WSJ is a great paper. But there are often hidden needles in the haystack. Thomas Barnett picks out the needles for you.
Barnett has said it all. I would just briefly comment on Kaplan's cliche of "thinks and plans in terms of worst-case scenarios" (therefore, spend as much on weapon as possible).
- Kaplan said "Donald Rumsfeld thought in terms of worst-case scenarios for the invasion of Iraq and got the best possible result; he thought in terms of best-case scenarios for the occupation and got the worst possible result" Well, all this shows is not Murphy's law. It looks to me more like a direct criticism of Rummy, that Rummy is always wrong. If kaplan is always with Rummy, that says enough about Kaplan's judgment as well.
- Seriously, the fact that "Murphy's law is more observed" is simply the result that unexpected beings are more usually visible
- The correct approach is not to "take the worse case" in every situation. You would exhaust your stamina and resources if you do this in every circumstance. The correct thing to do is to optimize, based on the probability.
- To quote Kaplan, "The Pentagon does not have the luxury of" taking the worst case all the time. Use science, use your brain. Don't rely on leap of faith BS.
To read the related articles see a temporary cache here.