Is Globalization the Answer or Culprit?

[Ken White]

2. "That's a Western perspective..."

6. "That is an idealist position..."

8. And most conclusively: "Don't make me bring Ken White in on this!"

(Bonus points for combining two or more in a single sentence!)

He is here...

Bonus claiming sentence:

The western perspectives on globalization, economic matters in general (but in particular as it relates to Taarof, Hong Bao and their relatives) and even on most aspects of warfare are essentially idealistic and are thus often incorrect and perceived as arrogance and / or ignorance in the eyes of many in the East.

Followed by:

As Samuel Huntington said: "...Asian societies and Muslim societies are increasingly resentful of our efforts to induce them to adopt our values.” Anyone who fails to comprehend that reality is doomed to state that it is but a strawman, to be ignored -- and they will. They'll ultimately pay for it, too...

You know this, Bob. Witness:

Fast forward to today. The size of bounties placed on HVTs in the Southern Philippines was (and likely is) a big problem. The amounts were too large. Tell someone you will pay them $6 Million for a guy and they don't get it. Tell them you'll pay them $6,000 and suddenly you have their attention. Like an inverse scene from Austin Powers.

Yep, you know it -- you just like to ignore it in some of your posts as it complicates your argument...

I generally agree with Selil. However, this from him:

The adage that the military went to war and American went to the mall is a truism. Fed in part by the disconnection of the Military and political process from the populace and the rapidly escalation of a growing divide caused by globalization.

Merits a quibble. Except that he adroitly corrects or at least adjusts it later:

... Consider the civil/military relationship and then consider the globalization relationships. Would we expect a government or military that doesn't understand the former to have any clue about the latter?

Good question. I'd only add that the lack of understanding of the civil/military relationship is a two way street, that both sides tacitly encourage that lack and that -- as Selil knows -- misundertanding or misperceptions on that relationship and both parties to it in the Academic world exacerbate the problem. That, BTW is not an attack, merely an observation. It is also an observation that agendas drive understanding or an apparent lack thereof and that even pure intentions can legitimately diverge among communities.

Which is what makes globalization complex. And drives western and eastern mutual failures to comprehend...