KISSINGER
I mean it is filled with great ideas of strategy and one man's fight to be seen as a hero with his readings and writings. He reminds of myself. How important it is to think I am part of every little thing and I must give my idea's to everything, some way or another. I will find a way to be part of that bigger issue solution. Such a cool book. I must refute one of his thoughts though. As I would guess by reading him he would do to his professor, on the other hand he would probable kiss his elder's butt.
"In the world according to Kissinger, it was dangerous for America to abandon one of its commanitments even if the nook of the globe at stake was not, in itself, a vital national security interest. If a "third class Communist peasant state" could beat the US, he wrote in his Look article, it would "strengthen" the hand of America's adversaries everywhere, " demoralize" allies, "lessen the credibility" of the US around the world, and cause other nations to consider shifting their allegiances to the Soviet Union. This emphases on credibility would become the underpinning of his policies when his turn in power came"
pg 120
These thoughts are based on President Senior Bush's ideas that I read about war doctrine. Which again I respect President W Bush's ideas as well off too. I just think that Dr,. Kissinger again forget to take into account economic warfare, if I think like I do he had something to say about it in his old wise ways of pushing his doctrine without actually being there. If I am correct.
I would like to refute this with historical evidence against this point. As such, Dr. Kissinger does not take into account economic warfare when he makes this statement in my belief. This is because, during Vietnam. The US lost more allies via its inability to concentrate on economics. While the Soviet's grew in places like the Middle East and Latin America. While we concentrated all of brain power on one single full scale war. This then allowed the Soveit's to not only gain more allies, but also allowed them to shrink our populace and our economy. Which then caused major unemployment during that area, which caused massive civil unrest.
I will continue here. So if we look at the idea that diplomacy is in a vacuum, and Kissinger hear has forgotten about his own limited war theory. We see that with military in a vacuum. One would still see the proxy theory, to be the overthrowing issue at hand. As if we where to just take the military issue of world leadership of diplomacy. We would see that military with full scale invasion in history still lead's to more countries turning their back on the one looking to be the invader. Even if the offensive is against a proxy war. This is because every country will think that the country at hand has to use their full force to get things done instead of using diplomacy, without pure force.
So let's take today's analogy to Vietnam. Which is of course the Iraq full scale invasion. Which again I was and am all for. I just think the proxy war, limited strategy was the better one to stick to like President Senior Bush's advice stated. So today, we see that the full scale war in Iraq and the US's constant persistence to have more people help out in a war that might not be deemed complete national security has caused the same draw backs that we saw during Vietnam. Today, we see the three world's biggest countries going against the US. As our military diplomatic ties have been strained. Which is India, Brazil and Russia, along with the BRIC leader. Which is analogous to what happened in Vietnam which created the Bloc to be stronger. The Bloc then was the same thing it is now, major countries going against the US via its use of force doctrine. Then as during the Vietnam war when we saw the Soviet's spread out across the world. We are now seeing the Communist Chinese spread out across the world, as countries do not want to do business with us, as they are afraid we might invade them. Not of course off the top, but in their citizen's soul's that is what they might thing, in this vacum situation. Which I will expand out of the vacum and explain more. However, this vacum. We see the US's diplomacy in the world like we saw during Vietnam almost eroded completely. Where very few countries now are willing to take us as the world's economic leader. As they have done more business with the Communist Chinese.
Thus then we expand out and we see the issue at hand is not just military diplomacy when we deal with world strategic diplomacy. We see that military diplomacy when used at full scale force without reluctant to economic diplomacy can cause major imbalances in the US's whole strategic diplomacy. This then ties better into why the Communist in both Vietnam and now in today's full scale war we see them being able to expand massively unchecked in the world. The Communist Chinese have gain such expanistionist issues. As to be able to have the stat of 50% of the world's development contractors being run by them. Therefore, we can see where Dr. Kissinger might have got a little hot tempered and immature with his thoughts on the stopping of a countries proxy agents. Which I have found is his weakness in game playing. Get hist goat and his temper will have him overstep right into the zone. Only a true apprentice can find his wish of a master's weakness. That and his boyish giddyness we both share when reading and feeling so dangerous when being obnoxious to powerful people who go against our ideas. Such a dangerous writing idea.
Along with that I have found my mental rival's I feel the same way he does about his. As if I must keep some kind of stature towards them no matter if they are wrong or right. However, back to my wishes of master of strategy idea of not giving up as per diplomacy issues. I would say after two full scale wars in the US. That things outside of the DOD and leadership play a bigger role than what the one's near the fire would think. I think President Obama has taken into account the best what his people think. I have seen him having read more of his people's ideas than any other President so far, from my guessing. Therefore, where President Obama has had the hard decision to deal with the matter of the loss of US economic and military diplomacy in the world. We see him dealing with it in a very professional manner.
His idea is similar to that of President Nixon. No matter how that may seem. However, much more thought out. I can analogize the cycle affect of our last major full scale war to President Obama and President Nixon. As both had to deal with major international economic market loss, along with major international diplomacy loss, due to very aggressive force issues. Whether called for more this time or not. The hardest part I see about the idea of not finishing or completing a war for specific diplomatic reason's. Is the idea that to me economic diplomacy is more powerful than military diplomacy. As you can threaten folks with guns, weapons, invasion or even defense. However, like we have seen in Iraq and Vietnam, the one's who offer the most economic support will gain the advantage in the long run.
This is my thoughts on Dr. Kissinger's idea of how the US should never back down until we are completely done. Along with that, my personal belief is similar to President Senior Bush. Where folks should fight their own wars. We can help them, but small proxy war's or limited wars are better than full scale action. As we can't afford to help the Western allies keep up their development against the Eastern Bloc if we have to afford a full scale war.
Rider I
By the way I love all of the soldier's in our country and appreciate everything. I have family in this war and have elder's that have fought and died for this country and am very proud of them. I respectfully state I believe in the proxy war doctrine over the full scale war doctrine. Along with that I have tried to join three time. However, reason's of my unorthodox upbringing I was not able to do so.
I mean it is filled with great ideas of strategy and one man's fight to be seen as a hero with his readings and writings. He reminds of myself. How important it is to think I am part of every little thing and I must give my idea's to everything, some way or another. I will find a way to be part of that bigger issue solution. Such a cool book. I must refute one of his thoughts though. As I would guess by reading him he would do to his professor, on the other hand he would probable kiss his elder's butt.
"In the world according to Kissinger, it was dangerous for America to abandon one of its commanitments even if the nook of the globe at stake was not, in itself, a vital national security interest. If a "third class Communist peasant state" could beat the US, he wrote in his Look article, it would "strengthen" the hand of America's adversaries everywhere, " demoralize" allies, "lessen the credibility" of the US around the world, and cause other nations to consider shifting their allegiances to the Soviet Union. This emphases on credibility would become the underpinning of his policies when his turn in power came"
pg 120
These thoughts are based on President Senior Bush's ideas that I read about war doctrine. Which again I respect President W Bush's ideas as well off too. I just think that Dr,. Kissinger again forget to take into account economic warfare, if I think like I do he had something to say about it in his old wise ways of pushing his doctrine without actually being there. If I am correct.
I would like to refute this with historical evidence against this point. As such, Dr. Kissinger does not take into account economic warfare when he makes this statement in my belief. This is because, during Vietnam. The US lost more allies via its inability to concentrate on economics. While the Soviet's grew in places like the Middle East and Latin America. While we concentrated all of brain power on one single full scale war. This then allowed the Soveit's to not only gain more allies, but also allowed them to shrink our populace and our economy. Which then caused major unemployment during that area, which caused massive civil unrest.
I will continue here. So if we look at the idea that diplomacy is in a vacuum, and Kissinger hear has forgotten about his own limited war theory. We see that with military in a vacuum. One would still see the proxy theory, to be the overthrowing issue at hand. As if we where to just take the military issue of world leadership of diplomacy. We would see that military with full scale invasion in history still lead's to more countries turning their back on the one looking to be the invader. Even if the offensive is against a proxy war. This is because every country will think that the country at hand has to use their full force to get things done instead of using diplomacy, without pure force.
So let's take today's analogy to Vietnam. Which is of course the Iraq full scale invasion. Which again I was and am all for. I just think the proxy war, limited strategy was the better one to stick to like President Senior Bush's advice stated. So today, we see that the full scale war in Iraq and the US's constant persistence to have more people help out in a war that might not be deemed complete national security has caused the same draw backs that we saw during Vietnam. Today, we see the three world's biggest countries going against the US. As our military diplomatic ties have been strained. Which is India, Brazil and Russia, along with the BRIC leader. Which is analogous to what happened in Vietnam which created the Bloc to be stronger. The Bloc then was the same thing it is now, major countries going against the US via its use of force doctrine. Then as during the Vietnam war when we saw the Soviet's spread out across the world. We are now seeing the Communist Chinese spread out across the world, as countries do not want to do business with us, as they are afraid we might invade them. Not of course off the top, but in their citizen's soul's that is what they might thing, in this vacum situation. Which I will expand out of the vacum and explain more. However, this vacum. We see the US's diplomacy in the world like we saw during Vietnam almost eroded completely. Where very few countries now are willing to take us as the world's economic leader. As they have done more business with the Communist Chinese.
Thus then we expand out and we see the issue at hand is not just military diplomacy when we deal with world strategic diplomacy. We see that military diplomacy when used at full scale force without reluctant to economic diplomacy can cause major imbalances in the US's whole strategic diplomacy. This then ties better into why the Communist in both Vietnam and now in today's full scale war we see them being able to expand massively unchecked in the world. The Communist Chinese have gain such expanistionist issues. As to be able to have the stat of 50% of the world's development contractors being run by them. Therefore, we can see where Dr. Kissinger might have got a little hot tempered and immature with his thoughts on the stopping of a countries proxy agents. Which I have found is his weakness in game playing. Get hist goat and his temper will have him overstep right into the zone. Only a true apprentice can find his wish of a master's weakness. That and his boyish giddyness we both share when reading and feeling so dangerous when being obnoxious to powerful people who go against our ideas. Such a dangerous writing idea.
Along with that I have found my mental rival's I feel the same way he does about his. As if I must keep some kind of stature towards them no matter if they are wrong or right. However, back to my wishes of master of strategy idea of not giving up as per diplomacy issues. I would say after two full scale wars in the US. That things outside of the DOD and leadership play a bigger role than what the one's near the fire would think. I think President Obama has taken into account the best what his people think. I have seen him having read more of his people's ideas than any other President so far, from my guessing. Therefore, where President Obama has had the hard decision to deal with the matter of the loss of US economic and military diplomacy in the world. We see him dealing with it in a very professional manner.
His idea is similar to that of President Nixon. No matter how that may seem. However, much more thought out. I can analogize the cycle affect of our last major full scale war to President Obama and President Nixon. As both had to deal with major international economic market loss, along with major international diplomacy loss, due to very aggressive force issues. Whether called for more this time or not. The hardest part I see about the idea of not finishing or completing a war for specific diplomatic reason's. Is the idea that to me economic diplomacy is more powerful than military diplomacy. As you can threaten folks with guns, weapons, invasion or even defense. However, like we have seen in Iraq and Vietnam, the one's who offer the most economic support will gain the advantage in the long run.
This is my thoughts on Dr. Kissinger's idea of how the US should never back down until we are completely done. Along with that, my personal belief is similar to President Senior Bush. Where folks should fight their own wars. We can help them, but small proxy war's or limited wars are better than full scale action. As we can't afford to help the Western allies keep up their development against the Eastern Bloc if we have to afford a full scale war.
Rider I
By the way I love all of the soldier's in our country and appreciate everything. I have family in this war and have elder's that have fought and died for this country and am very proud of them. I respectfully state I believe in the proxy war doctrine over the full scale war doctrine. Along with that I have tried to join three time. However, reason's of my unorthodox upbringing I was not able to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment