“Just in case anyone missed the above… The real Long War has recently come to an end, with total victory for one side. By that I mean DoD’s campaign since WWII to become the dominant voice on National Security within the US govt — waged against State and CIA. The tragic ending is that DoD has won, just as we enter a new era in which its skills and tools are ineffective — in which 4GW and economics are the modalities for geopolitical conflict. And DoD’s senior elements understand netiher of these.”

Interesting pair of comments. The issue in my mind is the reliance by civilian leadership on the Joint Combatant Commanders for diplomacy since about 1992. Before Fallon came along, Wesley Clark is a good example, General Zinni is as well. Doesn’t political leadership pick winners and losers in struggles between Agencies? In other words, isn’t it because successive administrations have picked DoD over State and CIA that puts DoD up as the declared winner?
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: I see the US government as a multi-polar system, in which various centers of influence ally with one another while seeking greater power. DoD is one of the big winners in the 20th century, gaining a bigger share of the rapidly growing US government budget. Our political leadership represents many power centers, but is neither a consistent or cohesive center in its own right.

sorry the bad english, my native language is portuguese
.
.
Fabius Maximus replies: glad to have your comments, offering a different perspective on these events!

Not a new phenomenon (e.g. US adulation of MacArthur and Eisenhower). Britain used to do the same until it finally tired of war as a Society (not as a State though). The outstanding Alanbrook (arguably the greatest Strategist of WW2) and Montgomery (arguably the greatest Tactician and fighting General) are forgotten in the UK now.

Most European countries, with their long, long, (far too long) histories of war may occasionally reminisce about past, long dead military leaders, but have no idea and no interest (and a lot of disrespect) about more recent ones. A sign of, eventual, maturity perhaps?

{Note: I continue my theoretical argument about splitting Society and the State, which I think may prove to have some insights into a true 4GW general theoretical framework}.

One example is a podcast: http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/12/gareth-porter-23/. You can use the site to pull up many of his past articles and podcasts. Well worth having a look (listen) to.

The big worries are, if the balloon goes up with Iran, which once was a 70/30 odds in favour, but is probably only 30/70 now are:

(1) The economic affects, which given the latest news doesn’t even bear thinking about. This would probabaly tip everything over into the worst case scenario worldwide.
(2) The, very small, but still there, probability of a ‘Sarajevo’ scenario (ref WW1).
(3) The impact on Iraq .. definately bad and just possibly horrific (Bill Lind has warned of this one).

The reality is now that ‘its the economy stupid’ that should be grabbing everyone’s focus now.

I find the ascendancy of the military in the US very troubling. State, and diplomacy, are not even in the back seat (perhaps the rumble seat) anymore. Maybe we grew up on too many westerns. The cavalry came to the rescue and the gun-toting, fast-drawing sheriff tamed the town. False views of history but brave images for an America that wants to believe that it’s the city-on-a-hill and the savior of the world.