Most of us are familiar with this derogatory term and I am using it so that I do not have to mention the current chief executive of the USA.

The media universe is filled with pundits who spend barrels of ink and zillions of electrons explaining why this policy or that policy has been enacted in the US today — even though yesterday the opposite was in effect. Months ago, I stopped reading it all and now limit myself to a very small number of opinion writers or politicos: David Frum (Cdn; US Republican), John Bolton (Amer; US Republican), Peter Mansbridge,(Cdn); and James Carville (Amer; US Democrat). In this way, I attempt to stay informed, get the political news I crave, and also ‘cover the ‘waterfront’.

One of the reasons that I listen/read these four is that they do not attempt to explain any of the deep-seated underlying philosophies, policies or strategies being followed by the American CEO (let’s face it, the US is now a corporation). Why? Because they appreciate something I have believed since 2016. There is NO UNDERLYING POLICY or STRATEGY. If you have read any of my musings, you know that my understanding of policy and strategy is explained by the following model (from my PhD and explained in my book Strategia):

Nota Bene: I do not offer this model as ‘THE’ model for understanding military theory; I offer it as ‘A’ model.

This particular version of my model attempts to offer insights into why/how militaries of various nations, fight the way they do (not going to rehash that here) but it also generally works for national politics and, in my opinion, for a person’s world view (Weltanschauung).

Here is the point: If you do not understand the linkages, there is little or no hope that you can possibly have a strategy or a policy that is based on any kind of intellectually solid base. You do not act from any basis other than your intuitive sense that you know what you are doing and therefore, you MUST be right.

We have all dealt with peple who live their lives in this way. The key difference is that usually, these people tend to be toddlers or adolescents, who have not yet had an opportunity to create a fully formed world view, and not leaders of nuclear states. They know what they want and they WANT it. Predicting what they may want or when that want may change is a fools errand.

I will admit that I am woefully ignorant of much of Gen Z slang (apologies) but I heard one today that rings true to me: “Let him cook.” Not really a new expression but I gather it became a meme several years ago with a narrow spectrum of meaning that basically says, “Let it Be.” (Shout out to the Beatles).

I think our current Canadian PM is a pretty smart guy and, I believe that in words and actions that are far more eloquent than either Gen Z or Paul McCartney, he is doing exactly that with his American opposite. Stop trying to decipher some deep 3D chess move leading to an ultimate goal. Leave him be. I also believe that the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party is doing precicely the same thing, albeit, with perhaps a more sinister wish.

To bring it back to military thought and theory (the supposed reason for this page), allow me to leave you with a phrase attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte (likely) from the 1805 Battle of Austerlitz. “In that case, let us wait twenty minutes; when the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him.”(Dans ce cas, attendons vingt minutes; n’interrompez jamais un ennemi qui est en train de faire une erreur.)