tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post4416693600691453816..comments2023-11-17T03:55:40.736-05:00Comments on Ink Spots: Let's just be up front with each other: this is a really long rant about strategyLilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18373158801523577733noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-3603462781417349882012-04-04T09:31:07.324-04:002012-04-04T09:31:07.324-04:00fnord — Thanks for your comment.
isnt the challe...fnord — Thanks for your comment. <br /><br /><em>isnt the challenge on how to educate policymakers into rational and process-oriented thinking? The idea of democracy has always rested on a mutual cooperation idea, based on solid (or not-so-solid) skillsets, both practical and political. How does one teach the politicans the mindset of the engineer?</em><br /><br />I'd suggest that it's more than simply teaching politicians how to be strategic thinkers—we've got to provide policymakers with the tools to do so. That means military officers offering their expertise and participating in the process, but recognizing that it remains fundamentally a governmental one, not a military one, and moving away from the tendency to wall off strategy from politics through the misguided propagation of flawed ideas about "operational art." (The monograph that MK referenced in the other thread is great on this subject.)Gulliverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12558335790019565924noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-57277004860365581792012-04-04T08:12:22.268-04:002012-04-04T08:12:22.268-04:00Yay. Fantastic food for thought. Without even tryi...Yay. Fantastic food for thought. Without even trying to emulate such verbosity: isnt the challenge on how to educate policymakers into rational and process-oriented thinking? The idea of democracy has always rested on a mutual cooperation idea, based on solid (or not-so-solid) skillsets, both practical and political. How does one teach the politicans the mindset of the engineer?Fnordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-10966247627255053062012-03-30T09:43:17.819-04:002012-03-30T09:43:17.819-04:00Could this post BE any longer?
Contra ADTS, I lik...Could this post BE any longer?<br /><br />Contra ADTS, I liked Friends in the 90s and still like it.<br /><br />- Madhu<br /><br />(Let's hope I don't get ten of these comments in a row because Blogger hates me this a.m.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-59217846019258801152012-03-29T11:33:33.604-04:002012-03-29T11:33:33.604-04:00Gulliver:
1) I don't have much if anything of...Gulliver:<br /><br />1) I don't have much if anything of substance to say.<br /><br />2) I had read but not really understood the Fritz post upon which this one is based. Thanks for extending the conversation.<br /><br />3) The "Friends" reference made me laugh. (What an awful show - how was it ever so popular, and why is it still in syndication, playing as reruns, etc.?) Thanks.<br /><br />4) It's good to see you posting comments again. Thanks.<br /><br />5) Have you read Betts, "Is Strategy An Illusion?"<br /><br />Best<br />ADTSADTSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-73418633405391702812012-03-29T02:18:02.288-04:002012-03-29T02:18:02.288-04:00Thank you, Gulliver, for posting the antidote for ...Thank you, Gulliver, for posting the antidote for my frequent headaches spawned by shallow, facile media "analysis". After reading your thoughts, and zenpundit's comment, my head still hurts, but now in a good way."The Fighting Leprechaun"https://www.blogger.com/profile/06179138662850961742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-56711179593706147712012-03-29T00:49:28.503-04:002012-03-29T00:49:28.503-04:00Hi Gulliver
Excellent post. Particularly liked yo...Hi Gulliver<br /><br />Excellent post. Particularly liked your reading of CvC with violence re-shaping the political contest. Strongly agree, in terms of politics, war is a co-evolutionary phenomenon. I will have to go back and read the papers you cited too. A great deal of food for thought here.<br /><br />Yes, you understood me correctly. I would add after the fact now that this process-bias for most civilian leaders is not simply a cynical choice (though it often is)but also a habitual manner of thinking in which new problems are intuitively framed. Furthermore, that thinking strategically instead requires conscious effort, education, practice and a natural facility for analysis - only a minority of people, civilian or military, do this systematically. Most people are far more comfortable with reacting tactically to situations or worse, taking refuge in blindly following established procedures.<br /><br />You asked a question though:<br /><br />"But here's the part where I get confused: even if civilian policymakers are prone to this sort of error (and I agree that they are), and even if, as Jason writes, "our strategy in Afghanistan is guided by process" (and I agree that it is)... I still don't understand how or why those two conditions should be causally related. Let me put it this way: the fact that our campaign planning in Afghanistan is process-focused seems to me largely disconnected from the fact that our politicians care more about doing right-looking things than right-ending things, because campaign plans and operational concepts aren't the purview of those politicians."<br /><br />I think the causal relationship is that policy, made well or poorly, constitutes the artificial parameters or boundary of the possible for planning or executing military action. Strategy, making access of a DIME array of levers might be fuzzier but if our political leaders have determined against all evidence that Pakistan is an "ally" then for military planners a host of possible actions with a natural escalatory logic are off the table a priori and many others still permissible are impacted in their effects. The military must work within the policy framework whether the policy is rational or not or obstructs the most effective military action against the enemy.<br /><br />This is not to argue that the military should be above policy but that it matters tremendously that policy makers "get it right" in terms of empirical understanding, coherence and realism. That they have an End that can be achieved by the use of force in the first place before resorting to war ( if they don't, then I suggest that they have not thought through what it is they really want to accomplish politically even if provided with a military victory). If they understand, then the use of force, even in total war, is actually a form of bargaining with the enemy to get a concrete result. If there is no concrete result in mind, then mere military defeat of the enemy will not resolve the conflictzenpundithttp://zenpundit.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8755035051021414780.post-88798086218859458172012-03-28T17:03:16.142-04:002012-03-28T17:03:16.142-04:00No, Gulliver, we want more, more, more of this!No, Gulliver, we want more, more, more of this!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com