2014 June 16 Monday
Why Iraqi Army Had To Retreat

They were, um, outnumbered?

Thirty-thousand soldiers dropped their weapons and fled when confronted by an estimated 800 gunmen.

Those ISIS warriors were bad people! Super soldiers! Alien invaders? How about robots? They had extra pistols? How about megaphones that made them sound more scary? Or they were bullies who used to beat up the soldiers when they were in school? Or, hey, they might have been really good at yelling insults and making the 30,000 soldiers feel bad. 800 of them!

Key question that John Kerry needs to ask his counterpart in Teheran: Will 30,000 of Iran's Revolutionary Guard run away when confronted with 800 Sunni Jihadists? How many Rev Guard will they need to take down 800 Sunni Jihadists?

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2014 June 16 10:31 PM 

Jim said at June 17, 2014 5:37 AM:

A fighting force has to have some minimal level of trust and cohesion to be effective. Throwing together people who deeply distrust each other and pretending that they don't doesn't work.

James Bowery said at June 17, 2014 2:39 PM:

The Thirty-thousand were the US's concept of an army that can stop a sexist state from arising to keep women down and out of sight. Its one thing when the appeal of last resort in dispute processing is words. Its another when it is blood.

The cornerstones of JudeoChristian western civilization have been removed:

* St. Paul's sexist religious teachings (teachings that are not followed by a _single_ modern JudeoChristian denomination)

* JudeoChristian institution of kings that were restricted to one mate and prohibited to divorce at will

The result is Africanization of the sexual constitution. Islam attempts to exploit this by providing limited polygyny (4 wives maximum) and retention of the moral equivalent of St. Paul's sexist religious teachings. Islam has more integrity than does current western civilization but it isn't clear that even Islam is _ultimately_ immune to Africanization.

painlord2k said at June 17, 2014 5:11 PM:

It is not immune, as the fourth wife is cycled.
The wealthy men can and will keep three wives and cycle the fourth to have more children and/or sexual objects.

James Bowery said at June 17, 2014 10:31 PM:

Good insight. I hadn't thought of that. See divorce in Islam.

albatross said at June 18, 2014 11:26 AM:

Why, one might almost come to suspect that these numbers weren't 100% totally accurate.

Wolf-Dog said at June 18, 2014 1:46 PM:

But if a Muslim man can simultaneously be married to 4 women, and if no Muslim woman can be married to more than 1 man at a time, then it follows that for every Muslim man who marries 4 women, 3 Muslim men will have no wife at all. To illustrate the statistical implications of this marriage structure, let's assume that in a hypothetical Muslim country 10 % of the men are wealthy enough to afford 4 wives: then this would imply that the top 10 % of men have already taken 40 % of the women, and the remaining 90 % of the men would have to compete for the remaining 60 % of the women. But if the top 20 % of men took 4 wives, then the remaining 80 % of the men would have to compete for 20 % of women. The resulting shortage of women would be a good reason to go to war and conduct Jihad to obtain more women from other countries.

James Bowery said at June 18, 2014 8:40 PM:

Wolf-Dog, you have to compare apples to apples here despite deceptive labeling by academia as "serial monogamy" the phenomenon of serial polygyny in the West.

One of the reasons Islam is going to win over the idiocracy of the West is the relative honesty of openly sanctioned polygyny of Islam vs the West's sleazey serial polygyny going on under the name "serial monogamy". Male fertility, like wealth, is increasingly centralized in the West's idiocracy.

James Bowery said at June 18, 2014 9:28 PM:

An article that attempts the obligatory obfuscation of serial polygyny but lets some actual numbers slip:

Half of 20-year-olds will never marry in 'devastating' trend

...blah blah...

The baby-boomer generation, born between the end of World War Two and the early 1960s, has maintained a healthy level of marriage, with 87 per cent of men and 92 per cent of women having married at some stage.

...blah blah...

Stated another way, the baby-boomers had 13% of men never married and 8% of women never married -- that's over 60% higher bachelorhood than spinsterhood. What they don't say is at what age the men had their first marriage and what the fertility status the women had at that time. Recalling multiple divorce/remarriage stats from circa 1990 there were a small number of men with a large number of divorces/remarriages in stark contrast to the women.

What you'll never see any academic publish is the centralization of paternity, which is likely higher than these stats indicate.

Stephen said at June 18, 2014 9:56 PM:

There's also another layer - women must be purchased by a dowry negotiated between the parents. The law of supply & demand implies that allowing multiple wives creates an artificial shortage in the supply of women, which in turn increases the average purchase price (in the form of an increased dowry). This has two implications:

  • Poorer families can't afford enough women for all their sons. The effect is that for a large proportion of the male population, the risk-taking behaviour common to young men is never moderated by them being paired with a woman.

  • Women are kept locked away in order to maintain their dowry value. The effect is that the moderating influence of women is excluded from society.

The overall result is the creation of a society that needs to export its radical young men - and that means war.
Jim said at June 19, 2014 6:48 AM:

I wonder, if indeed one effect of polygamy is to produce a large class of young surplus males who then are "exported" does that mean that polygamous societies are wont to expand aggressively into neighboring societies? If so and that "export" of surplus males is successful in expanding the polygamous culture it may mean that polygamous cultures are strongly selected for in evolution.

James Bowery said at June 19, 2014 1:38 PM:

Jim, you've hit on one of the key weaknesses of E. O. Wilson along with Nowak et al in their notion of the evolution of eusociality:

A key stage in the evolution of eusociality is the restriction of reproductive resources at a protected nest. It is at this stage that Wilson, Nowak et al neglect the importance of kin selection -- although they are basically right about the extended phenotypic parasitic castration of offspring by the reproductive caste (they don't say it in those starkly accurate and concise Dawkinsonian terms) being the climax of eusocial evolution (at least eusocial evolution that retains sexual reproduction at all). The choice of an offspring to stay with the protected nest or strike out on its own actually hides an option: Staying at the nest can involve fighting for the reproductive resources rather than submitting to specialized function in the dominance hierarchy (being a parasitically castrated extended phenotype of the reproductive class). There are therefore 3 choices, and the choice of leaving the protected nest is more akin to the choice of staying with the nest and fighting than it is staying with the nest and submitting: the fight being taken to the surrounding environment when leaving the nest. So in these 3 levels of choice about how to respond to limited reproductive resources, there is a hierarchy of trade offs that involve relatedness to the reproductive class. Nowhere in their math do they account for this degree of relatedness.

Having said all that, there is an obvious question about how the "fight" takes place. In civilization -- unlike paleolithic societies -- it is far more profitable to wage war by exporting slaves, as this subverts the relationship between the classes of the victim ethny.

Bob said at June 20, 2014 10:07 PM:

"The cornerstones of JudeoChristian western civilization have been removed:

* St. Paul's sexist religious teachings (teachings that are not followed by a _single_ modern JudeoChristian denomination)

* JudeoChristian institution of kings that were restricted to one mate and prohibited to divorce at will"

Wasn't the latter cornerstone removed with Henry VIII 500 years ago?

James Bowery said at June 20, 2014 11:57 PM:

Yes, Henry VIII was an incipient reductio ad absurdum of JudeoChristian western civilization -- right up there with The King's Champion.

Post a comment
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
Remember info?

Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright