Sep 17, 2022Liked by Paul Fahrenheidt

<i> For their entire history, the American people have been a people so individually competent, so trustworthy and trusting of each other, </i>

Then Hart-Cellar was passed leading to the erosion of trust between fellow Americans giving us what exists now: the prologue to Great Bloody Intramural Mistake II.

Expand full comment
Sep 17, 2022Liked by Paul Fahrenheidt

US military is pretty excellent at this even now. Motivated units are given all the initiative in the world. The way they are integrating drones and proxies into versatile, nimble, decentralized combined arms formations is pretty galaxy-brained IMO, but most people are ignorant and can’t comprehend any of it.

Expand full comment
Sep 17, 2022Liked by Paul Fahrenheidt

This was quite interesting. I’ll have to write down the names and events you mentioned so I can research them later.

Expand full comment

I know you said this type of leadership is more “democratic” than monarchical, but wouldn’t pseudo-managerial be more appropriate? The term democratic would imply a popular decision making hierarchy but it is still top down in nature. As always, I enjoy your articles.

Expand full comment

This is an argument of semantics imo. Thanks for the perpetual support!

Expand full comment

Yeah, you're right. I bring it up because I am thinking that this type of organization style may be effective as we build parallel institutions. Thoughts?

Expand full comment

That’s why I wrote the article, thought I think there’s work to be done in the intermediate

Expand full comment

Well said, and prescient too.

Expand full comment

Terrific article. I think it is an appropriate counter to the monarch-bros. Your strongest points are that once hierarchy are formalized, it becomes fragile. And secondly, (obviously) that the character of the masses is the determinant for success. And from what I picked up, a third implied point is that you can't win wars with slaves. There is much to chew on here. Thank you.

Expand full comment

It doesn’t mean you don’t have hierarchy. And infantry battalion still has a very strict hierarchy which is necessary to its functioning.

Expand full comment

In war and struggle it is important to seize the initiative, its also important not to cede the initiative.

The Right doesn’t understand the initiative as it’s forever reacting to the Left.

War, Struggle also involve maneuver: a successful maneuver by its very nature causes the enemy to react to your movement, dislocates and unbalances him , wrongfoots him. An example is Hannibal in Italy had the Romans astride the main road in defense. Hannibal did not attack. He went into a swamp and emerged behind them ravaging their lands* , forcing them to start chasing him. Hannibal then chose the Battlefield and set an ambush which the Romans fell into and were defeated at The battle of Lake Tasamerine. This is an example of maneuver and seizing the initiative. Hannibal set the agenda, the Romans chased him.

Another example is COVID. Far from a Policy failure it was a stunning success. We’re still wrongfooted and chasing their latest lie, they have the initiative and set the agenda.

*ravaging lands = destroying economy, like us now.

I’m just pointing out the facts.

We need to learn to maneuver and set the agenda, I am constrained to point out our opponents are palsied old sociopathic hacks protected by a bodyguard of sniveling “media” and all are cowards. We still need our own agenda, as it happens they don’t completely control the board; Dobbs has not only tossed power back to the State Capitols (where the opponent is weaker and where strong its California or NY strong- open criminals who buy votes and steal elections), Dobbs also very critically calls into question the core pillar of Democratic Power that the Courts can conjure powers from Delphi’s vapors such as....administrative law (The Federal Register) -administrative courts (IRS and all of the agencies) , Civil Service immunity from the elected officials firing them as in Humphreys Executors##!

The core of their power is the Bureaucracy, the entire immunity from consequences to Bureaucrats in the FBI, DOJ, CIA and all of them rests entirely upon The Courts immunizing the Bureaucracy from “politics” which immunized them from Voters.

##! If Humphreys Executors goes its down to the APA Administrative Procedures Act of Congress and either the Courts can reverse Humphreys or the Congress overturn APA - thereby restoring the power of politicians we elect to dismiss or discipline the Civil service. This is not only initiative and terrifying to the opponents; it is CHOICE.

Choices- OUR CHOICES. Shall we maneuver at the center via SCOTUS? Or use the Congress in DC to overthrow APA? OR perchance the State Capitols to make the Battles on Abortion restrictions? - here it is critical to understand politics is Power not principles and in terms of power shifting the battlefields to State Capitols away from DC takes power from the opponents.

> to the point never mind your f---ing feelings on abortion MOVE THE BATTLEFIELD.

Choose a productive battlefield, not a loser. Set our agenda not react to their agenda ( initiative) concentrate efforts where we are strong and the opponent weak - maneuver into State Capitols - or use Congress or present SCOTUS to attack a now very and vulnerable point of Bureaucratic immunity from our elections . The

Indeed advance on at least 2 objectives- so the enemy does not know with surety the main effort and where to defend. This places the enemy on the Horns of a dilemma and either Horn is worth a battle (WT Sherman).


In war the method is to put your strengths against their weaknesses.

Might we consider changing our objectives to the enemy weaknesses? Especially as that opens up 2 million square miles of America to maneuver in, instead of laying siege to the strongest enemy redoubts?

There you are Sir - both problems and solutions. Pick ads so the battle not their battle field The science $$ and The Media are not the fights to pick.

Set the agenda elsewhere (initiative)

Maneuver where they are weak and we’re strong.

Not attack their core strengths beating heads against solid rebar fortresses.

All must Orient on a common goal - keep your eye on the main thing as the Brits say.

Expand full comment

Decentralized Leadership is a wonderful idea. It is possible if your Boss hides inside the wire.

It’s difficult elsewise.

The mundane truth about our tactical processes; neither mission command nor Direct Control, but “process”.

Direct control would be too risky as that’s responsibility, but we certainly can’t have Operational Freedom or this risible Mission Command business as the publicity would be awful, not to mention the soldiers might get strange ideas. The correct answer is PROCESS of course, the PROCESS immunizes Command while covering everyone’s butts interests.


This is Special Forces in Afghanistan 10 years ago, the complaint is the process stops results.


CONOP - Concept of the Operation (45 power point slides in the IRL case).

SF - Special Forces Green Berets

CJSOTF; Command Joint Special Operations Task Force (Top HQ SOF Afghanistan)

AOB; advanced operations base (AOB), which is essentially a company headquarters from the SOF battalion.

VSO: Village Stability Operations

5W: Officially means Jumpmaster qualified (parachutist Jumpmaster). It seems in practice the SF teams Quartermaster (logistics).

*I am not in SF nor ever was.

But look at the 💩 they were dealing with, its what happens when Big Army gets involved.

Expand full comment

Yes, its actually more productive for most Officers to hide inside the wire. How that works in open full warfare I can’t say.

Perhaps it doesn’t.

Expand full comment