The book 'Unrestricted War', written by Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, tries to answer this question: How does a relatively weak country like China stand up to a power like the United States? Among the ways they would deal with such an adversary are terrorism, drug trafficking, environmental degradation and computer virus propagation. "Unrestricted war is a war that surpasses all boundaries and restrictions," they write at one point. "It takes military and nonmilitary forms and creates war on many fronts. It is the war of the future." Colonel Wang said in an interview: "War has rules, but those rules are set by the West. If you use those rules, then weak countries have no chance. But if you use nontraditional means to fight, like those employed by financiers to bring down financial systems, then you have a chance." Colonel Qiao suggested that Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic should have attempted to deal with NATO attacks by slipping a terrorist group into Italy and attacking NATO air bases. Terrorist bands also could have attacked population centers in Germany, France and Belgium, he said.
Open but discreet termination
The West has destroyed its own 'war rules' in Yugoslavia and was ready to destroy all of Yugoslavia. Few besides the Yugoslavs would have noticed. NATO launched its air attacks on Serbia in front of the blinded world masses who simply could not associate NWO and its NATO with terrorism, allowing the perpetrator to 'get away with murder.' Psychologists know that people see mostly what they're ready to see. In what is called 'the Magellan Syndrome' the Indians couldn't see the mighty ships at anchor on their shores because in their mental universe there was no place for such ships. We also read about Indians who told escaped slaves that they were 'the first white men' to show up in this region. As they had never seen a black man before, anyone who was not Indian had to be white. How many of us seeing the elephant 'Jumbo' flying with his ears would believe our own eyes? Collective visions exist, yes, but again, only for people who are predisposed to see them. Never would a Muslim or a Jew have a vision of Christ for example.
In a hypothetical war with China, would the USA show more restraint than it did in the heart of Europe? Attacking the civilian population by air as in Yugoslavia, levelling everything on the ground and calling it collateral damage, is the most efficient and cynical possible form of terror. Drug trafficking and computer virus propagation are minor tactics which may annoy the mighty adversary without affecting the outcome of the war. All the terrorist groups gathered couldn't cause even a small part of the damage caused by an all powerful air force. NATO means business and fights to win. Anything the weak can do the strong can do limitlessly. Therefore 'unrestricted war' in the final account may turn against its initiators.
Poker Kamikaze versus bombs
Unrestricted war, meaning the field terrorism proposed in the book, is a weakness which disguises itself as force, and weakness impresses only if it's embodied in those who are ready to die. The Numancia, Massada, Warsaw Uprisings, gave the message that those who were going to die would be deadly first. The Kamikaze horrify; people are afraid of those who are not afraid to die. They are scared already by the fact that they themselves cannot be scary. Democracies have less stamina than dictatorships because they must answer to their citizens. But, to take advantage of this, Kamikazes would have to be in great numbers like attacking ants or hornets and this kind of death by choice will always be reserved for a few desperados. Therefore the West probably will never run the risk of being exposed to such a poker game.
Back to the index of the Vagabond