Author Topic: Grand Strategy for a Divided America  (Read 237371 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 298
Re: Grand Strategy for a Divided America
« Reply #650 on: December 19, 2017, 08:43:23 »
But “Canada’s back!”

Some say the US’s influence in the world is dropping.... I suggest it is Canada’s.


Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,487
Re: Grand Strategy for a Divided America
« Reply #651 on: December 19, 2017, 08:58:41 »
IMHO these extracts are the exact opposite of the Trudeau government position.

              3. "A nation that is not prepared to win a war is a nation not capable of preventing a war".
           


Hmmmmmmm! Where have I seen this before???

Oh yes! That's been around for about 1600 years: Flavus Vegetius Renatus' famous quote from his De re Militari:

"Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum" (Therefore, whoever desires peace, let them prepare for war)

which of course has been bastardized through the years into the adage: Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Such depth of knowledge in that president.  ;D

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 65,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,202
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Grand Strategy for a Divided America
« Reply #652 on: April 02, 2018, 15:12:09 »
Someone tweeted about this piece: 

Quote
Just needs a Thucydides reference for good measure
https://twitter.com/joshjonsmith/status/980641684559085568

The start:

Quote
Strategies of Attainment
C. Lee Shea
April 1, 2018

In this era of disruption, the accelerating pace of change is propelling the world towards a historic inflection point. The liberal international order is in crisis, as geopolitics has returned with a vengeance. Not since the end of the Cold War have we faced a more complex and daunting set of foreign policy challenges — including the resurgence of great power competition with Russia and China, a 30 Years War engulfing the Middle East, the rise of populist movements across the West, the persistence of the terrorist threat, and the economic and social challenges created by inequality and the uncertain future of globalization.

Alarmingly, the United States today fundamentally lacks a comprehensive strategy to deal with the transformative forces surging across the globe. The approach taken across multiple administrations has been largely tactical and reactive, and focused on the urgent rather than the important. Simply put, our leaders can’t see the forest for the trees. What is needed is a new, whole of government approach that bridges our partisan political divide and responds to the challenges of the moment. To do this, however, it is vital for America to draw from its own best traditions and rediscover the lost art of statecraft.

Such an approach must begin with a critical appraisal both of today’s global environment and the American response to it. Though the strategic imperative could scarcely be more pressing, too often the tyranny of the inbox crowds out the mindshare necessary for truly innovative thinking. Policymakers must change course. As a first step, we can begin by stepping back and asking ourselves: What problem are we trying to solve?

The Middle East is a case in point. Still absorbing the reverberations from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the arbitrary Sykes-Picot borders are proving untenable in numerous corners of the region. While the full significance of the upheaval now taking place will take decades to be understood, some things are apparent. For starters, American leaders need to recognize that our power to dictate the internal evolution of foreign societies is limited. The truth is that democracy is about more than elections, and liberal institutions do not emerge overnight. At the same time, history teaches us that American inaction can have consequences that are as grave as U.S. action. In the meantime, the lack of a comprehensive strategy for the broader region that links means to ends is apparent from the deserts of Libya to the mountains of Afghanistan. While there is no military solution to the conflicts roiling this region and we must be careful not to repeat the mistakes of the past, it is past time for Washington to redouble our efforts to stabilize the Middle East. This, in turn, requires that we set priorities. All too often in this part of the world, it seems, we are playing checkers while our adversaries are playing chess.

The same is true for Russia...

C. Lee Shea served in senior strategic planning roles at the State Department, National Security Council and Pentagon, and is president of the Center for Advanced Strategic Policy Initiatives.
https://warontherocks.com/2018/04/strategies-of-attainment/

 ;)

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 526,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,747
Re: Grand Strategy for a Divided America
« Reply #653 on: April 03, 2018, 08:20:52 »
Strategies of Attainment
C. Lee Shea

I would have provided the article's conclusion with the portion that you quoted.  After highlighting the requirements -- a steady hand... visionary... bipartisan... strategic -- sorely needed today, concluding "that is why there is simply no substitute for American leadership."

Well, not only has American leadership been withdrawn, it has gone past mere inaction to demonstrating actively failing strategic leadership. The 'shining city on a hill' is globally shunned, mocked, ignored... while appealing only to "the base" -- a fitting but sadly ironic term.
There’s nothing more maddening than debating someone who doesn’t know history, doesn’t read books, and frames their myopia as virtue. The level of unapologetic conjecture I’ve encountered lately isn’t just frustrating, it’s retrogressive, unprecedented, and absolutely terrifying.
~Chris Evans

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 132,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,487
Re: Grand Strategy for a Divided America
« Reply #654 on: April 04, 2018, 10:41:53 »
Someone tweeted about this piece: 

The start:

 ;)

Mark
Ottawa

Read the article - twice because it is pure bumf. It's been a long time since I have seen so many clichés and buzzwords wrapped together into an load of incomprehensible drivel using pseudo-intellectual prose.    Then I noticed the date of the article and couldn't help but wonder ....  ;)

BTW, for those who would like the short version, in plain language, the whole article can be resumed as follows: "We are screwing up international relations. We have to put our house in order, do our homework and do better."

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 194,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,670
  • Freespeecher
Re: Grand Strategy for a Divided America
« Reply #655 on: April 13, 2018, 12:35:23 »
More and more American millennials have expressed open admiration and desire to embrace Socialism (despite the very clear examples of the results of Socialism in Fascist Italy, National Socialist Germany, Communist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Venezuela....). Here is what they can look forward to:

https://nypost.com/2018/04/11/science-proves-communism-makes-nations-poorer-and-less-healthy/?utm_source=facebook_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site%20buttons&utm_campaign=site%20buttons

Quote
Science proves communism makes nations poorer and less healthy
By Alain Tolhurst, The Sun April 11, 2018 | 11:54am | Updated

Living under communism makes countries poorer and less healthy for decades, according to a landmark new study.

Researchers testing historical connections between cultures found that whether a country had been under communism was the biggest factor for those with lower health, income and educational levels.

In the first undertaking of its kind, they analyzed the fortunes of 44 countries across Europe and Asia and looked at geography, religion, systems of government and a more intangible quality called “deep cultural ancestry.”

Writing in the journal Royal Society Open Science, they matched these factors against where they ranked on the United Nations Human Development Index, which measures per-capita income, life expectancy at birth and the number of years its citizens spend in education.

Most of the issues they looked at appeared to have little or no effect on the disparities between the countries, except for Islamic countries scoring a little worse on education.

Instead, the single strongest predictor for a country’s health, and the second-strongest for its wealth, turned out to be whether its rulers had embraced communism.

The study said that after World War II, economic growth in Communist Eastern Europe was slower than in the West, but despite the Soviet Union’s collapse almost 30 years ago, the effects are still being felt.


The study says that communism was also behind the stagnation of life expectancy behind the Iron Curtain during the 1970s and 1980s, which has set those countries back even today.

The researchers say: “The proximate causes for this low life expectancy are complex, but high alcohol consumption, smoking and poor workplace safety, as well as low-quality diet and living conditions associated with lower income levels are implicated.”

Instapundit notes that the true cause of the damage is the destruction of social capital and trust:

Quote
Communism destroys social trust — communist governments do this by design — and that does longterm damage.

While not stating Communism is the cause, Francis Fukuyama's book "Trust" also examines the differences between "high trust" and "low trust" societies.

If America is to survive as a country, much less a world leader, then the erosion of social capital needs to be reversed and the sorts of values which lead to a high trust society need to be championed again (Interestingly enough, Samuel Huntington's last book "Who Are We?" deals with that very subject)
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.