tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post106969996787817776..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: The Distinction Between "Fantasy" and "Imagination" from a Strategic Theory PerspectiveFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-57636881638588595302014-05-27T14:51:48.947-07:002014-05-27T14:51:48.947-07:00FDChief-
I didn't think you were interested i...FDChief-<br /><br />I didn't think you were interested in such "theories", but if you wish to read Strachan's whole paper before you comment . . . it printed out to 25 pages for me . . . I might have the pdf around someplace . . .<br /><br />As to "fantasy" and "imagination" they are after all ideal types so don't actually exist in reality, are more the nature of yardsticks . . . strategic theory and all that. There will be mixtures under the best of circumstances, but what makes the difference is the political leadership. Operations folks and tacticians involved in fantasy don't necessarily lead to strategic confusion and disaster, you have that particular buffer . . . <br /><br />Ael-<br /><br />Nice . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-56860132120209164652014-05-27T06:36:11.924-07:002014-05-27T06:36:11.924-07:00Otto says that politics is the art of the possible...Otto says that politics is the art of the possible.<br /><br />The "possible" being the exact divide between fantasy and imagination. Overreach and you eventually look like a doofus. Underreach and you get pushed around by the fantasists.<br /><br />For maximum "success' therefore on average half of your attempts should be on the far side of the "possible"<br />Aelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10788190394672505925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-60978874299247020572014-05-26T21:51:33.685-07:002014-05-26T21:51:33.685-07:00"It is in the exercise of operational art tha...<i>"It is in the exercise of operational art that today’s senior generals, like McChrystal, hope to reach the acme of their professional careers. The bulk of the planning done by their staffs is devoted both to preparing for that opportunity and then to applying their skills in order to manage the characteristic chaos of war. But to do that operational art needs direction; it requires of policy a degree of clarity and a consistency of purpose which can frequently be at odds with the realities and contingencies of politics. In 1952, when General Douglas MacArthur was recalled by President Harry Truman, his sin was to have called for a change in strategy; by contrast, McChrystal just wanted a strategy."</i><br /><br />Actually, Mac's sin in 1952 was to have called for a "change in strategy" that would very likely have dragged his country to the verge of WW3 over a minor cabinet war in the East Asian perimeter, but, whatever.<br /><br />Strachan seems to be either deliberately or inadvertently missing the point of the whole McChrystal business, which is that McChrystal had another option, which was to stand up and resign his commission and then state openly that the strategic emperor had no clothes - that there was no policy or strategy ends that were executable given the constraints on the military means.<br /><br />And, I think, that would have peeled back yet ANOTHER layer to this nonsense, which is, simply, that the political "problem" of Afghanistan is literally UNsolveable short of some sort of immense, multigenerational occupation that remakes Afghanistan and turns Afghans into Belgians, or something (actually probably not Belgians, since the Flemings have proved somewhat fractious and less than model political citizens in recent years).<br /><br />But in regards to this particular issues, when you say that <i>"..."fantasy" that is here thinking politically in mystical terms, and "imagination" which would be based on a realistic appraisal of the political situation."</i> my question would be would you actually consider this the norm in politics? And would you consider that a "realistic appraisal of the political situation" to be likely untainted by the political leanings or desires of the appraisers? Or that such a realist approach is likely to yield a "better" outcome, given the high degree of uncertainty and randomness of the understanding of the situation to a political outsider? Consider Iran, for example...<br /><br />For example, a "realistic appraisal" of the situation in Iran in 1953 considered the overthrow of Mossadegh critical to U.S. policy both in the Middle East and as a counter to potential Soviet ambitions around the Persian Gulf - at least as seen by the realists of the day. <br /><br />A "realist" approach then played Saddam off against Iran after the blowback from the installation of the Shah effed things up there. And then...well, we know the rest.<br /><br />I'm not arguing with your conclusion - that <i>"(a) political elite obsessed with fantasy and fantastic notions of their own power, exceptionalism, righteousness and infallibility is going to be ripe to engage in all manner of "crusades" without ever being clear as to the astrategic nature of their actions."</i> but, rather, with the likelihood that the line between geopolitical fantasy and imagination is ever going to be so bright that it will be immediately distinguishable except in hindsight. And that such a distinction is also difficult to maintain in the face of electoral politics, which more-or-less demands the suppression of dire possibilities in favor of more hopeful - "fantastic", if you will - predictions...FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.com