e-limbo, e-zine de informacion y analasis de modos de vida actual
25.06.2019 / Sesión no Iniciada 

 _enviar articulo

e-mail emisor
e-mail receptor
Ayúdanos a evitar contactos automáticos
Anti Spam

En estos tiempos de hipercomunicación bastaría la invitación de enviar a un amigo cualquiera de los textos que consideres interesantes algo redundante: demasiada comunicación, demasiados textos y , en general, demasiado de todo.
Es posible que estemos de acuerdo... pero cuando encuentras algo interesante en cualquier sitio, la red, la calle, tu casa, o un lugar escondido y remoto, compartirlo no sólo es un acto (acción, hecho) de amistad o altruismo, también es una manera de ahorrar tiempo a los demás (y de que te lo ahorren a ti (si eres afortunado) a costa del tiempo que tu has podido derrochar (emplear) y el gustazo de mostrar que estuviste ahí (o donde fuera ) un poco antes (el tiempo ya no es más el que era).
Comparte con tus conocidos aquello que encuentras, es evolución.
Do Countries have strategies?
03-11-06 David Bruce Allen 

Throughout the summer, I have been asked over and over again if the United States has a strategy for Iraq? Usually, the well-intentioned questioner provides me with his answer before I have an opportunity to comment. I am told, "The Americans have no strategy; the people who run the country are incompetent … evil … stupid … sick … greedy… etc."

Like conspiracy theories, such responses reduce behavior to a simplemindedness that eliminates doubt and grounds us in the comfortable knowledge that we are smarter than the clods who rule the world.

Feeling superior is always enjoyable, but it does little to help us understand what to do about Iraq (even Donald Rumsfeld knows Iraq is a disaster). This task requires us to reflect much more carefully on the role of strategy and decision-making in liberal democracies.

First the bad news for strategists: liberal democracies rarely have identifiable strategies. The United States has never had a 5-year plan (Stalin's favorite planning instrument in the Soviet era), nor a Central Committee to do the planning and evaluate outcomes. Well-functioning (i.e., inefficient) democracies are structured so that power and consensus are fractured. The political parties in power (at all levels) are expected to have a policy agenda and a vague idea of how to put that agenda in action, but little more. Only in times of crisis, in particular in times of war, is there the expectation that partisan politics will be put aside and consensus achieved so that strategic plans and appropriate action can be put into place. Winston Churchill's success in World War II and his later difficulties as Primer Minister are eloquent evidence of how differently democratic societies customarily function in war and in peace.

In the case of the Iraq War, the American people initially took on a war posture and the Bush administration was able to implement Donald Rumsfeld's strategic reinvention of contemporary warfare – reduced troop involvement and quick and dirty social reconstruction. Unfortunately, Rumsfeld's strategy failed on both accounts, resulting in unacceptably high casualty levels and civil war in Iraq. And as time went on, the American public gradually withdrew its support for the war.

Most observors have argued that Americans withdrew support because the strategy failed. This is not quite true. The majority of Americans withdrew their support for the war because they rejected the Bush administration's justification for the war. A failed strategy can be replaced by a more effective strategy; a failed mission requires a more comprehensive rethinking.

Unable to rethink the mission, the Bush Administration faced lack of support (and consensus) and found it impossible to develop a new military strategy in Iraq. There was no way to increase troop involvement, no way to involve allies, no way to convince the Iraqis that Americans could succeed. On these practical grounds, I, and other strategists, have argued that the only tenable option has been (and still is) immediate withdrawal.

A growing number of world leaders, among them Iran's Ahmadinejad, have concluded that the disagreement and disarray in the United States on Iraq is evidence of a terminal moral weaknesses afflicting Western liberal democracies. In response to these attacks, the President of U.S. accuses those opposed to the war of providing succor to the enemy. Both President Ahmadinejad and President Bush are wrong.

Disagreement and disarray are necessary, positive elements of liberal democracies. At the societal level, we do not have strategies; we do not make plans. Rather we enjoy a polity (or polities), loosely grouped together citizens who do honor to Schumpeter's often cited "creative destruction". We work in different directions, creating multiple, and sometimes conflicting, social trends, as we search for answers. We give lots of work to sociologists trying to figure out the meaning of our behaviors.

In this buzzing whirring confusion that is the experience of liberal democracy, change does happen. Just this past week, Californians decided to impose strict rules on CO2 emisions. California will fight with the federal government and the car manufacturers about it, but they will eventally win because the idea has "legs". There is no real strategy here, simply a social movement that decides that an idea is right and needs to be acted upon. The process of change will be the usual slow mess.

The upside is that the "usual slow mess" makes it difficult for democracies to fight wars; it is highly unadvisable for democracies to be aggressors. Only when there is true social consensus are democracies successful at war; only when wars are clearly defensive have democracies been able to achieve such consensus.

There are many who consider the views expressed here both naïve and inaccurate. They have lots of good arguments for why the polical decision-making process in the U.S. is failing. I will try here to set out in fair manner what I think is their most important points, and why I believe they are wrong. The critics argue that: 1) the electoral and legislative processes are corrupted by campaign spending rules that favor the rich and powerful; 2) state and local legislatures engage in egregious gerrymandering of districts; 3) lobbyists are given free reign.

On all three points they are right. We differ, however, in the conclusions we draw from the evidence. The U.S. is not on the edge of either economic or social collapse.

Americans will respond to the disrepair of the electoral and legislative processes. However, there will be no master strategy set out by one of leading political parties. Rather there will be a polity consensus that change must happen, and in the usual uncoordinated way things work in democracies, laws will be amended, law-breakers will be prosecuted, and somehow things are marginally improved so that the democracy regains functionality.

Unfortunately for we strategists, liberal democracies will remain bad at strategy. Liberal democracies will also remain bad at imposing their will upon the population, and slow to respond to changes in the environment – e.g., illegal immigration.

And so, you have my answer. No, the U.S. does not have a strategy for Iraq, nor for immigration, nor for education, nor for much of anything else.

... by the way, neither do the Europeans.

See more articles and comments from David Bruce Allen [Strategic Thinking]


Rating: 4 - 1 voto(s).

No existen comentarios.
Comentario / Comment:
  atención: para realizar comentarios tienes que ser usuario registrado.


12-04-16_ Como salir del odio: entrevista al filósofo Jacques Rancière
10-01-10_ ¿ Y si el asombro llegara a su fin? * UMBERTO ECO
31-08-08_ Juegos en PEKÍN
16-11-07_ Bunker Spreckels * Los excesos de un depredador
14-10-07_Marshall McLuhan * GAMES
04-09-07_ Chapoteando en el asfalto (como chupetear cabezas de camarones)
03-08-07_ Good copy, bad copy
09-07-07_ La familia y Münster
12-05-07_ Tom, Mickey, DeLillo... un hombre de verdad y otros atajos...
08-05-07_ La rara lengua: los pirahas
03-05-07_How Japanese Toys Conquered the World
24-04-07_ Gapminder disponible para todos...
21-04-07_ La iglesia católica elimina el limbo: sólo quedamos nosotros.
15-04-07_ The U.S. Vs John Lennon
02-06-07_ To Die Upon the Hand I Love So Well
04-04-07_ Clases de dibujo
04-03-07_ 9 classic educational films about drugs, sex and alcohol
02-03-07_ Confesiones de un pecador en el s.XXI
28-02-07_ Victor Manuel... atrapado por su pasado
10-06-08_ La alegría de vivir después del fin del arte
18-02-07_ Why Some of Us Don't Have Emotional Intelligence...
06-02-07_ Espías como nosotros
01-02-07_ The Great Afterlife Debate * Michael Shermer v. Deepak Chopra
29-01-07_ The Apotheosis of David Beckham
27-01-07_ Memento Mori
18-01-07_ Quiero dejar de no vivir
15-01-07_ Los nuevos feminismos (en El Pais)
14-01-07_ Voting with your trolley
07-01-07_ Sin menear el bigote
06-01-07_ Esto son 200 calorías
17-12-06_ Ablación * La tiranía de la superstición
09-12-06_ Odio Barcelona
07-12-06_ Probability beach
14-11-06_ SOTOK * más allá del más allá
10-11-06_ Madrid defeats Barcelona * Here's Why
03-11-06_Do Countries have strategies?
01-11-06_600 millones de euros
01-11-06_ Asesinos bendecidos
27-10-06_Montilla Nocilla (no silla)
25-10-06_Battle of the New Atheism
30-09-06_Campeonato del mundo de Ajedrez * Chips en el retrete
21-09-06_aclamados artistas contemporáneos
13-09-06_Breve Diccionario de Español para extranjeros (futbolistas)
13-09-06_The global politics of cricket
17-08-06_Un retrato del Siglo XXI
15-08-06_Speedo freaks
03-08-06_El periodismo deportivo
28-07-06_Muhammad Ali
22-07-06_Why Diving Makes Soccer Great * In defense of soccer's biggest villains.
27-06-06_Antes de hacer ejercicio, tome cerezas
10-05-08_ Como jugar Mahjong
27-06-06_It's inequality, love
13-06-06_Raúl asume con tristeza su suplencia... cachis
04-06-06_Planeta fútbol
05-06-06_Big interview * Lewis Hamilton
07-06-06_By the Light of the Equipment
07-06-06_The Super Fight
19-04-06_Wanna piece of this?
29-03-06_Federer Redux: More Than a Household Name
12-03-06_Cómo robar arte y colocarlo en el mercado
26-02-06_The Opposite of Doping
03-08-07_ La resurrección del dios argentino
08-02-06_Schumi contra Schumi
08-02-06_This Is My Board
03-02-06_For Surfers, All Waves Lead to Hawaii
26-01-06_The Underdog: How I Survived The World's Most Outlandish Competitions - Joshua Davis
27-01-06_Ferrari, ganar o cambiar
20-01-06_Tigris Mystic contre Boulogne Boys
18-01-06_Sepuku entre las piernas
16-01-06_Ayudas nutricionales de riesgo
09-01-06_He shoots! He scores!
19-12-05_The Super Fight
05-12-05_George Best: ¡No mueran como yo!
03-11-05_Male Athletes Aren't Ready for Gay Teammates
03-09-05_La rebelión histórica
19-06-05_El cielo sobre ruedas
31-05-05_Joseph Ratzinger y los neumáticos de Valentino Rossi



Regístrate y disfruta de utilidades de administración y gestión de los contenidos de e-limbo*
Recibe las novedades en tu correo electronico.
El futuro está escrito en las estrellas... Horóscopo creado por J.G. Ballard y dedicado a todos vosotros.
Aplicaciones y herramientas necesarias para navegar y utilizar los contenidos del limbo electrónico e internet (www).
Artículos de e-limbo* en formato PDF preparados para viajar y aportar información allá donde estés. (y seguir salvando árboles)

_e-limbo * apoya



Mais uma edição do podcast Música Livre para o Archivo Vivo, do Centro Cultural da Espanha/AECID. ...
Ante preguntas de oyentes y amigos, puedo responder ahora que Vía Límite continuará en Radio ...
SORPRESA¡!¡! An unreleased version of Talking Heads' "Psycho Killer" with Arthur Russell on cello
Optimizado: Firefox, Safari, Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Explorer. Resolución óptima: 1024x768
ISSN: 1885-5229    Aviso Legal e-limbo.org*