Let's do the Venezuela polka!

 

I'm thoroughly enjoying the left-wing/progressive meltdown over President Trump's attack on Venezuela and arrest of that country's (illegitimate) President and his wife.  By the time you read these words, they may be facing their first court hearing in New York City.

Here are some of the thoughts I've been having on the matter, in no particular order.

• Remember how upset the loony left was when a conservative Republican bought Dominion, a provider of automated electoral systems?  One of its biggest rivals, Smartmatic, had provided technology that was used to fraudulently influence Venezuelan elections, allowing Chavez, Maduro et al to take power.  It's also alleged that the company assisted in "manipulating" the 2020 USA election results.  With the leadership of Venezuela now decapitated, how much longer will it be before we learn all that the Venezuelan government knows about that?  And will that lead to more criminal charges in the USA, on top of those already pending?  Pass the popcorn...
• The Democratic Party is losing its collective mind over the attack.  One wonders why they didn't become this engaged when President Obama encouraged and supported the "Arab Spring" revolts that led (among other things) to the murder of Libya's Moammar Ghadafi, or when he authorized drone strikes that killed American Citizens on foreign soil without trial.  What's the old saying?  "If it weren't for double standards, they'd have no standards at all."
• China, Russia and Iran have lost their most reliable ally on the South American continent, and in the process their much-vaunted military technology has been shown to be toothless in the face of a truly high-technology opponent.  Israel has proved that in the Middle East on numerous occasions.  Now it's been demonstrated yet again in Caracas.  All those billions Maduro spent on anti-aircraft radars and missiles, and high-technology strike aircraft with anti-ship missiles?  Not a peep out of them - and I suspect there are rather fewer of them in Venezuela today than there were on Saturday morning.  Did any of them come back to the USA for examination?  It wouldn't surprise me.
• Poor Hugo Chavez.  His mausoleum was intended to serve as a South American equivalent of Lenin's Tomb in Moscow during the days of the old USSR:  a place of pilgrimage, a monument to socialism and all its works.  Well, it (and his body) appear to have been fairly thoroughly demolished during the attack.  They should leave it as it is now - a much more appropriate monument to where socialism always leads.
• Cuba's in a world of hurt.  It had about 20,000 "enforcers" in Venezuela helping to maintain Maduro's illegitimate regime, and in return most of its oil and food came from Venezuela at very low "friendly" prices.  It now has to get all those "enforcers" back home, and is facing the loss of most oil and food supplies.  Can the Cuban government survive without that?  The general consensus is that it can't, unless someone else steps up to the plate with free or low-cost donations of all it needs.  Did President Trump plan for that as a useful side effect of his strike?  I wouldn't be surprised.  He sees wheels within wheels.  What price a collapse of government in Cuba within the year - maybe even a completely new, non-Communist revolution?  I daresay there are Cubans in Miami who would very much like to see that, and I suspect they have a friend in the White House.

Interesting points all, and they're far from complete.  From a geopolitical perspective, this affair is going to be making waves around the world for months, even years to come.

I've also been getting rather annoyed with the so-called "strategists" who are complaining that Trump is focusing far too much on regional affairs (Venezuela, Cuba, Greenland, the war on drugs, etc.) than he is on world politics and tensions.  Folks, there's a very, very old strategic dictum that's held up for not just centuries, but millennia:

If you try to be strong everywhere, you will be strong nowhere.

If you're trying to cover everything, you're spreading your resources and your forces too thin.  They can be defeated in detail anywhere an enemy chooses, before you can concentrate your forces to face the attack.  You have to choose what to defend as your first priority, and that means your base and the region in which you live.  If you're strong there, other powers will have a hard time mustering enough resources and forces to attack you, and you can venture out from your strong base to give them a hard time.  You might even build up enough forces to project power worldwide - but if you haven't got a strong base from which to operate, you're a paper tiger.

You also have to choose your points of concentration.  Another strategic dictum is that if you want to force an engagement with the enemy, you have to either attack something they have no choice but to defend, or defend something they have no choice but to attack.  Pick those points, and put enough resources at or near them that you can be sure of being able to prevail if it comes to a fight.  Right now, the USA does not have enough forces to do that around the globe.  We're having to encourage our allies and partners to pony up the money and resources to do that for their own vulnerable points.

While they're doing that, we're rebuilding, but we've got a long way still to go.  It'll take years, not months - decades, in some cases.  We've let our armed forces and our industrial base run down to such an alarming extent that we're spread too thinly to be effective all around the globe.  Worse still, we've depleted our war reserve of weapons and ammunition to give them to Ukraine and other allies when they needed them.  Given the tempo of modern war against a first-level opponent, I don't know that we could operate for more than thirty to sixty days without running out of fuel, ammunition and equipment;  and we'd lose so many of our first-line forces that we wouldn't be able to replace them.  Our shipyards and factories would be run off their feet trying to repair our weapons, let alone build new ones - and in an age of long-distance, highly accurate missile warfare, there's no guarantee those shipyards and factories would be around to do so.

The current world situation may cost us dearly.  If China decides to invade Taiwan, I honestly don't think we have enough forces to stop them, or get there in time to make them pay a heavy price.  China knows this, I'm sure, and knows how weak our industrial base is in terms of replenishing and expanding our military forces.  It knows it's got the edge right now in terms of hardware, and in terms of raw numbers, it's ahead there too (although we don't know the quality of its personnel).  I won't be at all surprised to see China trying to humiliate the USA with a quick strike that will gain victory against a US ally without our being able to help in any effective way.  That would also give it a major psychological and propaganda victory to use at home to bolster the image and reputation of the Chinese Communist Party.

Give President Trump and his successor(s) (presuming they're good successors) a decade to turn things around, and that will change.  Do we have a decade?  I personally don't think so.  I hope I'm wrong.  However, the President's decisive action against Iran, and now against Venezuela, must give pause for thought to rival strategists and politicians, and may buy us time.  One hopes they will continue to do so.

Peter

Victory in 1945: long in coming, and still affecting the whole world today

 

On August 15th, 1945, known ever since as VJ Day, World War II came to an end with the unconditional surrender of Japan.  Wild celebrations took place in all the victorious Allied powers, but the victory did not solve most of the problems that had led to the war in the first place.  Indeed, it created a host of new problems that would spark the decades-long Cold War and radical socio-political realignments on every continent.

This 45-minute documentary summarizes the last few months of World War II leading up to VJ Day.  It does a very good job of drawing together the many threads that came together on that day.  Most people today have little or no idea of all that was involved, which is why I'm posting it here.  I learned my first lessons about it from my parents, who fought from September 1939 through VJ Day with the armed forces of Great Britain.  For almost all my life, I've read and studied about World War II and its aftermath.  It created the world we live in today, more than any other event in history.

I think this documentary will be well worth your time to watch.

May all the millions who lost their lives during that terrible conflict rest in God's mercy.

Peter

"How Russia fights"

 

That's the title of an online compendium of analytical articles about how the Russian military is structured, and how it operates.  Strategy Page reports:

The analysis in the How Russia Fights project began when General Christopher Cavoli, commander of American army operations in Europe and Africa, realized something. U.S. Army Foreign Area Officers/FAOs assigned to the European theater lacked a detailed understanding of the Russian Armed Forces/RAF and were unable to adequately advise him and other senior officers. Between 1991 to 2014, the United States considered Russia to be a strategic partner. As a result, FAO training shifted its focus away from Russian military capabilities to areas like China and the Pacific. To address this training gap, Cavoli assembled a team of retired Russian speaking Army FAOs. These men had more than 200 years’ experience working on aspects of the Russian military and how they operated. This group called themselves the Troika, the Russian word for three. The Troika was asked to create a training course for FAOs focused on the RAF at the operational and tactical levels.

There's much more at the link.  Recommended reading.

The full course developed over several iterations, and is now available for download under the title "How Russia Fights: A Compendium of Troika Observations on Russia's Special Military Operations".  It makes very interesting reading.

Peter

How can we predict the future if we don't understand the past and/or the present?

 

Charles Hugh Smith, whom we've met many times in these pages, has published a lengthy article that I believe may be one of his most important ever.  Indeed, he says of it:

Author's note: most of the time when I write an essay that I consider important, it attracts little attention and 'falls stillborn from the press,' in David Hume's phrase. This is one of those essays.

Having read it several times now, I agree with him.  This article repays serious attention.  Here's an excerpt.  Emphasis in original.

The possibility that all of our models will fail to accurately predict what happens next rarely occurs to us, for it moots the entire project of making accurate predictions and mapping our responses. If we admit the possibility that the next few years cannot be accurately predicted for a variety of reasons, then our Plans A, B and C (and our own thinking) must necessarily be contingent and flexible.

We must be willing and able to throw overboard our entire edifice of models, data and expectations, and respond without any confidence in the models we wedded and are loathe to surrender. This is difficult for us because it demands capacious stores of humility and a willingness to say "I was wrong, the models I've staked my entire career on are incorrect."

Consider the keystone's role in arches and ecosystems. We understand that removing the keystone from the arch causes the arch to collapse, but we're stunned when removing a species from an ecosystem collapses the ecosystem because we did not recognize the species was the keystone species of that self-organizing system: without that species doing its part, the whole system collapses.

Our ability to discern the many keystones in sprawling, complex systems is not as god-like as we imagine. This is the source of the multi-century debate about what caused the western Roman Empire to collapse. Like many others, I have often referenced the decline and eventual collapse of the western Roman Empire in my work, with the caveat that I don't propose any one cause was the sole keystone that when removed, collapsed the entire empire.

Based on my reading of various authors, it seems the empire was beset by what we now call a polycrisis, a set of independent crises that fed back into one another, exacerbating the overall situation from one that the empire could have managed, with sufficient time and effort into one that overwhelmed the remaining Imperial resources.

New aspects of the polycrisis continue to come to light. In The Fall of the Roman Empire: a new history of Rome and the Barbarians, author Peter Heather argues that the Roman Empire was not on the brink of social or moral collapse, what brought it to an end were the so-called Barbarians gaining the expertise to field large armies from their Roman neighbors.

But it's impossible to dismiss the other material factors described by author Kyle Harper in The Fate of Rome: Climate, Disease, and the End of an Empire. Climate change that reduces crop yields and pandemics that kill a third of your armies and populace can ruin your day to the point that the Barbarians who suffered fewer losses due to their more widely dispersed villages had the upper hand regardless of other conditions.

My point here is that each of these causal chains ran through systems which each had a keystone. There wasn't just one keystone that supported the weight of the entire empire; there were keystones in a vast range of systems, each of which was itself a keystone in the entirety of the empire.

This is why I doubt any of the predictions about what happens next in the global and US economies, geopolitics, etc. will prove accurate. Every prediction is based, explicitly or implicitly, on a model with shaky foundations and therefore shaky causality, a model that fails to identify the keystones in each complex subsystem that makes up the system the model is modeling.

. . .

And so here we are, wandering from room to dust-choked room, every one stuffed to the ceiling with predictions based on blind adherence to the ideas of the past presented as "scientific" because the data has been neatly organized and the adherents are so confident in the correctness of their diagnosis and proposed cure.

The novel, apocalyptic situation which has now arisen goes largely unrecognized. The technical-managerial experts all share a complacent acceptance of things as they are, without a single new idea, as their confidence in their models is so great that there is no need for new ideas.

Show me the keystones in each subsystem of a highly complex, tightly bound system, and then maybe we'll have a few hints about what happens next. Rather than pile up more predictions, it might be wiser to start stocking up humility and preparing to jettison all the old models and solutions before they sink the lifeboat.

There's more at the link.

Mr. Smith's argument doesn't just apply to economics, but also to climate change, demographics and a host of other issues.  In all of them, models tend to drive our current forecasts and predictions - but what if the models are wrong?  If they are, everything we're planning and doing based upon them is going to be wrong, too.

I highly recommend clicking over to Mr. Smith's blog and reading the entire article for yourself, slowly and carefully, and more than once.  It repays attention.

Peter

For everyone interested in military and geopolitical strategy

 

Editor Jeremy Black, already a well-known expert in military strategy, has curated a large number of articles by numerous authors into a collection titled "The Practice of Strategy: A Global History".  The articles include:

• Grand Patterns of Strategy, old and new
• Escalation Dominance in Antiquity
• Powers in the Western Mediterranean.  A Strategic Assessment in Roman History
• A Kind of Strategy: Carthage’s confrontation with Roman soft power during the First Punic War
• Understanding a Different World of War:  Strategic Practice in Medieval Europe and the Middle East
• Ukrainism of Mālum Discordiæ:  Strategy of War and Growth,  Setting up the strategic scene
• War, Strategy, and Environment on  South Asia’s Northwestern Frontier
• Imperial Chinese strategy, A Play in Three Acts
• Spanish Grand Strategy c. 1479/1500-1800/1830
• Confronting Russia at Sea; the Long View (1700-1919)
• How to deter or defeat Russia – the maritime historical experience
• ‘New Paths to Wisdom’: Clausewitz: From Practice to Theory,
• Trade War, War on Trade, War on Neutrals
• Napoleon and Caesar: comparing strategies
• Hitler and German Strategy 1933-1945
• Stalin as Protean Strategist?
• Cold War Strategy and Practice
• Russian strategy across three eras:  Imperial, Soviet, and contemporary
• Swedish Strategic Practice
• India’s Strategy from Nehru to Modi: 1947-2022
• China’s Military Strategy from Mao Zedong to Xi Jinping
• Strategies for the New Millennium

Best of all, you can download a full PDF copy of the entire book free of charge!  That's the best value in this field I've seen for a very long time.  Don't let some early pages in Italian put you off:  the full English translation of them follows.

Highly recommended to all military strategy and strategic planning buffs.

Peter

"How the World Ran Out of Everything": Lessons we all need to learn

 

The New York Times points out that so-called "Just In Time" manufacturing practices were caught short by the COVID-19 pandemic and its widespread after-effects.

In the story of how the modern world was constructed, Toyota stands out as the mastermind of a monumental advance in industrial efficiency. The Japanese automaker pioneered so-called Just In Time manufacturing, in which parts are delivered to factories right as they are required, minimizing the need to stockpile them.

Over the last half-century, this approach has captivated global business in industries far beyond autos. From fashion to food processing to pharmaceuticals, companies have embraced Just In Time to stay nimble, allowing them to adapt to changing market demands, while cutting costs.

But the tumultuous events of the past year have challenged the merits of paring inventories, while reinvigorating concerns that some industries have gone too far, leaving them vulnerable to disruption. As the pandemic has hampered factory operations and sown chaos in global shipping, many economies around the world have been bedeviled by shortages of a vast range of goods — from electronics to lumber to clothing.

In a time of extraordinary upheaval in the global economy, Just In Time is running late.

There's more at the link.

The article is pretty accurate, IMHO.  Factories had grown used to running on a minimal stockpile of essential production supplies, relying on regular, reliable deliveries to bring them what they needed when they needed it.  Unfortunately, when those deliveries were interrupted due to any one of a number of factors aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic, the factories could not continue normal production.  They had insufficient reserve supplies on which to fall back.

I think all of us can draw an important lesson from this.  How would - how will - our own emergency plans survive a sudden, unforeseen interruption in supplies?  Many so-called "preppers" speak glibly of having so many months' or years' food supplies put away, just in case;  but how many of them have checked their stockpiles against reality?  They might have mountains of rice and beans, but be short on essential medical supplies (painkillers, laxatives, diarrhea medication and so on).

To take just one example in detail:  if I have allergies, do I have a stockpile of anti-allergy medication, OTC and/or prescription, sufficient to tide me over if there's suddenly no more available in the shops?  That's actually a critical item, and should be very high on everyone's emergency supply list.  If we aren't used to living outdoors, where exposure to allergens is much higher, and we suddenly have no air-conditioning (because the power's out), and are forced to open windows to ventilate our homes, all those allergens will come flooding in.  If we have to "bug out" to another part of the country, with local allergens to which we haven't built up any tolerance, it's going to be even worse.  We should have at least several weeks' worth of such medications in stock, if not several months' worth - enough for every member of the family, including low-dose versions for children if necessary.

How many of our normal, day-to-day needs might be seriously affected if routine supplies are interrupted?  I'm not just talking about food, but many other things.  For example:

• Routine maintenance of our motor vehicles.  Do we have enough oil, filters, small consumable parts, and tools to service our vehicles ourselves if necessary, or have a more mechanically minded neighbor or friend service them?  Do we have the necessary instructions or maintenance manuals?  Do we have even a small emergency reserve of fuel, so that if supplies to our local gas stations are interrupted, we have a tankful or two to tide us over, or get to a safer part of the country if necessary?
• Light bulbs, and alternate sources of lighting.  If we can't buy them, we're stuck with what we've got.  I try to keep at least one spare bulb in reserve for every 3-4 in the house, plus emergency lighting that I can bring into play during prolonged power outages.
• Prescription medication.  I have a minimum of 90 days' reserve supply of every single prescription medication my wife and I take, and I'm working towards getting that up to 180 days across the board.  For a couple of critical items (i.e. without them, I'm going to die!), I have a year's supply in reserve.  I also have a small reserve of potentially critical antibiotics, in case of a real emergency.
• Ammunition.  I'm not expecting to fight World War 3, but if society is severely disrupted by a crisis, who knows what looting and/or anarchy might break out?  I have enough ammunition in storage to see my wife and myself through any likely need, and to keep in practice during times like the present, when regular supplies aren't available and/or affordable.

Those are just a few areas of concern.  I'm sure you can supply your own list.

Because they didn't foresee, expect or prepare for disruptions in supply or their labor force, many factories - in some areas, all of them - had to close their doors during the COVID-19 crisis.  Let's take a lesson from that, and make sure we're not making the same mistake.

One more thing.  During a crisis, you'll hear many accusations of hoarding directed against those who are prepared to look after their own needs.  This is a lie, but it's a very common and very persuasive lie.  You should expect the authorities to try to confiscate any "excess" or "hoarded" stocks they can find, in order to satisfy the needs of the mob and provide public relations pictures of how they're "doing something".  They may even mount door-to-door searches for such stocks, in defiance of constitutional and legal norms, justifying them in terms of the current emergency.  (This has been a common element in several emergencies to which I was exposed.)  If you try to resist, you'll probably be arrested.

That's why it's important to keep your reserves as unobtrusive as possible, in plain containers that won't attract envy or suspicion.  If possible, store some in a secondary location, so that if one is found and "looted" (officially or otherwise), you still have the other on which to fall back.  Also, don't talk about your reserves to other people you don't know well, or aren't sure you can trust.  If you do, word about them is sure to get out during an emergency.  People will come knocking on your door, demanding that you share with them.  If you don't (and you shouldn't, except for those who have a legitimate claim on you for support), you're going to attract anger, resentment, and possibly violent attempts to take what you have.  That's not a good place to be.

Peter

Yet more lessons learned from a recent war

 

We've examined last year's Armenia-Azerbaijan war over the Nagorno-Karabak enclave in two previous blog posts.  Now comes an article over at American Partisan, looking at what we can learn about strategy and tactics in a highly technological hostile environment.

The Second Nagorno-Karabakh War was fought between Armenia and Azerbaijan from September 24 to November 10, 2020. This 44-day war resulted in a decisive military victory for Azerbaijan. Armenia was out-fought, out-numbered, and out-spent and lost even though they controlled the high-ground in a mountainous region that favored traditional defense. Azerbaijan’s alliance with Turkey, and close technological support from Israel, strategically isolated Armenia. In addition, Turkey’s posturing influenced the Russians not to intervene to support Armenia. That Azerbaijan attacked Armenia during the pandemic was an additional factor. The fact that Azerbaijan won the war is not extraordinary, considering the correlation of forces arrayed against Armenia. What is exceptional is that this was the first modern war primarily decided by unmanned weapons ... Here are ten lessons derived from a deep study of the open-source information about the conflict.

1. KNOW YOURSELF AND KNOW YOUR ENEMY: The First Nagorno-Karabakh War was a protracted conflict fought between1988 to 1994. The war ended in Armenian victory and the occupation by Armenia of most of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Azerbaijanis didn’t want a repeat of that disaster. They researched their opponent, studied recent changes in the methods of war, adopted the latest weapons and proven tactics from Turkey!s experience in Syria and Libya, and trained their forces. Azerbaijan foresaw a niche advantage over their enemy and outspent Armenia six-to-one, investing more than $24 billion in the decade before the war to purchase the latest Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), UCAV, and LM technology from Turkey and Israel. One of the primary lessons of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War is to “know yourself and know your enemy,” and act on that knowledge.

. . .

3. DOMINATE AS MANY DOMAINS AS POSSIBLE: Azerbaijan fought in all five domains (land, sea, air, cyber, and space), while Armenia fought in the land, air, and cyber domains. Azerbaijan used Turkish satellites and accessed commercial satellites for data transmission and information. Azerbaijan commanded the land, air, space, and cyber domains for decisive moments during the first two weeks of the fighting to devastate Armenian air defenses and this gave Azerbaijan air supremacy over Nagorno-Karabakh. From that moment on, the Azerbaijanis continued to fight in all domains to their advantage. The ability to see, decide, and engage in multiple domains, and dominate the ones that matter during decisive periods, is the essence of war in the 21st century.

. . .

5. THE BATTLESPACE IS TRANSPARENT: Azerbaijani sensors, mostly mounted on UAVs, gave the Azerbaijani military a clear, 24-hour, unblinking view of the battlespace. Armenian positions that were camouflaged in the traditional way, were still identified by electro optical and thermal cameras. Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) platforms were merged with strike capability in the forms of the TB2 and HAROP. High-definition, full-motion-realtime videos from these platforms provided ISR, destroyed systems and personnel, and provided accurate battle damage assessments (BDA). Although both sides had plenty of tanks, it appears that tanks seldom got within shooting range and most engagements were fought at stand-off distances. Combined arms can still be decisive, as air platforms cannot take and hold ground, but only if ground forces survive long enough to move within direct fire range. During the war, there were more standoff engagements, than close combat fights.

There's more at the link.  Highly recommended reading, particularly for military technology buffs and those focusing on strategy and tactics for the modern battlefield.

As I've said before, in military technology terms, I daresay I'm a dinosaur.  During my military service, and in combat, I used the technology of the 1970's and 1980's.  That's now so far out of date that it probably would not be survivable on a modern, hi-tech battlefield.  Iraq was completely outclassed using Soviet technology of the same vintage against US and coalition forces in the First and Second Gulf Wars.  Now, using it would be like shooting fish in a barrel for more advanced opponents.  Gives me a nasty itching feeling between my shoulder blades . . .

Peter

Analyzing America's future, and our place in it

Let me begin by saying that in my sixty-something years on the planet, I've seen and done a lot - far more than most people, relatively speaking.  (I've written about some of my experiences on this blog from time to time.)  That wasn't of my choice;  it was forced on me by an accident of birth (location and time) and a series of circumstances far beyond my control.  I wish I hadn't experienced many of those things/places/people, but nobody asked me for my input!  I learned a great deal the hard way, and learned also that the same issues very often result in the same flashpoints and areas of conflict in different parts of the world.  Humans are very predictable in the mass.  It's individuals who can change things by providing inspired leadership - not the "great unwashed" as a collective.  In the latter sense, it seems to me that humans have a lot in common with lemmings!

It's natural (and wise) for us to want to safeguard our futures, individually and collectively, to the greatest possible extent.  However, the inputs to our thinking are so muddled by extraneous factors such as partisan politics, and often so flawed in their presentation (think ideologically biased news media, just for a start), that it's very difficult to see the wood for the trees - to look past the individual factors affecting our future, to get a broad perspective that takes all or most of them into account.  When I say "difficult", I mean, of course, that a lot of people simply don't bother to take the long view, and content themselves with looking only at what's immediately in front of them.  They prefer not to put themselves to the trouble of amassing information, weighing up factors, and making decisions.

That can be a fatal mistake.  Consider:

• What would a middle-class, well-educated businessman in Venezuela have thought about his future, and that of his country, twenty years ago?  Ten years ago?  Five years ago?  At each stage, he almost certainly would never have envisaged the situation there right now, where the national currency is worthless, the economy is in ruins, and mere survival can no longer be guaranteed.  If he had, he'd have left long ago!
• What about those who blindly accept "conventional wisdom", and base their lives around it, when in fact that "wisdom" is seriously misguided?  Think of the "population bomb", the "resource crisis", theories of "ecological collapse", and so on.  None of these dire predictions have come true - yet.  Will they do so in future?  We don't know.  Their proponents argue that they will, but can't prove it.  Others deny their likelihood, but can't offer any more rigorously defined and defensible alternatives.
• In the mid-2000's, how many American families would have predicted that educating their children would become the single greatest financial burden on their families for generations to come?  Yet, after the passage of student loan legislation and regulations a decade ago, that sector of the economy has exploded, and US students and graduates now owe over $1.6 trillion to loan providers - almost 8% of US national income!  It's crippling their financial future.  Who saw that coming?

I could cite many more examples, but those will do for now.  They illustrate why it's so important for us to analyze likely future scenarios that may affect us, as individuals, as families, as groups of like-minded people, and as a nation.  If we aren't looking far down the road, we can't see events as they approach, and we can't take measures to prepare for (or avoid) them.  The light at the end of the tunnel may be a sign that it's about to end, or it may be an oncoming train - but how can we know unless we find out before we reach it - or it reaches us?

In that context, and in the light of the present political instability and dissent in this country, I recommend to you a series of videos by Samuel Culper, who blogs at Forward Observer.  I highly recommend reading his blog daily;  for an illustration of why, see his article "Is Socialism America’s Future?".  It's short, pithy and to the point.  I don't agree with all he says - in fact, I profoundly disagree with some of his analysis - but I admire and respect his thoroughness in outlining the difficulties associated with planning, his emphasis on gathering intelligence (i.e. reliable information) on which to base your decisions, and his task- and goal-oriented perspective.  We can learn a lot from him.

In particular, I'd like to suggest his video series on "Civil War 2.0" as worthy of your attention.  There are three videos (so far - more to come) in the collection.  In them, he analyzes the present condition of our somewhat dis-United States, and offers scenarios for what he thinks are likely outcomes.  As I said, I don't necessarily agree with him, but he offers cogent reasons for his arguments.  You'll find the videos at these links:  Part One, Part Two and Part Three.  You can look for Part Four and subsequent additions on his YouTube channel.

I also suggest that if his arguments make you think, you should read and view other perspectives in an attempt to verify what he's proposing, and/or to develop your own ideas.  For example, if you (as I do) suspect that what is effectively a civil war is already being waged in this country (at present politically, culturally and socially, but in some areas frighteningly close to actual hostilities), consider this Heritage Foundation perspective on the matter.  To look more widely, consider George Friedman's authoritative perspective on what's happening in Europe at present, and consider parallels between events there and in the United States.  Look beyond the headlines, and consider as many authoritative, proven-reliable inputs as possible, whether or not you agree with the politics and views of their sources.  The more you know, the more you can take into account in your analysis of what's confronting you, the more accurately you can plan ahead.

Over to you, dear readers!

Peter

Challenging conventional wisdom about Special Forces

I'm very interested to see the debate currently going on in the US Marine Corps about its Special Forces component (MARSOC), their contribution to SOCOM, and the mission and future of the Corps itself.  Military.com reports:

Dakota Wood, who worked as a strategist at Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command from 2012-2013, released a 60-page report on Thursday titled "Rebuilding America's Military: The United States Marine Corps." It was published by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington think tank where Wood serves as senior research fellow for defense programs.

Facing relentless operational tempo and ongoing budget woes, the Marine Corps should reevaluate where it's spending resources, Wood writes. As part of that effort, he said service leaders should "strongly consider disestablishing [MARSOC]."

"It's a great outfit and they're doing great things, so this is not to disparage MARSOC," Wood told Military.com. "It's stepping back and saying, 'OK, Marine Corps, what are you supposed to be doing? And how are you using the resources that you have?'"

Wood's call to disband the command comes after the Marine Corps released its 2020 budget request, revealing plans to increase the number of MARSOC billets. But the 2,700 Marines already assigned to MARSOC do more to benefit U.S. Special Operations Command than they do the Marine Corps, Wood wrote.

"The Corps' commitment to MARSOC, while a boon to SOCOM and the good work it does for the country, is an opportunity cost for the Corps and the work that only it can do, as opposed to SOCOM's role and the contributions long made to its mission by the Army, Navy and Air Force," he said.

. . .

For Marine Raiders who fought for a place within U.S. Special Operations Command over the past 13 years, Wood's suggestion falls flat.

The original Raider battalions were disbanded toward the end of World War II, and it was a decades-long effort to bring them back. Having someone make a case for dispansion again undoes years of hard work on and off the battlefield, they say.

MARSOC's critical skills operators were essential in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, said Nick Koumalatsos, who spent 12 years with the command and in the Marine Corps reconnaissance community. Dissolving MARSOC now, he said, would be a huge blow.

"This would set us back two decades, if not more," Koumalatsos said. "It's not the world we live in anymore. We're not lining up tanks and we're not lining up in trenches to fight a conventional battle."

. . .

The Marine Corps also can't operate in a vacuum, where it doesn't have a connecting line to SOCOM, said Prime Hall, a former Raider and water-survival instructor.

"This is much larger than the Marine Corps," Hall said. "This is about what is best for the Department of Defense and the country as a whole."

There's more at the link.  The whole article is well worth reading, for those interested in the subject.

I think this is a critically important debate, one that should have been started a long time ago.  It made a great deal of sense to boost SOCOM's role (and therefore MARSOC's) in a time of unconventional, anti-terror warfare, such as we experienced after 9/11.  However, special forces have never been intended to fight a major conventional war against conventional forces.  They're typically equipped with lighter weapons, and trained to fight without access to powerful support arms and regular resupply.  Put them up against a well-trained and -equipped regular force, in a conventional combat role, and they'd likely come off second best.  Firepower and numbers matter on a battlefield.

I'm not by any means suggesting that Special Forces are somehow illegitimate or unnecessary.  They've proved their worth for many years, and I hope we continue to field them for the long term.  However, their role within the overall combat effort needs to be reassessed in the light of current and projected threats, and the balance of forces adjusted accordingly.  That applies to the Marine Corps, too.  Is a Marine Corps actually necessary or desirable in today's combat environment?  If not, why does it still exist?  If it is necessary and desirable, what is its reason for existence?  Let's train and equip it for that purpose, rather than fritter away its substance across an overly broad spectrum of responsibilities.

Personally, I think the Marine Corps should be expanded, and treated as the "fast response" arm of the US armed forces overall.  Let's take that mission away from the US Army, freeing that service to train and equip itself to face a conventional adversary in likely combat scenarios and environments.  Similarly, let's release the Marine Corps from the conventional combat requirement, freeing it to train and equip itself for fast responses to emerging threats.  The Marines could deal with lesser threats on their own, or stabilize and contain more serious problems until heavier conventional forces arrive.

I think that approach is perfectly suited to the way the Marines have traditionally operated, on a limited budget with limited, clearly focused responsibilities.  What's more, it would fulfill an essential mission of our Armed Forces in a focused, unambiguous way.  At present, that mission is divided between conventional and special forces across several arms of service.  It siphons personnel and equipment from all of them, while not addressing the needs of any one of them in particular.  That's created a nebulous situation that satisfies nobody.

That's only one possible approach, of course.  There are many alternatives.  I look forward to this debate continuing and intensifying.  It's long overdue, IMHO.

Peter

Are bureaucrats and their red tape the best anti-war measure ever?

I wasn't surprised to read this report - I've had more than enough experience with military and civilian bureaucracies to last me a lifetime! - but it highlights one of the more serious issues related to military preparedness during peacetime.

When NATO expanded eastwards a unique set of logistical problems were encountered. These new problems were not fully appreciated until 2015 when the United States decided to send military units by road (and railroad) to the easternmost new NATO members.

. . .

While the armed forces available to NATO far outnumber those of Russia, there is a major impediment to assembling and moving those forces by road to the aid of NATO nations bordering Russia. That enemy is the ancient bureaucracies that control the movement of foreign troops crossing borders, even those forces coming to your aid. This was demonstrated in early 2015 when a U.S. Army mechanized battalion made a very well publicized road march from Poland, Lithuania and Estonia back to its base in Germany. The American battalion required hundreds of hours of effort to complete the paperwork and get the permissions required to cross so many borders in military vehicles.

The pile of paperwork and weeks required to handle it were used as very concrete evidence to persuade the East European nations to streamline the process, a lot, or have themselves to blame if reinforcements did not arrive in a timely fashion. As usual a compromise was worked out and by 2016 six NFIUs (NATO Force Integration Units) were organized, each consisting of 40 troops trained and equipped to handle the paperwork and traffic control measures required to get military convoys across eastern borders as quickly as possible to specific countries (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania). The NFIU work out of embassies and stay in constant touch with the border control bureaucracies of the East European nations involved. NFIUs also arrange for rest areas and resupply for the convoys.

Thus NFIUs ensure that the routes used have roads and bridges that can handle the heavy trucks and armored vehicles involved. This is a crucial matter in East Europe. Since the 1950s West European nations have constantly upgraded and maintained roads and bridges to handle heavy vehicles, but East Europe had not, at least until the 1990s and the deferred upgrades, after decades of communist misrule, are still underway. The dozens of Russian divisions stationed in East Europe until 1990 were brought in piecemeal over decades, often transporting heavy equipment by ship or rail. Moreover, NATO heavy equipment is heavier than their Russian counterparts so even East European bridges built to handle Russian tanks often cannot deal with heavier M1s and Leopards.

The NFIUs must maintain a new database on 15,000 kilometers of East European roads and hundreds of bridges. Available cross-country routes have also been mapped and put into the database.

. . .

While all these rules and approvals would not stop invading Russians they would, in theory, slow down reinforces from the West. The Russians also know that even with NFIUs the movement of these troops is a slow and frustrating process and are ready to take advantage of it. So NATO continues to battle the bureaucracies to speed up the flow of reinforcements.

There's more at the link.

I'm not sure who first said something along the lines of "Amateurs study tactics, but professionals study logistics", but he was a wise man.  Who would have though that NATO's mission might depend more - at least in its early stages - on dealing with bureaucrats than fighting the enemy?  I reckon that before long, in a real shooting war, the bureaucrats would be dealt with (if necessary the hard way), but initially, they could cause all sorts of problems.

(Of course, it's also true that war itself gives rise to even bigger bureaucracies.  Just try running an army, or war industries, without armies of civil servants filling out forms, whether paper or electronic!)

Peter

Strategic planning for individuals and families, Part 6

This is the last in a series of articles, which may be found at the following links, and should be read in numerical sequence:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

We've looked at the elements and techniques involved in drawing up a strategic plan.  Those we've discussed are fairly simple and straightforward, and work across many scenarios for many different people (that's why I like them).  There are many other planning techniques;  research them if you wish, and adopt those that seem most suitable to you.

In this final article in our series, I'd like to look at some peripheral issues and concerns that will affect the development and implementation of our plan.


1.  Start small, and build up from there.  If we try to plan for our entire future all at once, with everything neatly packaged and tied up in ribbon, we're going to find it very difficult - probably impossible - to cater for every eventuality.  It's best to start small, get used to the planning process, make sure we know how to implement the plan we've made, then try something bigger.  (Remember the old African proverb:  "How do you eat an elephant?  Mouthful by mouthful!"  Dave Ramsay offers a similar approach with his "7 Baby Steps" to taking control of your money.  BTW, I highly recommend his program if you're struggling in that area.)

When, as a pastor, I used to walk couples through the planning process, I used to advise them to start by planning a specific project together - something simple and short-term, where they'd be comfortable with all the elements involved.  Examples I've seen included redecorating a room, or preparing for a vacation, or buying a new vehicle, or building a tree house for their kids.  It was undoubtedly overblown to use a formal planning process for such simple things, but as exercises in how to plan, they provided invaluable training.  Having seen how the process worked, and committed to implementing simple plans together, the couples could then apply the same techniques to bigger and more important matters.  I used to quote the Parable of the Talents to them:  "You have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things."  In planning terms, if we can carefully draw up a plan and faithfully execute it to accomplish small things, we'll find it much easier to do the same for bigger and more complex things in due course.


2.  We need to take the planning process seriously.  A lot of people regard it as too complicated, or too 'heavy'.  "Lighten up, man!"  "Don't harsh my mellow!"  "Chill!"  Such attitudes can lead to under-analysis of the issues confronting us.  That, in turn, means that our plan won't address some things that may be important.  Later, when we're "working to the plan", that means we won't be thinking about those issues . . . and they may creep up to bite us in the metaphorical butt.

A good example was discussed in Part 5 of this series.  If we're planning to build up emergency food supplies, but ignore extra water supplies, we can end up dying of thirst while surrounded by packets of dry food we can't use.  Similarly, if we don't plan for and provide a means to prepare the food we're stockpiling, we can find ourselves unable to use it.  We need to take the process of analysis seriously, think as broadly as possible, and try to cover all the bases.  The process known as brainstorming is very useful in that regard, and I highly recommend it.  (YouTube has some useful videos showing how to do it.)

That's also a good reason to bring in others to help with the planning process.  If you and your partner are trying to develop a 'life plan' (even if it's only for the next five years), how about inviting a few friends - people you like and trust - to join you in doing so?  They may think of things you'll miss, and vice versa;  and you can help them adopt a more formalized, step-by-step approach to planning that they otherwise might not use.  Also, don't forget that your parents and grandparents have a lot more experience of such things than you do!  Ask their advice.  You might be surprised by how much they've learned the hard way about life.  If you listen to them, you may avoid many pitfalls.


3.  Planning that never leads to action is useless.  Over-planning, or too detailed an analysis, can lead to the infamous condition known as paralysis by analysis.  Wikipedia describes it as:

"... the state of over-analyzing (or over-thinking) a situation so that a decision or action is never taken, in effect paralyzing the outcome. A decision can be treated as over-complicated, with too many detailed options, so that a choice is never made, rather than try something and change if a major problem arises. A person might be seeking the optimal or 'perfect' solution upfront, and fear making any decision which could lead to erroneous results, while on the way to a better solution."

Another way to describe this problem is the well-known saying that "Perfect is the enemy of good".  As Wikipedia puts it:

... one might never complete a task if one has decided not to stop until it is perfect: completing the project well is made impossible by striving to complete it perfectly. Closely related is the Nirvana fallacy, in which people never even begin an important task because they feel reaching perfection is too hard.

This is particularly true in military planning.  As General Patton famously noted, "A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week."  On another occasion he said, "A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later."  Both are excellent summations of the problem.  We, as civilian individuals and couples and families, may not be planning in terms of fighting a war, but that doesn't mean we can't learn from those who have.


4.  The plan is not necessarily the reality, just as the map is not the territory.  We can become so fixated on the plan that we lose sight of events and changing circumstances in the real world that may make our plan unworkable.  A few examples:

• If we're focusing on and working hard to build up a years' food supply and store it in our garage, but ignore the reality that our house is in a flood plain, any flood will inundate our garage and everything inside it.  That's not exactly productive.
• In Part 3 of this series of articles, we looked at Joe and Mary and the plans they were making together.  We pointed out that some elements were unspoken, such as the assumption that they were going to remain together.  If their marriage is in trouble, and there's the possibility of separation or divorce, it's far more important to address and resolve that issue first before planning anything else together!
• Bonds and certificates of deposit earned reasonable interest rates before the 2007/08 financial crisis;  but after that, the zero-interest-rate policies of central banks dropped interest rates to very low levels.  An investment plan for retirement made and implemented before the crisis, that did not envisage or allow for such changes, would have beggared anyone following it after the crisis erupted.

We have to be sufficiently flexible in our planning to take account of a wide variety of circumstances, and changes that affect them;  but we also have to keep our objectives in mind, and not allow circumstances to distract us from them unless there's no alternative.  As the old aphorism puts it, "When you're up to your ass in crocodiles, it's difficult to remind yourself that you're trying to drain the swamp!"  Allow for the crocodiles when you plan, and don't let them take your eyes off the goal - the purpose and objectives - you're trying to achieve.


5.  We can't impose a plan on those who don't support it.  Similarly, we can't force people to become involved in planning if they regard it as a waste of time.  This is a particular obstacle for many couples, where one partner really wants to plan for a project, or the next five years, or whatever, but the other partner is content to go along from day to day, dealing with problems as they arise but never developing a medium- to long-term plan or perspective.  We aren't in the army.  We can't impose our will on others;  we can only seek to persuade them to join us, or encourage them to see things from our perspective, or (at worst) get them to humor or tolerate our eccentricities!

I've seen this sort of conflict in almost every relationship with which I've dealt as a pastor - including my own.  My wife sometimes nags me about keeping certain things around the house clean and organized, whereas I regard those things as supremely unimportant.  Nevertheless, they're important to her, so if I want domestic peace and tranquility, I'd better do something about them!  In the same way, I want to build up supplies of things that are important to me in the light of my life experience.  I've needed them very badly in the past, and want to be prepared in case I need them again.  On the other hand, she's never needed them, and regards my focus on them as a waste of time and money.  Nevertheless, she humors me and allows me to indulge at least some of those things, because I do the same for her.  We've learned to make allowances for each other.

Planning is no different.  If one partner thinks a formal plan is important, but the other doesn't, it's going to be a process of negotiation to work that out between them.  One may have to tolerate less formality and less structure to the plan;  the other may have to endure more of both than they'd prefer;  but between the two of them, given goodwill and mutual respect, they'll find a way to make it work.  In the same way, kids can be ordered to do something when they're very young, but as they grow up they'll also grow more independent.  If you're developing a plan for your family's future, you need to involve them in it and "sell" it to them, not expect them to merely obey orders.  If they see no point to the exercise, why should they support it?  Rewards and incentives are as important as (if not more so than) punishments or restrictions, in the context of a family.


6.  A sense of humor is a big help!  Trying to develop a plan is hard work, and sometimes frustrating, particularly when someone's cherished idea turns out to be unworkable in the real world (something the S.W.O.T. technique often reveals in remorseless detail).  Similarly, implementing the plan can run into difficulties;  there may not be enough money to do everything on schedule, or people may have other commitments that distract them from doing everything the plan expects them to do, or the timetable may be disrupted by events outside everyone's control (for example, illness or injury, or losing a job and being without work).  We have to take such things in our stride.  The old proverb says that "Man proposes, but God disposes".  It may not be God doing the disposing - Murphy is alive and well, and Mother Nature can be a stone cold bitch sometimes! - but our 'proposals' are always subject to external factors that may help or hinder them.  That's life.  We may as well learn to accept it, and laugh at it - and ourselves!

This can also affect how we implement our plan.  If we have young kids in our family, why not try to make the plan into a game for them?  Offer rewards to the one doing the most, or getting the most things right, and make it fun and entertaining.  You'll get much better co-operation from them if they're enjoying the process.  (The same applies to each other!)


Those are just a few ideas that may help us make better plans, and implement them better as well.  It's sometimes a difficult and time-consuming process;  but if we're following a map, we're much more likely to get to where we want to be.  If we aren't - if we're not working to a plan, but just 'muddling through' from day to day - we're unlikely to get anywhere or achieve anything, except by accident!

Peter

Strategic planning for individuals and families, Part 5

This is part of a series of articles, which may be found at the following links, and should be read in numerical sequence:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

To recap, the basic strategic planning process we're using is called P.O.S.T., standing for Purpose, Objectives, Strategy and Tactics.  It seeks to break down a big problem into manageable tasks.  (Old African proverb:  "How do you eat an elephant?  Mouthful by mouthful!")  In brief:

• The Purpose is our overall aim, what we're trying to achieve in broad terms.  It should be summarized in a single sentence.
• The Objective(s) are the things we need to accomplish in order to achieve our Purpose.
• The Strategy(ies) are how we're going to accomplish a particular Objective.
• The Tactic(s) are what we're going to do to implement a particular Strategy.

In Part 4, we also discussed the S.W.O.T. process;  an analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.  This is a 'reality check' for the plan developed using P.O.S.T., to ensure it's viable and achievable.  The two processes operate hand in glove to develop a workable plan.

Today we want to discuss strategies and tactics.  There are many time-honored explanations of the difference between the two, but basically, strategies describe what you need to do.  Tactics explain how you're going to do it.  (When I underwent officer training in South Africa's military, many years ago, it was explained to me tongue-in-cheek in these terms:  "You're interested in a pretty girl.  You dress nicely, clean your car, pick her up on time, take her to a quality restaurant, buy her a good meal, and make pleasant conversation.  After the meal you take a scenic drive around the mountain and park in a pretty, secluded spot overlooking a lovely view of the sea.  All that is strategy.  What happens from then on is tactics!")

Let's illustrate the process by taking an objective and develop strategies and tactics to implement it.  In Part 2 of this series of articles, we looked at goals - i.e. objectives - that a family might set for itself.  One was:  "Build up reserves of food and other necessities sufficient to last our entire family for three months in the event of emergency."  That might involve any or all of the following strategies:

• Find out what we are currently buying in the way of food every month, to determine our family's consumption.
• Make a list of foods we like and those we dislike, so that we don't waste money buying something some or all of us don't want to eat.
• Decide what foods are essential (i.e. those providing adequate, balanced nutrition, etc.) and what are nice to have, but not essential (e.g. desserts, candy, and so on).  Bear in mind that 'essential' is a variable, depending on our family.  If we have young kids, candies and desserts might indeed be on the 'essentials' list, just to stop them complaining!  Adults can do without such things if they have to.
• Plan how much of each type of food we need to store, in order to have three months' worth on hand.
• Figure out how much we can afford to spend each month, over and above our regular expenditure on food, to start building up our reserve.
• Figure out how much space we have to store our reserve food supply, and whether it will be suitable for that purpose 'as is', or whether it needs to be better equipped (for example, with shelves).
• Plan on what sorts of foods to buy in terms of the storage area available.  For example, if we're going to store them in our garage, some foods will deteriorate faster in the heat or cold of that environment than they would in a climate-controlled area (e.g. our kitchen).  We should plan our purchases accordingly, buying what will be suitable for that storage environment.
• Decide on the urgency of the requirement.  For example, if we live in an area prone to hurricanes, it's probably a good idea to build up our reserve supply of food before the next hurricane season!  If we live somewhere that is less prone to natural disasters, we may be able to take longer to build up our reserve supply, spending less each month for the purpose.

Note that in all of these steps, we haven't actually done anything yet to build up our reserve food supply.  We've made plans about how we're going to do it, and identified things we need to do in order to achieve that objective.  That's strategy.

Tactics is actually doing those things.  For each strategy, we'll make a list of things we have to do in order to complete that task.  For example, one strategy above was:  "Figure out how much space we have to store our reserve food supply, and whether it will be suitable for that purpose 'as is', or whether it needs to be better equipped (for example, with shelves)."  To implement this, the following task list might be drawn up:

• Measure the space available in kitchen storage units, in the garage, etc.  (Length, width, height, volume, etc. are all necessary and useful measurements.)
• Measure the volume taken up by the foods we plan to store (cans, boxes, bags, etc.), so that we know how much space is required.
• Buy shelves or shelving materials and install them in our food storage area, so that we have space to put away that volume of food.
• Buy containers (e.g. trunks or totes) that we'll use to store and protect our long-term food reserves.
• Begin buying extra food as part of our regular weekly grocery shopping, and adding the extra to our emergency reserves.  (For example, buy two extra cans of beans, or an extra can of coffee, or an extra bag of rice, every week.  The additional expenditure won't be so high as to hurt, but over time we'll build up a useful surplus.)
• If the need is urgent (for example, hurricane season is approaching) and funds are available, make a special shopping trip to build up our reserve food supply.
• Note the expiration or 'use by' dates on each food container, and keep a record of them, so we can 'rotate out' older foods before they expire (either eating them ourselves, or donating them to the local food bank) and replace them with newer, longer-lasting products.

Those are all things we will actually do.  They're 'how' to accomplish the 'what' that we described when developing our strategies.

Note that the circumstances of our lives may determine the feasibility of some of these steps.  It's all very well to set an objective of having three months' food in reserve;  but what if we're living in a small apartment in a big city?  There simply isn't enough space in such a residence to store that much food.  However, that does not mean we should abandon the objective.  It's an important one, and I think everybody should be thinking about such preparations.  Instead, let's modify how we achieve that objective by using different strategies.  For example:

• Research different types of foods, to see how we can store the greatest food or nutritional value in the smallest physical space.  Examples include cans of 'wet' foods, freeze-dried foods, military-style field rations such as MRE's, bags of dry food such as rice or beans, emergency survival rations, and so on.
• Find out whether water will be available in an emergency (both in sufficient quantity, and of sufficient purity) to rehydrate dried beans, or boil rice, or mix with freeze-dried foods.  If we're in a high-rise apartment, the answer is "Probably not" - when the power goes out, so will the water pumps!  That will influence our decision as to what type of foods to store (we may need to pay more attention to reserve water supplies as well).  'Wet' canned foods or MRE's are heavier and take up more space than some 'dry' alternatives, but they nevertheless become more attractive under such circumstances, as they need less water to prepare them.
• Figure out whether you'll be able to cook in an emergency.  If the power goes out for several days, you may not be able to heat water to prepare dry foods like rice or pasta, unless you have a backup device such as a gas BBQ grill or propane-fueled camping stove - even a fireplace.  (If you do, remember to store extra fuel supplies!)  However, many canned foods and MRE's can be eaten without heating them at all.
• Determine exactly how much storage space is available where you live.  If the answer is "Very little", plan to store foods that will give you the maximum possible nutrition for the space they'll take up.  Someone who has only a single drawer free in their kitchen, or even just a shoebox under their bed, might be best served with a few packages of emergency ration bars.  They may not taste great, but they provide all the nutrition needed in an emergency, in the smallest possible space.  (They also don't need water or heat to prepare them.)
• Find out whether more storage space is available near your home, but separate from it.  Some people have a small garden shed in which they store tools, a lawnmower, etc.  Could some boxes of foodstuffs be kept there too?  How about renting a small storage unit, perhaps as a joint venture with friends or family members, within walking distance of your home?  That way you could reach it relatively easily to retrieve more food in an emergency.  Consider asking friends or family whether you could move in with them in an emergency, and buy and store your own supplies with them (or contribute to their emergency reserve fund).
• If worse should come to worst (see, for example, my "Lessons Learned" post about Hurricane Katrina in 2005), consider buying a small travel or cargo trailer and storing it somewhere safe.  You can keep emergency supplies in it, and take them with you if you have to leave town for the duration of the crisis.  However, the cost of buying and storing something like that might be high enough to justify moving to a larger residence instead - one with more storage space.  Consider all the alternatives.
• Having taken all these factors into account, we may need to modify our objective in terms of what's practically possible.  Instead of storing three months' food reserves, we may have only enough storage space and budget to accumulate one months' worth.  OK - if that's the case, go with that short-term reality.  When the time comes that we can afford to move to a bigger or better home, we should make a larger food storage area one of the elements we'll look for when deciding what to buy or rent.

Bear in mind, too, that strategies and tactics are just as subject to a 'reality check' as our purpose and objectives.  For that reason, once we've worked out our strategies, it's worth running them through a S.W.O.T. analysis (see Part 4 of this series) to see if they pass muster.  If not, they can be modified, or abandoned and replaced with something more workable, before we invest time and money in trying to achieve the unachievable.  Indeed, if enough strategies prove impractical, it may call into question the objective they're designed to achieve.  Fair enough - that's what the planning process is all about.  If a higher-level objective is impossible to achieve, let's modify or (in the worst case) abandon it.  Flexibility is important.

A given strategy may serve more than one objective, and a given tactic may implement more than one strategy.  For example:

• A strategy of considering the space available to store food may also be applied to the space available to store clothes, or books, or tools, or other important elements in our lives.
• A tactic of buying a couple of extra cans or bags of food every time we shop for groceries can also be applied to building up a reserve of hardware such as nails and screws, or ammunition, or whatever.  (For years I used to buy a box or two of .22 Long Rifle ammunition whenever I went grocery shopping, because many supermarkets also sell ammunition in their Sporting Goods departments.  By the time the 'ammo drought' hit a few years ago, I was sitting pretty on top of a 'stash' of several tens of thousands of rounds of .22 ammunition.  I was able to use it to continue training disabled and handicapped students for a couple of years, at a time when most other shooters were going nuts trying to get their hands on some.  I'm now rebuilding my 'stash', since .22LR ammunition is once more relatively freely available - and I've long since made sure that I have enough defensive and training ammunition in my principle calibers and cartridges to see me through several years of normal consumption.)
• A strategy of researching vehicle prices, financing options, etc. might also be used to investigate needs, options and opportunities peripheral to our objective of buying a new vehicle.  If we opt for a different method of paying for it (e.g. a smaller down payment, or financing it instead of paying cash), would that free up funds we can use for other important projects, such as our emergency food reserve?  Which is the more important need?  Can we kill two or more birds with one stone?

Tomorrow, in the final article in this series, we'll examine a few peripheral issues and wrap up our discussion.

Peter

Strategic planning for individuals and families, Part 4

This is part of a series of articles, which may be found at the following links, and should be read in numerical sequence:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

You'll recall (from Part 1) that the name of the planning process we're using is P.O.S.T., which stands for Purpose, Objectives, Strategy and Tactics.  We've examined the purpose and objective of our strategic plan in the first three parts of this series;  what they are, how to derive them, and how to evaluate them against each other, discard the ones that conflict with each other, and come up with a set of objectives that sound rational and reasonable for the next five to ten years.

We now need to perform a reality check.  Under the circumstances and conditions in which we live, is it feasible to do what we want to do?  Are there factors that might prevent us doing so?  If not, good:  but if there are, maybe we need to revise our purpose and objectives in that light, before we put effort into planning how to achieve something that simply can't be achieved.

This reality check involves another process, known as S.W.O.T.  This stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats.  I define them as follows.  Strengths and Weaknesses are internal factors, in your life, relationship(s), education, attitude, abilities, etc. that may help or hinder you in achieving your objectives.  Opportunities and Threats are external factors, in your location, employment, environment, etc. that may help or hinder you in doing so.  Let's look at each in turn, in the light of some sample objectives.

Joe and Mary may have agreed upon an objective to move closer to Mary's parents sometime during the next five years, so they can help them raise the children they hope to have during that period.  Is that objective feasible?  Let's find out.

Their strengths (i.e. internal factors affecting their decision) may include:

• They have enough money saved to afford the deposit on a new home;
• They earn enough to be able to afford higher mortgage payments.

Their weaknesses (also internal factors) may include:

• When Mary stops work for a while to have children, their joint earnings will be less, and therefore they'll struggle to afford the higher mortgage payment until she can return to work;
• They don't have enough furniture to set up rooms for the children they hope to have, and they'll therefore have to use some of their savings to buy it, or use a line of credit to do so - but that may affect their credit-worthiness for the mortgage financing they'll need to buy their new home.

Opportunities (external factors) may include:

• Houses of the size and quality they want are more plentiful in the area they hope to move to than they are in their present location, making it easier for them to find something suitable;
• A lot of people are moving out of their desired location, meaning that more houses are available, more cheaply - in other words, it's a "buyer's market".

Threats (also external factors) may include:

• Mortgages are harder to come by under current economic conditions, and lenders are much 'pickier' about who they'll lend to than they would be in better times.  This may mean Joe and Mary won't be able to get the mortgage they need, or will have to pay a higher interest rate to do so;
• Mary's parents are getting older and are in poor health.  They may have to give up their home and move into an assisted living facility in the short to medium term - but there are none in the area where they currently live.  If they move away to another area, Joe and Mary's proposed new home will no longer be conveniently situated for them;
• The reason more people are currently moving out of the area they want to move to is that there are factors driving them out - for example, rising crime levels, or nearby industrial development that will mean more pollution of the local environment.  Do they really want to move to a place like that?

You can thus see that strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats must all be evaluated against each other.  If there are too many negatives (weaknesses and threats), they may outweigh the positives (strengths and opportunities), meaning that the objective in question probably isn't a good idea.  Under those circumstances, we can either reshape and reword the objective to be more practical and achievable, or abandon it altogether and try to find a new one to take its place.

Let's look at a second objective with that in mind.  Joe and Mary need a new vehicle, and want one that will be practical in the light of their soon-to-be-growing family.  Mary prefers a minivan, and presents the following S.W.O.T. analysis to defend her choice.

Strengths:

• They can afford it based on their current income levels, even if she has to stop working for a while to have each child.
• It'll give them enough space to carry around a couple of young children plus all the paraphernalia (child seats, diaper bags, toys, etc.) that go with them.  It's a very practical choice.

Weaknesses:

• A minivan is basically designed for city and suburban streets, such as those on which they currently live.  However, it won't be the best choice for the dirt roads leading to her parents' farm, which they often visit.

Opportunities:

• There are many affordable models available, so they can shop for one that fits their budget.
• Generous financing incentives are available from manufacturers who want to sell more vehicles.

Threats:

• If they finance a new vehicle right now, it may affect their credit rating.  That, in turn, may affect them getting the mortgage they need to buy their new home.  They may have to pay a higher interest rate to get it, meaning that the house they want will cost more than they can afford in terms of monthly payments.

Joe objects.  He doesn't deny the strengths and opportunities Mary has identified, but adds the following factors for consideration:

Weaknesses:

• A minivan is socially less desirable than another type of vehicle.  It's looked down upon as a 'soccer mom' type of transportation.  Joe doesn't want to be associated with that stereotype.

Threats:

• They want to move closer to Mary's parents so the latter can help them raise their kids;  but that will mean more frequent trips out to their farm.  That's a safety issue if the minivan can't cope well with dirt farm roads, particularly when they're muddy and slippery after rain.  They don't want to put their kids or themselves at greater risk in that way.

After discussing the issue, Joe and Mary find a mutually acceptable compromise.  They decide to buy a medium-size SUV instead of a minivan.  It will be more expensive (a weakness), but offers almost as much space and practicality for their family as a minivan would (a strength), and also avoids the social 'stigma' of a 'soccer mom' minivan (a strength from Joe's perspective, if not from Mary's).  Furthermore, its four-wheel-drive capability and higher suspension will make it safer on dirt farm roads in all conditions (converting a threat - less frequent visits to Mary's parents, dependent on the weather - into an opportunity - more frequent visits, irrespective of the weather).  That minimizes the weaknesses Joe had identified, whilst simultaneously catering for most of the attributes Mary wants.  They run their choice through another S.W.O.T. analysis, and find that it passes muster.  Everyone's happy.

On the other hand, there might be a scenario in which they couldn't find an acceptable compromise.  What if Joe wanted a more 'manly' vehicle, such as a pickup truck?  It would have less space in the passenger compartment (even with a crew cab) than a minivan, and give Mary fewer of the features she, as a mother-to-be, regards as essential.  That would almost certainly lead to serious conflict in their relationship, as neither side would regard the other's objections as reasonable.  Their individual objectives are too far apart for their needs as a couple.  If that happens, to minimize conflict and preserve their relationship, it might be best to back off that particular objective for a while, work on others where mutual harmony is more easily maintained, and return to the question of transportation at a later date.  On the other hand, if the issue simply can't be postponed (for example, if Mary's present vehicle has broken down repeatedly and proved itself unreliable), then some hard choices will have to be made.  (Hint:  I'd say that the person who will most often use the vehicle should have the final say over what vehicle to buy.  That makes for greater domestic peace and tranquility.  Just my $0.02 worth...)

You can therefore see how the S.W.O.T. process acts as a 'reality check' on the factors identified during the P.O.S.T. process.  The latter is theoretical;  the former is practical.  P.O.S.T. says, "This is what I/we want to achieve."  S.W.O.T. says, "This is what is practically possible for me/us right now."  The two processes work hand-in-glove with each other.

This is where we have to be ruthless with ourselves.  It's pointless to waste our time and resources trying to achieve something that's utterly impractical under our present circumstances.  If an objective proves to be impractical, it must be either abandoned, or postponed, or (at the very least) amended in such a way that it becomes achievable.  No matter how badly we want that particular objective (and a young man wanting something like a sports car, so he can look good to the ladies he's trying to impress, can want that objective very badly indeed!), we have to be realistic.  At first, while we're getting used to the planning process, we may find that half (or even more) of our objectives are not achievable as stated, once we run a S.W.O.T. analysis on them.  We'll have to go back to the P.O.S.T. drawing board, redefine our purpose in the light of modified and alternative objectives, then run another S.W.O.T. analysis to see whether we're closer to reality this time.

Remember, planning is an exercise in self-discipline, and in discipline as a couple.  It gives us a framework within which we agree to operate, in order to accomplish the things that are important to us.  In terms of a couple, it's a mutual agreement, in which we commit to each other to work together to achieve what we've planned.  If we build the framework, then immediately bust through it and go on our merry way without bothering to suit our actions to the plan, then why did we waste our time developing the plan at all?

We've now (hopefully) developed our purpose and objectives (using P.O.S.T.), and tested them in the light of reality (using S.W.O.T.).  In the next article, we'll discuss how to take an objective and develop strategies and tactics that will help us achieve it.  Those strategies and tactics will then also be tested against reality, to make sure they're achievable, before we implement them.

Peter

Strategic planning for individuals and families, Part 3

This is part of a series of articles, which may be found at the following links, and should be read in numerical sequence:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Since every individual has his or her own abilities, interests, aspirations, hopes and dreams, it's impossible to impose a 'one-size-fits-all' set of objectives on everybody.  The same goes for couples and families.  Furthermore, a lot will depend on where we are in life.  A young, single person has a great deal more flexibility than an older, married couple, whose lives are already tied together and who must therefore take each other (and their children, if any) into account.  The best I can do is to use a few real-world examples as illustrations, and invite you to conduct your own planning exercise accordingly.

It's also important to be realistic in your planning.  To make a plan for the next twenty, or thirty, or fifty years is probably unrealistic.  Who knows what the economy will do over that period, or what social upheavals may take place?  If a company had made a detailed 30-year business plan in 1990, when the World Wide Web wasn't much more than a twinkle in its designers' eyes, would that plan have been able to cope with the new opportunities and threats offered by that technology?  I'd say probably not.  I therefore suggest to people that they make a plan for the next five years as an initial exercise.  With that under their belts, and while implementing it, they can start planning for further out - say, the next ten years.

Let's look at a few examples.

Joe has just completed a degree in education.  He wants to teach, but also needs to pay off his study loans, which amount to about $50,000 and will be a crippling financial burden.  Furthermore, he's pretty serious about a young lady, and they've discussed marriage.  However, given his existing study loans, their credit rating won't be good enough to qualify for a mortgage, so they'll have to rent a home together - and rents are very expensive in the area where they live.

Joe starts by defining his personal objectives.  He places a high priority on paying off his study loans;  so, being a teacher, he hopes to take advantage of teacher loan forgiveness programs.  However, doing so will require him to teach in any of a number of schools and school districts designated by the government.  This may restrict opportunities elsewhere, and/or require him to live and work in an area that isn't particularly attractive to him.  On the other hand, doing so will pay off some or all of his student loans in a reasonable period of time, after which he'll be free to move on.  He'll have to do a cost/benefit analysis to decide whether such programs are worthwhile for him.

His acceptance or rejection of such programs will impact his other objectives.  One may be to live in a particular city or state;  but if that area doesn't have teaching positions eligible for loan forgiveness programs, he may have to defer moving there until a later date (or not use the programs, but pay off the student loans from his own earnings and other resources).  Another may be to buy a particular model of car that he finds attractive.  However, if he has to work in a less affluent area with higher crime rates, it might not be advisable to drive it to work every day, for fear of theft or damage.  Should he drive something less attractive to criminals until he can move to or work in a better area?

Joe must also consider the views and aspirations of his partner.  She'll need to do her own individual planning as well, then they'll have to sit down as a couple and compare notes.  Consider:

• Joe may want to live in an area where he has easy access to outdoor sports such as mountain climbing, hiking, hunting, fishing, etc.  However, she may want to be close to gyms, yoga classes, and so on.  Are their desires compatible with a single city or area that they both like?
• Joe may like simple, home-cooked food, and enjoy grilling steaks on the barbecue at weekends.  She may dislike cooking, and prefer to eat at restaurants more often, particularly if there's an ethnic cuisine such as Chinese, Thai or Indian that she enjoys.  Can they compromise?  Can they afford to eat out more often?
• Joe may have to move to and work in a given town or area, in terms of the loan forgiveness programs.  However, there may not be many jobs there for someone with her qualifications.  She may prefer to stay in her present location, where she already has a well-paid job.  What will this mean for their future together?  Which is more important - their jobs, or their life together?

All those considerations will affect where they decide to live, how much money they need to earn to indulge their desires and aspirations, etc.  What sacrifices are they willing to make to be together?  If the sacrifices appear very great, is their love for one another sufficient to make them worthwhile?

Let's use an older couple as our next example.  They have no children, and don't expect to have any.  They're considering where would be the best place to live.  There are a number of factors they'll have to take into account.

• Both have suffered injuries and illnesses that restrict their mobility to at least some extent, and can be expected to become more restrictive as they get older.  Therefore, they can't move too far from readily available medical assistance.  Living out in the boondocks may be relatively low-cost and private, but it's a long way for an ambulance to come and get them in an emergency, and driving to doctors and pharmacies may become a burden.
• They're on a limited income, and want to live within their means.  However, the city where they now live is expensive, particularly where property is concerned.  They're therefore considering less costly neighborhoods, including moving to another city or state if necessary.  Houses may be cheaper there, but what about the cost of moving?  Do they have enough money to do that?  What about health care in their new location - will it be as accessible as where they are now?
• One partner has no relatives within easy reach, but the other does.  Can they move further away from them without imposing undue strain on such relationships, or is it important to maintain closer proximity to them?  What about friends?  The same considerations apply to them.
• One partner is self-employed, and can work from home wherever that happens to be.  The other is not, and would prefer to continue employment outside the home.  Will jobs be available if they move?  How important is that as a factor influencing any decision to relocate?

What's more, bear in mind that all these questions relate specifically to the question of where to live.  That's not the be-all and end-all of that couple's life together;  rather, it's only one out of a laundry-list of factors affecting their lives together.  They have to look at what they want to do together;  how they want their relationship to grow;  where they want to be (metaphorically and literally) in, say, five years' time;  and so on.  If one partner wants to further develop a career, is the other willing to make the sacrifices necessary to do so, or are they motivated by something completely different?  Their strategic planning process will have to take all those elements into account, and many more.

What will emerge from the planning process is a list of objectives that are constantly being refined, and which help to refine each other.  Here's an example.

Joe:  "I really want to buy a Supergizmo Hyperspeed sports car as soon as we can afford it.  I've wanted one for years!"
Mary:  "I don't see why.  I mean, sure, those things are super-fast, but you'll be driving it on city streets where you can't use all that performance."
Joe:  "Yeah, but... speed!  Cornering!  Babes!"
Mary:  "What do you mean, babes?  You've got me!  How many more do you want?"
Joe:  "Oops..."
Mary:  "Besides, we've agreed we want children soon.  The Supergizmo Hyperspeed only has two seats.  Where are we going to put the child seat?"
Joe:  "Maybe I need to rethink that one."
Mary:  "Yeah, I think you do!"
Joe:  "You've also got some thinking to do, honey.  You said earlier you really want to hike the Appalachian Trail from one end to the other in the next year or two.  I like that idea, but you also want kids as soon as possible.  I don't see how the two can go together."
Mary:  "But it's something I've wanted to do for years!"
Joe:  "I know, and I'd love to do it with you, but what comes first?  Trail, or kids?"

When all the objectives have been discussed, and impractical ones discarded, and viable ones refined, you'll end up with a list of things you want in the short to medium term - in other words, objectives - both as individuals, and as a couple.  The former will influence the latter, and vice versa.  When the list is complete, you can use its elements to compile a single, one-sentence statement of purpose that encompasses them and gives you a simple, direct yardstick against which to measure your progress.

Remember, each objective has to be quantifiable and measurable if it's to be of any value.  If you can't quantify or measure it, how will you know whether you're getting any closer to achieving it?  If you want to buy a Supergizmo Hyperspeed sports car, you know what it will cost, and how much of a deposit you'll need to put down, and what the monthly payments will be.  You can measure those numbers against your savings and monthly disposable income, and figure out how close you are to getting one.  On the other hand, you can also figure out what kids will cost you, and how much you have to budget for their needs each month - and that may make your ambition to buy a sports car recede into the more distant future, until the kids have grown up and are able to support themselves.

Joe and Mary may compile a statement of purpose for the next five years of their relationship that reads something like this:

To support each other in developing our careers, and earn enough to allow us to have two children over the next five years, while moving closer to Mary's parents, in order to have their help and support in raising our kids.

That's fairly specific.  They could be more explicit if they wished;  instead of saying 'develop our careers', they could specify that Joe wants to become Vice-President of Sales in five years, or Mary wants to become a partner in her law firm in the same period.  They could quantify the amount they'll need to earn to be able to afford the kids they want, or move closer to her parents (or help her parents to move closer to them).  However, I think those may be better expressed as objectives beneath the overall statement of purpose.  Make the objectives as specific and measurable as possible, then frame a statement of purpose that encompasses them all - or, at least, all the important ones.

Note, too, that some elements are taken for granted, and not explicitly stated.  For example, it's presumed that Joe and Mary will remain a couple.  It's assumed that they love each other and have no plans to divorce.  If their relationship is on rocky ground at present, they need to deal with that before they have kids or move closer to her parents.  That needs to be an explicit and mutually agreed expectation, and incorporated into their planning as a very important element.  If they don't get that right, no other elements of their shared plan will be very important any longer!  (As a corollary, building and maintaining a relationship is hard work.  It's probably worth codifying in one's plan any specific expectations in that regard.  For example, a couple may place a high priority on having a 'date night' at least once per week, with nothing to distract them from being there for and with each other, no matter what other activities each of them may have.  That 'date night' should be a specific objective in their shared plan, and prioritized as such.  If it isn't, other elements will get in its way sooner or later - probably sooner.)

Furthermore, make your plans flexible enough to account for new and unexpected developments.  Let's say you're an older person or couple, facing health issues (eyesight or co-ordination, for example) that will affect your ability to drive as they get worse.  You may have resigned yourself to a certain loss of independence by moving into an assisted living facility and giving up your car and/or drivers license(s).  However, the new technology of self-driving cars is already being tested, and is likely to be commonplace in five to ten years.  If your present state of health can be preserved and extended for that long, you may not need to move out of your present home, because technology may help to preserve your independence.  Furthermore, robotic 'assistants' for the elderly are already on the market in places like Japan, and are certain to become available in other countries before too long.  They, too, will help to preserve your independence.  Those are good examples of how current developments may affect future plans.

In the next instalment, we'll look at a way to evaluate our purpose and objectives to see whether they're practical and feasible.  After that, we'll see how we take a specific objective and begin to develop strategies and tactics to implement it.

Peter