot ignore his threats, his actions, and especially his steady progression towards attaining a significant intercontinental nuclear strike capability.  He is a despot.  He is a narcissist.  He is unstable.  He is ruthless.  He is largely unpredictable.

Kim Jong.jpg

All these are reasons we must engage him.  But we can’t do so on his terms, in places where he has an advantage or even parity.

This is why I believe the President’s use of aggressive rhetoric through Twitter and public spokesmen has been a severe mistake.

National power is often simplified into an acronym, “DIME”: Diplomatic, Informational, Military, and Economic.  The United States of America enjoys an overwhelmingly-lopsided advantage in all of these areas.

However, in this information-driven age in which little capital is needed to broadcast a message to a worldwide audience, the microphones of President Donald J. Trump and Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un are very similar in effective range and power.

And so, when the President of the United States engages the Dictator of North Korea in a series of threats, counters, warnings, and other messages on the world stage, we are facing the enemy on the best terms for which he could ask.  We are engaging him in parity.

Kim Jon Un is getting exactly what he wants – recognition as a world power.  A person so important that the President of the United States reacts to his taunts on the world stage.

Likewise, in this nation, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, anarchists are at a severed disadvantage in almost every resource.  Despite what you may have heard, their numbers have actually been in decline (Source: FBI data and Southern Poverty Law Center) for the past several years.  Their effectiveness has been on the decrease also – anti-black hate crimes have been cut in half in the past two decades.


But one area that they have been increasingly effective – in essence waging asymmetric warfare of their own – is on the Internet and particularly social media, where it is relatively easy to make a small and weak organization appear and sound much larger and more powerful.

Their exploitation of this asymmetry was masterful last weekend in Charlottesville.  Though the gathering was possibly the largest of such aligned racist groups in recent history, it was a few hundred in the midst of a town of nearly 50,000.  But through the resources of the Internet, they showed up organized and equipped with the intent of inciting exactly the kind of violence they achieved.

And America played right into it.  We met them on their own terms, and played to their strengths.  They wanted an armed confrontation, and we gave it to them – on worldwide media.  We gave them the appearance of being bigger, stronger, and more significant than they are, and even worse, we gave power to their voices and their sick ideology.

Instead of fighting them, we are fighting ourselves.  And this, not force-on-force, nation-on-nation conflict, is the key element in what I outlined a year ago (How to Destroy the United States), a strategy to destroy our nation from within.

How do we defeat Kim Jong Un?  Where we are stronger than him – diplomatically and economically (and here we must give credit to the administration for recent wins in the United Nations where we finally have China at least tentatively, but unprecedentedly, onboard with sanctions).  We do it with information – not worldwide media, but offensive and defensive cyberwarfare, back-channel communications, and by gathering and exploiting intelligence.   And we do this while preparing and planning for military options – speaking softly and carrying a big stick.

The asymmetric approach to hate groups like we saw in Charlottesville is similar.  Hit where they are weak.  Capitalize on their small numbers.  When they organize a rally of hundreds in one town, we refuse to meet them force-on-force and instead organize a rally of thousands in another town in the same state.  When they try to capitalize on our differences on the Internet, we shake hands and link arms with our neighbors in person.  When they shout epithets, we speak truths.

Let them wallow in the swamp.  We’ll take the high ground.

They can’t match our numbers, they can’t disprove our truths, and they can’t break our spirit.


Lufbery Politics

A “Lufbery circle” was originally a defensive tactic, but today is a term in air combat for a phenomenon where the combatants are stuck in the fight across from each other. Each is unable to reach a firing solution, yet leaving the circle will immediately put them at a disadvantage.


(Image: Gervais Raul Lufbery, WWI flying ace.  He would feel quite lost in today’s politics)

The “lizard brain’s” reaction to a Lufbery is to stay where you are. Keep turning and hope something changes. It is by its nature an energy-losing maneuver, continually spiraling to the floor. It will almost always get you killed because you run out of gas, run out of altitude/into a rock, or get shot by another guy who happens to poke his nose into your merry-go-round.

The four major divisions of Congress (ideological progressive/socialist left, ideological conservative right, establishment left, and establishment right) are in a Lufbery. The smaller factions have very little influence except perhaps the GOP Libertarians who tend to hang out in the ideological conservative right.

The establishment left and right are party before principle. They will always do what is most likely to help them gain or maintain seats, power, and money.

The ideological left and right are principle over party, but there is one big difference between the two (beyond their values).

The essential nature of the ideological left includes a large state and centralized power, and that lends itself to them working together with the establishment left. However, the essential nature of the ideological right is a smaller state and decentralized power, which lends itself to conflict with the establishment right.  Thus, the right side of the aisle tends to be at a disadvantage toward pushing traditionally “conservative” agenda, even when it is in the majority.

The result is this Lufberry circle. Everybody is chasing each other’s power. There will be some gains, and some losses, but largely I would expect to see the same results – a continued spiral to the floor.

Regardless of where you are in the various political spectra, the only way out of a Lufbery is to take the risk to exit the circle, separate, do something bold and unexpected, and pitch back into the fight with aggressive ingenuity, something for which few of our elected representatives have shown a willingness or aptitude.

We need virtue-based leaders.

Honor and Remember – Speech to Gold Star Families

[Note: The speech above was given in 2013 to an event honoring Gold Star families in New Hampshire while I was still on active duty]

Thank you Gold Star families, for your sacrifice, the sacrifice that so few understand or comprehend.

And let’s thank God for blessing us with the gift of heroes, who have risked all and given all in the service of this country and its blessings, which themselves are a blessing from God.

In the news we are hearing talk about some nonsense that military members are not allowed to speak on matters of faith…


To read more, please click here, or visit my full website at: