Geo-Strategy #6: America's Imperial Hubris

Let's start class. Last week we discussed the possibility that Trump will become president, and we discussed that if he does become president in a second term, there will be a very strong likelihood that the United States will go to war with Iran. Now the question today is, okay, Trump wants to go to war, but will the US military agree? Ultimately it is the Pentagon that must implement this war, and if there is enough opposition from the military, then it is very hard for Trump to push a war. I want to make the argument today that the military will go along with the war, and it has to do with what happened in 2003.

So let's go back to the last time that America fought a major war. It was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, called Operation Iraqi Freedom. At that time President George Bush and his people, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, they wanted this war, and they go to the Pentagon and say, listen, we want this war, give us a plan. And the Pentagon, the generals, they're very experienced and conservative people, and in general when you fight a war there are three things you must focus on.

The first idea is mass forces. When you fight a war you want to overwhelm your enemy. So when we say mass forces, we basically mean infantry and armor. Most wars are fought using tanks and soldiers, and the Iraqi army at that time had about 370,000 soldiers. In general, the general rule of thumb when you invade a country is you want to have a three-to-one advantage. The reason why is that when you invade a country you need to hold territory and resupply your soldiers. You need to advance, you also need to hold territory, as well as supply your troops and have reserves. So the general rule of thumb is that if your enemy has 300,000 soldiers, you need about a million. That's the first principle.

Second principle is the idea you want to avoid encirclement. The worst thing that can happen to your soldiers is if they become encircled by the enemy, because then it becomes impossible to defend yourself. And the third idea, protect supply lines. Most of war is actually just logistics: how do you get oil and fuel and weapons from here to there? Supply lines. So these are the three major principles that you must focus on when you fight a war.

So when the Bush government asked the Pentagon for a plan, the Pentagon went to the drawing board and said, to invade Iraq properly we need about a million soldiers. And Donald Rumsfeld, who was Secretary of Defense, and his Deputy Wolfowitz said, no, we're going to do it with less than a million soldiers, give us a plan that requires less infantry. And the Pentagon said, okay, well, we shouldn't do this, but the most we can do is about 00,000. And Wolfowitz said, nope, go lower. And eventually Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz said, we want you to fight this war with 100,000 troops, 130,000 troops. The Pentagon said to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, this is insane, we will be outnumbered three to one when we fight this war. How are we going to avoid encirclement? How are we going to mass forces? How will we protect supply lines? And Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, who are not, by the way, professional soldiers, they've never really fought a war before, they're like, well, we have this theory, a new theory of war called shock and awe. And the idea of shock and awe is that all militaries are hierarchies. You have command and control, so you have the head and then you have the body and then you have the arms and the legs.

Well, if we can go and cut off the head, then the entire army falls apart, and we can do that because the nature of war has changed. What the US military specializes in, what gives us the advantage, is three things. First is air supremacy. We control the skies because we have the greatest air force in the world. But second, what's most important, is omniscience. Omniscience means to know everything, we're God. The reason why is, listen, we have satellites that can see everything on the earth, we have technology that allows us to eavesdrop on all electronic communications. When you talk on the phone, we can hear exactly what you're saying. We know everything on the ground. That allows us to have the power of God. That's the second thing. The third thing is we have special forces. Special forces are soldiers who go into enemy territory and are able to target and direct air power against the enemy, and we, America, have the best special forces in the world. And so with these three things we have a new doctrine of war.

We can fight war in a new way that's never been fought before, but which will guarantee that war will be quick, we'll do it very quickly, cheap, it won't cost that much money, and third, decisive, we will completely destroy our enemy.

And the Pentagon was like, you guys are insane, this is not going to work, this is a theory, guys, whereas this idea of mass forces, avoid encirclement, protect supply lines, we've been doing this for thousands of years. This is just experience, this is just history, this is reality, guys. This is just a fantasy. All right, but Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz insisted, and they said you must fight this war this way. They insisted, and it turned out that this plan that the Pentagon, most military planners, thought is absurd, insane, unrealistic, worked 100% the way it was supposed to work. The second Gulf War in 2003 lasted exactly three weeks. Very quick. The US military, with only 130,000 troops, was able to destroy an army of 370,000 in three weeks. That's one. Second is America lost at most 200 soldiers, and most of it was due to friendly fire, it was accidental. This is insane. This has never happened before. Only 200 American soldiers died at most, whereas tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers died.

And the third thing that was most impressive is something called Thunder Runs. This is just America flexing, or showing off. What was happening was that America was so dominant that you had these American soldiers in their armored vehicles drive into Baghdad, the capital city, and they just drive around, circle it, and no one could stop them, and this is what they call Thunder Runs. They did three of these. It was purely an act of intimidation, but it's also just showing off. It's like you're in a fight and you decide, you know what, I'm so much stronger than this guy, I'm going to do a back flip. I'm so bored by this guy, I'm going to do a back flip. Thunder Runs. So these three things show the superiority of destruction of shock and awe.

So how is America able to achieve all this? Well, the first thing is the idea of air supremacy. One bomb, called a cluster bomb, can wipe out an entire tank division, and the reason why is that a cluster bomb inside has about 40 bombs, and these 40 bombs are equipped with GPS, so what they can do is each of these bombs can go and find a tank, it will latch onto a tank and blow the tank up.

So this one cluster bomb, which doesn't really cost that much money, can destroy an entire tank division by itself. The other thing is special forces. The theory is that special forces, if we make them the central core of our military, would have a devastating impact, and it was true. What was happening was that special forces could drive around and look for military installations by themselves, we're talking a few people, and then they could order in a strike, and then the planes were blowing things up. So shock and awe was extremely effective.

But the problem is that people don't really ask what did Saddam Hussein do wrong, why was this so effective against Saddam Hussein, and there actually okay to think that what happened in 2003 was not a revolution in military doctrine, not a revolution in warfare, but a unique incident in war that doesn't really tell us that much. In other words, what was happening in Iraq could not be replicated. There were three reasons why. The first is that Saddam Hussein had no defense. He had no air defense.

He didn't have weapons to counter America's air supremacy. The reason why is that in 1991 Saddam Hussein fought a war against America called the first Persian Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, and his army got destroyed by American air power, and at this point America could have chosen to go invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, and America didn't. So Saddam Hussein learned two lessons from the Persian Gulf War. Number one, I can never beat America, there's no point in trying, if America wants to beat the crap out of me I can't stop it. That's the first thing he learned. Second thing he learned is that America probably does not want to overthrow me, because if he overthrew me it would destabilize the country, it would destabilize the region, you would allow terrorists into the country, you would turn my people into terrorists, you would empower Iran. So there's no way that America would want to overthrow me, so let me just focus my resources on suppressing internal dissent. So he completely forgot about America. Even when it was clear that America was about to invade, he still did not put up any air defenses, because he didn't have any air defenses.

So that's the first thing that was unique about the 2003 war.

Second thing is that Iraq is a desert. That makes it ideal for shock and awe. Air power can go anywhere, you have satellites that can see everything, special forces can just drive around. So a desert makes an ideal situation for shock and awe.

And the third thing is just surprise. No one in human history has tried to fight a war like this, and so no one knew what was going to happen. An example is that special forces were in Western Iraq blowing up missile bases, because the concern was that Saddam Hussein would direct all his missiles, his Scuds, against Israel. So much damage was being inflicted in Western Iraq that Saddam Hussein was so confident that the main American military was actually in Western Iraq, when in fact they were in eastern Iraq. So he diverted all his forces to Western Iraq and left the back completely open to attack from the East. So no one had fought a war like this before and no one knew what to expect. But obviously you can only do this once.

So there are three special conditions to make us think that shock and awe in the 2003 Iraq war was just a one-off, it was unique. Unfortunately the Americans don't know this. The Americans are like, well, all this does is prove our theory to be correct. So after 2003 America focused its military on shock and awe. The example is special forces. Before 2001 America had about 38,000 special forces. Today it has 73,000. That's a lot, because America has a total army of 1.3 million. The budget for special forces, black ops, was about two billion in 2000, and today it's about 13.7 billion, so it's almost seven times, which is a lot. But this is just the public official number, because special forces are black ops, they can operate outside the supervision of the military. So in other words, their actual budget is probably 10 times, possibly 100 times more than the official budget.

All right, now special forces. I want to talk very briefly about why special forces is a problem. Traditionally militaries have been very strict hierarchies, and there are good reasons for this. You have to enforce order and discipline. But you're also concerned about the military overthrowing the government.

That's always been a problem throughout history, so you must maintain complete control. But when you do that, it creates a lot of problems in the military. It is unable to react very quickly to hostile situations. If terrorists come and attack you, your military can't actually go and defeat them, it's too slow. Sometimes there are hostage crises. Throughout the 70s a lot of airplanes were getting hijacked by terrorists, and for these circumstances you need special forces, soldiers who are outside your immediate control who can respond immediately to crises. That's why you have special forces. But in general you don't want that many special forces, because again they're outside the control of your military. They're independent sometimes of your military, they have a lot of space to maneuver and to be independent.

Now why are special forces a problem? It's because the people who volunteer for special forces are different from you and me, to put it very lightly. So for example, let's look at one of the top two special forces in the world, called SAS. This is the British Special Air Service, one of the most elite, certainly the oldest special forces in The world, the other is Delta.

So you volunteer for Special Air Service, you're applying, and their first test is this. There are many tests, but the first test is you have to run six marathons in five days. Oh, that's just the beginning. You also have to carry a backpack of bricks while you are running six marathons in five days. And you're like, okay, that's hard. Oh, one more thing: you're running the marathon on a mountain. You understand? You have to run six marathons in five days with a backpack of bricks, and you have to do it on a mountain somewhere. So even at that first test there have been some individuals who've gone crazy, you have to put them in a hospital because they've gone crazy, but that's just the first test. The last test is always torture. They will be tortured to see how much they can resist torture. Because obviously when you're captured, the enemy is going to torture you to get information out of you. What are you doing here? Who is your commander? Are there other comrades with you? You'll always be tortured, so they also have to withstand torture.

There are some other tests. For example, in the French special services one test is that you will have to wear a bulletproof vest and you will have to hold a clay disc, and then your comrade will shoot a gun at you. Most people are like, I'm not going to do this. So in other words, the people who are special forces, they're different from us physically, but they're really different from us psychologically. They have a different mentality. One special forces member was interviewed by a reporter, and the reporter asked him, why did you choose to become special forces? And his answer is, well, it's either I do special forces or I go rob banks, one of the two. In other words, special forces are individuals who are addicted to risk and violence, and guys, in America there's 73,000 of them running around the world trying to protect the American

So special forces have increased and it's really changed the nature of the American military. It's good for America, because what shock and awe allows America to do is be everywhere at once and you'll never see them. For example, when Gaddafi was overthrown in the 2011 Libya war, that was special forces, but we don't know this because the special forces were hiding in the background, air power against Gaddafi.

So in other words, what shock and awe really is, is it's more than a theory of war, it's ultimately a theory of empire. America is an empire, but unfortunately most Americans don't want to admit that, because being an empire means doing bad things to innocent people, and what shock and awe allows is for America to be an empire without the guilt of being an empire. You have special forces doing all the work necessary in order to maintain this empire without people actually knowing. So shock and awe is really a theory of empire as opposed to a theory of war. Does it make sense to you guys so far?

Any questions? So yeah, okay, Celine asked a great question: there's more special forces, is it because there's more people who want to be special forces or is it because America needs more special forces? The answer is both. After the fall of the Soviet Union, America no longer had a peer competitor, so the understanding of America is that from now on they would have to fight rogue regimes, small nations that don't really listen to America, and these nations have to be toppled very quickly.

The examples would be Iraq, Iran, North Korea, the axis of evil. So America started to shift its doctrine to shadow wars, wars that you don't really see but which would be effective in toppling the regimes you don't like. And so a lot of the resources were shifted into special forces, which allowed more people to enter special forces. Does that make sense? All right, any more questions before I move on?

All right, now the question then is, shock and awe, where does this come from? It comes from one of the greatest disasters for America, called the Vietnam War. From 1965 until 1973 there's a civil war in Vietnam between North Vietnam, which is communist, and South Vietnam, which is basically a US-controlled puppet state. America sent soldiers from 1965 to 1973 to protect South Vietnam from insurgents and rebels, and at the height of this war three million US soldiers had to be deployed. At the height in 1969, 500,000 US soldiers were in country to fight against the rebels and the insurgents. 58,000 US soldiers died in this war.

Million, at least three million Vietnamese died in this war, two million of them were civilians, innocent civilians. 300,000 US soldiers were wounded, they went home without legs, arms, and they were traumatized. And this was an extremely war in America, because they were trying to fight the war using standard military doctrine, mass forces. They instituted something called a draft, so if you were a young American you had to go fight in this war in Vietnam, but you didn't know why you had to go fight this war, and chances are that you would either die or you would lose a body part in this war. So it became extremely unpopular in America. The other thing is that there were a lot of journalists in Vietnam during this time. They were reporting on how America was killing Vietnamese for no reason. The most famous story is something called the My Lai Massacre, where American soldiers went into a Vietnamese village and killed everyone there, 300 people, 400 people, and this was happening actually quite a lot. So there was widespread anger and protest in America at this time, which ultimately forced America to withdraw in 1973. And the US military was very angry about this war, because the thing about generals is they don't like to lose wars.

When they fight wars they want to win at all costs, and they felt that they were betrayed by the country. They were fighting hard to maintain the American Empire, to fight against communism, and this was bringing wealth, power and prestige to America, but the American people, the American politicians, the American democratic republic refused to make the necessary sacrifices in order to maintain this empire. And so many American generals felt betrayed by what happened in Vietnam.

Now there's a very famous incident during this war called the Pentagon Papers. In 1971 a group of American analysts, these are military analysts working in the military, got together and tried to compose a secret history of the Vietnam War, and this is called the Pentagon Papers. This was meant to be classified, this was not meant to be read by the public, but one of them, Daniel Ellsberg, leaked it to the newspapers, the Washington Post and the New York Times, and they published it. People were angry about the Pentagon Papers because what the Pentagon Papers said is, one, America has been secretly fighting this war for a long time.

Many presidents, including Eisenhower, Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, were expanding this war without public approval, without congressional approval. So there's a lot of deception. That's the first thing. Second thing is that the politicians, the presidents, knew this war was not winnable. You couldn't win this war. The reason why is these Vietnamese peasants were unbeatable, because what they were doing was digging tunnels underground, and then when American soldiers were coming they would just pop out of these tunnels, shoot at them, and then disappear back into the tunnels. It was as though they could swim underground. They were not beatable. Second thing is that they had an unlimited supply of weapons, and you're like, wait a minute, these peasants don't have weapons. The answer is they got these weapons from their enemies. The first thing is that these American soldiers were in the jungle and they were carrying backpacks of ammunition, and sometimes they would lose a fight or they would run away in the jungle because it's very hard to carry these backpacks of ammunition, they would drop this ammunition, and guess what, you're now arming the enemy, because these peasants would pick up this ammo and use it themselves.

That's the first thing. Second thing is that the US military dropped more bombs on Vietnam than in World War II combined. More bombs were dropped in Vietnam than in World War II combined. Does that make sense? About 20% of these bombs didn't explode, and if they didn't explode the enemy could pick them up and transform them into landmines, and it was these landmines that were killing more Americans than anything else. That's the second thing. Third thing was that the South Vietnamese army was extremely corrupt, so they were taking these American weapons and selling them to the rebels.

So the question then is, if you can't really see this enemy, they're everywhere, they can swim underground, and if you're supplying them yourself, no matter how many weapons you bring into this country, how are you going to win this war? The other thing is that these peasants were getting angry at you, because obviously in this war you're killing a lot of innocent people who happen to be their brothers, their sisters, their children, their parents. So as this war was dragging on, the Vietnamese were becoming more embittered and more angry, so there's no way you were going to win this war.

That's the Pentagon Papers. Second thing. The third thing is, okay, the question then is, if these American presidents, these American leaders, know for a fact that this war cannot be won, why were they fighting this war? Why were they continuing to fight this war? The answer is, unfortunately, we don't want to lose face, guys. We don't want to lose face. If we withdraw from Vietnam, if we admit that peasants in pajamas can beat us, the Soviet Union would laugh at us, China would laugh at us, the entire world would laugh at us. We don't want to be laughed at, so that's why we're staying in this war. So to summarize what the Pentagon Papers said, three things. One is that the American government lied to the people and turned this into a major war. That's the first thing. Second thing is that America cannot possibly win this war. The third thing is that America's only in this war to avoid losing face. That's it. There's no purpose, there were no strategic objectives from fighting this war, it was just like, we don't want to lose face, we don't want to be laughed at. That's it. So obviously when the Pentagon Papers were released to the public everyone was angry, and the anger was so tremendous that America had no choice but to ultimately withdraw from the war.

And so the Pentagon felt betrayed by democracy. The politicians were more concerned about winning elections than about winning wars. People could protest and defy the military, they refused to make the sacrifices necessary to win this war, the media could insult the So there were many in the military who felt that, listen, if we are to maintain empire, we need to divorce the empire from democracy. Empire and democracy do not get along. If we want to win a war, our greatest enemy is not the enemy but democracy in America. And that's why you have shock and awe, because the entire point of shock and awe is to minimize casualties, and if there are casualties you can't see them because they're all blown up, and it's quick, so it's impossible for people to start to get angry. Shock and awe means that America no longer has to make any sacrifices. You no longer need the consent of the people to fight the war, you don't even need congressional approval to fight the war. You can now escape the shackles of democracy in order to do what you must to protect the American Empire higher.

Does that make sense? So shock and awe was really a response to the Vietnam War, and what shock and awe means is that the empire is no longer burdened by democracy. Special forces can go and do what they must without any oversight and consent from the people. Does that make sense, guys? So this is shock and awe, really a theory of empire, what America must do in order to maintain its empire around the world. Any questions before I move on about this?

Okay, so S asked a great question, which is, I make the argument that shock and awe only works in Iraq, and what would happen in other words? The thing about America for the past 20 years is it's been mainly fighting wars in the Middle East, and it turns out the entire Middle East is a desert. All right, so this shock and awe policy has had tremendous success in Iraq and then in Libya, because America overthrew Gaddafi in Libya, and it's also had some success in Syria as well. So from the perspective of America, we're really only fighting wars in a desert, shock and awe is fine. But our Next class we'll discuss Iran, and Iran is not a desert, it's mountains, and I'll show you that shock and awe is not going to work in Iran.

But that's next class. Does that make sense? All right, any more questions? Yeah, okay. So Jack makes a great point, which is, yeah, but most people would say that America lost the Iraq War because of the insurgency. That's a great point. You can make the point that America for the past 20 years has lost all wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because they have not been able to control the insurgency. But the problem with this is that shock and awe is not designed to stabilize countries. Shock and awe is meant to topple and destroy countries, do you understand? And so the argument can be made that the real intention of shock and awe is to make sure that no power in the Middle East can arise to challenge American supremacy. So yeah, in Iraq the insurgents ultimately won, but is Iraq a functional state? The answer is no. Is Libya a functional state? No. There's still civil war going on in Syria. So that's a great point, and it comes down to what is the ultimate design and intention of the empire.

Is it to replace regimes or is it to destroy countries? And you can make the argument that shock and awe is really designed to destroy countries and not to replace regimes. Does that make sense?

Now what's important to understand is that one of the theories of the invasion of Iraq is to bring democracy to the country, but the problem with that is from the start they did everything wrong. First thing is they really didn't have enough soldiers to maintain peace in the country, so there's a lot of looting, so the entire country broke down. Second thing is that during the air campaign America destroyed all the infrastructure necessary for society, including water supply, including the electricity grid. Why would you do that if your intention was to bring democracy to the country? The third thing is that the very first thing the American government did when they took control over Iraq is something called de-Baathification, which is to say that if you used to work for the old government, you're now out of a job. Hey, the Iraqi military, you're disbanded. And then the question then is, if your ultimate objective is to bring democracy to the country, why would you destroy all political infrastructure in the country?

Why would you destroy the ability for the country to govern itself, as well as to maintain order, as well as to feed the population? Why would you do that? So an argument can be made that the real intention was not to bring democracy to Iraq, it was just to destroy Iraq, to maintain American supremacy, as well as to teach others a lesson: don't mess with us, we'll come and destroy you. Does that make sense? But this is something we will discuss later on in another class.

All right, let's now move to the last topic, which is the theory of empire. This is not the first theory of empire America had, it's actually the second theory of empire. The first theory of empire was 1991. Remember that in 1991 America launched an attack against Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. At that time, 1991, the Soviet Union had collapsed, America was the only hegemon, the only power, and it presented a new theory of empire, how America will rule the world. So the first idea, strategic goals or objectives. For example, in 2003, when America invaded Iraq, its strategic goals were pretty unachievable.

It was basically like, we're going to bring democracy and peace to Iraq and the Middle East. Whereas in the Persian Gulf War, led by the father, George Herbert Walker Bush, the first and only goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. That's it. We're not going to go to Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein, we're not going to inflict punishment on Saddam Hussein, all we want to do is remove him from Kuwait. That's the first thing.

Second thing is that America did so with a coalition of countries. Dozens of other countries were part of the war, and America played a leading role but it also had to defer to its partners. For example, countries like Saudi Arabia who participated in the war were like, there's no way we'll topple Saddam Hussein, we'll only stop at Kuwait. So the United States deferred to its partners. And the third thing, and this is the most important, is that the ultimate leader was the United Nations. The United States had to go and make a case to the United Nations, and the United Nations gave its consent to the military action.

So the United States made the argument that this is not a US military action, it is a UN military action. The important principle is to maintain the rules-based international order. What America said at that point is, yeah, I know we are the greatest power in the world, I know the Soviet Union has collapsed, I know that militarily no one can challenge us, but with this power comes great responsibility. We must show humility, we must show discipline, we must show restraint. Our priority will be to maintain the international rules-based order, because this will bring prosperity, freedom and stability to everyone. And that means that if we use the military, it will only be because it's the last resort, the last option, and only for a limited objective. We will only do so with partners, and we will only do so under the umbrella of UN authority.

So this is the first theory of empire. You think about it, wow, great, what a wonderful world. Here's the question then: why did America not do this anymore? Why did it switch to shock and awe? Shock and awe is basically unlimited strategic goals, unilateral military action. We, America, will do this by ourselves, we don't really need anyone.

And then America just basically bullying, we make the rules. Why did America do this? Why this transition from the first theory of empire, which is great, it would allow America to rule the world forever, to now the second theory of empire, which is pissing the entire world? Why? This is really hard to understand, but let's use an analogy. Jack is my son, and I'm a billionaire. I have 10 billion. Why do I have 10 billion? It's because one, I'm smart, I'm smarter than everyone else, two, I work really hard, and three, I bribed a lot of politicians. So I have $10 billion, but I'm like 95 years old and I know I'm gonna die. So I invite Jack, who's my son, to dinner and I say to Jack, Jack, I love you and I want what's best for you. I'm going to die very soon and you will inherit my empire. I want you to know that you don't have to worry about anything, Jack, because I have 100 advisers who control this empire, who manage this empire, and they are great, they're experienced, they're loyal, they're strategic. Every year, Jack, they make 10% for us.

So $10 billion, they make a billion dollars for every year. When I go, they're still going to manage this empire for us, and you know what, they're going to give you every year, Jack, $100 million to do whatever you want. You want to go buy an airplane, do that. You want to go buy an island, do that. You want to party with movie stars, do that. You can do whatever you want. So Jack, as my last wish, as my dying wish, I want you, Jack, my son, who I love, to promise me that after I die you will listen to my 100 advisors. So Jack, do you promise me? You promised me, right? And then I die. And then what is the first thing that Jack will do? The very first thing he will do, come on, guys, hard, your first thing you will do, is fire everyone. Get out of here. What's the second thing you will do? You're gonna hire all your friends, Jack. You're gonna hire all your friends. And what's the third thing you're gonna do? You're gonna do something really stupid. You'll be like, you know what, my dad only made $10 billion, those advisors only make 10% a year, I'm going to invest in Bitcoin, I'm going to invest in AI, I'm going to invest in the Chinese stock market, the Chinese real estate market, and make a hundred billion dollars.

And then he loses all the money, you understand? All right, this happens all the time, guys. Ask yourself, if your dad were rich and he was about to leave you a lot of money, would you listen to professional people? No, no, you're like, no, I want to have fun.

So the question then is, the first theory of empire, which said that for America to maintain its empire it must demonstrate to the world humility, discipline and restraint, why did they get rid of this and move to shock and awe, which is like, we'll do anything we want? Why would they do that? Because it's fun. Do you understand? What is the point of having an empire if you cannot blow things up for no reason? There's no point. We have the greatest military in the world, let's just blow things up for like no reason. All right.

Now there are three fundamental problems with shock and awe. The first problem is that you become overcommitted, do you understand?

You believe that shock and awe allows you to be God, you can be anywhere at once fighting all wars. You're overcommitted. Second is you lack strategic focus, meaning that you actually don't have a plan, you don't know what you want to do with this empire, you just want to maintain this empire, so you don't actually have a strategy in place. And the third thing, hubris. You don't think anyone can challenge you, you don't think you can lose a war. The idea of hubris is this: right now America has this huge empire and it's refusing to spend the necessary resources to protect the empire. For example, the US Navy. In 1945 it had 7,600 ships. Today, guess what, guys, it has 475. These 475 ships must go all around the world to protect shipping. The US military in 1991, during the first Persian Gulf War, had two million soldiers. Today it has 1.3 soldiers. So in other words, if America ever fights a major war, it's going to have a lot of problems. The other thing is that America doesn't even have manufacturing capacity anymore. It doesn't have any factories anymore, which means that if it fights a war it can't fight a war for a very long time.

The example is that for every ship that America makes, China can make 300 ships. America no longer has this manufacturing capacity that it had during World War II. So in other words, why will the military agree to the stupid war in Iran? Because it's overcommitted, it has no strategy, and it's arrogant. And the military is like this because of what happened in 2003, shock and awe. Does that make sense to you guys? So next class we will look at what the Iran War will look like, and I guarantee you that shock and awe is not going to work in Iran, but I'll explain why next class.

Any questions before we end for the day? Oh, so Celine asked a great question: what's the difference between the people who believe in the first theory and the second theory? The answer is this. The people who believe in the first theory came from an older generation. This is a generation that fought in World War II and who fought the Cold War, so they understand what war looks like.

War is bloody and it's terrible and we must do our best to avoid war. The second, 2003, are individuals who don't know what war is. If you actually look at videos from the 2003 war, it actually looks like a video game, you understand? You don't actually see what they saw in Vietnam, which was all these soldiers losing their arms and crying. I mean, the images from Vietnam were just terrible, it was hard for people to watch. But the Gulf War in 2003, it was just a video game, it was just like things getting blown up. You don't actually see the people dying, and again only 20 people died, 20 soldiers died in 2003. So in other words, unfortunately America has headed towards disaster, because the people in charge have no experience, they don't know what war is and they don't know what the horrors of war are, and they've inherited a lot of money and they want to enjoy the money. They want to have fun. Does that make sense? All right, great. I'll see you guys next class.