War of the Babies

Interesting piece on demographics and war:

"What was the most important battle of the late 20th century? You could argue it was the one that took place on the southern border of Morocco on November 6, 1975. Of course, we�??re not talking about another Stalingrad here.

In fact, what happened that day isn�??t usually called a battle at all. Its official name is �??The Green March.�?? On one side were 350,000 unarmed Moroccan civilians carrying green (Islamic) flags, and on the other�??miles inside the border, because they were hoping not to have to confront any of the marchers�??was a shaky, demoralized token force of Spanish troops pretending to defend a former Spanish colony, the Spanish Sahara.

What makes this weird episode my nominee for �??Most Significant Battle of the Era�?? is that it showed the new way of winning disputed territory. If there�??s one thing that we should have learned over the past hundred years, it�??s that traditional armed conquests are getting less and less effective.

This is one of the most surprising twists in all military history. All through the nineteenth century, the European powers, led by the British and French, took the land they wanted on the grounds that they had better military technology, transport and organization.

Locals who disputed that notion tended to disappear as casualties of inevitable progress. And that was just an updated version of what had been happening all over the world for thousands of years: bigger, stronger tribes displace and wiped out weaker tribes whenever they could.

That was the norm, even in pre-contact North America, where the Navajo were displacing the Ute in the American Southwest long before the white guys showed up.

Now, even though the balance in conventional warfare is if anything tilting further toward the first world, the technologically advanced and organized countries are in retreat, and the former victims are pushing back, not just claiming their old territories but infiltrating the former colonizers�?? countries.

What matters now is morale, national will. The Spanish didn�??t have it, and the Moroccans did. So even though the Spanish troops could have wiped out those unarmed marchers, they failed to open fire. Weapons are only weapons if you�??re willing to use them. A technologically advanced army without the will to fire is no army at all.

So there�??s a shocking lesson that military buffs have been slow to face: military superiority doesn�??t matter nearly as much right now as birthrate and sheer ruthless will.

As the population of Mexico increased and the living standard rose, the fertility rate actually went into an amazing dive, to the point that the rate for Mexican women now is only 2.39 kids per woman, just two places up from Israel�??s 2.38.

And the only thing that�??s brought the Latino birthrate down�??in their home countries, not among the ones who immigrated to the U.S.�??is getting enough money that peasant families start thinking of themselves as consumers, and get more excited about buying a new truck or a flat-screen TV than having little José.

If you can handle these new faces, you�??re likely to be surprised to see your �??weak�?? American or European culture win out, slowly, un-gloriously but surely, and you may live long enough to see a whole new crop of pols who look like they just came from Karachi or Kinshasa until you turn the sound on and hear them ranting about how we need to get rid of all these damn immigrants."

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/war_of_the_babies_when_modern_warfare_and_demography_square_off_demography/

Good post. Steve Sailer writes for Taki mag sometimes.

This is stupid. Armed conquest is obviously dead. Imperialism is over (almost completely) any attempts at armed conquest are crushed by international forces. Imperialism is too expensive and not needed. It was important for mercantilism not that TNC and MNC run the economy there is no need to keep excessive lands. The only resource now worthwhile is oil, but that is guarded to the hell and protected by international community

Military technology and equipment no longer is used to crush developing nations (besides War on Terror, but this is not directly for land gain). This isnt Italy vs Ethopia anymore. Military technology is to defend and deter attack from other developed nations (i.e. USSR and China) and those who are nuclear threats (i.e. N. Korea)

And the comments about Mexico…come on…everyone knows when poverty rates goes down, so does birth rate. It is social science 101. This is not ground breaking information.

This is a poorly written article. Trying to making ground breaking discoveries that are already known and alluding to poor thought out conclusions. The author clearly knows nothing of history, global politics, economics, or sociology. Dumb post

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
… Trying to making ground breaking discoveries that are already known and alluding to poor thought out conclusions. The author clearly knows nothing of history, global politics, economics, or sociology. Dumb post

[/quote]

I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you are right, there is nothing new under the sun. The Romans likely had similar thoughts when they were trying to spread Roman civilization.

Writers have to keep pumping out the same recycled stuff to get paid. College kids have to act as if they are learning something new and different and not the same old crap most of us have contemplated and discussed years ago.

Well its not even that, but the author is clearly taking TRYING to take shots at military Western govts (USA)…and it is just a poor sad attempt at it. What is even worse how people buy into it. Like “Woah, you know what. he is right. This guy is making some good points that I never thought of. Better agree with this smart guy”. Come on…the authors work is clearly biased, and what makes it worse is just how little REAL THOUGHT is put into his theories. Authors and articles like this are why the world is turning left and why the rest of the world is scratching our heads as to why…

A few points: The 350k figure for the Green March is inflated. In fact, a good deal of the Moroccans who went were rounded up and thrown into the back of trucks. There has been, of course, considerable propaganda behind it, but the idea of traveling to the Sahara in those conditions didn’t exactly appeal to all.

Besides that, I do not think imperialism is dead. It may be a tad different from the olden days, but it’s alive and well.

There will always be sons-of-bitches who think of themselves as superior and who’ll invoke just about every possible reason to establish dominion, drain the indigenous’ natural resources and win over new markets.

If Morocco had enough firepower to drive the Spaniards out, it would have used it. The idea that the Spanish army wouldn’t want to kill hundreds of thousands civilians was pure genius. But keep in mind that Hassan II was regularly using military firepower against his own people (an expression popularized over the last decade).

Soon enough, some countries will have a substantial portion of their fighting done by robots. And at that point, God save us all.

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
Well its not even that, but the author is clearly taking TRYING to take shots at military Western govts (USA)…and it is just a poor sad attempt at it. What is even worse how people buy into it. Like “Woah, you know what. he is right. This guy is making some good points that I never thought of. Better agree with this smart guy”. Come on…the authors work is clearly biased, and what makes it worse is just how little REAL THOUGHT is put into his theories. Authors and articles like this are why the world is turning left and why the rest of the world is scratching our heads as to why…[/quote]

I agree wholeheartedly.

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
This is stupid. Armed conquest is obviously dead. Imperialism is over (almost completely) any attempts at armed conquest are crushed by international forces. Imperialism is too expensive and not needed. It was important for mercantilism not that TNC and MNC run the economy there is no need to keep excessive lands. The only resource now worthwhile is oil, but that is guarded to the hell and protected by international community

Military technology and equipment no longer is used to crush developing nations (besides War on Terror, but this is not directly for land gain). This isnt Italy vs Ethopia anymore. Military technology is to defend and deter attack from other developed nations (i.e. USSR and China) and those who are nuclear threats (i.e. N. Korea)

And the comments about Mexico…come on…everyone knows when poverty rates goes down, so does birth rate. It is social science 101. This is not ground breaking information.

This is a poorly written article. Trying to making ground breaking discoveries that are already known and alluding to poor thought out conclusions. The author clearly knows nothing of history, global politics, economics, or sociology. Dumb post

[/quote]

Huh? The fact that territorial acquisition by armed force is now so rare IS a big deal. The author is not the first to make that point (Martin Van Creveld was saying the same thing almost twenty years ago), but I don’t think he would claim to be.

[quote]tg2hbk4488 wrote:
Well its not even that, but the author is clearly taking TRYING to take shots at military Western govts (USA)…and it is just a poor sad attempt at it. What is even worse how people buy into it. Like “Woah, you know what. he is right. This guy is making some good points that I never thought of. Better agree with this smart guy”. Come on…the authors work is clearly biased, and what makes it worse is just how little REAL THOUGHT is put into his theories. Authors and articles like this are why the world is turning left and why the rest of the world is scratching our heads as to why…[/quote]

Not really. Thomas Hammes and Van Creveld have been saying essentially the same sort of thing, just in a different way. Conventional wars aren’t being fought anymore, and most would be foolish to try. What the Moroccans did was an example of what Hammes would call “4th Generation War” and Van Creveld would call asymmetric warfare. If the Spanish had attacked the Moroccans while they were unarmed with all of the cameras there, the rest of the world would have been outraged. The Spanish, likewise, either had consciences that prevented them from doing such a thing or lacked the willpower to savagely kill unarmed people. The Sultan could have cared less if his people got murdered, I’m sure.

Demography had implications in the start of WWI, as Spengler put it:

How much has our powerful, conventional army helped us to put down the global jihad? Why is Afghanistan such a dangerous place a full 7 years after we invaded, while we were able to put down Germany and Japan in a matter of a few years completely? Perhaps conventional wars aren’t being fought anymore, and the Muslims have no problems having children to be thrown callously away in jihad or “martyrdom operations.” Look at what that Paki in Atlanta just did to his own daughter!

Yes, and they rally under the banner of “La illaha ill Allah…” How else did Arabs expand their empire into the previously non-Arab north Africa? Why don’t we ask some Copts or Berbers?

Eh.

Please…dont give the hippie bullshit of corporations and developed nations “exploating less developed nations and markets and there resources”. I dont recognize imperalism in any way besides the classical sense. The rest is just trying to apply terms to globalism to cut it down.

I know that these statements have been made before!!! THATS IS WHAT I SAID. Hence the TRYING and “trying to make ground breaking discoveries that have already been made”…

Read MY OP and my whole arguement before you TRY to cut down my critcisms of the articles. Maybe if you this, then you may see are opinions are the same…