Mahan-L has had only a single post from a .gov or .mil correspondent
since the White House-related messages began appearing and none at all
today, despite several interesting chains in progress. It would be a
great loss if these members unsubscribed.

I didn’t mean a blanket objection to political discussions – I’m sure
nobody wants such an exclusion. We all know that at the strategic level
the payoff from military operations often is its effect on politics: on
the opponent (disruption, demoralization, etc), on you/your allies
(domestic encouragement), or on neutrals (diplomatic acquiescence).
Weapons production requires political support for funding and that
support certainly can involve politicians’ personal or parochial
interests (eg, influence on USN surface combatant production from the
shipbuilders’ locations in the home states of the SecDef and the Senate
majority leader). There are limitless possible discussions of political
and military interactions that we all find useful and illuminating and
to which all can contribute with interesting opinions, facts, questions,
predictions, etc.

> In general, what I oppose is a blanket statement against political
> discussions for many are certainly relevant to MAHAN, the man, the idea,
> the subject.