Henry Yep
That perspective can help explain a feature of current U.S. statecraft that is often debated in moral terms, but it also merits analysis as a competitive method. Washington is increasingly willing to treat strategic turbulence as an instrument. In wargames, disruption matters less for its own sake than for what it does to the other side’s decision cycle — pushing humans and systems past their capacity to interpret, decide, and adapt. The same logic applies in the real world.
Confusion and shifting norms are conditions that states can leverage, not anomalies to eliminate. The goal is to shape the environment so rivals and partners are forced to reveal what they will support, tolerate, or contest, rather than remain passive observers. In practice, this preserves the initiator’s freedom of action while raising the costs others must pay to pursue their objectives, including time, money, and political capital. Military professionals use similar logic when confronting complex problems in war. U.S. military doctrine is explicit that operational art relies on creative thinking and that commanders should develop innovative, adaptive alternatives when conditions are uncertain and fluid. Competitive statecraft can reward the same mentality.
No comments:
Post a Comment