Facebook Politics

Yesterday, Small Wars Journal published comments from a number of people regarding the impact of the "New Media" in counterinsurgency, getting responses from counterinsurgency experts ranging from David Kilcullen to, erm, yours truly (who writes about break-dancing stormtroopers just as much as he does counter-insurgency).  

The New Media has revolutionized the manner in which military professionals discuss professional issues.  It gives a new sense of empowerment to younger, more junior troops, who have respectfully challenged the status quo via their mastery of these new forms of media.  They've (We've) grown up with computers in their homes all their (our) lives, and their comfort with this new medium has allowed them to voice their opinions all the way to the top.  And judging by the Army's massive shift in doctrine towards counterinsurgency and stability, I'd say it's for the better.

Today, CNN published an article about Facebook politics.  It's no secret that President Obama was far more able to get his message across to the youth due to his mastery of the New Media--he was almost always seen with a Blackberry in hand, and he even gave his Facebook followers an advance notice of his VP pick via text message, in clear contrast to Senator McCain, who admitted that he hadn't been on the Internet.  

Focus:  The New Media has impacted military affairs and politics.  How has it affected other aspects of life?  Okay, besides hooking up on Facebook (Yeah, I'm looking at all of you who "poke")...

Red Team Journal does Economics, I do Megan Fox

The military-related blogs, such as Small Wars Journal, MountainRunner and the like have been relatively quiet on the current economic crisis, even though this has almost as much of an impact on foreign and defense policy than whether or not the military's planned "M-5 Tactical Segway" will ever see the light of day.  

Red Team Journal, however, has written a piece today about the economic crisis and explains it in terms of crisis management.   That the government has been throwing money at the crisis without a coherent end state or plan is obvious.  It does nothing to address the underlying flaws in the economy, and does little, if anything, to correct America's spending or production habits.  If anything, bailing out irresponsible lenders and auto manufacturers only seems to reinforce reckless consumer spending and a lack of innovation from Detroit.  It does nothing to alleviate the massive foreign debt Americans have racked up, and will likely be paying off for a generation.  The only thing that can be said for the latest round of bailouts is that they are timely.  But although swift, decisive action may play well in sound bytes, boldly rushing in without a coherent plan is about as effective as, well, Leeroy Jenkins.  

There is some humor to come out of this though.  With many prominent economists (including Alan Greenspan) backing the nationalization of banks, at least temporarily, some have said that a potential game plan might be to have the government run the banks until they are profitable and sell them back to the market.  Which is, of course, assuming that the government could run something that could make a profit in the first place.  

Focus:  Is Megan Fox hot or what?