A human endeavor that requires the engagement of a
considerable amount of thinking to realize, calls for planning to be done at
two levels. One level consists of a long term planning – called strategy – for
which an ultimate goal is envisioned. Another level consists of a series of
short term plannings – called tactics – whose executions aim to lead to the
ultimate goal envisioned for the strategy.
Of course, being a long term planning, a strategy takes a
long time to execute, and this is different from the tactics whose executions
take a shorter time to realize. A good leader, therefore, is an individual that
can plan, operate and execute a task at both levels simultaneously without
getting so confused as to mix the short term tactical goals with the long term
strategic one. Such leader will have a team of individuals who understand the
strategy aimed for and never lose sight of it. They also understand the daily
tactics they must rely on to proceed methodically towards the ultimate goal.
It happens at times that a permissive environment develops
in the places where important strategies are implemented. There develops under
the name of democracy a situation where too many people enter the fray and
offer unsolicited advice to the team that is in charge. Democracy is a good
thing but the trouble is that a number of these people would know very little
about the subjects they purport to discuss, and know nothing about the art of
governing.
The handicap from which these people suffer is that they
cannot see the difference between a strategy and the tactics that lead to it.
What they end up doing is get in the way of the team executing the plan,
especially when they do more than give advice, and start scoffing at the governing
team for failing to reach the ultimate goal of the strategy every time that
they see the completion of a tactic. To their deluded minds, this should have
been the place where the mission was supposed to end, and the time to celebrate
the ultimate glorious victory.
That development can only be called democracy run amok.
Unfortunately, this is where most of the Western world finds itself at this
time, especially the United
States of America where “more democracy
being a cure for the ills of democracy” has been crippled by a phenomenon
called “political correctness.” What happens under this demonic system is that
more democracy is encouraged but only if you echo-repeat the line dictated by
those who would hurt you. In fact, you soon realize that if you don't repeat,
they will not hesitate to use one or more of the multitude of methods they have
at their disposal to silence you and vanish you like a puff of smoke.
This is why it has become the norm to see the
incomprehensible take place. It is that the systems in which little or no
democracy is practiced, come on top each time that they confront a place where
the demonic system disguised as democracy has taken hold. Simply put, no
democracy is better than demonic democracy. And this explains why Vladimir Putin
of Russia
is having the time of his life executing with confidence his grand strategy one
tactical victory after the other. He is marching forward at a time when his
Western counterparts are mired in a sea of confusion where every democratic
demon raises the sea level by emptying his first amendment bladder into it
while denying the exercise of true democracy to those who have the ability to
formulate a winning strategy for the West and for humankind.
But there seems to be a glimmer of hope; a small light
rising at the horizon. It is that a number of American elder statesmen are
taking the trouble to make their voices heard. They are doing it because they
see how badly their country has been served and continues to be served by the
demonic voices that have monopolized the public square. The elders have also
realized that having lived their lives to the fullest, they can no longer be
hurt by the demons or by their followers.
Two such elders wrote an article that was published in the
Washington Post on March 27, 2014 under the title: “How to deal with Russia without
reigniting a full-fledged Cold War psychology.” They are George P. Shulz and
Sam Nunn who had distinguished careers serving their country during several
administrations. When you read the article, you get the sense at the start that
they are taking the correct approach because they speak at once of the short
term tactics and the long term strategy. Look at this: “Russia has taken over Crimea
… Now is the time to act but also to think strategically.” Whatever they say
after that should be considered a legitimate part of the debate whether or not
their plan or parts of it will work at the end of the day. And only time will
tell how much success they will have contributed to America 's endgame.
Another article worthy of note is that of Walter Russell
Mead. It was published in the Wall Street Journal on March 29, 2014 under the
title: “The President's Foreign Policy Paradox” and the subtitle: “Obama's
global wish list can't be achieved while decreasing commitments overseas.” Mead
was once a harsh critic of Obama's foreign policy because he expected to see
him deliver a strategic “mission accomplished” at the end of every tactic that
was won or lost by America .
When no such glorious victory happened, Mead blamed it all on the incompetence
of the President, never explaining how doing otherwise would have led to the
magnificent victory for which he was yearning.
But Walter Mead has changed lately, showing signs that he is
developing into the elder statesman who will someday contribute positively to
the intellectual enrichment of his country. In the meantime, he has written
this article where he displays the kind of wrestling with ideas he has been
doing while searching for a path that the nation can take without risking too
much or expecting more than is reasonable. And so, rather than do what he used
to do in the past which is to blame the difficulties on the President, he
acknowledges that “Mr. Obama embraces a global vision, he also seeks reduced
American commitments overseas … This is a paradox, but it is understandable.
Mr. Obama is channeling the voters.” He understands, he says, and that is good.