Here is a collection of the written record of doom as spelled out by Jim Finn.
Oh, boy, I can't tell you just how utterly frustrated I by the modern vet culture. It's like we took the horrendously inadequate response to Vietnam Veterans and flipped it on its head. You wear a uniform, you're entitled to the adulation of all. It's fucking sick. It starts with the "You're Welcome for my Service" hats and T-shirts that you see running around. My dad bought me a shirt with a Purple Heart taking up basically the whole front and back that said "Real Men Wear Purple." If I ever wore as shirt like that I'd kick myself in the nuts.
The "Been There, Done That" nature of how we see veterans fetishizes combat in a way that is horribly dangerous and detrimental to follow-on generations. In the First World War men were said to have "Gone to the circus to see the Elephant." See, here is where we fuck things up. You take a clearly sarcastic phrase created by people who had been to war and realized that it was more "Hopeless shit show" rather than "Priceless Crucible of Manliness" and turned it into a statement of reverence. It continued through World War II with Veterans Parades and American Legion shit. I bet we can't find a single person who volunteered for Vietnam who wasn't influenced by the reverence we heaped on the World War II generation. You see how it goes? Veterans are held up as the best of a generation so the next generation sees war, ANY war, as a noble endeavor. It's a mentality that ensures generation after generation of new meat for the imperialist grinder. It's also at the heart of the "You don't support the war, why do you hate the Troops?" mentality that carries us from one war to the next without a real, honest conversation about the ethics of each conflict. There is no higher calling than sending our boys to endless war. If you disagree you're a traitor who hates the troops. See how this gets dangerous?
Now, why is it that when anything happens there is always a veteran or a sycophant ready to shout some variant of "Not as brave as our Troops" or "Nothing compared to the sacrifice of our Soldiers"? The military and war are very specific experiences. Are they hard? Yeah, sure, I suppose but they don't require the commitment of, say, Medical School or Seminary. One thing people don't often realize is that you can't just quit the military. The only way is through. If a kid went AWOL on me I was going to ruin his life. And I did. But it's not like you can just walk away. Your courage is, basically, enforced. You sign on the dotted line and you WILL show up or the consequences are dire. The military isn't a higher path: it's just a singular, distinctive one. Every path requires courage to succeed. Courageous people exist in all fields...and so do cowards. I've met a LOT of moral and physical cowards in the military. The nature of courage is a whole other conversation. The "Bottom Line" is that the military and veterans don't corner the market on courage and acting like they do diminishes them and the service.
Again, the military experience is both specific and distinct: having been in the military does NOT mean you've seen all things and understand more than anyone else. Don't get me wrong, I've gotten to do a lot and it's pretty funny when I started this job and they asked me if I minded getting to a surgery at 7am, but the military didn't make me anything more than older. That might be an oversimplification; it's complicated. The point though is that no one, NO ONE has seen a hard time like the one we are going through now. No one knows how this thing is going to turn out and, thusly, no one knows how to react to it. We could be seeing the end of capitalism, the inciting event that leads to an American Fascist dictatorship, or the birth of a modern society dedicated to solving the problems of global climate change and world hunger. We don't know. It's a scary time. So the veterans run around like they're not scared, like this isn't unprecedented; as though time in Iraq or Afghanistan on Imperialist equivalents of fools' errands qualify them to see the future. Whenever I see shit like that boomer post I only see a scared old man.
But Jim, fear is normal. You're right, it is. I remember shivering so violently after getting shoveled onto that MEDEVAC helicopter the only thought in front of me was "There's no way I can ever do that again." Of course, I did go back. Fear is normal but, if you make your decisions based on fear you can make some pretty wild and irrational ones. Boomers are denying they're scared and acting like they haven't lived through the easiest and most abundant time in the history of the world. That denial is dangerous.
Finally, here's one thing you need to know: our wars, the ones that people wear shirts and hats and preen about are NOTHING. The wars we just fought are tiny blips on the radar of history. Combat is intense and fast: it overwhelms your senses. But no fight I was in compares to fights in places like Beirut, Grozny, Mosul 2016, the Donbas. I played war tourist in the Donbas. I met people who had been in the Maidan facing off with Ukrainian secret police. I met guys who fought the hardest combat of the 21st Century as the Russians level whole square Kilometer areas of the Donbas with Grad missiles. My war was nothing compared to that, my experience pales in comparison. When I was a Commander I drove my boys hard and practically 1/3 of the population of my Troop rebelled against the hard training because they were hardcore combat vets and didn't NEED hard training. When I took Command in July 2016 they were weak. A Major told me Nemesis Troop was the worst Troop. By October we were the best and we led the Squadron in every operation. We got better, tighter, stronger and, more importantly, we shed dead weight. We got rid of all the losers who, despite having a combat deployment or two, had no more idea of what it meant to be a warrior than they knew what it meant to be a doctor.
These fair-weather Soldiers got lucky: war didn't seem easy while we were in it but it was. These punters are the ones who will wave their "Combat Experience" around like it makes them an omniscient god. It obviously doesn't. But they NEED that more than they think they need hard training. They need to be the tough old veteran. They need everyone to know that they've been to the circus, seen the elephant, and they want that to invoke some kind of mythical status.
See that's what makes this whole cycle dangerous: it's self-sustaining. Whether you're on the inside or outside people are ready to uphold the dangerous myth of our time: that all military service is sacred and all sacrifice necessary and noble.
The next time you see someone invoke the Troops where they don't belong know that they're just creating a situation that will feed more boys into more pointless wars.
So Soleimani is dead. Awesome. Doesn’t change a thing. Thanks for coming to my TED talk...
Ok, ok I know you’re expecting another word-vomit style diatribe from your insane friend who thinks he knows everything (seriously, though, Eric, you need a .357 Magnum revolver) and frankly Soleimani’s death means nothing in the ever evolving conflict in the Middle East. It’s a raindrop in a tidal wave. Kata’ib Hezbollah (or Goetib or Katib Hezbollah as it’s often spelled differently) carried out many attacks in Iraq most notably in my case the attack on COP Shocker in 2011. They’ve also done yeoman work fighting against ISIS. They’re a Shia group and the Shia are essentially controlling the government of Iraq. The Democratic Government of Iraq isn’t long for this world: either it becomes some brand of Tyranny like a Petro state or it all comes down a la Lebanon in 1982. Democracy, the corrupt brand we built, isn’t working. People didn’t rally outside the embassy because they hate America: they’re tired of their ineffective government and tired of the free hand they’ve given the Americans. If Canada bombed an airfield outside of Washington D.C. you but your boots we’d be marching on their embassy. The Iraqi people have, for months, been protesting their government for myriad, very valid reasons. I’m not on up on that as I should be so that’s not what we will talk about.
Let’s talk about Limited and Proxy War.
Limited war and Proxy War are two different ways of war and you can say this is basically the only way the United States wages post World War II conflict. They are both highly ineffective.
Limited War is just that: war with limits. You could argue that any conventional war in the Nuclear era is limited unless we use Nuclear weapons and while I suppose that’s valid I think limitations in war are better defined as geographical. All of our ground wars since World War II have been Limited Wars and the most important thing to analyze in limited war is the “Why” of these limits. I think you will find that, more than anything else, limits are placed on military forces based on political expediency rather than strategic realities. Examples: when Douglas MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against the Chinese who he allowed to overrun his forces in Korea Truman set a limitation and ultimately fired the rogue general. This is an excellent example of a well-used limitation. We don’t often remember that MacArthur was ready and willing to start a Nuclear War over fucking Korea. Vietnam is the example of limits run amok. Most of the VC combat power flowed from China and the Soviet Union on ships through conventional ports down the Ho Chi Minh trail through Cambodia and Laos. One major limiting factor were restrictions on bombing military targets in the North, sending ground forces against the HCM trail, and failing to mine the harbors of Haiphong. All of this was done to “Avoid a wider war” and all it did was magnify our failures elsewhere in the war. It certainly didn’t help anything. But LBJ was afraid to look like a “War President.” Newsflash, asshole, you’re a President who opted to get into a ground war. Major limitations are often capricious: I once asked an F-16 to scan a route for us only to learn he was not allowed to fly “That close to Iran.” Welp, I’m here, fuck nut, what’s your excuse? Limitations make war truly confusing both in execution and desired outcome. We had a minor dust-up in a town that USFI identified as Iranian while our maps had it securely in Iraq. When we dutifully reported said kerfuffle they, our higher headquarters, demanded to know why we were in Iran. You can’t make this shit up. The drawbacks are pretty obvious: limited war creates ground level confusion and situations that our enemies can and do exploit.
Proxy war is war fought through intermediaries. Consider our support of the Contras or the Mujahideen. We fight Proxy war for the same reasons we put limitations on conventional war: political expediency. Want to fight a war but don’t want all the hassle of U.S. casualties and Congressional oversight? It’s the fucking dream. The French fought most of it’s dirty small wars with a built-in force of mercenaries, the French Foreign Legion. You never saw news of FFL conflict in the news in France and that’s the way they wanted it. Again, no important casualties and no oversight. Oh and lots of atrocities and war crimes. At any moment we are fighting at least one proxy war. The war in Yemen is a great example. A bomb made in America and sold by our government hit a school bus and Mattis insisted on an investigation shortly before resigning. It was never investigated by anyone but enterprising journalists, it’s a fucking war crime, and the United States is culpable. You see much anger from the right or left over this? Nah, let’s call him Drumpf on late night TV. That’ll fix it. Sorry, where was I? Right. Proxy war. The downsides are definite and pronounced besides unchecked war crimes: proxi-fighters usually have a different outcome in mind for a country or situation than the government supporting them so you can’t really control the outcome. Proxy war also requires a huge monetary outpouring since aircraft typically have to fly extra-long missions and can’t be staged close enough. Lastly it’s anyone’s guess just how many of our own self-trained, bought-and-paid-for proxi-fighters we’ve ended up facing later but my guess would be a lot.
Both limited war and proxy war require a lot of foresight, nuance, and intelligence to run effectively and even then the outcome is uncertain. Trump is very obviously, very insidiously using a unilateral strike to get attention away from other failings and try to boost an economy on the edge of recession (did you see defense stocks and oil prices)? But he’s doing so in a way that could also hasten the downfall of the ineffectual Iraqi leaders and endanger our primary base for the continued attack on ISIS. Another thing to consider is the insurgency of it all. Do you think it’s a good thing that we were able to target the Commander of the Quds force near an American embassy? Much like the use of the MOAB in Afghanistan that caused republican pundits to jerk themselves off so hard their penises were nearly visible, even Ann Coulter, it’s a very bad sign. We aren’t winning. In every real way we are signaling that we are no longer a real player in this game and it’s pretty sad. We become less and less safe as our position in the Middle East becomes more and more untenable. Contrary to popular belief domestic Oil and Gas Production doesn’t quite touch the need and since the great satan is in the pocket of big oil we won’t be using alternatives quite yet. Trump, as usual, is going about this like an untrained baboon.
So are we fighting a limited or proxy war? The answer is both simultaneously with the dual drawbacks of having no clear objectives and no way to achieve even limited objectives. Is there an alternative? As a lieutenant I wrote a paper called “No Holds Barred: The Case for Total War.” The title was clickbait but in it I gave reasons why limited conflict was dangerous both to Soldiers and to America and posited that in the post-Cold War era we should not go to war unless we did so with few limitations, very clear goals, and action agreed to by congressional vote. Did we have evidence that the Iranians were funneling arms and training to insurgents? Did we ever! Imagine the response if we’d mined Iranian harbors, bombed border settlements, imposed no-fly zones, and heavy sanctions on Iran in 2004. It would have done a great deal to ease the Counter-Insurgency burden in Iraq. There are other Strategic advantages of a Total War policy not the least of which would be that the U.S. President couldn’t spend the live and treasure of our nation unilaterally. It was a really good paper, apparently the III Corps Commander at the time read it and recommended it be published in the Combined Arms Center journal and...that’s where it died. I spent the rest of my career training for all out war and executing the most limited functions. Time wasted.
So what happens now? Trump will continue to work on the side of the Saudis who are bleeding themselves white in Yemen despite all of our support. The Iranians will continue to spread influence across the Middle East. Bashar Al-Asad who has to date killed more than half a million of his own people will align with Iran and Russia against Turkey and stay in power. The Kurds will be forced to also align with the Government of Syria for their own protection. As in Vietnam we backed the wrong horse. I will paraphrase a U.S. Commander from Vietnam: “If we gave the Iranians half the support we give the Saudis they could fight us for the rest of the Century.” Hate to say it but Saudi Arabia is the weak sister and if we had a brain in our heads we would have backed Iran from the start (thanks Jimmy Carter). The worst outcome is that Iran will continue to be a radical Islamic caliphate strengthened by having a common enemy. I suspect you will see them get richer despite sanctions as they will continue to do business with European and Russian interests. Trumps incoherence will continue to demonstrate the foreign policy of an America in decline. He almost certainly doesn’t have the balls to put real skin in the game and if he did it would be a mess anyways. All of the bad, none of the good. That could be the Motto for the entire Trump Presidency.
So that’s it. A lot of words to say that it’s a mess, we’re in trouble, and no tactical or operational gain from this raid could possibly make up for the strategic set backs.
Eric, I'm about to sell you a handgun.
First we need to address the elephant in the room: your Glock problem. We like to razz you but in all honesty Glocks are fine but the slightly smaller versions you have, the 19 and the 23, aren't the best thing to build confidence. They're not even especially fun to shoot (more on that later). We can obfuscate and talk about guns as tools but they are, frankly, much more than that. A lot like a car a gun needs to be fun. You need to build a relationship with the gun and there are two types of relationships you can have with a car or a gun: 1) a relationship built on nostalgia and 2) one built on a long history of trusted use. To whit, Charlie has the Mustang which he loves for sentimental and many other reasons even though it admittedly has some reliability issues. He also loves his 4Runner because day in and day out it's the car he's learned and learned to love. He's spent long hours getting to know its abilities.
There's a lot to be said for nostalgic relationships. I have a gun like this. My Grandfather left me a Winchester 1894 in .32 Special when he passed away in 1994. Now it's a weird caliber and while they still make it the superior option is the .30-30 cartridge. What's the difference? There really isn't one. Old timers will tell you that if you're hunting whitetail deer you pack a .30-30 and if you're hunting black bear you pack a .32 Win Special. Ballistically this isn't really supported by anything. A sane person would take a choice between a .30-30 and the same gun in .32 Special and pick the .30-30 every time. But it's not a rational choice: I'm choosing based on nostalgia. It's a fine rifle, I've hunted with it a bunch, but even if none of that were true it would have a place in the safe until I'm not breathing anymore.
You guys have your Father-in-Law's Glock 23. It's got a lot of issues from a pure shootability standpoint. .40 Caliber is a hot load that bucks a lot in the slightly smaller framed pistol (yes, I will be saying "Load" a LOT so please get the chuckles out of your system). The Crimson Trace laser grips are a problem both by making the gun awkward to hold and because laser sights are incredibly difficult to work effectively. Based on all of this here are the changes I would make to that handgun.
None. None whatsoever. You're going to have that same pistol with those same stupid laser grips forever. There's only one thing you can do and that's become a more competent shooter to the point where you're really good with it and you're going to do that by building a relationship of trust with another gun because I don't think you'll learn to love the Glocks right off the bat.
I also have a gun I built a relationship with over the years: the Beretta M9. Sure I carried it in combat across the years but it was the first service pistol I ever competed with. I squeeze that trigger I know where the bullet is going before the hammer drops. I didn't start loving it and I damned sure didn't start out very accurate with it but I absolutely love it now. The apex of my shooting came when I took my Beretta, tossed a coke can in the air, and hit it on the way down. I keep that handgun next to my bed. So we have to find your Beretta and, before you ask, no the answer isn't "Eric's Beretta is a different Beretta."
The gun I think you should build a relationship with is a revolver chambered for .357 Magnum. I've owned more .357 Magnum revolvers than any other caliber/type of handgun because it's basically perfect. You can fire full-house magnum loads (MAGNUM LOADS from my Magnum Dong) or substitute .38 Special ammunition for lighter recoil and easier, cheaper shooting. This diversity gives you the option of buying a bunch of cheap .38 Special Ammo and shooting it all day without breaking your hand or your budget. Some gun store commando is going to tell you .38 Special isn't good for defense purposes but it was the standard for police into the late 80s/early 90s so that's crap. But, if you feel like you need a heavier load to put down a man (I did that on purpose) you just upgrade to Magnums. To put it a different way you can take the same revolver and shoot .38 Special and it will be as sedate as a Nissan Leaf but drop a .357 Magnum in and now you're running a muscle car in a drag race . You can't do this with automatics as they require very specific loads to function properly.
You're a mechanic: you don't need the dumbed down Glock pitched at the lowest common denominator. Revolvers are great, simple guns and have two modes of fire: you can cock the hammer and fire or do the long, double-action trigger squeeze. It gives you the versatility to train/shoot the way you want to and work on what you need to. It's like two guns in one. You won't need to buy prohibitively expensive magazines or anything like that. You just need a couple of speedloaders and you don't even need those. Lastly they're very mechanically robust. Again our straw man gun shop loser might say "Revolvers don't jam" which is not true but they certainly don't jam as often as automatic pistols. You're mechanically minded enough and dexterous enough to run a wheel gun.
Now the most important thing: the "Fun" factor. Bubba, if the gun isn't fun to shoot you won't shoot it and if you don't shoot it you're never going to be any good with it. Which is a Catch-22 because the most fun thing to do with a gun is accurately hit the target. I don't care if a gun gives blowjobs and dispense $20 bills you'll sell it if you can't accurately hit the target with it. I'm guessing you're thinking about the Glocks as I describe how "Not fun" guns keep you off the range. Sure, you do a ton of other activiites and have obligations with kids and things but I'm also guessing there isn't much incentive to go to the range from the standpoint of pure enjoyment. It gets worse with the Glocks: these black plastic blobs are just plain boring. Sorry to say it but you can't compare shooting a Block with cocking the hammer on your revolver, watching the cylinder lock into place, and sending a magnum slug through the center of the target. Bottom Line: the revolver will be fun, it will be something you want to shoot, you will find more time to shoot something that's fun and you will have even more fun as you gain confidence and experience. And as you gain confidence and learn to hit the center consistently you will form a relationship with this gun. What's more is Brit might even like it. Revolvers are aesthetically pleasing and comfortable to hold and if she is hitting the bulls-eye she will WANT to go shooting with you. What's more your triggers skills will improve the more you shoot, and love, your revolver. Being better revolver shooters will make you better Glock shooters.
So now the only question is which .357 Magnum revolver do you want? I'm glad you asked.
I've owned nine revolvers chambered for .357 Magnum over the years because I have a problem and because they're basically perfect. However, right now, I'm down to only a few that I'm parting with. I will list them in ascending order of what I think you'll prefer. Of course you never know until you try it.
Smith and Wesson R8- 6-inch Barrel.
This revolver is a large frame gun with a 6-inch barrel. It's very light and holds 8 rounds. It's got rails for flashlights and even one for a scope on top. I can't recommend this because the light weight makes it bounce around when firing Magnum loads. It's also a big frame with a longer barrel which makes it less enjoyable to shoot and more cumbersome. Even though it holds eight rounds which is pretty damned Special I don't think you'd enjoy it. It won't be fun for you and fun is the name of the game. You can try it if you'd like.
Colt Trooper MkI
The Colt Trooper is a Medium-framed revolver with a 4-inch barrel. This one is very light, very handy, and has a great big grip that fills the hand well. It really sings with .38 Special though it's a little jumpy with Magnum loads. The trigger is a little different: it has a coil spring versus a leaf spring so it does stack resistance as you squeeze. Not bad, really. Charlie's Colt Python is the same way. But you might prefer something more comfortable. While it won't be as pricey as a Python it will be quite steep even for friends and family though it will last you the rest of your life. But I think $ will be the discriminator here.
Smith and Wesson Model 19-4
The Model 19 is a Medium-frame revolver with a 4-inch barrel. This is the classic .357 Magnum revolver designed for Police in the 1950s. It's called the "Combat Magnum" specifically because it was designed as a fighting handgun. It's compact, light, and it has a ton of grip options (mine has rubber grips and tons of aftermarket grips exist to fit you). Being a Medium-Frame it's light and handy and does really well with .38 Special and fairly well with .357 Magnum though you're probably already realizing that a heavier gun is harder to hold but easier to shoot in the ultimate paradox. Here is something important: this gun is really fun.
Smith and Wesson Model 28 Highway Patrolman
The Model 28 is a large frame revolver with a slim 4-inch barrel. This baby is a big, tough bruiser. It's weighty but all that weight is balanced in the cylinder which means the barrel, trimmed of excess weight, is really light. This makes a near-perfectly balanced handgun. It's not as pretty as the others as it was designed originally to be used by law enforcement but it has great big sights and also sports a wide array of available grips. Again, it's a heavy gun which means it handles .357 Magnum pretty well and you barely feel .38 Special. The problem with this one? Anja likes it and it may not end up being for sale. The other problem? It's super heavy. Britney may not enjoy it and, remember, if it's not fun you won't shoot it.
Now that's all I have to offer but that's by no means the end of the line. There are all kinds of options out there and you could even decide on a revolver that ONLY shoots .38 Special. Now, and this is critical, please don't ask the neck beard or the kindly old boomer behind the counter at your local militia supply shop for their opinion because A) they don't know you and what you'd like or need, B) they really don't understand guns and C) they spend more time reading the lies of bigger liars in the gun magazines than they do shooting guns. You can come and shoot one or all of what I have and I'd be glad to find you exactly what you're looking for. But for the sake of your children, for the sake of humanity, and for the sake of fun I'm going to need to insist that you own a .357 Magnum revolver. You'll be like the shooters you admire most: me, Charlie, and Pat.
Which one would you like?
So let’s recap: we have a Mormon family that’s caught in a complex ambush allegedly set by Cartel members. The Mormons are members of a Fundamentalist Sect offshoot that is not accepted by the mainstream church. They formed their community, La Mora, as a satellite to a town known as LeBaron which was originally founded as a haven for polygamists when the church officially outlawed the practice technically in 1890. The LeBaron family story is summarized in “Under the Banner of Heaven” by Jon Krakauer which I recommend to the laymen among us but their past is highly problematic. All the people killed are members of the LeBaron family though claim to be different than the radical elements of the family. Like I said I have no evidence that these people believe in plural marriage as outlined by the prophet in The Doctrine and Covenants 134 which, interestingly, is still codified by the modern mainstream church though ignored, I guess. FLDS comes in many different stripes. More on that later.
We don’t know anything about the attackers. Most people seem to accept the initial narrative: these were cartel members. Past that we have no idea. Also the ambush was pretty sophisticated and well put together. Despite the obvious preparation involved the current narrative is the attackers mistook the Mormon convoy and simply wiped it out. But if this was as professionally planned as we are led to believe then why the utter failure of intelligence? Why would the Mormons travel a dangerous road? Did they not know the road was dangerous or have foreknowledge and a working relationship with the cartels in the area? The initial story of vacationing Christians killed by MS-13 brown people didn’t pass muster and, even as facts emerge, it still has a ton of holes in it.
Just because the above has lots of holes it does not mean it isn’t exactly what happened. This could very easily be a case of tragic mistaken identity. There are other plausible scenarios though.
We already asked the question why the Cartels would attack the Mormon separatists/American Expats and we already agreed it makes very little sense. The current story is mistaken identity but there are other plausible reasons a Cartel might ambush the Mormons.
#1: Mormon/Cartel Relations Break Down: The Mormons would not have stayed in La Mora or LeBaron or any other separatist community without the tacit support of the local government and, in most parts of Mexico that government takes the form of Cartels. Like I said there are many of these communities all over Mexico and even some in Canada. Gun ownership is, hilariously, heavily regulated in Mexico and I doubt the Mormons there have the kind of weaponry they have in the United States. So they almost definitely count on the intervention of the cartels for their protection. Whatever form this agreement takes it would inevitably need to guarantee several things: Protection of the Mormon Community, non-interference of or support for cartel activities, taxes for protection paid to the cartel, and an agreement not to inform Government forces. To my mind anything could cause this agreement to breakdown: a perceived cooperation of Mormons with the government, a lack of payment (these Mormon communities are often cash poor even in the United States), a new Cartel or rival faction attempting to assert control over the Mormons, or even a theological dispute. If war makes strange bedfellows then so too the politics of extremism. In Ukraine’s revolution we saw Neo-Nazi Skinhead groups fight alongside Jewish groups against the government. Stranger things have happened. But I really only give credence to the first three. Cartels are, at their base, businesses. Hurt the business and they’ll hurt you.
Now let’s get weird with it.
#2: Conspiracy/False Flag Operation/Epstein didn’t kill himself: Get ready, boys, we’re on a trip to crazy town. I’d like to preface this by saying I in no way believe ANY of these and will do only a cursory job of debunking as I go because that’s all some of these will merit. But you have to admit the optics are pretty perfect, almost too perfect, and fall directly into the narrative world of ultra-conservatives and Fox News pundits. So it’s a...
False Flag Attack by the Trump Admin to Justify Border Clampdown: This one is most obvious: Trump sent a Special Operations team to kill a group of Americans to justify his border wall and even gin up a little jingoistic racism to help his flagging poll numbers especially as Impeachment hearings will now be held out in the open. It’s a wag the dog situation. This kind of thing happens all the time. Yeah...not really and when it does it’s SUPER obvious. Hitler staged a “Polish” attack on a German radio station to start World War II. Weird how 80% of the German Army just happened to be placed on the Polish frontier at the time, ready to invade. Trump has already done horrific shit legally killing more migrants in detention centers than this ambush did. There’s no reason to try and gin up support especially with a false flag. Also look at all the dumbshit things Trump and his team have tried: he has no more chance of pulling this off than finding the DNC Server. NEXT
False Flag Attack by the Mexican Government to kick Mormons out of Mexico: Mexicans hate us, right? I mean, we hate them so why shouldn’t they hate us? I bet their government would want nothing more than to run out all the Gringos with their plural wives and long denim skirts. This is pretty funny because Mormon communities provide the government with what amounts to stability and steady income: they pay taxes and are located in the heart of “Indian Country” and while they may have tacit agreement with the local cartels they don’t contribute to crime. The best way to debunk this one by asking why the Government of Mexico would want to risk war with the United States by murder some of our crazier citizens? NEEEEEEXT
ISIS attack on US Citizens: The dastardly ISIS has decided to sneak into Mexico and begin murdering American Citizens to...wait didn’t we just defeat ISIS? Trump decided to declare victory. Mission Accomplished. I have seen this bouncing around the internet: secret ISIS recruiting and training camps in Mexico used this as a practice exercise before moving into the U.S. to start a guerilla war presumably at the behest of Ilhan Omar. Ok I haven’t heard Omar implicated yet but it’s only a matter of time. The idea that a new insurgent group could operate in Mexico is laughable. They already have insurgent groups stacked on top of each other. ISIS would die on the vine there. And anyways if you have a squad of ISIS commandos (which aren’t real but let’s pretend) where is the best place to find Americans to ambush and kill? If you answered “America” congratulations: you’re a terrorist and I just turned your name into DHS. Hope you enjoy GTMO, you Commie Arab. Joking aside this has absolutely nothing to do with ISIS, Muslims, or radical Islamic terrorists.
So why the long, rambling e-mail? Why act like Charlie Kelly talking about Pepe Silvia? Before I give you idea #3 I feel like I ought to take a step back to discuss Mormon Fundamentalism. This won’t be a broad conversation and will barely touch on the crimes of polygamy but it’s important to show where we are. I read “Under the Banner of Heaven” many years ago and I recommend it highly for anyone wanting to understand Mormonism, Mormon Fundamentalism, and how they’ve intertwined since the beginning of the LDS church. No single book gives a better insight into the twisted minds of these people and the underlying religious script. There are a few other really good reads including “Prophet’s Prey” and some others but Eric is much better equipped to guide us here. Anyways after reading “UTBOH” I moved on quickly basically with the understanding that FLDS is niche, maybe a few thousand followers, and does little broad harm.
Then in 2014 Conservatives rallied around a hero named Cliven Bundy after he recruited several hundred militia types to stop kissing their dads on the lips, grab rifles, and defend him in a dispute against the BLM. Bundy and his sons became fucking folk heroes; just simple ranchers resisting the horrible Obama administration. Oh, turns out they’re Mormon Fundamentalists. Not the type who marry a dozen of their own cousins. Instead they believe the U.S. Constitution is a divine document and the founders were vessels of their God. It’s a merging of Militia movement and FLDS teachings. Again, Eric can probably help us explain this better. Something else endemic to the Mormon faith? Racism. Black people weren't allowed to hold church office until 1978. Cliven Bundy’s popularity took a hit though admittedly not a big enough hit when video emerged of him positing that Black people were better off as slaves. Cliven Bundy is a bigoted old terrorist and his Fatwah comes from his Mormon faith. He is excommunicated from the mainstream church.
In 2016 Bundy’s sons brought even more closeted Gay men to the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge to occupy it. This time Lavoy Finnicum was killed instantly becoming a martyr for...you know it doesn’t even matter anymore. Finnicum is basically used as a prop for anyone with a grievance against the government. Lavoy, if the name didn’t already tip it off, was Mormon. Mormon Fundamentalists essentially ran moderately successful insurgent and terroristic actions against our government and even radicalized Jerad and Amanda Miller who later went on a Spree killing two cops after being radicalized at the Bundy Ranch. This is why we don’t tolerate crazy because it’s fucking infectious. If you allow a crazy person to be crazy and unreasonable and do borderline unacceptable things eventually people are going to get hurt. The Bundy’s aren’t Polygs but, again, that doesn’t make them good people. The foundation of the Bundy Sect is The Nay Book, a hodge-podge of right wing and biblical articles that compose their religious/patriotic beliefs. Again, no one in Mexico is linked to the Bundy group but this is what you see in radical off-shoots of Mormonism: some strange amalgam of religious doctrine and modern day prophet revelations creating an insular community racism, misogyny, and exploitation. Oh, you say, but the media portrays these folks as just normal people who descended from weirdos. Ok, then why continue to live in an isolated community in Mexico? There can't be much money in farming there and, with the added danger the cartels pose whether you pay them or not it doesn't make sense. Unless you're fundamentally tied to the land by belief. But they say they're just normal people...
So that brings me to the LeBaron family dead. According to most media they have NOTHING to do with the church of Ervin LeBaron who murdered, like, everyone he knew. They just share a relative who founded LeBaron, Mexico because he wanted to be a Polygamist. Nothing to see here.
So if it doesn't make sense for the Cartel to just up and accidentally or intentionally shoot these people then what does make sense. Get ready for my pet theory.
#3 Mormon Fundamentalists Staged the Ambush for their own purposes.
Yep. Your boy is insane if this is where his head went. To be fair I don't have any access to knowledge or documents about this one. I just have historical precedent.
Ever hear of the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Mormon settlers ambushed and killed over 120 people in a wagon train based almost entirely on rumor and speculation. Then they blamed the Massacre on Native Americans. The attack was conducted by the Nauvoo Legion, Brigham Young's personal militia and somehow the church insists he had no prior knowledge and no hand in planning it. Weird he wouldn't have heard of it. Mormon history is history written in blood; Mormon Blood, Gentile (which is what they call non-Mormons) Blood, and the blood of bystanders. Prophets of the faith and of off shoots have often declared Elimination Prophecy and then acted on it as though it was God's law. Why would the Mormons kill a group of their own? The easy answer would be to say they have their reasons. Elizabeth Smart's kidnapper had his reasons. Dan Lafferty had his reasons for murdering a woman and her child (the central story of UTBOH). Maybe it's enough to say these people rolled in and killed their own as a function of infighting.
The communities of La Mora have been shrinking for over a decade. The blame is placed on lack of security which I can understand: the cartels were at war over territory during that time though things have settled down now with fighting being more with government forces. But it's odd how in 2009 Juarez was at war and El Paso was one of the safest cities in America. Could it be the Cartels know killing Americans, even crazy ones, is a losing proposition? Could it also be that radical, regressive religious communities are naturally living on borrowed time?
I can think of a few reasons the Mormon settlers might perpetrate this attack. Let's ignore personal feuds or the idea that they were killed because at least one of leaving the community to go to North Dakota. I think there is one highly probable reason mormons might have killed mormons on that dusty Mexican road.
Attack staged to gain sympathy and allow fundamentalists to return to the United States en masse without scrutiny or stigma.
Mormons aren't a really appreciated minority in our community. One lost the Presidency recently, it was in all the papers. The stigma of polygamy looms large despite attempts to normalize it. There are at least three TV shows that normalize the concept of plural marriage. Can you imagine if, unlike Mitt Romney, a whole group of people who had polygamy in their recent history wanted to come to the United States? I doubt they'd be welcomed with open arms. Mass migration has started already, again reportedly over insecurity. So how do you gloss over a history of feminine exploitation?
Tragedy works. A tragedy purpose built to appeal to American racial sensibilities. Maybe these poor women really WERE moderates but if it were Mormons who killed them they're radicals. What if the radicals staged an attack then blamed it on natives to get a No-Questions-Asked entry back into the United States. The timing is actually perfect: our President is an unabashed racist who would welcome refugees fleeing a dangerous situation across our southern border...so long as those people are white quasi-Christians.
The Theory: Radical Elements from the FLDS community in Mexico stage a deadly ambush and blame the Mexican cartels to garner sympathy that will help them return to the United States. They see this as a perfect opportunity with a permissive administration to re-infiltrate the United States and use the shooting as a smoke screen. Crazy, right?
It is crazy and highly improbable. Not quite as improbable as ISIS but still pretty out there. So let's say it really WAS a Cartel. What does that mean for our actions?
Well I think we have to consider our opinions on refugees: violence falls equally like rain and we shouldn't just save the white people. We should also consider that these Mormon fundamentalists will return to the United States and contribute to radical right wing terrorism like their Bundy cousins.
We should also consider the hot air coming out of perpetual hot air machine Donald Trump. He claims Troops should be deployed. This would be less modern-day-Punitive-Expedition and more drone-war-on-the-southern-border. This topic deserves it's own insane ranting e-mail I and don't have the energy. Still we need to know SO much more than we do currently to justify conflict with the cartels. Add to that our stellar record in fighting insurgency this century and you see the issues.
So did I just take you on a rambling, round-about discussion of conspiracy I don't really believe in to sneakily teach you about Mormon fundamentalism and in reality I just wanted to say we shouldn't have instant empathy for these people who continue to live outside the laws of our country? Of course that's what I did. Hope you had fun and learned something.
Hey Guys,
I stumbled on a Podcast that is equal parts informative and chilling. It’s a lot like the recent Chernobyl miniseries that plays like a horror story that’s real. I thought that as people who also spend lots of time in cars (and Eric, lots of time looking at screens) you might enjoy it too.
Robert Evans is a journalist and I don’t mean “Journalist” in the old “Cronkite” model. Instead he is, to me, emblematic of what modern journalists ought to be. He’s written for various websites including the old Cracked.com. He’s also done some of the best modern conflict journalism I’ve read in recent memory. Evans is self-funded and crowd-funded so his bias is basically his own. While I don’t always agree with him we have chewed some of the same dirt. He didn’t go to Iraq until the fight against ISIS but he did make his way into the Ukraine in 2015, a full year before I made it there (of course I’d been there in 2013, a year before things kicked off, so it feels like he’s following me). All joking aside he reminds me a lot of some other great recent journalists who dive head-first into stories and don’t hide their bias while attempting to be fact-based in their reporting. I whole-heartedly recommend his work.
I was listening to a Podcast he hosts called “Behind the Bastards” which basically goes into the backstory behind some of history’s shittiest people. It’s everything from Epstein to Alex Jones to the backstory of Trump University. It’s good though if you listen too much it starts to get to you: when you stare into the void the void most definitely stares back into you. It’s funny and good but similar to a dozen other podcasts. But he mentioned a Podcast he hosts called “It Could Happen Here.”
https://www.itcouldhappenherepod.com/
Now I’ve read some of the weirder gun culture tomes about possible rebellion against a power-crazed, tyrannical government and interestingly most of this turned out to be very, very racist right-wing propaganda (I have lived a life as a dupe of the right-wing). I never got so far as “The Turner Diaries” or anything like that but I did read some pretty outrageous stuff. It’s sensationalist and stupid and it never approaches anything like a reasonable predictor of how an insurgency could occur in the United States. It’s more right-wing beat-off fantasy where gun owners are all instant Navy SEALs. I don’t like the thought of revolutionary or civil war in the United States because I’ve experienced them other places and it’s the dirtiest, nastiest type of warfare.
What Robert Evans has done in this Podcast is set up what seems to be the most accurate and terrifying discussion of how a modern civil war could start. He’s gathered many, many facts and, along with interviews with experts like David Kilcullen (who authored the strategy behind the Surge in Iraq; Patraeus called him a military genius) and developed a credible narrative of modern civil war. He prefaces each episode with a quick vignette and they are horrifying pictures of conflict zones I recognize overlaid on Modern America.
I can’t recommend it enough. I find myself in the paradox of having weapons to defend myself against the insanity of mob rule while at the same time insisting, to myself, that it surely won’t happen here. I know that second thought is wishful thinking. I know that society can and does break down more often than it hangs together through adversity. Every day I see and hear things from people that make me think I that I will be viewing them over the sights of a rifle sooner rather than later. It’s an extremely depressing thought and this podcast makes it very, very real to me.
So if you’re looking to be both horrified and informed give a listen to “It Could Happen Here.” I’d love to hear what you think about it.
Sorry for the novel. There will be a test.
The game in the Middle East is perceived power much more important than real, hard power. You could argue that, during the Cold War, if you weren’t one of the two major world powers you had to seem like you could offer a super power so much cost that you weren’t worth the effort. It’s probably why Russia, so militarily ineffective that they can’t beat the Ukrainians, focuses on soft power and influence peddling. But I’m getting away from the true point. There is a reason Saddam lied about WMD: he needed to still seem like a powerful player in the region. It’s the same reason the Iranians used to tow defunct T-55s up to the border to try and intimidate us. When perceived power fails so does the regime. The examples are too numerous to discuss here. The Middle Eastern countries are strange in that leaders MUST show power. Saddam stays in power after 1991 because he does two things: he ruthlessly puts down the the Shiite rebellion and he creates the narrative that he defeated the Americans. I met people who survived the Gulf War who believed that Saddam stayed in power because he defeated the Americans in the “Final Battle.” So perception is everything and the leaders of Iran are old men who know they only stay in power by standing up to the Americans. That’s what they’re doing now. Any sane leader would look at this, denounce it for what it is, and continue a well-reasoned strategy towards Iran. Of course our President is a fucking moron so...
We arrive at the Iranian issue after several failures in Presidential leadership right in a row starting with Carter. Let’s skip to Clinton. We left Saddam in power in the 90’s because he was an excellent Sunni foil to the Shia dominated Iran. Bush removes that foil (like a fucking moron). Obama’s foreign policy was completely ass-backwards and, in the end, he sold the house to get the Iran nuclear deal. Russia supports the deal so Obama, quick to realize that without Russian support his legacy-making deal is dead, decides not to smack down the Russians for clearly interfering in our elections. This isn’t my opinion; it’s spelled out by Bob Mueller. Much like in North Korea failure compounds failure and those failures bring us to now. Our little-dicked President decided to pull out of what was a pretty shitty deal without making a deal of his own first and now he’s in the unenviable position of trying to hold Iran to a deal he himself pulled out of. He hasn’t got a prayer. Even more so he slapped the Iranians with sanctions and made them look weak and, as we know, they can’t appear weak.
So what do we do with Iran? I’m sure, what with all the Iranian metal I’m still carrying around in me, the assumption is that I am pro-conflict. I’m not. Open warfare with the Iranians means a global conflict. You thought Iraq was bad? It wasn’t (not really) when you consider that the population was far more interested in killing each other than in killing us. The most dangerous attacks on Americans came from Muqtada Al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army which was better funded, organized, and trained. They brought out the most diabolical weapons and styles of attacks we would see (EFPs, IRAMs, etc). Al-Sadr is Iraqi-Shia and his “militia” are all trained, funded, and designed by...the Iranians. The other interesting thing about the Shia insurgents? They’re the real winners of the war. Iraqi leadership is now dominated by Shiites as is their military. Now you might consider this logical: the Shia are the majority, the Sunni militias were aligned with Al Qaeda and now Isis and I guess it COULD seem that way. Or...
The Iranians are experts, EXPERTS at using international terrorism as their force projection platform. We have aircraft carriers and they have insurgency. If you hear a group with “Hezbollah” in its name you can basically guarantee that it’s a proxy for the Iranians. In one year (1982-1983) Lebanese Hezbollah went from non-existent to the dominant player in Lebanon killing over 300 peacekeepers in suicide truck-bomb attacks. After losing 240 Marines in October 1983 Ronald Reagan pulled out of Lebanon and this, even more than Carter’s lackluster response to the Hostage Crisis in 1979, set the tone for American interaction with Iran. In 2006 when Hezbollah began shooting rockets from Lebanese territory into northern Israel the Israeli military launched a massive attack...and were soundly beaten. All kinds of excuses were given for Israeli failure but the real answer was that Hezbollah had created a defense in depth using swarms of ATGMs to defeat Israeli Armored Forces. Despite owning the Air and having superiority in artillery Israeli ground forces fail to even reach their planned “Limit of Advance” or “LOA” meaning, in very real terms, they lost and they lost to what should have been an inferior enemy. How? Hezbollah studied their tactics and drew them into a strategic ambush. Prepare a defense, instigate a conflict, and be prepared to crush the response. Gosh, what does that sound like...
Why is our President hesitating? Does he realize a war with Iran means destabilizing a whole region? Nah. King Baby is notably consistent on one thing (and only consistent on this one thing): he doesn’t want to be told what to do. We’ve seen countless moments where President Nuance does the exact wrong thing even after being told what to do by much smarter men (or smarter children). Gazing into an eclipse, congratulating Putin after his spurious re-election, etc. For old Orange Fuck-Face if he pokes at Iran without provocation it’s a good thing. When people tell him he needs to respond he demurred. Trump’s an idiot: all the fallout of a military strike without any benefits of shedding blood (make no mistake there are some benefits even if they’re limited). Either do it or don’t. Trump’s half-hearted, zero-commitment strikes so far feel a LOT like Clinton-Era bullshit. Will he start a war with Iran? Not even he knows the answer to that. But what would that look like?
Bombs and attacks in American cities. Think Paris or Las Vegas but once or twice a week. Maybe not right away but you’re starting a war with an enemy that has become expert in exporting terrorism. I’d almost welcome it just to watch all the gun bros piss themselves before hiding in fear. This would cause political anarchy. Remember attacks on all brown people after 9-11? Ratchet that shit up to fifty. It’s not quite dogs and cats living together bad but, if the Iranians wanted to, they could bring the pain. That’s at home. Now what does active conflict look like? If Finn were king an Invasion of Iran would look like a coalition of local partners (Iraqi Army, Peshmerga, Afghan Forces, NATO allies, Turkish military) combined with EVERY DAMNED BODY we have in the U.S. military. That’s the only way to do it. It’s a concept called “Attack in Depth” which attacks while addressing hard targets along our supply lines. The Invasion of Iraq worked with minimal forces because enemy strongpoints were bipassed. But we left those strongpoints to fester (An Nasiriyah springs to mind). But Iran is a tougher nut than Iraq so consider EVERY place is An Nasiriyah: tanks go by and supply units get jacked up. So combat forces are followed up by stabilization force to hand out food if that’s what’s required and an ass-whipping if that’s required. If we HAD to invade Iran that’s what would work and what it ought to look like. But that’s not what it will look like.
A recent leak said the military is considering an attack with 130-150k troops. This is wholly inadequate for the invasion and reflects 90s-2000s era thinking and demonstrates that we learned absolutely nothing from 2003 Iraq, 2006 Lebanon, or 2014 Ukraine. An invasion would, by necessity, have to come from Iraq. We can’t sustain major military operations from Afghanistan (all those supplies come overland through Pakistan; pretty sure there are Iranian agents there too). So it’s an invasion from the East. The east is protected by mountain ranges. So the first thing our forces would have to do is fight their way into the Mountains, a perfectly prepared defensive position. Spoilers: we didn’t do so hot with this in Afghanistan and have made zero strides in fighting in mountain terrain since 2001. Couple the perfect defensive terrain with the anti-armor tactics of 2006 and the massed rocket artillery the Russians use in the Donbas in 2014 (good thing Russia and Iran aren’t cozying up, oh...wait...) and those mountains become a meat grinder. We would be fighting an Iranian insurgency until little Charlie’s kids were in college. Our military leadership is itself completely unprepared for this kind of no-holds barred combat and it shows. We would lose a war with Iran. So what should we do?
Iran is ruled by old religious nuts but most of their population is under 30 and those people want freedom in the worst kind of way. We don’t need to beat Iran on the battlefield we just need to support the young people and the regime falls like the Arab spring. Play it smart and we could do this without losing American lives. But we aren’t smart. Our policy is very, very dumb.
So those are my thoughts on war with Iran. Why we are where we are, what we could do, what we might do, and what we should do. Just one man’s opinion.
Hey guys. You know we talked about this quickly on WhatsApp but it really has been weighing on my mind so please indulge me, I jotted down some thoughts. Hopefully these are arguments you can use in your own lives and discussions:
You know Trump sending troops to the southern border really resonated with me. Trump is my third Commander in Chief and, as I’ve said in the past, they just keep getting nuttier about use of the military. During each administration I’ve run across at least a couple of crazies who insist that I “Remember my oath” which, interestingly, most of them don’t know (having done countless re-enlistments I have the Oath of Enlistment memorized). Remember your Oath when Bush orders you to detain Americans, Remember your Oath when Obama orders you to take guns, remember your oath when Trump does any of the myriad terrible things attributed to him; all very poor attempts at rhetoric by people who just want to be dramatic.
There are a lot of memes that go around in the old vet world that I sometimes dip my toe into. “If war came to America would you fight? Like and share if you would fight.” “Would you fire on American citizens if ordered?” always with an option to “Like and Share.” Would you fire on American citizens? That's a loaded question.
I was absolutely appalled when President Bush ordered the killing of an American citizen via drone strike in Yemen. Anwar al-Alwaki was a real asshole but, as an American citizen, had the right to due process of law and was denied that right by a President with way too much power. Wait, did I say Bush? Because it wasn’t Bush. The Bush administration upheld due-process cases with American Terrorists captured overseas. It was the Obama administration that decided to kill an American citizen without trial. And we let him do it arguing, through our silence, that it’s a power the President should have. Someone, somewhere didn’t remember their oath. Of course Alwaki was making war against the United States. It’s an interesting question of Constitutional protections but a question that has never been asked of our courts and certainly not of our leaders. I don’t think it’s overly jaded to say that people didn’t care about the killing of Alwaki because of his skin color which is the same reason the NRA stayed quiet on Philando Castile.
But are their times to fire on American citizens? When the Bundy gang decided to take over the Malheur Wildlife Refuge, invading and occupying public lands with guns and refusing to leave I gave great thought to that. In the end I realized they were violating/attacking the Constitution and, by all rights, I would have driven over them in a tank and pivot steered what was left of them into the dirt. If you think about it, at a basic level, those assholes invaded public property and demanded it’s use be subordinated to them. They invaded American space and no amount of Sovereign Citizen, people’s trial bullshit can absolve that. There are times when use of military forces against our own citizens is justified while, admittedly, not prudent.
So now the border: Trump and his border… When he sent 2000 National Guardsmen to the border I realized he was ginning up a crisis that wasn’t real. It isn’t a tempest in a teapot; it’s not a tempest at all. Illegal immigration is an issue but not a crisis and not one that should be solved with jack boots and family separation. Now he’s sending active duty Troops who, by law, can’t really intervene at all. He’s spending hundreds of millions to score political points. In 1939 the Germans stationed 5000 Troops on the border with Poland; in 2008 Russia did the same thing on their border with Georgia. In fact a large “Army of Observation” was stationed on the disputed Mexican-American border to, ostensibly, protect American sovereignty in 1845 and a skirmish with the Mexican Army and these forces initiated an American invasion. This is how wars are started.
But the real issue is this: as a Soldier would I follow the order to go to the border and turn away men, women, and children who are fleeing political unrest in countries where the United States fomented unrest for nearly a Century? The answer is no. I didn’t put on the uniform to protect our wealth from poor people seeking safety. I didn’t put it on to deny people a chance to escape violence, violence previous generations of my own country created. I wore the uniform because in my heart I know what we were doing (at the time) was right. Nearly every country I’ve been to in the military features mass graves that only stopped being filled when we got there (Turkey being the notable exception and it’s an exception that caused me a lot of sleepless nights trying in vain to reconcile this with my Kurdish friendships). But Trump’s orders break faith with our Constitution and what it means to be an American and an American Soldier. I wouldn’t go if called and it’s the very first mission I’ve seen or heard of in my lifetime where I can say that.
What strange times we live in.
Thanks for letting me go all Crazy-ex-girlfriend on you,
Jim