Geo-Strategy #6: America's Imperial Hubris

Let's start class. So, last week, we discussed the possibility that Trump will become president, and we discussed that if he does become president in a second term, there will be a very strong likelihood that the United States will go to war with Iran. Now, the question today is, okay, Trump wants to go to war, but will the U.S. military agree? Ultimately, it is the Pentagon that must implement this war, and if there is enough opposition from the military, then it is very hard for Trump to push a war. I want to make the argument today that the military will go to war. It will go along with the war, and it has to do with what happened in 2003, okay? So let's go back to the last time that America fought a major war. It was the 2003 invasion of Iraq called Operation Iraqi Freedom, okay? So at that time, President George W. Bush

and his people, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, they want this war. And they go to the Pentagon and say, listen, we want this war, give us a plan. And the Pentagon, the generals, they're very experienced and conservative people. And in general, when you fight a war, there are three things you must focus on, okay? The first idea is mass forces. When you fight a war, you want to overwhelm your enemy. So, when we say mass forces, we basically mean infantry and armor. Most wars are fought using tanks and soldiers. And the Iraq Army at that time had about 370,000 soldiers, okay? And in general, the general rule of thumb when you invade a country is you want to have a three to one advantage, okay? And the reason why is... The reason why is that when you invade an army, sorry, when you invade a country, you need to hold territory and resupply your soldiers, okay?

So you need to advance, but you also need to hold territory, as well as resupply your troops and have reserves, okay? So the general rule of thumb is that if your enemy has 300,000 soldiers, you need about a million, okay? So that's the first principle. Second principle is the idea of you want to avoid encirclement. Okay? The worst thing that can happen to your soldiers is if they become encircled by the enemy, okay? Because then it becomes impossible to defend yourself, all right? And the third idea is protect supply lines. Most of war is actually just logistics. How do you get oil and fuel and weapons from here to there, okay? Supply lines. So these are the three major principles. Okay? These are the three things that you must focus on when you fight a war. So when the Bush government asked the

Pentagon for a plan, the Pentagon went to the drawing board and said, to invade Iraq properly, we need about a million soldiers, okay? And Donald Rumsfeld, who was Secretary of Defense, and his deputy, Wolfert, said, no, we're going to do it with less than a million soldiers. Give us a plan that requires less infantry. And the Pentagon said, okay, well, we shouldn't do this, but the most we can do is about 900,000. And Wolfert said, nope, go lower. And eventually, Rumsfeld and Wolfert said, we want you to fight this war with 100,000 troops. 130,000 troops. Okay? And the Pentagon said, no. And the Pentagon said to Rumsfeld and Wolfert, this is insane. We will be outnumbered three to one when we fight this war. How are we going to avoid encirclement? How are we going to amass forces? How will we protect supply lines? And Rumsfeld and Wolfert, who are not, by

the way, professional soldiers, they've never really fought a war before, they're like, well, we have this theory, a new theory of war called shock and awe. Okay? And the idea of shock and awe is that all militaries are hierarchies. Okay? You have command and control. So you have the head, and then you have the body, and then you have the arms and the legs. Well, if we can go and cut off the head, then the entire army falls apart. And we can do that because the nature of war has changed. What the US military specializes in. Okay? And then what gives us the advantage is three things, or three things. Okay? First is air supremacy. We control the skies because we have the greatest air force in the world. Okay? But second, what's most important is technological omniscience. Omniscience means to know everything. We're God. The reason why is, listen, we have satellites. They can see everything on Earth.

They can see everything on Earth. They can see everything on the Earth. We have technology that allows us to eavesdrop on all electronic communications. When you talk on the phone, we can hear exactly what you're saying. We know everything on the ground. That allows us to have the power of God. Okay? That's the second thing. The third thing is we have special forces. So special forces are soldiers who go into enemy territory. Okay? And they are able to target and direct air power against the enemy. Okay? And we, America, have the best special forces in the world. And so with these three things, we have a new doctrine of war. We can fight war in a new way that's never been fought before, but which will guarantee that war will be quick. We'll do it very quickly. Cheap. It won't cost that much money. And third, decisive. We will completely destroy our enemy.

Okay? And the Pentagon was like, you guys are insane. This is not going to work. This is a theory, guys. Whereas this idea, mass forces, avoid encirclement, protect supply lines, we've been doing this for like thousands of years. This is just experience. This is just history. This is reality, guys. This is just a... This is just fantasy, all right? But Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz insisted, and they said, you must fight this war this way. And they insisted. And it turned out that this plan that the Pentagon, most military planners thought is absurd, insane, unrealistic, worked 100 % the way it was supposed to work. Okay? The Second Gulf War in 2003 lasted exactly three weeks. Very quick. The US military, with only 130,000 troops, was able to destroy an army of 270,000 in three weeks. Okay? That's one. Second is that America lost, at most, 200 soldiers. And most of it was due to friendly fire.

Okay? It was accidental. This is insane. This has never happened before. Only 200 American soldiers died, at most, whereas tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers died. Okay? And the third thing that was most impressive is what's called thunder runs. Okay? This is just America flexing, okay, or showing off. So what was happening was that America was so dominant that you had these... Okay? These American soldiers in their armored vehicles drive into Baghdad, the capital city, and they just drive around, circle it, and no one could stop them. And this is what they call thunder runs. Okay? And they did three of these. It was purely an act of intimidation, but it's also just showing off. Okay? It's like you're in a fight, and you decide, you know what? I'm so much stronger than this guy, I'm going to do a backflip. Okay? I'm so bored by this guy. I'm going to do a backflip.

Thunder runs. Okay? So these three things show the incredible superiority of this doctrine of shock and awe. Okay? So how is America able to achieve all this? Well, I mean, the first thing is the idea of air supremacy. So one bomb, called a cluster bomb, can wipe out an entire nation. It can wipe out an entire tank division. And the reason why is that a cluster bomb inside has about 40 bombs. And these 40 bombs are equipped with GPS. So what they can do is each of these bombs can go and find a tank. It will latch onto a tank and blow the tank up. So this one cluster bomb, which doesn't really cost that much money, can destroy an entire tank division by itself. Okay? The other thing is special forces. So the theory is that special forces, if we make them the central core of our military, that will have a devastating impact.

And it was true. So what was happening was that special forces could drive around and look for military installations by themselves. Okay? We're talking like a few people. And then they could order in an airstrike. Okay? And. And then the planes were blowing up. So shock and awe was extremely effective. But the problem is that people don't really ask, what did Saddam Hussein do wrong? Why was this so effective against Saddam Hussein? And there are actually three reasons, okay, to think that what happened in 2003. Was not a revolution in military doctrine, not a revolution in warfare, but just a unique incident in war that doesn't really tell us that much. Okay? In other words, what was happening in Iraq could not be replicated. Okay? And there were three reasons why. The first is that Saddam Hussein had no air defense. Okay? He had no air defense. He didn't have weapons to counter the enemy.

He didn't have weapons to counter the enemy. So he was really focused on fighting against America's air supremacy. And the reason why is that in 1991, Saddam Hussein fought a war against America called the first Persian Gulf War. Okay? Operation Desert Storm. And his army got destroyed by American air power. And at this point, America could have chosen to go invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. And America didn't. so someone was saying learn two lessons from the Persian Gulf War which is number one I can never beat America there's no point in trying if America wants to beat the crap out of me I can't stop it okay that's the first first thing he learned second thing you learn is that America probably does not want to overthrow me because if he over froze me it would destabilize the country it would destabilize the region you would allow terrorists into the country

you would turn my people into terrorists you would empower Iran so there's no way that America could overthrow me would want to overthrow me so let me just focus my resources on suppressing internal dissent okay so he completely forgot about America so even when it was clear that America was about to invade he still did not put up any air defenses because he didn't have any air defenses okay so that's the first thing that was unique about the 2003 war okay second thing is that Iraq is a desert that makes it ideal for shock and awe right air power can go anywhere you have satellites that could see everything special forces can just drive around okay so a desert makes an ideal situation for shock and awe and the third thing is just surprise no one in human history has tried to fight a war like this okay and so no one knew how what

was going to happen so an example is that special forces were in Western Iraq blowing up missile bases because of the kind of concern was that Saddam Hussein would direct all his missiles his scuds against Israel okay so so much damage was being inflicted in Western Iraq that Saddam Hussein believed he was so confident that the that the that the main American military was actually in Western Iraq when in fact they were in eastern Iraq so he diverted all his forces to Western Iraq отв back that completely open to attacked from the east okay so no one had far a war like this before and no one knew what to expect okay but obviously you can you can only do this once right okay so there are three special conditions to make us think that silicon all in 2003 Iraq War which is a one -off it was unique OK unfortunately we have a new

expression this was Unfortunately, the Americans don't know this, okay? Right? The Americans are like, well, all this does is prove our theory to be correct, okay? So after 2003, America focused its military doctrine, its military on shock and awe, okay? So the example is special forces. So before 2001, America had about 38,000 special forces. Today, it has 73,000, okay? That's a lot, okay? Because America has a total army of 1.3 million. The budget for special forces, black ops, okay? It was about $2 billion in 2000, and today it's about $13.7 billion. So it's almost an increase of... Seven times, which is a lot. But this is just the public official number, because special forces are black ops. They can operate outside supervision of the military, okay? So in other words, their actual budget is probably 10 times, possibly 100 times more than the official budget, right? Now, special forces... I want to talk very briefly about why special forces is a problem, okay?

Now, traditionally, militaries have been very strict hierarchies, and there are good reasons for this, okay? You have to enforce order and discipline, right? But you're also concerned about the military overflowing the government, right? That's always been a problem throughout history. So you must maintain complete control. But when you do that, you create... A lot of problems in the military. It is unable to react very quickly to hostile situations, okay? If terrorists come and attack you, your military can't actually go and defeat them. It's too slow, okay? Sometimes there are hostiles crisis, okay? So throughout the 70s, a lot of airplanes were getting hijacked by terrorists. For these circumstances, you need special forces, okay? Soldiers who are outside your immediate control, okay? Who can respond immediately to crises. That's why you have special forces, okay? But in general, you don't want that many special forces because, again, they're outside the control of your military, okay?

They're independent sometimes of your military. They have a lot of space to maneuver and to be independent. Now, why are special forces a problem? It's because the... People who volunteer for special forces are different from you and me, okay? To put it very lightly. So, for example, let's look at one of the top two special forces in the world called SAS, okay? This is British Special Air Services. The most... One of the most elite, certainly the oldest special forces in the world. The other is Delta. And so... You volunteer for special air services. You're applying, okay? And the first test is this. The first test... There are many tests, but the first test is... You have to run six marathons in five days, okay? Oh! That's just the beginning. You also have to carry a backpack of bricks while you are running six marathons in five days, okay?

And you're like, okay, that's hard. Oh! One more thing. You're running the marathon on a mountain, okay? You understand? You have to run six marathons in five days with a backpack of bricks, and you have to do it on a mountain somewhere, okay? So even at that first test, there have been some individuals who've gone crazy, okay? You have to put them in a hospital because they've gone crazy. But that's just to be the first test. The last test is always torture. They will be tortured to see how much they can resist torture, okay? Because obviously when you're captured, the enemy is going to torture you to get information out of you, right? What are you doing here? Who is your commander? Are there other comrades with you, okay? You'll always be tortured. So they also have to withstand torture. There are some other tests. So, for example, in the French special services, one test is that you will have to wear a bulletproof vest, okay?

And you will have to hold a clay disc, right? And then your comrade will shoot a gun at you. Most people are like, I'm not going to do this, okay? So, in other words, the people who are special forces, they're different from us physically, but they're really different from us psychologically. They have a different mentality. So one special forces was interviewed by a reporter, and the reporter asked him, why did you choose to become special forces? And his answer is, well, it's either I do special forces or I go rob banks. One of the two. In other words, special forces are individuals who are addicted to risk and violence. And guys, in America, there's 73,000 of them running around the world trying to protect the American empire, okay? So special forces have increased, and it's really changed the nature of the American military.

So it's good for America because now what shotgun all allows America to do is be everywhere at once. And you'll never see them, okay? So for example, the example is when Gaddafi was overthrown in the 2011 Libya war, okay? That was special forces. But we don't know this because the special forces were hiding in the background, okay? Directing air power against Gaddafi. So in other words, what Shaw and all really is, is it's more than a theory of war. It's ultimately a theory of empire. America is an empire. But unfortunately, most Americans don't want to admit that. Because being an empire means doing bad things to innocent people. And what shotgun all allows is for America to be an empire without the guilt of being an empire, okay? You have special forces doing all the work necessary in order to maintain this empire without people actually knowing, right?

So shotgun all is really a theory of empire as opposed to a theory of war, okay? So does it make sense to you guys so far? Okay, any questions so far? Yeah? Okay, so Celina asked a great question. Are there, there's more special forces. Is it because there's more people who want to be special forces or is it because America needs more special forces? The answer is both, okay? So again, the America, after the fall of the Soviet Union, no longer had a peer competitor. So the understanding of America is that from now on, they went to fight rogue regimes, okay? So small nations that don't really listen to America and these nations have to be toppled very quickly, okay? So the examples would be Iraq, Iran, North Korea, okay? The axis of evil. So America started to shift its doctrine. To shadow wars, okay? Wars that you don't really see, but which would be effective in toppling the regimes you don't like, okay?

And so a lot of the resources were shifted into special forces and that allowed more people to enter special forces, okay? Does that make sense? Okay, all right. Any more questions before I move on? All right. Now the question then is, all right, shock and awe, where does this come from? It comes from one of the greatest disasters for America called the Vietnam War, okay? So from 1965 until 1973, there was a civil war in Vietnam between North Vietnam, which was communist, and South Vietnam, which is basically a US -controlled puppet state, okay? And America sent soldiers from 1965 to 1973 to protect South Vietnam from insurgents and rebels. And at the height of this war, 3 million US soldiers had to be deployed, okay? And at the height, in 1969, 500,000 soldiers, US soldiers, were in country to fight against the war. The rebels and the insurgents, okay?

58,000 US soldiers died in this war. Three million, at least three million, Vietnamese died in this war. Two million of them were civilians, innocent civilians, okay? Over 300,000 US soldiers were wounded, okay? They went home without legs, without arms. And they were traumatized. And this was an extremely controversial war in America because they were trying to fight the war using standard military doctrine, mass forces, right? So they instituted something called a draft. So if you were a young American, you had to go fight in this war in Vietnam. But you didn't know why you had to go fight this war. And chances are that you would either die or you would lose a body part in this war. So it became extremely unpopular in America. The other thing is that there were a lot of journalists in Vietnam during this time. And they were reporting on how America was killing Vietnamese for no reason.

So the most famous story is something called the Mai Lai Massacre where American soldiers went into a Vietnamese village and killed everyone there, okay? 300 people, 400 people, okay? And this was happening actually quite a lot. So there was widespread anger and protest in America at this time, which ultimately forced America to withdraw in 1973, okay? And the US military was very angry about this war because the thing about generals is they don't like to lose wars, okay? When they fight wars, they want to win at all costs. And they felt that they were betrayed by the country. They were fighting hard to maintain the American empire, to fight against communism. And this was bringing wealth, power, and prestige to America. But the American people, the American politicians, the American democracy republic, refused to make the necessary sacrifices in order to maintain this empire. And so many American generals felt betrayed by what happened in Vietnam, okay?

Now, there's a very famous incident during this war called the Pentagon Papers in 1971. In 1971, a group of American analysts, okay? These were military analysts working in the military. They secretly got together and they tried to compose a secret history of the Vietnam War. And this was called the Pentagon Papers. This was meant to be classified. This was not meant to be read by the public. But one of them, Daniel Ellsberg, linked it to the newspapers, Washington Post and New York Times. And they published it. And people were angry by the Pentagon Papers because what the Pentagon Papers said is, one, America has been secretly fighting this war for a long time, okay? So many presidents, including Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, were expanding this war without public approval, without congressional approval, okay? So there was a lot of deception. That's the first thing. Second thing is that the politicians, the presidents, knew this war was not winnable.

You couldn't win this war, okay? And the reason why is that these Vietnamese peasants, they were unbeatable. Because what they were doing was they were digging tunnels underground. And then when American soldiers were coming, they would just pop out of these tunnels, shoot at them, and then disappear back into the tunnels, okay? It was like as though they could swim underground. They were not beatable. Second thing is that they had an unlimited supply of weapons. And you're like, wait a minute. These peasants don't have weapons. And the answer is they got these weapons from their enemies, okay? So the first thing is that these soldiers, these American soldiers were in the jungle, and they were carrying backpacks of ammunition, right? And sometimes they would lose a fight or they would run away in the jungle because it's very hard to carry these backpacks of ammunition, right? They would drop these ammunition, and guess what?

You're now arming the enemy, right? Because these peasants would pick up these ammo and use it themselves. That's the first thing. Second thing is that the U.S. military dropped more bombs on Vietnam than in World War II combined, okay? More bombs were dropped in Vietnam than in World War II combined. Does that make sense? And about 20 % of these bombs didn't explode. And if they didn't explode, the enemy could pick them up, and transform them into land mines. And it was these land mines that were killing more Americans than anything else. That's the second thing. And the third thing was that the South Vietnamese army was extremely corrupt. So they were taking these American weapons and selling them to the rebels, okay? So then the question then is, you can't really see this enemy. They're everywhere, okay? They can swim underground. And if you're supplying them

yourself, no matter how much weapons you can bring into this country, how are you going to win this war? The other thing is that these peasants were getting angry at you because obviously in this war, you're killing a lot of innocent people, right? Who happens to be their brothers, their sisters, their children, their parents, okay? So as this war was dragging on, the Vietnamese were becoming more embittered and more angry. So there was no way you were going to win this war. Okay? That's a Pentagon paper, second thing. The third thing is, okay, the question then is, if these American presidents, these American leaders know for a fact that this war cannot be won, why were they fighting this war? Why were they continuing to fight this war? And the answer is, unfortunately, the answer is credibility, okay? We don't want to lose face, guys, okay? We don't want to lose face. If we withdraw

from Vietnam, if we admit that peasants in pajamas can beat us, Soviet Union would laugh at us. China would laugh at us. The entire world would laugh at us. We don't want to be laughed at. So that's why we're staying in this war, okay? So to summarize what the Pentagon Papers said, okay? Three things. One is that the American government lied to the people and turned this into a major war. That's the first thing. Second thing is that America cannot possibly win this war, okay? And the third thing is that America's only in this war to avoid losing face. That's it. There was no strategic purpose. There was no strategic objectives from fighting this war. It was just, like, we don't want to lose face. We don't want to be laughed at. That's it, okay? So obviously, when the Pentagon Papers were released to the public, everyone was angry, okay? And the anger was so tremendous that America had no choice but to ultimately withdraw from the war.

And so the Pentagon felt betrayed by democracy. The politicians were more concerned about winning elections than about winning wars, okay? People could protest and defy the military. They refused to make the sacrifices necessary to win this war. And the media could insult the military. So there were many in the military who thought that, listen, if we are to maintain the empire, we need to divorce the empire from democracy, okay? Empire, democracy, do not get along. If we want to win a war, our greatest enemy is not the enemy but democracy in America. And that's why you have shock and awe, right? Because the entire point of shock and awe is to minimize casualties. And if there are casualties, you can't see them because they're all blown up, right? And it's quick, so it's impossible for people to start to get angry, okay?

Shock and awe means that America no longer has to make any sacrifices. You no longer need the consent of the people to fight the war. You don't even need congressional approval to fight the war. You can now escape the shackles of democracy in order to do what you must to protect the American empire, okay? Does that make sense? So shock and awe was really a response to Vietnam War. And what shock and awe means is that the empire is no longer burdened by democracy. Special forces can go and do what they must without any oversight and consent from the people, okay? Does that make sense, guys? Okay, so shock and awe is really a fear of empire, what America must do in order to maintain its empire around the world. Any questions before I move on about this? Okay, so Sunan asked a great question, which is, okay, I make the argument that shock and awe only works in Iraq, right?

And what would happen in other words? Okay, so the thing about America for the past 20 years, it's been mainly fighting wars in the Middle East. And it turns out the entire Middle East is a desert, okay? All right, so the shock and awe policy has had tremendous success in Iraq and then in Libya, okay? Because America overthrew Gaddafi in Libya. And it's also had some success in Syria as well, okay? So from the perspective of America, we're really only fighting wars in a desert. Shock and awe is fine, okay? But our next class, we'll discuss Iran. And Iran is not a desert, it's mountains. And I'll show you that shock and awe is not gonna work in Iran, okay? But that's next class, okay? Does that make sense? All right, any more questions? Yeah, yeah, yeah, okay. So Jack makes a great point, which is, okay, yeah, but most people would say that America lost the Iraq war because of the insurgency, right?

Okay, so, okay, that's a great point, okay? You can make the point that America for the past 20 years have lost all wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because they have not been able to control the insurgency, okay? But the problem with this is that shock and awe, it's not designed to stabilize countries. Shock and awe is meant to topple and destroy countries, do you understand? And so the argument can be made that the real intention of shock and awe is to make sure that no power in the Middle East can arise to challenge America's support and supremacy, okay? So, yeah, in Iraq, the insurgents ultimately won, but is Iraq a functional state? And the answer is no, right? Is Libya a functional state? No. There's still a civil war going on in Syria, all right? So that's a great point, okay?

And it comes down to what is the ultimate design and intention of the empire? Is it to replace regimes? Or is it to destroy countries? And you make the argument that shock and awe is really designed to destroy countries and not to replace regimes, okay? Does that make sense? Okay, now, what's important to understand is that one of the theories of the invasion of Iraq is to bring democracy to the country, okay? But the problem with that is, from the start, they did everything wrong, okay? So first thing is, they really didn't have enough soldiers to maintain peace, right, in the country, so there was a lot of looting. So the entire country broke down. Second thing is that during the air campaign, America destroyed all the infrastructure necessary for society, okay? So including water supply, including electricity grid. Why would you do that if your intention was to bring democracy to the country, right?

The third thing is that the very first thing the American government did when they took control over Iraq is something called depopulation, okay? Which is to say that if you used to work for the old government, you're now out of a job. Hey, the Iraqi military, you're now disbanded. And then the question then is, huh, if your ultimate objective is to bring democracy to the country, why would you destroy all political infrastructure in the country? Why would you destroy the ability for the country to survive? Why would you destroy the ability for the country to govern itself as well as to maintain order, as well as to feed the population? Why would you do that, okay? So an argument can be made that the real intention was not to bring democracy to Iraq, it was just to destroy Iraq, to maintain American supremacy as well as to teach others a lesson. Don't mess with us, we'll come and destroy you, okay?

Does that make sense? Okay, but this is something we will discuss later on, okay? In another class, okay? All right, all right. Let's now move to the last topic. Which is the theory of empire. So this is not the first theory of empire America had. It's actually the second theory of empire. The first theory of empire was in 1991. Remember that in 1991, America launched an attack against Saddam Hussein because Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, right? So at that time, 1991, the Soviet Union had collapsed. America was the only hegemon, was the only power, and it presented a new theory of empire, how America will rule the world, okay? So the first idea is limited strategic goals or objectives, okay? So for example, in 2003, when America invaded Iraq, its strategic goals were pretty unachievable, okay? It was basically like, we're gonna bring democracy and peace to Iraq and the Middle East, okay?

Whereas in the Persian Gulf War, led by the father, right, George Herbert Walker Bush, the first and only goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. That's it, okay? We're not gonna go to Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. We're not gonna inflict punishment on Saddam Hussein. All we wanna do is remove him from Kuwait, okay? That's the first thing. Second thing is that America did so with a coalition of countries, okay? Dozens of other countries were part of the war, and America played a leading role, but it also had to defer to its partners, okay? So for example, countries like Saudi Arabia, who participated in the war, were like, there's no way we'll topple Saddam Hussein. We'll only stop at Kuwait, okay? So the United States deferred to its partners, okay? And the third thing was, and this is the most important, is that the ultimate leader was the United Nations.

The United States had to go and make a case to the United Nations. The United Nations gave its consent to the military action, okay? So the United States made the argument that this is not a U.S. military action. It is a U.N. military action, okay? And so the important principle is to maintain the rules based in national order, okay? So what America said at that point is, yeah, I know we are the greatest power in the world. I know the Soviet Union has collapsed. I know that militarily no one can challenge us. But with this power comes great responsibility. We must show humility. We must show discipline. We must show restraint. Our priority will be to maintain the national rules based order because this will bring prosperity, freedom, and stability to everyone, okay? And that means that if we use the military, it will only because it's the last resort, the last option, and only for a limited strategic objective.

We will only do so with partners. And we will only do so under the umbrella of U.N. authority, okay? So this is the first theory of empire. When you think about it, wow, great! What a wonderful world, right? Here's a question then. Why did America not do this anymore? Why did it switch to shock and awe? Shock and awe is basically unlimited strategic goals, unilateral military action, right? We, America, will do this by ourselves. We don't really need anyone, okay? And America is just basically bullying. We make the rules. Why did America do this? Why this transition from the first theory of empire, which is great, it would allow America to rule the world forever, to now the second theory of empire, which is pissing the entire world off. Why? Okay, so this is really hard to understand, okay? But let's use an analogy, okay?

So Jack is my son, okay? And I'm a billionaire. I have $10 billion. Why do I have $10 billion? It's because, one, I'm smart, okay? I'm smarter than everyone else. Two, I work really hard, okay? And three, I bribe a lot of politicians. So I have $10 billion. But I'm like 95 years old. And I know I'm going to die, okay? So I invite Jack, who's my son, to dinner. And I say to Jack, Jack, I love you, and I want what's best for you. I'm going to die very soon, and you will inherit my empire, okay? And I want you to know that you don't have to worry about anything, Jack, because I have 100 advisors who control this empire, who manage this empire. And they are great. They're experienced. They're loyal. They're strategic. Every year, Jack, they make 10 % for us, okay? So $10 billion, they make $1 billion for us every year. When I go, they're still going to manage this empire for us.

And you know what? They're going to give you every year, Jack, $100 million to do whatever you want. You want to go buy an airplane? Do that. You want to go buy an island? Do that. You want to party with movie stars? Do that. You can do whatever you want, okay? So, Jack, as my last wish, as my dying wish, I want you, Jack, my son, who I love, to promise me that after I die, you will listen to my 100 advisors. Okay? So, Jack, do you promise me? You promise me, right? And then I die. And then what is the first thing that Jack will do? The very first thing he will do. Come on, guys. It's not hard. Your first thing you will do, okay, is fire everyone. Get out of here, okay? What's the second thing you will do? You're going to hire all your friends, Jack, okay?

You're going to hire all your friends, okay? And what's the third thing you're going to do? You're going to do something really stupid, okay? You'll be like, you know what? My dad only made $10 billion. Those advisors only make 10 % a year. I'm going to invest in Bitcoin. I'm going to invest in AI. I'm going to invest in the Chinese stock market, the Chinese real estate market, and make $100 billion, okay? And then he loses all the money. You understand? All right? This happens all the time, guys, okay? Right? Ask yourself. If your dad were rich and he was about to leave you a lot of money, would you listen to professional people? No. You'd be like, no. I want to have fun, okay? So the question then is, the first fear of empire, okay, which said that for America to maintain its empire, it must demonstrate to the world humility, discipline, and restraint.

Why did they get rid of this and move to shock and awe, which is like, we'll do anything we want. Why? Why? Why would they do that? Because it's fun. Okay? Do you understand? What is the point of having an empire if you cannot blow things up for nobody? There's no reason. There's no point. We have the greatest military in the world. Let's just blow things up for like no reason. Okay? All right? Now, there are three fundamental problems with shock and awe. Okay? The first problem is that you become overcommitted. Do you understand? You believe that shock and awe allows you to be God. You can be anywhere at once fighting all wars. Okay? You're overcommitted. Second is you lack strategy. You lack strategic focus. Meaning that you actually don't have a plan. You don't know what you want to do with this empire. You know you just want to maintain this empire.

Okay? So you don't actually have a strategy in place. Okay? And the third thing is hubris. You don't think anyone can challenge you. You don't think you can lose a war. Okay? And so, the idea of hubris is this. Right now, America has this huge empire. And it's refusing to spend the necessary resources to protect the empire. So, for example, the U.S. Navy. Okay? In 1945, it had 7,600 ships. Today, guess what, guys? That's 475. These 475 ships must go around all around the world to protect shipping lanes. Okay? The U.S. military, in 1991, during the first Persian Gulf War, had 2 million soldiers. Today, it has 1.3 million. 3 million soldiers. Okay? So, in other words, if America ever fights a war, a major war, it's gonna have a lot of problems. The other thing is that America doesn't even have manufacturing capacity anymore.

Okay? It's not, it doesn't have any factories anymore, which means that if it fights a war, it can't fight a war for a very long time. So, the example is that for every, for every ship that America makes, China can make 300 ships. Okay? America no longer has this manufacturing capacity that it had during World War II. So, in other words, why will the military agree to the stupid war in Iran? Because it's overcommitted, it has no strategy, and it's because it's arrogant. All right? And the military is like this because of what happened in 2003, shock and awe. Does that make sense to you guys? All right? So, next class, we will look at what the Iran war will look like. And I guarantee you, that shock and awe is not gonna work in Iran. All right? And, but I'll explain why next class. Any questions before we end for the day? Oh, so Celine asked a great question.

What's the difference between the people who believe in the first theory and the second theory? Okay? Okay. And the answer is this. The people who believe in the, in the first theory came from an older generation. Okay? This is a generation that fought in World War II and who fought the Cold War. So, they understand what war looks like. War is really bloody and it's terrible. And we must do our best to avoid war. Okay? The second generation, 2003, are individuals who don't know what war is. Okay? Like, if you actually look at videos from 2003, the war, it actually looks like a video game. You understand? You don't actually see what they saw in Vietnam, which was all these soldiers losing their arms and crying. Okay? I mean, the images from Vietnam were just terrible. It was hard for people to watch. But the, the, the, the, the Gulf War in 2003, it was just a video game.

It was just like, things being, getting blown up. Okay? You don't actually see the people dying. And again, only 20 people died, 20 soldiers died in the, in 2003. Okay? So, in other words, unfortunately, America is headed towards disaster. Okay? Because the people in charge have no experience. They don't know what war is. And they don't know what the horrors of war is. And, they've inherited a lot of money, and they want to enjoy the money. Okay? They want to have fun. Okay? Does that make sense? Okay. All right, great. So I'll see you guys next class.