Skip to main content

An exercise in brevity

During late May 1940, as the German Army was overrunning France and the British Expeditionary Force fled home from Dunkirk in an improvised fleet of fishing boats, it looked like Adolph Hitler had successfully redrawn the map of Europe for generations to come. The Third Reich had become the sole superpower of Europe: Italy was a satellite, France defeated, the Soviet Union cowed into a non-aggression pact, and Great Britain's forces expelled from the continent. In the grand, patriotic master narrative of history, the story usually concentrates on the gritty Winston Churchill assuming the reins of power, scowling defiantly across the English Channel (looking over his shoulder for FDR and the USA, to be sure), and proclaiming, "This was our finest hour!" as Great Britain carried on the war, virtually alone.


In the Mediterranean Theater, General (soon to be Field Marshal) Archibald Wavell sat down and reviewed the prospects of his command, which stretched from Gibraltar to Iraq, and which was outnumbered and outgunned by just the Italian armed forces, to say nothing of the Wehrmacht that would soon invade Yugoslavia and Greece, capture Crete in an audacious airborne attack, and send Erwin Rommel, the "Desert Fox," almost as far as the Suez Canal.

Far from gloomy, however, Wavell was optimistic, and he based his optimism on a very simple military "appreciation" that he wrote to put the whole war into perspective. It is such an elegant piece of writing, that at least part of it deserves to be rescued from obscurity.

Remember, as you read this, he was writing at a time when his nation faced total defeat:

1. Oil, shipping, air power, sea power are the keys to this war, and they are interdependent.
Air power and naval power cannot function without oil.
Oil, except very limited quantities, cannot be brought to its destination without shipping.
Shipping requires the protection of naval power and air power.

2. We have access to practically all the world's supply of oil.
We have most of the shipping.
We have naval power.
We have potentially the greatest air power, when fully developed.

Therefore we are bound to win this war.


There was more, details on how to keep Germany from getting access to that oil, but this simple string of declarative sentences has amazing power.

I wonder how it could be applied to something like the war on terror, global warming, or American interventionist foreign policy.

For example:

1. The worst-case scenario for global warming suggests that seas will rise to threaten coastal areas, agricultural yields will decrease, and traditional energy sources will become increasingly unavailable.
Nations with large populations in coastal areas will have to be flexible enough to disperse people, commerce, and industry to safer locations.
Nations whose agricultural production is threatened by increasing aridity must develop new methods of food production in a short period of time.
Nations whose access to fossil fuels is threatened must develop alternative sources of energy.

2. We have a highly mobile population, sufficient inland territory, and the organizational flexibility to move people, commerce, and industry as needed.
We have the most efficient agricultural production methods in the world, and the world's best organized capacity for agricultural research.
We possess sufficient internal reserves of fossil fuels to carry us through a changeover period, the capital to invest in new technologies for energy production, and the research capacity to develop such technologies into feasible, large-scale producers.

Therefore, the United States possesses all the resources necessary to deal with global warming, as long as Americans do not tie themselves up into costly interventionist foreign policies, indulge in "bread and circuses" politics of maintaining the status quo, and avoid tying the hands of the people, institutions, and organizations most capable of meeting these challenges.


Yeah, yeah, so I'm not Wavell. But it's an interesting exercise: can you take a major issue or problem and break it down to a few declarative sentences.

(Note: remember that Wavell, in the midst of a war that seemed to be going quite badly, had no time to indulge himself in cute ideological posturing. Just the facts.)

Try it.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Oil is cheap and plentiful. Middle East oil is the cheapest, cleanest and most plentiful.
Oil is traded on a world market.
As oil runs out in the ME, the price will rise.
As the world oil price rises we will find alternatives in this order:
ANWAR
Continental Shelf
Oil Shale
Mixed with Solar, Nuclear and Hydrogen

Taxing ME oil beyond capturing the externalities of burning fossil fuels subsidizes the use of fossil fuel by India, China and the rest of the developing world by lowering our usage and thus, the world demand (price).

This process will continue without government interference. In other words, if we do nothing about our dependence on ME oil, we will STILL be weaned from our dependence by economics.

OK, so that was a bit long. But I like the exercise!
The chap is definitely just, and there is no doubt.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...