We already overly employ "CT" to help partners keep in check revolutionary movements with few effective legal means to advance their reasonable concerns.
I (like President Washington long before me) am an advocate for the idea that the US needs to be far less quick to judge some party as permanent "friend" or "foe;" better we look for shared and conflicting interests and tailor partnerships and conflicts accordingly. Then we will be better prepared to find opportunities with states such as China and Iran where they exist (and they do exist); and less likely to drag valued allies and partners into situations (Afghanistan, the current dust up with ISIL, etc) where they perhaps no direct interest themselves beyond maintaining relations with the US.
But China has little interest in most the US sees as "terrorists" (a term that truly has no strategic meaning); and similarly I doubt it is much in the interest of the US to employ CT against Chinese revolutionaries.
Probably best that governments everywhere take a step or two back from the mindset behind the CT strategies of the past decade plus, and work to better understand the revolutionary energy behind most of these actors and to focus more on the policy/political evolutions necessary for governments everywhere to stay more in step with the rapidly evolving expectations of the populations they affect (many of which do not live within the borders of the government impacting them.
The world isn't getting simpler, but some simple changes of perspective could yield some very positive gains in how we deal with the complexity of it all. Simple can master complexity, but simplistic tends to just muddy it up.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks