This is counter-insurgency contemporary version. Very well said. His personal presentations are even better than the writings. The U.S. military needs to hear every word of this.
Outstanding presentation conveying relevant information surrounding futures. The spectrum of sources was terrific. An Urban, Regional and Rural Planning and Development inspired intellect.
Foreign Policy criticized the book Out of the Mountains for lacking more historical perspective, but then their short review goes on and I do not see the examples they used prove their point. I know I am not encouraged when there is an overemphasis on culturalism that ends in defending or seeming to defend tyrants and religious maniacs like the Taliban because western morality has been shelved for social secular values, that in the end aren't very much like values at all. I do wonder about the climatology argument as it pertains to littoral megacities. If you are the elites of the megacities and population growth is so rapid and out of control what better place to dump those who have the most angst against the nation state than on the shore? If you believe the global warming paradigm they are occupying dead space anyways, we need only wait 20-50 years and let carbon emissions do their thing. I also found his conflicted reminiscence on Mogadishu at best off. He saw the city through the prism of a contractor after the fighting, not through ring sites. The fact is TF Ranger and 10th MTN kicked ass. And they were not "beaten" by the city, they were hard pressed because President Clinton did not wish to put tanks and 10 gunships in the region for his own political reasons. In fact the US forces put such a hurt on the city even Kilcullen admits that the mere threat of a return of forces on a greater scale was enough to force the release of the Hostage Durant. Kilculllen may be correct in his assessment of the "city" rising against the ranger force but draws the wrong conclusion about what the button was to push. He also does not assess the mission and the real concern Aidid's group was foremost in preventing food deliveries to hundreds of thousands of starving peoples. This ties directly into the last aspect I wish Kilcullen would have addressed, or might still, (I'm about 2/3rds through the book.) With megacity mega growth and an environment that is unfriendly to users, where does total annihilation rate on his assessment of nation state solutions? Erdagon and the Turks are still in denial about the Armenian horror, the total annihilation of a people to redress problems arising in the aftermath of a war lost to Russia, the loss of 70% of its European population, and perhaps greed the Young Turks gathered nearly 1 billion in reichmarks for the property's of the Armenians who were disposed of in "nothingness". The German's debated if the annihilation of the Armenians was justified for the sake of national survival and the fact the Ottoman's were a key ally in WWI. But Hitler referred to the Armenians as Uber Jews. 1.8 million Armenians were disposed of in 3 ways, 1.4 were killed, and half of the remainder were either forcibly converted to Islam or fled. The Armenians were accused of "stabbing" the Turks in the back, committing atrocities against the Turks, no proof exists to support that myth, they were "usurers" and the same sorts of antisemitic names the Germans later used to define Jews was used against the Armenians. There is no doubt the Armenian annihilation was a template resulting in the Holocaust. And the ayatollah in a video released by Newseek last year declares the Holocaust did not occur. " If Jews were killed it was incidental to the war not the obsession of the Nazis to eradicate the Jews to save the nation, confiscate property's and more room to breed Aryans. Kilcullen does mention the Bosnian genocide but even that falls under the pall of old conflicts between Islamist supremacy and the alignment of the Muslims with the Nazis. To ignore some of these hatreds still exists and still shape current policies is a big mistake. Rwanda another recent example, Hussein and the Turks treatment of Kurds another and Hussein's conflict with the Swamp Arabs and the Shiite Sunni conflict. Each has an element that is genocidal but with some modicum of restraint. Given the laundry list of crisis the world faces we ca hardly ignore the very real threats that may become more full blown when it is boiled down to "us or them". I wish someone would write on that topic, global crisis and the growing possibility Holocaust and total annihilation will gain favor as a matter for national solutions. The Palestinians are committed to that path now. They have yet to develop any plan to build a nation and Abbas himself can not travel safely in West Bank refugee camps, they have put their faith in Allah and annihilating the Jews, by rewriting the Borders which is a religious boundary that would exclude Jews and Christians from Holy places or limit them in the case of Christians. And by Right of Return (About 30,000 Palestinians would actually be "returning") destroy the Israeli state from within. When Nasser threatened to annihilate the Jews before the June 1967 War, he promised to undo the disgrace of 1956 and then the disgrace of 1948. for the preceding 20 years Islamic nations had been ridding themselves of Jews at as great a rate of refugees as the Palestinians had become. Nasser's overconfidence lead to his defeat, but has no one ever thought that having dispelled most of the Muslim worlds Jews and having located them all in Israel Nasser's threats of annihilation were vain? Or any less true then than today when the Ayatollah's staff makes pronouncements that in 10 years they will have a nuclear weapon and in 11 Israel will cease to exist? Whether you are a bigot or not the question is how much more real will threats of 'final solutions" for nation states become when the world runs out of room for people?
The other aspect I think Kilcullen loses site of is the whole issue of technology enabling "swarming" of independent militias. Certainly he lays the case for the new mediums in technology to enable more fighters to respond more quickly to an event. However this is hardly unprecedented. In our own American Revolution, the British were defeated at Saratoga, a decisive battle by "swarms" of militia. After the circulation that a young woman had been heinously murdered by a group of British allies, "savages" , within two weeks over 20,000 militias responded, first opposing and defeating the Hessians sent to forage and then at Saratoga itself. Kilculllen emphasizes only the effects of a medium but it did not create or lead to the formalization of "swarms". From weeks to hours. I would also question the attempt to somehow make the swarms that responded in the Arab Spring as detached from Mosques, or incited by Islamic extremism. The key note event of the Arab Spring in Egypt followed one week after affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood set off a bomb in a Coptic Church. That one bomb killed over 50 Coptics, over a hundred maimed or wounded, nearly half the total of Arab Spring casualties during their uprising. Mubarak's government responded with a mass arrest of Muslim Brotherhood activists. One of the first objectives of the Egyptian Spring was the release of over 3,000 Muslim Brotherhood terrorists and suspects. Coincidence? I think not. But barely reported by the author and editors of fake news narratives. Who did they blame for Benghazi's 13 hours? After they couldn't make it stick to a Jewish extremist? How long did it take before the full extent of Morsi's membership in the Muslim Brotherhood was reported in the USA, it was only released incrementally in many publications he was a friend of Muslim Brotherhood members or associated with them, as many Muslims do, and then upgraded in time to full membership and even leadership in the designated terrorist group. Bad reporting? or Malevolent obfuscation?
It's interesting to watch this in June 2021, when it looks likely that the military will be deployed in their respective countries to suppress civil unrest caused by the pandemic restrictions.
cant say I'd have thought a counter-insurgency expert who was involved in anything the US has been involved in would be any good - people do know you guys lose basically all your wars right? I mean, at 5.10 he says "helped us to win a conflict in Iraq" - the entire world knows you lost the conflict in Iraq... What on earth are you talking about
Idk why I’m getting involved with a troll, but do some research on Iraq. It has loads of problems, but it’s a parliamentary republic, ISIS, after major gains in 2014 is pushed out of the North, Saddam has been dead for years. The US did what it wanted in Iraq
hotsteamypudding The Iraqi Government couldn’t hold Iraq after the US had pulled out. The US can’t be blamed for the flaws that are internal to a country. All the US invasion and occupation did was highlight the inability of the Iraqi government and people to maintain peace. Japan had no problem after the US and British Commonwealth occupied them for decades after defeating them in total war. Germany had no problem after the US and Allies occupied them for decades after defeating them in war. Korea had no problems after the US and allies occupied them for decades after defeating the North and China in war. Vietnam and Iraq have one thing in common that made the peace impossible for the US to ever win: weak and corrupt local governments and a deeply divided and ideologically driven people that refused to lay down their arms.
@@wattlebough dude you are so wrong so everywhere I don't know where to start or even if its worth trying with you... but here it goes, one stupid statement after the other: -The Iraqi Government that couldn't hold Iraq after the US pulled out is the best the US managed to produce, impose and uphold during the decade they were there, after destroying the Iraqi government that was holding Iraq together in the first place. -The US can be blamed for the flaws that are internal to a country after they bomb the shit out of said country twice. -All the US invasion and occupation did was to GENERATE the inability of the Iraqi government and people to maintain peace. The US declared war on them, not the other way around, remember? - The Japan, Germany and Korea references are so uninformed about so much stuff... your ignorance really beats my laziness here. Only Okinawa invaded, Germany & Korea cut in half (Korea still is), on top the 3 were pumped and showcased against communism. Far from "no problem". - Vietnam and Iraq have one thing in common that made the peace impossible for the US to ever win: weak and corrupt local governments (installed by the US) and a deeply and ideologically driven people that refused to lay down their arms.
@@wattlebough lol - There is no analysis anywhere dude, that's the point, I just rephrased your shallow statements with the correct info. A in B, good. A in C, good. A in D, good. Then A must be good everywhere; correct heavyweight intellectual? I didn't even bother to mention it cause I already knew you were beyond any hope, hence the "so wrong so everywhere", but you still seem to need the simple explanation: Your logic is flawed and your information is false. Have a nice day
This is counter-insurgency contemporary version. Very well said. His personal presentations are even better than the writings. The U.S. military needs to hear every word of this.
Outstanding presentation conveying relevant information surrounding futures.
The spectrum of sources was terrific. An Urban, Regional and Rural Planning and Development inspired intellect.
This wasn't about urban development or planning.. did you even listen/watch it? Lol
Mogadishu survived 20 years with no central government? Wow, it's almost as if through modern technology CENTRAL GOVERNMENTS ARE OBSOLETE.
centralized governments are called communist.
H Max Completelt and utterly false.
Shout out from Bellevue University PS-318 (ISS) !!! Awesome Video !!!
Great talk👍
Foreign Policy criticized the book Out of the Mountains for lacking more historical perspective, but then their short review goes on and I do not see the examples they used prove their point.
I know I am not encouraged when there is an overemphasis on culturalism that ends in defending or seeming to defend tyrants and religious maniacs like the Taliban because western morality has been shelved for social secular values, that in the end aren't very much like values at all.
I do wonder about the climatology argument as it pertains to littoral megacities. If you are the elites of the megacities and population growth is so rapid and out of control what better place to dump those who have the most angst against the nation state than on the shore? If you believe the global warming paradigm they are occupying dead space anyways, we need only wait 20-50 years and let carbon emissions do their thing.
I also found his conflicted reminiscence on Mogadishu at best off. He saw the city through the prism of a contractor after the fighting, not through ring sites. The fact is TF Ranger and 10th MTN kicked ass. And they were not "beaten" by the city, they were hard pressed because President Clinton did not wish to put tanks and 10 gunships in the region for his own political reasons. In fact the US forces put such a hurt on the city even Kilcullen admits that the mere threat of a return of forces on a greater scale was enough to force the release of the Hostage Durant. Kilculllen may be correct in his assessment of the "city" rising against the ranger force but draws the wrong conclusion about what the button was to push. He also does not assess the mission and the real concern Aidid's group was foremost in preventing food deliveries to hundreds of thousands of starving peoples.
This ties directly into the last aspect I wish Kilcullen would have addressed, or might still, (I'm about 2/3rds through the book.)
With megacity mega growth and an environment that is unfriendly to users, where does total annihilation rate on his assessment of nation state solutions?
Erdagon and the Turks are still in denial about the Armenian horror, the total annihilation of a people to redress problems arising in the aftermath of a war lost to Russia, the loss of 70% of its European population, and perhaps greed the Young Turks gathered nearly 1 billion in reichmarks for the property's of the Armenians who were disposed of in "nothingness".
The German's debated if the annihilation of the Armenians was justified for the sake of national survival and the fact the Ottoman's were a key ally in WWI. But Hitler referred to the Armenians as Uber Jews. 1.8 million Armenians were disposed of in 3 ways, 1.4 were killed, and half of the remainder were either forcibly converted to Islam or fled.
The Armenians were accused of "stabbing" the Turks in the back, committing atrocities against the Turks, no proof exists to support that myth, they were "usurers" and the same sorts of antisemitic names the Germans later used to define Jews was used against the Armenians. There is no doubt the Armenian annihilation was a template resulting in the Holocaust. And the ayatollah in a video released by Newseek last year declares the Holocaust did not occur. " If Jews were killed it was incidental to the war not the obsession of the Nazis to eradicate the Jews to save the nation, confiscate property's and more room to breed Aryans.
Kilcullen does mention the Bosnian genocide but even that falls under the pall of old conflicts between Islamist supremacy and the alignment of the Muslims with the Nazis.
To ignore some of these hatreds still exists and still shape current policies is a big mistake. Rwanda another recent example, Hussein and the Turks treatment of Kurds another and Hussein's conflict with the Swamp Arabs and the Shiite Sunni conflict. Each has an element that is genocidal but with some modicum of restraint.
Given the laundry list of crisis the world faces we ca hardly ignore the very real threats that may become more full blown when it is boiled down to "us or them".
I wish someone would write on that topic, global crisis and the growing possibility Holocaust and total annihilation will gain favor as a matter for national solutions.
The Palestinians are committed to that path now. They have yet to develop any plan to build a nation and Abbas himself can not travel safely in West Bank refugee camps, they have put their faith in Allah and annihilating the Jews, by rewriting the Borders which is a religious boundary that would exclude Jews and Christians from Holy places or limit them in the case of Christians. And by Right of Return (About 30,000 Palestinians would actually be "returning") destroy the Israeli state from within. When Nasser threatened to annihilate the Jews before the June 1967 War, he promised to undo the disgrace of 1956 and then the disgrace of 1948. for the preceding 20 years Islamic nations had been ridding themselves of Jews at as great a rate of refugees as the Palestinians had become. Nasser's overconfidence lead to his defeat, but has no one ever thought that having dispelled most of the Muslim worlds Jews and having located them all in Israel Nasser's threats of annihilation were vain? Or any less true then than today when the Ayatollah's staff makes pronouncements that in 10 years they will have a nuclear weapon and in 11 Israel will cease to exist?
Whether you are a bigot or not the question is how much more real will threats of 'final solutions" for nation states become when the world runs out of room for people?
The Ayatollah again stated this week Israel will cease to exist. for Holy reasons.
The other aspect I think Kilcullen loses site of is the whole issue of technology enabling "swarming" of independent militias. Certainly he lays the case for the new mediums in technology to enable more fighters to respond more quickly to an event. However this is hardly unprecedented. In our own American Revolution, the British were defeated at Saratoga, a decisive battle by "swarms" of militia. After the circulation that a young woman had been heinously murdered by a group of British allies, "savages" , within two weeks over 20,000 militias responded, first opposing and defeating the Hessians sent to forage and then at Saratoga itself.
Kilculllen emphasizes only the effects of a medium but it did not create or lead to the formalization of "swarms". From weeks to hours.
I would also question the attempt to somehow make the swarms that responded in the Arab Spring as detached from Mosques, or incited by Islamic extremism. The key note event of the Arab Spring in Egypt followed one week after affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood set off a bomb in a Coptic Church. That one bomb killed over 50 Coptics, over a hundred maimed or wounded, nearly half the total of Arab Spring casualties during their uprising. Mubarak's government responded with a mass arrest of Muslim Brotherhood activists. One of the first objectives of the Egyptian Spring was the release of over 3,000 Muslim Brotherhood terrorists and suspects. Coincidence? I think not. But barely reported by the author and editors of fake news narratives. Who did they blame for Benghazi's 13 hours? After they couldn't make it stick to a Jewish extremist?
How long did it take before the full extent of Morsi's membership in the Muslim Brotherhood was reported in the USA, it was only released incrementally in many publications he was a friend of Muslim Brotherhood members or associated with them, as many Muslims do, and then upgraded in time to full membership and even leadership in the designated terrorist group.
Bad reporting? or Malevolent obfuscation?
That's missing the important distinction with this technology - they can operate completely independently. The rise of the "Lone Wolf".
Quality comment. Don’t understand what you’re getting at about the Jews and Benghazi though.
awesome
very smart guy
It's interesting to watch this in June 2021, when it looks likely that the military will be deployed in their respective countries to suppress civil unrest caused by the pandemic restrictions.
And they will be dealt with
The subtitles are incorrect at times: special instead of spatial; patent instead of pattern etc.
it is super easy to reload bullets
He's wasted on organizations like Google
U MEAN OPIUM....... ? Ahh yeah that’s right cause where’s all that poppy going
cant say I'd have thought a counter-insurgency expert who was involved in anything the US has been involved in would be any good - people do know you guys lose basically all your wars right?
I mean, at 5.10 he says "helped us to win a conflict in Iraq" - the entire world knows you lost the conflict in Iraq... What on earth are you talking about
Idk why I’m getting involved with a troll, but do some research on Iraq. It has loads of problems, but it’s a parliamentary republic, ISIS, after major gains in 2014 is pushed out of the North, Saddam has been dead for years. The US did what it wanted in Iraq
hotsteamypudding The Iraqi Government couldn’t hold Iraq after the US had pulled out. The US can’t be blamed for the flaws that are internal to a country. All the US invasion and occupation did was highlight the inability of the Iraqi government and people to maintain peace. Japan had no problem after the US and British Commonwealth occupied them for decades after defeating them in total war. Germany had no problem after the US and Allies occupied them for decades after defeating them in war. Korea had no problems after the US and allies occupied them for decades after defeating the North and China in war. Vietnam and Iraq have one thing in common that made the peace impossible for the US to ever win: weak and corrupt local governments and a deeply divided and ideologically driven people that refused to lay down their arms.
@@wattlebough
dude you are so wrong so everywhere I don't know where to start or even if its worth trying with you... but here it goes, one stupid statement after the other:
-The Iraqi Government that couldn't hold Iraq after the US pulled out is the best the US managed to produce, impose and uphold during the decade they were there, after destroying the Iraqi government that was holding Iraq together in the first place.
-The US can be blamed for the flaws that are internal to a country after they bomb the shit out of said country twice.
-All the US invasion and occupation did was to GENERATE the inability of the Iraqi government and people to maintain peace. The US declared war on them, not the other way around, remember?
- The Japan, Germany and Korea references are so uninformed about so much stuff... your ignorance really beats my laziness here. Only Okinawa invaded, Germany & Korea cut in half (Korea still is), on top the 3 were pumped and showcased against communism. Far from "no problem".
- Vietnam and Iraq have one thing in common that made the peace impossible for the US to ever win: weak and corrupt local governments (installed by the US) and a deeply and ideologically driven people that refused to lay down their arms.
saraza888 Shallow analysis, move along pilgrim. You’re a light flyweight among intellectuals here.
@@wattlebough lol - There is no analysis anywhere dude, that's the point, I just rephrased your shallow statements with the correct info.
A in B, good. A in C, good. A in D, good. Then A must be good everywhere; correct heavyweight intellectual? I didn't even bother to mention it cause I already knew you were beyond any hope, hence the "so wrong so everywhere", but you still seem to need the simple explanation:
Your logic is flawed and your information is false.
Have a nice day