CONSIDERING ALL THE STRATEGIC OPTIONS
COMMENTARY ARCHIVES, 13 Apr 2009
Whilst Ignoring Alternatives and Disclaiming Cognitive Protectionism
Introduction
This exploration is inspired by the decision in March 2009 — immediately before the NATO Summit in April 2009 — that further military resources should be allocated to the Afghanistan/Pakistan arena as the prime source of "terror" on the planet. This decision was announced despite a succesion of flawed assessments over years by arrogantly, overconfident military experts. Richard Holbrooke, the US president’s special representative for that area, asserted on CNN (Transcript: David Petraeus and Richard Holbrooke on CNN, 29 March 2009) that in concluding on this policy "all the options were considered" as a means of eliminating terror as the greatest national security threat for the USA:
And in these discussions… I can assure you, and through you everyone who’s watching, that every single option was considered, its pros and cons.
The assertion that "all options have been considered" is made relatively frequently to justify questionably repetitive international actions, or the lack thereof. Bill Clinton, as president of the USA, had asserted that "no stone had been left unturned" in exploring options for resolution of the Middle East crisis (pun not intended). A similar unilateral strategic response may be expected in support of geoengineering — despite disastrous initiatives justified by similar patterns in the past.
Such strategic decisions typically involve "more of the same". This implies that the situation had been inadequately evaluated on previous occasions — despite recognition of fundamental "intelligence failures" and "lack of imagination". The pattern must therefore be set against the assessments of:
Albert Einstein: To repeat the same thing over and over again, and yet to expect a different result, this is a form of insanity.
George Santayana: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
This pattern is placed in a wider context here in relation to the emerging process of online solicitation of feedback from large numbers of people ("send in your comments", "join the dialogue", "make your views known", etc). These processes are typically highly misleading in that they seek to engender engagement but are obliged by simple logistics to restrict themselves to extremely selective consideration of what they receive and how they use it — whatever their claims to the contrary.
PLEASE CONTINUE READING IN THE ORIGINAL – LAETUS IN PRAESENS
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 13 Apr 2009.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: CONSIDERING ALL THE STRATEGIC OPTIONS, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.