robustanalysis.bsky.social
A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants.
59 posts
10 followers
16 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
...and a hypothetical war that features large-scale ground maneuver, at that! One that stands in stark contrast to the forecasted great power struggle with China...
comment in response to
post
Real bombing campaigns have never been tried
comment in response to
post
Diplomacy is war by other means
comment in response to
post
Weird to think that models can be definitively trained to interpret works whose meanings are still actively debated!
"I trained my model suite to pass all possible Rorschach tests" seems dubious...unless, I suppose, you never expect to have to defend your work to anyone...
comment in response to
post
I'd expect it to say something like "providing assistance to security forces" or "providing security for federal law enforcement authorities" or similar.
To the casual observer, "Security Assistance" seems like jargon anyway - so why not precisely describe the activity?
comment in response to
post
Definitely odd to see an official PA post from a Combatant Command with this level of imprecision...
comment in response to
post
Cognizant that your average citizen neither understands nor cares about the distinction, it's still important for government organizations to be accurate and precise with their communications.
comment in response to
post
Because the detail is important with respect to funding streams, legal authorities, constraints/restraints on activity, etc.
Also, the capability demand is generally different between DSCA and Security Assistance.
Also, I'm pretty sure "Security Assistance" is externally-facing (international)...
comment in response to
post
Indeed - there are plenty who are eager to defend the honor and integrity of an institution in which they deeply believe. But ideals only go so far if you don't believe that your superiors share them. This moment requires true leadership - who will step up to the challenge?
comment in response to
post
Feels like some kind of Great Power variant of a God Paradox - a nation-state so great and powerful that it renders itself incapable of defeating lesser powers by anything other than nuclear means...
comment in response to
post
Well that's because we gravitate toward foreign policy professionals who eschew assertion of clear and attainable strategic ends! All you have to do to stay employed is say "ah we should strive to develop a favorable balance of power" and then everything we do is automatically advancing that goal!
comment in response to
post
I especially like the employment of the (wholly unnecessary) descriptor "strategic" as though referring to a decision as such makes it impeccable.
comment in response to
post
That's fair - I think there is utility in characterizing the application of sequenced (and therefore interdependent) military effects as something different than tactics or strategy, but am agnostic to the particular term
comment in response to
post
Does it "not exist" as a matter of military science? Or does it "not exist" by inference because leaders tend to be incapable of employing the military science correctly?
When I think of the "operational level" I think mostly about sequencing rather than instantaneous scope and breadth...
comment in response to
post
The only thing missing here is comments about "ruthless prioritization" (in a resource-scarce environment, is there any other kind?) and the modifier "strategic" in front of any planned changes (because calling something strategic immediately makes it so)
comment in response to
post
Moreover - well designed analytic games give you the opportunity to shape the odds in your favor! Make good decisions, prioritize resources and risk prudently...and good things usually happen!
comment in response to
post
But I highly recommend against telling your civil engineers to design and resource construction of a bridge based on point mass assumptions...
comment in response to
post
It's neat and tidy to think of war like a boxing match - a zero-sum game with clear time limits and a fixed set of rules...it's a useful simplifying assumption for some purposes, in the same way that assuming everything is a point mass makes physics a lot easier.
comment in response to
post
The folly is (arguably) thinking of war as some sort of discrete event - with a clearly marked beginning and end; and featuring strategic objectives and decision frameworks that don't evolve with the expenditure of blood and treasure.
comment in response to
post
Anyway - great post @donmoyn.bsky.social as usual - really appreciate your thoughtful evaluation of the current state of affairs!
comment in response to
post
Bottom line being...changing the way government operates (in either macro or micro senses) is about persuading others to evaluate risk differently than they currently do. That fundamentally requires interpersonal skills - to build trust, empathy, etc. - not ultimately achievable by any automation.
comment in response to
post
I've thought a lot in this environment about the difference between "direction" and "leadership." Much published policy genuflects to the "leadership" of POTUS...and I get the rhetorical flourish, but "telling people to do things" is not the same as "inspiring them toward a greater purpose."
comment in response to
post
There are a lot of ways to describe "government" but one could be "a process of reconciling differing valid perspectives on prioritization and risk."
That's part of why it takes so long to make decisions - because there are lots of (vocal) constituencies needing to be seen, heard, and considered!
comment in response to
post
"This argument...is rarely made in the international relations media." Indeed, what could be the reason for that rarity? It couldn't *possibly* be that it has been considered and rejected by myriad other experts on the topic...nay, it is because only the Great One is sufficiently bold to assert it!
comment in response to
post
Wait that can't be right, the Army has a whole center for LESSONS LEARNED
comment in response to
post
Well now you've piqued my interest...
comment in response to
post
Why bother gathering *useful* metrics when you could much more easily gather *cool* metrics?!
comment in response to
post
How weakly one must hold one's own ideals to feel so threatened by the possible persuasiveness of contrary arguments!
comment in response to
post
Your disappointment is certainly palpable! But it's odd to me that you're looking for academic citations here - the most helpful (and I mean that earnestly) element of this whole bizarre discussion was your listing of a handful of additional products to read! I just don't get your antagonism.
comment in response to
post
Wait are you asserting that I actually think either nihilism or fascism (or both!) are *laudable*?
Or otherwise that they cannot, or ought not, be refuted?
If so, that's exactly the opposite of my intended message throughout this thread...
comment in response to
post
Second - the core of my original argument was explicitly sympathetic to the original post. Essentially - one must have little confidence in the persuasiveness of one's own argument to fear other people being merely exposed to alternatives.
comment in response to
post
First - this is social media; every post is invariably "seeking attention." I'd offer that my history on this app - all of two original posts and a small smattering of replies (less than 30, I think) - would indicate that I'm not psychologically reliant on engagement here.
comment in response to
post
...no, I got that part. But all you've done there is assert that I am not Diogenes...which is stipulate!
This whole line of inquiry started because of your assertion that I'm arguing in bad faith - and I still don't know what it is you think I'm arguing!
comment in response to
post
Yes! "To thine own self be true."
Jokes aside - I'm still not sure what point you think I'm making throughout this thread. I'm more than happy to engage - but need to know what information is missing that you're seeking
comment in response to
post
In any case, while i certainly *can* be contrarian, I'm clearly *not* being so in the dialogue earlier in this thread. My like of argument is consistent with - and sympathetic to - that advanced by the original poster.
What position is it that you think I hold?
comment in response to
post
I didn't say the Diogenes' ethos is my own - I clarified the origin (though perhaps apocryphal) of the (admittedly flippant) response I provided to the assertion regarding (paraphrased) being unable to debate fascism away.
comment in response to
post
(this is a quote from a movie)
comment in response to
post
Why is the American government the best government?
comment in response to
post
What point is it that you think I'm making?
comment in response to
post
...are you familiar with Diogenes' story?
comment in response to
post
Should be "seeks" vice "seems;" my apologies.
comment in response to
post
I'd also offer that it is, in fact, the idea of the "other" that the administration seems to suppress. MLK's autobiography gets the press here, but it's hard to imagine novels like "Black Boy" or "Invisible Man" surviving scrutiny, either.
comment in response to
post
The quote was a play on my handle (Diogenes the Cynic wasn't exactly the best person in history, but his story is interesting at least if you're an armchair philosopher).
comment in response to
post
Historical jokes aside - in some sense, the essence of fascism is nihilism; and nihilism is virtually impossible to "stop" because it assumes as a matter of dogma that there exists no meaningful standard of behavior beyond ourselves
comment in response to
post
I'm just trying to find one honest man.
comment in response to
post
Is your point that people's minds are too malleable to be entrusted to discern for themselves whether a given idea is suitably logical and ethical?
comment in response to
post
Belief that exposure to an idea contrary to your own is equivalent, in intent and effect, to indoctrination indicates that the logic underlying your belief is too weak to stand on its own merits.
comment in response to
post
@radiofreetom.bsky.social doesn't impugn Carter's character or motives anywhere in the thread - to my eye, he's just making (substantiable) observations about certain elements of his legacy. It's not shocking that his assessment is focused on NATSEC issues rather than being comprehensive...
comment in response to
post
It's shocking to witness how few people understand that Goldwater-Nichols precluded the establishment of a General Staff - and the resultant struggle to actually differentiate the roles and functions of the institutional and operational forces...