The Illusion of Peacetime

[Bob's World]

This is our poor leadership. We need to focus on leading by example. We (the US) need not, and should not, be the guarantor of the right of self-determination; but neither should be the obstacle to self-determination either when we fear that the locals will determine some form of governance not to our liking.

The principles espoused in our declaration of independence are powerful, and now we read them from a position much more like that of King George when he received them, than we read them at the time they were written. They have become inconvenient truths when we allow our fears of what might happen if we allow the same self-determination for others that we demand for ourselves. But we need to stop taking counsel of our fears. We have faced far greater challenges and harms from our efforts to deny this fundamental right, than I suspect we ever would have from being the champion of the same.

[OUTLAW 09]

This is our poor leadership. We need to focus on leading by example. We (the US) need not, and should not, be the guarantor of the right of self-determination; but neither should be the obstacle to self-determination either when we fear that the locals will determine some form of governance not to our liking.

The principles espoused in our declaration of independence are powerful, and now we read them from a position much more like that of King George when he received them, than we read them at the time they were written. They have become inconvenient truths when we allow our fears of what might happen if we allow the same self-determination for others that we demand for ourselves. But we need to stop taking counsel of our fears. We have faced far greater challenges and harms from our efforts to deny this fundamental right, than I suspect we ever would have from being the champion of the same.

So right---when one looks at the world today we see a number of different civil societies attempting to emulate either our values or those of the EU--the interesting question is why though the US or the EU--I think all civil societies regardless of religious beliefs, regardless of whether in Africa or the Pacific, regardless of past political history ie Warsaw Pact or the Far East--all civil societies strive towards a set of norms that ensure them physical security in their society, ensures them employment and a safe environment for their children and opportunities for the children to grow educationally and economically--and if there are fair elections as they define them along the way and a transparent government that responds to their needs so be it.

They would normally then see no need to lash out at the US--there might be inherent differences in approaching common problems but lashing out--hardly.

We simply believed that these societies had to be exact replication of ours in order to be successful and therein lies the core problem they all do not speak English, did not evolve out of the British Empire--and they have their own histories we somehow overlooked.

Would I love the ancient Persian society to once again bloom in the ME--most certainly but along the way they have to lose their revolutionary religious zealous drive and back away from supporting terror as a political means--which IMHO that is at least 20 years away---would I like to see a stable and prospering Russian must certainly as it would lend an additional layer of security to Europe and their civil society has truly suffered since 1917 and desire far better and the list goes on.

So while we have our own issues to work on--I am afraid to say a number of irrationally acting nation states and non state actors will be with us for a long while to come.

[Bill Moore]

I don't always agree with Colin Gray, but he is one of the more prolific writers on strategy and war. The areas in bold are my injected highlights to facilitate further discussion. I think he is close to being on the mark, but not quite there if I'm interpreting his thoughts as he intended correctly. The comments below Gray's are mine, I'm branching off his thoughts. Mine loosely nest with his, but I don't want to give the perception I'm using his arguments to justify mine. I'm confident he would disagree with my branches.

https://www.infinityjournal.com/arti...ntext_and_War/

Terminology: Clarity, Context and War
By Infinity Journal 03/26/2013

War is not simply the interaction of two state-sanctioned militaries interacting through military means. Rather, war is the use of violence as one tool of politics in order to compel an adversary to do your will.(1) The violence can take many forms and your desired effect of an adversary can be infinite, but what always remains is that it involves the use of force as an instrument to achieve an end. War is a political act to create a political change in an adversary that is beneficial to your own situation.

As he explains in the article and other writings, politics is not restricted to states. In fact, small to large non-state groups can and do declare war upon states. They often employ terrorism as supporting tactics, and increasingly they employ terrorism as a form of strategy. To confuse terrorism as simply tactics, and not also as a strategy to compel an adversary to make political changes through the use of force/coercion. The failure to grasp this leads to our confusion on whether or not we're at war with non-state actors. If they are using terrorism to compel political changes, then it is a form of war period. Most wars do not require mobilization of one's nation to wage major battles, rather they're indefinite and relatively small scale affairs, where battle is not decisive.

Colin argues the use of force is required to make it a war, he tends to exchange the terms force and violence as though they're the same thing. I guess it depends upon how you define violence. Is the use of offensive cyber to destroy or disrupt an adversary's cyber systems or infrastructure considered violence? If it is used to compel political change, is it a use of force? Is subversion to promote an uprising against a government considered a use of force? Finally, and not addressed in Gray's article, is Iran's and China's use of soft power tools to marginalize U.S. strategic influence a form of strategic maneuver related to winning an undeclared war, but yet short of war? In my view it is short of war, but it is related to war, and can determine the outcome of future conflicts, as much as moving and maneuvering military forces in preparation and execution of a battle. Putting troops on ships to move them to North Africa to fight the Germans is clearer prelude to war, the intent is clear. Other forms of maneuver in the political and economic domains are not always so clear. Competition? Definitely. Just friendly competition? Hardly.

Strategy is a process of negotiation between those that develop the ends (policy makers) and those that execute, through ways and means, war.(2) This negotiation creates a narrative for employing the forces in such a way as to create the desired effect on an adversary. It is not a static product designed to allocate resources for a set contingency, nor simply a plan of action updated every five years. It is a living and breathing process undertaken by and between human beings that is dedicating to determining the best policy for a desired outcome against an adversary, which must have the capacity to use or threaten violence, and how to develop and employ resources to achieve it. Any definition of strategy must contain the element of violence. The reason is simple: if one has no means (combat), one cannot have a strategy.

I'll start at the bottom, I strongly disagree that strategy must contain an element of violence, and that violence is the only means a group or state has to pursue it ends. If he is referring to a conventional war strategy (one type of strategy), then he has a point. However, the world is more complex than this, and strategy is not something the military alone owns.

Moving back to the top of the paragraph, I strongly agree with these comments. As a friend told me recently, we too recently hear the broken record that we don't have a strategy, everything is going bad because we don't have a strategy, etc. IMO this is complete BS, the reality is we have an evolving strategy based on the negotiation process. I agree it appears to be evolving in the wrong direction. But to think we if had some document that locked in our ends, ways, and means all would be better in the world, we're fooling ourselves.