Do we require a victory or a Triumph?

[Steve Blair]

I tend to think there are certain types of terrorism that form because of wealth and comfort. I'm thinking here of the various West German groups that came into being during the 1970s and 1980s. Most of the hard-core members came from middle-class backgrounds at least. In some cases there was an element of social guilt at play (why are we so well off while these other people suffer?) but there were other dynamics as well.

It's an interesting question, though. Look at the environmental and anti-G8 activists. Many of them are wealthy, or at least come from comfortable backgrounds. Yet they are one of the prototype trans-national insurgencies (in my view) and have spawned a number of violent terrorist groups. All of them run off pretty brilliant decentralized networks with "group action" mentality and little in the way of an overt chain of command. Again, interesting stuff.

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Tequila, Hey Steve,

Great points and a great discussion. I think one key difference in a democracy may be the pressures put on those groups from within - they are seen as criminals. A dictatorship at this point is subject to its own pressures-look at the pressures building in Pakistan, and Venezuela. A democracy of some flavor though is more likely to condemn the terrorist who operate within it or against it, and recognize the danger to the government which the people have invested for their benefit - unless that govt is no longer upholding its end of the bargain and is attempting to move toward dictatorship - at which point is it really a democracy anymore? If those people can't correct it through non-violent pressure, outside pressure, or a coup then they might turn toward terrorism or adopt insurgency themselves. For a democracy to take hold I think requires a commitment to resist, usually that is laid out in some form of balance of power in the government.

While wealthy states have had their terrorist groups, did they have the resources to go global on a large scale? Did they really want to? How many ETA bubbas made it to D.C. to conduct operations? Because of either their goals or their resources they were more contained. How much support did they actually receive outside of states such as the Soviet Union and Libya? I agree there will always be some who feel that violence is their only option - even if they are born with privilege, and the economy and other opportunities in their country are among the best, but they are the exception I think, and they are not as viral as those which arise where there is no hope. How many McVeighs are there in the U.S. - more then we'd like, but how much instability are they likely to cause? How many McVeighs are inside the govt and law enforcement? Why are there not more? Will they ever topple the U.S. government, a state or even a local govt? Even though they will plan and execute heinous acts, will their political objectives ever be fulfilled? There will also be Columbine, and VA. tech like mass murders - but we also believe those are the aberrations of psychopathic individuals or small groups.

I agree about being willing to pursue one thing and not the other. Freedom sort of leads you to wanting more freedom. China is an interesting example. I suspect that however it turns out it will not be how anybody thought it would - did you know that in sections of Beijing they are building Victorian Style mansions - it was in a National Geographic I think - it was so odd to look at this neighborhood that looked like it belonged in New England - that they can do that is a type of freedom of expression. I'm not saying the Chinese leadership is breaking out the Federalist Papers, but I am saying they are acknowledging that people must have a certain degree of freedom if you want a robust economy and to make use of their greatest resource - the Chinese Population. So absolutely - if a country is willing to involve itself in liberal trade, but is unsure about changing jerseys - I say we help them - as long as they are not simultaneously working to intimidate their neighbors.

I think we all wish we'd done things a little different in Iraq, but nobody likes to admit that it might not have mattered if we'd done it perfect (or whatever we think perfect might be). It might just be that the violence they incurred during Saddam's reign is going to take years to shake out. Why is it that it took 4 years of incredible violence in the American Civil War before it was over? Inept Union Generalship? Took that long to grind them down? Or were the passions and causes (real and perceived) so strong and they just had to get tired of killing each other? Maybe all of them. It was the defining moment though in U.S. History - because we just had to know.

The pressures in Iraq that were kept under the lid of the Saddam Ba'athism finally blew up. AQ sparked it sooner rather then later, but it may have went down anyway - but maybe different. Because Saddam liked Iraqis divided Iraq was denied the means to work its problems through political progression, then when he was gone suddenly (we fired him), it left a gaping hole - nobody filled it, maybe nobody could. Syria, Iran and AQ are certainly not helping as they pursue their own interests and further prevent the Iraqis from dealing with their own problems as Iraqis. Until a strong enough figure emerges to both pick up the leadership, but be able to hand it over to the next guy, Iraq will continue to be divided land and/or a dictatorship.

I'm a long term guy - its just the way I think. Growth and transition are painful so if you are going to go to the trouble then it should be worth your resources. I don't think there are too many options - you can't contain it as is - it will leak out and come to visit you at home. We are not going to stay home either, so we will present ourselves abroad.

Some places may not be ready, and as long as they are not imposing on others or conducting some form of resource blackmail which causes conflict (Michael Howard wrote the 3 main reasons states go to war are Interests, Fear and Honor/Prestige) maybe the best course is to just let them progress and to help their peoples in other ways - if they will allow it. If those states do use violence against a neighbor then somebody must decide what the fallout is and if its worth taking action - if someone does then you still have to deal with how to win the peace. Eventually though, those people of that state will assert themselves through some form of redress - you cannot keep the world out anymore, it is invasive and growing more so everyday. The world is growing smaller – kind of an oxymoron, but I think it describes the situation as one of inevitable pain – but how do we try and make it a smoother transition, or do we just hang on and ride?

[slapout9]

Rob, I guess that is a picture of you. Either way it is a lot better than the 2 naked guys.

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Slapout,
I thought the 2 greek wrestlers would appeal to Crocket's pastel side and sockless loafers - My wife asked why I did not put a photo up of myself - the reason I had not before was we're an open community, it was pretty obvious where I was at and I did not want to provide a mug shot. The moustache is now gone - a victim of having 3 daughters who did not like it
Its interesting - we talked about this once - how avatars and photos and such are symbols and influence perception. Its also interesting that the user can see it one way, but the audience can see it another way.

[slapout9]

Hi Rob, yea I know what you mean about perceptions. I told my wife I was getting a realy cool t-shirt from this guy I talk to on the computer. She looked over my shoulder and saw the avatar and then looked me rather strange for some reason I was looking for a cool picture of Steve McQeen from his Wanted Dead or Alive days as bounty hunter Josh Randall. I couldn't find one until after I put up Crockett. I found several all Black and White photos but they don't really show up that well so I went with Crockett. My wife chose a cartoon of a Tazmainian devil dressed as a police officer with his nightstick in one hand and a pair of handcuffs in the other(no I want be using that one)

Send your shirt size for your Slapout CSI t-shirt. Later

Here is a link to an article on the Mares leg sawed off winchester 92 he carried.
http://www.mcqueenonline.com/gunsquarterlyarticle.htm

[Ski]

I am not in favor of trying to bring liberal democracy to the rest of the world. Forcing any kind of political system on another state will never work in my limited opinion. Legitimate political change in 95% of the cases must come from bottom up, intra state efforts, not from top down, external efforts. There are exceptions such as Nazi Germany and Imperial Nippon, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Rob - your last paragraph is the crux of the matter:

"Some places may not be ready, and as long as they are not imposing on others or conducting some form of resource blackmail which causes conflict (Michael Howard wrote the 3 main reasons states go to war are Interests, Fear and Honor/Prestige) maybe the best course is to just let them progress and to help their peoples in other ways - if they will allow it. If those states do use violence against a neighbor then somebody must decide what the fallout is and if its worth taking action - if someone does then you still have to deal with how to win the peace. Eventually though, those people of that state will assert themselves through some form of redress - you cannot keep the world out anymore, it is invasive and growing more so everyday. The world is growing smaller – kind of an oxymoron, but I think it describes the situation as one of inevitable pain – but how do we try and make it a smoother transition, or do we just hang on and ride?"

Who are we to become the arbitrator of violence in the world? This is Wilsonian at best and Jacobin at worst.

The world might be getting smaller, but it's also becoming more fragmented. The 2006 Failed States Index is an excellent look at how this phenomena is occuring. Also ask yourself if the US Military is involved in some way in the worst of these countries..you'll see a trend develop here. It's Barnett's Gap theory being instituted, which I think is a recipe for disaster in the long run.

One thing will bring our aggressive foreign policy (which is both a hallmark of the last 30 years of both Republican and Democratic leadership in this country - they just differentiate between causes) to a grinding halt: the economy. If the economy ever tanks, like a mid-70's stagflation tank, then it will be impossible to support our military budget. One can easily make a case that we cannot support our military budget now considering the levels of foreign owned debt in the US.

This is a tranistional period for the world. In the last 100 years, we've seen the death of two major politcal factions in the world - Communism and Imperialism/Colonialism - that have had huge geo-political impacts upon the planet. The map lines are literally being redrawn on an annual basis, and it's because of the deaths of Marxism and Imperialism that we are involved in most of the failed states in one form or another. We are trying to develop democracies and republics, which is noble, but it is expensive, demanding, and overall, will have a success/failure rate to be determined. We cannot state whether this will be worthwhile or not, but my gut tells me that the American people will only support this internationalist foreign policy when the country is either successful at war (perceptions drive the train here) or if the economy stays afloat.

If wars go bad, or if the economy sours, all bets are off. We return to the days of inner reflection and internal demand. We take care of ourselves first. We have not experienced a really bad sustained economy since the late 80's, and we are past due on that cycle coming back around. Perhaps we are in a new world where we can temper or even avoid major economic downturns, but it would take some economist to explain why that is.

[Tacitus]

Who are we to become the arbitrator of violence in the world? This is Wilsonian at best and Jacobin at worst.

This is a tranistional period for the world. In the last 100 years, we've seen the death of two major politcal factions in the world - Communism and Imperialism/Colonialism - that have had huge geo-political impacts upon the planet. The map lines are literally being redrawn on an annual basis, and it's because of the deaths of Marxism and Imperialism that we are involved in most of the failed states in one form or another.

Outstanding post, Ski.

If a Kurd in the North or Shi'ite in the South gets at the head of a mass movement to create their own country as a response to the chaos there, what should be our response? What we call a failed state needing democracy to become healed, he might call an illegitimate artificial state imposed on them after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire by British imperialists. It never had any legitimacy and was only maintained by Saddam's Sunni dominated dictatorship.

If he is really clever he would write a document that echoed our own Declaration of Independence. It would take some nerve to try to tell them they couldn't do it. I can just see him selectively quoting our Founding Fathers in response to justify their bid for independence.

Unlikely as it seems, a George Washington might emerge to unify the country. He'll have no credibility if we appoint him, or arrange for his selection, that's for sure.

Or they just might really need to go their separate ways. If so, I do not see what moral authority we would have to deny them that course. We are just going to have to get used to the idea that the waxing of states has ended and the waning of states is in motion. Sending a bunch of troops around the world to prop up disintegrating unions is just a losing proposition, whether they are sitting on petroleum or not.

I have no idea what the future holds, but it just seems like we are hoping to preserve an old order in the Middle East and elsewhere, that is disappearing due to forces beyond our control. Better to stand aside, set the best example we can as a nation, and deal with whoever is sitting across the poker table from us than try to engineer who the new poker players will be. It just isn't our bailiwick.

[Rob Thornton]

Not to switch gears too much in the thread, but I think its kind of an evolution. Is the way we have largely thought about the use of National Power in the past appropriate for today? We'll define Power as the elements of national power DIME and its ability to influence and shape events. Slapout or Steve (1st cup of coffee) had proposed on another thread changing the way we think of using force as necessary as well. Force has largely a kinetic connotation. Is the way we have thought of security appropriate, or does that need to change in light of globalization and its many issues?

In my mind more and more issues are linked, and you can exhaust yourself stamping on the effects of the causes. How much effort should we reserve toward neutralizing or containing effects (conflict), and how much toward treating the causes (conflict prevention)?

You see all sort of great threads, blogs and print about topics like force structure, Inter-Agency fixes etc, but you really cannot (or maybe should not) proceed to far down that line until you've decided why you are changing it and what you are going to do with it.

9/11, Iraq, GWOT, Tsunamis, Pandemics, Global Warming, etc. - have all shaped this debate. It was not one in and of itself, it was the recognition that all these are related. I'm going to stray for a moment - Consider this site, with its accessibility to the International public. Look at who participates - we have a regular contributor who is a professor of anthropology ( Marc - you're citizenship and profession are what I'm looking for - when I tell folks I know this Canadian antrhopologist who had a great online idea - I get some interesting looks). I think open, decentralized organizations like the SWC are way out in front - they are cost free for most - you can assume an avatar and pseudonym if you like and discuss things in an open forum - I think this is useful and popular is also a reflection of the changing world - people are somewhat evaluated on their arguments and how they argue. It is a more neutral field - people can step outside the confines of their other responsibilities somewhat. It is the proliferation of ideas, made better by discourse and the ability to reach a sort of consensus, or at least acknowledgement.

Why is that important? I think by showing the many different perspectives we can get our solutions to big problems (in our case about Power, Force, National Security, etc.) less wrong or more right. The problems facing us are so complex, and have so many side effects, that are accentuated by outside forces that we are recognizing the need to discuss them outside of our immediate circles.

OK - back to the topic - I think this is an extension of the changing world. Unilateral solutions are fewer and farther between. The difference between the "justifiable Interest" rationale and the "morally defining" rationale for involvement are increasingly blurred since all of these problems are connected through globalization - Terror groups have global reach to an extent - they finance, communicate, plan, compare over the vast communication networks that fuel global economies. The identify, analyze and target remote populations of states that unable or unwilling to meet those populations needs, then they find similiar interests from all segments of those populations and work to destabilize them. It is in their interests to do so because it provides the conditions for furthering their own agendas - more crime and instability provides more revenue and forces states in favor of stabilty to exhaust resources. The enemy is pursuing a strategy of exhaustion. I think we can do a better job of making the forces of instability less relevant to the populations they target by going after the conditions which instability takes root.

This is hard, hard work I think. I'm not sure we are organized for it optimally, but like many others I'm not sure we can get there with out sacrificing some abilities and interests either - there are no easy fixes. Everybody wants total certainty that a commitment to one course or the other is a way to go - but the only certainty available I'm aware of it the historical past - and after something passes into history it is done - all you can do is either toast it or lament it.

[Rob Thornton]

Hey Ski, glad you are on the thread

If wars go bad, or if the economy sours, all bets are off. We return to the days of inner reflection and internal demand. We take care of ourselves first. We have not experienced a really bad sustained economy since the late 80's, and we are past due on that cycle coming back around. Perhaps we are in a new world where we can temper or even avoid major economic downturns, but it would take some economist to explain why that is.

Man, I don't know - I think our economy is global. We sell, we consume, we provide services to a global audience. We have goods made all over the world, and many foreign companies make goods here to sell both here and abroad. We have trade agreements, partnerships, insourcing, out sourcing, off shoring arrangements, etc. that fuel our economy. We do research and development both at home and abroad. We are global.

Why haven't we recruited and economist yet to SWC? Hey Marc - any Canadian economist you know who might want to contribute?

[Ski]

Rob

I would have been here earlier, but my wife gave birth to our first child late Wednesday night, and I've been just about as drained as I can be...or as a buddy of mine said, "Dude, the first few weeks are like Ranger School without the fun of jumping out of planes or carrying weapons."

Back to the topic - I'd offer that global economics is inhernetly more unstable, simply because of the complexities involved. There are limits built in to economic systems that can reduce the possibilities of downturns or loss, but none the less, the sheer complexity and size of the global economy means that a small problem can ripple into a larger problem.

Think back to 9/11, and the problems the airline industry had. What happens if the Federal Government doesn't bail out the airline industry? How often can the Federal Government actually do this - I've seen it twice in the past two Presidencies - the airline and steel industries bailout under Bush, and the bailout of the Mexican economy under Clinton. At some point, there are going to be diminishing returns, and all of that money is coming out of our taxpayers pockets.