Strategy in the 21st Century

[slapout9]

I Think #4 is questionable. That needs to be refined or eliminated. Spot on As far as we need To Redesign our National Weapon Systems based upon today's threats.

[Bill Moore]

I Think #4 is questionable. That needs to be refined or eliminated. Spot on As far as we need To Redesign our National Weapon Systems based upon today's threats.

Slapout,

You have a lot of company in this belief, but I think it is essential. I'll debate it with you later, but food for thought now. We have allies and partners, which shapes the balance of power to shape the international order because most nations and most people in the world generally agree with our values (not all of our values, but broadly speaking). Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea do not have allies, because they all pursue self interests at the expense of others. If we fall into that camp, we'll find our effort to increase our prosperity and security much more challenging, if not impossible. Furthermore, our values define who we are as a nation, as a people, it provides us the necessary moral factors to sustain the fight. We can differ on this view, but I don't see how we could increase our influence without them?

[Azor]

Thanks for the posting, Bill.

Here are my thoughts…

McMaster:

The Soviet Union appeared to be on the rise and America, it seemed, was in decline…President Reagan ushered in a dramatic rethinking of America’s role in the world and a dramatic renewal of American confidence. America would not only triumph in the Cold War and beyond but reach a new height of influence and prosperity.

The operative term here is: “appeared”. This perception was not shared in the Soviet Union, which became concerned by the late 1970s that the “correlation of forces” were advantaging the United States and disadvantaging them. Reagan certainly accelerated improvements in U.S. conventional capabilities that had begun under Carter, but overall he was the beneficiary of events beyond his control, in sharp contrast to Carter. The “dramatic renewal of confidence” that McMaster refers to was domestic, and did not have any bearing on the Soviet Union’s decline and eventual collapse. We cannot mistake popular or lay American perceptions with geopolitical reality. In fact, under Carter, the U.S. was far more confident in confronting the Soviet Union than it had been under Nixon and Ford.

McMaster:

We would no longer confuse activity with progress [in South Asia]…Our military efforts and operations in the region combined with the efforts of our partners would focus on what brought us to Afghanistan in 2001 -- to deny terrorists safe havens that they could use to threaten America and threaten our allies.

Yet this trend had begun during Obama’s tenure, during which comprehensive state construction and a permanent presence were jettisoned for containment and attrition.

The most intriguing part of McMaster’s discussion was his focus on “fair” economic competition. Although it is true that the U.S. has permitted certain allies and partners to hold unfair trading advantages, the fact is that only American advances in innovation and productivity will enable the U.S. to expand its share of total world trade. Moreover, as Adam Smith noted, if countries use subsidies and tariffs to grow and protect their own industries, this only saps those countries’ national wealth by imposing costs on consumers. What the U.S. truly requires is greater public investment in R&D (military and civilian), K-12 education, STEM higher education, and infrastructure (including telecommunications such as Wi-Fi).

Having said this, the U.S. effectively leads the OECD in terms of gross and net national income, and has a very high share of GDP devoted to R&D (2.8%). Although Chinese industrial espionage is a persistent problem, China’s share of R&D has expanded from 0.73% of GDP in 1991 to 2.10% in 2015, meaning that the Chinese are using their own resources to fuel innovation and productivity (Source: OECD). I would like to see Federal R&D spending rise to above 1.20% of GDP to late 1970s/early 1980s levels (https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/RDGDP;.jpg).

CORRECTION: in terms of R&D spending as a share of GDP PPP, Israel is 1st, the U.S. is 11th (still the largest spender in absolute terms), and China is 17th (2nd-largest absolute spender).

Bill Moore:

It still begs the question how we can afford this?

The American want public goods and services, but do not want to pay for them. It is that simple. All Reagan did was borrow instead of raising taxes.