To paraphrase Von Clausewitz: Politics is a continuation of war by other means.

Those, whose idyllic sense of unreality are lulled into the illusion that politics is a pastime akin to the parlor games enjoyed by the affluent, please remember this reality: War is Hell--and the people promoting it most visibly are politicians. It would not appear seemly that the CEO of Raytheon or Boeing goes public with push toward any specific conflict or even war in general. The obvious conflict of interest would become immediately apparent. But the MIC's large geographic presence (with "defense" plants in all 50 states) plus the large financial "donations" made by MIC to various political persons ensures that the MIC remains on top of Uncle Sam's Christmas giving list--a giving lasting 365 days.

The war drums are beating steadily, even though Commander Cheeto is attempting, in his clumsy way, to soften them. He has put a damper on hostilities--though not enough nor soon enough. But he, too, has his battles against the MIC. Make no mistake, die-hard Berniecrats and other anti-war hopefuls, Bernie's spine is deossified into gelatin. He cannot stand up to Her Awfulness, and will liquefy like ice cream in a microwave when facing Trump. Trump will wipe the floor with Bernie--indeed any Blue--even H.Rodent or Mrs. Obomba. Trump is going to beat the Dems almost as soundly as McGovern was trounced. Face it.

Instead of delivering some well-deserved criticisms of Vermont's maple syrupy candidate (hard in the winter but oozing in warmer weather), I shall comment on Tulsi, Warrior Princess.

Reputedly OMB (Orange Man Bad) is a student of Sun Tzu. I believe he is. In the manner in which many misunderestimated G.W. Bush, partisans deride any notion that Trump has more brains than a ferret. But they do not face reality. The army that underestimates its enemy is often doomed. So is the Blue Establishment. Hubris be its name, until there is no more Partei Blau--coming within our lifetimes.

Drumpf becomes stronger by the day. The Dems become more openly stupid with each day. Drumpf has a well-supplied, well-motivated army. I don't give a dam about the whiners here who cannot accept the fact that Trump is a master politician. How many politicians could survive 3+ years of daily enemy assaults, from sniper shots to full frontal assaults and come out on top? I can name one. TULSI. But she has not gained the high ground yet.

Tulsi is a warrior, one unique in public knowledge, although her views are reflective of many combat veterans. A warrior who is anti-war. She engages in politics with the warrior mind set.

It is not my contention that Tulsi will capture the prize in 2020. Instead, I think of a protracted battle, with WW2 being the prime example.. Indeed lessons from WW2 still permeate military doctrine, with refinements necessitated by changes in technology.

World War 2 as a heuristic

Most of the events of WW2, even those behind the scenes, are by now well-documented. The lessons are important and lasting. It is in that concept that I extend the analysis of Tulsi's campaign for victory. In a sense, today's essay is a continuation of as prior essay: Tulsi Gabbard, Quo vadis?

The American involvement militarily in WW2 lagged decades behind bankster-funded support of Hitler. But once the shooting started, mutiny was quickly quelled by FDR, showing a fortitude only matched by his adviser, General Smedley Butler--and by current politicians Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard. FDR faced down the industrialist cabal at the outset of his administration by threatening them all with penalties for sedition. The carrot was that he would allow them to retain their ill-[gained pre-war profits--as long as they neither interfered in politics or obstructed the US war effort.

At the insistence of General George C. Marshall, later father of the Marshall Plan, Frank Capra was commissioned to produce the movie series Why We Fight.

Director Frank Capra enlisted shortly after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. He was assigned to work directly under Chief of Staff George C. Marshall, the most senior officer in command of the Army, who would later create the Marshall Plan and be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Marshall felt that Signal Corps was incapable of producing "sensitive and objective troop information films". One colonel explained the importance of these future films to Capra:

You were the answer to the General's prayer... You see, Frank, this idea about films to explain "Why" the boys are in uniform is General Marshall's own baby, and he wants the nursery right next to his Chief of Staff's office.[1]

During his first meeting with General Marshall, Capra received his mission:

Now, Capra, I want to nail down with you a plan to make a series of documented, factual-information films—the first in our history—that will explain to our boys in the Army why we are fighting, and the principles for which we are fighting... You have an opportunity to contribute enormously to your country and the cause of freedom. Are you aware of that, sir? [2]

The American isolationist public, now 20+ years past the epic disaster which was WW1, had lost sight of the gruesomeness of war. They, as now, needed to be awakened from their pacifistic torpor in order to understand the enormity of the twin disasters simultaneously occurring in Europe and China. Now information technology has enabled a clearer, more rapid picture of battle costs and gains. This was not the case in 1940's USA.

War Colleges teach WW2 military knowledge. Still. To this day. The lessons, just as Sun Tzu's, are timeless. There has never been a time in history that full frontal assaults were anything but pre-calculated slaughter. Other maneuvers are needed.

Current military doctrine includes "shock and awe", which is the polar opposite of incrementalism. The battle must be taken to the enemy with as much lethality as needed as suddenly as possible. But a full frontal attack, no matter the balance of forces, is always more hazardous than other military maneuvers.

Sometimes, the simplest task is enormously complicated. This especially pertains to war (including politics). 1940: the Dunkirk Evacuation successfully drove the (western ) allies from the continent of Europe. Stalin wanted a second from--because the Germans violating the Molotov-Ribbentrop concordat, invaded Russia along a 2000 mile front with three huge army groups. But despited Hitler's deployment of more than 2,000,000 troops to the front, he still had many divisions to protect his backdoor--the English Channel.

Militarily the Allies were completely unable to penetrate the continent in force. They lacked many things necessary to dislodge Hitler from Europe: enough men under arms, enough food, enough armor, enough airplanes, and mechanisms for amphibious invasion across the English Channel. Churchill's strategic aims were not attuned to either the US nor Stalins's. But regardless, the military was unprepared to take on the invasion.

Learning when you are ready to undertake an assault (or properly defend one) requires experience as well as materiel. In WW2. the Dieppe raid. was a large scale operation to test the German defenses on the Channel Coast. This was a colossal failure in terms of immediate gains (none) and losses (large). But most military historians credit Dieppe with teaching the Allied Command just how formidable a full scale invasion would be. It is best, in hindsight, to consider Dieppe a Reconnaissance in force. The immediate failure was ultimately outweighed by the learned lessons. This is a theme to which we shall return when we discuss specifically the application of WW2 in specific, to Tulsi Gabbard's Presidential Campaign. Just as in WW2, success here of the Tulsi invasion will shape world history for decades.

What many with only causal knowledge of WW2 don't know is the additional and also costly 1944 Exercise Tiger. This occurred only weeks before the actual D-Day Normandy landings. It was a practice rehearsal of an amphibious landing at various English beaches on the channel's south coast. It, too, met with disaster. Please read the citation for further reference. But this flawed exercise also was a great teacher.

The Student of War

Tulsi's current position politically is like the Brits and Canadians about to disgorge troops on the beaches of Dieppe. Tulsi knows she lacks the firepower to capture the objectives (in this case, early state primaries). But she and her team will be learning, and later applying lessons learned, from these battles. She will learn the most efficacious troop deployment (i.e., campaign volunteers), logistics (i.e., allocation of funds and other resources), and tactics (use of raids, guerrilla, frontal attack, sniper attrition of enemy confidence).

An example of Tulsi's use of sniper attacks is recently famous. When the Great Rodent insinuated that Tulsi was a Russian agent, insane utterance by an ever-deteriorating Rat, Tulsi hit back frontally with a clean shot right between HRC's beady eyes: "You [HRC] are the personification of rot in the Democrat Party". Tulsi then followed with a forceful counter-attack: filing a $20 M defamation suit against Her Awfulness. Interestingly, HRC, with her flanks unprotected, is now dodging subpoena service for the court case. Such bravery from a would-be Corrupter-in-Chief surprises few.

The lessons to be learned here, in Campaign 2020 will be more fruitfully applied in future confrontations. Easier targets for Tulsi would be either of Hawaii's two Dem Senators: Brian Schatz, whose term expires in 2022 and Maizie WhoKnows whose term expires in 2024. At the risk of Stalin-like impatience, it would seem that 2024 is Tulsi's time for Presidential office. But realistically, presidential politics is more like Operation Barbarossa, than it is the Normany landing.

Attacking Normandy, although strongly defended, was a narrow front--5 beaches, total 50 miles wide. This equates to the early state primaries in IA, NH, SC, NV. Good learning experiences but not involving total resource commitment.

The presidential primary in toto is a much larger enterprise, equivalent to the 2000 mile Eastern Front, not 50 miles of French beach.

So far this essay is really about How Tulsi Fights. Her political positions really are Why Tulsi Fights. She is a Realistic Progressive. She's shown the requisite fortitude numerous times already. She has acted upon principle to the detriment of her immediate political career. Tulsi is a long range planner. She's dwells not in elitist bubbles, such as Madame Secretary, but has seen battle, blood, and death first hand. Oh yes, I know. Hillary faced Bosnian snipers.