fear and coercion
Laura asks
If the terrorists cannot win, then can you explain the environment and the terms of their success? Or is their success merely psychological, "fear and coercion"? Or is there a specific reaction they hope to produce through their fear and coersion? Your example of the Doolittle Raid showed the use of Psychological methods as a catalyst for a specific reaction. Is there a specific response or is the goal an erosion of the country?
Now--keeping in mind that I do not believe that they are this smart or sophisticate--which does not mean that they might not stumble into victory--but an intelligent and strategically minded foe, who did not have the military might to attack the US directly, would seek to unbalance us. This can be achieved by luring us into focusing to much of our effort on protection rather than progression---and it is a difficult thing to mentally accept, but simply put--the nation is better served by investment in the future vice protection of the present.
Laura "Speaking of "apocolyptic events" you say "During the First Continental Congress there was a smallpox plague in Philadelphia—in a crowded city with nothing resembling the health care that we enjoy today the death toll ran into the "hundreds."" What percentage of the population did this represent at the time?" Somewhere just under 2% I believe
laura "The fundamental argument of this book is that since terrorists are inconsequential in real terms and operationally inept, they should not receive the level of attention or funding that they currently enjoy." Is there a viable external threat to the US at this time? What/who is this threat? Should we fight this threat, how?" I believe that the biggest threats to the United States are currently internal---our nearest external rival is China, but in fact they are more of an economic threat than a military one. I believe that we should fight the internal threat--but frankly believe that we no longer have the capability to do so.
Laura "Although you have repeatedly said the terrorists are inept, you have also described a mode of action that would undermine the US that dovetails with the current climate. Sow discord with other nations, form allies, instill fear. Can you explain why the very setup you describe is not a threat to us...or is it?" It is a very real threat but again, it is not because the terrorists are smart or capable, but because we refuse to prioritize the challenges facing our future and act accordingly. So instead of strategically thinking about what we actually need to start doing to have the 2025 that we want, we are conducting a series of disconnected tactical actions.
Laura "To whom do you believe the task of preparing a national strategic plan should be given? You pointed out the short terms of politicians and the foibles of partisanship. Should the entire US citizenship vote for the acceptance of the plan?" Me!-----I do not know----at this time I do not believe it is possible. That, I suppose, was my hope for FTC--that much like "Common Sense" it would slap America and get enough people to say "I want to live courageously and I want a leader(s) who will help me do that."
Laura "And finally (for now anyway), what role do you believe the media has played concerning terrorism and divisiveness in the US?" I think it has more to do with the speed of communication vice the media---the instantaneousness of communication is a double edge sword---a term I generally hate. It cause, for some reason, a propensity to hear the fringe and outliers first. So in FTC, I discuss that we should not deal with the extremes--instead we should focus on the majority and have the majority in mind while conducting our strategic planning. But we don't--similarly, we are fixated on the extremes in the media--instead of really focusing on the majority concerns. Don't believe--two words "Paris Hilton"
If the terrorists cannot win, then can you explain the environment and the terms of their success? Or is their success merely psychological, "fear and coercion"? Or is there a specific reaction they hope to produce through their fear and coersion? Your example of the Doolittle Raid showed the use of Psychological methods as a catalyst for a specific reaction. Is there a specific response or is the goal an erosion of the country?
Now--keeping in mind that I do not believe that they are this smart or sophisticate--which does not mean that they might not stumble into victory--but an intelligent and strategically minded foe, who did not have the military might to attack the US directly, would seek to unbalance us. This can be achieved by luring us into focusing to much of our effort on protection rather than progression---and it is a difficult thing to mentally accept, but simply put--the nation is better served by investment in the future vice protection of the present.
Laura "Speaking of "apocolyptic events" you say "During the First Continental Congress there was a smallpox plague in Philadelphia—in a crowded city with nothing resembling the health care that we enjoy today the death toll ran into the "hundreds."" What percentage of the population did this represent at the time?" Somewhere just under 2% I believe
laura "The fundamental argument of this book is that since terrorists are inconsequential in real terms and operationally inept, they should not receive the level of attention or funding that they currently enjoy." Is there a viable external threat to the US at this time? What/who is this threat? Should we fight this threat, how?" I believe that the biggest threats to the United States are currently internal---our nearest external rival is China, but in fact they are more of an economic threat than a military one. I believe that we should fight the internal threat--but frankly believe that we no longer have the capability to do so.
Laura "Although you have repeatedly said the terrorists are inept, you have also described a mode of action that would undermine the US that dovetails with the current climate. Sow discord with other nations, form allies, instill fear. Can you explain why the very setup you describe is not a threat to us...or is it?" It is a very real threat but again, it is not because the terrorists are smart or capable, but because we refuse to prioritize the challenges facing our future and act accordingly. So instead of strategically thinking about what we actually need to start doing to have the 2025 that we want, we are conducting a series of disconnected tactical actions.
Laura "To whom do you believe the task of preparing a national strategic plan should be given? You pointed out the short terms of politicians and the foibles of partisanship. Should the entire US citizenship vote for the acceptance of the plan?" Me!-----I do not know----at this time I do not believe it is possible. That, I suppose, was my hope for FTC--that much like "Common Sense" it would slap America and get enough people to say "I want to live courageously and I want a leader(s) who will help me do that."
Laura "And finally (for now anyway), what role do you believe the media has played concerning terrorism and divisiveness in the US?" I think it has more to do with the speed of communication vice the media---the instantaneousness of communication is a double edge sword---a term I generally hate. It cause, for some reason, a propensity to hear the fringe and outliers first. So in FTC, I discuss that we should not deal with the extremes--instead we should focus on the majority and have the majority in mind while conducting our strategic planning. But we don't--similarly, we are fixated on the extremes in the media--instead of really focusing on the majority concerns. Don't believe--two words "Paris Hilton"
posted by Tom at 10:47 AM
5 comments
