MinMAXXing the Military Situation

Chaos, Ladders, and the Recruitment Crisis

We stand now at a crossroads. The Global American Empire, while seemingly suffering setback after setback, now looks towards an attempted consolidation of the gains it has achieved in the socio-political sphere. However, given the reality internationally of great power competition, the GAE finds itself with several flaws in the military realm. Decisions are being made to re-engage with the military and industrial sphere in the post-Covid era.

Already, the United States has brought its sole factory of 155mm shells up to its maximum capacity and is investing in the (re‑)establishment of two more factories to fulfill the same purpose. Ever so slowly, it is retooling its naval missile technology to match Chinese and Russian missiles in range, thereby mitigating one of the few real technical advantages of America’s adversaries at sea. After a decade of fiddling unsuccessfully with the troubled LCS (littoral combat ship) classes, the LCS is no longer being constructed at all, and is being sold abroad or decommissioned. The decision to go back to a frigate design with a missile loadout which emphasizes surface warfare will pay substantial dividends in closing capability gaps in the surface-to-surface combat that will likely occur in the event of a conflict in the South China Sea. Indeed, one lesson that the Ukraine conflict is reteaching U.S. military leaders is that Mass matters. Substantial numbers of just-capable-enough, built-to-cost weapons platforms are superior to small, elite, focused armies. While no war can be won without the motivation, courage, and skill of individual soldiers, soldiers fight together as an armed body (corps). Without sufficient mass in military assets, no conflict can be won, since the inevitable losses are unsustainable. Any military operation will likely incur losses, no matter how successful the winning side. War, then, is also as much a bean-counting operation of “devil’s arithmetic” and butcher’s bills.

So, what does all this mean for us who are less-than-willing participants inside the GAE? It means that we must actually begin to play politics as a group. The recruitment crisis affords us an opportunity. It means that the regime must now choose capability over loyalty inside the military if it wishes to maintain recruitment numbers. That’s one solution the regime has to that problem. The other is the draft, which brings up a whole host of other problems, and is politically costly. The draft is a final option. Therefore, the leverage on this issue lies with us. Because recruitment numbers are so low, it forces the regime to ignore all sorts of requirements in terms of discipline (e.g., anti-racist codes in the UCMJ, scrapping weight requirements, etc.). This could allow us an opportunity for entryism. Fellow OGC member Paul Fahrenheidt has said as much. He might be right that if we focus entryist efforts to something local, like the National Guard or reserve forces, we can establish control at minimal personal risk to ourselves. Again, this is just playing the local politics game with federal institutions. In a manner similar to taking over your local school board, local city council, mayorship, sheriff, etc., having control over (admittedly subpar compared to active duty) military forces would gain us a massive piece on the board. It would also allow us access to possibly disgruntled counter-elites within the MIC.

There are downsides to this plan, but the main point is the use of leverage against a weak point the regime created for itself. For too long, it has relied on the patriotic sentiments of true Americans to get what it needs. It has forced us to work for them against our interests and to our detriment. This arrangement has denied us political representation and the opportunity to use our weight of numbers in the halls of power via democratic mechanism. It goes without saying that this purely extractive arrangement must be considered fundamentally illegitimate. Now, an opportunity presents itself. Will we take it? And, more importantly, to what end? At any rate, having control over local military forces is always preferable. I myself would not sign any enlistment papers until the outcome of the election this year is known. If the current powers that be are too strong to be cleared out, we must at least be willing to use some mechanism as leverage to extract concessions from the regime that it would otherwise be unwilling to give us. As the current regime knows from its own experience, enacting reform is very difficult to do whilst staying in power. Most times, it seems that historically reform precedes overthrow. But essentially what we must say is this: “Your power is already slipping. We can see it slip. We know you will take action to maintain power for as long as possible. You cannot maintain power without buy-in from my population group. If you wish to keep the support of my population group, you will grant reform and/or substantial concessions that benefit them.” The setting-up of a situation at the opportune time to allow us the use of such leverage is indeed a major goal for our movement.

We are already at political loggerheads inside of the U.S., and our enemies declared war on our people long ago. Remember that our opponents unfortunately always get a vote, and never forget that one hand always washes the other. If you want to take, give.