Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Is Globalization the Answer or Culprit?

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default Is Globalization the Answer or Culprit?

    This could go in the Tunisia thread, but is a little broader than that, so I've placed it here.

    An interesting piece on the implications of Tunisia in the struggle over the identity of Islam by Thomas P.M. Barnett over at World Politics Review.

    For those not familiar with his books, Dr. Barnett's theory is that globalization's connectivity reduces conflict. Conflict tends to originate in the periphery where states are not connected or do not have adequate rules.

    In this case, he posits that adherence to religion and making a buck don't have to conflict, and that folks in the Middle East and Africa want to be connected to the global economy more than they want to be a part of Al-Qaeda's world. The gist is that capitalism can beat fundamentalism just like it beat communism- economically, with democracy (politics) coming later. Once people are worried about buying a nicer TV/car/cell phone, they tend to worry less about hating their neighbors... you could argue that Iraq shows a positive correlation here as well.

    While I'm inclined to agree with him, I think this line of reasoning also opens up another question- is it possible that a systemic shock (like the Great Depression or another state vs. state war) could discredit globalization so thoroughly that the majority of people would actually reject it? Could the current Chinese bubble popping lead to that large of consequences?

    Unlikely I know, although there are precedents... Several earlier periods of globalization fell by the wayside for similar reasons, although the fact that we're back where we are seems to indicate that there's something to the phenomenon.

    Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

    V/R,

    Cliff

  2. #2
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    To quote the article:
    But recent events in Tunisia and Algeria remind us that the vast bulk of history's revolutions are fueled by economics, not politics. In this, the struggle for Islam's soul is no different than that of any other civilization in this age of globalization's rapid expansion...
    Rubbish. I cannot take that seriously.

    I find Globalisation is an imprecise term of almost no actual utility.
    Additionally I submit it has little or no relevance to conflict.
    Wars are caused by Politics. Globalisation is irrelevant.

    Basically, when people say "Globalisation" they are strongly indicating they are confused by things they see, but do not understand. Everything people state as being or as being a product of "Globalisation" has a better and more useful explanation else where.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  3. #3
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,352

    Default

    Cliff,

    Elsewhere on SWC I have posted links to work on this theme, notably by Paul Rogers and Mary Kaldor, see this thread's opening post:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=12224

    I do think that rushing to explain what happened in Tunisia as proving theory 'Global' is a mistake, plus media reporting on a "tidal wave" of protest sweeping through North Africa and beyond.

    History in Africa notably has ample evidence of global interconnections leading to grim times, so I see no reason why PRC should be exempt - although I do not foresee the IMF and others arriving with a stabilisation programme.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 01-26-2011 at 09:25 AM. Reason: Add link
    davidbfpo

  4. #4
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    I think about this a great deal. Frankly, there is very little evidence that "revolutions are caused by economics." For every situation you find a populace in poor or declining economic situations, far more are politically stable than unstable. It's like arguing that poverty causes spousal abuse or alcoholism. Some things are "equal opportunity" for rich and poor alike, and these dynamics that are rooted in human nature and group dynamics fit with in that category.

    As Wilf says, insurgency is politics. He's absolutely right on that score. So we'll agree on those first two mile markers as we head down this path. 1. insurgency is not about economics (though certainly once the conditions of insurgency exist, economics come into play); and that insurgency is politics (Note, this means that political upheaval that is created by individuals seeking power or money with their small gang; such as drug cartels in Mexico, range wars between ranchers in the old American West, and perhaps even Diamond gangs in Sierra Leone are not true "insurgencies."

    Our trails begin to diverge, and ahead is the fork in the road of "war" vs "civil emergency." Our doctrine tells us it is war, and our doctrines on war tells us war is politics. This is the majority path taken in looking at insurgencies. This is where I diverge. I could make a case for either one, but historically when one looks at situations where insurgency is approached as war and warfare is waged against the insurgent (often by an external power conducting counter guerrilla operations) it tends to ignore the root political causes and focus on re-establishing the status quo while suppressing the challengers. That model has proven to be temporarily effective many times and places. It is the base model captured in US COIN doctrine derived from the European Colonial experience, shaped during our own colonial experience (to which we added TTPS learned in defeating the native American populaces); and then colored again by our post WWII and post Cold War intervention experiences. All approached as war, with the goal of sustaining in power some government that is committed to supporting our interests in a particular region/populace deemed critical to US national interests.

    I see insurgency as simply "illegal politics" that sometimes rise to very war-like levels of violence. I also believe that degree of violence is not an effective way to categorize such activities, but that one does a better job when they do it by the nature and relationship of the parties, and the basis of causation for the conflict (be it violent or non-violent).

    Now to "Globalization" and does it help or hurt. Short answer is "YES, it does both"

    Consider how the development of Roman roads facilitated the rise of Romes ability to subdue and manage an unprecedented empire; and similarly how such roads facilitated the rise of effective challengers from those subdued populaces that ultimately brought Rome down.

    Consider how the development of the printing press facilitated the rise of the populaces of Western Europe to break the strangle hold of the Holy Roman Empire and the Catholic Church and their monopoly on education and religion.

    Consider how British laid a vast network of telegraph wires and employed a steam powered navy and commercial fleet to expand and control an empire that rivaled Rome; and how populaces within those suppressed and divergent locations employed the same world-shrinking tools to encourage and sustain a ever expanding resistance that ultimately made sustaining such an empire cost-prohibitive, rolling back the overt controls to allow greater self-determination and legitimacy of government locally and a far less controlling role by Britain.

    Now consider the American experience. Exerting our own brand of controlling influence across the globe on the backs of our own tremendous naval and commercial fleets; first in the name of "containing" existential threats of Soviet expansion into Europe; then evolving to a much broader and looser containment of the ideology of communism that was being embraced by so many post-colonial countries to facilitate their continued march to independence. Then there is the Middle East, a critical Cold War "battlefield" of resources, sea lanes, and choke points that had to be denied to the Soviets at any costs, and the governmental relationships that were nurtured and then protected against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to secure.

    Then the Cold War ends and so does our express rationale for much of this engagement. Control measures are visibly rolled back in the West and Far East; but in the Middle East the Status Quo endured. The governments weren't complaining there (who complains about being insanely rich and powerful?), and the populace there has no voice (conversely poor and powerless), so their cries were muted. But along comes the information tools of "globalization." They lit the fuse that allowed the Eastern European populaces to free themselves from Soviet dominion. They also enabled bin Laden to turn AQ into a UW headquarters that could employ networked operations to extend a global reach without the benefit (or vulnerable burden) of a state to operate from. Like with the British experience before us, formerly isolated and disconnected populace groups rallied off of each others experiences to find courage and encouragement to stand up and resist illegitimate governments at home. It also empowered AQ's ability to recruit across a broad base of supportive populaces to converge energy against the West in an effort to break our support to these governments they were seeking to challenge at home. No more a "global insurgency" than the Cold War was; but rather a set of nationalist insurgencies with a common religion and common opponent that are leveraged by AQ as the UW hub to support their own political agenda as well.

    So, yes, globalization is an important aspect of the current upheavals of Sunni Muslim populaces. Just as it was for the suppressed populaces of every previous empire as well.

    But if you go down the "warpath" you begin to lose objectivity. If you don't look at history, you lose perspective. If you can't look at your own actions and contributions to the political conditions that are being challenged through illegal politics, you lose your empire...
    Last edited by Bob's World; 01-25-2011 at 12:31 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Good to see you again Cliff

    On the subject of insurgency and its causes: Ted Robert Gurr, back in 1970, published what is still the best explanation in Why Men Revolt. In its essence, Gurr's argument was that revolutions take place when after a period of economic growth there is a sudden and sharp decline and the perception of the populace (or significant members thereof) that this is the fault of the venal and unjust government. He calls this "perceived relative deprivation." As a political scientist, I agree that this is politics, but economics is both relavant and the trigger mechanism expolited for political purposes.

    Cheers

    JohnT

  6. #6
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    John,

    You just described the United States. But though we have all of these "classic symptoms" there is no real danger of insurgency. I would offer that Gurr's position is sound, but that if he would have dug a little deeper he would have gotten closer to the true roots of causation.

    As we discussed, you bundle the four primary causal factors that I look to under the single umbrella of "Legitimacy." That is one of those words that carries far too many meanings, I think it is critical to break it down into four more focused bundles when assessing insurgency:

    Legitimacy: The populace must recognize the right of the government to govern.

    Justice: The populace must perceive that the rule of law as applied to them is just.

    Respect: No significant segment of the society can perceive that they are excluded from participation in governance and opportunity as a matter of status.

    Hope: The populace must perceive that they have a trusted, effective and legal means of changing governance, when they believe such change to be necessary.

    When these conditions exist and hope is absent, conditions of insurgency will grow. Certainly economic hardship adds fuel to this mix, but it is a mix rooted in domestic policies and politics assesssed through the eyes of "the populace" (which is never a monolith). At point all it takes is a spark. Some internal or external leader armed with an effective ideology; or some event (as in Tunisia). Whether it then goes violent or non-violent is a choice of tactics, with little bearing on the nature of the problem.

    Hope is codified and preserved in our Constitution. This is the role of a Constitution. Any constitution that creates such hope in a populace is the kind of effective COIN tool our founding fathers intended and designed our own constitution to be.

    Cheers!

    Bob
    Last edited by Bob's World; 01-25-2011 at 02:53 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  7. #7
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T. Fishel View Post
    On the subject of insurgency and its causes: Ted Robert Gurr, back in 1970, published what is still the best explanation in Why Men Revolt. In its essence, Gurr's argument was that revolutions take place when after a period of economic growth there is a sudden and sharp decline and the perception of the populace (or significant members thereof) that this is the fault of the venal and unjust government. He calls this "perceived relative deprivation." As a political scientist, I agree that this is politics, but economics is both relavant and the trigger mechanism expolited for political purposes.

    Cheers

    JohnT
    Ding....Ding....Ding we have a winner IMO. Watch Egypt!!!! and then the world. People are getting fed up with welfare for the rich and suffering for the rest.

  8. #8
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Is Globalization the Answer or Culprit?
    Must it be one or the other? Or a little of both, a little of neither, and a lot in between.

    Connectivity and interdependence among states certainly reduces the threat of state-on-state violence. On the other hand, economic and social change often generates friction and violence, both within and among states. These dynamics play out at the same time with varying effects.

    I don't see "globalization" (as Wilf says, a very general term) as something that we chose to start and can choose to reject. It simply is; we have to learn to manage it but the genie ain't going back in the bottle. Likely to be rough at some parts and smooth at others, but the question is not "to globalize or not to globalize". That's already decided. The question is how to maximize the advantages and neutralize the disadvantages.

  9. #9
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Why use the word "globalization" at all? It is neither an accurate or useful description. It has no set definition and means many mostly useless things to many mostly no so reflective people who don't tend to hold such ideas to rigour.

    I agree it "is," but again, so what?
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  10. #10
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Globalization is like steroids. Now one can argue if the use of steroids in baseball favors pitchers or hitters more, but they're still playing baseball.

    Same with insurgency and terrorism. The game is faster, some players are stronger or recover more quickly, but the game itself has not changed. Governments are about status quo and insurgents are about change, so I suspect this favors the party seeking change.

    Wilf: I completely understand your position, and it is a reasonable one. It just isn't very helpful (in fact, it is quite harmful) for understanding insurgency. If one sees war as war and insurgency as a form of war, then seeing the de jure legitimacy of officialness as the only kind that matters makes sense. But such thinking is, IMO, a hindrance to resolving insurgency on terms that are acceptable for both the populace and the government.

    I recommend that one should:
    1. Separates insurgency from warfare (which I realize you won't do, not trying to convince you, just stating my perspective);

    2. Recognize that causation radiates out from the "official" government and falls upon a diverse populace, many of whom may well question the "legitimacy" of said government;

    3. Understand that "control" of the populace is not a security operation to be waged against them, but rather describes the general state of a populace that is satisfied with its form and nature of governance;

    4. Realize that COIN is really the day to day efforts of the HN government to create or preserve perceptions of their legitimacy among the populace, and thereby establish a state of control; and

    5. Appreciate that the efforts of an external intervening power that comes to the assistance of a government faced with insurgency with a focus of establishing security through defeat of the insurgent is neither conducting COIN nor helping the HN conduct COIN. In fact, such operations serve primarily to enable the HN to avoid conducting COIN and sustain a state of forced, illegitimate officialness.

    This approach in point 5 was the model throughout the age of colonialism, and it is a model that largely survives and dominates our COIN doctrine today. It's not COIN at all though, and it probably is actually closer to being warfare as we currently implement it. We believe that if we sustain the current government, defeat the insurgent and establish security we have "won." The only group that "wins" in that situation is the puppet regime we have propped up through our intervention. Certainly the populace as a whole does not win, and when members of that populace are recruited by AQ to wage terrorist attacks against the homeland of the intervening party, it is that populace that suffers as well. The steroids of globalization enhance that last part.

    So I remain convinced that it is time to retire the Colonial Intervention (COIN) playbook for foreign interventions. Just as Steam travel and telegraph technology facilitated both the rise and fall of the British Empire; so too has the latest generations of information and transportation technologies facilitated the rise and potential fall of the American age of control as well.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 01-26-2011 at 12:33 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  11. #11
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    So I remain convinced that it is time to retire the Colonial Intervention (COIN) playbook for foreign interventions. Just as Steam travel and telegraph technology facilitated both the rise and fall of the British Empire; so too has the latest generations of information and transportation technologies facilitated the rise and potential fall of the American age.
    I remain convinced that it's time to retire foreign interventions, except where absolutely necessary... and in those cases the intervention should be at the lowest possible level and the shortest possible duration, and multilateral where possible. Occupying territory, changing regimes, installing governments, telling others how they should be governed, meddling in the internal affairs of other nations... these are problems, not solutions.

    The British needed an empire to prosper. We do not.

  12. #12
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Ahh, but empire-like controls help corporations to prosper. Prosperous corporations have powerful lobbies, as do the governments that prosper from these same corporations.

    Capital may well be a coward, but it loves a good dictatorship.

    But I agree that we do not need an empire to prosper, and in fact, our nation as a whole is far more secure and prosperous if we retire such approaches and simply get out there and compete.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    25

    Default

    An important thing to note when using the concept of globalisation (indeed a bit of a confused concept) is not something that happened overnight or in the last twenty years, the concept of "globalisation" as in the greater interconnectivity between geographical and/or cultural areas in fields of communication, (political) ideas, connection between economical markets..etc (not necessarily a fixed definition) can be regarded as something that continuously occured troughout history.

    You can see this on a local scale in the middle ages, where previously isolated rural markets were connected through among other things improvement in transport capablilities and allowed for specialisation and the formation of cities and later industrialisation. You can see this in the colonialisation and later in the imperialism by certain states, and then back to decolonization.

    This way i dont find much revolutionary ideas in the "new" concept of globalisation, the economic markets were already connected and the ideas were already spreading. In other words the steamship was way more important then the internet might ever be.

    Also the presence of an globally connected free-market economy doesnt necessarily mean an increase in the economical prosperity or peace, it could mean poverty for the people and one of the causes cited for the start of world war 1 is the imperialism of European countries (lenin even said that imperialism was the highest form of capitalism and that it was to blame for world war 1)

  14. #14
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Wilf: I completely understand your position, and it is a reasonable one. It just isn't very helpful (in fact, it is quite harmful) for understanding insurgency.
    Bob, I'm not confused as to how to defeat a rebellion. I understand how its done. I am just staggered at the line of thinking that prevents others seeing it. For example, why do you keep saying "Insurgency" instead of "armed rebellion."

    I recommend that one should:
    1. Separates insurgency from warfare (which I realize you won't do, not trying to convince you, just stating my perspective);
    An insurgency is an armed rebellion. Warfare is the conduct of war. Rebellion requires warfare. How is it useful to engage in separation?
    2. Recognize that causation radiates out from the "official" government and falls upon a diverse populace, many of whom may well question the "legitimacy" of said government;
    Politics is the cause of all war. Not governments.
    3. Understand that "control" of the populace is not a security operation to be waged against them, but rather describes the general state of a populace that is satisfied with its form and nature of governance;
    Power is control. The populaces acquiescence just alters to degree of control needed.
    4. Realize that COIN is really the day to day efforts of the HN government to create or preserve perceptions of their legitimacy among the populace, and thereby establish a state of control;
    When you defeat an armed rebellion, you do so by re-imposing control via the rule of law.

    So I remain convinced that it is time to retire the Colonial Intervention (COIN) playbook for foreign interventions. Just as Steam travel and telegraph technology facilitated both the rise and fall of the British Empire; so too has the latest generations of information and transportation technologies facilitated the rise and potential fall of the American age of control as well.
    So basically you are saying that technology drives politics? I can't agree with that.
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  15. #15
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    So basically you are saying that technology drives politics? I can't agree with that.
    I don't think he's saying that at all, Wilf. I think you may be over-simplifying what he's saying to make your own point, though.

    Technology often acts as an accelerator or enabling device for political moves or trends. This can be traced throughout recorded history, with examples ranging from the development of better navigation techniques and rigging enabling the Portuguese and later Spanish imperial drives to improved rail transport networks and their impact on US western expansion (to toss out just two examples...there are many more out there). As certain things became either possible or easier, the political ambitions of governments can often accelerate. Technology can also shape the directions such ambitions and expansions take.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  16. #16
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    The accrediting agencies for my university program at the program, state, and regional levels all require me to teach globalization. My curriculum must reflect the principles of globalization. At a recent academic conference I asked one of the architects of this requirement, "What is globalization?" His response was a pedantic, "You don't know?" Leaving me breathless and struggling to keep my inner Marine at peace I said, "No, I want to know if you do?"

    To whit, globalization is when my students have to compete for jobs with any student anywhere else on the planet for a job. This is true, and they do, quite well. Globalization is the effect on the local market when cheap Turkish steel is dumped in America and results in 30K steel workers getting laid off. That then turns into a political incident and causes perturbations in domestic politics. Globalization is the fact that over the last thirty years the number of American born professors in STEM higher education has radically dwindled towards a minority. A trend followed by declining STEM education for American students and simply circular. Globalization is the perturbation in the corn market caused when a harvest half a world away fails and my local farmers in Indiana get a little fatter pay-check. Globalization is the fact a flood in Brazil results in an increase sales return on computer equipment designed in Texas, built in China, and delivered by Korean shipping through a Chillean company.

    A mild mistake made by the Barnetts of the world and most arm-chair strategists is laying globalization at the foot of the Internet and basing everything on communications. Those are symptoms of globalizations. From the view of an Indiana farmer globalization isn't about networks it is about peering. Instead of hierarchical relationships or even networked relationships it is about peering relationships. The farmer sells directly to the consumer half a world away. We see this system breaking down in the music industry as artists sell directly to the consumer. iTunes from Apple is an example of the retailer removing the distributor, but now we have the distributor being yanked out of the picture too. NetFlix, iTunes, and even Amazon are retailers who are direct to market. Now technologies are allowing them to be lept and producer to consumer is possible. That should scare most governments because in the seams of the previous nationalized systems is where regulation and taxation fit. Now those seams are closing.

    If you apply these concepts to the military an entire new venue of conflicts arise and become possible. The simple assumptions of state power become limited when it is falsely assumed the state has "power". Similarly there are issues with assumption that the "corporation" has power too. When the market place shifts from provider/user to produce/consumer an entire new set of paradigms rise. This is both unprecedented and continues economic models that have long existed in non-monetary systems. Assuming that the nation-state with what are now entirely minuscule armies (in comparison to population densities) are going to pacify large swaths of the population is simplistic. When the need for the state as primacy of control is replaced by localized relationships there simply will be break downs. Corporations realized this changing venue of power matrixes a long time ago and companies like WalMart grew from not just being "providers" but convenience providers and relationship builders.

    Most military members are missing other elements of globalization even as they use it to their advantage. The soldier in Afghanistan web-cam chatting with his spouse and children in America is engaged in a peering relationship. So, are the fifth graders talking with the Imam in Iran while sitting in Colorado. Same for the college sophomores who are working on a project with Chinese college on a project. Projections of nationalism to those domestic populations are eroded by the consistent peering relationships. Domestic attempts by political forces of the nation state are buffered by personal contacts with foreign nationals. This leads to a disconnection of populace support for foreign aggression and in a democracy leadership challenges. The attempt by politicians and military members to say "This is true" is met with a sigh and "not from my experience". 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.

    Less than 1 percent of the United States population serves in the United States military and it costs more than the next five militaries on the planet combined. The money spent effects relatively few Americans in a very small swath of cities and regions (and dwindling with base closures). 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?
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default One or two points to add...

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    If you apply these concepts to the military an entire new venue of conflicts arise and become possible. The simple assumptions of state power become limited when it is falsely assumed the state has "power". Similarly there are issues with assumption that the "corporation" has power too. When the market place shifts from provider/user to produce/consumer an entire new set of paradigms rise. This is both unprecedented and continues economic models that have long existed in non-monetary systems. Assuming that the nation-state with what are now entirely minuscule armies (in comparison to population densities) are going to pacify large swaths of the population is simplistic. When the need for the state as primacy of control is replaced by localized relationships there simply will be break downs. Corporations realized this changing venue of power matrixes a long time ago and companies like WalMart grew from not just being "providers" but convenience providers and relationship builders.

    Most military members are missing other elements of globalization even as they use it to their advantage. The soldier in Afghanistan web-cam chatting with his spouse and children in America is engaged in a peering relationship. So, are the fifth graders talking with the Imam in Iran while sitting in Colorado. Same for the college sophomores who are working on a project with Chinese college on a project. Projections of nationalism to those domestic populations are eroded by the consistent peering relationships. Domestic attempts by political forces of the nation state are buffered by personal contacts with foreign nationals. This leads to a disconnection of populace support for foreign aggression and in a democracy leadership challenges. The attempt by politicians and military members to say "This is true" is met with a sigh and "not from my experience". 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.

    Less than 1 percent of the United States population serves in the United States military and it costs more than the next five militaries on the planet combined. The money spent effects relatively few Americans in a very small swath of cities and regions (and dwindling with base closures). 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?
    Selil-

    I think that Barnett's point mirrors yours- by "connectivity" he doesn't mean the internet, he means the ability of folks in one place to do business/interact with others. The internet is obviously the biggest enabler of that, but it is an enabler - not the effect. This is why I think the economic factor is becoming more important- it results in the "peering" process as you call it. It's tough to get someone to go to war with somebody they work with every day - and even tougher to convince them that that person is the "enemy". One reason you see so much hatred in places like Pakistan is that disconnectedness.

    One of my big concerns though is the strength of military might. You mention it, and several others have alluded to it. Certainly even our military has a hard time "pacifying large swaths of the population"... but this is because we choose to follow the Western norms for warfare. Raw, naked force still has the ability to subjugate, and it could disrupt globalization and cause regression. It would take a massive amount of force, true- but the lesson of WWI and WWII is that at some point even the most fanatical organizations/governments will surrender if they are faced with annihilation- and afterwards, there are significant psychological and social consequences. I'm not arguing that this is a good idea, or right in any way- but if an actor with sufficient power chooses to use it in this way... well, it would probably work. We need to make sure we don't assume that the rules we use will always apply to everyone else.

    V/R,

    Cliff

Similar Threads

  1. Good Layman's guide to the financial crisis
    By Cavguy in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 479
    Last Post: 01-03-2012, 02:12 PM
  2. COIN: Is Air Control The Answer?
    By slapout9 in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 06-23-2009, 08:46 PM
  3. A ‘Surge’ for Afghanistan.
    By SWJED in forum OEF - Afghanistan
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-31-2008, 02:27 PM
  4. Globalization and the Radical Loser
    By Granite_State in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-12-2008, 02:09 PM
  5. Questions the Islamic Society Should Answer
    By SWJED in forum Intelligence
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-01-2006, 04:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •