Not that, I fully agree with that and that lack of coherent vision is due to our electoral process and political system -- but there is broad agreement that we should try to maintain position to the extent possible within the mood swings that are bound to occur.That's the quibble point. I agree that there was a purpose (to remain atop the heap) but the belief that we had a coherent plan and policy throughout the 1947-1999 period is way wrong......At least during the Cold War there was a purpose - a "struggle" which partially guided us.
We had a policy of containment and little more, each electoral cycle introduced changes in funding (and thus direction), strategies, policies and effort. The only real difference in then versus now is that there was one overt (if nominal only) threat, one massive nation on which to focus.Heh. I wouldn't bet on that. We are the world master at cobbling together band aids to make patches...Now? Nothing that I can see except to maintain a kind of status-quo, though I admit I may be completely missing something. We haven't really been forced, as a nation, to reevaluate where we're at and our priorities. That will change given our government financial unsustainability.
We'll bumble along until there's a true existential threat. Fear not, one will appear. They always do. Then we'll get squared away for a bit before we drift back into naval gazing (pun intended). It's the American way, cyclical chaos.
Bookmarks