tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post5688851789384310089..comments2023-10-30T06:31:05.501-07:00Comments on MilPub: Grand Strategy: Inherent TensionsFDChiefhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-56864407764153569762012-10-04T02:44:35.421-07:002012-10-04T02:44:35.421-07:00By way of my own epistomology, I believe that idea...By way of my own epistomology, I believe that ideas find people rather than people finding ideas. I have therefore enjoyed when an idea that I'm having resonates with another...it makes me feel like we're litterally on the same wavelength. <br /><br />I'm chuckling because after much thought I have come to using a prism analogue (I call it the prism of efficacy) to describe how political bodies percieve their own capacity and desire to achieve a new future reality. I selected the analoge because the "facets" are like normative, subjective and objective planes (by which you percieve moral, cognitive and physical domains). The substance of the prism is an existential strata of common societal memory/experience. I'll send you more on email, but shards of glass in a kalleidescope and a prism are not too far from eachother. Perhapse your model better acounts for chaos and fragmentation...perhapse mine implicity assumes a unity that isn't there.Jeremy Renkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17596927625645184950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-80481245851892067412012-10-04T02:43:07.675-07:002012-10-04T02:43:07.675-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jeremy & Katiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17650850718001341734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-42442947065442988912012-10-03T22:25:29.188-07:002012-10-03T22:25:29.188-07:00Seydlitz -
I should have quoted the Gazette in m...Seydlitz - <br /><br />I should have quoted the Gazette in my 1 Oct 0850pm comment. Great article there by a Captain Polidora on flaws in 4GW theory. I borrowed heavily.<br /> It is online, unfortunately a subscription is required. <br /><br />As for Lang's analysis, perhaps 4GW ended up as a marketing term. But that is true of all new buzz words in the defense realm. I put little stock in most of what he says, the man is a curmudgeon. That is not a slam BTW, he admits it proudly. His only saving graces are that 1] he campaigns against hasbarat agitprop in our capitol, 2] he occasionally has some good guest posts, and 3] he is a proud Virginian. The rest of his pap is opining of the worst kind IMHO.mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-37364875042140660972012-10-03T03:50:41.412-07:002012-10-03T03:50:41.412-07:00Gentlemen-
This was very much Col. Lang's poi...Gentlemen-<br /><br />This was very much Col. Lang's point as I recall it. "4GW" was more a marketing term, but also later let the generals off the hook. It sounds cool and of course we now have "5GW" as well, which Lind has trashed. Could "6GW" be that far away . . . <br /><br />But the alibi element is there as well . . . if they were dealing with "4GW" in Afghanistan and Iraq, how could they have known, or better prepared for something that was "completely new"? More scams for the rubes . . . seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-74103614348780409802012-10-03T03:24:55.957-07:002012-10-03T03:24:55.957-07:00Jeremy-
Agree with the points made both by you an...Jeremy-<br /><br />Agree with the points made both by you and in the link. I've equated our national "belief system" to shards of colored glass in a child's kaleidoscope. <br /><br />Consider also that your definition of strategy is a collective concept, that is it deals with a collective/political community and their goals/aspirations/sources of power. But how to arrive at that in a society in the middle of dissolution? When the only two shared "values" seemingly are "if it feels good do it" and the total avoidance of any discomfort/pain? seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-5609007222500367662012-10-03T03:06:11.599-07:002012-10-03T03:06:11.599-07:00Mike,
Good point. I too believe that 4GW implies ...Mike,<br /><br />Good point. I too believe that 4GW implies an evolution that isn't there...but I do like the way it begins to classify what I can expect from certain "types" of enemies. The USSR was a 2/3G adversary because their society was composed a certain way; structurally dependent, synchronized but not integrated, highly regimented from the top-down. Groups like AQ, and Hezb (or Hezb until the 2000s) are less system dependent, are ad-hoc, demonstrate less compartmentalization and sophistication, and are guided by a "meme" rather than an individual. They are therefore likely to fight a certain way. If we acquiese to the use of "4G" than atleast the lable can be a useful conceptual handle if not semantically accurate.<br /><br />Unrelated...but of note...I have decided to stop using undefined terms like "5th gen" to talk about aircraft. I can find no document that deliniates how variouse "generations" of aircraft are uniquely categorized. Same with cell-phones. 1G (1970s) and 2G (1090s) were technical protocols more or less...3 and 4G are gimmicks.Jeremy Renkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17596927625645184950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-2055106794004424202012-10-03T03:03:51.930-07:002012-10-03T03:03:51.930-07:00mike-
Agree, but the the problems seem to far out...mike-<br /><br />Agree, but the the problems seem to far outweigh its limited utility. I had a discussion with Col. Lang about 4GW and Lind on his blog a while back. Sorry, but I can't seem to find the thread . . . His analysis was devastating . . . I agree that 4GW has some utility as a historical framework of military technological development, but beyond that? I would recall that the original article in the Marine Corps Gazette which I read back in 1989 was simply a list of possible future scenarios, hardly a "theory" at all. What gave 4GW the status of "theory" was the incorporation of Martin van Crefeld's "The Transformation of War" thesis which Imo was a polemic as I've written in the past . . .<br /><br />http://dnipogo.org/2008/03/28/the-decline-of-strategic-theory/<br /><br />So, in all a reified concept that hides more than it illuminates . . . seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-79735053422266902842012-10-03T02:56:39.772-07:002012-10-03T02:56:39.772-07:00Seydlitz,
Man I hate just throwing a link on here...Seydlitz,<br /><br />Man I hate just throwing a link on here...but here goes: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/28/a-culture-of-delusion/<br /><br />The author's thesis is that the United States political culture has accepted the use of all instruments, up to and including whatever our "grand strategy" may be, to delude ourselves. Rather than being great, we can atleast tell our selves we're great and flaunt a few amazing military capabilities to proove it.<br /><br />Scams, well meaning or otherwise, are scams. <br /><br />I was struck the other day as I ran past the WWII memorial and there is a tribute that says "we came as liberators, not conquerors." Contrast that with dedication to Ike I saw in a pentagon museum. Upon entering Germany, he cleary posted (sort of his introduction as military Governor of Germany) "Allied forces have conquered Germany and...intend to put an end to the German militarism that has upset the peace so many times." Of course we had to conquer Germany--we had good reason for needing to do so; but giving it the "aww shucks, twarn't nothin'...Hitler started it and we're gonna end it" hick treatment is a delusion.<br /><br />Strategy, IMHO, is the expresion of a future reality that a political body wishes to assert. There are normative, subjective, objective and existential implications to that. We've become so comfortable with taking shortcuts--rewarding ourselves as if we had achieved the end-state when we've just unveilled the plan--that we're living in a culture of delusion. Grounded political competitors see through our sham more than we do, I suspect. <br /><br />This probably relates to the way that U.S. school children lead the world in their self assessment...they believe themselves to be the best students in the world in spite of huge evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />Jeremy Renkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17596927625645184950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-46610229950497280042012-10-02T21:57:38.698-07:002012-10-02T21:57:38.698-07:00Al and Seydlitz
Good...Schmood, Evil....Knievel! ...Al and Seydlitz<br /><br />Good...Schmood, Evil....Knievel! Those words are tossed out by the Neocons (like so much week old Gefiltefish), for La Degustation by the twin party Pols of congresscritterdom.<br /><br />The Neocons are not noted for being clever wordsmithies, but rather, for being the targeteers (pretty successful as of late), of the Israelite tails that wag the Murrican Bow Wows. <b>That</b> is their only Mission Order!<br /><br />I breathlessly await a riposte from this speakeasy's resident Hasbaras.fasteddieznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-88012226783221177322012-10-02T12:46:02.029-07:002012-10-02T12:46:02.029-07:00seydlitx: [i][b]The Neocon "evil" is im...seydlitx: [i][b]The Neocon "evil" is imo simply another label for "absolute enemy". [/b][/i]<br /><br />Perhaps, but the article I was speaking of was more concerned with the NeoCon notion that "Good" can only be defined as the opposition to "Evil", not simply "Good" itself. The premise is thus that the NeoCons must always have an "Evil" to oppose in order to be a force of "Good".Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-63024331702634893462012-10-01T20:50:17.375-07:002012-10-01T20:50:17.375-07:00Seydlitz -
I would also call 4GW a confused conce...Seydlitz -<br /><br />I would also call 4GW a confused concept, or perhaps a flawed one. Why do its proponents ignore history of warfare before the end of the Thirty Years War? Or some of them even before the Napoleonic era? There were certainly wars or hostilities by what they call non-state actors all through history. And their focus on asymmetric warfare as unique to 4GW is, IMHO, also bogus. It (asymmetric warfare) has been used all throughout history and is used by conventional forces as well as irregulars. Case in point would be WW2 German and American submarines as commerce raiders - or Douhet's theory of war on cities while ignoring the enemy armed forces. <br /><br />I do believe though that the idea of 4GW can be useful. If we use it as a way to look at all possible challenges. Something Bush/Cheney and their administration should have done prior to 9/11. And it makes us focus less on technology, on which I believe we are overly dependent. <br />mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-65343234212102910092012-09-30T14:16:21.063-07:002012-09-30T14:16:21.063-07:00Al-
The Neocon "evil" is imo simply ano...Al-<br /><br />The Neocon "evil" is imo simply another label for "absolute enemy". <br /><br />"Just war"? That's an interesting label but what exactly does it mean?, which thinker does it refer to? . . . a pretty mixed bag spanning 500 years. "Just War" justified from a moral perspective the Crusades and the conquest of the Americas if not every other Western colonial attempt since 1492 . . . <br /><br />That, and there's always a bait and switch involved . . . identify both and you can begin to classify the larger political manipulation scam . . .<br /><br />Scams!??<br /><br />Yes, that's what it comes down to . . . at least initially . . . we have to devise a theory in dealing with a scam-rich strategic environment . . . a world where trust is a dying commodity . . . a sad task. <br /><br />But a necessary one.seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-53280424497950919252012-09-29T22:02:10.115-07:002012-09-29T22:02:10.115-07:00seydlitz
Some parallels indeed. However, the Neo-...seydlitz<br /><br />Some parallels indeed. However, the Neo-Cons are a "Hammer in search of a nail" in that if their values system requires "Evil" to oppose in order to be "Good", "Evil" must and will be identified, whether it is a legitimate identification or not. That "Evil" to oppose is central to the Neo-Con's identity. Without it, they could not be "Good".<br /><br />It's not easy to get one's head around such logic, as it runs counter to the more widely held notion that "Good" can stand on its own two feet, so to speak.Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-49562410568956455182012-09-29T15:13:20.007-07:002012-09-29T15:13:20.007-07:00Al-
I've been thinking about what you comment...Al-<br /><br />I've been thinking about what you commented . . . it comes back to a thread we had before . . .<br /><br />http://milpubblog.blogspot.pt/2012/01/question-of-honor.html<br />seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-15342012920521357452012-09-29T14:20:58.590-07:002012-09-29T14:20:58.590-07:00mike-
I would say it doesn't exist, as confus...mike-<br /><br />I would say it doesn't exist, as confused a concept as that particular one is . . . seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-37767173688651670492012-09-29T10:30:57.011-07:002012-09-29T10:30:57.011-07:00Al - Great analogy! But don't many sadists al...Al - Great analogy! But don't many sadists also exhibit masochistic tendencies, and vice versa? <br /><br />Seydlitz - Speaking of analogies: Fuller, I understand, was a student of mysticism as were many other English of that time. So he probably put great stock in his pyramidal theory. I ken the basic idea behind his pyramid. However I am not sure that I follow it 100% especially as to how it relates to what is sometimes called 4th generation warfare (if such a thing exists). <br />mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-83219675703836640182012-09-27T23:38:05.266-07:002012-09-27T23:38:05.266-07:00I have mentioned this before, but it kind of sheds...I have mentioned this before, but it kind of sheds a bit of light on our madness. There was a great article (wish I had bookmarked it) about how the Neocons defined "Good" in terms of the simple opposition to "Evil". No inherent "goodness" itself, such as caring for the less fortunate, just pure and simple opposition to "Evil". The greater the "evil" opposed, the greater the "Good". <br /><br />Now, the former Soviet Union was one big, honkin' "Evil" to oppose, and we could do it with nukes, large standing armies, etc. I mean, Mutual Assured Destruction, a totally insane idea, was the biggest game in town. This opposition to "Evil", as personified by the USSR, drove our foreign policy, and damn near bankrupted us as the Arms Race consumed more and more treasure. Fortunately, the USSR went broke first.<br /><br />Then those damn Ruskies decided to fold up and collapse. America suddenly lacked a serious "Evil" to oppose in order to define our "Goodness".<br /><br />So now we have Islamic extremism. You know, guys who are willing (and often desirous) of dying for what they believe in. And we have Americans who are willing and wanting to kill those Evil Bastards to protect what Americans believe in, but those Americans are not so willing to die for what those Americans believe in. <br /><br />Wait a second! We have a situation where America's desired methodology is, in reality, supportive of our "Evil" opponent's value system! They want to die for Allah, and we want to kill them because of their belief in Allah. Kind of reminds me of the difficulty a sadist faces with a masochist - the cruelest thing he can do is not inflict pain!<br /><br />The problem we face is that promoting tangible "Good" in the world results in a measure of self-sacrifice, while opposing "Evil" is more focused on the "Evil" guy sacrificing.<br /><br />How can a nation have a coherent strategic policy when it it mired in a weird values system?Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-84270249382218930512012-09-27T16:11:32.914-07:002012-09-27T16:11:32.914-07:00Al-
Dominance over any potential rival or group o...Al-<br /><br />Dominance over any potential rival or group of rivals. Rivals defined as "states" or "nation states", exclusively, no corporations as bad guys please. "Non-state entities" are very much a mixed bag, some of status and influence, while the vast majority are ineffectual at the strategic level; limited means of projecting power, no secure geographical base, at least not in the sense of a "state".<br /><br />Of course the disadvantages are many: No real allies since they can quickly become rivals. Coalitions are specific, piecemeal, and of limited duration. Since Domination assumes superiority, weapons development is capabilities-based, not threat-based. It is unsustainable in the long-term. I'm sure you could add more . . . seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-49695860851154048432012-09-27T15:55:42.910-07:002012-09-27T15:55:42.910-07:00mike-
The problem, perhaps our chief problem, is ...mike-<br /><br />The problem, perhaps our chief problem, is that such grand strategy is impossible in the US today due to the political conditions you mention. Still, I think the Cold War was a success story in terms of what we're hoping to understand . . . when we talk about strategy. I think of what we could have done in terms of creating a strategic alliance with Russia back in the early 1990s . . . little chance of that even being considered back then . . . since "we'd won" instead of "we were lucky" was the presumption. Of course it had been the peoples of Central/Eastern Europe as they over threw the structure of communism who had "won", but our grand strategy still played a positive role in that massive historic political shift . . . seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-33479632928244401782012-09-27T11:08:27.857-07:002012-09-27T11:08:27.857-07:00If dominance is the policy goal, than dominance ov...If dominance is the policy goal, than dominance over what? If it is Islam, then how do you dominate an idea, especially when adherents to that idea are much more willing to die in support of that idea than we are willing to die to dominate it?Aviator47https://www.blogger.com/profile/05585964386930142907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-23150272173676377842012-09-27T10:38:20.075-07:002012-09-27T10:38:20.075-07:00While I agree with Strachan's premise, I am at...While I agree with Strachan's premise, I am at a loss to understand how a long term grand strategy can stay on the rails in a democracy. Especially one where there is NO loyal opposition in foreign policy like we used to have. Or maybe 'sort of had' from time to time. Our political parties now seem to try to outdo themselves in undercut each other. And that is fair for domestic issues. But how do you get two diametrically opposed political parties to agree on long term strategies??? mikenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-26872971648573759972012-09-26T02:41:30.469-07:002012-09-26T02:41:30.469-07:00I'm in violent agreement.I'm in violent agreement. Jeremy Renkenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17596927625645184950noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-10959906709830615192012-09-25T14:16:10.898-07:002012-09-25T14:16:10.898-07:00FDChief-
Where exactly do we disagree? . . . Just...FDChief-<br /><br />Where exactly do we disagree? . . . Just asking. <br /><br />Liked Hafiz btw . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-3414955261544016952012-09-25T13:02:29.553-07:002012-09-25T13:02:29.553-07:00True dat, but like the guy falling out of the 100-...True dat, but like the guy falling out of the 100-story building was heard to say as he passed the 50th floor; "Well, so far, so good..."<br /><br />I think we may be reading too much into the geopolitical incoherence visible in the U.S. Middle East policies. IMO there appear to be "strategies" in place to deal with the East and Southeast Asian littoral, with the Indian Ocean periphery, with much of Africa and Latin/South America. For all that I'm sure they're sick of our ME adventures our relationship with the EU bloc still fundamentally looks pretty sound, and even the Russians and Chinese seem willing to play nice.<br /><br />On the ME, yes, I agree - there is a great deal of something that is either a complete LACK of a "strategy" or strategic incoherence. But I wonder how much of that is the collision between the desire for regional hegemony (or at least stability) and the problems we did, are, and will incur because of our support of Israel and our need to keep the oil tap open? In all honesty, I don't really SEE a way to have a coherent "strategy" for that fractious and difficult region. Not invading craptacular post-Ottoman semi-failed states would have been a good start, but, honestly, how would you have reconciled the problem between propping up/bankrolling a Western Jewish polity in an Eastern Arab region and somehow finessing an area which is still working politics like it was 1299?<br /><br />Look at Egypt. The bottom line is that a popularly-ruled Egypt is going to be less willing to work with us on Israel and in general than a U.S.-bankrolled dictator. But we can't afford to publicly play the dictator game anymore, not and still be the Arsenal of Democracy. And the Egyptian public in general is going to have an occasional anti-American spasm because (as subjects of a despotism) they assume that what comes out of the U.S. is, like their own country, officially "approved" by the U.S. government. So some mook burns a Koran or makes a Muhammad porno film and they are gonna go berserk, assuming that Obama himself signed off in them.<br /><br />I just can't see a "strategy" that works there, let alone the whole region. It's just a mess, and - while we could have done a hell of a lot better than the Bushies did - the political hand we dealt ourself in 1948 limits us pretty tightly...FDChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10607785969510234092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-381917167978264683.post-77000615139975995472012-09-25T00:22:45.872-07:002012-09-25T00:22:45.872-07:00I think the "broad strategy" you speak o...I think the "broad strategy" you speak of was simply the grand strategy from the Cold War continued, but without the former political context. "Dominance" has been the result of the vacuum left behind by the collapse of the USSR . . .seydlitz89https://www.blogger.com/profile/15431952900333460640noreply@blogger.com