tdaxp

Dan,

In my world pretty Asian babes in motor shows are serious business! Great selection! Take care,

Sonny

Posted by: Sonny | Friday, February 24, 2006

746ryrtytyrtytrytr

Posted by: Thanh nguyen | Thursday, March 09, 2006

Dan,

Look what I found on the China Daily (I am always watching those guys) web site:

Ziyi poses for Playboy

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-03/10/content_531239.htm

I am sure she is no posing nude. This is for the Japanese edition of Playboy. It looks like Playboy is using the same marketing technique in Japan as they did here in the US: putting a high-profile actress (that normally would not pose nude for PB) on the cover to generate buzz/controversy. It worked with Jessica Alba. We'll see if Zhang Ziyi raises a stink like Jessica Alba did. At least the PB people have good taste. Zhang Ziyi and Jessica Alba are pretty much #1 and #2 in my list of "Hottie Actresses".

Look what else I found in the China Daily:

China: Military buildup 'transparent'
China insisted Thursday it hasn't concealed details of its defense strategy, after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged greater openness from Beijing on its military buildup.

I was wondering, why are the Chinese building up their military? Then I said to myself "It's the SysAdmin force, stupid." The one that will take care of business so that me and my felow service members can enjoy more pleasant "deployments" to Hawaii or Guam while the Chinese are winning hearts and minds in the Gap.

Take care,

Sonny

PS: Since there is no "Zhang Ziyi" category in tdaxp, I had to post this comment in the first "Babes" post that I found. I hope lady tdaxp does not get offended by what can be construed as disparraging comments towards the Chinese or sexist comments towards attractive women. Again, have fun in Beijing!

Posted by: Sonny | Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Zhang Ziyi posing for Playboy Japan is the greatest news in the history of time.

Greater than my new iPod earphones. Greater than Superchic[k] in Lincoln. The greatest. Ever.

Lady of tdaxp is merely annoyed at Ziyi pretending to be Japanese, I'm annoyed that she and Ang Lee made two, separate, "critically acclaimed" movies, instead of one actually good movie.

At least her new movie [1] is (a) not another American monstrosity and (b) apparently set in the city of Lady of tdaxp's. Plus old-school characters. Can't beat that.

Also, compared to Ziyi, Jessica's a dog, and you know it. :-)

Now to find that Japanese edition somewhere.. not yet on ebay...

The People's Liberation Army itself is a SysAdmin force. Mao Zedong tied 4GW war deeply into military doctrine, and PRC may be the only country with political mobilization as a core element of war. Zedong and the CCP know how the predecessors lost the countryside, and they don't want that to happen again.

The People's Liberation Army Navy is something to worry about, contra Barnett and Richards [3]. However, besides us Chinese sailors have Japan and India to worry about nearby, with no obvious friends. China attempting to control the sees is like France trying to be a Naval power in 1910. The attempt is destined to fail, but the attempt itself could be dangerous.

Barnett's a materialist, and believes "hearts and minds" isn't nearly as important as "connectivity" (military, political, and especially economic). The Chinese would suck at exporting warm feelings. They don't need to. Because they're great at low-intensity colonization (Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, East Turkestan, Tibet, Shan [3], &c).


[1] http://www.loveasianfilm.com/features/thebanquet_feature.html
[2] http://www.d-n-i.net/richards/neither_shall_the_sword.ppt
[3] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/02/16/chinese_colonization_of_shan_state_burma.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, March 22, 2006

Dan,

Thanks for the insights.

I don't think Zhang Ziyi is posing nude though. She is to classy for that. We should be able to get the pics online though.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Jessica Alba. Maybe not as cute as Ziyi, but definitely not a dog. At least in my eyes.

Check out this Chinese propaganda video.

http://youtube.com/watch.php?v=MlD4PWb4TCU

Looks pretty Leviathanish to me. Carmina Burana is sooo overused though. Even Sean Hannity uses it in his radio show.

More on the babes front. Check out this cool site with (clean) pics of Israeli Army women. Sweet!

http://www.serialno3817131.com/

Also, I think it's about time that the Lebanese (especially the women) stage another protest.

Take care,

Sonny

Posted by: Sonny | Thursday, March 23, 2006

Sonny,

To paraphrase John Kerry: [1]

"Ziyi is hot
and Jessica is not
the future doesn't belong to Alba
it belongs to Zhang"

Nice Israeli girls. If national power is measured in feminine beauty, a Lebanese-Israeli alliance would be unstoppable.

Listening to the music on the propaganda video, I thought of the English ambassador to the Ottoman Empire who was woken up one worming by a Turkish brass military band playing Rossini... I want to shout "You're learning the wrong lessons!"

You're right that the video is very Leviathany. Barnett and Richards are misguided here. The build-up of the PLA Navy is an evolutionary experiment by the "CCP Brain" [2] If threatening other Core nations appears to get China what it wants, of course she will continue doing that. China thinks that the Taiwanese are watching -- but just in her neighborhood, the Japanese and the Indians are too.

We need to have a large Navy to show China that, no matter what she tries, a Leviathan-based strategy to power will not work. Thankfully, the MILC of our Military-Industrial-leviathan-Complex will keep that happening, even in the face of criticism.

[1] http://media2.audiostreet.net/77C30E7548434C729BF4F6BB19F3F8F7/Download/im_john_kerry.mp3
[2] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/03/17/review-of-global-brain-by-howard-bloom.html
[3] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/12/23/embracing-defeat-part-iv-embracing-victory.html
[4] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/01/06/mother-s-milc-and-the-department-of-the-miscellaneous.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, March 23, 2006

Dan,

They are both hot. Ziyi is more a natural beauty...but Jessica is still hot.

I have to read that Global Brain book. Maybe before the summer.

Your comment on the CCP Brain reminded me of LtCol Grossman's writings on the nature of human reaction to conflict, combative situations or challenges. Usually this reaction is described as "fight or flight". But in reality there are two additional options: posture or submit. So we actually have four options: fight, flight, posture, and submit. Many times, before when faced with a challenge, human beings will actually posture (e.g. a warning shot) to avoid a fight. The posture might prevent a fight (in which you can lose or get hurt), and it keeps your honor intact, something that flying or submitting does not allow. The Chinese might be posturing at this point.

I posted some more on the subject in FX-Based

http://fx-based.blogspot.com/2006/03/busy-stretch.html

Here a link to LtCol Grossman's book "On Killing"

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316330116/sr=8-1/qid=1143146341/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-7718593-2108613?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Take care, dude,

Sonny
MILC. I like the acronym.

Posted by: Sonny | Thursday, March 23, 2006

Sonny,

I think this conversation is rapidly becoming too serious for a post with this title! :-)


In The Global Brain, Bloom uses the paralyzing reaction of a prey to its predator as an example of where individual selection seems to fail. The book contains a snippet from a man who was attacked by a lion, and how it was as if he was drugged..... Perhaps that is submit (Reorientation/Observation in the social cognition loop [1]) -- with posture being merely a more "aggressive" version of it.

Perhaps as a 2x2

_____________Aggressive________Passive
Observation___Posture___________Submit
Action________Fight_____________Flight

Hmmm...

Mother's MILC averts great power wars -- but it's the Military-Industrial-SysAdmin-Complex (MISC) that's the same as Barnett's Virtual Department of Everything Else ;-)

[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/02/14/ooda-pisrr-part-ii-the-pisrr-cognition-loop.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, March 23, 2006

Dan,

We can continue our discussion later under another post. It is nice to know that beauty is only a scroll-up away though. You gottta love the Asian race queens.

http://www.kineda.com/?p=885

LtCol Grossman's Fight or Flight, Posture or Submit model applies only to intraspecies conflict. He argues that: "The first decision point in an intraspecies conflict usually involves deciding between fleeing or posturing...When the posturer fails to dissuade an intraspecies opponent, the options then become fight, flight, or submission."

I would argue that the concept of "strategy" as it applies to individual human beings and nations is the balance between fight, flight, posture, submit. Unless you are French and you automatically go to either fly or submit.

I highly recommend Grossman's On Killing. The first few pages are available on Amazon if you are interested. His follow-on book is On Combat, and from what I hear is also worth a shot. LtCol Grossman is retired now, but he gives classes to the services on combat stress. He's appears in this Frontline documentary:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/heart/view/#rest

I think that when we are faced with interspecies "conflict" the F2PS (my acronym) model does not apply. Perhaps a lion is seen as such an overpowering (and "alien") menace that we pretty much "accept" our fate and go straight into "deep submission" mode. We can't really rationalize with a lion (or a shark, or bear, etc). Maybe that's behavior that's ingrained from the time many human beings were in danger from wild animals. Addtionally, if we had the chance of killing the threatening lion at a standoff range our hesitation would be much less (unless you are some PETA nutcase) than the one we would feel if we had the chance of killing a fellow human being. Unless you are a psychopath, there are far more psychological costs associated with killing another man (or woman).

I have two words for you on the Ziyi vs. Jessica debate: Jun Natsukawa.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bikini_idolater/sets/1646975/

I hope we agree on JN's sheer hotness.

Take care,

Sonny

Posted by: Sonny | Thursday, March 23, 2006

Sonny,

Beauty's above --- and at the links you gave. Wow. Jun Natsukwa's hot.

More substantively...

Remember that OODA was originally only intended for fighter pilots. It became useful when it became generalizable. I think applying the FFPS model to nations is interesting....

To use your lion analogy -- we can reason with it. That's what lion trainers do -- engage in prolonged, multi-session bargaining sessions. The more complex mammals are often on equivalent cognitive levels to the more simple humans (in my experience, the behaviors that make preschoolers love you are the same that make dogs love you) .

I agree that killing a man is probably more psychologically intense than killing an animal -- but this is a difference that effects calculations within the model.

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, March 26, 2006

Dan,

Beauty's aside, (I particularly like Hankook girl at the top of the post), I don't think you intended this post to include comments on China's military buildup, the psychology of killing, FFPS, Harold Bloom, MILC, OODA, Dr Barnett, etc...Somehow it got out of control.

In regards to this graphic:

Perhaps as a 2x2

_____________Aggressive________Passive
Observation___Posture___________Submit
Action________Fight_____________Flight

I am not sure I understand it. Posturing or submitting are in fact actions. The graphic makes it look like posture is an aggressive form of observation and submision is a passive way to observe.

The model can potentially apply to other fields beyond combat reactions. After all, nations are made of human beings. For example: America after Pearl Harbor and 9/11 was in fight mode, Germany and Japan were in submision mode after WWII, France is either submitting of fleeing, and China is posturing right now. While fleeing in combat is regarded as cowardly, when I nation goes into flight mode it's called isolationism. Aditionally, even the best fighters know how to pick their fights, based on their perceived strenghts and weaknesses. In that respect Desert Storm was a fight that played to our strenghts and the current war in Iraq (which we thought was going to be a repetition of DS) is the type of conflict that goes against our strenghts and it's exposing many of our weaknesses.

You can "reason" with a lion, but it is a dicey proposition if you are not a lion trainer. I don't know much about the process of taming lions, but I think that if you are in the African savannah, and a full-grown lion jumps at you, it might be a little too late to engage in bargaining sessions. Lion trainers probably require a set of precondtitions prior to training the lion.

I told you JN was hot.

Sonny

Posted by: Sonny | Sunday, March 26, 2006

Sonny,

I was thinking in context of the OODA-PISRR Social Cognition Loop [1]. Based on some of Larry Dunbar's comments on tdaxp, I explored what happened during the "external world" part of the OODA Loop, which Boyd divides into four different black boxes (Feedback, Unfolding Interaction with Environment, Outside Information, and Unfolding Circumstances). Action and Observation seem to represent two different "attractors," [2] and in FFPS, FF seem nearer the Action attractor while PS seem closer to the Observation attractor.

[And yes, I realize that the Natsukawa is a greater attractor than either ;-)

How does FFPS account for subversion -- I'd imagine it's a form of Posture (focus on appearance, low-kinetics).

[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/02/13/ooda-pisrr-part-i-the-social-cognition-loop.html
[2] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/02/20/ooda-pisrr-part-iv-system-perturbations.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Sunday, March 26, 2006

Dan,

Depends on what kind of subversion you are talking about. I am more comfortble talking about armed insurrection.

Mao Tse-tung wrote, "The ability to run away is the essence of the guerrilla."

Conventional forces operate well within the realms of Posture and Fight. Fleeing or submitting can signify defeat or dishonor. For a conventional armed unit, fleeing a battlefield carries a stygma that is not shared by the guerrilla when he flees battle. But, the guerrilla is not in perpetual flight. He will fight. He realizes that he is not strong enough for a frontal attack against the conventional force (unless he is suicidal), so he goes for the indirect approach, the soft spot, the soft target. The guerrilla is a denier of victory, he seeks to undermine the other side until he quits. If somebody empties the air off my truck's tires because he has a problem with me, that person is clearly in "fight" mode, be he/she might be attemting a direct physical confrontation. In Iraq, the insurgents found out early on that they were getting their asses kicked everytime they engaged in conventional battle (e.g. Najaf, Fallujah, etc), so their main method of engagement became IED attacks while the troops are on the move. It's basically an ambush for which you don't have to stick around; after they detonate the IED, their job is done and they can leave. The insurgents also know that for the US to "lose" they can even get away with causing less US casualties, as long as they keep pumping out a large amount of Iraqi civilian casualties. In fact, US casualties go down to say, 15 a month, as long as they keep a steady stream of Iraqi civilian deaths and portray the situation as a failure. In that sense, we can lose very few of our troops, but still fail in our efforts, or so their logic goes. Our troops, representing the US, can go unattacked for long stretches, but there is somebody figthing the US effort, in the form of fometing a civil war, and therefore fighting the US. True, the reconstruction in Iraq is a combined effort in which the Iraqis and other Coaltion nations play a role, but the US has perhaps the biggest investment in the progress. Failure in Iraq means failure for the US.

Bottom line is, somebody can fight against you indirectly. By denying you victory. By attacking something that you cherish. An indirect fight is no less a fight than a direct confontration. In fact, an indirect attack can harm you more.

The guerrilla does not have to gain ground. He can posture, fight ocassionally, flee, and avoid submision precisely because he is more likely to flee than the conventional army. Many Eastern modes of combat teach that retreat in the face of a strong enemy is a sign not of weakness but of strength.

Even Napoleon Bonaparte (who was a Westerner, but also a genius) agrees when he said, "Space I can recover. Time, never."

The Western way of war emphasizes killing the enemy, while the Eastern way many times tries to bypass or demoralize the adversary.

"He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious." Sun Tzu.

The Natsukawa is indeed a very powerful attractor, Daniel-san. The Natsukawa is a force of nature.

Take care,

Sonny

Posted by: Sonny | Monday, March 27, 2006

Sonny,

I discuss Subversion in some detail elsewhere [1], but for here subversion is a type of conflict that involves changing the identity of your enemy. It changes what he actually wants, rather than merely his calculation of the profitability of some enterprise. Subversion is kinetically low but temporally extended. In that respect it is similar to guerrilla war, and indeed guerrilla war is often intended to subvert the enemy, not subdue him.

An indirect fight can definitely harm you more, and the deepest harm is this changing of priorities. As an example, it is because the Romans recognized this that they attempted to exterminate Christianity. [2]


[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/02/14/ooda-pisrr-part-ii-the-pisrr-cognition-loop.html
[2] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/07/10/caiaphas-and-diocletian-did-know-better.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, March 27, 2006

Dan,

I am sorry I misunderstood your concept of subversion. I have an almost ingrained tendency to think high-kinetics first, which led me to somewhat mischaracterize the idea of subversion.

I remember commenting on post #1 above, referencing OODA and PISSR. My undertanding of those concepts is very basic at this point and that probably colored my previous response.

I was thinking about the Fight, Flight, Posture, Submit (FFPS or F2PS) model, particularly the "fight" portion of it. I was thinking that if you change the word "fight" to the more inclusive "engage", a whole new set of posibilities can be explored. "Fight" has a very kinetic connotation, while an "engagement" can include anything from a conversation in a room to armed combat in a battlefield. "Engagement" is a more versatile term than "fight". The FFPS model then becomes EFPS: Engage, Flight, Posture, Submit. Engagements can take place across the range of the kinetic spectrum.

While engagement and posture might seem similar at first glance, posture implies that there is a distance between the two parties. The posturer tries to keep the other party at a distance. Engagement denotes that you are willing to get closer (physically and otherwise) to the "other". I avoid the term "adversary" in this context because an engagement might have a non-adversarial character. The only thing I can come up with right now is the term "other". The "other" can be a friend or an adversary. While a correlation can be made that you'll exercise low-kinetics options with a friend and high-kinetics with an adversary, the association is not that clear-cut. Generally speaking we'll use a low-kinetic form of engament with who we perceive as our friends, however, to deal with an adversary we can exercise engagement options across the kinetic spectrum.

Of note, no part of EFPS is "final" in the sense that we might employ a strategy that includes fleeing and transitions into an open fight or engagement. Even the "submit" portion does not mean finality. You can temporarily submit (and survive) and live to engage another day. Also of note, what your adversary sees as fleeing or submission might be a ruse to draw him into the jaws of defeat. An adversary that thinks is winning is more likely to become overconfident and walk into a trap.

Changing the indentity of the "other" (maybe I need a better term) can be very difficult indeed. My understanding on the subject of changing what a person wants versus changing his calculation of the profitability of some enterprise is very basic. I would imagine that the former requires more finesse than the latter. From a military perspective, we are better at changing profitability calculations.

I'll leave with a quote from one of the masters of low-kinetics, Soren Kierkegaard, "I do not approach her, I merely skirt the periphery of her existence...This is the first web into which she must be spun."

Sonny

PS: Realize that the title for this post is "Attractive Asian Women of Lost Nomad's "Girl Wednesday"". We've come a long way... BTW the links for the lovely race queens above are broken. Maybe something happened to "Lost Nomad". Luckily, the guys who maintain this (clean) Jun Natsukawa gallery are still in business: http://clean.scanlover.com/jun-natsukawa

Posted by: Sonny | Monday, March 27, 2006

Sonny,

I'll change the title shortly. And update the links -- Lost Nomad has moved [1] -- thanks for the tip!

I'm leary of throwing out the "Fight" in Fight/Flight/Posture/Submit, and replacing it with Engage. First, it throws out work that has already been done on the Fight-Filght and FFPS models. Second, while it's clear what fighting is, engagement is much broader. This means that the categories are less likely to be mutually exclusive. Third, and though you try to defuse this concern, it is not clear that Engagement is seperate from Posturing. For instance, is a teacher in a classroom engaging or posturing to get her students to learn? She's manipulating symbols to achieve a goal, which sounds like posturing, but suddenly it's engagement too.

I do not think "the posturer tries to keep the other party at a distance" is neseccarily true. A buck looking for a mate is posturing to bring the other party closer. Likewise, a skunk using its built-in ranged weapon is fighting ("engaging") to keep the enemy farther away.

I'm interested in your further thoughts.


[1] http://www.lostnomad.org/

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Dan,

I really don't have a problem with the title per se. I was just sort of pointing out how the conversation evolved from race queens to Zhang Ziyi to China's posture to OODA, PISSR and FFPS. The only "problem" I see is that the discussion is kind of "buried" in a post that currently resides in the "Babes" category. Trust me, I don't mind at all looking at Miss Hankook. Some unsuspecting soul might check out the post and look at the comments below and think WTF?...Then again, the first time I stumbled into tdaxp I thought the same thing. Bottom line, is your site, Dan. I am just a guest, and I thank you for letting me "think out loud" on your site.

The FFPS model can have some applicability outside the realm of tactical combat, but I am still unclear as to how to find that application of if it's even worth pursuing. For now, I'll keep the posibility in the back of my head.

The model is part of LtCol Grossman's explanation of the average human beign's resistance to killing another human beign. He postulates that there are other options to the simplistic model of "fight or flight" that we hear so much about. Again. the model might not apply to other endeavors of humanity. I saw what looked like "posturing" on the part of the Chinese when I saw the prop video. We actually do it all the time when we preposition assets (carriers, bombers) in the Pacific to "send a signal" to the Chinese or the North Koreans. Maybe the key is that the FFPS model only applies to situations in which there is the probability of harming another human. Like you pointed out (and I finally think I understand), I can see a grouping of agressive (fight, posture), and passive (flight, submit) behaviors. I never considered FFPS in the context of mating. Or standoff "weapons". I'll put it in the back of my cranium. Do you see a grouping of options that deal with the "challenge" now (fight, submit) and a group of options that tries to deal with the "challenge" later (flight, posture) as in: "I'll fight you now, so I don't have to deal with you anymore" or "I'll posture now because (aside from the psychological cost) I am weak now...but I'll fight you later". Maybe I am just seeing things.

Take care,

Sonny

Posted by: Sonny | Tuesday, March 28, 2006

"Some unsuspecting soul might check out the post and look at the comments below and think WTF?...Then again, the first time I stumbled into tdaxp I thought the same thing."

LOL!!!!!!!!

That's great -- it really is. Brought a huge smile to my face. Thanks :-)

"I thank you for letting me "think out loud" on your site."

I thank you. Conversations make this blog meaningful to me. They're what I love most. I love to learn more, to be unexpectedly guided in new directions, and posters those things with brilliant comments.

"do you see a grouping of options that deal with the "challenge" now (fight, submit) and a group of options that tries to deal with the "challenge" later (flight, posture)"

This is the sort of brilliant comment I just mentioned. I'm afraid my response is rambling (Good insights typically stagger me.)

I was thinking about how I was not happy with the "aggressive" and "passive" distincton, but that the groups were right, even if the categories weren't. It brings to mind Kurzban's research on hierarchies [1], where all male groups tend to rapidly form competitive-cooperative hierarchies, but all female groups tend to be more anarchic. Also Howard Bloom's similar work on another sort of competitive-cooperativeness -- complex adaptive systems. [2]

Fight/submit both are attempts to manipulate a social situation to fit the environment. That is, a hierarchy is formed independent of the outside world where one partner is more powerful than the other. It is the trade-off of kinetics energy now for efficiency later on. However, by "clouding" the situation, flight/posturing create an inefficient network later on for saving that energy now. Flight/posture put off the decisive resolution, while Fight/submit hasten it. Fight/submit are Clauswitzian, while flight/posture are Sunzian.

I also would say that the difference between Fight/Flight and Posture/Submit is that Fight/Flight are more energetic and Posture-Submit are lethargic. It's easier to posture than fly, and easier to submit than fight. So to redraw the 2x2


_______________Clausewitzian_________Sunzian
Lethargic_______Submit_______________Posture
Energetic_______Fight________________Flight

This implies that what is a "fight" depends on the energy domain where the struggle is being decided. For instance, in an academic journal a letter could be Energetic Clausewitzian/Fighting ("None of Dr. Soandso's references say what he is implying" could end a career) while in warfighting it could be Lethargic Sunzian/Posturing ("Nuts!").

Another advantage of this abstraction is that it lets us see that not all killing are "Fighting" (a raid on the Badr Brigade would be fighting on an individual level of analysis, but posturing between Washington and Tehran on a state level of analysis).

[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/12/01/university-of-pennsylvania-evolutionary-psychologist-visits.html
[2] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/03/17/review-of-global-brain-by-howard-bloom.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Dan,

Thanks for the kind words. On second thought, changing the title (plus the accompanying explanation) will give readers a clue of what's below the pictures of the Korean race queens. BTW, love the Girl Wednesday posts on Lost Nomad. I was stationed in Korea a few years ago. Fascinating country. Beautiful women too.

I am still trying to process the Clausewitzian and Sunzian categorization. Also the energy trade-off perspective. That sort of came out of left field for me. But I can definitely see where you're going now. I have to let it sit in the back of my cranium for a while. There's nothing more than I can add to the 2x2 without screwing it up.

I think this statement is the key:

"Flight/posture put off the decisive resolution, while Fight/submit hasten it. Fight/submit are Clauswitzian, while flight/posture are Sunzian. "

When you made the Clausewitz and Sun Tzu reference, it triggered my mind to think about some of the distinctions between the two thinkers. Clausewitz deals more with the operational side of war. He deals more with the issues that arise once you are already either at war, or war is impending. Sun Tzu is more of a "war in the context of everything else" kind of guy, to use Dr. Barnett's phrase. Sun Tzu is more grand strategic, but also more ambiguous is terms of when "peace" ends and "war" starts. Clausewitz pretty much comes in when the sh!t hits the fan. Also, I was thinking about the categorizations of energy in the present versus energy in the future, and the juxtaposition of "black and white" (Clausewitz?) versus the more ambiguous "gray" (Sun Tzu?) as in "gray area". There are acts that are clearly aggressive in nature, but there are others that fall into the gray area of passive-aggressiveness. You can also look at it from a Horizontal versus Vertical way of thinking. That came into my mind after looking at some of your previous posts and some of the work Mark has done on Zenpundit. My knowledge of the subject is nowehere near you guy's. Does't Dr Barnett advocates for a more Horizontal way of looking at foreign relations and "conflict", while traditionally we've had a very Vertical (Clausewitzian?) view of foreign relations and conflict. Maybe I'm off track.

I think the male-female/hierarchy-anarchy research conducted by Dr. Kurzban (and probably other) is fascinating. I need to read more on that. Somehow this brought into my mind the different ways in which men and women behave in strip shows. Men are relatively calm compared with the more "anarchic" way in which women behave in those situations. Just a thought.

Once again, thanks for the comments and the exchange. BTW, it's okay to change the title, but I'm glad you left Miss Hankook in the post.

Take care,

Sonny

Posted by: Sonny | Wednesday, March 29, 2006

Sonny,

I think the "true" Sunzian or Musashian [1] style of war would be one where is is no fighting, only posturing. Think of the WWI-trenches Infiltration Tactics described by John Boyd in "Patterns of Conflict" (pp 57-62) [2]. That was a Sunzian "war in the context of war" -- but instead of a unified Fight command (CHARGE!), the Sunzian troops flowed into the enemy like water, flowing down easy land and shunning the high places.

The stripper analogy is interesting, though that's complicated by the greater physical flexibility of women. Also think of the genered Christian assault on Rome [3]. There fast-tempo, loose-network operations were done by men, which was helped by the greater cooperativeness of men, while slow-tempo, dense-network operations were performed by women, which exploited their ability to work well in anarchy.

Hmmm....

[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/02/04/5gw-soundless-formless-polished-leading.html
[2] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/05/23/john_r_boyd_s_patterns_of_conflict_brief.html
[3] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/07/14/every-man-a-panzer-every-woman-a-soldat.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, March 30, 2006

Dan,

The strip club analogy I was thinking was not so much for the dancer themselves; I was thinking about the audience. Usually in the male audience, in a strip club where a female is dancing, behaves in a relatively calm fashion. The atmosphere can be pretty much that of a sports bar when there is not a big game on the screens. In other words, more casual.

Now, if you look at how women behave in Chippendale's or other male stripper shows, the atmosphere is anything but calm. Basically is more of an "event" compared to the casual air in that you see in "shows" where the dancer is a female and the audience is male. Bottom line: males: calm; females: anything but.

I need to sit down and read your posts on 5GW, Boyd, and man-a-panzer-woman-a -soldat. I've seen the POC brief before, but it is not one of those things that lends itself to a single-reading understanding.

The other think I was thinking about (and I think Robert Kaplan mentioned this in one of his presentations) is how women are the depositories of culture. Think about the differences in the Spanish (male domainated, conquistadors, militaristic) way of colonization and the British (family oriented, with more women brought from Europe, and more aggrarian). I was also thinking at how G.I.s behave when they were overseas in remote locations (Vietnam, Korea, the Philipines, etc) and how things change, in terms of interaction with the locals, when you bring in dependents as it happened in Korea. I think Kaplan mentions that too. BTW, the thing I like about Kaplan is that he's actually spent time with the troops, so he gets a perspective on how things work where the rubber meets the road instead of the top-down view that a writer might get from a general.

Take care,

Sonny

Posted by: Sonny | Thursday, March 30, 2006

Sonny,

Thanks for the clarification. There I definitely agree with you. Kurzban's research indicates the mere knowledge of an existance of "an other" causes all-male groups to rapidly become cooperative. I would think a strip club would definitely qualify.

A quick word that the Panzer/Soldat was is actually part III is a discussion of early Christianity. Today's tdaxp post introduces those three and provides some navigation for them [1].

How did the atmosphere in Korea change after the introductin of families?

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/03/30/jesusism-paulism-introduction-the-revolution-of-early-christ.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Thursday, March 30, 2006

Dan,

I came into the service in the late 90s, so my experience is mainly in the more family-oriented/PC era of military deployments overseas. I don't want to make a judgement whether before it was "better" and that now is "worse". Is just different. Some of the changes are a product of globalization, the application of a higher standard of conduct to our all-voluntary force and some are a product (like I said before) of the introduction of dependents (spouses, children) into the environment. I was reading a book on the Roman Army, and I found some parallels to our era, particularly when the Roman Army would transition from an expeditionary base into a garrison base. The fact that we have an increasingly mixed-gender force also comes into play.

From talking to service-members who have been in longer (and some retirees), the interaction with the local population (and particularly the sexual interaction) was far more lax than what we have now. From their stories (even taking into account some exageration and male bragging), there were some bases in Korea, Panama, the Philipines and other places that were basically "party bases". Now, don't get me wrong the guys assigned there were working hard, but the were also partying hard...really hard. Some of the things they were able to get away with, if you did them today,you'll be kicked out immediately. I don't want to go into graphic details.

OK, now, when you introuduce spouses (and a more gender balanced force), the interaction with the local female population (and consequently, the entire local population) will change. Guys are going to be far more inclined to stay home with their spouses and interact less with the locals. Because of the all-voluntary force we also have a more mature force in terms of average age, so a higher percentage of service-members are married. The vast majority of service members are faithful to their spouses, but all things being equal, if you are way for a year in a country like Korea, Panama, and the Philipines the probability of having sexual relations with the local female population will significantly increase. Like Kipling said (and Kaplan repeats in Imperial Grunts: "Why, single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints". In this case married men away from their wives for months become pseudo-single men. Basically, with the introduction of spuouses the "party atmosphere" significantly decreases. This is nothing against spouses of course. It's just human nature. We have a very professional force (no conscription) and that is also a factor. The advent of HIV in the 80s also is a player. I mentioned the Roman Army analogy, but this also applied to the Spanish conquistadors. Because the Spanish colonization had a predominantly male adventurer character, (very few women would travel from Spain to the New World) the conquistadors were more likely to have sexual relations with the native female population than their British counterparts who were traveling to America with their families. You see that in Latin America, you have more "mestizos" than in North America.Yes, there is some mix here in the States, but not to the same degree as in Latin America. The Portuguese colonization "process" was similar in character to the Spanish, which accounts for Brazil. Look at this example from recent research conducted in Puerto Rico: However, "recent genetic research indicates that, in relation to matrilineal ancestry as revealed by mtDNA, 61% have inherited mitochondrial DNA from an Amerind female ancestor, 27% have inherited mitochondrial DNA from a female African ancestor and 12% showed to have inherited mitochondrial DNA from a female European ancestor. Conversely, patrilineal input as indicated by the Y chromosome, showed that 70% of all Puerto Rican males have inherited Y chromosome DNA from a male European ancestor, 20% have inherited Y chromosome DNA from a male African ancestor and less than 10% have inherited Y chromosome DNA from male Amerindian ancestor." [1]

That was a ramble...Sorry dude. Great post today on Jesuism-Paulism. The fun never ends.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto

Posted by: Sonny | Thursday, March 30, 2006

"You see that in Latin America, you have more "mestizos" than in North America.Yes, there is some mix here in the States, but not to the same degree as in Latin America. The Portuguese colonization "process" was similar in character to the Spanish, which accounts for Brazil."

I wonder if this was typical of Romance-language colonizers. I believe most mixed-blood Indians in South Dakota began as "French-Indians "(from the fur-trappers), who then more easily blended into the American settlers.

Glad to like the Jesusism-Paulism, series, by the way. 13 months after Part III, Part IV is finally online.

http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/08/25/jesusism-paulism-part-iv-the-fall-of-rome.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Monday, September 04, 2006

Dan,

Nice to see Hankook girl again.

I have not studied French colonization practices as much as I have studied Spanish colonization, but southern Mediterranean (Portugal, France, Spain...all Catholic nations in the 1500s and 1600s) colonization was more militaristic and male-oriented in nature than English or northern European colonization which tended to be more familiy oriented i.e. men settling the land accompanied by their wives and families. The Spanish rarely traveled with their families from Europe into the New World. The Spanish colonizers were known as conquistadors (conquerors) and they came from a nation still battling the remnants of Islamic domination in southern Spain and throughout the Mediterranean. The northern European settlers were a less warrior-like crowd, more farmers and craftmen than soldiers. Southern Europe (whose population was not very receptive to Protestantism) was still Christendom's frontline against the Ottomans (and Islam) and the Castilians saw themselves as protectors of Christianity. The last thing the conquistadores wanted to do was farm the land with their Spanish wives (those who were married). They were more in search of gold, glory, and adventure than a quiet family life based on their work. Their mentality was very different from the mentality of the northern European settlers in North America. Since this is an OODA Loop-related post, you can say that the Spanish had a very different Orientation box or container from their English conterparts. This of course affetected their decisions and actions. In the long run, English colonization was a better approach at least in terms of the products of that colonization. Look at Latin America and to some extent the Philippines, then look at the US, Canada, and to some extent India. In the end, the Spanish male-oriented, militaristic, conquistador-centric model of colonization was effective for only a relatively short period (the 1500s and part of the 1600s), but in the long term it could not sustain itself or evolve beyond the level of glorified plunder under religious auspices. In the end, the conquistadors were men (and soldiers to boot). Thousands of miles way from European women. The fact that they had sex (with all the consequences, including "mestizo" offspring) with the native women is really no surprise or abnormal behavior. The DNA evidence is there. You can also look at it from the perspective of Catholic vs. Protestant colonization.

Thanks for bringing me back to Hankook girl.

Posted by: Sonny | Tuesday, September 05, 2006