zenpundit.com » 2006 » January » 20

Archive for January 20th, 2006

Friday, January 20th, 2006

MORE ON STRATEGIC COGNITION

Rob of the always informative BusinessPundit posted on cognitive bias in the strategic thinking for business the same time I was reviewing Art Hutchinson’s thoughts on the subject.

There is a fairly significant crossover here between the military-political realm and the market-oriented business world when one deals with the principles and psychology of strategic thinking. Both fields must perforce deal with complexity and dynamic scenarios when setting objectives and planning how to reach them. Both fields must adjust to the systemic effects of decisions and are prone to blind spots and bias.

Friday, January 20th, 2006

PNM THEORY AND HISTORY AT COMING ANARCHY

Chirol of Coming Anarchy is looking at Victorian imperialism in Egypt through the lens of Dr. Barnett’s PNM Theory; a nice interdisciplinary mix of political science and history.

British Egypt and PNM Theory Part I

British Egypt and PNM Theory Part II

An excerpt:

“According to [ British historian Niall] Ferguson, the similarities are as follow. Britain invaded Egypt to oust a Said Ahmed Arabiw, a military officer who’d seized power in a coup. He was no Saddam and the pretext for intervention was violence against European residents of Alexandria. The British government under Gladstone, like Bush, had also pledged not to engage in imperialism and nation building. In terms of strategic importance, the Suez canal was what oil is now. Over 80% of the canal’s traffic was British, 13% of their overall worldwide trade. Egypt was also heavilly in debt, largely to the British (not surprisingly, Gladstone himself held many such bonds). England intervened in Egypt against the will of the other great powers (France, Germany, Austria, Russia), which met to discuss international problems and as if almost on queue, the French protested. The British won a swift victory and remained there almost 80 years.

…First, let’s concentrate on the British economic reform of Egypt which was one of the primary reasons for the occupation. Egypt was heavily in debt, and had even sold a controlling share of the Suez to the British only a few years beforehand. Since the Egyptian government was filled with “patronage,” known to the developed world as corruption, structural reform of the various ministries was rather difficult and the money raised by shares of the Suez only provided a short lease on life for the Egyptian government, a few years. The British and French, Egypt’s main creditors, instituted a “stewardship” sending representatives to Cairo to take control of various ministries, already partial-colonization so to say. As Egyptians protested against their loss of sovereignty, unhappiness grew and a revolt finally broke out. When violence was directed against the European population there, the final line had been crossed.Prime Minister Gladstone, archliberal that he was ordered an intervention, despite international outcry against it. The French as usual did not participate,cried foul and resorting to their usual tactic of doing nothing.

Khedive Egypt had a short-lived moment of glory under Muhammed Ali – the last great Muslim conquerer, reformer and satrap under the Ottomans, after whom Cassius Clay was renamed. After that, decline.


Switch to our mobile site