https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2016/10/preserving-sweet-life-minnesota
This is the first article I've ever read that really explains the issues tied to government agricultural subsidies.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
Saturday, October 22, 2016
American National Strategy - Cont.
I discussed the rather conventional geopolitical scenario for the United States in my last post. I wanted to discuss economics next.
Or rather, if we are talking about an existential threat, there's not a lot that we should truly be worried about. But tanks can't fight if they don't have fuel. People can't live if they can't get food. And there's a lot more to security than just having a lot of tanks and planes and soldiers.
Economics - well. I'm not an economist, and I recommend you take what I'm about to post with some skepticism, since I admit I am not an expert here. (When I daydream, I sometimes imagine I was wealthy enough to just putz around taking classes in economics, computer science, and finance...and then blog here about any interesting intersectionality. I don't want a degree in those fields, I just want to know them well enough to help build my understanding of the world we live in today.)
So anyways, there are two or three points I want to make about economics. First, nations do compete for scarce resources. Access to those resources may not quite count as an existential threat, or maybe it does. I phrased it that way to make a point about how different countries view this issue. One way of assessing our economic security is to see how capable we are of guaranteeing the resources we would need. (With regards to energy, for example, we have a somewhat mixed outlook. We do have our own domestic energy supplies. Oil, natural gas, etc. Some of that has been aided by fracking, and where energy security fits in with environmental concerns is a debate worth having at some point. But we are still a net consumer, not producer, of oil. So even though we probably could tighten our belts and ration resources if need be, we would struggle to keep our current standard of living without external sources. We are in a much better condition than Europe, however, and Russia's use of Gazprom in their foreign policy is something to pay attention to.)
Btw, economic security isn't just about energy. Or rare earth minerals, even. It's also about the basics of food, water, and enough resources for a sustained wartime effort. The US is in a good position, again, w/regards to food. We are quite the breadbasket, after all. I get a little fuzzy on exactly what is necessary here, but I do believe Athens lasted so long after their failed Sicilian Expedition in part because of their strong maritime trade-based economy. And that it's worth paying attention to the debate on how effective the Anaconda Plan was during the Civil War. There's also merit to those who point out that our enemies used very inexpensive IEDs to take out very expensive Strykers and other pieces of military equipment. In a sustained effort, can we afford to keep spending millions of dollars on equipment that our enemies destroy using parts that only cost a couple hundred dollars?
Economic security, however, gets into tricky territory. After all, our involvement with installing the shah in Iran was allegedly about oil security, and it rather backfired on us.
Second, I want to go into the importance of trade routes, and trade in general. Given what's been going on in this election year, a lot of people are questioning the benefit of trade and globalization. We have grown so interconnected, btw, that it's really hard to say who is dependent on what, and where. That is, we have Toyota cars built in the United States. American finished goods with subcomponents from China, Malaysia, Singapore, and more.
Again, I want to emphasize that you should talk to a good economist if you're interested in the subject. But I'll give a little anecdote that, oversimplified though it is, may be useful.
Picture the original independent farmstead. The family living there grows their own food, weaves their own clothes, milks their own cows, builds their own houses with material from their own fields and nearby land.
Now picture a neighbor moves in close by. The neighboring family has a field that isn't very good for planting, but is pretty good for pasturing cows. So the second family decides to get a few more cows than they need for their own sake, and offers to sell the extra milk to their neighbors. Those neighbors no longer need to keep their own cow, so maybe they sell the cow and turn the cow pasture into another field. Now they're growing more corn or wheat or whatever than they need for themselves, so they can turn around and sell that to their neighbor. Or take it to market.
Trading that surplus benefits both families. They're able to get more of what they need, they don't have to spend as much effort trying to do it all themselves, etc. But trade also makes it harder to go back to true independence. If disaster struck, the family that had sold their cow would have to invest in a new cow and turn a field back into pasture if they wanted to get their own milk again.
So anyways. Trade is good, mostly. But it leads to specialization and interdependence. And when you throw in nationalism, elite gamemanship, imperialism, globalization and multi-national corporations then the benefits may go to one particular group more than the others (and hurt others more than they benefit by it.)
The third factor I wanted to discuss was trade routes. Shipping, btw, is still one of the fastest and cheapest ways of getting material from point A to point B. Basically you can fit a lot more product on a ship than you can on a train, plane, or truck. You can't use trains and trucks to ship across the ocean, and planes just can't hold as much material. So shipping lanes are pretty important.
Take a look at this map:
It kind of gives you a sense of the largest shipping routes and some key locations. The Strait of Malacca, the Panama Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Suez Canal are all areas where trade must either flow through a constricted area or take a very long way around. Actually, here's a nice little article talking about 8 global choke points. Primarily discussing the flow of oil, but more trade goods than just oil ship through these chokepoints.
If you pay attention to history and/or current events, most of these names should already be familiar. I want to point to our history with Panama and the Panama Canal, though, because the transition from our control to Panama illustrates some strategic points. Namely that we don't actually have to control these choke points, so long as we have the freedom to navigate through them.
This is part of why the South China Sea is so tense right now (the possibility of oil within the sea itself is also a factor). We sail around to make a point of the freedom of the seas, China sees it as an infringement on their territory, and all it will take is one stupid hothead and a few leaders unable or unwilling to look weak and we could wind up in a war with China. The thing of it is, though, that so long as everyone is able to sail through the Strait of Malacca (and so long as there is no unreasonable taxes or duties that effectively limit usage) it shouldn't actually matter to much who has nominal control. I'm sure that betrays something about my own ignorance of the area...and perhaps it doesn't matter so much to us (given how far away we are), whereas to the small nations around there it could make a tremendous difference to their economy.
And, of course, there's always the fear that if China did control the straits and was hostile to the US, it would seriously impact our shipping.
Or rather, if we are talking about an existential threat, there's not a lot that we should truly be worried about. But tanks can't fight if they don't have fuel. People can't live if they can't get food. And there's a lot more to security than just having a lot of tanks and planes and soldiers.
Economics - well. I'm not an economist, and I recommend you take what I'm about to post with some skepticism, since I admit I am not an expert here. (When I daydream, I sometimes imagine I was wealthy enough to just putz around taking classes in economics, computer science, and finance...and then blog here about any interesting intersectionality. I don't want a degree in those fields, I just want to know them well enough to help build my understanding of the world we live in today.)
So anyways, there are two or three points I want to make about economics. First, nations do compete for scarce resources. Access to those resources may not quite count as an existential threat, or maybe it does. I phrased it that way to make a point about how different countries view this issue. One way of assessing our economic security is to see how capable we are of guaranteeing the resources we would need. (With regards to energy, for example, we have a somewhat mixed outlook. We do have our own domestic energy supplies. Oil, natural gas, etc. Some of that has been aided by fracking, and where energy security fits in with environmental concerns is a debate worth having at some point. But we are still a net consumer, not producer, of oil. So even though we probably could tighten our belts and ration resources if need be, we would struggle to keep our current standard of living without external sources. We are in a much better condition than Europe, however, and Russia's use of Gazprom in their foreign policy is something to pay attention to.)
Btw, economic security isn't just about energy. Or rare earth minerals, even. It's also about the basics of food, water, and enough resources for a sustained wartime effort. The US is in a good position, again, w/regards to food. We are quite the breadbasket, after all. I get a little fuzzy on exactly what is necessary here, but I do believe Athens lasted so long after their failed Sicilian Expedition in part because of their strong maritime trade-based economy. And that it's worth paying attention to the debate on how effective the Anaconda Plan was during the Civil War. There's also merit to those who point out that our enemies used very inexpensive IEDs to take out very expensive Strykers and other pieces of military equipment. In a sustained effort, can we afford to keep spending millions of dollars on equipment that our enemies destroy using parts that only cost a couple hundred dollars?
Economic security, however, gets into tricky territory. After all, our involvement with installing the shah in Iran was allegedly about oil security, and it rather backfired on us.
Second, I want to go into the importance of trade routes, and trade in general. Given what's been going on in this election year, a lot of people are questioning the benefit of trade and globalization. We have grown so interconnected, btw, that it's really hard to say who is dependent on what, and where. That is, we have Toyota cars built in the United States. American finished goods with subcomponents from China, Malaysia, Singapore, and more.
Again, I want to emphasize that you should talk to a good economist if you're interested in the subject. But I'll give a little anecdote that, oversimplified though it is, may be useful.
Picture the original independent farmstead. The family living there grows their own food, weaves their own clothes, milks their own cows, builds their own houses with material from their own fields and nearby land.
Now picture a neighbor moves in close by. The neighboring family has a field that isn't very good for planting, but is pretty good for pasturing cows. So the second family decides to get a few more cows than they need for their own sake, and offers to sell the extra milk to their neighbors. Those neighbors no longer need to keep their own cow, so maybe they sell the cow and turn the cow pasture into another field. Now they're growing more corn or wheat or whatever than they need for themselves, so they can turn around and sell that to their neighbor. Or take it to market.
Trading that surplus benefits both families. They're able to get more of what they need, they don't have to spend as much effort trying to do it all themselves, etc. But trade also makes it harder to go back to true independence. If disaster struck, the family that had sold their cow would have to invest in a new cow and turn a field back into pasture if they wanted to get their own milk again.
So anyways. Trade is good, mostly. But it leads to specialization and interdependence. And when you throw in nationalism, elite gamemanship, imperialism, globalization and multi-national corporations then the benefits may go to one particular group more than the others (and hurt others more than they benefit by it.)
The third factor I wanted to discuss was trade routes. Shipping, btw, is still one of the fastest and cheapest ways of getting material from point A to point B. Basically you can fit a lot more product on a ship than you can on a train, plane, or truck. You can't use trains and trucks to ship across the ocean, and planes just can't hold as much material. So shipping lanes are pretty important.
Take a look at this map:
It kind of gives you a sense of the largest shipping routes and some key locations. The Strait of Malacca, the Panama Canal, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Suez Canal are all areas where trade must either flow through a constricted area or take a very long way around. Actually, here's a nice little article talking about 8 global choke points. Primarily discussing the flow of oil, but more trade goods than just oil ship through these chokepoints.
If you pay attention to history and/or current events, most of these names should already be familiar. I want to point to our history with Panama and the Panama Canal, though, because the transition from our control to Panama illustrates some strategic points. Namely that we don't actually have to control these choke points, so long as we have the freedom to navigate through them.
This is part of why the South China Sea is so tense right now (the possibility of oil within the sea itself is also a factor). We sail around to make a point of the freedom of the seas, China sees it as an infringement on their territory, and all it will take is one stupid hothead and a few leaders unable or unwilling to look weak and we could wind up in a war with China. The thing of it is, though, that so long as everyone is able to sail through the Strait of Malacca (and so long as there is no unreasonable taxes or duties that effectively limit usage) it shouldn't actually matter to much who has nominal control. I'm sure that betrays something about my own ignorance of the area...and perhaps it doesn't matter so much to us (given how far away we are), whereas to the small nations around there it could make a tremendous difference to their economy.
And, of course, there's always the fear that if China did control the straits and was hostile to the US, it would seriously impact our shipping.
Thursday, October 20, 2016
American National Strategy - Current Situation
On to the fun stuff, though where do I start? I just spent a lot of time discussing the importance of the situation at hand, so I could start discussing economics, globalization, Syria, technological changes, nuclear weapons, or any other number of things. And I'll probably get to those. Eventually.
For now I want to start with the basics. Geopolitics. Let's start with existential threats. Here's a map of the United States:
The United States is in a pretty enviable position here. The continental US has two large oceans to our east and west. Our major neighbors are Canada and Mexico, neither of which is (currently) much of a threat. People don't always realize just how much space we're talking about here, either. I mean, you can drive across England in about 13 or 14 hours, which is almost as long as it takes an American to drive through Texas.
We get along pretty well with Canada (shared language and history), though our relationship with Mexico is a little more problematic. Actually, one of the worst case conventional scenarios I could imagine is a hostile Mexico allied with a large enemy. A force like that could cross our border and drive straight up the middle. Yes, I know, doesn't seem likely right now...but I think a core policy should be keeping our neighbors friendly. Neutral at worst. And we definitely don't want to push them into outright hostility. (A realist may point out that we could instead try to keep our neighbors weak. Sort of like Richelieu and what came to be Germany. I personally don't think it's a good idea, partly because even if they're weak they can ally with a larger hostile country, partly because you will probably fail eventually, partly because changing norms make it less acceptable today than back in Richelieu's day, but primarily because I don't think our strength is dependent on keeping others weak. And if you believe in free trade, which is kind of a big question this year, you must admit that countries with strong economies make better trading partners. If we worked with Mexico to end the drug war, undercut the cartels, get the corrupting drug money out of Mexican politics, and basically did our bit to help Mexico grow then one side effect is they'd probably have fewer people trying to immigrate here illegally.)
So. It wouldn't be easy to attack us directly. Probably the only nations with a better geography are islands like the UK, Japan, and Australia. Which is where the next bit comes in - population.
Yes, China and India together make up 36% of the world population. They have a LOT of people. China has four times our own population.
And we have twice as many as Russia. Almost as much as Russia, Iran and the Philippines combined. (Actually, I find this sort of comparison very interesting. I didn't realize Japan had almost as many people as Russia.) Population count isn't everything, of course. Some countries are aging, others have too many men and not enough women. There are different education levels and different fitness levels. Yet the population count does help give some perspective on what size military you can expect a nation to field.
We, for example, have less than a half a percentage of our entire population in the armed forces. And yet we still have a larger military than Russia (according to this site, Russia has the fourth largest military with 766,055 to our 1,400,000. In 2014 they're also estimated to spend 4.5% of their GDP on defense spending, as opposed to our 3.5%.)
Speaking of GDP, here's some world rankings:
Nation GDP (in billions) Rank
United States 18,561.93 1
China 11,391.62 2
Japan 4,730.30 3
Germany 3,494.90 4
India 2,250.99 7
Russia 1,267.75 12
So what does it all mean? Well, if you don't count nukes, or cyberwarfare, or terrorism, or pandemics and large scale natural disasters, then we're pretty much unassailable on the continental United States.
I hate saying that, and I keep trying to quality it further. It feels like the kind of statement the world loves to prove wrong. At the same time if I throw in too many exceptions it weakens the point - We're large both physically and demographically, we've got good geographic boundaries, and we have a strong economy. We'd be really, really, hard to take on directly.
That's not the entire story, of course. Just keep it in the back of your mind when I get into the next bit.
For now I want to start with the basics. Geopolitics. Let's start with existential threats. Here's a map of the United States:
The United States is in a pretty enviable position here. The continental US has two large oceans to our east and west. Our major neighbors are Canada and Mexico, neither of which is (currently) much of a threat. People don't always realize just how much space we're talking about here, either. I mean, you can drive across England in about 13 or 14 hours, which is almost as long as it takes an American to drive through Texas.
We get along pretty well with Canada (shared language and history), though our relationship with Mexico is a little more problematic. Actually, one of the worst case conventional scenarios I could imagine is a hostile Mexico allied with a large enemy. A force like that could cross our border and drive straight up the middle. Yes, I know, doesn't seem likely right now...but I think a core policy should be keeping our neighbors friendly. Neutral at worst. And we definitely don't want to push them into outright hostility. (A realist may point out that we could instead try to keep our neighbors weak. Sort of like Richelieu and what came to be Germany. I personally don't think it's a good idea, partly because even if they're weak they can ally with a larger hostile country, partly because you will probably fail eventually, partly because changing norms make it less acceptable today than back in Richelieu's day, but primarily because I don't think our strength is dependent on keeping others weak. And if you believe in free trade, which is kind of a big question this year, you must admit that countries with strong economies make better trading partners. If we worked with Mexico to end the drug war, undercut the cartels, get the corrupting drug money out of Mexican politics, and basically did our bit to help Mexico grow then one side effect is they'd probably have fewer people trying to immigrate here illegally.)
So. It wouldn't be easy to attack us directly. Probably the only nations with a better geography are islands like the UK, Japan, and Australia. Which is where the next bit comes in - population.
| Rank | Country | Population | % of Population |
| World | 7,256,490,011 | ||
| 1 | China | 1,367,485,388 | 18.84% |
| 2 | India | 1,251,695,584 | 17.25% |
| 3 | United States | 321,368,864 | 4.43% |
| 9 | Russia | 142,423,773 | 1.96% |
| 10 | Japan | 126,919,659 | 1.75% |
| 11 | Mexico | 121,736,809 | 1.68% |
| 12 | Philippines | 100,998,376 | 1.39% |
| 16 | Iran | 81,824,270 | 1.13% |
| 17 | Germany | 80,854,408 | 1.11% |
| 18 | Turkey | 79,414,269 | 1.09% |
| 21 | France | 66,553,766 | 0.92% |
| 22 | United Kingdom | 64,088,222 | 0.88% |
| 23 | Italy | 61,855,120 | 0.85% |
Yes, China and India together make up 36% of the world population. They have a LOT of people. China has four times our own population.
And we have twice as many as Russia. Almost as much as Russia, Iran and the Philippines combined. (Actually, I find this sort of comparison very interesting. I didn't realize Japan had almost as many people as Russia.) Population count isn't everything, of course. Some countries are aging, others have too many men and not enough women. There are different education levels and different fitness levels. Yet the population count does help give some perspective on what size military you can expect a nation to field.
We, for example, have less than a half a percentage of our entire population in the armed forces. And yet we still have a larger military than Russia (according to this site, Russia has the fourth largest military with 766,055 to our 1,400,000. In 2014 they're also estimated to spend 4.5% of their GDP on defense spending, as opposed to our 3.5%.)
Speaking of GDP, here's some world rankings:
Nation GDP (in billions) Rank
United States 18,561.93 1
China 11,391.62 2
Japan 4,730.30 3
Germany 3,494.90 4
India 2,250.99 7
Russia 1,267.75 12
So what does it all mean? Well, if you don't count nukes, or cyberwarfare, or terrorism, or pandemics and large scale natural disasters, then we're pretty much unassailable on the continental United States.
I hate saying that, and I keep trying to quality it further. It feels like the kind of statement the world loves to prove wrong. At the same time if I throw in too many exceptions it weakens the point - We're large both physically and demographically, we've got good geographic boundaries, and we have a strong economy. We'd be really, really, hard to take on directly.
That's not the entire story, of course. Just keep it in the back of your mind when I get into the next bit.
National Security Musings, Cont.
I want to get into the nitty gritty of strategy, but I do think there's a couple of points about human nature I should make first.
There does seem to be a universal (or almost entirely) universal desire for respect. Fairness. Decency. We can train ourselves out of it, teach ourselves that 'the world is not fair' and that 'this is just the way it is', but it's something that we lose because of life experiences and the choices we make. It's not something natural.
Which is why universal human rights are so powerful. It's not so much that the ideal matches reality, as that so long as reality fails at this...we are likely to see unrest and instability. Sure, 9/10 people will put their heads down and get on with life, no matter what. And yet there will always be that tenth troublemaker, that young person who hasn't had reality beat into them yet, or an old person who is too tired to care.
We can argue about what should and shouldn't be considered a human right, about where these ideas came from, and more. Later. What I wanted to focus on the most, here, is that living up to these ideals says something powerful, too. It says that you can lead a nation without arresting everyone who disagrees with you, or makes fun of you, or makes you the butt of a joke. That you can successfully impose law and order without resorting to torture. That such things are actually unnecessary to ruling, at all.
Which has certain implications - namely, that all the states who do engage in such behavior aren't doing it for reasons of state. The state can survive without it. Rather, all the rulers engaging in such behavior are doing it because they've confused their own self interest with the needs of the state.
What that also means is that every time we fail to live up to our ideals, we show that we don't truly believe that we can succeed while staying true to our ideals. That we don't think we can win without torture, or manipulating elections, or arresting those who disagree with us. (Kind of reminds me of an ex-boyfriend of mine, discussing 'Buy America' and Toyota. What he basically said was that he would buy the best car, whoever made it. And if that car wasn't American than we need to get our act together and start making the best car instead. Win not by pulling down the competition, but by pushing ourselves to be better. This, btw, is the exact opposite of what Donald Trump is doing. He's not going to "Make America Great Again" by creating an environment where we have the best manufacturers. Instead, he's going to do it by trying to make it harder for the competition to sell to us. Granted, you can say other countries have been manipulating the system in their favor already. This is another topic too long and complicated to get into right now, but I want to point out that we need challenged to be better and do better, to rise to the challenge. Not to whine about what other countries are doing.)
During the Cold War that I've been writing about, you could argue that a lot of our actions were taken because we didn't truly believe in capitalism. After all, if capitalism was the right path all we had to do was wait. Other countries will figure it out, eventually. Even if the very worst happened, if communism had swept the globe and capitalism had fallen by the wayside, if the beliefs were correct wouldn't they eventually have been resurrected?
The fear of communism, then, actually shows how little faith we have in our own system. Just as the justifications for 'enhanced interrogation methods' reveal how little we actually believe in rights such as "no cruel and unusual punishment". Sure, this was not applied to US citizens...but if we truly believe this is a right, then we should be practicing it 100%. Not deciding it's wrong for US citizens and acceptable for terrorists.
Ideals aren't something we're supposed to give up just because things get tough.
There does seem to be a universal (or almost entirely) universal desire for respect. Fairness. Decency. We can train ourselves out of it, teach ourselves that 'the world is not fair' and that 'this is just the way it is', but it's something that we lose because of life experiences and the choices we make. It's not something natural.
Which is why universal human rights are so powerful. It's not so much that the ideal matches reality, as that so long as reality fails at this...we are likely to see unrest and instability. Sure, 9/10 people will put their heads down and get on with life, no matter what. And yet there will always be that tenth troublemaker, that young person who hasn't had reality beat into them yet, or an old person who is too tired to care.
We can argue about what should and shouldn't be considered a human right, about where these ideas came from, and more. Later. What I wanted to focus on the most, here, is that living up to these ideals says something powerful, too. It says that you can lead a nation without arresting everyone who disagrees with you, or makes fun of you, or makes you the butt of a joke. That you can successfully impose law and order without resorting to torture. That such things are actually unnecessary to ruling, at all.
Which has certain implications - namely, that all the states who do engage in such behavior aren't doing it for reasons of state. The state can survive without it. Rather, all the rulers engaging in such behavior are doing it because they've confused their own self interest with the needs of the state.
What that also means is that every time we fail to live up to our ideals, we show that we don't truly believe that we can succeed while staying true to our ideals. That we don't think we can win without torture, or manipulating elections, or arresting those who disagree with us. (Kind of reminds me of an ex-boyfriend of mine, discussing 'Buy America' and Toyota. What he basically said was that he would buy the best car, whoever made it. And if that car wasn't American than we need to get our act together and start making the best car instead. Win not by pulling down the competition, but by pushing ourselves to be better. This, btw, is the exact opposite of what Donald Trump is doing. He's not going to "Make America Great Again" by creating an environment where we have the best manufacturers. Instead, he's going to do it by trying to make it harder for the competition to sell to us. Granted, you can say other countries have been manipulating the system in their favor already. This is another topic too long and complicated to get into right now, but I want to point out that we need challenged to be better and do better, to rise to the challenge. Not to whine about what other countries are doing.)
During the Cold War that I've been writing about, you could argue that a lot of our actions were taken because we didn't truly believe in capitalism. After all, if capitalism was the right path all we had to do was wait. Other countries will figure it out, eventually. Even if the very worst happened, if communism had swept the globe and capitalism had fallen by the wayside, if the beliefs were correct wouldn't they eventually have been resurrected?
The fear of communism, then, actually shows how little faith we have in our own system. Just as the justifications for 'enhanced interrogation methods' reveal how little we actually believe in rights such as "no cruel and unusual punishment". Sure, this was not applied to US citizens...but if we truly believe this is a right, then we should be practicing it 100%. Not deciding it's wrong for US citizens and acceptable for terrorists.
Ideals aren't something we're supposed to give up just because things get tough.
Tuesday, October 18, 2016
National Strategy - Idealism
I want to talk about idealist vs. realist foreign policy, but I've kind of been scared to. Or rather, I'm scared of the possible conclusions.
How so?
Well...if we say that we should live up to our ideals, then what's to keep us from going around and trying to make everyone else do so as well? "Become a capitalist democratic federal republic or we'll invade!" (Which is essentially what Russia claims we do).
Then there's the problems at a strategic level. Same problem we faced in a counterinsurgency. If you try to be everywhere at once, you're going to be rather weak everywhere. You won't be anywhere in sufficient strength to really make a difference (if your opposition is determined).
It's also the same problem with tackling poverty, I think. If some wealthy philanthropist decided to give all their money away equally, everyone would end up with such a small amount that it wouldn't make a difference. Idealism may be great in theory...but how do you apply it to the real world dilemmas of our time?
How do you apply idealism about human rights, say, consistently? If Russia and China think we're not serious about human rights, it's hard to blame them...we've been so inconsistent. (Though I think they believe human rights is just something we bring up to conceal a more selfish interest, rather than understanding that it's mostly genuine and the only inconsistency is that our realists don't feel it's worth risking our necks over.)
At the same time, idealism is actually pretty important. It what's gives us a future worth fighting for. A future TO fight for. Head in the clouds and unrealistic though idealists may be, their the ones that actually make the world a different (and sometimes better) place. Those who accept the world the way it is and learn to conform, realistic though they may be, are pretty much ensuring that the future is just like the present. In all it's flaws.
Not only that, Jim Collins noted that the corporations that lasted all had a greater purpose than simply 'to make money'. In a similar fashion, I think most people need to feel like their group is about more than selfish survival. That's what I like about this facebook meme:
No matter what you call us vs them, you can see that each side is pretty much exactly the same. That what you call them is just a matter of perspective. Is this always true? No, I don't think so. Yet to reasonably say that our side is better, we have to be about something more than just "raison d'etat"
Otherwise, well...a government is a government is a government, and it probably doesn't matter too much who is in charge so long as they make the trains run on time. (Since someone might misunderstand - I'm half joking here. Later on I might go into different economic systems and what they mean, or discuss the development of nationalism, and how little it mattered in earlier time periods. Right now it would be too much of a digression.)
That's enough for now. I still haven't gotten to the heart of our own strategy, but this seems like a good stopping point for now.
How so?
Well...if we say that we should live up to our ideals, then what's to keep us from going around and trying to make everyone else do so as well? "Become a capitalist democratic federal republic or we'll invade!" (Which is essentially what Russia claims we do).
Then there's the problems at a strategic level. Same problem we faced in a counterinsurgency. If you try to be everywhere at once, you're going to be rather weak everywhere. You won't be anywhere in sufficient strength to really make a difference (if your opposition is determined).
It's also the same problem with tackling poverty, I think. If some wealthy philanthropist decided to give all their money away equally, everyone would end up with such a small amount that it wouldn't make a difference. Idealism may be great in theory...but how do you apply it to the real world dilemmas of our time?
How do you apply idealism about human rights, say, consistently? If Russia and China think we're not serious about human rights, it's hard to blame them...we've been so inconsistent. (Though I think they believe human rights is just something we bring up to conceal a more selfish interest, rather than understanding that it's mostly genuine and the only inconsistency is that our realists don't feel it's worth risking our necks over.)
At the same time, idealism is actually pretty important. It what's gives us a future worth fighting for. A future TO fight for. Head in the clouds and unrealistic though idealists may be, their the ones that actually make the world a different (and sometimes better) place. Those who accept the world the way it is and learn to conform, realistic though they may be, are pretty much ensuring that the future is just like the present. In all it's flaws.
Not only that, Jim Collins noted that the corporations that lasted all had a greater purpose than simply 'to make money'. In a similar fashion, I think most people need to feel like their group is about more than selfish survival. That's what I like about this facebook meme:
No matter what you call us vs them, you can see that each side is pretty much exactly the same. That what you call them is just a matter of perspective. Is this always true? No, I don't think so. Yet to reasonably say that our side is better, we have to be about something more than just "raison d'etat"
Otherwise, well...a government is a government is a government, and it probably doesn't matter too much who is in charge so long as they make the trains run on time. (Since someone might misunderstand - I'm half joking here. Later on I might go into different economic systems and what they mean, or discuss the development of nationalism, and how little it mattered in earlier time periods. Right now it would be too much of a digression.)
That's enough for now. I still haven't gotten to the heart of our own strategy, but this seems like a good stopping point for now.
Sunday, October 16, 2016
Rural vs Urban America
For what's supposed to be a humorous website, this article has some very good points. Warning, though, there is cussing involved.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
I know drug addiction is a problem in rural areas, and I've seen many small towns that are struggling today. Two main things I wanted to point out.
First - with modern technology, it really doesn't have to be that way. Especially if telecommuting jobs continue to grow. I know a lot of people seem to prefer living in big cities, but I've got to admit that I don't see the appeal. Sure, I like to visit them on occasion. And it's nice to have more options. Better restaurants, bigger dating pool, enough customers to support more specialized shops. But get stuck in traffic every day trying to get to work? No thanks.
I live literally five minutes from work. As well as the grocery store, Barnes and Noble, and various places to eat and shop. If I can't find it here (or on the internet), I can spend a weekend in Chicago or Indianapolis or St Louis. But I'm not giving up two hours of every work day just sitting in traffic.
Cost of living is also significantly cheaper. So why are rural towns dying? Why aren't businesses sick of city costs pushing back out? (couple of answers - some are. Others need to be close to their market, or need the creativity that comes from random interactions which occur more easily in a city. Still, technology has made it so much easier to work remotely... We really ought to be decentralizing more. Take, for example, DC. On the one hand, it'd be harder to network and build connections if you're not in DC. On the other hand, the pentagon and various federal agencies make a nice big military target and much of the analysis and reporting could be done anywhere. We'll, depending on the classification level of course. Even with that, though, some analysis can be done in SCIFs at our various bases and don't require actually being in DC. Surely there's potential there?)
Anyways, second thing? Did you take a look at that map? America is a sea of Republican red, with Democratic blue islands. Yes, due to the population density those islands of blue have larger populations. Hence why Chicago helps make Illinois reliably blue, despite the red rural areas. It helps explain some of that political polarization we talk so much about. It's not just the segregation as social classes sort into various neighborhoods. It's also that someone in a small town is generally surrounded by like minded people, whereas those in a city are likely to also be surrounded by those who see things their way.
National Security Musings
The trouble with writing this post is that there are so many choices. I have to weigh various ideas and ask myself 'is this just good to know, or is it critical to our understanding of national security?'
There's a lot out there that is just good to know, particularly with regards to game theory, negotiation, nationalism, economics, technological change, and more.
The first point I want to make, or remake (as I can't emphasize this enough) is that everything is situationally dependent. Getting a clear-eyed view of the situation is over half the problem, especially since there are so many reasons to obscure or hide what's going on.
That said, getting that clear eyed view is a bit like qualitative analysis. That is - quantitative analysis seems solid and reassuring, since it's based on numbers and facts. Find a good sample size, conduct a poll, run some analysis on the results. Maybe get a standard deviation, or regression analysis, or something.
Qualitative analysis can be different. It involves in depth interviews with small groups of people. Yet it's important, as well, because sometimes how we frame the situation determines what we find. You can't create a poll and run statistical analysis if you don't know what questions to ask in the first place, or how to explain a correlation in your findings. Qualitative analysis, then, ideally involves an open-minded and in depth inquiry into a particular situation...which allows you to develop some sort of framework as to what factors are involved, how and why.
Qualitative studies work hand in hand with quantitative, since once you have a theory about what's going on you can create your quantitative studies and do some research to validate your framework. See if the correlations match what you predicted, etc.
In order to get a clear eyed understanding for a national strategy, you have to know what questions to ask in the first place, and how to interpret the answers. (This is why I'm going into those underlying assumptions in more depth.)
Underlying assumptions can encompass anything. Optimist or pessimist? Cooperation or competition? Do we live in a world where every nation is out for itself, or is there room for common ground? Zero sum game, or the opportunity for a win-win?
These things seem very basic, almost not worth mentioning. Yet consider water rights.
When I was in Helmand province, water was a big issue. People who lived upriver could use water freely, and grow crops that required plenty of irrigation. Those downriver, on the other hand, were left to make do with water that was more scarce and sometimes even salty. This limited what crops can grow profitably. (Opium, btw, grows in these conditions well enough that finding an economically comparable alternative for farmers is difficult. Especially since there was apparently a new strain established that used even less water.)
I talked to a hydrologist about the situation, and he insisted that there was enough water for everyone - it's just that everyone had to agree on how to use that water. This is where underlying assumptions come into play. If you think cooperation is possible, if you think other people would abide by an agreement, then it makes sense to get together and negotiate how you're going to use that water.
If, on the other hand, you think agreement is impossible, that everyone is selfish, and that everyone is going to ignore the agreement and get as much water as they can regardless...then there's no point negotiating anything. Get what water you can get, while the getting is good. (This also ties in with game theory, and social dilemmas. Understand that game theory is often based on artificial environments where students or other subjects are asked to respond to various scenarios. It's an interesting field that raises good points about how we actually interact, but be careful about how you apply those findings to the real world.)
So anyways. Applying this to national security - if you think we're capable of creating, implementing, and enforcing an agreement then you will think one way. If, on the other hand, you think it's impossible...you'll choose a completely different set of options. (Consider how this applies to the recent nuclear treaty with Iran).
What I'm personally most interested in, btw, is how you change from one view to another. Or rather, from distrust and opposition to cooperation...the other direction happens all too easily on it's own.
That is, if the hydrologist in Helmand was right and there was plenty of water (if everyone worked together) then how do you convince people to cooperate and support such an agreement? Particularly when their own history and experience shows that such agreement is unlikely?
There's a lot out there that is just good to know, particularly with regards to game theory, negotiation, nationalism, economics, technological change, and more.
The first point I want to make, or remake (as I can't emphasize this enough) is that everything is situationally dependent. Getting a clear-eyed view of the situation is over half the problem, especially since there are so many reasons to obscure or hide what's going on.
That said, getting that clear eyed view is a bit like qualitative analysis. That is - quantitative analysis seems solid and reassuring, since it's based on numbers and facts. Find a good sample size, conduct a poll, run some analysis on the results. Maybe get a standard deviation, or regression analysis, or something.
Qualitative analysis can be different. It involves in depth interviews with small groups of people. Yet it's important, as well, because sometimes how we frame the situation determines what we find. You can't create a poll and run statistical analysis if you don't know what questions to ask in the first place, or how to explain a correlation in your findings. Qualitative analysis, then, ideally involves an open-minded and in depth inquiry into a particular situation...which allows you to develop some sort of framework as to what factors are involved, how and why.
Qualitative studies work hand in hand with quantitative, since once you have a theory about what's going on you can create your quantitative studies and do some research to validate your framework. See if the correlations match what you predicted, etc.
In order to get a clear eyed understanding for a national strategy, you have to know what questions to ask in the first place, and how to interpret the answers. (This is why I'm going into those underlying assumptions in more depth.)
Underlying assumptions can encompass anything. Optimist or pessimist? Cooperation or competition? Do we live in a world where every nation is out for itself, or is there room for common ground? Zero sum game, or the opportunity for a win-win?
These things seem very basic, almost not worth mentioning. Yet consider water rights.
When I was in Helmand province, water was a big issue. People who lived upriver could use water freely, and grow crops that required plenty of irrigation. Those downriver, on the other hand, were left to make do with water that was more scarce and sometimes even salty. This limited what crops can grow profitably. (Opium, btw, grows in these conditions well enough that finding an economically comparable alternative for farmers is difficult. Especially since there was apparently a new strain established that used even less water.)
I talked to a hydrologist about the situation, and he insisted that there was enough water for everyone - it's just that everyone had to agree on how to use that water. This is where underlying assumptions come into play. If you think cooperation is possible, if you think other people would abide by an agreement, then it makes sense to get together and negotiate how you're going to use that water.
If, on the other hand, you think agreement is impossible, that everyone is selfish, and that everyone is going to ignore the agreement and get as much water as they can regardless...then there's no point negotiating anything. Get what water you can get, while the getting is good. (This also ties in with game theory, and social dilemmas. Understand that game theory is often based on artificial environments where students or other subjects are asked to respond to various scenarios. It's an interesting field that raises good points about how we actually interact, but be careful about how you apply those findings to the real world.)
So anyways. Applying this to national security - if you think we're capable of creating, implementing, and enforcing an agreement then you will think one way. If, on the other hand, you think it's impossible...you'll choose a completely different set of options. (Consider how this applies to the recent nuclear treaty with Iran).
What I'm personally most interested in, btw, is how you change from one view to another. Or rather, from distrust and opposition to cooperation...the other direction happens all too easily on it's own.
That is, if the hydrologist in Helmand was right and there was plenty of water (if everyone worked together) then how do you convince people to cooperate and support such an agreement? Particularly when their own history and experience shows that such agreement is unlikely?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)