Joe, I don't know if anyone will like my thoughts on containment as a strategy.
--Regarding "Containment," I like a piece that Francis P. Sempa wrote in 2004, entitled "U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed: A Commentary."
--Sempa doesn't view these as "strategies" (and I agree); he views Containment, Manifest Destiny, the Open Door, Offshore Balancer, and Preemption as DOCTRINES.
--I agree because (to me) they are a "how" focused on a particular problem-set. Hell, I think Kennan called containment a "policy" that would be useful in defeating the Soviet Union. I don't believe he ever thought it would be used in the way that it was.
--My evidence that containment is a doctrine and not a strategy?
--What happened the day (figuratively) AFTER the wall fell? Having reached the goal of our PLAN to bring down the Soviets (the dog who caught the car), we had no continuing purpose. We wandered aimlessly in the wilderness, like the Israelites. In effect we did not have a National Security Strategy, we had a plan to defeat the Soviets..... and then what?
--Containment was effective in its use against the Soviet Union, but what else was going on in the security sphere that didn't touch the Soviet Union? We lost the bubble on China, Iran, and North Korea during the Cold War. We turned our backs on Ho Chi Mihn (who asked us for help first) to assuage our old ally France, and Vietnam turned to the Soviet Union for help, which led us to war in Vietnam.
--It's alarming to consider that many in government may have seen containment as our strategy. This misinterpretation, or perhaps misuse, of a doctrine as our national security strategy is a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls of misunderstanding "strategy" and the consequences of that.
--There's another critical thing that I think we need to highlight… something that my writing partner reminds me of often. --> There's no doubt about Kennan's genius. But how many folks know that he was a practitioner with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton? He didn't have a master's or PhD. He had a degree that taught him to think critically AND he had years of experience.
--What are we doing wrong today? Is our current education system watered down, or do we value practical experience too little?
Thank you for the reply. Yes, the containment efforts didn’t morph and change as the environment changed. So, no it was not a strategy using your prior definition. Critical thinking is a learned skill and must be practiced. Writing and putting one’s thinking on paper to be picked at and deconstructed is scary for most. As such, they rarely do it and thus don’t have a clue what they believe or why they believe it—-only that it is “true!” I am a believer in the liberal arts as they provide students a wide cross section of subject matter to use in the higher levels of learning like synthesis. Too many students want “functional degrees.” As well, experience creates its own knowledge beyond book work, but it is also limited because the world is big and nobody can personally experience everything needed to be an expert. One has to rely on reading and learning from others. Complex issue.
I came here for the football commentary and stayed for your strategic insight. :) As a Texan who went to school in Arlington during the Cowboys’ heyday, your take on Jerry’s strategic approach saddens me. Even though it of course makes sense that he might care more about profit through the team’s various income streams than success on the field, I’m realizing I have been thinking that winning would be one of the highest if not the ultimate goal of team owners — tied both to the outcomes of bragging rights and the prospect of economic growth through increased ticket sales, etc.
I’d be interested to hear y’alls take on behavioral economics tied into the overall topic of strategy. As you point out, Jerry’s choices make sense for his and his family’s bottom line — which we all must admit motivates most of us at least a bit — but in the midst of his choices, he’s left many Cowboys fans in his wake and ultimately sullied the once good name of the team. Putting aside whether or not we should let the performance of sports teams determine our emotions or identity (I’m preaching to myself really as a lifelong Aggie living in Austin — eek), I have to wonder whether the potential impact of his choices on the fans, players, coaches, stadium staff, Texans in general, etc. factors into Jerry’s decisions at all. Granted, he’s an Arkansas boy, so maybe Jerry’s grand plan all along has been to sully the name of anything Texan ;) - kidding of course.
I’ll take a break from my rabbit hole for now. Thanks for the thought provoking post!
It saddens me, too. I was 6 years old when I saw the first NFL game that I remember. The Cowboys were playing the Bills, and I have been a Cowboys fan ever since. I still lose interest in the NFL every year once the Cowboys are out of playoff contention.
Have I talked to Jerry Jones? No, obviously :-).
But, if making money in the NFL was measured by how many games and Super Bowls you win... Jerry would have had a lot in the '90s, but he'd be broke now :-/
Your question is interesting and I believe that if you cornered him in a room with a dose of truth serum, Jerry would tell us that he answers to his constituency (himself and his family) for his decisions, not the general public.
BUT Jerry has invested very intelligently to mitigate negative effects from his decisions. I don't mean just diversifying within the sports entertainment business to keep profits up (certainly he does that) but he's also used his marketing arm to target philanthropy and and local politics to strategically build good will. That's not conspiracy, it's googleable (if that's a word :-). We shouldn't let his "aww shucks" demeanor fool us. He's a strategist.
When I wrote this, I was trying to illustrate my frustration with how tactical our National Government is as opposed to strategic. We constantly focus on one or two lines of effort to the detriment of national strategic interests. We build exquisite weapons of war for $$billions while some of our people live in American cities with no potable water. We can walk and chew bubblegum but we have no idea where we are walking to.
Thanks for reading, and remember Cowboys Fan... Next Year Is Our Year!!
I have heard you us the Jerry Jones example before to help understand the hidden “enlightened self-interest” in his strategic thinking and actions. I would use a similar analogy when teaching in the FSP about economic development. I would use Arthur Blank and his investments in Atlanta (aquarium, Falcons, United, Westside, etc.) to make it a better place to live and draw more people to the area, thus creating the need to build houses and infrastructure which his Home Depot was providing the materials making him billions. As momentum grew so did his wealth and reinvestments into the city. That was one of the learning points the students were supposed to get when on their FSP to Atlanta. But when the program went back to the IMSO, all the designed learning fell away. But back to the National Strategy. Would you consider the last real strategy we employed as a nation was the Containment “Strategy” of the Cold War era? The Preemptive “Strategy” of the Bush 2 years thru today has only caused our direct involvement in conflict and war with no hidden or higher “enlightened self-interest” visible—no purpose. When I served in the Peace Corp during the Cold War era I understood my tactical role to grow fish and help immediate nutricional needs of the people, I also understood my operational role as part of the country team employing soft power at the people level. My strategic level role was as a member of the whole of government containment strategy denying access to the people to those who had contrary ideologies. My presence out in the boonies on the border between El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala was purposeful like gang graffiti marking out one’s territory.
Joe, I don't know if anyone will like my thoughts on containment as a strategy.
--Regarding "Containment," I like a piece that Francis P. Sempa wrote in 2004, entitled "U.S. National Security Doctrines Historically Viewed: A Commentary."
--Sempa doesn't view these as "strategies" (and I agree); he views Containment, Manifest Destiny, the Open Door, Offshore Balancer, and Preemption as DOCTRINES.
--I agree because (to me) they are a "how" focused on a particular problem-set. Hell, I think Kennan called containment a "policy" that would be useful in defeating the Soviet Union. I don't believe he ever thought it would be used in the way that it was.
--My evidence that containment is a doctrine and not a strategy?
--What happened the day (figuratively) AFTER the wall fell? Having reached the goal of our PLAN to bring down the Soviets (the dog who caught the car), we had no continuing purpose. We wandered aimlessly in the wilderness, like the Israelites. In effect we did not have a National Security Strategy, we had a plan to defeat the Soviets..... and then what?
--Containment was effective in its use against the Soviet Union, but what else was going on in the security sphere that didn't touch the Soviet Union? We lost the bubble on China, Iran, and North Korea during the Cold War. We turned our backs on Ho Chi Mihn (who asked us for help first) to assuage our old ally France, and Vietnam turned to the Soviet Union for help, which led us to war in Vietnam.
--It's alarming to consider that many in government may have seen containment as our strategy. This misinterpretation, or perhaps misuse, of a doctrine as our national security strategy is a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls of misunderstanding "strategy" and the consequences of that.
--There's another critical thing that I think we need to highlight… something that my writing partner reminds me of often. --> There's no doubt about Kennan's genius. But how many folks know that he was a practitioner with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Princeton? He didn't have a master's or PhD. He had a degree that taught him to think critically AND he had years of experience.
--What are we doing wrong today? Is our current education system watered down, or do we value practical experience too little?
Thank you for the reply. Yes, the containment efforts didn’t morph and change as the environment changed. So, no it was not a strategy using your prior definition. Critical thinking is a learned skill and must be practiced. Writing and putting one’s thinking on paper to be picked at and deconstructed is scary for most. As such, they rarely do it and thus don’t have a clue what they believe or why they believe it—-only that it is “true!” I am a believer in the liberal arts as they provide students a wide cross section of subject matter to use in the higher levels of learning like synthesis. Too many students want “functional degrees.” As well, experience creates its own knowledge beyond book work, but it is also limited because the world is big and nobody can personally experience everything needed to be an expert. One has to rely on reading and learning from others. Complex issue.
I came here for the football commentary and stayed for your strategic insight. :) As a Texan who went to school in Arlington during the Cowboys’ heyday, your take on Jerry’s strategic approach saddens me. Even though it of course makes sense that he might care more about profit through the team’s various income streams than success on the field, I’m realizing I have been thinking that winning would be one of the highest if not the ultimate goal of team owners — tied both to the outcomes of bragging rights and the prospect of economic growth through increased ticket sales, etc.
I’d be interested to hear y’alls take on behavioral economics tied into the overall topic of strategy. As you point out, Jerry’s choices make sense for his and his family’s bottom line — which we all must admit motivates most of us at least a bit — but in the midst of his choices, he’s left many Cowboys fans in his wake and ultimately sullied the once good name of the team. Putting aside whether or not we should let the performance of sports teams determine our emotions or identity (I’m preaching to myself really as a lifelong Aggie living in Austin — eek), I have to wonder whether the potential impact of his choices on the fans, players, coaches, stadium staff, Texans in general, etc. factors into Jerry’s decisions at all. Granted, he’s an Arkansas boy, so maybe Jerry’s grand plan all along has been to sully the name of anything Texan ;) - kidding of course.
I’ll take a break from my rabbit hole for now. Thanks for the thought provoking post!
Mia,
It saddens me, too. I was 6 years old when I saw the first NFL game that I remember. The Cowboys were playing the Bills, and I have been a Cowboys fan ever since. I still lose interest in the NFL every year once the Cowboys are out of playoff contention.
Have I talked to Jerry Jones? No, obviously :-).
But, if making money in the NFL was measured by how many games and Super Bowls you win... Jerry would have had a lot in the '90s, but he'd be broke now :-/
Your question is interesting and I believe that if you cornered him in a room with a dose of truth serum, Jerry would tell us that he answers to his constituency (himself and his family) for his decisions, not the general public.
BUT Jerry has invested very intelligently to mitigate negative effects from his decisions. I don't mean just diversifying within the sports entertainment business to keep profits up (certainly he does that) but he's also used his marketing arm to target philanthropy and and local politics to strategically build good will. That's not conspiracy, it's googleable (if that's a word :-). We shouldn't let his "aww shucks" demeanor fool us. He's a strategist.
When I wrote this, I was trying to illustrate my frustration with how tactical our National Government is as opposed to strategic. We constantly focus on one or two lines of effort to the detriment of national strategic interests. We build exquisite weapons of war for $$billions while some of our people live in American cities with no potable water. We can walk and chew bubblegum but we have no idea where we are walking to.
Thanks for reading, and remember Cowboys Fan... Next Year Is Our Year!!
I have heard you us the Jerry Jones example before to help understand the hidden “enlightened self-interest” in his strategic thinking and actions. I would use a similar analogy when teaching in the FSP about economic development. I would use Arthur Blank and his investments in Atlanta (aquarium, Falcons, United, Westside, etc.) to make it a better place to live and draw more people to the area, thus creating the need to build houses and infrastructure which his Home Depot was providing the materials making him billions. As momentum grew so did his wealth and reinvestments into the city. That was one of the learning points the students were supposed to get when on their FSP to Atlanta. But when the program went back to the IMSO, all the designed learning fell away. But back to the National Strategy. Would you consider the last real strategy we employed as a nation was the Containment “Strategy” of the Cold War era? The Preemptive “Strategy” of the Bush 2 years thru today has only caused our direct involvement in conflict and war with no hidden or higher “enlightened self-interest” visible—no purpose. When I served in the Peace Corp during the Cold War era I understood my tactical role to grow fish and help immediate nutricional needs of the people, I also understood my operational role as part of the country team employing soft power at the people level. My strategic level role was as a member of the whole of government containment strategy denying access to the people to those who had contrary ideologies. My presence out in the boonies on the border between El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala was purposeful like gang graffiti marking out one’s territory.