What Is Our Grand Strategy?

[Al Kufr]

After listening to President Bush in the RNC, i started thinking about what his Grand Strategy is for the war on terror, and what it should be. I know that Dick Cheney summoned John Boyd during the first Gulf to help consult with on planning, so maybe he still has some influence in this war.

"John R. Boyd, suggested four functions of a "sensible" grand strategy:

-Support our national goal, which at the highest level involves improving our fitness, as an organic whole, to shape and cope with an ever-changing environment

-Pump-up our resolve, drain-away our adversary's resolve, and attract the uncommitted

-End the conflict on favorable terms

-Ensure that the conflict and peace terms do not provide seeds for (unfavorable) future conflict."

Now the two last points, i think, dont apply in this war, you cant deal with the terrorists. And,I know that, making us a more unified country is gonna be difficult especially with the left in this country who is against any american victory anywhere.

Grand strategy seeks to "influence the uncommitted or potential adversaries so that they are drawn towards our philosophy and are empathetic toward our success."

Boyd does not provide a checklist for accomplishing it, but instead advises gaining "an appreciation for the underlying

-self interests

-critical differences of opinion

-internal contradictions

-frictions

-obsessions

Now do you think that trying to attarct the uncommited should be a major goal in this war? I think it should, look at the Kurds in Iraq, they are a very pro-american group, does anybody else know any other group of people in the middle east that is also pro-american like the kurds and the Iranians?

Boyd suggested a three part to attracting the uncommited:

With respect to ourselves, live up to our ideals: eliminate those flaws in our system that create mistrust and discord while emphasizing those cultural traditions, experiences, and unfolding events that build-up harmony and trust. [That is, war is a time to fix these problems, not to delay or ignore them. As an open, democratic society, the United States should have enormous advantages in this area.]With respect to adversaries, we should publicize their harsh statements and threats to highlight that our survival is always at risk; reveal mismatches between the adversary's professed ideals and how their government actually acts; and acquaint the adversary's population with our philosophy and way of life to show that the mismatches of their government do not accord with any social value based on either the value and dignity of the individual or on the security and well being of society as a whole. [This is not just propaganda, but must be based on evidence that our population as well as those of the uncommitted and real/potential adversaries will find credible.]

With respect to the uncommitted and potential adversaries, show that we respect their culture, bear them no harm, and will reward harmony with our cause, yet, demonstrate that we will not tolerate nor support those ideas and interactions that work against our culture and fitness to cope. [A "carrot and stick" approach. The "uncommitted" have the option to remain that way-so long as they do not aid our adversaries or break their isolation-and we hope that we can entice them to join our side. Note that we "demonstrate" the penalties for aiding the enemy, not just threaten them.]

As a basis for a grand strategy, Boyd recommended a "unifying vision":

A grand ideal, overarching theme, or noble philosophy that represents a coherent paradigm within which individuals as well as societies can shape and adapt to unfolding circumstances—yet offers a way to expose flaws of competing or adversary systems. Such a unifying vision should be so compelling that it acts as a catalyst or beacon around which to evolve those qualities that permit a collective entity or organic whole to improve its stature in the scheme of things.

Now, what is our "unifying vision" in america? The constitution should be our "unifying vision" for america, but do we have a leader that will defend it consistently? nope, and i dont know if we will ever have one.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/boyd_grand_strategy.htm

By the way, if you dont know who John R Boyd is then i think you should try to get to know him, he is one fo the great unknown heroes of all time.

-Fighter pilot in the Korena war

-He was known as “Forty-Second Boyd” because of his promise to beat anyone in simulated air combat in forty seconds or less. He was never beaten and usually won in less than 20 seconds.

-He developed the Energy maneuverability theory, which changed the way aircraft were design and tested.

-Helped in the designs of the F-15, F-16 and A-10 Warthog

-Laid the groundwork for how the Marine Corps fights.

-A part of the military reform movement in the 80's

-Developed the idea of the OODA loop

-He helped the US win in the Gulf War

Questioning General Norman Schwarzkopf's initial Desert Storm battle plan, a "head-to-head assault against the main strength of the Iraqi forces," then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney summoned John R. Boyd, a retired Air Force colonel, for extended consultation.The subsequent Marine Corps amphibious feint toward Kuwait, followed by a successful Army left-hook attack through the desert, was, writes Robert Coram, a direct reflection of Boyd's theories. Indeed, Marine Corps Commandant Charles Krulak's 1997 tribute hailed Boyd as an "architect of America's victory in the Gulf War.

The ESSENTIAL BOYD

[Oakes]

I'm trying to take this all in to form up an adequate reply. By "Grand Strategy" I suppose you mean basic principles for leading us to eliminate our adversaries.

First of all, when he suggests improving our fitness . . . to shape and cope with an ever-changing environment, does he mean shifting our military strategy from 2GW to 3GW? Or is he talking economically, like embracing more capitalistic principles to allow for a more flexible eocnomy?

His second suggestion really splits up into three parts:

1. With respect to ourselves, live up to our ideals. I'm glad this was mentioned because it has brought up an inner feeling I've had for a while. The Objectivist, capitalist approach truly lives up to the Enlightenment ideals this nation was founded on, as opposed to the statist, subjectivist left (or as you said, "the left in this country who is against any american victory anywhere"). Emphasizing America's philosophical origins is crucial to the success of our mission.

2. With respect to adversaries, we should publicize their harsh statements and threats to highlight that our survival is always at risk. Another excellent point, which is related to #1 in that we must judge evil for what it is if we truly want to live up to America's ideals.

3. With respect to the uncommitted and potential adversaries, show that we respect their culture, bear them no harm, and will reward harmony with our cause, yet, demonstrate that we will not tolerate nor support those ideas and interactions that work against our culture and fitness to cope. Again, this is related to #1 in that we must take a principled (objective) stance that you are either with us or against us, if we are truly to live up to America's ideals.

I like these basic ideas, but I don't think it is yet a Grand Strategy because it is too generalized. I'd like to get into a more detailed talk how we expect to get from where we are today, to the point when terrorism ceases to exist. I'll expand on this in my next post.

[Oakes]

I randomly flipped to CSPAN yesterday when I became captivated by a powerpoint presentation one Naval War College professor was giving about a sort of overall strategy against terrorism. His name is Thomas Barnett and his book is #3 on Amazon.

He says that the pentagon and by extension our military is still stuck in the Cold War belief that our main threats come from nations of equal superpower strength to us (or emerging superpowers like China). He points out that almost every conflict the U.S. military has involved itself in since the fall of the Berlin Wall has been located in nations that have experienced little if any globalization. As he puts it, "show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists."

Nothing new here. We know that John Boyd's ideas are geared towards fighting this new kind of asymmetric war. However, 3GW Maneuver Warfare only solves the "Leviathan" side of the equation; the actual warfighting. Until and unless these regions become globalized like the rest of the world, you will continue to get, as Barnett said, "a bin Laden who says, I don't want your rule sets, I don't want your women's liberation, and your legal systems and all this transparency and interaction which will radically remake my society that I not only want to keep where it is, but in many ways I want to take it backwards."

Barnett says the only way you can spur this globalization is to make the region stable enough to encourage people from the outside to invest in it. Besides the initial "Leviathan" military takeover, you need what Barnett calls a "System Administrator" or Sys Admin force to keep the peace and do everything needed to bring capitalism to the region. We don't have this separate force, which may explain why although we were deadly as we pulled into Iraq, we are having problems in the aftermath. The U.S. military, according to Barnett, is really the only military capable of performing the "Leviathan" side of the equation, so it will be unilateral for the most part. However, the Sys Admin force would benefit from composing many nations, so that can be more multilateral.

Now we can integrate this strategy with Boyd's "Grand Strategy" suggestions. We need to change ourselves before the American public will accept our government actively going after the bad guys, and do so by [#1] showing where America's true ideals are. We need to [#2] speak of the evil inherent in governments that rob their citizens of the freedom to globalize. And finally, we need to leave the UN and form our own international organization in which we will [#3] embrace our true allies to help our Sys Admin force.

Ultimately we hope to close the "non-integrating Gap", collectively referring to all the nations not yet globalized (the rest of the world is referred to as the "functioning Core"). The means is thru U.S. led Leviathan strikes to topple old leadership, followed by multilateral Sys Admin forces establishing pro-freedom governments that will open the areas to the rest of the world. Barnett adresses each target individually at the end of his widely publicized Esquire article:

My list of real trouble for the world in the 1990s, today, and tomorrow, starting in our own backyard:

1) HAITI

• Efforts to build a nation in 1990s were disappointing
  
  
  
  
  
• We have been going into Haiti for about a century, and we will go back when boat people start flowing in during the next crisis—without fail.
  

2) COLOMBIA

• Country is broken into several lawless chunks, with private armies, rebels, narcos, and legit government all working the place over.
  
  
  
  
  
• Drugs still flow.
  
  
  
  
  
• Ties between drug cartels and rebels grew over decade, and now we know of links to international terror, too.
  
  
  
  
  
• We get involved, keep promising more, and keep getting nowhere. Piecemeal, incremental approach is clearly not working.
  

3) BRAZIL AND ARGENTINA

• Both on the bubble between the Gap and the Functioning Core. Both played the globalization game to hilt in nineties and both feel abused now. The danger of falling off the wagon and going self-destructively leftist or rightist is very real.
  
  
  
  
  
• No military threats to speak of, except against their own democracies (the return of the generals).
  
  
  
  
  
• South American alliance MERCOSUR tries to carve out its own reality while Washington pushes Free Trade of Americas, but we may have to settle for agreements with Chile or for pulling only Chile into bigger NAFTA. Will Brazil and Argentina force themselves to be left out and then resent it?
  
  
  
  
  
• Amazon a large ungovernable area for Brazil, plus all that environmental damage continues to pile up. Will the world eventually care enough to step in?
  

4) FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

• For most of the past decade, served as shorthand for Europe's inability to get its act together even in its own backyard.
  
  
  
  
  
• Will be long-term baby-sitting job for the West.
  

5) CONGO AND RWANDA/BURUNDI

• Two to three million dead in central Africa from all the fighting across the decade. How much worse can it get before we try to do something, anything? Three million more dead?
  
  
  
  
  
• Congo is a carrion state—not quite dead or alive, and everyone is feeding off it.
  
  
  
  
  
• And then there's AIDS.
  

6) ANGOLA

• Never really has solved its ongoing civil war (1.5 million dead in past quarter century).
  
  
  
  
  
• Basically at conflict with self since mid-seventies, when Portuguese "empire" fell.
  
  
  
  
  
• Life expectancy right now is under forty!
  

7) SOUTH AFRICA

• The only functioning Core country in Africa, but it's on the bubble. Lots of concerns that South Africa is a gateway country for terror networks trying to access Core through back door.
  
  
  
  
  
• Endemic crime is biggest security threat.
  
  
  
  
  
• And then there's AIDS.
  

8) ISRAEL-PALESTINE

• Terror will not abate—there is no next generation in the West Bank that wants anything but more violence.
  
  
  
  
  
• Wall going up right now will be the Berlin Wall of twenty-first century. Eventually, outside powers will end up providing security to keep the two sides apart (this divorce is going to be very painful).
  
  
  
  
  
• There is always the chance of somebody (Saddam in desperation?) trying to light up Israel with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and triggering the counterpunch we all fear Israel is capable of.
  

9) SAUDI ARABIA

• The let-them-eat-cake mentality of royal mafia will eventually trigger violent instability from within.
  
  
  
  
  
• Paying terrorists protection money to stay away will likewise eventually fail, so danger will come from outside, too.
  
  
  
  
  
• Huge young population with little prospects for future, and a ruling elite whose main source of income is a declining long-term asset. And yet the oil will matter to enough of the world far enough into the future that the United States will never let this place really tank, no matter what it takes.
  

10) IRAQ

• Question of when and how, not if.
  
  
  
  
  
• Then there's the huge rehab job. We will have to build a security regime for the whole region.
  

11) SOMALIA

• Chronic lack of governance.
  
  
  
  
  
• Chronic food problems.
  
  
  
  
  
• Chronic problem of terrorist-network infiltration.
  
  
  
  
  
• We went in with Marines and Special Forces and left disillusioned—a poor man's Vietnam for the 1990s. Will be hard-pressed not to return.
  

12) IRAN

• Counterrevolution has already begun: This time the students want to throw the mullahs out.
  
  
  
  
  
• Iran wants to be friends with U.S., but resurgence of fundamentalists may be the price we pay to invade Iraq.
  
  
  
  
  
• The mullahs support terror, and their push for WMD is real: Does this make them inevitable target once Iraq and North Korea are settled?
  

13) AFGHANISTAN

• Lawless, violent place even before the Taliban stepped onstage and started pulling it back toward seventh century (short trip)
  
  
  
  
  
• Government sold to Al Qaeda for pennies on the dollar.
  
  
  
  
  
• Big source of narcotics (heroin).
  
  
  
  
  
• Now U.S. stuck there for long haul, rooting out hardcore terrorists/rebels who've chosen to stay.
  

14) PAKISTAN

• There is always the real danger of their having the bomb and using it out of weakness in conflict with India (very close call with December 13, 2001, New Delhi bombing).
  
  
  
  
  
• Out of fear that Pakistan may fall to radical Muslims, we end up backing hard-line military types we don't really trust.
  
  
  
  
  
• Clearly infested with Al Qaeda.
  
  
  
  
  
• Was on its way to being declared a rogue state by U.S. until September 11 forced us to cooperate again. Simply put, Pakistan doesn't seem to control much of its own territory.
  

15) NORTH KOREA

• Marching toward WMD.
  
  
  
  
  
• Bizarre recent behavior of Pyongyang (admitting kidnappings, breaking promises on nukes, shipping weapons to places we disapprove of and getting caught, signing agreements with Japan that seem to signal new era, talking up new economic zone next to China) suggests it is intent (like some mental patient) on provoking crises.
  
  
  
  
  
• We live in fear of Kim's Götterdämmerung scenario (he is nuts).
  
  
  
  
  
• Population deteriorating—how much more can they stand? • After Iraq, may be next.
  

16) INDONESIA

• Usual fears about breakup and "world's largest Muslim population."
  
  
  
  
  
• Casualty of Asian economic crisis (really got wiped out).
  
  
  
  
  
• Hot spot for terror networks, as we have discovered.
  

New/integrating members of Core I worry may be lost in coming year:

17) CHINA

• Running lots of races against itself in terms of reducing the unprofitable state-run enterprises while not triggering too much unemployment, plus dealing with all that growth in energy demand and accompanying pollution, plus coming pension crisis as population ages.
  
  
  
  
  
• New generation of leaders looks suspiciously like unimaginative technocrats—big question if they are up to task.
  
  
  
  
  
• If none of those macro pressures trigger internal instability, there is always the fear that the Communist party won't go quietly into the night in terms of allowing more political freedoms and that at some point, economic freedom won't be enough for the masses. Right now the CCP is very corrupt and mostly a parasite on the country, but it still calls the big shots in Beijing.
  
  
  
  
  
• Army seems to be getting more disassociated from society and reality, focusing ever more myopically on countering U.S. threat to their ability to threaten Taiwan, which remains the one flash point that could matter.
  
  
  
  
  
• And then there's AIDS.
  

18) RUSSIA

• Putin has long way to go in his dictatorship of the law; the mafia and robber barons still have too much power.
  
  
  
  
  
• Chechnya and the near-abroad in general will drag Moscow into violence, but it will be kept within the federation by and large.
  
  
  
  
  
• U.S. moving into Central Asia is a testy thing—a relationship that can sour if not handled just right.
  
  
  
  
  
• Russia has so many internal problems (financial weakness, environmental damage, et cetera) and depends too much on energy exports to feel safe (does bringing Iraq back online after invasion kill their golden goose?).
  
  
  
  
  
• And then there's AIDS.
  

19) INDIA

• First, there's always the danger of nuking it out with Pakistan.
  
  
  
  
  
• Short of that, Kashmir pulls them into conflict with Pak, and that involves U.S. now in way it never did before due to war on terror.
  
  
  
  
  
• India is microcosm of globalization: the high tech, the massive poverty, the islands of development, the tensions between cultures/civilizations/religions/et cetera. It is too big to succeed, and too big to let fail.
  
  
  
  
  
• Wants to be big responsible military player in region, wants to be strong friend of U.S., and also wants desperately to catch up with China in development (the self-imposed pressure to succeed is enormous).
  
  
  
  
  
• And then there's AIDS.
  

[Al Kufr]

First of all, when he suggests improving our fitness . . . to shape and cope with an ever-changing environment, does he mean shifting our military strategy from 2GW to 3GW? Or is he talking economically, like embracing more capitalistic principles to allow for a more flexible eocnomy?

He means shifting to WHATEVER is necessary to adapt to the present and future.

And in this war i thinkit would be necessary to shift to 4GW and look for any possible 5GW so we can adapt to it.

I agree with your second post to a point,i dont think it is necesary to take over entire countrie, fior example:

If i were President Bush instead of invading Iraq, I would have gone to every free and semi free country unilaterally (not through the UN) and asked them to join me in a coalition, but not for war.

And then I would have gone to the Kurds In Iraq(who were under our air cover protection at the time) and told them, If you let us help you create a truly free government, The U.S. and its coalition of free countries will recognize you as an independant country and continue to protect you against Saddam. That way, we would have had a foothold in the middle east and Iraq, withought war or the use of much resources.

Then we could have done the same exact thing to the people in the southern part of Iraq, that way Saddam would have been surrounded in the middle of iraq and we would have taken over a country withought war or anything, and IRAN would have been up for grabs.

And since the Middle east is composed of mostly tribes, we could continue making this offer to other groups of pro-americans or possible pro-americans in the middle east. Setting up foot holds of freedom in the middle east.

2) COLOMBIA

Country is broken into several lawless chunks, with private armies, rebels, narcos, and legit government all working the place over.

Drugs still flow.

Ties between drug cartels and rebels grew over decade, and now we know of links to international terror, too.

We get involved, keep promising more, and keep getting nowhere. Piecemeal, incremental approach is clearly not working.

Only way to fix that is to stop the drug war

19) INDIA

First, there's always the danger of nuking it out with Pakistan.

Short of that, Kashmir pulls them into conflict with Pak, and that involves U.S. now in way it never did before due to war on terror.

India is microcosm of globalization: the high tech, the massive poverty, the islands of development, the tensions between cultures/civilizations/religions/et cetera. It is too big to succeed, and too big to let fail.

Wants to be big responsible military player in region, wants to be strong friend of U.S., and also wants desperately to catch up with China in development (the self-imposed pressure to succeed is enormous).

And then there's AIDS.

14) PAKISTAN

There is always the real danger of their having the bomb and using it out of weakness in conflict with India (very close call with December 13, 2001, New Delhi bombing).

Out of fear that Pakistan may fall to radical Muslims, we end up backing hard-line military types we don't really trust.

Clearly infested with Al Qaeda.

Was on its way to being declared a rogue state by U.S. until September 11 forced us to cooperate again. Simply put, Pakistan doesn't seem to control much of its own territory.

I think the only way to fix the problem between India and Pakistan is by sidding with india and somehow encouraging them to start and Economic Cold War against Pakistan.

For example, we should go to the indian government and tell them that if they want free trade with us they should start to liberalize their economy, and tell the leader to actively point out Indias advances and actively compare it to Pakistans crappy economy. So that way Pakistan wil try to outdo india and start liberalizing its own economy, that way we get two birds with one stone.

[Oakes]

And in this war i thinkit would be necessary to shift to 4GW and look for any possible 5GW so we can adapt to it.

You don't mean the U.S. military going 4GW, right? I've always believed 4GW referred to the guerilla and terrorist tactics of our enemies, to which the appropriate response is 3GW.

I agree with your second post to a point,i dont think it is necesary to take over entire countrie, fior example:

I don't think it is necessary to take over entire countries either; just their governments. Putting pressure on them by creating alliances with native groups is one way to go about it, tho I'm not in the position to judge whether it would accomplish our mission without the need for military action. We will need to send our own guys in there eventually or else watch one immoral government be replaced by another. We need to strongly proclaim that no dictatorship can assert a moral right to exist, no matter what majority vote it had.

Only way to fix that is to stop the drug war

With links to international terror, our self-interest obligates us to intervene in that country. So I think it will not be enough to just end drug laws.

For example, we should go to the indian government and tell them that if they want free trade with us they should start to liberalize their economy, and tell the leader to actively point out Indias advances and actively compare it to Pakistans crappy economy. So that way Pakistan wil try to outdo india and start liberalizing its own economy, that way we get two birds with one stone.

I think bullying nations into freeing their economies would be an ideal strategy that I would employ at whatever chance I got. Of course, it isn't really bullying in the sense of threatening physical force; we would only be threatening not to trade with them.

However, this will only work with nations that are interested in trading with us in the first place. For the Non-Integrating Gap, the only way to bring in globalization is to force it in.

[tommyedison]

For example, we should go to the indian government and tell them that if they want free trade with us they should start to liberalize their economy, and tell the leader to actively point out Indias advances and actively compare it to Pakistans crappy economy. So that way Pakistan wil try to outdo india and start liberalizing its own economy, that way we get two birds with one stone.

Do you think the indian government wants liberalization and free trade. I am from India. A lot of the taxes collected go into the politician's pocket. Encouraging free trade will decrease the amount of taxes collected. Your statement is based on the fact that the so-called leaders really want India to grow. They just want power. They are just like James Taggart and Wesley Mouch.

[Al Kufr]

You don't mean the U.S. military going 4GW, right? I've always believed 4GW referred to the guerilla and terrorist tactics of our enemies, to which the appropriate response is 3GW.

No we can also try to revert to 4GW with our special forces. And actually I once heard of some plan that would turn Special forces into Intelligence, the marines into special forces and the army into a maneuver force.

[Charlotte Corday]

I think bullying nations into freeing their economies would be an ideal strategy that I would employ at whatever chance I got. Of course, it isn't really bullying in the sense of threatening physical force; we would only be threatening not to trade with them.

The threat not to trade if put into effect does mean the use of force -- against Americans who attempt to trade with a foreign nation under ban. And that sort of bullying often has a result opposite to the desired effect. How successful is the four decade-old U.S. trade embargo against Castro's Cuba? Rather than weakening him, the embargo allowed Castro to convince his subjects that the U.S. was their mortal enemy. Indeed, it is not Castro but the Cuban people who are currently suffering most from U.S. trade restrictions.

[Al Kufr]

The threat not to trade if put into effect does mean the use of force -- against Americans who attempt to trade with a foreign nation under ban.

Of course,we should use force againt all people who trade with any enemy nation, to bad the US doesnt make that the policy for China and every other enemy state.

And that sort of bullying often has a result opposite to the desired effect. How successful is the four decade-old U.S. trade embargo against Castro's Cuba?

Trading with cuba would be like trading with your enemy during war.

And how do you measure success? the goal of an embargo is to send the message that we dont sanction the cuban governemnt, the rest of the stupid world trades with cuba, thats why it doesnt seem to be having any effect on cuba.

Now, if we actually used force and did not allow anything to get into cuba then that would be very different and a lot more effective. But not trading with cuba is a half ass measure, no president has the guts to take it further than that,thats why it has lasted so long.

So the solution is not the stupid libertarian argument to start trading(moving backwards), it is to take it further than not trading(moving forwards).

[Oakes]

Do you think the indian government wants liberalization and free trade. I am from India. A lot of the taxes collected go into the politician's pocket. Encouraging free trade will decrease the amount of taxes collected. Your statement is based on the fact that the so-called leaders really want India to grow. They just want power. They are just like James Taggart and Wesley Mouch.

I think Al Kufr suggested that the U.S. should threaten the Indian government that if they don't get their act together, we'll stop trading with them. I'm sure they wouldn't like it, but this seems to be the only way other than force to spread globalization into the Non-Integrating Gap (read post #3 in this thread if you don't recognize the term).

That said, India isn't considered part of the Gap so while I think these economic bullying tactics are completely justified, our priorities might lie elsewhere.

The threat not to trade if put into effect does mean the use of force -- against Americans who attempt to trade with a foreign nation under ban. And that sort of bullying often has a result opposite to the desired effect. How successful is the four decade-old U.S. trade embargo against Castro's Cuba? Rather than weakening him, the embargo allowed Castro to convince his subjects that the U.S. was their mortal enemy. Indeed, it is not Castro but the Cuban people who are currently suffering most from U.S. trade restrictions.

Al Kufr put it well so I don't want to repeat what he said, but I will say that it would be completely justified to prevent the exchange of money that the gov't deems will end up in the hands of those who the gov't opposes (assuming, of course, that their opposition is justified).

As for the Cuba argument, I think you are being far too appeasing. Castro may indeed twist our efforts against us, just as radical islamists try to use our efforts in Iraq to rally more support. In both cases, we cannot be deterred; we cannot be made to believe that by leaving the situation alone and not exciting anger, the problem will go away.

[Charlotte Corday]

. . . we cannot be made to believe that by leaving the situation alone and not exciting anger, the problem will go away.

So has our embargo of Cuba made the problem go away?

[Al Kufr]

So has our embargo of Cuba made the problem go away?

Not really

But thats EXACTLY my point, the question is what MORE do we need to do besides JUST having an embargo?

[Al Kufr]

I think Al Kufr suggested that the U.S. should threaten the Indian government that if they don't get their act together, we'll stop trading with them. I'm sure they wouldn't like it, but this seems to be the only way other than force to spread globalization into the Non-Integrating Gap (read post #3 in this thread if you don't recognize the term).

That said, India isn't considered part of the Gap so while I think these economic bullying tactics are completely justified, our priorities might lie elsewhere.

Im not for using strong arm tactics against India, im more for seggesting that india should change by choice(or maybe wait for a pro american leader ot get into power),so they can fix the porblem with pakistan.

[Oakes]

Im not for using strong arm tactics against India, im more for seggesting that india should change by choice(or maybe wait for a pro american leader ot get into power),so they can fix the porblem with pakistan.

If that is the case, I think you should heed to what tommyedison said. These people are not going to see the inherent logic of your argument and follow through with it. It is only by the threat of a crumbling economy or the threat of a military takeover that we can get governments to do what they don't want to do.

[Al Kufr]

If that is the case, I think you should heed to what tommyedison said. These people are not going to see the inherent logic of your argument and follow through with it. It is only by the threat of a crumbling economy or the threat of a military takeover that we can get governments to do what they don't want to do.

OOps, i should have fixed my last respocne, imnot saying i would never use strong arm tactics, but im just saying its betetr yo try to cinvince india FIRST, and if that doesnt work, lets start bending some arms.

[ex_banana-eater]

David Frum proposed entering a free-trade agreement with both India and Pakistan only if both of them will sign to it (possibly including Bangladesh). Countries that have free trade with eachother grow closer.

[Al Kufr]

David Frum proposed entering a free-trade agreement with both India and Pakistan only if both of them will sign to it (possibly including Bangladesh). Countries that have free trade with eachother grow closer.

I think pitting them against eahc other would be more effective.

[Oakes]

I think pitting them against eahc other would be more effective.

In a sense, a free-trade agreement would pit them against each other because their companies will be competing more. I think what you originally proposed was getting both governments to compete to liberalize themselves in an effort to keep up with each other economically. A free-trade agreement would probably be the more realistic option. Like I said, there is nothing to indicate that they will accept your suggestions without coercion.

[Yes]

I randomly flipped to CSPAN yesterday when I became captivated by a powerpoint presentation one Naval War College professor was giving about a sort of overall strategy against terrorism. ....... Barnett adresses each target individually at the end of his widely publicized Esquire article:

               

1) HAITI  Efforts              to build a nation in 1990s were disappointing....go back when boat people start flowing in during the next crisis—without fail.

2) COLOMBIA  Country is broken into several lawless chunks, with private armies,              rebels, narcos, and legit government ......Piecemeal, incremental approach is clearly not working.

3) BRAZIL AND ARGENTINA               Both on the bubble between the Gap and the              Functioning Core. Both played the globalization game to hilt in nineties and both feel abused .......environmental damage continues to pile up. Will the world              eventually care enough to step in?

4) FORMER YUGOSLAVIA               For most of the past decade, served as shorthand for              Europe's inability to get its act together.... Will be long-term  baby-sitting job for the West.

               

5) CONGO AND RWANDA/BURUNDI  Two to three million dead in........dead or alive, and everyone is feeding off it. • And then              there's AIDS.

6) ANGOLA  Never really has solved its ongoing civil war (1.5 million dead in......now is under forty!

7) SOUTH AFRICA  The only functioning Core country in Africa, but it's on the bubble.              Lots of concerns that South Africa.....And then there's              AIDS.

8) ISRAEL-PALESTINE               Terror will not abate—there is no next generation              in the West Bank that wants anything but more violence.....of mass destruction (WMD) and triggering the counterpunch we all  fear Israel is capable of.

9) SAUDI ARABIA  The let-them-eat-cake mentality of royal mafia will eventually              trigger violent instability from within......far enough into the future that the United States will never let this place really tank, no matter what it takes.

10) IRAQ   11) SOMALIA   12) IRAN  13) AFGHANISTAN   14) PAKISTAN   15) NORTH KOREA   16) INDONESIA  *snip*               

17) CHINA  Running              lots of races against itself in terms of reducing the              unprofitable state-run enterprises while not triggering too much.....ability to threaten Taiwan, which remains the one flash point              that could matter. • And then there's AIDS.

18) RUSSIA  Putin has long way to go in his dictatorship of the law; the mafia and              robber barons still have too much power......• And then there's AIDS.

19) INDIA  First,  there's always the danger of nuking it out with Pakistan......And then there's AIDS.

My problem with Barnett's strategem is basically that America should not take it upon itself to think that they could solve the world's problems (sounds like he's saying that, huh? BULLY!)

All of these governments need to be reinvented such as to promote free trade and capitalism.

What it takes for this to happen is the grim realization that one country cannot obtain what it wants from another country by force. Governments must realize that it's in the best interests of their individuals to promote, protect, and nurture free trade.

[Yes]

Of course,we should use force againt all people who trade with any enemy nation, to bad the US doesnt make that the policy for China and every other enemy state.

No! That has nothing to do with the defense of America's self-interest!

Trading with cuba would be like trading with your enemy during war.

And  how do you measure success? the goal of an embargo  is to send the message that we dont  sanction the cuban governemnt, the rest of the stupid world trades with cuba, thats why it doesnt seem to be having any effect on cuba.

America has better ways not to sanction the Cuban government.

Now, if we actually used force and did not allow anything to get into cuba then that would be very different and a lot more effective. But not trading with cuba is a half ass measure, no president has the guts to take it further than that,thats why it has lasted so long.

It really should not be up to the government to sanction international trade. It should be up to each private business entity to determine whether or not trading with a nation considered hostile is in the best interests of thecountry. America has every right to take the position that a company who chooses to do business in a hostile environment is doing so at its own risk and America should refuse to protect such a company's dealings in such hostile nation.

So the solution is not the stupid libertarian argument to start trading(moving backwards), it is to take it further than not  trading(moving forwards).

Neither solution proposed here is a correct one.

Let the company who wishes to do business in a hostile nation assume all liability and resposibility for its acts, including the safety of its employees.

America is justified in issuing warnings to businesses discouraging them to do business in hostile lands. If America would simply NOT offer ANY protection to companies doing business in hostile nations, we'd see how eager such companies would be to take on such a risky endeavor.

[Al Kufr]

No! That has nothing to do with the defense of America's self-interest!

How is it not in americas self interest? how is giving supplies to an enemy state in americas interests? Should people have been allowed to trade with the Nazi government during WW2?

America has better ways not to sanction the Cuban government.

like what exactly? sending the CIA to kill Castro is one way.

It really should not be up to the government to sanction international trade. It should be up to each private business entity to determine whether or not trading with a nation considered hostile is in the best interests of thecountry. America has every right to take the position that a company who chooses to do business in a hostile environment is doing so at its own risk and America should refuse to protect such a company's dealings in such hostile nation.

Neither solution proposed here is a correct one.

Let the company who wishes to do business in a hostile nation assume all liability and resposibility for its acts, including the safety of its employees.

America is justified in issuing warnings to businesses discouraging them to do business in hostile lands. If America would simply NOT offer ANY protection to companies doing business in hostile nations, we'd see how eager such companies would be to take on such a risky endeavor.

Its not doing it at "its own risk" its doing it at the whole Nations risk by helping an ENEMY!

[Al Kufr]

By the way here are 4 othe aspects of grand startegy

(1) pumping up our resolve and increasing our solidarity,

(2) draining away our adversary's resolve and weakening his internal cohesion,

(3) reinforcing our allies' commitments to our cause and making them empathetic to our success, and

(4) attracting the uncommitted to our cause or making them empathetic to our success.

[Colonel Rebel]

Thomas Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" is the only reliable source on discussing future global security strategies. He's also the one in the C-Span show you all are talking about. Oddly enough, he sent me an e-mail this morning regarding the alleged nuclear blast in North Korea....

Good guy, and quite a visionary.

[Oakes]

Oddly enough, he sent me an e-mail this morning regarding the alleged nuclear blast in North Korea....

Good guy, and quite a visionary.

You mean he personally sent you an email? Do you know him?

[Colonel Rebel]

yes, indeed, he personally sent me an e-mail.