New essay: “The Shadow COA or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love NSC-68"

[Ken White]

Old age ≠ wisdom; old age ≤ old age+mileage. If you're lucky...

[Entropy]

Uh Huh, the greatest failure of all is a failure to develop an Energy Policy......which we don't have to this day. Largely because rich folks and MNC's don't want one, to much money would be lost

Exactly. So I think if one wants to end support for Saudi Arabia (or any other government we want to change), then you first have to make them strategically less relevant.

[slapout9]

Exactly. So I think if one wants to end support for Saudi Arabia (or any other government we want to change), then you first have to make them strategically less relevant.

You got that right and there was such a plan and still is. When I was a kid I lived in one of the first totally electric sub-devisions built. Part of the marketing plan was cheap abundant electricity and how that was going to be done was through Nuclear Reactors often called Atomic back then. In the late Presidential Campaign John McCain talked about this, if I remember about 34 Nuclear Power plants would provide all the electrical needs for the US for the next 50 years. If Oil even survived it would only be used for portable power needs. So why didn't this happen........so called vested interest couldn't make enough money

[Ken White]

so called vested interest couldn't make enough money

A lot more of it is the anti-nuke brigade fearmongers, NIMBYs and enviroperturbed.

[slapout9]

A lot more of it is the anti-nuke brigade fearmongers, NIMBYs and enviroperturbed.

Thats true but them creatures hadn't been invented back than, so let them freeze in the dark and eat berries and nuts. I want you tube and Bar B Que and my AC

[Ken White]

However, these two things, back to back, invented the nuke scare: LINK, LINK. -- that last one has this line: "The accident was followed by a cessation of new nuclear plant construction in the US." Thirty years ago...

Crooks and idiots -- hard to tell which are worse. But I'm with you on the BBQ and AC.

[Bob's World]

A couple of thoughts:

1. As I scanned the article there was a CvC reference about "the purpose of war is to defeat the enemy." I think I prefer more of a Sun Tzu approach, in that the purpose is to prevail, and if possible to do so without ever fighting your enemy at all. Kind of like the Old bull and young bull looking down at the pasture full of cows... (Just checking to see if Ken is still following this thread )

2. As to "containment" I remain of the opinion that much of our trouble today derives from continuing to keep in place a wide spectrum of very controlling policies and relationships derived over years of engagement for the purpose of "containing" the Soviets (whose demise I believe was brought on more by the same information age and empowerment of the populaces of Eastern Europe that is now empowering the populaces of the Middle East to challenge external controls as well). I also think there is tremendous insight in Eisenhower's perspective that containment worked in two directions: One to contain the Soviets; the other to contain ourselves. The irony is the purpose for the first direction ended, yet we kept those mechanisms in place; but the purpose for the second direction, if anything increased, and we lifted those self-constraints completely. So my argument for containment is to understand this two-part process and to fix the part we clung to, and to pick back up the part we dropped.

3. I have been thinking a lot about competition and interests lately. The "Friend/Foe" construct just isn't very conducive to clear thinking (As President Washington warned in his rightfully famous outgoing remarks so long ago). To consider one a Friend is to create an assumption that what they do won't harm you. To consider one an enemy is to see potential harm in everything they do. That is such playground BS. To see all as competitors though, all with interests of their own, and to look at each party in each situation through a lens of shared and competing interests makes for a much cleaner way to identify threats, risks, and opportunities. China is a competitor, but so is Canada. Certainly we have more shared interests with one than the other, but focus on that, not a knee-jerk friend or foe analysis.
Iran also is a competitor. We have shared interests in Afghanistan that we cannot address because we are so fixated on them as a foe and the interests we conflict over as to there right to employ nuclear deterrence as we do.

So, in short, containment of ourselves good, containment of others bad; seeing others as friends or foe bad, seeing all as competitors with whom we must compete, good.

GM didn't compete when it was number one, and laughed off rising challengers. Now they are bankrupt. One might want to consider that is highly unlikely that any of our current "friends" will bail the US out if we ignore that warning and follow a similar route.

[slapout9]

A couple of thoughts:

1. As I scanned the article there was a CvC reference about "the purpose of war is to defeat the enemy." I think I prefer more of a Sun Tzu approach, in that the purpose is to prevail, and if possible to do so without ever fighting your enemy at all. Kind of like the Old bull and young bull looking down at the pasture full of cows... (Just checking to see if Ken is still following this thread )

Part of SBW is realizing that the CvC fundamental definition of War is wrong.....It is not just the use of Force but the use of force or FRAUD to achieve your objective. FRAUD can defeat/destroy a govenrment as well or better than force.

[Ken White]

...Kind of like the Old bull and young bull looking down at the pasture full of cows... (Just checking to see if Ken is still following this thread )

2...So my argument for containment is to understand this two-part process and to fix the part we clung to, and to pick back up the part we dropped.

Good idea. Now, if we can just get the policy establishment engaged...

3. I have been thinking a lot about competition and interests lately...To consider one a Friend is to create an assumption that what they do won't harm you. To consider one an enemy is to see potential harm in everything they do...To see all as competitors though, all with interests of their own, and to look at each party in each situation through a lens of shared and competing interests makes for a much cleaner way to identify threats, risks, and opportunities. China is a competitor, but so is Canada. Certainly we have more shared interests with one than the other, but focus on that, not a knee-jerk friend or foe analysis...

You have posted some good ideas on this board over the year you've been posting here -- that's one of the better thoughts. Competitors. As I told Jeremy up above: ""Change threat to competitor and I would agree. Really. Ponder that. It's important...""

GM didn't compete when it was number one, and laughed off rising challengers. Now they are bankrupt. One might want to consider that is highly unlikely that any of our current "friends" will bail the US out if we ignore that warning and follow a similar route.

True dat.

The Shadow Amanuensis

[Ken White]

Part of SBW is realizing that the CvC fundamental definition of War is wrong.....It is not just the use of Force but the use of force or FRAUD to achieve your objective. FRAUD can defeat/destroy a govenrment as well or better than force.

old age and treachery...