Globalization is the dominant security agenda

OP-ED: The New Cold War, By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, New York Times, May 14, 2008

Nice piece. Doesn't make me want to change anything I wrote back in early 2005 in the "Mr. President ..." piece for Esquire: we get leverage or Tehran vetoes. Simple as that. Bush & Co. think leverage can be gained militarily and with sanctions.

They continue to be proven wrong.

Still, a bit much to redeploy term "Cold War." Iran isn't "what's next," just "what's left."

That's my problem with Bobbitt's Terror and Consent: terrorism, as I wrote back in both books, isn't "what's next," just "what's left" after superpower rivalry is gone and state-on-state war disappears. There is no sense in making either our foreign policy or our grand strategy terror-centric. It is not the dominant dynamic of our age, or even the dominant security agenda. Globalization is.

Define and defend the positive, and don't confuse "friction" (terror) with "force" (globalization).

In fact, let the force guide and protect you, young padawan!

(Thanks: jarrod myrick)

Comments

[William R. Cumming.]

Your post correctly analyzes the current situation. Sub-state actors are a residuum even if very dangerous and reflect the anger and futility that a global system exists in which they had no part in its creation and no understanding of their vested interest in its continuation. They could of course have chosen or still could choose to join it and particpate. The strategies and tactics of the participants should be geared to that end. But because shared power is the future, not dominance, various factions in every particpant entity will shove and push to try and enhance their influence and wealth, not recognizing that the interstitial arenas are now the only field of contest. It also does not mean that distribution of wealth and power relationships are permanent based on the skills and talents and assets of the participants. Another concern is to make sure that the direct and indirect costs of participation do not exceed the costs of not doing so.

[Jarrod Myrick]

Define and defend the positive: a good way to live life.

[large]

When everyone in the world is rich and fat there will be no conflict . .

Unless it's over who's richest and fattest . .

[Vinay Gupta]

Unfortunately, the world lacks the natural resources for everybody to be rich and fat unless some truly radical developments take place.

The average American has about 30 times the environmental impact of the average Bangladeshi, and the USA, with 5% of the world's population, consumes 25% of the world's natural resources.

Put these two facts together. If everybody in the world had an American lifestyle, the impact would be the same as a global population of about 200 billion Bangladeshis, and we would consume five world's worth of natural resources.

So, at that point, either we

* develop radical new resource utilization systems (hello Nanosolar, hello Konarka, hello ultracapacitors) or

* we accept that the global standards of living are going to be uneven to a significant degreee, or

* Americans let their standard of living fall to something sustainable globally

I personally favor the first path, but that's not a particularly well-funded option, particularly if you aren't interested in nuclear power. Nuclear is a bad idea as a global solution because you can't effectively separate nuclear power from nuclear weapons, or at least dirty bombs: it's all dual use at the end of the day. There is no peaceful nuclear future.

What's the solution?

Here's my bid: http://guptaoption.com/2.long_peace.php

[John Ham]

I do not think Bobbitt is saying terror is what's next, but that terror, or asymmetric warfare or 4GW is one part of the push back against globalization. His use of the term "terror state" is inelegant when I think he is talking about especially nasty networks and the states in the Gap too use your terminology. I find myself making mental reference to The Pentagon's New Map as I read and seeing parallels.