Chaitanya Jyothi Museum Opening, 2000
RAMANAM
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.
Countrymen,
ORBIS NON SUFFICIT
SOLUS DEUS SUFFICIT
Thanks, looks quite good. A bit of fuzzy jargon here and there but overall clear and meaningful.
The use of the words compete and adversary to describe basic posture towards an enemy or potential enemy implies bleed over into fight and defeat but without admitting the implication. So those are weasel words in this context.
The anytime anywhere phrase is not attached to an as directed by [POTUS/SecDef] qualifier so the statement could be interpreted to mean the unit mucks about in the world as they see fit. Of course, that is not meant, but without the qualifier a dishonest actor could say, See, US military has gone rogue, are full of themselves, their own powers. Since other elements of USG are doing just that, and known to be doing, wording on this point may be improved.
The anytime anywhere potential is exactly the one most in need of rational strategic guidance. What one can do and what is good for one to do are rarely the same. Enter ye by the narrow gate, for wide is the gate to perdition. Usually the potential far exceeds the good for, which is an alluring occasion for nations and persons to diminish themselves. They fall in love with their potentials and ignore responsibility for discovering and pursuing only their essentials . . . by deploying their potentials only.
Essentials against potentials. An interesting way to frame the strategic question. It can be made to look like a budgeting question, but really it is not. It is budgeting only if the lure of the potentials is driving the discussion. Budgeting is for reining in the wild horses of desire, the lure of potentials. Not terribly easy or reliable because one is working against, not with, powers of being.
The discussion should be driven from the other direction: our position on the globe is essentially what and should be essentially what? With good, accurate, rational answers to those Qs, potentials can be called forth as needed and restrained from running amok, to loss and unhappiness.
What this mission statement contemplates — raising potentials — remains valid, but if complete, it would include recognition that the potentials are legitimate only as servants of a national strategic goal — essentials — and that if that goal is not in view for all to see and obey (military) or approve (civilian), the potentials should be held in abeyance until it is or at least be deployed only where the major precepts deriving from recognized essentials can be anticipated with reasonable accuracy.
It could be argued, though not with complete honesty, that this mission statement contemplates ramping up potentials so much as to force their allure to blind policy makers against the prior question, What should we do, what really is good for us to do now and long-term?
The toy [potentials] is so damned pretty, use it already!, is the temptation high potentials (steaming, gleaming horses) embody. In this case, mucking about in hundreds of situations around the globe without a rational and stated (publicly approved) purpose. The intelligence of defense contractors, military personnel, spooks, politicians, lawyers, and bureaucrats often is subdued by the allure of such potentials.
Such an argument would be unfair to this mission statement’s intent, and when someone is determined to be unfair, they will be unfair. But at least for domestic consumption, the idea of essentials controlling potentials is long-term useful mentation and deserving into a mission statement.
Structure (male principle) has to guide energy (female principle) or energy runs to chaos. The obverse is that if energy does not vivify structure, structure collapses to stupidity. Either way is chaos, but one is bright and the other is dull, e.g. today, Germany/UK and Venezuela/Iran, respectively.
It is more often the case in history that chaos, when it occurs, is of the bright kind than the dull.
Βασιλεία του Θεού
Kingdom of God
Update 1: Paul Mirengoff commits signature hand-wringing as a post titled Trump’s Dilemma. As is often the case, creative response occurred:
David R. Graham commented
This reasoning ricochets about endlessly under the strategic question of US interests in the region altogether. What is the point of any USA activity in the region? That Q has not been answered or even asked, so far as I can see, by anyone bearing high national responsibility in D.C. or elsewhere. The reasoning here avoids it altogether and is thus heat without purpose or issue.
And this . . . using military force is not the same thing as going to war. . . I freely confess, before God and Humanity, utterly subdues my patience.
dankleitman to David R. Graham
Preventing a fanatical and aggressive state obtain nuclear weapons and means of delivery that can threaten all of Europe and the Middle East seems like a goal worth pursuing. You think not?
David R. Graham to dankleitman • 2 minutes ago
False premise. What USA interests are in Europe and MENA? Answer in thorough detail. And, have you signed up to carry a firearm in a combat formation? Has your son or daughter? Make it personal or you are spouting only.
mrdoug1 to David R. Graham
I agree with that statement, while recognizing there can be overlap and that the former can lead to the latter. So, e.g., a single cruise strike at an Iranian base would be military force, but may not mean going to war. What is so hard do understand about that?
David R. Graham to mrdoug1
Biff your neighbor and, when the police arrive, tell them it wasn’t a biff biff.
SigridInger commented
At West Point, one learns that there are four major elements of power to influence enemies, and military force is only one of them. The others are economics, politics, & information.
So, there are lots of possible tools in Prez Trump’s toolkit, yet too many people instantly go to punch them in the nose. No, I’m not thinking of Mr. Bolton, but the dunderhead Max Boot — it takes all kinds. While the Left will take delight if we should use military force, so they can cry[,] He got us into war!, Prez Trump [is] not ever going to listen to MB.
I, for one, am delighted to know that the president is judicious & measured. What is the rush? He excels at shaking the box & comes up with all sorts of unexpected ways to approach things. I trust that time will show that he handles this situation with equanimity.
Just as Israel has been reaching out to the Iranian people, rather than the mad mullahs, Prez Trump is doing the same — I expect that we will soon be having productive talks with the regime. The Iran problem won’t be one before very long, and not one of our soldiers will give their lives to slake Max’s fragile ego.
David R. Graham to SigridInger
Excellent! Thank you! Great to hear cool sense from Uncle Sam’s Rockbound Highland Home For … Soldiers!
The Mullahs, not Iranians per se, are the bad guys. POTUS Trump today hit the bullseye with a comprehensive Executive Order addressing those bad guys.
As you say, war-fighting is only one asset of statecraft. I regard information operations as tools inside each of three primal assets of statecraft: war-fighting, finance, and diplomatics. But that aside, your point that POTUS Trump has plenty of asset other than boomies to hurl at the Mullahs is the truth, apparently now set to its purpose of freedom.
FWIW: I see no US political support — i.e., the general electorate — for US full-spectrum, multi-dimension warfare in Iran. Nor I think should there be. POTUS’ instincts are correct. There is, IMO, one place and circumstance where there would be US political support — in the general electorate — for US full-spectrum, multi-dimension warfare: joint operations with Mexico to hose the cartels. That, among other consequences, would hit hard the Iranian Mullahs and their proxies as well as a casting call of Salafis, who live largely from trafficking drugs, rare commodities, and persons.
But anything like that would have to be joint operations, with Mexico, for it to be politically acceptable to the USA electorate. They would be delighted to do it, but not on their own. I wonder who more supports/protects the cartels, Mexican Spanish or Mexican Indians?
Update 2: Glenn Reynolds: Me, then: I love lawyers. I am a lawyer. But there are plenty of places where the role of lawyers should be limited, and war is certainly one of them. Nothing has happened since to make me think I was wrong.
AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA
