Here's a thought. Being wrong is inevitable when trying to come to terms with any complex situation, particularly such a complex situation as war. Chance or luck is the third (and most important?) of Clausewitz's "paradoxical trinity" of forces that he argued exist in constant dynamic tension in war. This means things can go one way or another without anyone foreseeing it, because it's intrinsically unforeseeable. If some smart, overconfident person is too certain with respect to almost any complex situation, the only thing I'm certain of is that they're certainly wrong. That applies triply to war, given the statistically important role of chance. As for Ehrlich, he reminds us that even confident, smart, presumably knowledgeable people with a big following can be totally wrong, like most of us only with a broader audience. One could do worse, and pretend one is never wrong.
Christopher, very enjoyable piece once again. Though the topic is serious, I will take the liberty of offering two semi-serious comments.
First, I love the fact that while 'experts' blame the US for not adapting fast enough to the droning modernization of warfare, you point out that the true mistake is not remembering a conflict from 2500 years ago!
Second, while I admire your intellectual honesty, I find myself hoping that you might have committed the opposite error, namely apologizing too soon.
Either way, I assure you that you are in a totally different league from Ehrlich, whose Substack I would have never followed. Cheers, Marco
Thanks, as always, Marco. I have valued your recent posts urging us to think about the consequences of this conflict 'beyond the chessboard.' Among many other things, there is further strategic damage to NATO here, even if it's hard to know how serious it will be. In any case, I hope things turn quickly, but I see signs of a conflict with shifting goals. Moreover, anything that doesn't involve a land-force invasion will require a negotiated settlement, and I don't see any interest on any side in negotiating anytime soon.
Here's a thought. Being wrong is inevitable when trying to come to terms with any complex situation, particularly such a complex situation as war. Chance or luck is the third (and most important?) of Clausewitz's "paradoxical trinity" of forces that he argued exist in constant dynamic tension in war. This means things can go one way or another without anyone foreseeing it, because it's intrinsically unforeseeable. If some smart, overconfident person is too certain with respect to almost any complex situation, the only thing I'm certain of is that they're certainly wrong. That applies triply to war, given the statistically important role of chance. As for Ehrlich, he reminds us that even confident, smart, presumably knowledgeable people with a big following can be totally wrong, like most of us only with a broader audience. One could do worse, and pretend one is never wrong.
Indeed. Bold predictions are misleading and can be dangerous. But we need something for planning purposes!
Christopher, very enjoyable piece once again. Though the topic is serious, I will take the liberty of offering two semi-serious comments.
First, I love the fact that while 'experts' blame the US for not adapting fast enough to the droning modernization of warfare, you point out that the true mistake is not remembering a conflict from 2500 years ago!
Second, while I admire your intellectual honesty, I find myself hoping that you might have committed the opposite error, namely apologizing too soon.
Either way, I assure you that you are in a totally different league from Ehrlich, whose Substack I would have never followed. Cheers, Marco
Thanks, as always, Marco. I have valued your recent posts urging us to think about the consequences of this conflict 'beyond the chessboard.' Among many other things, there is further strategic damage to NATO here, even if it's hard to know how serious it will be. In any case, I hope things turn quickly, but I see signs of a conflict with shifting goals. Moreover, anything that doesn't involve a land-force invasion will require a negotiated settlement, and I don't see any interest on any side in negotiating anytime soon.
Very difficult to call!