tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post2835322712477889746..comments2023-11-17T03:55:40.736-05:00Comments on Ink Spots: Does the 2011 National Military Strategy fail to satisfy the requirements of U.S. law?Lilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18373158801523577733noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-65993998166487649612011-02-19T17:09:31.059-05:002011-02-19T17:09:31.059-05:00But is it politically practical for civilian leade...But is it politically practical for civilian leadership to advance their foreign policy objectives in a document like this? They have their own operating concerns, and this WH has taken plenty of heat over their approach to foreign policy without making explicit statements for vultures in the punditocracy to leap on.<br /><br />I think there's a good argument to be made about the strategic failures of modern civilian leaders in our system, but fixing on this as the case in point is misguided.AUhttp://american.edunoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-26571348453585257892011-02-17T23:08:28.705-05:002011-02-17T23:08:28.705-05:00Wait -- I thought our "national strategy"...Wait -- I thought our "national strategy" entailed keeping the revenue stream of Lockheed Martin <i>et al</i> fat and deep and sweet. Surely by that criterion WE'RE NUMBER ONE, right?<br />-- sgloverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-90682217282134335542011-02-16T12:04:53.653-05:002011-02-16T12:04:53.653-05:00Positroll -- You're muddling up the NSS and th...Positroll -- You're muddling up the NSS and the NMS. Yes, the president is granted leeway to conduct foreign and security policy. No, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should not shirk his statutory responsibility to present a comprehensive report on the national military strategy, including all of the specified elements. If he needs to do that in a classified format, I'm sure it can be accommodated.<br /><br />Also: no one said anything about "enemies," but rather threats.Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-42625275475710619112011-02-16T12:00:29.789-05:002011-02-16T12:00:29.789-05:00Isn't the "real problem" that the U....Isn't the "real problem" that the U.S. currently doesn't have any "real ennemies" except maybe Iran ? <br />Venezuela is way to small to really matter and still sells you oil. Russia isn't a friend but not an enemy either. Same for China. Both are needed to run the world in an orderly fashion.<br />Do you really want the President come out and say "China and Russia are potential ennemies, her's "my" strategy how to cut them down to size if they get uppity". <br />Sure, this would fulfill the requirement of the law, but there is a catch: wrt to foreign policy and military matters, POTUS is granted lots of leeway by the US constitution and it's nowhere near certain that COngress could constitutionally force the President to publish such a paper if the President judges that doing so would create problems for his foreign policy ...Positrollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-21313864861848523172011-02-15T22:36:26.434-05:002011-02-15T22:36:26.434-05:00Stilicho -- I'm with you on this, and it shoul...Stilicho -- I'm with you on this, and it should be clear from my criticism of the NSS (and of the fact that we don't even HAVE an updated NDS) that I see the failure of the civilian leadership to elaborate real strategic objectives as a major, major problem. But the NMS should still elaborate clear and meaningful <em>military</em> objectives and then explain how they'll be attained. It's a bit like a campaign support plan to the "national campaign plan" of the NSS, to use explicitly military terms of reference.Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-27713582939719494242011-02-15T22:31:52.777-05:002011-02-15T22:31:52.777-05:00Enjoyed the post, and agree wholeheartedly with wh...Enjoyed the post, and agree wholeheartedly with what you've said about the weaknesses of the NMS. Yet, reading it and your post, I can't help but say a piece in defense of the ole CJS. Granted, he should probably be complying with the letter of the law, but that aside:<br /><br />The distinct (and glaring) weaknesses of the NMS seems to me to stem directly from the utter lack of strategic clarity from the civilian policymakers. The way civil-military relations are setup, the "ends" need to flow from the President through the SECDEF. The military's role then becomes to develop the ways and elucidate the means for Congressional approval. Obviously, this is a simplification and there is some blurring and overlap, but that's roughly how it is supposed to work. Take away the ends, and, as you indicated, darned near impossible to develop ways or evaluate means.<br /><br />I don't see how the CJS is supposed to delineate a "national military strategy consistent with [the NSS, the QDR, and the SECDEF's required reports]" when not one of those documents has itself delineated a clear, consistent national strategy or even coherent set of strategic priorities or objectives.Stilichohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11473715969724982651noreply@blogger.com