The framework exists: The Competitive Advantage of Nations by Professor Michael Porter. How many members of the current government have read it? Because it is about long term wins, not short term.
The Porter framework is about business and economic competition. As the article emphasizes, the OCA is about national security in the context of longer-term competition among societies or nation.
right! Porter’s model is fundamentally economic and productivity-driven rather than geopolitical, yet nations that excel within it tend to build systemic resilience—making national security not an input, but a strategic byproduct of sustained competitiveness.
Yes! As for how many members of the administration have read Porter: considering their record in the first 100 days, I doubt any are able read anything longer than a tweet (or a message on Signal). 😁
How can the US have an "Office of Competitive Assessment" or the Pentagon an "Office of Net Assessment" when all the Pentagon has been able to produce is one multi- tens of billions of dollars boondoggle after another?
## **The High Cost of Abandoning Long-Term Thinking**
Thanks, Richard, for sharing this challenge.
It seems that every government eventually faces moments like this—where long-term thinking is sidelined in favor of so-called “critical national security challenges.” At first glance, this trade-off feels politically expedient. Short-term decisions are easier to explain to a busy, overwhelmed chief executive. They make for digestible sound bites.
But the consequences of such choices are rarely immediate. They are often slow-moving, but inevitable.
## **The Delayed Cost of Shortsightedness**
The damage may not be visible for months—or even years. It may take a decade for the effects to fully emerge. But make no mistake: when institutions like the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) are shuttered, the ripple effects are profound. Strategic foresight dries up. Investment falters. And national security suffers in the long run.
That’s why the national security community is right to raise the alarm.
## **A Lesson from Global Conflict**
I recently listened to a compelling talk by Harvard Professor Jeffrey Sachs. He traced the roots of the Russia-Ukraine war not just to military decisions, but to a lack of long-term vision. In his view, NATO and its allies failed to evolve their perspective after the fall of the USSR—continuing to respond to a new reality with Cold War-era instincts.
The result? A fragile democracy left to fend for itself. And ultimately, to fail.
Now, you may not agree with every aspect of Sachs’ analysis. But his central skill—thinking a decade or more ahead—is one we should all admire, and urgently reclaim. Because this kind of foresight matters. And it’s increasingly rare.
## **More Than One Office at Stake**
If the closing of the ONA is a concern—and it should be—then we must consider what it presages: the potential elimination of other long-range planning units across government. This isn’t just a policy issue. It’s a governance crisis.
As Dr. Richard Rumelt has noted, the absence of foresight leads to poor investment in the future—especially one that demands competitive intelligence and systems-level vision.
But the deeper issue runs even further: **many of the most important national decisions transcend a single administration or political party**. These are the moonshots. The long bets.
## **The Case for Institutional Foresight**
Consider the U.S. space program. President Kennedy announced the mission to the moon. But it was President Nixon who reaped the glory when the mission succeeded. Despite opposition, the initiative endured. It was deemed too important to kill.
Now imagine there are 50 similar moonshot-style initiatives waiting to be launched—each one requiring bipartisan support and sustained investment across 10, 15, or even 20 years. These cannot survive without dedicated long-term planning bodies like the ONA. Dismantling these institutions means dismantling the future.
Governments must retain the unique ability to steward game-changing breakthroughs—on behalf of citizens who may never realize how close they came to being lost.
## **This Is Bigger Than America**
This isn’t just an American issue. The same dynamic plays out in every government, as well as institutions like the UN, World Bank, and IMF. The deeper truth is this: **whenever large aspirations exist, they demand patient, structured, and long-range thinking**.
And the essential ingredient in every such effort? Time.
Lately, we’ve lost sight of that fact.
---
P.S. At the risk of blatant promotion—I'll be hosting the **Long-Term Strategy Conference** virtually this June. The issues Richard raised are central to our discussions. In fact, they align with some of the 25 obstacles we’re addressing at the event.
Great piece! I wrote something similar over at RealClearDefense! Would love your thoughts on it: https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/04/14/from_thucydides_to_twitter_1103763.html
Not for Everyone. But maybe for you and your patrons?
Dear Richard,
I hope this finds you in a rare pocket of stillness.
We hold deep respect for what you've built here—and for how.
We’ve just opened the door to something we’ve been quietly handcrafting for years.
Not for mass markets. Not for scale. But for memory and reflection.
Not designed to perform. Designed to endure.
It’s called The Silent Treasury.
A sanctuary where truth, judgment, and consciousness are kept like firewood—dry, sacred, and meant for long winters.
Where trust, vision, patience, and stewardship are treated as capital—more rare, perhaps, than liquidity itself.
The two inaugural pieces speak to a quiet truth we've long engaged with:
1. Why we quietly crave for signal from rare, niche sanctuaries—especially when judgment must be clear.
2. Why many modern investment ecosystems (PE, VC, Hedge, ALT, SPAC, rollups) fracture before they root.
These are not short, nor designed for virality.
They are multi-sensory, slow experiences—built to last.
If this speaks to something you've always felt but rarely seen expressed,
perhaps these works belong in your world.
Both publication links are enclosed, should you choose to enter.
https://tinyurl.com/The-Silent-Treasury-1
https://tinyurl.com/The-Silent-Treasury-2
Warmly,
The Silent Treasury
Sanctuary for strategy, judgment, and elevated consciousness.
The framework exists: The Competitive Advantage of Nations by Professor Michael Porter. How many members of the current government have read it? Because it is about long term wins, not short term.
The Porter framework is about business and economic competition. As the article emphasizes, the OCA is about national security in the context of longer-term competition among societies or nation.
right! Porter’s model is fundamentally economic and productivity-driven rather than geopolitical, yet nations that excel within it tend to build systemic resilience—making national security not an input, but a strategic byproduct of sustained competitiveness.
Yes! As for how many members of the administration have read Porter: considering their record in the first 100 days, I doubt any are able read anything longer than a tweet (or a message on Signal). 😁
Would have to agree on that !
And an office of supply chain intelligence
Serious question:
How can the US have an "Office of Competitive Assessment" or the Pentagon an "Office of Net Assessment" when all the Pentagon has been able to produce is one multi- tens of billions of dollars boondoggle after another?
And to reiterate, that is a serious question.
## **The High Cost of Abandoning Long-Term Thinking**
Thanks, Richard, for sharing this challenge.
It seems that every government eventually faces moments like this—where long-term thinking is sidelined in favor of so-called “critical national security challenges.” At first glance, this trade-off feels politically expedient. Short-term decisions are easier to explain to a busy, overwhelmed chief executive. They make for digestible sound bites.
But the consequences of such choices are rarely immediate. They are often slow-moving, but inevitable.
## **The Delayed Cost of Shortsightedness**
The damage may not be visible for months—or even years. It may take a decade for the effects to fully emerge. But make no mistake: when institutions like the Office of Net Assessment (ONA) are shuttered, the ripple effects are profound. Strategic foresight dries up. Investment falters. And national security suffers in the long run.
That’s why the national security community is right to raise the alarm.
## **A Lesson from Global Conflict**
I recently listened to a compelling talk by Harvard Professor Jeffrey Sachs. He traced the roots of the Russia-Ukraine war not just to military decisions, but to a lack of long-term vision. In his view, NATO and its allies failed to evolve their perspective after the fall of the USSR—continuing to respond to a new reality with Cold War-era instincts.
The result? A fragile democracy left to fend for itself. And ultimately, to fail.
Now, you may not agree with every aspect of Sachs’ analysis. But his central skill—thinking a decade or more ahead—is one we should all admire, and urgently reclaim. Because this kind of foresight matters. And it’s increasingly rare.
## **More Than One Office at Stake**
If the closing of the ONA is a concern—and it should be—then we must consider what it presages: the potential elimination of other long-range planning units across government. This isn’t just a policy issue. It’s a governance crisis.
As Dr. Richard Rumelt has noted, the absence of foresight leads to poor investment in the future—especially one that demands competitive intelligence and systems-level vision.
But the deeper issue runs even further: **many of the most important national decisions transcend a single administration or political party**. These are the moonshots. The long bets.
## **The Case for Institutional Foresight**
Consider the U.S. space program. President Kennedy announced the mission to the moon. But it was President Nixon who reaped the glory when the mission succeeded. Despite opposition, the initiative endured. It was deemed too important to kill.
Now imagine there are 50 similar moonshot-style initiatives waiting to be launched—each one requiring bipartisan support and sustained investment across 10, 15, or even 20 years. These cannot survive without dedicated long-term planning bodies like the ONA. Dismantling these institutions means dismantling the future.
Governments must retain the unique ability to steward game-changing breakthroughs—on behalf of citizens who may never realize how close they came to being lost.
## **This Is Bigger Than America**
This isn’t just an American issue. The same dynamic plays out in every government, as well as institutions like the UN, World Bank, and IMF. The deeper truth is this: **whenever large aspirations exist, they demand patient, structured, and long-range thinking**.
And the essential ingredient in every such effort? Time.
Lately, we’ve lost sight of that fact.
---
P.S. At the risk of blatant promotion—I'll be hosting the **Long-Term Strategy Conference** virtually this June. The issues Richard raised are central to our discussions. In fact, they align with some of the 25 obstacles we’re addressing at the event.