Thread by @davidboxenhorn

When it comes to foreign policy, the real choice is not between intervention and non-intervention, but between frequent small interventions and infrequent large ones.

I know that I will get pushback on this from @nntaleb fans, but it comes right out of Incerto

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1430677072070864896

It's not that small interventions are always good or right, so don't give me examples of when they have been wrong. It's that small interventions provide feedback on a small scale, and make course-corrections possible

It is very hard to find robust or antifragile strategies toward conflicts. They sometimes exist, but they are very hard to find, for a simple reason: The other side is also trying to win. Most of the time, the best you can do is antirobust: If it works, good, but if it fails, bad

There is no magic formula for winning conflicts. I don't have much respect for the people coming out of the woodwork now, and telling us about mistakes that were made 20 years ago. It's not just hindsight bias, we don't even have a way to know if they are right at all

We can't go back and see what would happen in that other future, the one where we do what they are claiming was right. To me, it looks like some other grand plan, one that is doomed to fail, not one that has trial-and-error built into the process

Do you want to earn my respect? Give me a plan that will work, even if we don't know what will work