Gant & Kagan – Mutually Exclusive by Sidney O. Smith III

BankAaron 974 11175909_112179126597 

On the left we have Colonel Aaron Bank, the father of US Army Special Forces.  On the right we have Colonel Arthur "Bull" Simons, probably the greatest leader of irregular troops in the history of the US Army.  In the middle is the regimental color of the 10th Group, 1st Special Forces Regiment.  I had the honor of serving on Simons' staff in South America in the mid '60s.

Below we have the eloquent and much needed wisdom of our friend Sidney Smith.  pl


"As God is my witness…or at least according to Wiki…Ms. Kim Kagan heads something called the Institute for the Study of War. You cannot make this stuff up. If it were fiction, no one would believe it. And by just looking at the photo, it is obvious we are entering a new act in the great theatre of the absurd played out on the world stage. The strategic goals of the neoconservatives are at complete odds with the tactics described in Gant’s essay. The two are mutual exclusive. No overlap. Yet Fred and Kim — who, in the photo, look like they are walking to their sailboat docked at Marina Del Rey — are the ones who advised McCrystal. The neoconservative goal is to exploit the traditional language of COIN to justify deploying as many US soldiers as possible to Muslim land. Moreover, neoconservatives believe that it is extremely important that the Muslim world view neo-COIN as an occupation, much in the same vein as the IDF. Western occupation of Muslim land writ large. As Bibi said after 9-11, “We are all Israelis now”. That is the neoconservative goal. It is stated, admitted, and on the record. Once Israel launches a pre-emptive strike against Iran (with or without the USM, doesn't matter), then those US soldiers deployed in Muslim lands will act as a buffer to Israel actions, as Iran will strike out against the USM in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Then the USG will carry out the goal of Likud Zionism, which is the inverse of the title of Gant’s article. The goal of Likud Zionism is to destroy one tribe at a time, under a Jacobin approach. How can such analysis be wrong? Yet, no one at the Pentagon will say one word and, God forbid, certainly not under their own name. Why not? Why is the Pentagon standing up for Fred and Kim and not Gant? Yeah, we know the answer. It just whispers in the mind. Hate to say it, but the same whispers occurred in the early 1970’s, among the Scot Irish, African Americans and others. I saw it firsthand, at least in the South. And I am not talking about the Jane Fonda crowd, because they hated her too. Petraeus and the other generals do not understand. They are too isolated from the real world, just like Jeffery Goldberg, James Woolsey, and others. I think the brainier neoconservative Jacobins do understand, and they will successfully exploit to their advantage the rising anger of Americans that will occur in the chaos after an attack on Iran. They will justify using weapons of mass destruction (Sherman’s march through Georgia — 21st century application) to end "the war" quickly. Kagan’s greatest threat is from someone like Gant. Why? Because as God is my witness…or at least according to Wiki — Fred Kagan looks like a walking example of the negative aspects of the “Puer aeternus”(speaks volumes about the wife as well…just look at the photo). But, more than that, the last thing the neoconservatives want to see is Gant and his crowd winning over tribes, one at time. Ultimately the Gant approach threatens Likud Zionism to its very core, as the post 67 goal of Likud Zionism is to destroy the Muslim world one tribe at a time (invoking Lincoln and Sherman to justify the destruction of a civilization). In the Kagan — and therefore Pentagon — mindset, Gant’s way of thinking must be repressed. If not repressed, then eliminated.

Sidney O. Smith III"

This entry was posted in The Military Art. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Gant & Kagan – Mutually Exclusive by Sidney O. Smith III

  1. Charles I says:

    Bravo Sidney.
    When I see the likes of the following, taken from Say What? on the Doonesbury page at, I despair for your nation:
    “Ok, so, this is total crap, we sit the kids down to watch ‘The Charlie Brown Christmas Special’ and our muslim president is there, what a load…..try to convince me that wasn’t done on purpose. Ask the man if he believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and he will give you a 10 minute disertation (sic) about it….w…hen the answer should simply be ‘yes’….”
    — Arlington, TN, Mayor Russell Wiseman, complaining on his Facebook page about Obama’s West Point address.”
    When I read this page, I am heartened, yet frustrated. Its the President who should be saying such things. On Fox

  2. VietnamVet says:

    The positions put forth from the Neo-Institutes would be laughable except the politicians and media keep parroting them with no critical criticism. They waddle at the Generals’ flank.
    The Colonel’s SOF Light or Gant’s One Tribe at a Time Strategies all have one big failing in the neo-conservatives world view. They depend on Muslims being on America’s side. They cannot conceive Muslims as America’s allies. Therefore, they mix up the Taliban with Al Qaeda. Don’t acknowledge America’s invasion, occupation and war of attrition in two Muslim countries. Or care, if America goes broke and loses a failed war. All that matters is Israel and the Holy War against Islam.

  3. Bobo says:

    The paper by Major Grant was right on as to a direction to head one that has been done before by SOF. To think it will be supressed is not what will happen as he has inspired a whole cadre of mid-level officers who think. The Cat is out of the Bag. McChrystal cannot allow the dissension to occur if he is suppressed. Most likely he will be allowed to expand on his thoughts and implement them though he will be roundly criticised if they they do not bear fruit quickly.
    As to Kagan et al aren’t these individuals just a passing fantasy to allow the Generals to get what they want?? Granted the neo-cons will never go away but once their tribal members are labeled they will pass on for new troops. The crassness in the labeling of Kagan does not help the cause but weakens it.
    The generals have gotten what they want and now have to produce but I have been thinking we are on a wrong and expensive path that will bear little fruit.
    While I was for a limited role of CT with some beefing up of Afghan forces I now think we have made a big mistake. If we pulled out and let Karzai and the Taliban go at it the Taliban who have learned a massive lesson in the past eight years and would be foolish to allow a rebuilding of AQ in Afghanistan. They know this better than we do as they know their future limits in this area. In reality all they wanted was power and they blew their chance.

  4. The Twisted Genius says:

    Mr. Smith,
    Thank you for an illuminating, depressing and maddening commentary. I only wish I knew how to throw a wooden shoe into the neocon machine.
    The illustrations of Aaron Bank and the 10th Group colors only adds to my depression and anger. He brought the concept of UW into being with the establishment of 10th Group and now Gant’s espousal of those UW concepts appears to be but a cry in the wilderness. I can almost see “Bronze Bruce” clenching his outstretched left hand into a fist and slipping his trigger finger onto the trigger of his M-16. It seems we can all use a little liberation from oppression right now.

  5. Jackie says:

    Mr. Smith,
    I know I’m not the first commenter here, but I think you made my head explode. And I think your analysis is probably correct. I really don’t want to fight more than a billion, may have my numbers off on this, Muslims on behalf of a little country in the ME.
    Let us send Fred and Kimberly to duke it out with them. And maybe Bibi, too.

  6. psc says:

    Have the Kagan’s criticized Gant’s plan?
    I thought the neocons have jumped on the COIN wagon since stabbing their boy Rummy in the back over his shock/awe/small footprint approach (which they thought was swell a few years ago).

  7. MRW. says:

    And by just looking at the photo, it is obvious we are entering a new act in the great theatre of the absurd played out on the world stage.
    What photo? These are old photos.

  8. Patrick Lang says:

    Old photos of Aaron Bank and Arthur Simons. pl

  9. Clifford Kiracofe says:

    Good post.
    1. The Neocons are fully entrenched in the US power structure/elite, period. They are useful to those who need a stable of “defense intellectuals” to create and promote an imperial foreign policy. Thus they are protected and empowered.
    As is fairly well known by now, the Neocons are inspired in part by the hardline Revisionist Zionist philosopher, Leo Strauss. Arguably, one of Strauss’ objectives was to create a method for hardline Revisionist Zionists to penetrate an overtly “gentile” power structure and policymaking process so as to bring it around over time in support of Zionism and Israel. I touch on this in my book “Dark Crusade.”
    As a reminder about Neocons, here is just one of many old pieces, from May, 2003 and the New York Times which points out General Wesley Clark’s report that the Neocons have a number of countries they wish to destabilize:
    2. The current British inquiry as to the Iraq War is revealing. At the end of this public inquiry, one would imagine the conclusion that will be drawn is the US “ally” is dysfunctional. Thus, it would be dangerous to British interests to continue to play the poodle role.
    “The British chief of the defence staff during the build-up to the Iraq invasion described how US communication lines were so poor that he often had to brief his Pentagon counterpart about his own country’s plans for the conflict.
    “Admiral Lord Boyce told the Iraq Inquiry that “dysfunctionalism” existed in Washington between the Pentagon, the US State Department and the White House, which meant that officials hadn’t talked to each other about the situation.
    “He said US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was so obsessed with carrying out the invasion with as few troops as possible that it did not have enough “boots on the ground” and that his officials did not realise they would not necessarily be greeted as liberators by Iraqis from Saddam Hussein’s regime.
    “Lord Boyce, who has since retired, said: “I often found myself briefing my American counterpart on what was going on in State rather than him actually finding out directly.
    “I could not get across to them the fact that the coalition would not be seen as a liberation force.
    “This was absolutely not accepted.”
    3. Juan Cole’s take on Obama Afghan policy:

  10. rjj says:

    I thought SOS-3’s photo allusion was to the hyperesteemic strolling Kagans.

  11. @Sidney,
    Thanks so much for the comment (and the COL for highlighting it). The Neo-Cons are indeed back in force, this time using their supposedly (D) versions to advance their views (its all about Israel). Really, is this a surprise from a group who venerate “Scoop” Jackson (D-Washington, or was it Boeing?).
    In any case, Gant’s words are slowly creeping out there. To wit, the only editorial I could stomach in today’s WaPo: How to win in Afghanistan, one village at a time by Doug Stanton. Given the Neo-cons approach, it is puzzling why Fred Hiatt let one of their biggest mouthpieces publish Stanton’s views? Perhaps Bobo is right… but I prefer to believe this op-ed is a prelude to published & public attack against Gant’s (and your’s) premises.
    Perhaps if we were serious about paying for our so-called troop surge, we could ask Israel to give back some of the nearly $10,000,000,000 in subsidies we give them EACH YEAR? Heck, that would pay for one third of this year’s additional “surge” costs!

  12. Redhand says:

    Whoa, too much inside baseball here even for a fairly regular reader of this blog.
    I understand the blown gaskets re “Ms. Kim Kagan heads something called the Institute for the Study of War. You cannot make this stuff up.” I looked up her Wiki bio earlier, piqued by Col. Lang’s earlier post with her picture.
    But “Gant”? Who is he? A link or too would have helped frame this rant, though I more than got the gist.

  13. BillWade, NH says:

    “And it goes on and on. Just watch:
    Then tell yourself: this is all going to end well.
    Posted by: Meyerman”
    We have Major Gant’s way and we have the way portrayed in the youtube video.
    In the video a British soldier says of the ANA, “they are childlike, their attention span is equal to a hild’s” “They won”t wear their helmets and dress like Rambo”, “They get on their CB radios, they know where the Taliban are and the Taliban know where we are”,
    “They shoot their weapons with abandon and run us out of ammo”, “They smoke weed or opium during breaks and laugh a lot and do stupid things like exposing our positions”.
    I can just hear the local Taliban honcho telling the ANA: don’t wear the helmets but do where some bright clothing so we know who not to kill – we’ll keep you safe, try to use up as much ammo as possible but shoot away from us, keep us posted of your whereabouts, and, above all, have some fun and laugh at the occupiers”.
    I received a call Friday from the DNC asking for a donation. I told the women that I wasn’t too pleased with the way things were going since Obama was elected, she exuberantly told me, “didn’t you hear the speech, Obama is going to have us out of Afghanistan in 18 months!!”. I told her, “good – call me then”
    Last year I campaigned for Congressman Ron Paul and donated to that endeavor. My girlfriend did the same for Barack Obama. My son deploys in Feb to Khost. We’ll see him for a few days at Christmas. Now my girlfriend wants to tell him to refuse to go, she won’t do that though as I’ve explained to her why that’s not a good idea.
    We won’t think about a Dem to challenge Obama in ’12. We’ll either support Ron Paul as a Republican or a 3rd party.
    Thanks again to the Col for this great education. I think Mr Smith has nailed it.

  14. Fred says:

    The Institute for the Study of War? From the look of their website the only wars in the history of mankind are the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Does anyone think these folks could actually figure out how to win a war?

  15. Sidney O. Smith III says:

    Many thanks for the comments, and I greatly appreciate Col. Lang’s decision to headline it as a thread. I am honored and humbled.
    As everyone can tell, the comment was originally submitted under the Kagan thread accompanied with the photo of Kim and Fred walking as if they were headed to their sailboat at Marina Del Rey, imo.
    Just contrast the Kim and Fred photo to those in Gant’s work and the veil is removed, imo. A new reality appears. (Redhand, check the paper to which Col. Lang refers at the following:
    As a result, I am working under a new set of assumptions, one of which is the following: tragically, Kim and Fred represent the Pentagon mindset, and such a mindset must repress or eliminate Gant’s uniquely American approach.
    Moreover, the Pentagon endorsement of the Kim and Fred approach appears to track the same thinking that led to the Cheney-Wurmser option of 2007. In late 2007 VP Cheney wanted to see a limited strike against Iran for the sole purpose of an Iranian retaliation against US soldiers — one that in turn would lead to a massive US response.
    Under that scenario, the USG would fulfill the goal of the neoconservatives at the expense of US soldiers.
    So one of the ancillary goals of the neoconservatives is to ensure that as many US soldiers as possibly are deployed in Muslim lands before such an attack takes place.
    Moreover, neoconservatives desire that Muslims view US soldiers as occupiers, as contrasted to the Gant approach. I write as a (contented) civilian but imo, Gant’s approach represents a distinctly American tradition — one at complete odds with that of the Likud led IDF.
    If anyone can point me to a GOI document that is consistent with Gant’s tradition (e.g. showing an IDF soldier holding a Palestinian child, plus the idea of winning over one tribe at a time), then maybe such assumptions should be reconsidered. Gant’s tradition reflects the idea of E Pluribus Unum.
    And the IDF? Just look at what happened during Operation Cast Lead. And Likud Zionists only have themselves to blame. If Likud Zionists and the IDF military tradition had followed Gant’s tradition from at least 67, then we would not have witnessed the rise of a virulent militant ethnic nationalism, now promoted by the Pentagon via Fred and Kim.
    Also, with that in mind and for what it is worth, I have concluded that many at the Pentagon are disconnected from the “word on the street”. After an attack on Iran — odds increase significantly that the fabric of our society, already frayed, will become further unwoven.
    Again many thanks for the comments,

  16. robt willmann says:

    I apologize, but I either have missed a cite or cannot find Gant’s essay referenced in the posting. If there is a citation to it, I would like to read it.

  17. walrus says:

    I’m in furious agreement with Mr. Smith. The only question for me is exactly how long can the Israeli lobbys in Western nations continue to convince those nations to do stuff in support of Israeli Likudniks that is demonstrably not in their own best interests?
    My guess is perhaps not as long as the Israelis desire. Yesterday there was a violent demonstration here against the attendance of an Israeli Government Vice Prime Minister at a business forum. This is unheard of.
    To put it another way, Holocaust guilt will only take Israel so far, and I don’t think my children’s generation are going to accept the offered mantle like we did.
    As for Major Gant, when Col. Lang posted that magnificent essay I attempted to draw him into commenting on Gant’s future career prospects without success.
    My own prediction is that Maj. Gant has committed the ultimate organisational sin of being right. My expectation would therefore be that he will receive suitable punishment; perhaps even promotion, and a posting to somewhere like Alaska, but under no circumstances will he ever again be put in a position where he might implement his ideas.
    Col. Lang might like to comment on the ability of the U.S. Army command structure to accommodate the devolution of the necessary powers and authorities to junior leaders that are implicit in Maj. Gant’s ideas. Would the Generals let go of the reins a little? I don’t know enough about the American Army to comment. I’m not even sure the Australian Army would do so these days.

  18. Charles I says:

    Sidney, its you who honour us.

  19. Andrew says:

    I am confused, would it be anti-semetic to call Neo-Conservatism, Judeo Nazism?
    The more I look at this, the more it looks like that.
    It’s basically a bunch of J—-‘s demonizing Muslims in the most virulent way, advocating for endless war, and this demonic joy at the suffering of others. Creepy man!

  20. Is that Nixon pinning the medal on “Bull” Simon?

  21. Patrick Lang says:

    I don’t know the answer to your question. In olden times, an SF team commander on deployment was tied to his higher headquarters by the telecom in the local US embassy if there was such or by manual morse.
    There wasn’t an effort to lead anyone by “apron strings.” It was thought that these men were best left to get the job done themselves. Often teams were hundreds or even thousands of miles from home plate. pl

  22. Patrick Lang says:

    Yes. That is the DSC that he received for Son Tay. pl

  23. John Hammer says:

    That eagle still has his head turned to the olive branch because he is the emblem of real warriors. The institute for the study of war needs to study our fine feathered friend.

  24. Redhand says:

    Thanks for posting the Gant paper. It makes so much sense that I’m not surprised it’s being ignored by the higher-ups. There’s no way a junior field grade officer’s spot-on observations are going to get in the way of the generals’ preconceived notions, especially when they have the imprimatur of politically-connected civilian dilettantes.

  25. The Twisted Genius says:

    Improvements in military radio communications technology over the last few decades have certainly not helped “the devolution of necessary powers and authorities to junior leaders.” The situation have been moving in the opposite direction. Even in 1983, MTTs from 10th Group working in Lebanon were subject to an “inverted pyramid” kind of command structure. We had to not only keep Group HQ and the embassy informed, but also had to respond to HQs in Germany, Fort Bragg and the Pentagon. It is not always this way, but the trend is definitely not promising. My team sargeant had an excellent solution to this dilemma, “We need to put a round through that godammed radio as soon as we get off the DZ.”
    It’s also not in the nature of generals to “let go of the reins.” DOD leadership/management wants immediate, fine grained operational and intelligence updates in order to manage the battle from their high tech command centers. I’ve personally seen this trend only get worse over the last thirty five years.
    There are many men like Major Gant in Special Forces who can operate independently and effectively for extended periods. There are probably far fewer generals and colonels with the maturity and judgement to let men like Gant do so.

  26. Carl O. says:

    I have not yet read Gant’s paper (am printing out now), but I have seen and heard Kim Kagan in action, and her enthusiasm for widening this war is disturbing, to put it mildly. Also scary is the Kagans’ ability to capture retired generals to their outlook. Keane is well known, but the latest cog in their machine is retired LTG Jim Dubik whose last assignment before retiring was as head of the Iraq training mission during the surge in 2007. By his own account, he sold McChrystal the strategy that was used to build the Iraqi army to be used to build the Afghan army, if such a thing exists. If the Kagans are sent to Afghanistan “until their version of an end state is achieved,” haha, Dubik should go along with them, perhaps as their minister of military incompetence.

  27. zanzibar says:

    Thanks for your excellent post. Very thought provoking.
    Don’t you think the end state that Likud Zionism wants to take us will mean the destruction of our constitutional republic as visualized by our founders? Because if one “is to destroy the Muslim world one tribe at a time” or even “end the “war” quickly” would it not have to destroy the very constructs of our republic?
    The biggest flaw in our current context for the Gant approach is that it does not allow for massive gorging at the taxpayer trough. And it does not provide props for modern political campaigns with their dumbed down black and white messaging.
    So it seems that we see a confluence or at least some alignment between our kleptocracy and the Likudniks – of course there is some overlap at the margins. And they have the use of both corporate and state power to influence even dominate public discourse. How does a currently apathetic or even befuddled populace protect their constitutional rights from permanent erosion in the face of this onslaught? How does our politics evolve over the next decade – do we become more fascist (in the Mussolini sense) or do we revert to a more Jeffersonian ethos?

  28. Matayo M'tume says:

    To the author or to Colonel Lang. For those of us who may not be old enough, what were the rumbling heard by Scots Irish and African Americans during the Vietnam war? Thank You for your time.

  29. Sidney O. Smith III says:

    Hey Zanzibar:
    As my response to your question runs long, I wanted to wait until this thread hit the backwaters before submitting it to sst. I originally thought about shortening its length, but since I have thought (procrastinated?) a good deal about that which you inquire and because, at this point, I believe my conclusions warrant consideration, I decided to just wait for the appropriate time to post, with the hopes you catch the comment.
    First I want you to know that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your recent insights into the Zanzibar school of economics. If only President O had adhered to the principles of the Zanzibar school instead of the Chicago school, then the American people would find themselves in better shape. And that dichotomy — the Chicago vs. Zanibar schools — perhaps leads us to what is taking place on larger scale — the neoconservative Jacobins vs. the Jeffersonians.
    As you suggested, it looks like that under President Obama the Jacobins have surged back into prominence, with the blessings of those oh-so-edgy and a-list Huffington Post progressives, no? So hip! So enlightened!
    So to answer your question — with every Jacobin victory, imo, it is reasonable to assume with greater certainty that an endpoint of Likud Zionism is the launching of the Jericho III or its equivalent (h/t Martin Van Creveld from 03 interview).
    US soldiers will suffer as a consequence, particularly since they now occupy Muslim lands due to an distorted and anachronistic view of COIN, courtesy of the Kagans. When all is said and done, the deployment of US soldiers to the Middle East now acts as a buffer to Israeli aggression, meaning the retaliation that arises from any Israeli pre-emptive strike (with or without US general’s approval) will be directed against US soldiers who are seen as occupying the Muslim lands that surround Israel.
    After all, the neoconservative Jacobins, by their own admission, place the goal of a greater Israel over the welfare of the US soldier. I am yet to see any evidence to the contrary — evidence that demonstrates that a neoconservative would choose the welfare of the USM and the American people at the expense of the goal of a greater Israel. The neoconservative preference for the people of the West Bank over those of the USM is irrefutable. 100 per cent. And, in their thinking, if the USG goes bankrupt and our nation fragments in the process, then so be it, as long as the goal of a Greater Israel is reached. Worded differently: it is unwise, as an American, to not consider scenarios that lead to an endpoint involving the Jericho III. (h/t Isaac E. Leibowitz, of blessed memory).
    When looked at from that perspective, the neoconservatives and the Huffington Post progressives, in fact, meld together and become one — the Jericho Jacobins. And the Jericho Jacobins have acted in unison to achieve the goal of exposing US soldiers to retaliation from whomever the Israelis choose to attack and whenever they decide to do so. Pentagon ho-hum. Pentagon stretch. Pentagon yawn. (Pentagon water cooler talk, circa 2002: “Luti called General Zinni a traitor? Really? Ah…who cares…I got my Pentagon pension, got me a government car too. General Zinni is a decorated Vietnam Vet? So what…”)
    Shifting gears a bit but keeping the focus squarely on the Jericho Jacobins, militant ethnic nationalists historically always have resorted to the most lethal weapon in their arsenal before flaming out. Broadly speaking, it does not matter if we are talking about a group of ethnic nationalists barricaded in a house in Oakland, CA. or a cabin in the Ozarks. And it certainly applies to those living in the West Bank as well as nation-states that operate upon such a weltanschauung and whose actions ultimately play out on the world stage. (h/t Freud, Civilization and its Discontents. Jung, too, for that matter).
    One aspect appears consistent in all these scenarios: militant ethnic nationalists reach for the most lethal weapon available when they reach the psychological state of believing that the world hates them as much as they hate “the other”, which, in the case of the Jericho Jacobins, is considerable. It is a vicious cycle and with each turn of the wheel, the violence increases until a tipping point is reached and there is no point of return.
    Our fellow citizens, the Satmar Rabbis, warned us of the possibility of such an endpoint for Zionism but no one listened, including myself. But keeping their prophetic warning in mind and staying with the definition of a Jacobin, these militant ethnic nationalists see the launching of the Jericho III as a sublime way to promote revolutionary ideas through a centralized government — a national government that is idolized with messianic and racist fervor. Under such circumstances, how could a Jacobin, at some level, not view the launching of the Jericho III as a beautiful sacramental act of the State as well as an exquisite expression of ethnic and racial purity? An intoxicating ritual, no?
    Or as Jericho Jacobin extraordinaire, Marty Peretz, said in response to Operation Cast Lead, which included the dropping of white phosphorus munitions on civilians and the slaughter of hundreds of innocent Palestinian children, “Don’t f-ck with the Jews”.
    Peretz revealed much with that flare-up and made a number of fatal mistakes while doing so, the most glaring of which is that he does not speak on behalf of all Jews. He is speaking on behalf of the Jericho Jacobins. Big difference, particularly when one remembers that Jericho Jacobins include many Gentiles supporting the cause of the occupation of Palestinian land and more generally the occupation of Muslim lands. Yet there Peretz screams, pulling off one of the oldest tricks around by trying to act as if he is a spokesman for all Jews and additionally trying to make anyone who may listen (few do nowadays) believe that all Jews are Jericho Jacobins.
    And yeah, right, dropping white phosphorus on innocent children and mothers is really oh-so-manly and oh-so-courageous. A real gut check. But give Peretz credit: his fit of rage, boorish as it was, bestowed us with another insight because not only does his acting out demonstrate to us the essence of the Jacobin intent but also it makes one thing clear: Peretz is hardly talking about winning one tribe one at a time.
    So Peretz’s outburst makes for a fascinating juxtaposition to the approach of Major Gant, US, SF, as detailed in Gant’s paper “One Tribe at a Time” and posted at Sic Semper Tyrannis. Decide for yourself, but just as the approach of the Kagans and that of Gant appear mutually exclusive, those of Peretz and Gant come across as irreconcilable. Major Gant’s approach, particularly as shown in the photos accompanying his work, actual goes a step further and pulls back the veil, showing the true character of those like Peretz: they are militant ethnic nationalists who desire to destroy one tribe at a time on grounds of racial superiority.
    No? I am not right? Then let’s see Peretz hold a Palestinian child in his arms. Let’s see Peretz load up and fight side by side with those like Sitting Bull.
    So with Peretz’s outburst, the differences between Gant and the neoconservatives becomes clear, in my opinion. The strategic goal is either between winning one tribe at a time or destroying one tribe at a time. And if Gant speaks for the Green Berets — and I don’t know because I am a civilian — then, when taken to its endpoint, the dichotomy can now be described as one of De Oppresso Liber vs. Peretz’s idea of ethnic cleansing and genocide.
    Look at it this way: it is all but certain that Peretz and other Jericho Jacobins hold Latin phrases in contempt, including, most certainly corpus separatum but, now it looks like they reject the underlying spirit of De Oppresso Liber, at least from what I can glean as a civilian. E Pluribus Unum too. May as well throw Annuit Coeptis into the mix, meaning, ergo, Peretz is decidedly unAmerican.
    So, in 2009, the tactics of De Oppresso Liber — an American tradition — serve an additional function in that thy expose the true character of the IDF as well as its strategic goal. At no time in the history of the IDF, from the Irgun days forward, has Israel’s military leadership adopted Gant’s tactics. If the GOI had done so, we would not have witnessed Israel devolving into a pariah State (again, as the Satmar Rabbis predicted). And the Gant paper makes something else clear: Likud Zionists (in the US and Israel) have no one to blame but themselves, as they intentionally rejected the American way of E Pluribus Unum and now find themselves on the edge of a deteriorating state of paranoia — one that typically accompanies the mindset of militant ethnic nationalists as they increasingly become disconnected from the reality of the world. (M. Peretz, ibid. — another Latin word I venture to say).
    Thank God for Philip Weiss, Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Adam Horowitz, Jack Ross and countless other American Jews who have heard the words of Peretz, peered over the horizon, and now are saying, “Not in my name.” I understand, I understand. More power to ‘em and Godspeed. Their moral courage is one of the indispensable keys that can unlock and free the United States from the danger it now finds itself, so, imo, it is vitally important that all Americans see the considerable sacrifices Weiss and company have made. Sacrifices indeed.
    But the clock is ticking and right now, the Marty Peretz – Kagan (and certainly Hagee) viewpoint carries more political clout in the US and appears to reign supreme at the Pentagon. After all, it was the Kagans, not Major Gant, that acted as McCrystal’s closest advisers. And that says all.
    It comes down to this: When you read Gant’s paper and recognize the chasm that exits between the Peretz/Kagan tradition and that of Gant, a question arises. As an American citizen, who do you believe better represents the American warrior tradition…Marty Peretz and the Kagans or Major Gant and the Green Berets? It’s one or the other.
    To me, the answer is a no brainer, but to each his or her own. And regardless of which side you choose, I would recommend that one always assume that militant ethnic nationalists will use the most lethal weapon within reach.
    The Jericho III. I simply do not trust names that end with “III”. Never have. Never will. I don’t know why but it’s just the way I am. And I certainly do not trust such names that begin with a proper noun often associated with the Jewish tradition, particularly with a the letter “O” in the middle, as is Jericho III.

Comments are closed.