Understand I have and will continue to read Burning Bright's essays and watch his appearances on The Devolution Power Hour with patel patriot on Wednesday evenings. That said,,,

Link to Burning Bright article - Righteous Russia - Part 9 The Vanguard - Oct 31

https://burningbright.substack.com/p/righteous-russia-part-9

(My comment below is dependent on the linked article having been read. If you do not have the time or inclination, best just punch out now to another post.)

Two issues with BB's Part 9:

The first is stylistic. From the excerpt below "people much prefer a good, solid story to an elusive and complex truth." Describing 'Part 9 - The Vanguard' as complex is pretty much an understatement. Contorted is a more apt descriptor.

Secondly, I have to say I've rarely read a sloppier attempt at reading the character of President Putin. Burning Bright is so far out of his lane in this regard he is in danger of being permanently stuck in the ditch on the side of the road. What is evident in this essay is a lack of knowledge of Russian political history from the mid 1980' to today. It is a defect that cannot be glossed over, no matter how profound they might sound, with rhetorical flourishes and Sir Lancelot and the Holy Grail vocabulary.

After reading the above article, here is an excerpt from the novel 'American Hero' by Larry Beinhart (1993).

This is the book that was adapted by David Mamet for the screen, as 'Wag The Dog' (1997). Highly recommended - and nothing like the movie. It is ... something else entirely.

Oddly enough, its from Chapter 17. I think most of you already know where I am going with this. The memo transcribed below from the book, is as much a major character in the book as any person. It is always referred to simply as, "The Memo".

MEMO FROM: L. A.

TO: J. B. III / YEO

WAR has always been a valid political option, through all societies, through all time. We, who grew up in the South, know about revering our warriors and war heroes. Even those who have lost! So long as they fought gallantly, You and I grew up on the legends of Lee and Jackson and Beauregard. My first president was Eisenhower, General Eisenhower. Kennedy was a war hero, George Bush was a war hero. George Washington was General Washington. Andrew Jackson was General Jackson. The two great names in British history are Nelson and Wellington. The heroes of France are Charlemagne, Napoleon and de Gaulle.

After Vietnam and in the shadow of atomic weapons, war ceased to be a political option. It was considered to be, and may have been in fact, political suicide to pursue a war option.

Then Maggie Thatcher showed us the way.

It is important to remember that Thatcher's political career appeared to be virtually over. That she was at a low point in the polls. That most forecasters considered that she and the Conservative Party could not win reelection.

Then she had her war in the Falklands. She rallied her country. She won. For her, war was not a liability - it was political salvation. She became a hero for her nation. She won reelection. She became the longest serving British prime minister in modern history.

Obviously, I am not the only one to take note of the event and the results. It changed all of our attitudes. Especially Mr. Reagan's. He had his adventure in Libya; that rather tentative affair in Lebanon - quickly and correctly aborted; he had his invasion of Grenada.

These military affairs did no harm in terms of domestic political standing.

This proves absolutely that an American president can go to war and survive politically. Its an option. But is it an option worth employing?

We have yet to duplicate anything approaching the Iron Lady's success with her "splendid little war." While Libya, Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama did no harm, they did precious little good.

Why not?

Because we have not fully embraced the fact that modern war is a media event. There is a recognition of a media element in war, especially in the post-Vietnam War American military. It is de rigeur to say that we lost in Vietnam because of the media. If we ignore the possibility that this belief is so universal exactly because it also serves the function of completely removing responsibility from the people who would most logically bear responsibility for the loss, then the implication is obvious, clear and logical: the new order of battle says we must win on television (and lesser media) as well as the battlefield. This is now an article of faith in the military.

"You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said an American colonel.
The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That's may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."
(H.G. Summers, On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War)

The Vietnamese lost every battle. According to our military, the Americans and the ARVN even won the Tet Offensive. Yet this battle is without question the battle in which Communists won the war.

The military has understood only half the idea. Yet the whole of the concept stares us in the face: it is only necessary to win in the media. It is possible to lose on the battlefield, win on television - and win. War is not partially a media event. It has become completely a media event.

If the President is to go with the Thatcher option, to establish or reestablish popularity - to win reelection by going to war - he must recognize that it must be handled as a media event. Both he and Mr. Reagan have employed war. They were sensible in leaving the logistics and the fighting to the professional armed forces. Those armed forces did what they do with reasonable success. That is, they got there in good order, they executed with minimal embarrassment, they won the fighting, there were few casualties, and they kept the body bags off camera. Lebanon excepted, of course.

But they did not leave the media war to the professionals. (This is particularly surprising in Mr. Reagan, who should have intuited better. It is possible to fault his intellect and his work habits, but his intuition, never!)

What is war? To you? To me? To the American people?

War is John Wayne. Its Randolf Scott and Victory at Sea. Its Rambo, Star Wars, Apocalypse Now, its body bags on CBS. Its Combat, The Rat Patrol, Patton. The face of war is not reality. It is television and motion pictures. Even for people who been to war. What ever their memories, they have been replaced by what they have seen subsequently on TV. Even if they were "disillusioned" by Vietnam, those illusions came from the movies. As Mr. Reagan proved, people much prefer a good, solid story to an elusive and complex truth.

The war must be run by professionals.

If victory or defeat will be attained on television, then the professionals are not the generals. Or even the politicians. The war should be directed by a film or television director. This may sound, on the face of it, like a frivolous idea. Its not. Its dead serious.

The generals and the politicians - even the media-wise Mr. Reagan - have demonstrated that they can achieve victory on the battlefield without achieving victory where it counts: in the hearts and minds and votes of the American people. To repeat a method that we know is failure, that is a frivolous idea.

Who, then, is to run this war?

David Hartman, head of RepCO, the most powerful agency in Hollywood today. If anyone can figure out how to package a war and who should direct it, Hartman can. If anyone has a sense of a deal and making it happen, its him. Remember that it was Mr. Reagan's agent, Lew Wasserman, and MCA that supported and guided, even partially created, that president's career. Hartman and RepCo are the Wasserman and MCA of the nineties.

When all seems like it might be lost, and there are no other options, go to war. It is the classical response to insoluble domestic problems. It is the reverse of the hostage crisis that destroyed Carter so completely - another media event. Don't leave the impact to chance. Find someone who has the guts, the instinct, the style, the sheer artistry, to create a war that America can love - on television.

Then you will win.

https://youtu.be/FhSy-6VqIww?t=12

by any other name

https://youtu.be/bZ9PGRmruoc (2 min, 47 sec)

would smell as sweet.