Thursday, May 17, 2007
MIL THEORY GOES MAINSTREAM
It's rather nice to see the esoteric theory topics I kick around here in conjunction with sites like The Small Wars Council, DNI, Tom Barnett and John Robb's blogs and the circle of related bloggers, are penetrating the mainstream press. Some recent examples:
William Lind in UPI
Max Boot citing the Small Wars Journal
"War without limits" by Christopher Shea in the Boston Globe (hat tip to Dr.Ralph Luker)
Thomas Barnett's frequent appearances in columns by David Ignatius going back several years
This is a good thing. While there is a healthy tendency in our online alternative defense thinking community to disagree, at times caustically, there is a shared consensus that the current structure, strategy and appropriations process for America's armed forces are ill-suited to the challenges facing the United States.
Change is required and change will only come when the ideas that we have been batting around on blogs, discussion boards and ( in a few instances ) books, penetrates the mass media and gets into the minds of the political class and the voting public. Maximizing attention on the ideas, rather than being distracted by infighting or loose cannon comments, is the route we need to go.
It's rather nice to see the esoteric theory topics I kick around here in conjunction with sites like The Small Wars Council, DNI, Tom Barnett and John Robb's blogs and the circle of related bloggers, are penetrating the mainstream press. Some recent examples:
William Lind in UPI
Max Boot citing the Small Wars Journal
"War without limits" by Christopher Shea in the Boston Globe (hat tip to Dr.Ralph Luker)
Thomas Barnett's frequent appearances in columns by David Ignatius going back several years
This is a good thing. While there is a healthy tendency in our online alternative defense thinking community to disagree, at times caustically, there is a shared consensus that the current structure, strategy and appropriations process for America's armed forces are ill-suited to the challenges facing the United States.
Change is required and change will only come when the ideas that we have been batting around on blogs, discussion boards and ( in a few instances ) books, penetrates the mass media and gets into the minds of the political class and the voting public. Maximizing attention on the ideas, rather than being distracted by infighting or loose cannon comments, is the route we need to go.
Labels: barnett, dni, john robb, max boot, media, military, military reform, small wars council, small wars journal, strategy, war, william lind
¶ 9:10 AM
Comments:
<< Home
This is something I've given a lot of thought to. Most of what I've read in this "genre" has focused of nudging the glacial pace of both state and military bureaucracy beyond the tedious confines of the cold war.
Little attention has been payed to how some of the dynamic changes would or could be presented in such a fashion that the mainstream can understand and accept them.
How do you sell the idea that US strategy has become something of a reverse negative of it's previous self? From long, kinetic warfare and essentially short term rebuilding/occupation to lighting fast kinetic war followed by years of occupation/rebuilding.
Little attention has been payed to how some of the dynamic changes would or could be presented in such a fashion that the mainstream can understand and accept them.
How do you sell the idea that US strategy has become something of a reverse negative of it's previous self? From long, kinetic warfare and essentially short term rebuilding/occupation to lighting fast kinetic war followed by years of occupation/rebuilding.
Hi Sub
"How do you sell the idea that US strategy has become something of a reverse negative of it's previous self?"
Excellent question. That's actually what Truman and Acheson had to wrestle with in 1947-49 and they settled on " scaring the hell out of the country" ( Acheson's words).
This is seized on by Leftists to say the US began the cold War but in context Acheson was talking about preventing a reversion to 1930's Isolationism and 1920's Nye Committee type unilateral disarmament.
I'm not suggesting the equivalent of a "Red Scare" for 4GW but the public has to go through a paradigm shift before policy changes will take place.
Post a Comment
"How do you sell the idea that US strategy has become something of a reverse negative of it's previous self?"
Excellent question. That's actually what Truman and Acheson had to wrestle with in 1947-49 and they settled on " scaring the hell out of the country" ( Acheson's words).
This is seized on by Leftists to say the US began the cold War but in context Acheson was talking about preventing a reversion to 1930's Isolationism and 1920's Nye Committee type unilateral disarmament.
I'm not suggesting the equivalent of a "Red Scare" for 4GW but the public has to go through a paradigm shift before policy changes will take place.
<< Home
