Not too long ago, I read something on the net that described the term called "strategic depth". This was in relation to military depth in territory. For example, a large country like Russia, has strategic depth. It can make use of its immense territory in order to defeat an enemy. In contrast, a small country like Israel, has little strategic depth. It cannot afford to retreat very far.
I noted that the Japanese were seeking strategic depth after Pearl Harbor. If they succeeded, they would have had the entire Pacific under their control and then they would have been very hard to defeat.
The US had strategic depth in the Pacific too. The Japanese tried to challenge that with little success.
As the planner of the Pearl Harbor raid knew, the US had strategic depth in its industrial base and its immense size. The warlords in Imperial Japan overlooked this, no doubt.
An interesting concept is this strategic depth. Could it apply in other situations besides just military? What about politics and government?
Taking government first, we have strategic depth in terms of liberty. We have a Bill of Rights, a Constitution with checks and balances. We have a federal system with power shared amongst a great many centers. It is the principle of pluralism, where one group cannot become so powerful that it can tyrannize the rest. That strategic depth is getting eroded, though, and it is a bit of a worry.
The Constitution is so designed that compromise is necessary. There's not much chance that a single individual or group can get everything they want. The thing that may be eroding these checks and balances may be in our politics today. This came to my attention yesterday.
From who? None other than the toe sucker himself, Dick Morris. He pointed out that running the government with continuing resolutions is really a bad idea because the president can then spend the money as he sees fit. Congress in such situations, is abdicating its role in our system when they do this. They need to pass bills, as the much maligned budget deal just passed. When these bills are passed, Congress can specify in detail, how the money shall be spent. This has a restraining influence upon a wayward president, such as the one I think that we may have now.
So, I've changed my thinking. This opposition to the other wing of the GOP is actually damaging our strategic depth. We need to get together on this and other things because one wing cannot survive without the other. It may be distasteful to make some of these compromises, but they are necessary. The result of continuing as we have been could be a catastrophe. We cannot afford to further empower a wayward president and his supporters.
At least Dickie boy got this one right. He's still wrong about the JFK assassination.
I noted that the Japanese were seeking strategic depth after Pearl Harbor. If they succeeded, they would have had the entire Pacific under their control and then they would have been very hard to defeat.
The US had strategic depth in the Pacific too. The Japanese tried to challenge that with little success.
As the planner of the Pearl Harbor raid knew, the US had strategic depth in its industrial base and its immense size. The warlords in Imperial Japan overlooked this, no doubt.
An interesting concept is this strategic depth. Could it apply in other situations besides just military? What about politics and government?
Taking government first, we have strategic depth in terms of liberty. We have a Bill of Rights, a Constitution with checks and balances. We have a federal system with power shared amongst a great many centers. It is the principle of pluralism, where one group cannot become so powerful that it can tyrannize the rest. That strategic depth is getting eroded, though, and it is a bit of a worry.
The Constitution is so designed that compromise is necessary. There's not much chance that a single individual or group can get everything they want. The thing that may be eroding these checks and balances may be in our politics today. This came to my attention yesterday.
From who? None other than the toe sucker himself, Dick Morris. He pointed out that running the government with continuing resolutions is really a bad idea because the president can then spend the money as he sees fit. Congress in such situations, is abdicating its role in our system when they do this. They need to pass bills, as the much maligned budget deal just passed. When these bills are passed, Congress can specify in detail, how the money shall be spent. This has a restraining influence upon a wayward president, such as the one I think that we may have now.
So, I've changed my thinking. This opposition to the other wing of the GOP is actually damaging our strategic depth. We need to get together on this and other things because one wing cannot survive without the other. It may be distasteful to make some of these compromises, but they are necessary. The result of continuing as we have been could be a catastrophe. We cannot afford to further empower a wayward president and his supporters.
At least Dickie boy got this one right. He's still wrong about the JFK assassination.
No comments:
Post a Comment