US DoD on glide path to bankruptcy

[Jack Ray]

I am reminded of Childhoods End by Arthur C. Clark. Perhaps we could use some help from the "Overlords".

[chuck]

There may be a component of that in US foreign policy, but to have a more complete appreciation of how policy is formed you ought to read some books, .

Nobody said that was the only component. But it is a very important and very basic component. When Les said:

what possible political advantage is there in GE selling to Iran or Boeing selling to China? It looks to me like profit motive is what is driving this.

He apparently forgot that conducting ourselves in such a way as to maximizing economic returns to ourselves in various parts of the world is one of the most basic and fundamental part of our foreign policy objective. Despite the fact that we have somehow contrive to let this part fall into disrepute in our public discourse, much more of America's welfare depends on it than, say, chastising Iran for dabbling in nuclear construction or telling the rest of the world to do something about Sudan.

[Gerarddm]

If you follow the adage that moving targets are harder to hit, then a seemingly erratic foreign policy may keep your adversaries off balance. But for superpowers, I think it's dangerous.

Americans are denizens of the Short Attention Span Theatre, except in those cited cases like Cuba or even better China where a cohesive advocacy group can sway policy far beyond their nominal size. I could have vacationed on some pristine Cuban beaches a month back instead of Maui if we hadn't been led around by the nose by the Cuba lobby and simply buried Castro with our culture and trade. What socialist society can stand against western capitalism once infected? None.

Now stack that up against societies that can and do think in longer terms, and one can readily see that we operate at a strategic disadvantage. For example, the Harold Geneen ( ITT ) school of business said that if you make your numbers each quarter, you make your year. In contrast, the Japanese were willing to swallow years of losses in their auto penetration of the US to get it right and reap the far larger strategic reward of a few years' tactical losses.

[chuck]

If you follow the adage that moving targets are harder to hit, then a seemingly erratic foreign policy may keep your adversaries off balance. But for superpowers, I think it's dangerous.

A erratic foreign policy not only keeps your adversaries off balance, it also keeps your friends off balance. What is more is it will also keep your own citizens and economy off balance. For example, how much does your cost of doing business increase, and thereby making your businesses less competitive, if before each transaction your companies must first anticipate what harmful impact the next wild gyration in your foreign policy will bring to a particular contract being considered?, and how much should they be prepared to pay through the nose to hedge their exposure to these gyrations? Or what retarding effect there will be on your economy if, for every transaction you take, you must first figure out whether a shift in the wind tomorrow will see what seems a perfectly sound transaction today exposed you to a the charges of "trading with the enemy" from a few attention seeking congressmen?

Since the negative consequences abroad of your erratic foreign policy is usually distributed over many different countries besides your adversary, where as the negative consequences at home of your erratic foreign policy is pretty sharply focused on you alone, Erratic foreign policies are very likely to hurt your economy more than it will ever hurt your adversary's economy. Unless you have very little trade with your adversaries, indulging in erratic or unenlightened foreign policy will always be a very effective way to shoot yourself in the foot.