Self-Indulgence as a Strategy
I highly recommend the pseudonymous Prof. Strauss’s “Incoherent Hegemon: US Strategy At The Crossroads,” about the Bush Administration’s determination to work strenuously toward no fewer than five mutually incompatible goals simultaneously, without prioritization. Hard as I’ve been on the Administration for its decisions surrounding the “War on Terror,” their least explicable (and forgivable) offensive may be the deliberate rollback of Russian influence in that country’s “near abroad.” This has amounted to alienating a nuclear power, however ramshackle, for minimal strategic gain.
Comment by Tom Scudder —
March 27, 2006 @ 9:35 am
But. But. Failure is not an option! Or so I hear.
Comment by Doug T —
March 27, 2006 @ 9:46 am
Thanks for the excellent link. That really lays out the issues. The realization that the spread of democracy and fighting Islamism and terrorism in the Middle East might not be compatible goals is fairly commonplace. The essay does an excellent job of showing that the strategic incoherence of the US goes well beyond that single conflict.
Comment by John Emerson —
March 27, 2006 @ 10:19 am
The guy didn’t really say that the five were mutually incompatible, just that they were distinguishable and conflicted in certain respect. Conceivably two or three of them might have been simultaneously doable with a little trimming.
Comment by Jon H —
March 27, 2006 @ 10:21 am
”Failure is not an option! Or so I hear.”
It isn’t an option. It’s destiny.