Jump to content

A National Strategic Narrative


Recommended Posts

This is a link to the original paper.http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/A%...20Narrative.pdfThis links to a good article at foreignpolicy.com about the paper.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011...3/the_y_articleI suggest taking 15 minutes and reading the paper, I hope it'll make you think about a few things.Keep in mind that these are serving officers who wouldn't have published this without their superior's agreement.

In one sentence, the strategic narrative of the United States inthe 21st century is that we want to become the strongest competitor and most influentialplayer in a deeply inter-connected global system, which requires that we invest less indefense and more in sustainable prosperity and the tools of effective global engagement.
They're saying spend less on defense and more on the capital of the US both human and physical.It's too bad that the political process is too dumb to have intelligent conversations about things like this.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll read it, but that one sentence is critical, if for no other reason than the security of the West from the Communists and Mongrels can no longer be an affair wholly sustained by the US. A lot of the sentiments referred to by leftists as examples of 'working socialism' only does so (works) because those same countries don't have to proportionally contribute what the US does to keep the hordes from storming their borders and pillaging their dumb, naive, idealistic, egalitarian retard faces. ... and the only reason the Canadians want us to spend less on defense is because they know its inevitable that one day we confiscate your stupid "country" and put you to work in our industries at China wage levels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Hard to believe that countries that are our so called "friends" really want us to spend less on their defense.Could western europe really be able to afford their little social experiments without being under the umbrella of the US military.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's too bad that the political process is too dumb to have intelligent conversations about things like this.
Hard to believe that countries that are our so called "friends" really want us to spend less on their defense.Could western europe really be able to afford their little social experiments without being under the umbrella of the US military.
Link to post
Share on other sites
... and the only reason the Canadians want us to spend less on defense is because they know its inevitable that one day we confiscate your stupid "country" and put you to work in our industries at China wage levels.
This is true, though not because the size of your military is relevant in any way. Let's be honest, even with an immediate 95% cutback, you could still have your way up here. Perhaps cutting military spending slightly back from its current insane, unsustainable levels (unsustained adjectives ftw) will put off the inevitability you describe just a little longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hard to believe that countries that are our so called "friends" really want us to spend less on their defense.Could western europe really be able to afford their little social experiments without being under the umbrella of the US military.
Yeah, well it was hard for me to understand that the Republican strategy of paying for our wars was lowering taxes on the rich. Weird how things change. I doubt that line of logic would have flown in WWII.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, well it was hard for me to understand that the Republican strategy of paying for our wars was lowering taxes on the rich. Weird how things change. I doubt that line of logic would have flown in WWII.
We don't have an income problem we have a spending problem. They are not the same.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is true, though not because the size of your military is relevant in any way. Let's be honest, even with an immediate 95% cutback, you could still have your way up here. Perhaps cutting military spending slightly back from its current insane, unsustainable levels (unsustained adjectives ftw) will put off the inevitability you describe just a little longer.
I'm sorry mrdannyg, but you won't be qualifying for our "Putting Canada To Work" program.Please report to the crematoria.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry mrdannyg, but you won't be qualifying for our "Putting Canada To Work" program.Please report to the crematoria.
That's fine. As a proud Jewish man, manual labour isn't really my thing anyway.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We don't have an income problem we have a spending problem. They are not the same.
So, the answer to cutting spending was to spend money on wars? Oh okay.But really, if we had more money, the spending wouldn't be as much of a problem would it? And that still didn't really answer my-- well, I didn't really ask anything. It's just odd that the platform is, "We are going to spend trillions figihting our enemies, we have a war on terror, it's going to cost trillions of dollars and everyone is going to have to pitch in for the good of the country, well, except the rich, we're not going to ask them, if fact we are going to give them more not to help."
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone actually read the thing? It's not really about military spending as such, its about not using military dominance as a policy tool. The authors suggest that controlling a closed system is not the model for the 21st century(p5). This could be said to follow from the Soviet failure to retain control over Eastern Europe. Generally speaking, authoritarianism is on the wane globally. The authors believe that having credibility in leading is more important than 'compellance'.Also the internet is referred to as enabler of trans-national, and extra-territorial identities, movements and class formations - having consequences for the 20th century mode of international politics and narratives.But nahhh, let's just have another Reps vs Dems slanging match...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Politics are not for poker, and poker is not for politics. It was kind of funny when I was in college I did a research paper to see if famous card players ever sponsored any major politicians and I came up pretty much empty. The game is very neutral.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
This is a link to the original paper.http://www.wilsoncenter.org/events/docs/A%...20Narrative.pdfThis links to a good article at foreignpolicy.com about the paper.http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011...3/the_y_articleI suggest taking 15 minutes and reading the paper, I hope it'll make you think about a few things.Keep in mind that these are serving officers who wouldn't have published this without their superior's agreement.They're saying spend less on defense and more on the capital of the US both human and physical.It's too bad that the political process is too dumb to have intelligent conversations about things like this.
As Americans we have access to a vast array of resources. Perhaps the most important first stepwe can take, as part of a National Strategy, is to identify which of these resources are renewableand sustainable, and which are finite and diminishing. Without doubt, our greatest resource isAmerica’s young people, who will shape and execute the vision needed to take this nationforward into an uncertain future. But this may require a reawakening, of sorts. Perhaps becauseour nation has been so blessed over time, many of us have forgotten that rewards must be earned,there is no “free ride” – that fair competition and hard work bring with them a true sense ofaccomplishment. We can no longer expect the ingenuity and labor of past generations to sustainour growth as a nation for generations to come. We must embrace the reality that withopportunity comes challenge, and that retooling our competitiveness requires a commitment andinvestment in the future.Inherent in our children is the innovation, drive, and imagination that have made, and willcontinue to make, this country great. By investing energy, talent, and dollars now in theeducation and training of young Americans – the scientists, statesmen, industrialists, farmers,inventors, educators, clergy, artists, service members, and parents, of tomorrow – we are trulyinvesting in our ability to successfully compete in, and influence, the strategic environment ofthe future. Our first investment priority, then, is intellectual capital and a sustainableinfrastructure of education, health and social services to provide for the continuing developmentand growth of America’s youth.
This begins at home with quality health care and education, with a vital economy and low ratesof unemployment, with thriving urban centers and carefully planned rural communities, with lowcrime, and a sense of common purpose underwritten by personal responsibility. We often hearthe term “smart power” applied to the tools of development and diplomacy abroad empoweringpeople all over the world to improve their own lives and to help establish the stability needed tosustain security and prosperity on a global scale. But we can not export “smart power” until wepractice “smart growth” at home. We must seize the opportunity to be a model of stability, amodel of the values we cherish for the rest of the world to emulate. And we must ensure that ourdomestic policies are aligned with our foreign policies. Our own “smart growth” can serve asthe exportable model of “smart power.”
The advent of the internet and world wide web, that ushered in the information age and greatlyaccelerated globalization, brought with it profound second and third order effects theimplications of which have yet to be fully recognized or understood. These effects include thenear-instantaneous and anonymous exchange of ideas and ideologies; the sharing andmanipulation of previously protected and sophisticated technologies; vast and transparent socialnetworking that has homogenized cultures, castes, and classes; the creation of complex virtualworlds; and, a universal dependence on the global grid from every sector of society that hasbecome almost existential. The worldwide web has also facilitated the spread of hateful andmanipulative propaganda and extremism; the theft of intellectual property and sensitiveinformation; predatory behavior and the exploitation of innocence; and the dangerous anddestructive prospect of cyber warfare waged from the shadows of non-attribution and deception.Whether this revolution in communication and access to information is viewed as thedemocratization of ideas, or as the technological catalyst of an apocalypse, nothing has sosignificantly impacted our lives in the last one hundred years. Our perceptions of self, society,religion, and life itself have been challenged. But cyberspace is yet another dimension within thestrategic ecosystem, offering opportunity through complex interdependence. Here, too, we mustinvest the resources and develop the capabilities necessary to sustain our prosperity and securitywithout sacrificing our values.
By holding up a model worthy of desire in other places, the order as prescribed by the West(US) can cause the spread of certain values overseas. If the standard of living and opportunity can be communicated through the WWW for example, then the citizens of far-off lands can aspire to this and demand changes to behaviour from their own leaders.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Politics are not for poker, and poker is not for politics. It was kind of funny when I was in college I did a research paper to see if famous card players ever sponsored any major politicians and I came up pretty much empty. The game is very neutral.
I love this random drop-in
Link to post
Share on other sites
Politics are not for poker, and poker is not for politics. It was kind of funny when I was in college I did a research paper to see if famous card players ever sponsored any major politicians and I came up pretty much empty. The game is very neutral.
Guess you never heard of a guy named negreneau.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Budget-Overview.jpgThe income has increased with the spending, until recently.
Right around when we started two wars combined with blanket tax cuts? I didn't say we have had income problems forever; it's definitely a recent thing. It's the only way to explain growing such a huge deficit since 1999. We need moderate tax increases and major cuts to our Big 3 long term commitments (Medicare/SS/Defense)----raisng age eligibility would be better than monster benefit cuts for the first two.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Right around when we started two wars combined with blanket tax cuts? I didn't say we have had income problems forever; it's definitely a recent thing. It's the only way to explain growing such a huge deficit since 1999. We need moderate tax increases and major cuts to our Big 3 long term commitments (Medicare/SS/Defense)----raisng age eligibility would be better than monster benefit cuts for the first two.
Federal revenue has remained a remarkably stable 18-20% of GDP for over 60 years, and spending tended to match that. Yet somehow it's an income problem when spending jumps to 25% of GDP? LOL.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Federal revenue has remained a remarkably stable 18-20% of GDP for over 60 years, and spending tended to match that. Yet somehow it's an income problem when spending jumps to 25% of GDP? LOL.
Facts matter Henry.The facts are that the US Federal Government is taking in less revenue as a percentage of GDP than any time since 1950. In 2000 it was 20% and in 2011 it's 14.4 %. Tax rates are at historic low levels.http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicalshttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fi...ts/hist01z2.xls
Link to post
Share on other sites
Facts matter Henry.The facts are that the US Federal Government is taking in less revenue as a percentage of GDP than any time since 1950. In 2000 it was 20% and in 2011 it's 14.4 %. Tax rates are at historic low levels.http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicalshttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fi...ts/hist01z2.xls
So the rich's tax cut under Bush from 39% to 35% equates to 7% of the GDP of the USA?Or is it possible that losses in corporation's and individual people's tax returns from 2008-2010 resulted in less taxes owed across the board after forwarding those losses?I mean...if facts actually matter and stuff...
Link to post
Share on other sites
Federal revenue has remained a remarkably stable 18-20% of GDP for over 60 years, and spending tended to match that. Yet somehow it's an income problem when spending jumps to 25% of GDP? LOL.
I clearly said it's both and recommended more cuts than taxes. You're not even trying anymore.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So the rich's tax cut under Bush from 39% to 35% equates to 7% of the GDP of the USA?Or is it possible that losses in corporation's and individual people's tax returns from 2008-2010 resulted in less taxes owed across the board after forwarding those losses?I mean...if facts actually matter and stuff...
It's a 5.6 % difference and is a combination of lower income tax rates, lower payroll tax rates, lower capital gains tax rates and some of what you're talking about.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Facts matter Henry.The facts are that the US Federal Government is taking in less revenue as a percentage of GDP than any time since 1950. In 2000 it was 20% and in 2011 it's 14.4 %. Tax rates are at historic low levels.http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicalshttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/fi...ts/hist01z2.xls
You do realize that your nitpick actually strengthens my point, right?
Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize that your nitpick actually strengthens my point, right?
You mean your point that taxes are too high, and it's theft at force of arms of the government ?If your point is that 25% is an unsustainable rate of spending long term you won't get an argument from anybody including Paul Krugman. If your point is that taxes shouldn't be raised and are too high then my point kinda shows that you're wrong.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...