Beyond 2013 Retrospective Day I

“What we have done in Afghanistan has made zero difference….our orientation was wrong…”

If our orientation was wrong then, because orientation has been called the most important letter in the OODA loop, it probably means we got everything else wrong in the loop as well.

But it also should be noted that the fact that our orientation was wrong was not caused by ignorance of Boyd–we got it wrong because our leaders found out they were not Boyd.

The one principle the followers of Boyd try to take advantage of, besides deception, is to accomplish two tasks to your enemy’s one.

So it is likely that our war in the Middle East was always supposed to have been the one-two punch of Afghanistan and Iraq together.

When discussing Orientation and getting the Orientation  wrong, in the context of Boyd, Orientation begins in the workspace and the workspace was not Afghanistan.

The area of orientation was Afghanistan/Iraq and the judgment of getting it right or wrong needs to be taken from a position observing both.

So it is likely we didn’t just get the position in our orientation wrong, but hell yes we got it wrong!

But we are now pivoting towards the Indo-pacific and our position as well as our orientation is changing.

Like our war with Russia, the position we took in our orientation with Afghanistan and Iraq is an old position. If this position is right or wrong should be judged by history. It is just too hard for the person going through something like this to keep a clear head.

In the context of Boyd, the position of this next pivot point is highly critical. As I imagine Boyd would have said explicitly, the point that we are pivoting on will represent our orientation into the future.

So, as we pivot in a different direction towards Afghanistan and Iraq, where in the world can you mark an x on a map that represents our values? It is our values that we will use as a pivot.

It will be interesting to learn from the zenpundit if there was any talk about our orientation going forward at #BoydandBeyond?

via » Blog Archive » Boyd & Beyond 2013 Retrospective Day I.

Blog: An Effective American Naval Blockade on Chinese Oil Imports

For this reason, the success of an American blockade would hinge on China’s ability to substitute for its lost imports with overland shipments either bought directly from its neighbors or transited through them from elsewhere.

So, imports of what?


And what part of “Oil” are we talking about?

The products that are made of oil, or the produces that run on oil?

Executive summary

It comes down to: be or do?

Do you want to “be” the leader of the free world, or “do” that which destroys the free world, and what does that mean?

via Blog: An Effective American Naval Blockade on Chinese Oil Imports.

Sherman Remarks – HHRG-113-FA18-Wstate-Gartenstein-RossD-20130710.pdf

I came by this pdf by way of zenpundit:

As the Wall Street Journal has reported, the Jamal network operates camps in Libya that include training for suicide missions, has demonstrated proficiencyin smuggling fighters, and also has connections to European jihadists.

It was in a statement of one of those before the congressional committee, but: “and operates out of Afghanistan” should have been included, as the number 2 behind the still dead OBL, in my estimation, operates out of Afghanistan. It wasn’t coincidence that Afghan fighters were in the Bengali attacks.  I wonder why the location of the Jamal network wasn’t included in the expert’s statement? Are those .so-called “Conservatives” going to need to pay attention to Afghanistan, again?

Could it have been a given, and not worth mentioning, or is the missing location of the center of the Jamal network explained better somewhere else in the statement?

via Sherman Remarks – HHRG-113-FA18-Wstate-Gartenstein-RossD-20130710.pdf.

Iran Said Ready to Talk to U.S. About Nuclear Program

The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

Probably too little, too late.

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

That said, there is probably not much time to buy.

via Iran Said Ready to Talk to U.S. About Nuclear Program –