The Strategist's Watch

Mind the clock and calendar to master strategic debate

Most strategic debates are simply people with different timeframes shouting past each other, to paraphrase Morgan Housel.

Let that sit a moment.

Most geopolitical strategists break on the issue of imminence of threat. Some see the pistol being cocked now. Others see a "gathering" or "possible" threat that may emerge "someday."

The pre-invasion Iraq War debate of 2002-2003 falls into this category. The current argument over the defense of Taiwan also breaks down this way. Today’s stakes seem higher due to the ongoing war in Ukraine.

The loudest voices are typically those who see the shortest timeline. They run the risk of "the sky is falling" objections, and so they counter by pointing out that ounces of prevention are worth pounds of cure. Preparing for a threat can mitigate or even deter an adversary.

Then there are those that see more distant clouds. Sure, there may be a storm gathering, but not for some time. It may not be so bad. Let sleeping dogs lie, even if they might be hangry Rottweilers.  

The perception of proximity to threat matters because it, in turn, suggests urgency in spending scarce resources. If you think the big bad guys are coming tomorrow, it makes sense to clear out the cookie jar cash to buy better locks, booby traps, and some guns.

But. You might also be scaring yourself and your followers into an expensive nightmare that never materializes, where the only real threat is your own fiscal indiscipline. Self-harm is harmful all the same.

There is no right answer here, just an observation about the contours of strategic debate.

We can see these arguments getting hijacked over and over and over. So it’s up to the watchful strategist to intervene and put everyone on the same platform for more profitable discussion.