No link between cause and effect required

Over at MilPub FDChief wrote
"The possibility that the idiot Trumpkins think they can "solve" [the North Korea issue] makes my blood run cold..."

And my reply grew so long and fundamental that I decided to write it here instead:

I don't think they want to solve anything. Some people aren't in the business of solving problems. They are in the business of rearranging things so they please them.

That's not necessarily a solution, nor necessarily for a better life in objective terms.

More like a cat thinks that this cup really doesn't belong on the table - bam on the floor it is. Trump et al (including many of his voters) may be the kind of people that think governments such as the one in Iran, the one in NK, or the one in Germany for that matter should be treated with a certain attitude and disrespect - kinda like dogs think that tree really needs to have their own smell of piss now.

The idea that everyone is seeking solutions to better life, "to form a more perfect union" or any other strictly objective, measurable improvement. Some people are really not about the end, but all about the means.

I see this in military affairs very often. People dream up fantasy navies and when I ask them to justify the expenses for this or that they have no clue what utility their fantasy navy would offer for all of its increased costs whatsoever. They simply don't require a link between cause and favourable effect - they just prefer the cause by innate preference.

Scientists and science pundits despair over the utter link between proven unsuitability of policy proposals and their longevity. "Zombie economics" etc. Proved to be a horrible idea again and again, still brought up as a proposal if not even as a supposed necessity again and again.

MilPub is one of the very, very few (moderate) pacifistic MilBlogs, so worth a visit.



  1. When I wrote "solve" , Sven, my thought was "solve in the sense that a four-year-old "solves" the problem of having too many candy bars just lying around the house...". No, I agree; I don't think they want to "solve" the Korean problem in the sense that (I hope) you and I would, with a stable, peaceful, democratic, reunited Korea in place of the current hair-trigger situation and a cult-of-personality Trumpkin running the show north of the 'Z. I think they want to "solve" it in the sense of "let's see what happens if we slap this little bugger around. It oughtta make him and his pissant country RESPECT the mighty U.S. of A.!!!!"

    I think they may actually think that "war works" in the sense that they can apply "graduated" force and get a predictable result. The probability that their assessment will conclude that they can neither predict nor control what might happen is, IMO, ridiculously tiny.

    These are fundamentally the same people who invaded Iraq sure that they "created their own reality".

    And well they might...except what they create hasn't a damn thing to do with "reality"...

  2. I really don`t believe that DefSec Mattis is so dumb.

  3. Especially in the military there are also some (very few , but that is sufficient) warlike / warmongering people who very hidden and deep in their minds realy want and like war, the love violence because of their nature - so this people can of cause not say this loud and show their real nature. Therefore they follow a hidden agenda and search for any excuse to legitimate their hidden wishing, to realy go to war and to kill and to destroy. This very few (evil) people can create very big damage because of their hidden agenda to fight in a war for itself.

    To think every soldier and politican follows sane reasons and act because of sane and logical thinking is in my opinion the reason why so often this hidden agendas of so very few people have a suprisingly big succes.