Small Wars in the "new" cash strapped Western economy

[Dayuhan]

I think the best I can say here is wars are expensive. Don't fight unless...

That was the point I was trying to make in the first place. "Unless" the objectives are clear, immediate, achievable, practical, and above all are they absolutely necessary... and sufficiently compatible with local objectives and beliefs that we aren't going to find ourselves fighting a whole pissed off populace who just doesn't want to be messed with.

If they aren't maybe better not to go in the first place, especially if money is an issue.

Could be you picked a side in a Civil War that you intervened in? ...or didn't...

Or we created a side that didn't exist until we came along, and for some reason thought everyone would just go along with it...

Exactly my point. Show me the policy, and we can then discuss the strategy.

So we agree: start with a policy that makes sense. That's what has to be discussed and resolved before trying to aply strategy or tactics.

[William F. Owen]

So we agree: start with a policy that makes sense. That's what has to be discussed and resolved before trying to aply strategy or tactics.

If the world were logical and rational, you'd be right.
I absolutely agree that you cannot do strategy without policy. I am less convinced that folks can have sensible policy discussions.

[Dayuhan]

If the world were logical and rational, you'd be right. I absolutely agree that you cannot do strategy without policy. I am less convinced that folks can have sensible policy discussions.

Sensible is possibly too much to expect. One might reasonably aspire to reduce the level of stupidity to manageable proportions, and thus to diminish the dimensions of the apparently inevitable sinkhole that strategists and tacticians have to dig themselves out of.

[Entropy]

Interesting discussion. With respect the the US, I think the biggest problem we have right now is the lack of any kind of coherent national vision for the future except, I guess, to try to remain the sole global superpower. At least during the Cold War there was a purpose - a "struggle" which partially guided us. 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.

[Ken White]

Interesting discussion. With respect the the US, I think the biggest problem we have right now is the lack of any kind of coherent national vision for the future except, I guess, to try to remain the sole global superpower.

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.

...At least during the Cold War there was a purpose - a "struggle" which partially guided us.

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...

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.

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.

Heh. I wouldn't bet on that. We are the world master at cobbling together band aids to make patches...

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.

[Dayuhan]

Quote:
...At least during the Cold War there was a purpose - a "struggle" which partially guided us.

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...

I don't see any disagreement there. He didn't say anything about a coherent plan or policy, he spoke of a struggle providing partial guidance. "Partial guidance" and "purpose" are not so far apart.

Of course our system does not lend itself to long term policy. That's both strength and weakness: we veer about a bit, but we can also adapt or discard policies that are unsuccessful or no longer appropriate.

I would say that the "sole superpower" ambition needs to be adapted or discarded; it's neither desirable nor possible. An attempt to maintain sole military dominance without sole economic dominance - which we have not got and will probably never again have - is only going to end with us nailing ourselves to a fiscal crucifix. The challenge is not the maintenance of sole superpower status, but the development of a realistic strategy for advancing and protecting our long-term interests in a multipolar world.

[Ken White]

during the Cold War were homogenized and relatively consistent, that we might have had a 'strategy' -- we did not. They were not, they were all over the place. Nor am I saying Entropy isn't aware of that, I just tossed out a reminder...

Of course our system does not lend itself to long term policy. That's both strength and weakness: we veer about a bit, but we can also adapt or discard policies that are unsuccessful or no longer appropriate.

You know that and I know that. Thousands if not millions of Americans know that including some in high places. Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence that others folks in high places either do not know that or often attempt to willfully disregard it.

I simply like to remind everyone of that reality often enough to be tedious. Never know when someone who reads it may get in a policy position and need to -- and hopefully not fail to -- recall that harsh little fact of life...

I would say that the "sole superpower" ambition needs to be adapted or discarded; it's neither desirable nor possible.

I would go with adapted -- which it is doing and will do as it has for almost 100 years. Discarding it is likely to attract Jackals, Hyenas and Vultures. Regrettable but fact.

An attempt to maintain sole military dominance without sole economic dominance - which we have not got and will probably never again have - is only going to end with us nailing ourselves to a fiscal crucifix.

I do not think we're trying to do the military thing; effective deterrence and dominance are two different things. Need the deterrence bit, forcefully applied, else you get in the position that failing to deter from 1979 until 2001 put us in.

Clinton, Rubin and Summers tried the economic thing and we can see where that got us. I agree with you that is not going to happen and it should not.

The challenge is not the maintenance of sole superpower status, but the development of a realistic strategy for advancing and protecting our long-term interests in a multipolar world.

I do not think we trying to maintain "sole superpower" status (though a few foolish people in government may harbor that dream; they're a minority). As I've said many times, we do not do strategy; grand strategy, which is what you're after -- that requires continuity we do not have. We can do long term policy and we do that and I see no evidence that it is not trying to adapt to the multipolar world that is very similar to the one into which I was born and spent formative years. That's the real quibble -- the Cold War was a period of great artificiality it appeared to be a bi-polar world (wasn't but appeared to be...) and every one got spoiled and forgot how to act in the multipolar world. We're slowly (too slowly IMO) figuring it out -- but we are NOT going to give much more than we absolutely have to. And we should not. That too is a facet of multipolarity...