Gentlemen. I listen to your podcast because of the years of study and knowledge you have on foreign policy and strategy. However, in your discussion of Trumps rhetoric on Panama, Greenland, and Canada I’m afraid you have forgotten or are not aware of Lamorisse’s work in world strategy, something I was introduced to by my older brothers i…
Gentlemen. I listen to your podcast because of the years of study and knowledge you have on foreign policy and strategy. However, in your discussion of Trumps rhetoric on Panama, Greenland, and Canada I’m afraid you have forgotten or are not aware of Lamorisse’s work in world strategy, something I was introduced to by my older brothers in the 70’s.
As it relates to North America, it’s clear that the United States, working from a foundational strength in Western and Eastern US, as well as a strong border position in Alaska has three obvious strategic moves to make:
1. Consolidate a defensive southern border in Panama and Central America
2. Greatly enlarge its footprint in Greenland so as to make it impossible for competitors to extend their strength there
3. Then further expand our own strength in Alaska and the US into Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Northwest Territory. Forces could be moved from NW territory to Greenland or, if needed Alaska to make our North American continent secure
This is a truly “America First” strategy, but what is better is it is also in the service of Ukraine. Trying to Hold Ukraine with its long border with Russia and Asia does not really gain us anything. But, with our strength in Greenland we can easily move to Iceland and from there the rest of Europe with a strong border protecting us in Ukraine.
I have successfully used this strategy many times and, to be honest, it has occurred to me that the President Elect or perhaps his nominee for SecDef have arrived at their conclusions in the same way that I have.
I'm not sure Trump's attention span is sufficient play out a game of Risk to the end. (Monopoly, with money, deeds, and hotels, might be more his style.) But I'll bet one of his national security advisers (Waltz, Anton, or Gorka) is feeding him Risk-based analysis without revealing the source, and Trump is repeating it without understanding what he is saying. He does that a lot in other contexts.
Gentlemen. I listen to your podcast because of the years of study and knowledge you have on foreign policy and strategy. However, in your discussion of Trumps rhetoric on Panama, Greenland, and Canada I’m afraid you have forgotten or are not aware of Lamorisse’s work in world strategy, something I was introduced to by my older brothers in the 70’s.
As it relates to North America, it’s clear that the United States, working from a foundational strength in Western and Eastern US, as well as a strong border position in Alaska has three obvious strategic moves to make:
1. Consolidate a defensive southern border in Panama and Central America
2. Greatly enlarge its footprint in Greenland so as to make it impossible for competitors to extend their strength there
3. Then further expand our own strength in Alaska and the US into Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and the Northwest Territory. Forces could be moved from NW territory to Greenland or, if needed Alaska to make our North American continent secure
This is a truly “America First” strategy, but what is better is it is also in the service of Ukraine. Trying to Hold Ukraine with its long border with Russia and Asia does not really gain us anything. But, with our strength in Greenland we can easily move to Iceland and from there the rest of Europe with a strong border protecting us in Ukraine.
I have successfully used this strategy many times and, to be honest, it has occurred to me that the President Elect or perhaps his nominee for SecDef have arrived at their conclusions in the same way that I have.
I'm not sure Trump's attention span is sufficient play out a game of Risk to the end. (Monopoly, with money, deeds, and hotels, might be more his style.) But I'll bet one of his national security advisers (Waltz, Anton, or Gorka) is feeding him Risk-based analysis without revealing the source, and Trump is repeating it without understanding what he is saying. He does that a lot in other contexts.