I think the answer to that
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
Starting with, why are we the ones going around and meddling in the household affairs of so many of our neighbors in the first place?
is that tired but still true 'someone's gotta do it.' The last 20 years have shown that it isn't likely to get done if we do not engage the issue.
Quote:
Oh, 65 years ago it was a rough neighborhood, and we stood up and led a neighborhood watch program and saw the neighborhood through a very rough time? Ok. Good on us. But that problem cleared up some 20 years ago and now our efforts are a lot less appreciated. We still have a role, we just need to tailor it to the current environment.
It was my observation 65 years ago a lot of the neighbors we were helping did not like us one little bit. Five years later I was a bit older and realized that a lot of them really didn't like us much at all -- but were quite willing to seek our aid in any form, take it and still not like us. As time has passed, I've seen little change. People will take what we offer and will try to use and manipulate us. Our nominal 'enemies' have done that for over a century -- and they have been and are today tacitly if not sometimes actively aided by many of our nominal 'friends' who distrust us. Many with good cause as we, like every nation, have simply pursued our own interests as we should. The problem is that we are quite large, rambunctious and have a ripple impact on too many.
We've been interfering with others for over 200 years; this is not a recent or Cold War thing and to try to say it is to deliberately obscure a rational view of history. That 200 plus year legacy will never go away, it is the cause of much hatred of the US around the world and we will try to act like it might be mitigated only at great cost. Your prescription is dangerous.
a little further out there
I see allot of the last few posts leading back to Marc's desire to see a "grand strategy" that employed all the resources, not in raw sum, but in the right proportion to the objective(s). This might require the Will to follow a totally pragmatic and apolitical (in the sense of U.S. domestic turbulence) vision. There is something approaching total commitment at that point maybe, to the point where all else falls away from the desire for the objective.
I think the only way you get there - meaning the big "W" will, is you face an existential threat (or perceived and hyped to become one) because preservation of one's primary interests trumps all else (unless you can't see it); fear from being politically isolated (think the post 9/11 USG - and for that matter most western democracies) is also a good motivator.
If you really do have an existential threat, then the cost are probably justified, even if your political enemies undermine you when things cool off, or when they think they understand enough to assume the risks of doing so (not personal, just politics).
I guess my point is two fold with that:
1) goes to the former HASC member who remarked that we were going to have to explain it to the public in such a way that it was politically safe
2) goes to the fact that I don't see any member of Congress rushing to give up any power, the collection of which is how they stay in power, and it is only when such an apparent transfer of power would benefit them by giving them more power elsewhere that they will cede it (there are probably a few exceptions - maybe)
OK - I know there are some great work groups out there trying to address some of this, they may have luck on the Executive side - as long as it gives the executive more power - or allows him to use existing power better, but I did not see any members of Congress in that last interview I mentioned earlier asking which laws DoD would like to see permanently weakened, abolished or changed to make DoD more effective at winning the wars (or contingency ops abroad or whatever is the proper political terminology for war). I could have missed it, it could have went down behind the scenes, but I did not see it on C-Span. I know there are HASC and SASC staffers who are aware of the problems so I'm guessing their bosses are as well, but still no new news?
Back to Marc's point about a grand strategy that links theater and regional objectives together and results in the all the right tools being employed in ways that support their effectiveness - I can't see it until the threat justifies it, or until Palpatine takes over.
Back to design, I guess we need to get better at working inside the existing legal framework, and I think design supports that.
Best, Rob
We'll comntinue to disagree on this, I expect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
You can't compare America's engagement 200 years ago with our engagement 65 years ago. The former we were a little tiny maritime nation focused on commerce and expanding beyond the Blue Ridge to settle the Ohio valley and Gulf states. 65 Years ago we took the baton from England to lead the western effort to contain the Soviets and lead the free world.
In reverse order, I'm quite aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that you used the correct word; 'took.' Because that's exactly what we did and FDR masterminded it -- and they know it; so do the French -- and both those nations recall Suez. Not fondly, either.
I did not attempt to compare Americas engagement 200 years ago to 65 years ago (aside from the fact that 65 is included in the 200...). What I did was remind you that we have been interfering in other nations for that period and they all remember it -- again, not fondly -- no matter how much you want to downplay it. Those hard feelings have been inculcated over many years, including the last 65 and they are not going away. So I didn't make any such comparison -- you elected to misunderstand or misstate what I did write. For proof of an attitude toward us that was engendered more than 65 years ago, talk to South Americans...
We are seen as a looming threat by almost everyone; that in my observation in over 20 nations for over 60 years has always been true. It waxes and wanes but it never completely goes away.
So anyone who thinks a nice new shiny USA will win friends and influence people is, I believe, quite mistaken -- and as I said, dangerously so.
Quote:
To keep implementing a family of policies, programs, institutions and perspectives with a government system all designed to address a world that was emerging out of WWII is what is dangerous.
I do not think we are doing that. I in 45 years of guvmint service witnessed a lot of changes -- slow, to be sure -- but changes.
Quote:
America has a major role in the world, that has not changed. We just need to adapt that role for the current environment.
I'm comfortable that is being done and comfortable that it does not appear to be in accordance with your model; as I said, the neighborhood really is no better. It's really worse, in many ways.
Quote:
As I look back on history every major power has collapsed under the efforts of attempting to maintain a Status Quo that was favorable to them in the face of a changing environment that all of the rising powers were taking advantage of to fuel their own rise. This is how we displaced the Brits. If we do not learn from history and embrace change it will be how the Chinese displace us.
Heh. Are you serious? You hope to stop that? Do the math -- and do not forget India...
Neither need be a threat unless we make them one.
Quote:
Well we have been swimming hard against the current and it is tiring us far faster than anyone would have predicted. Time to get out of the rip, and then chart a new course to a better future.
Better future? Not likely in your lifetime; resource allocations among other things will mess that up
Quote:
A lot of people on the shore are watching with great interest, but I don't see any of them risking their own hide to come out and help us.
Heh. Thank you for making my point; you did not comment on the most important element in my post above so you may have missed the import of of it. Recall what I wrote on that topic:
""Our nominal 'enemies' have done that for over a century -- and they have been and are today tacitly if not sometimes actively aided by many of our nominal 'friends' who distrust us. Many with good cause as we, like every nation, have simply pursued our own interests as we should. The problem is that we are quite large, rambunctious and have a ripple impact on too many."" (emphasis added / kw)
You can totally ignore that as a comment from me -- if you ignore that FACT in your strategic planning, you will do this nation a grave disservice.