The Incumbent Force

If you are a mastermind and think of the Tea Party as an insurgent force trying to change an incumbent force, then you have a warning for the incumbent forces (Senators such as Senator John McCain).

The warning to these Senators is a call to learn and remember their lessons from their past dealings with the insurgency. I mean, in a revolution its doctors, lawyers, then Congressmen who get the ax. The lesson goes out to all congressmen and the lessons show your vulnerability to an attack.

Like most systems that have an insurgency force inside them, the incumbent force operating inside Congress has taught the insurgency how to win. Through the effort of Congressmen like Ted Cruz, the insurgent force knows how to defeat the incumbancy in Congress. You defeat the incumbancy by reducing the government to essential personnel only, and then refuse to pay our debt.

It’s a one-two punch. First you eliminate most of those who could help in a crisis such as this (employed people) , then you create a crisis (a government refusing to pay its debt) that can only be save by people working for a living.

With the knowledge on how to defeat a force comes power, and the great thing about power is that you can use it fast or slow.

So as things stand, it is not how (move the government towards default) the Tea Party is going to Act (OODA) nor if the Tea Party is going to Act (Ted Cruz still has his follower’s support and so will Act according to the implicit rules of the Party), the question is only when the Tea Party is going to Act.  

With this extra power obtained in the knowledge on how to destroy the incumbent force, the insurgency can afford to wait, but not for too long. While their champions Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio may increase in power, the more power their leaders have the less incentive, because the Tea Party is going to suffer just as bad as the rest of the US, but ultimately there will be another revolution.

In the end, the Tea Party will have destroyed the US economy using the end, ways and means of Ted Cruz.

The Tea Party is made up of the same people who thought faith-based initiatives would work to take care of those in real need. Faith Based initiatives turned out to be a complete failure, and so will the Tea Parties effort in trying to keep the US economy going on faith. A default on the debt would crush what is left of our economy.

The incumbent force in Congress hasn’t yet expressed a strategy on how to keep this hurt from continuing and expanding into other parts of the government. I don’t think most in Congress even know how close we came to losing our economy, just like the Soviet Union….

So the US Congress (at least until they find a strategy to at least control if not defeat the insurgency) has a need for the Tea Party to disappear. If those incumbents in Congress want to keep their heads.

In other words, and I am sure Boyd would agree, the insurgency (represented in the form of Ted Cruz) needs to be rolled-up inside of itself and disappear. Which is easier said than done, especially now with this increase of power coming from the weakness in our system.

On the other hand, I really don’t see anything happening to stop the hurt the people of the USA are about to go through. 

Much of the problem is that the War is on a front that is not easy to Observe (OODA). The people of the US are under stress in their workspace, and this stress blinds them.

Which is a great advantage for the insurgency in 4GW.

An Act of War

America defaulting on its debt would have been an act of war. The world would have judged against the future generations of Americans, and that judgement would have been war.

There were many debt deniers in the political environment who said that the US had enough money coming in to pay the interest on our debt.

But what these debt deniers didn’t understand, our ability to use that money depends on sovereign nations accepting the dollar, and accepting it mostly freely. The act of George W. Bush dumping 9 billion of US dollars on the Iraqi economy at the start of the Iraqi War was not a wasted act. The act of dumping money made the use of the dollar in the Middle East something that many wanted, and will be for some time.

On the other hand, the US has a war machine that could be used to make a sovereign nation take our money, but not the world.

But the first act for Obama, after the House let our debt default, would still have been to introduce a Large Wars Powers Act to the same Congress.

Most likely things would have gotten worst on the second day.

The White House – Google+ – “I’ve made a decision that America should take action. But…

“I’ve made a decision that America should take action. But I also believe that we will be much more effective, we will be stronger, if we take action together as one nation.” —President Obama before meeting with members of Congress on Syria:

The biggest problem with that statement is that Congress doesn’t really represent one nation.

A workplace is where one Orients (OODA loop) towards an advantage in the environment Observed (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). One-nation doesn’t reside in Congress’s workspace.

While we can Observe ourselves as one-nation, the advantage Corporate America has in the environment we all (including Congress) Observe has overwhelmed every other advantage positioned in the environment.

So if the MICC (Military, Industrial, Congressional Complex) has some Manufactured goods that they would like to get rid of, there is little chance Congress will vote against getting rid of unwanted resources (bombs and all that unspent ammunition). This is, at least in part, because it is to the advantage of Congress to vote with the MICC. After all, there are very few congressmen/women, or their children who will have to risk their lives towards the advantage.

So while it might seem a victory to the U.S.A, having “one nation” supporting the Action of someone so Oriented as Obama, the truth is “one nation” is a falsehood.

At 50+ percent, Obama represents “one nation” more than Congress does. So getting Congress on-board has little to do with uniting under “one nation” and more with Acting as Obama wants, with or without the nation.

The percentage of that “one” nation, Oriented towards the MICC, shadows all other positions.

It’s like blocking out the image of the sun in the shadow of your finger. Yeah, it works, but only in a very limited environment.

via The White House – Google+ – “I’ve made a decision that America should take action. But….

Obama confident Congress will vote to strike Syria

There will be no U.S. troops in Syria, Obama said: “This is not Iraq — this is not Afghanistan.”

I don’t want to call my President a liar, but it really is Iraq.

It is not the Iraq we thought we were fighting when we went in, although Iraq  had similarities,  a country with a divided religion and outside actors that are a part of that religion. And Like Syria  before US forces went into Iraq, Iraq was a country controlled by a tyrant, whose power kept a civil war from happening.

Perhaps one difference he is talking about, is that in Syria there is another religion (Christianity) with a piece of the leadership.

The difference between Syria now and Iraq then is  that in Iraq,  the civil war happened after we broke the force that was holding them in friction, and, unlike Syria, we didn’t get ourselves into a civil war going in.

Also now, Iraq still hasn’t got that coercive friction that creates one country, and Syria has almost no friction that would be recognised, as all the parties in the civil war allow Syria  to move in one direction.

Once friction is allowed to take hold (when the war ends) then Syria will be exactly like Iraq, a country almost on the edge of civil war.

via Obama confident Congress will vote to strike Syria.