Around the World


Saturday, April 2, 2016

Do the Ends Justify the Means? When?

"Because, therefore, we are defending a way of life, we must be respectful of that way of life as we proceed to the solution of our problem. We must not violate its principles and its precepts, and we must not destroy from within what we are trying to defend from without." – Eisenhower 1951

There is no weekend reading this weekend. Instead, here is some weekend thinking, as if the two are not related. Nevertheless, this morning I was listening to Dan Carlin’s recent Common Sense podcast. Despite whatever tilted views the program host might have, Dan raised some very profound questions. In the pursuit of national interests, do the ends justify the means? Or do the means justify the ends? When do these two paradigms matter?

In the context of national security, should we think about the end with respect to the threat and pursue means to deal with that threat. If so, to what extent do those means then have an effect on our national values? More importantly, how do they affect our reputation in the society of states? Conversely, do we instead emphasize the means with which we pursue national security as a representative demonstration of a broader normative end – our national values?

Dan’s commentary encourages us to take these philosophical questions one step further by looking at a contemporary challenge to peremptory norms – terrorism. As we consider how to deal with the challenge of terrorism, the manner in which we deal with it has implications for the nature and character of our society and our society’s reputation. Dan asks us to consider this. On the one hand, is terrorism scarring a generation that will be shaped by that scar? Think about previous periods of time in which a generation was scarred by the Great Depression, or fascism? On the other hand, is terrorism changing generations of who we are? Consider the decades-long ideological struggle between capitalism and communism – the Cold War. These are questions fundamental to the differences between realism and liberalism international relations theory. They describe the differences between the cyclic fluctuations of our nation’s interaction with the world.

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

Theory and Practice: from Profound Military Philosophies to Paintball!

J.F.C. Fuller and paintball – what in the world might the two have in common? Well, not much in principle, but actually, quite a lot in practice. I just did a recent revisit of Fuller’s work, The Foundations of the Science of War.  You can access a reprint of his classic work through the U.S. Army’s Combined Arms Center (here). Putting aside the stranger side of Colonel Fuller, and the side that attracted fascist thought, this important work is a fascinating look at one of military history’s most profound theorists theory of science as a basis for understanding the human interaction called warfare. He viewed the interaction of mental, moral and physical spheres as comprising a unity of movement understood through their scientific evaluation.

One of JFC Fuller’s contribution to military strategic thought includes the idea that there are necessary principles in warfare. Reflecting on previous practitioners like Napoleon, Jomini,  Clausewitz, and Foch, he suggests “When [man] has learnt to economize his knowledge, or rather its expenditure, he has discovered wisdom; and when he has learnt how to economize the power of courage he has attained to self-command; and when he has learnt how best to use his strength he has become skillful. The government of these three states is the province of the principle of war.”[1] 

Through a series of revisions, using a scientific approach of hypothesizing and testing and synthesizing, Fuller arrived at nine principles of war:[2] 
  1. Direction
  2. Concentration
  3. Distribution
  4. Determination
  5. Surprise
  6. Endurance
  7. Mobility
  8. Offensive Action
  9. Security
In an interesting way, there is another scientific approach underway to understand a rather benign form of warfare – paintball! I had no idea how technical and calculated the game of paintball was. Devotees of the sport and even recreational enthusiasts can now apply scientific foundations to improve their decision processes. The folks at Paintball Tactician are turning real military theory, into practical calculations through simple apps. Literally one could enter a few pieces of information, in the middle of contested battle, and Paintball Tactician will give calculated advice on the best move: flank, attack, delay, counterattack, etc. Their algorithms are not just mathematical guesswork; they are based on real theoretical principles confirmed through actual experiences from a wide range of military practitioners. I am no paintballer, but as a student of international relations and conflict studies, this idea fascinates me.  

As a strategist and consultant for geopolitical risks, there is actually something very interesting about the technology aspect of automated decision tools. The ability to cross-reference decision options with theory and practice-based tools adds a powerful new dimension to the decision process, particularly when you can amalgamate real-time practical data with theoretical research. We will talk more about that in later posts.  

[1] See JFC Fuller, The Foundations of the Science of War, p. 209-210. Available online at:
[2] Fuller, p. 221.

Thursday, March 10, 2016

The Obama Doctrine by Jeffrey Goldberg

Are you tired of short, simple, unsubstantial articles? Well, you are in luck. Spend the weekend...and it will take you the enjoy this incredible piece by journalist Jeffrey Goldberg. It is a long, long, long article in the upcoming issue of The Atlantic magazine. The cover article is about "The Obama Doctrine." I know that topic will probably stimulate much reaction, but set that reaction aside and look at what Mr. Goldberg offers by way of a glimpse at a President's view of global affairs.

This is important because there is a distinction between the politics of the Presidency, the politics of the policies of the Presidency, and the President's policies in spite of politics. In this article the President makes a very key point about the lens through which he views the interactions of major and minor state actors. Specifically he talks about four basic international relations perspectives: isolationism, realism, liberal internationalism, and internationalism. Very much like an Intro to International Relations course, this article illuminates how the process of global decision making is not a simple process. It is guided, at a fundamental level, by these longstanding theories.

Since George Washington, there has been a continual shifting from one extreme of internationalism to isolationism that has characterized the overarching foreign policy of every administration. For more on that, see Stephan Sestanovich's "Maximalist: America in the World from Truman to Obama." Nevertheless, these grand shifts occur irrespective of party alignments, which demonstrates how views of international politics often do not correspond  clearly with domestic political arrangements. So, as we prepare for a shift toward a new foreign policy doctrine, I challenge you to understand what you think you know about our nation's current doctrine.

For more on the continual shift of foreign policy strategies see: