That's what it looks like to you and to many in the foreign policy establishment.
However, to others, that is a rather narrow view as that hostile nation state is now able to far more easily move far more individuals about and get far more of them in key locations and positions to frustrate your aim to maintain your perimeter.Oh but it does. Those adherents and supporters can disrupt, politically and practically, any plans you have. As a minor example, the Viet Nam war protestors did not cause the failure of that effort -- but they did have an effect that aided that failure. Major Nidal Malik Hasan was such an adherent. He was one person performing one sad act -- the potential for dozens of such acts, coordinated over the internet is a very real possibility and, target dependent, can have a significant impact as his one off effort did not.That has nothing at all to do with what I'm talking about.
That communication ability and the transnational mobility can have significant impacts on a nations desire and capability to establish and maintain a perimeter (and or the political will of the political class...). Most such impact may be minor and may be long term but their cumulative effect can be decisive and many other nations are far more patient and less short term focused that the US happens to be.If it ceases to be a benefit due to changing circumstance and you continue to maintain it, you lose the benefit and sustain a cost that could be better expended elsewhere...Well naturally a perimeter has to be maintained. But it is established because there is some benefit to be derived from it. If it falls into disuse you lose the benefit.Does it?That is a given and you adjust as things change. The ultimate goal remains the same.The US does not do its best except in rare circumstances and we are not doing our best at that today; it's a half hearted effort nowadays while we adjust. The US also is by design very slow to change its focus and policies. A few folks in Washington are still so focused. Fortunately, more there IMO are more forward looking and preparing for change. This LINK is but one example. There are others even better and more telling. We'll see.I disagree. It looks to me as if we are still pursuing the same strategy. We are doing our best to make sure that potentially hostile countries that may be able to deploy powerful navies can't easily get to the oceans.
American Pride notes the changes taking place that started with the Cllinton - Rubin - Summers strong move to American economic as opposed to military hegemony, an effort that began rather slowly under Reagan and that George H.W. Bush continued. George W. Bush came in inclined to continue that effort but unfortunately his and Rumsfeld's ideas had to be put aside due to 9/11 -- an incident that has its roots in the flawed 'extended perimeter' theory that was a default position after the true containment that was barely possible during the Cold War no longer had a reason to continue. Presidents from Reagan forward tried to continue to keep stuff out on the periphery. They all failed. Hopefully, the next one will be a bit smarter; the system may aid him or her in doing that -- it's realized that things have changed. So has Professor Doctor Lieutenant Colonel Bacevich (LINK). I don't often agree with him but he's about right on this
As I said, we, by design, change slowly...
Bookmarks