Must-read article

ARTICLE: If you so dumb, how come you ain't poor?, By Spengler

Brilliantly written piece sent to me by fellow blogger who said he saw much confluence with my thinking (which, I admit, rarely gets packaged as densely as Spengler so effortlessly achieves--and yes, that makes me covetous, but in the best way). I would agree with that blogger's assessment only on my most optimistic, Bush-forgiving days. Then again, Spengler's arguments on Iran's endemic weakness, Israel's enduring strategic strengths, and America's and China's increasingly overlapping security and economic interests fit me any day of the week.

So why do I regularly bash Bush, in addition to consistently entertaining (even touting) the inevitable long-term success of his Big Bang strategy (also implied here--in that butt-ugly, 5GW sort of way that I have indulged in the past, only to be condemned by some for my casually bloodthirsty arguments--as in, OPB)?

First, there is a time and place for everything in terms of advancing my career, which interests me most in the venues provided for vision spreading and marketization (i.e., my work with Enterra). To pretend not to cover that square daily is disingenuous--or just plain stupid.

Second, there is a time and place for everything in keeping the vision real. As soon as the consistent partisan appeal is discerned, your utility as a grand strategist is profoundly marginalized. Some dig that path, but to me, it smacks too much of a dog eating his own vomit (neat trick, but why bother?).

Third, there's the intellectual honesty argument, a function of the second point but worth mentioning all on its own. Celebrity through partisanship is certainly an easier row to hoe, but it reminds me of the character Bernstein's line in "Citizen Kane": It's not hard to make a lot of money... if all you want to do is make a lot of money.

Third and finally, there is sticking with your core audience, which for me is officers just below, and just moving into, flag rank (and no, I don't need any third-party validation on that, because these people have never been shy around me). For them, noting how Bush makes them fight under some of the worst strategic circumstances possible is important. Bush is not only burning his way through his political capital with voters, he's doing the same with our military's human capital. Ignoring that cost would be profoundly dishonest on my part, costing me connectivity with that core audience, so I don't care what it sounds like to everyone else.

I know many readers would like a consistently pro-Dem or pro-Repub (and, for some dedicated die-hards, definitely a pro-Israeli) line from me, but this chess game is inevitably played on multiple levels, and so I simply lack the ambition to pigeon-hole myself so.

Frankly, if I did, I'd get so bored I'd soon forgo the effort. Why muscle your brain up over a lifetime to use it like that?

Ending this navel-gazing, this article is a must read. Brutally optimistic in a way that emphasizes the continuing importance of nation-states.

Thanks to Lexington Green for sending it.

Comments

[Bill C.]

I hope these are important and relevant questions: (Using 19th Century China as an example.) Would it be improper to conclude that the production of instability in China in the 19th Century, by the Core military-market nexus of that time, caused the loss of the huge Chinese market to the world economy for much of the 20th Century? If so, did the production of instability pay off -- at an acceptable cost -- and in an acceptable time?

[Thomas Pamelia]

I ran into this when introducing PNM to my mother. She's a self-proclaimed NeoCon and had read up on you before she would take her own son's advice in taking the time to read a really good, thought provoking book.Perhaps she read that you voted on someone other that GWB but found that after reading a few chapters, political bias really is not present.It would seem that if a broad thinker slash grand strategist wants to keep the highest level of marketability, then intellectual honestly has to be priority one.But in thinking about it; doesn't it require a lot of double checking, rereading, reanalyzing of your work to make sure you haven't tipped the partisan scale one way or another?