Top Ten
Imagine that...
I thought the top ten listed were just tourist destinations and spa getaways...
I need more cowbell, I mean western european stability (gotta work in Christopher Walken reference whenever possible)
Live well and row
Hacksaw
Say hello to my 2 x 4
Doctor Echevarria made the case that the United States consistently focuses too narrowly on the military component of national power and thus has difficulty in achieving favorable strategic outcomes in an interesting 2004 op-ed.Originally Posted by Rob Thornton
Your writing echoes those comments Rob. The challenge is to find the resources to grow the requisite capability across the inter-agency. Will DoD give up a share of its budget to grow capability at State or HLS?
"Law cannot limit what physics makes possible." Humanitarian Apsects of Airpower (papers of Frederick L. Anderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University)
Hmmm The Vatican and Insurgent Priests
As an analyst, analysis is neither completely objective as the standards devised bias the analysis nor is such analysis free of politicisation. Politics comes with human interaction and that applies to analysts as well who seek to market Janes...Mr Le Mière ...added that it was the first time that a rating system for countries had been carried out on such a grand scale. The Jane’s system differed from government assessments of country risk because it was based entirely on objective analysis, “with no politicisation of the intelligence”, he said.
Tom
"Mr Le Mière ...added that it was the first time that a rating system for countries had been carried out on such a grand scale. The Jane’s system differed from government assessments of country risk because it was based entirely on objective analysis, “with no politicisation of the intelligence”, he said."
"...the US had fallen down the scale, although it still scored an average of 93 out of 100, partly because of the proliferation of small arms owned by Americans..."
Mr. Le Mière is a liar. To amplify, ending private ownership of firearms is a current goal of the EU beaurocrtas. It has been the goal of European "unifiers" going back, at least, to Adolf Hitler.
John Wolfsberger, Jr.
An unruffled person with some useful skills.
Yeah I read that too and that was why I called, "BS" on the claims of absolute objectivity. There also seems to be a built in bias in favor of European monarchy, whether secular (Monaco and Lichenstein) or sectarian (the Vatican).Mr. Le Mière is a liar. To amplify, ending private ownership of firearms is a current goal of the EU beaurocrtas. It has been the goal of European "unifiers" going back, at least, to Adolf Hitler.
Then again San Marino has its:
Maybe they will march south and attack the Vatican's Swiss GuardsCrossbow Corps
Although once at the heart of San Marino's army, the Crossbow Corps is now an entirely ceremonial force of about 80 volunteer soldiers. The Crossbow Corps since 1295 has provided demonstrations of crossbow shooting at festivals. Its uniform is medieval in design, and although it is a statutory military unit, it has no actual military function today.
I second Tom's comment about objectivity. I also must amplify on the statement regarding marketing of Jane's - Le Mière's statement about this being the first time such a rating of country risk being carried out is utterly false. But they're not the only one - TIS is now aggressively marketing their version of risk ratings here in the US. In any case, Le Mière implies - falsely - that government risk ratings are all that exists for comparison with the Jane's system.....Mr Le Mière ...added that it was the first time that a rating system for countries had been carried out on such a grand scale. The Jane’s system differed from government assessments of country risk because it was based entirely on objective analysis, “with no politicisation of the intelligence”, he said...
This site is focused on world-wide business risk, but it should give you a good idea of the number of ratings systems out there: Country Risk Ratings. There are plenty more than are listed on that site, most with different areas of focus. Then you have a spectrum of annual country ratings with a narrow focus, such Transparency International's corruption ratings.
I am a big fan of Jane's products, and the risk modeling they conduct, with alternative scenario analysis, of a single country in each issue of Jane's Intelligence Review is always worth the read, but in continuous tracking of country-risk worldwide they do not come up to the standard set by the EIU's Risk Briefing.
I've been a Jane's reader since I was a kid
STOP! Yes, they were in business then.
And yes, those stone tablets were heavy.
Moving right along; been a reader -- and a subscriber since they bought IDR from the old Intervia S.A. I agree with Jed, most of their stuff is pretty good and objective but they do have a very slight and subtle british --and European -- bias. They also have a surprising number of opposed to violence types for a defense publisher (though I know they're into many other realms now).
Nice to not everyone else looked at that linked 'survey' pretty much the way I saw it.
I was just jealous of the San Marino Crossbow Corps...Nice to not everyone else looked at that linked 'survey' pretty much the way I saw it.
How come we don't have one???
Sam and I like sticks and strings and we could probably make it through the "drills" as long as the uniforms stretch
Just off hand
Isn't that kinda backwards. Why would DOD have to penny up to pay for it when the way government is supposed to work is elected representatives(ER) provide monies for govt entities to provide for Civil, Social, and Defense requirements of the nation. As the needs grow you don't rob peter to pay paul, you pay paul and peter and janet and whoever else whatever they need to do exactly what their supposed to. Because as the ER's you determine what they "need" to do ultimately and thus it's your job to provide for it.
Where am I mistaken in this
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Hi Ron,
I don't know that you are mistaken, but I do think the civilian leadership needs to make choices that reflect their political objectives. To me its a question of how and why $$$ are allocated. DoD has I believe recently helped fund some DoS activities. Even in Secretary Gate's KU speech, while he put in a strong pitch for funding soft power (maybe you could call that the output of statecraft?), he also said he'd be back asking for more money for defense - our "to do list" has not shrunk, nor will it any time soon - if anything its grown .
It will take some time to build up other capability and capacity in the "whole of govt.", and it will take some money. In the meantime, those gaps will have to be covered by DoD because within the inter-agency, we're the only ones who have capacity.
Key to shortening that interim period will be the mutual understanding between the Executive and Legislative branches, and the American People about what we need to do and why. It will be painful and it will seem expensive to grow capabilities and capacity in our FP tool bag, but in the long run I believe it will be cheaper, and it will allow govt. to live up to the expectations of those who elected it.
Best, Rob
I was just spit-balling bro...
Don't think you're mistaken at all.the way government is supposed to work is elected representatives(ER) provide monies for govt entities to provide for Civil, Social, and Defense requirements of the nation.
Where am I mistaken in this
What I don't know is whether OMB reviews and contrasts government department budget proposals for redundancy prior to including them in the President's budget request to Congress. Are competing priorities considered, or does OMB just rubber stamp them? I was pondering (in an inelegant manner) if 20% of a given FY's budget is going towards "defense" and defense is considered in a holistic manner would that 20% be reapportioned across the interagency in budget request. Ron, your point that elected reps fund validated requirements leads me to consider resourcing national security in broader terms.
Last edited by CR6; 03-27-2008 at 02:42 AM. Reason: clarification
"Law cannot limit what physics makes possible." Humanitarian Apsects of Airpower (papers of Frederick L. Anderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University)
Roger that
You point out exactly what I was thinking of. It was not only unprecedented (at least in my experience) but even more importantly awesome that a SECDEF would be pushing for more money for DOS. The question it brought to mind though was why should he be having too. Even more so than DOD, DOS is the legislatures real time action arm; at least in a political sense. That there should be a need for DOD to try and help DOS fulfill its obligations speaks volumes for the politics of money and some of the real legislative snafu's that need to be addressed.
I think that may be exactly the problem in a large sense. If you can't even get any bill passed without some freaky extra money tied to it for something or another, just imagine what kinda finagling happens with existing budgets.
Although I like to focus on the defense side it would seem that recent events have shown us just how much we depend on honest brokering of responsibilities and equitable funding for such. And how often some of that is determined by those who don't even seem interested in truly understanding what that balance should be.
Last edited by Ron Humphrey; 03-27-2008 at 03:20 AM. Reason: fix stuff
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
One of the enduring problems of Dear Leader Rumsfeld's intra-agency campaign of chaos is that DoD became the lead for mission sets better left in the hands of USAID or DoS. I am certain that more than a few higher ranking DoS personnel, after dealing with DoD from 01-05, simply said, "Ahh, screw it, DoD has the resources, the people and the desire to do these missions, let them hang on their own petard."
It is very reassuring to see SECDEF Gates try and correct this publically with his statements that DoS requires additional resources and personnel. May it be the man understands the limits of military power and capability?
By 03-04, it was clear that DoD had consolidated power and resources far beyond any other governmental agency. They had won the intra-agency lead on missions that should have been handled by DoS from the start, but ego became the deciding factor instead of common sense.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
Ego, need or default?
I'm not sure one can objectively sort that out at this point.
PPBE, we don't need no PPBE
I would venture to say probably not. The Service POMs are pretty extensively scrubbed for redundancies, overlaps, and gaps; usually in the search for savings and offsets to pay bills while not exceeding TOA. That's why the second P of PPBE is important. OSD tends to ignore it in their budget submission; it's more of submit the previous year's budget adjusted for inflation. I’ve found there is little comprehensive programmatic scrubbing of OSD PEs. The COCOMS are also not necessarily held to the same level of scrutiny by being compared across the board with the other COCOMs. So I'm pretty confident that OMB doesn't have a "murder board" that cross-matches DoD with other Government entities to optimize national security capabilities across the enterprise.
That is so true it's not even funny. It's part of the reason our present budgeting system is broken. We feed the beast and make it fatter yet rarely make attempts to trim it down through a comprehensive look at enterprise wide redundancies, overlaps, and gaps.
"What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."
You just hit on the large companion to the PP BEast. That is the long standing need to hold another Key West style missions and roles conference versus what passes (poorly) as such under the rubric of QDR.That is so true it's not even funny. It's part of the reason our present budgeting system is broken. We feed the beast and make it fatter yet rarely make attempts to trim it down through a comprehensive look at enterprise wide redundancies, overlaps, and gaps.
The only way to do it is do it away from the multiple interests, players, and distractors in the greater Sodom on the Potomas area, just as it was done in 1948 Key West.
Otherwise you cannot hope to trim the PP BEast even if you want to. A real roles and missions review would provide an excellent surgical guide, especially if it were tied to costs.
Tom
From what I saw in that time period, along with some friends who work at State, and other friends who work in DoD, ego was the number one driver.
Default and need were probably tied for second.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
The PPBES process is beyond broken, it is beyond audit.
If we had a President and Congress who cared about fiscal sanity within DoD, the next SECDEF's number 2 priority would be establishing an accounting system that actually works.
"Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"
The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland
PPBES isn't broiken, it was a disaster when it was
introduced. Smoke and mirrors it was then, is now and ever shall be...
Obviously you missed the fact that numerous attempts by several Presidents from both parties to kill PPBES and put the US Government under GAAP rules have died in Congress. Congress likes the current system simply because it is opaque and no one can really see what they're doing with your money; they aren't going to let it change any more than they're going to stop earmarks...Heh. Y'all know this or is it opinion?From what I saw in that time period, along with some friends who work at State, and other friends who work in DoD, ego was the number one driver.
Just the facts... ma'am
Budgeting in the Executive and the Congress is an arcane business. It is complicated by the fact that there are 2 legislative parts: authorization and appropriation.
The authorization process - required before appropriated money can be spent - deals in programs. The appropriations process deals in widgets - aka line items. The appropriations committees like widgets - this allows them to feel they control the process, as indeed they do.
The various POMs are programs and program budgets, not widget budgets. So before the DOD budget goes to Congress EACH year the program budget has to be converted to a widget budget.
What happens is that the House and Senate committees - like armed services for example - authorize programs like General Purpose Forces or MFP 11 (Special Operations). Meanwhile, the appropriations committees of the House and Senate (there is only one each) and their various sub-committees, like armed services, concern themselves with widgets. In the process the appropriators earmark widgets telling the army to buy X number of rifles that the army may or may not want and that may or may not support the program that was authorized by the Defense Bill scrutinized by the 2 armed services committees.
PPBS (PPBE or PPBES) tried and tries to make this process make sense within the Executive Branch. I think it does it better than what we had before 1961 but then I'm just another old guy, sorta like Ken, who disagrees with me (at least in part) on this.
Cheers
JohnT
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks