SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: LindyBill who wrote (72469)9/22/2004 7:26:05 AM
From: unclewest  Read Replies (1) of 793866
 
It disturbs me to no end that many in the military see Kaplan as a serious thinker about the future, because I believe he has absolutely nothing to say about it, other than it will look almost exactly like today (so get used to it). His non-vision is disheartening in the extreme, and it speaks to a Robert Heinlein-like "Starship Troopers" future dystopia where we should all adopt a warrior spirit in order to survive. And as usual, his hyperbole masks his lack of strategic thinking ("the most thankless task of any military in the history of warfare").

Barnett (could include Friedman too) plays to the masses hopes for an end to war. We enjoy reading them because we all hope they are correct. I always enjoy seeing the bumper sticker "no more war", but I also realize it ignores human history.

I think Barnett is wrong on Kaplan. Kaplan is not a war monger. He calls the present how he sees it (with great accuracy) and keeps his analysis of the future within reasonable historical boundaries.
On the other hand, Barnett's dovish conclusions are only figments of his personal hopes and wishes. They are rooted neither in fact nor historical perspective.

If Barnett is entitled to his opinion, so is Kaplan. They are both guessing...and so is Friedman.
uw
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext