Do we require a victory or a Triumph?

[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.