CHAPTER 23— LONG-RANGE AND SHORT-RANGE 



PLANNING 



In this final essay a number of themes are drawn together in an 

 effort to suggest a broad direction for policy planning in the subject 

 area of Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy. 



A series of dichotomies have been presented — initiative/reactive, 

 bilateral/multilateral, high technology/low technology, pubUc/private, 

 and independence/interdependence. In aU of these Hegehan duaUties 

 the element of timing emerged as an important factor. The purpose of 

 this essay is to deal with the question of ti min g. On what time scale 

 should the United States address the problem of linking science and 

 technology to diplomacy? Can enough aspects of the future be reliably 

 forecast to prepare for them? Or is it better to deal with the present 

 and let the future take care of itself? Must U.S. diplomats and Mem- 

 bers of Congress content themselves with reacting to crises or can they 

 plan to avert at least some of them? 



Planning as a Proper Noun 



Before addressing the question of the time frame, however, it is 

 necessary to develop the rationale for planning at all. Why plan? 

 Is planning moral? Is it expedient? Is it technically feasible? Is it 

 pohtically acceptable? 



It is remarkable how many different attitudes have grown up 

 around the idea of planning. A family plans a vacation. An architect 

 plans a house. A corporation plans a sales campaign. The retired 

 financier makes an estate plan. Many States, municipaUties, and 

 counties have planning offices, and urban planning is a degree subject 

 in many universities. Military planning is a widely practiced activity .^^^ 



What is it that is common to aU of these different kinds of planning, 

 and why do some people recoil from the idea of government planning 

 for the future of a democratic society? 



Elements common to all planning seem to be : 



(a) The estabhshment of goals; 



(b) Examination of underlying assumptions, followed by sharper 

 focusing of goals; 



(c) Definition of present status; 



(d) Determination of a process or procedure for attaining the 

 goals ; 



(e) Determination of the requirements of resources and effort 

 to achieve the intended progress toward the goals ; 



(f) Identification of foreseeable obstacles to achievement of the 

 goals; 



(g) Establishment of the time required to achieve the goals; 

 (h) Division of the total time required into increments in which 



specific steps wiU be accomplished ; 



^ However, when the author of this essay wrote the Industrial Mobilization Plan, 1947, for the U.S. 

 Munitions Board, he was instructed not to use the word "planners" but instead to use "the makers of plans." 

 In the judgrment of senior military officers at that time there was a pejorative or perhaps socialistic tinge to 

 the word "planner," although the word "plan" was less pejorative. Even plans of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

 for national war emergencies were sanitized by being styled "concepts." 



(1851) 



