Ill share some lunch time reading on strategy...
...with the understanding that Asia is not my area of expertise, but an interesting place nonetheless.
From David Rothkopf's blog on the FP Website:
Quote:
Then you arrive at Singapore's Changi Airport and you are powerfully reminded that the excellence of the airline is not a fluke. This is the best airport in the world, spacious, efficient, and attractive. As such, it is the perfect preparation for Singapore itself, almost certainly the best run political entity on the planet. Admittedly, the country, led from the start by the man who is now known as its Minister Mentor Lee Kwan Yew, has practiced what I would characterize as constrained form of democracy but few places have ever so compellingly made the case that what is trade away in terms of the occasional citation for spitting gum on the sidewalk is more than made up for in a society that is prosperous (Asia's second richest), innovative, and safe.
It is a government that has led the way by behaving in many ways like a corporation, taking ideas like competitiveness and strategic planning seriously. (At dinner tonight with a senior business executive who is one of the country's great entrepreneurial success stories, she said, "In the beginning, in Singapore, the state was the entrepreneur." And that was said with a genuine appreciation for all the state achieved in that role.) Even in the midst of a global recession it has been seen as not just responsive, but creatively responsive, promoting retraining of workers and focus on new growth industries.
Part of the credit must go to its unique system of senior government official compensation. Ministers are paid via a formula: two thirds of the average of the eight highest salaries in six key professions (lawyer, accountant, banker, multinational executive, local manufacturer, and engineer). As a result in recent years the president and the prime minister have made in excess of $2 million a year in salary and other ministers in excess of $1 million. The result is that many of the best minds will be found in the government, zero corruption and terrific results. Want an example of the innovation? The president, prime minister, and ministers took an almost one-fifth pay cut this year because of the recession. What? Accountability among public officials? Real incentives? Imagine the loud "gak" you would get out of the U.S. government as they choked on those ideas.
Wilf, we are still in the same trinity - part 1 ...
that is p.89 of Howard & Paret, as appears in full in my post #37, and which I will repeat here (keeping my numbering to designate the three points of the trinity; and keeping your emphasis and mine as well; and including CvC's fourth paragraph):
Quote:
... composed [1] of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force; [2] of the play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam; and [3] of [war’s] element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason alone.
The first of these three aspects mainly concerns the people; the second the commander and his army; the third the government.
These three tendencies are like three different codes of law, deep-rooted in their subject and yet variable in their relationship to one another. A theory that ignores any one of them or seeks to fix an arbitrary relationship among them would conflict with reality to such an extent that for this reason alone it would be totally useless.
Our task therefore is to develop a theory that maintains a balance between these three tendencies, like an object suspended between three magnets.
-------------------
Again, I have to make it very clear that the situation I am addressing is the interface between the people, the government and the military in setting national policy, and its impact on national strategy and military strategy (as those terms are defined in joint doctrine), as that interface exists in the US in the first decade of the 21st century.
I am not making or trying to make some generalized argument that applies to the US in other time periods, or to other nations in the same or other time periods. In short, I'm not addressing the application of CvC to Hitler or Hamas, WWII or Vietnam, Native Americans or Texan Mexicans, or the peoples of South Korea, the Lebanon and Somalia.
Scope: US, 1st decade of 21st century - its interface of people, government and military.
---------------------------
What CvC wrote is clear enough. As to the main tendency of the people: "[1] of primordial violence, hatred, and enmity, which are to be regarded as a blind natural force;" As to the main tendency of the government: "[3] of [war’s] element of subordination, as an instrument of policy, which makes it subject to reason alone."
My modest suggestion is that the primary characteristics, that CvC applied to the people and government ca. 1831 (a view strongly held by Metternich in Europe and less strongly by Hamilton in the US), are not the primary characteristics of situation I address - US, 1st decade of 21st century - its interface of people, government and military.
Further, I suggest that to take CvC's early 19th century charactistics for the people and government ("tendencies", as he called them, "like three different codes of law, deep-rooted in their subject") and apply them to the 21st century US situation, would be serious error - and without rigor.
In fact, I would suggest that to do so would to violate CvC's statement that "to fix an arbitrary relationship among them" would render that argument "totally useless" (from 3rd CvC paragraph quoted above).
My second modest suggestion is that CvC's early 19th century analysis of the people and government did not (and could not - since CvC did not claim a magic crystal ball) take into account what I call the transitory politicians of the 21st century US situation. Again, to attempt to define them (the transitory politicians) in terms of the 19th and 18th century statesmen would also be an "arbitrary fixation" - and also "totally useless".
So, my two modest suggestions are not contrary to CvC's warning against "arbitrary fixations" - in fact, they heed that warning.
The following is an important concept; that is, the "tendencies" are "... yet variable in their relationship to one another" (as Ken said, "they are inherently unstable"); and that (4th para. above):
Quote:
Our task therefore is to develop a theory that maintains a balance between these three tendencies, like an object suspended between three magnets.
It is impossible to develop a theory and maintain the balance if one gets the composition of the magnets wrong; and attempts to define them for what they are not.
end part 1
I don't see a cause and effect other than illusional.
I didn't say moral ambivalence -- I said morally neutral OR ambivalent. That is IMO, the early moves were morally clean or neutral but the worst case interpretation could only say they were ambivalent. That didn't get us into trouble; nor did Johnson's morally wrong Tonkin Gulf incident get us into trouble -- the poor performance of the US Army got us into trouble. Had the Army done better, Johnson's foolishness would have been irrelevant
If you want to play the morality game, i guess you could say that had Johnson's immoral act not been committed -- and had the majority of Congress gone along with him as well as the mass of Public Opinion -- the Army wouldn't have been there to fail -- but you're also confronted with the fact that Eisnhower's basically morally sound act set the stage for the whole thing. That's why I say one should be careful throwing that 'moral' charge around with respect to a nation. Any nation. It's generally not that clear cut.
One can, I guess, make moral judgments on what nations do; I just don't think anything is that simple and I don't believe nations are people and thus they cannot be judged as one would judge an individual. Any national action, particularly in a democracy, is going to have multiple players involved in decisions and I don't think group action can be judged as one would assess a single person. Say that nations should do what's right and I totally agree; say the must act morally and I ask ; whose morals? Mine, yours, my Uncle Bud? My Friend Tom? John Gotti's? Amy Winehouse's?
What's right can be arrived at by consensus; what's moral is an individual construct.
Yes, people are supposed to be held responsible for THEIR acts and, indirectly, if they were in charge, for the acts of the nation. That doesn't seem to me to address the point you're making. Every President from John Adams forward with few exceptions exceeded his authority to one degree or another. Adams and the Naval War with France and the Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson got those Acts repealed and pardoned all who had been convicted under them -- and then he proceeded to do some flaky stuff himself.
Move on to Lyndon and then forward. I've lived through 13 Presidents and every single one of them has "lied to the American People." We've undertaken a whole lot of less than moral actions and you cannot say that, in the end, all or even most were bad.
In fact, I'd appreciate it if you could name me a military effort by this country that was 'moral' in the sense I think you mean. I'm sure there's one out there but right now, I can't recall a one. You could also name me one that was a net minus for mankind or the country if you can think of one...
That difference is part semantic and part, as I said,
that what is right can be arrived at by consensus (or application of law, which I did not say but is true, so we agree on that...) while what is moral is an individual construct. My morals and yours probably differ -- and ol' John Gotti probably differed in moral outlook to bofus. :D
I'd still like your opinion on the questions:
""...I'd appreciate it if you could name me a military effort by this country that was 'moral' in the sense I think you mean. I'm sure there's one out there but right now, I can't recall a one. You could also name me one that was a net minus for mankind or the country if you can think of one...""
This conversation reminds me of an podcast...
...which can be downloaded from iTunes for free and which livens up the morning commute...Plato's The Republic :wry:
Quote:
At the end of Book I, Socrates agrees with Polemarchus that justice includes helping friends, but says the just man would never do harm to anybody. Thrasymachus believes that Socrates has done the men present an injustice by saying this and attacks his character and reputation in front of the group, partly because he suspects that Socrates himself does not even believe harming enemies is unjust. Thrasymachus gives his understanding of justice as "what is good for the stronger", meaning those in power over the city. Socrates finds this definition unclear and begins to question Thrasymachus. In Thrasymachus' view, the rulers are the source of justice in every city, and their laws are just by his definition since, presumably, they enact those laws to benefit themselves. Socrates then asks whether the ruler who makes a mistake by making a law that lessens their well-being, is still a ruler according to that definition. Thrasymachus agrees that no true ruler would make such an error. This agreement allows Socrates to undermine Thrasymachus' strict definition of justice by comparing rulers to people of various professions. Thrasymachus consents to Socrates' assertion that an artist is someone who does his job well, and is a knower of some art, which allows him to complete the job well. In so doing Socrates gets Thrasymachus to admit that rulers who enact a law that does not benefit them firstly, are in the precise sense not rulers. Thrasymachus gives up, and is silent from then on. Socrates has trapped Thrasymachus into admitting the strong man who makes a mistake is not the strong man in the precise sense, and that some type of knowledge is required to rule perfectly. However, it is far from a satisfactory definition of justice.
At the beginning of Book II, Plato's two brothers challenge Socrates to define justice in the man, and unlike the rather short and simple definitions offered in Book I, their views of justice are presented in two independent speeches. Glaucon's speech reprises Thrasymachus' idea of justice; it starts with the legend of Gyges who discovered a ring that gave him the power to become invisible.[8] Glaucon uses this story to argue that no man would be just if he had the opportunity of doing injustice with impunity. With the power to become invisible, Gyges is able to enter the royal court unobserved, seduce the queen, murder the king, and take over the kingdom. Glaucon argues that the just as well as the unjust man would do the same if they had the power to get away with injustice exempt from punishment. The only reason that men are just and praise justice is out of fear of being punished for injustice. The law is a product of compromise between individuals who agree not to do injustice to others if others will not do injustice to them. Glaucon says that if people had the power to do injustice without fear of punishment, they would not enter into such an agreement. Glaucon uses this argument to challenge Socrates to defend the position that the just life is better than the unjust life. Adeimantus adds to Glaucon's speech the charge that men are only just for the results that justice brings one- fortune, honor, reputation. Adeimantus challenges Socrates to prove that being just is worth something in and of itself, not only as a means to an end.
Glaucon's speech seduces Socrates for it is in itself contradictory. Glaucon has openly, passionately and forcibly argued for the superiority of the unjust life, something truly unjust men would never do in public. Socrates says that there is no better topic to debate. In response to the two views of injustice and justice presented by Glaucon and Adeimantus, he claims incompetence, but feels it would be impious to leave justice in such doubt. Thus The Republic sets out to define justice. Given the difficulty of this task as proven in Book I, Socrates in Book II leads his interlocutors into a discussion of justice in the city, which Socrates suggests may help them see justice in the person, but on a larger scale.[9]
Getting pretty confused this end....
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
- Further, I suggest that to take CvC's early 19th century charactistics for the people and government ("tendencies", as he called them, "like three different codes of law, deep-rooted in their subject") and apply them to the 21st century US situation, would be serious error - and without rigor.
- My modest suggestion is that the primary characteristics, that CvC applied to the people and government ca. 1831 (a view strongly held by Metternich in Europe and less strongly by Hamilton in the US), are not the primary characteristics of situation I address - US, 1st decade of 21st century - its interface of people, government and military.
a.) OK, so are you saying the the Passion, Reason, Chance trinity does not apply in the 21st Century US?
b.) So would you suggest better ascribing the characteristic of Passion (you can also say Emotion) to the Government or the Army and not the People?
....and I assume we are talking about the same 21st Century Americans who vote more on game shows than they do national elections? :eek:
Do Emotions ever effect things at the polls?
Sticking with the Howard Paret translation (because all my CvC commentaries use it) Book 1, Chap 1, Section 3, P76 says that "even the most civilise people can be fired with a passionate hatred for each other." How does that not describe emotions post 911?
Would you expect the primary source of emotion to be Army of the Government? Is the trinity wrong? If so, how?
If you are telling me that CvCs trinity does not accurately describe the system within which you live, then OK, but we'll have to wait and see, because it did, just 9 years ago, and has historically right up until now. Yes the US people may not be emotionally connected with current conflicts, but that does not undermine CvCs basic observations.
All three of which were started on morally dubious rationales.
The Revolution was fomented by a bunch of folks who initially had no real problems; went out of their way to create problems and got a King they knew would be intransigent to overreact. British mistreatment was not an issue -- Colonial political ambitions and a long standing Scotch Irish hatred of the English fed that puppy...
The Civil War comes closest to being morally right, no question -- but that, too was fomented by a bunch of hotheads and the lead up during the late 1850s was beyond morally dubious -- and that applies to both sides. The abrogation of the Missouri compromise and the 30 year later compromise of 1850 plus the Dred Scott decision were moves pushed by some to get a war. No moral high ground on either side.
WW II was FDR's baby; he personally orchestrated the campaign to push the Japanese to get a predictable reaction and he got it. He violated dozens of laws to do that and supply the British -- and then deliberately drove the British and the French out of the colonial business. You may applaud that latter as a morally correct thing to do but our then 'allies' didn't look at it that way. Once in the war, we did what needed to be done to win but those things were not pretty -- nor were they moral. Not at all. I have no problem with any of them -- but they were not moral. :eek: ;)
Thus, your point that if we act morally, it turns out okay and that if we start morally and then go to a lower moral plane, we screw it up is not correct -- with respect to those three, it's backward in fact. All three were entered on morally suspect grounds but turned out alright for us.
All of our wars, morally suspect or not, have effectively left us better off than we were before them. Even Viet Nam. All have mostly been better for the world. All had costs and those costs in human terms may have been bad but they were transient costs. As an aside, I don't consider the War on Drugs a war -- it's just stupid. :rolleyes:
The right or wrong, the moral aspect, is only a part of the equation. It ain't that simple -- and that's my point in this discussion; moral is good and we can agree on that. However, there's more to it than that and we the US have never really been very moral in any of our military stuff, it's all about national interest and moral has never entered into it except for PR purposes -- except for maybe Wilson and WW I and even that was as much about selling stuff to Britain and France and getting Germany out of the Pacific area as it was defeating the Hun... :wry:
Jimmy Carter was probably the most moral President ever; certainly the most moral in my lifetime and easily the most honest -- yet he lied to the public on several occasions and his South Asia and Middle East policies are almost directly responsible for where we are today. Morality isn't everything. There's an awful lot of gray out there and there are few absolutes.
Wilf, JMM, pardon the intrusion but I went back to
the first post on this sub thread and extracted what I thought (dangerous, that...) was JMM's principal point, to wit:
Quote:
I would suggest that the people are a more immutable segment than government; and that collectively over time are much more subject to reason in favor of the national interest than government.
I agreed with that and still do, all Wilf's valid points about the US populace not withstanding.
My reason for agreeing is that our US Politicians today -- the Government -- are entirely too much in the pandering and touchy-feely modes and will not take positions on anything that might force them to take an unambiguous stand. Add to that their fealty to their party and national interest becomes simply something to talk about for most. The people, not running for office, can effectively put their perception of the national interest first and most do so where as those in government are perpetually wishy washy.
That has not been the case in the past, I'd say things started changing in the 1970s and the transition is ongoing and has still not fully crystallized. However, I think it definitely is close to being complete.
Those 'people,' the hoi polloi, will definitely fall down on the side of the national interest as they see it but they do need a minor crisis that is an annoying interruption of their self centered day to day life to be stirred up enough to do that. :wry:
All that is said by me with respect to JMM's point and I'm not getting into what CvC might have said or meant -- I was busy elsewhere when he wrote the book...
You two have fun... ;)
We're not going to agree on this so no sense boring everyone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
slapout9
That just doesn't make sense.
Oh, it makes sense; it's also accurate and easily verifiable history. It just clashes with your view... :wry:
Quote:
1- The Revolutionary War-remember The Declaration of Independence....The right of the People to alter and or Abolish it,etc. classic morality.
Yes, that's probably true -- but what about the immorality to get to that point. You just don't count that part?
Quote:
...The South wanted to separate from the Union which is illegal and Honest Abe fulfilled his 1st responsibility per the Constitution...
It wasn't known as illegal at the time though that war made it so and again you gloss over the bad stuff that got it started to get to the good that came out of it...
Quote:
...had to fight the 2nd World War because Wilson was so immoral
FDR was as or more immoral than Wilson, politicians are like that. You're also wrongly ascribing the role of Clemenceau in the Treaty of Versailles to Wilson -- Wilson and the British just went along with the French who were determined to cripple Germany. The French were next door, we and the British were further away and had not been invaded by Germany twice in 44 years...
All politicians are immoral, just as are all wars. Including all three of those. Doesn't mean that they didn't do some good -- as I said, it isn't nearly as cut and dried as you seem to be determined to make it. :D
Difference in definition and interpretation...
For example, my perception of Surferbeetle's post was that the operation was not very moral (i.e. disregarding the guidelines and accepting former Nazis to work on the rocket and later space program *) but that it was of benefit.
This:
Quote:
The problem is when national leaders follow what is in their personal interest (moral/immoral) vs. what is in the interest(moral/immoral) of the country.
is very much a personal interpretation; I have no quarrel with that 'interest' portion and I agree -- I'm simply saying the 'moral' portion is an individual perception. That your take and mine differ on the role of morality in three or four wars is proof of that; that Wilf and Surferbeetle chime in on the topic is even more proof.
* Note that does not address the fate of other former Nazis we did not bend the guidelines for, who provided the US with no benefit as did those scientists and whom we threw to the wolves when they were discovered. If you think all that was / is moral or right; we'll just have to disagree...
Sent the following to Wilf in a PM ...
but he thought I should have posted it in the thread.
So here goes, even though the content is more political than I like to be on this forum. Perhaps the thread topic and discussion of CvC's "political trinity" justify this brief excursion into politics.
Trinity and its components - part 1
Your questions #1 & 2
Quote:
a.) OK, so are you saying the the Passion, Reason, Chance trinity does not apply in the 21st Century US?
The trinity of people, government and military does apply; but not in its "ideal" form.
Quote:
b.) So would you suggest better ascribing the characteristic of Passion (you can also say Emotion) to the Government or the Army and not the People?
To government - which is the rest of the story.
------------------------
US "government" re: national foreign policy issues
Formally, we have the Executive Branch (with several thousand presidential appointees) and the Legislative Branch (with thousands of staffers) - all subject to change on 2, 4 and 6 year cycles. Because of fund-raising, the next 2-year cycle for the House has already started (to end Nov 2010). All of these folks are very much politicians and take politics (not policy) very seriously. You do see "passion" in them - and, in many cases, actual "hostility" and "animosity" between those politicians - the "gotcha" tactic.
Informally, you have to add several other components to government. One is the media (old and new), which feeds off the politicians - and also feeds off another component, special interest groups (of which, there are 10s of 1000s, with variable input into the area of foreign policy).
Interest groups affect (and seek to effect) policy via lobbying (probably the most effective, if you have an inside track); and by use of the media. Since these folks have special interests, they tend to be true believers - so, "hostility" and "animosity" runs even higher among them than among the politicians. The media feeds off of that (helps ratings to have two nutjobs yelling at each other) - and so, we have what in effect is a constantly running Freak Show.
Another input into government (and the key source of presidential appointees) are the think tanks. While some are neutral (say, CFR which publishes Foreign Affairs, or AFIO in the intelligence area), many have definite agendas and more closely resemble special interest groups. So, with the latter, "hostility" and "animosity" can and do reign.
In short, the various components that make up our government (formally and informally) are made up of people, who are very inclined to emotions, passions and everything else you say.
----------------------
US People (using that in a collective sense, as in "We the People ...") re: national foreign policy issues
Apathy (as to things political) would best describe the vast majority of the American people; and yes ...
Quote:
Quote:
.. we are talking about the same 21st Century Americans who vote more on game shows than they do national elections ...
and I couldn't have said it better myself.
Of course, I would say more elegantly (:D) that USAians have more and more dropped out of the political process, as fewer and fewer people remain involved in the political parties at the grassroots level, leaving politics as they are to the "professional politicians".
We see that the same thing has happened in the union movement. Except for unions of government employees (isn't that interesting), the union movement is a shell of its former self. That is scarcely surprising because government has become the "union of last resort".
USAians are not stupid (collectively) and are aware (collectively) of both foreign and domestic affairs (the latter being currently more important); but have left direct involvement in the political process to the "pros". That could change if the People feel threatened in their survival (hard to see absent a Thermonuclear War), or in their vital interests - try to cut out the Social Security system and see what would happen - Gray Panthers ! ;)
Of course, if one were to take our media at face value - and as an expression of what USAians really are - one would fairly conclude that the US People are collectively a bunch of impassioned nutjobs.
----------------------------------------
Trinity and its components - part 2
CvC actually relates to all this in the six paragraphs I quoted at post # 59, where this seems very pertinent:
Quote:
Now, whether this will be the case always in future, whether all wars hereafter in Europe will be carried on with the whole power of the States, and, consequently, will only take place on account of great interests closely affecting the people, or whether a separation of the interests of the Government from those of the people will gradually again arise, would be a difficult point to settle; and, least of all, shall we take upon us to settle it.
I'd suggest that, in the US of the 1st decade of the 21st century, the interests of government (as I have described the components) have separated from the interests of the People, who every now and then rear up - as in the case of the last two elections (2006 and 2008).
Combine this with all-volunteer military forces, and we have something that is kin to what CvC described in his summary of pre-French Revolution history.
And, in fact, Rome (which CvC found unique) may be the best parallel - since the trinity applied there, but in a different way than in its "ideal form".
I also found this piece of CvC interesting and seemingly applicable to methodology:
Quote:
We here bring our historical survey to a close, for it was not our design to give at a gallop some of the principles on which war has been carried on in each age, but only to show how each period has had its own peculiar forms of war, its own restrictive conditions, and its own prejudices. Each period would, therefore, also keep its own theory of war, even if every where, in early times, as well as in later, the task had been undertaken of working out a theory on philosophical principles. The events in each age must, therefore, be judged of in connection with the peculiarities of the time, and only he who, less through an anxious study of minute details than through an accurate glance at the whole, can transfer himself into each particular age, is fit to understand and appreciate its generals.
But this conduct of war, conditioned by the peculiar relations of States, and of the military force employed, must still always contain in itself something more general, or rather something quite general, with which, above everything, theory is concerned.
So, while some things change in some way, they remain all the more the same in basic principles.
PS: I eschew game shows; but my evening viewing goes something like this:
Brett Baer (1/2 news, 1/2 Fox commentary); Shep Smith (straight news); O'Reilly and Hannity; Keith Obermann, Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews (these last 5 from 8pm-1am; and definitely a Freak Show, best viewed for its entertainment value).
Most of the time, all that is on for background noise, while I read or write things on the computer.
Cheers :)
Mike
