Another impressive read, and I like that this one is getting well-deserved traction in terms of the documentary work going on. My first read was the Soros analysis and response, but when I started following American Prestige, I did not make the connection.
I have been greatly enjoying your work, Derek's work, and our weekend warrior writer over on Foreign Exchange. Congratulations on the well-deserved recognition.
Congratulations on the script! Look forward to seeing the film. As far as the millenium challenge is concerned, how valid do you think criticism of the exercise were? e.g. claims that Van Riper was able to circumvent damage to his communication networks by using motorcycles that effectively traveled at light speed; there was the famous swarm of naval ships in the Persian Gulf achieved with speed boats that carried weapons system that would have been swamped by the weight of their own weapons in the real world. Are these genuine issues with the war game, or is this just CYA by Van Riper's critics? As a side note, the Iraq War I see as primarily a massive political failure. In terms of what the U.S. military was able to do, moving a massive force around the globe, overthrowing a conventional military force in a few weeks, sustaining military operations for years at a huge economic cost -- and still not have a total economic and social collapse on the home front -- it is remarkable on some level. I appreciate it more now as a technical challenge -- especially in light of the way things are playing out with Putin's own regime change "operation" against a near neighbor. However, even beyond the question of technical capacity, just because you can do something, it doesn't mean that you should do it. e.g. even in 2001, it was obvious that we would have been much better off as a country, and as a planet, if the Bush administration had spent trillions of dollars eliminating the need for reliance on fossil fuels. The fact that the alternative wasn't even part of any discussion, is itself instructive.
The only 'quantifying' of war that our elite are interested in is the quantity of dollars going to weapons manufacturers and contractors. The big change now (post Iraq/Afghanistan) is that we are going away from US direct involvement and ramping up the proxy involvement. Our weapons manufacturers seem to have zeroed in on that it is much more palatable and less likely to spawn mass protests if we cut out having to use our own troops, but instead send billions of dollars of weapons to proxy forces. They still get the profit, American soldiers don't have to die, and an American public is not likely to raise hell if the media coverage is handled well.
Unfortunately proxy wars are also equally difficult to model and predict the outcome of. But they don't care so long as the bottom line keeps up. The question is how long can this go on before there are serious geopolitical consequences or domestic economic consequences.
Would the abandonment of the fantasy of “quantifying” and “modeling” war say something about US military professionalisation and trends in civil-military relations (I'm here thinking of some of the scholarship of noted friend of the pod Samuel Huntington [Soldier and the State])?
Another impressive read, and I like that this one is getting well-deserved traction in terms of the documentary work going on. My first read was the Soros analysis and response, but when I started following American Prestige, I did not make the connection.
I have been greatly enjoying your work, Derek's work, and our weekend warrior writer over on Foreign Exchange. Congratulations on the well-deserved recognition.
Congratulations on the script! Look forward to seeing the film. As far as the millenium challenge is concerned, how valid do you think criticism of the exercise were? e.g. claims that Van Riper was able to circumvent damage to his communication networks by using motorcycles that effectively traveled at light speed; there was the famous swarm of naval ships in the Persian Gulf achieved with speed boats that carried weapons system that would have been swamped by the weight of their own weapons in the real world. Are these genuine issues with the war game, or is this just CYA by Van Riper's critics? As a side note, the Iraq War I see as primarily a massive political failure. In terms of what the U.S. military was able to do, moving a massive force around the globe, overthrowing a conventional military force in a few weeks, sustaining military operations for years at a huge economic cost -- and still not have a total economic and social collapse on the home front -- it is remarkable on some level. I appreciate it more now as a technical challenge -- especially in light of the way things are playing out with Putin's own regime change "operation" against a near neighbor. However, even beyond the question of technical capacity, just because you can do something, it doesn't mean that you should do it. e.g. even in 2001, it was obvious that we would have been much better off as a country, and as a planet, if the Bush administration had spent trillions of dollars eliminating the need for reliance on fossil fuels. The fact that the alternative wasn't even part of any discussion, is itself instructive.
The only 'quantifying' of war that our elite are interested in is the quantity of dollars going to weapons manufacturers and contractors. The big change now (post Iraq/Afghanistan) is that we are going away from US direct involvement and ramping up the proxy involvement. Our weapons manufacturers seem to have zeroed in on that it is much more palatable and less likely to spawn mass protests if we cut out having to use our own troops, but instead send billions of dollars of weapons to proxy forces. They still get the profit, American soldiers don't have to die, and an American public is not likely to raise hell if the media coverage is handled well.
Unfortunately proxy wars are also equally difficult to model and predict the outcome of. But they don't care so long as the bottom line keeps up. The question is how long can this go on before there are serious geopolitical consequences or domestic economic consequences.
Wow congrats Daniel! That's pretty exciting, are you working with them in an official capacity?
I think maybe this is the right link? https://jacobinmag.com/2020/11/the-general-who-brought-down-the-american-empire
So, entering the realm of the true Intelletuali organico?
Would the abandonment of the fantasy of “quantifying” and “modeling” war say something about US military professionalisation and trends in civil-military relations (I'm here thinking of some of the scholarship of noted friend of the pod Samuel Huntington [Soldier and the State])?