|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 20, 2011 19:48:02 GMT
Given the recent visit by the Chinese President, and the increasing public interest, the following articles from the Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, may be of interest in understanding China and their approach to geopolitical interests such as Energy, the Environment, etc. There is a growing interest in how our relationship with China is changing, and the impact their growth may have on a wide range of US interests. The first link is "Learning from the Stones", which is a treatise on understanding the strategic thinking that underlies Chinese national strategy by relating it to the game of Go. Essentially, if we wish to understand the Chinese, we must understand Go. The 2nd is more specific, and is a short article that lends some insight into the complex relationship between the Chinese military and political leadership. The 3rd deals with Chinese Energy Security interests. The first few pages may seem irrelevant as they talk about the LeTort papers. I welcome comments and discussion on these. Learning from the Stones: www.fas.org/man/eprint/lai.pdf THE COMING OF CHINESE HAWKS; www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1028.pdfChinese Energy Security: The Myth of the PLAN's Frontline Status; www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=1012
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 20, 2011 20:34:42 GMT
Good reads George. China, as a country, has never been what one would call aggressive outside their sphere of influence. They understand the need for a military, but their main reason for one is defense, not offense. The world is ever changing. The USA is declining as a power per se. Our economy has become govt based, rather than entrep based. There are solutions. One of them would be 100% inheritance taxes. Carnegie knew what would happen if the US became a nation of concentrated wealth. He fortold of how inovation would be stiffled without the free flow of assets and capitial. What he understood is that the concentration would shut that off, rather than enhance it. The US spends far too much on the military and this gets us into adventurousism. President Eisenhower warned us of this, but the young conservatives have not done their homework and have no concept of building an army as needed. The cost to maintain a war time military is much more than this nation can bear long term.
Good reads, with good understanding.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 20, 2011 22:00:41 GMT
Sigurdur, from Sun Tzu: (Italics are mine.)When doing battle, seek a quick victory.
A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.
If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.
If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice.
When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications. (Note that this is currently happening )
Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. ( A glimpse of the future? ) Unfortunately, this advice has rarely been heeded. I think that is because of the aversion to casualties by the politicians and the public, and the fact that producing war machinery is a fairly profitable enterprise.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 20, 2011 22:05:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 20, 2011 22:47:21 GMT
I watched the presser the other day, and what I saw was Hu placing a couple stones on the Go board, and Obama not having any idea what was happening. In terms of our limited public knowledge of national strategy, Obama is totally outclassed. Not a good omen for the future. Btw, I read that yahoo piece including some of the comments, which I found to be quite humorous and ill informed.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 20, 2011 23:31:15 GMT
President Obama has a lotttttt to learn about a lot of things. I blame this more on Sec of State Clinton's dept. They should have breifed President Obama on a lot of things. The "Old Guard" of our country seems truely clueless. The problem is, they still weild tremendous power.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 20, 2011 23:46:04 GMT
Well according to what I've read and heard, Obama considers himself the smartest guy in the room.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 20, 2011 23:48:38 GMT
Well according to what I've read and heard, Obama considers himself the smartest guy in the room. George: Thank you for a most wonderful laugh. If he is smart....then I am out of this world smart. I am smart enough to know that I am not out of this world. A President has to have a high opinion of himself, and that is ok. But I wish he was smart enough to know how damn dumb he is.....oh well.....if wishes? ??
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 21, 2011 0:15:10 GMT
You're welcome. But, there's another way to look at that. Egomaniacs and narcissists tend to surround themselves with those who do not pose a threat to their self image. Which may say more about his "team", than it does about Obama himself. Think about his choice for VP for example.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 21, 2011 6:51:13 GMT
Not surprising stats: A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization. Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65% England 46% Canada 42% Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93% England 15% Canada 43% Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90% England 15% Canada 43% Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month: U.S. 77% England 40% Canada 43% Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people: U.S. 71 England 14 Canada 18 Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health": U.S. 12% England 2% Canada 6%
Check this last set of statistics!!
The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private business sector is ... a real life business, not a government job. Here are the percentages. T. Roosevelt........38% Taft........................40% Wilson .................52% Harding...................49% Coolidge.................48% Hoover....................42% F. Roosevelt...........50% Truman...................50% Eisenhower.............57% Kennedy.................30% Johnson..................47% Nixon.......................53% Ford.........................42% Carter......................32% Reagan....................56% GH Bush...................51% Clinton.....................39% GW Bush..................55% And the winner is: Obama........................8% This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and you and me? How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers". They should have been in an employment line.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 21, 2011 13:54:27 GMT
Not surprising stats: A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization. This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration: only 8% of them have ever worked in private business! That's right! Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the last 19 presidents! And these people are trying to tell our big corporations how to run their business? They know what's best for GM, Chrysler, Wall Street, and you and me? How can the president of a major nation and society, the one with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one? Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They've spent most of their time in academia, government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers". They should have been in an employment line. Perhaps we're drifting a bit off the subject (which was a comparison of strategy concepts ) but that's ok. Interesting stats. Here's a story today in the National Journal about jobs (not Steve, the other kind ) Interesting read, but rather lengthy. Since I'm retired, the job market doesn't hold much personal interest for me; although it does have some impact on me in terms of overall economic health and prosperity so I do try to pay attention. Primarily in regards to inflation - in particular the energy and basic commodity sectors. " What happened to 15 million jobs? " www.nationaljournal.com/member/magazine/what-happened-to-15-million-u-s-jobs--20110120?page=1
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 21, 2011 15:54:46 GMT
you can't compare strategy without looking at the people implementing that strategy and their core beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 21, 2011 16:23:50 GMT
you can't compare strategy without looking at the people implementing that strategy and their core beliefs. That's precisely why the reference to GO (and by reference in the first link, "Learning from the Stones" ) was in the first post. Did you read it?
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Jan 21, 2011 23:15:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 22, 2011 0:38:33 GMT
George: What is so sad is that no one in power seems to understand this Go play at all. I am talking the business community as well. Warren Buffet has talked about it and the ramifications, but people discredit him for doing so. There is a reason he is called "The Oracle"..........
I do know that China is gleefull with our military expenditures as that is a HUGE go play for them. We must seem like placent sheep lead to the slaughter to them.
|
|