07-04-2005, 10:45 AM
Kinda cross posted this from the official boards. Wondering if anyone here has anything to say
:
:
When I started posting on these boards several years ago (it seems like yesterday) I really didn't' t know a lot about politics. In fact, up until that point I really didn't care because I had much more pressing matters in my life to take care of, but being in the military I found myself in a situation where global politics would effectively define how the next few years of my life went. So, being the type of person I am I set out to find out as much as I could about this politics business and I eventually found my way here. It was only natural as I spent too much time posting here as it was.
To say that was a “novice” in the field of politics would have been a pretty big understatement as the extent of my knowledge was the few (few being purely relative) books I had read and my beliefs of what constituted right and wrong. I can't really say that things are too different today but I have read a lot more books and improved my ability to articulate my feelings significantly. For the most part I've tried to approach things objectively without aligning myself with any one side out of general principal. In short, I try not to be a lemming like most of the people who have a vested interest in politics. It's been hard and I'm sure I've contradicted myself on several occasions, but hey no ones perfect.
Anyway, moving on to the point I'm writing this post to announce the fact that I think I've finally reached a consensus on what it is I truly want out of the world and the war in Iraq more specifically and I can't really claim that its something that I came up with all by myself because it's not. In fact, it comes from a book that I recently read and before I go further I'd like to really stress the fact that it's taken a lot for me to admit that I don't know everything and defer things to an outside source. Hopefully it's for the best.
The book is The Pentagon's New map by Thomas P.M. Barnett a guy who works at the Naval War College and a security expert of some kind. The thing that really appealed to me about this book was that a lot of what he said coincided so perfectly with my personal beliefs that at points I knew what was gonna come on the next page before I even got there. Before, you start getting scared I'll just say that this guy goes far more in depth and makes a lot more sense than I ever have. Needless to say the book comes highly recommended, and while I don't entertain any notions that everyone will necessarily agree with what is said I hope that people can get something out of it.
The book is about security in the next century and the role the pentagon has to play in securing peace and waging war. It's also fairly old (a couple years) so you'll have to bear with me if you all have already covered all this. You can blame the cute girl who worked in the O'Hare airport who made me think that I just had to buy a book. ;)
Anyway, on to the basis of the book; He goes along with the premise that the United States has the greatest power to influence the world and that the pentagon is the great entity in the government to accomplish anything. I'm sure there is a certain level of bias inherent in this assumption but I'm more than inclined to agree with it. He also begins with the notion that the age of state wars, or wars between two competing states is over, thanks in large part to the cold war and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union. I'm not so convinced of this myself and I'll return to it in a few sentences. Playing off this he's done a considerable amount of research into the nature of post cold-war conflicts around the world and created something he calls the Pentagon's new map.
The short of it is that he believes that the world is split into two “camps” for lack of a better world, the “core” which principally includes North American, Western Union and several other Eurasian countries among others, and the “Gap” which is everyone else in the Southwest and Southeast Asia, Africa and certain parts of central and southern America. He believes that the major dividing factor between these areas is connectedness or the lack of globalization, meaning the people of the “core” enjoy such things as universal rights, representation in their respective governments, relatively open markets and most importantly the ability for social and economical mobility. In the book he includes a map of the world with a dotted outline around the “gap” and dots to indicate the major US and UN military operations between 1990 and 2003. I don't think I need to say that most of these “dots” fall within the gap.
If this is true, then there are those (mainly conservative) who would say that we should just say screw it and leave these areas to their own devices, as the welfare of some ass backwards degenerates isn't worth our blood and money. These people couldn't be more wrong, and I don't say this just because it says so in the book. All I can think about is the time in my life where I couldn't really be considered an asset to society (to put it nicely) and the mentality that I had to justify the things I did to myself, which could briefly be summed up as “these people don't care about me so fuck em”. At that time I didn't feel like I was apart of the “American society” so when it came time to do things that went against the established rules, they weren't even a consideration. In the words of Dave Chappelle “You got Kids?! Oh yea, well I eat cottage cheese for dinner”.
The simple fact of the matter is that western society as a whole will never be safe as long as we try and justify our median $30,000 a year incomes while people around the world struggle to get by with less than a dollar a day. We can continue just getting it while the gettin's good, but all we're really doing is setting up another 9\11, if not for ourselves than for our kids.
It may sound like that things are starting to jump into the realm of Marx with the whole “economic disparity is the source of conflict” but It's not. The book believes that the answer to this particular problem is “shrinking” the gap or bringing this areas of the world not connected with the rest into the leviathan that is globalization. The reason that he believes that state-centric wars are a thing of the past is because in today's interconnected world there is no good to be gained from a war when both sides are interdependent on one another. Take the instance of China for example: There are many who believe that China will be America's next adversary and that conflict is inevitable between the two as China grows into it's role as a global superpower. However, the question is, why would China instigate a conflict with it's largest trading partner? It's a good question that I had never really considered, but where my thoughts differ is that I think the author may be discounting the irrationality of people with power. That's not to say that anything is certain but that it remains to be seen.
However, I don't think that uncertainty is enough to entirely disregard what he has to say. I'm forced, once again, to think about how I got to be where I am today and how I came to be the person I am from the person I was. When I went into the Army the first thing I noticed was that there were 3 black kids out of 300, which was remarkably different from what I was used to on the south side of Chicago. My mother was white, but that really didn't make much of a difference as I still thought I was screwed, but as I was forced to live with people I never thought I'd even talk to I began to realize that things were far different then I believed. I mean, who knew there were cool people from Montana? The more I came to know these people I absolutely hated, the harder it became for me to justify the enmity that I believed existed between our respective “worlds”. It's true that I had a white mother, which might have made things different for me, but the same thing has held true for all my friends who gone into the military themselves.
So, yea, I can certainly buy into what this guy is saying. The tougher question is how we go about doing this, especially since there are those who would rather see us just mind our business I.e. The Bin Ladens of the world. Throwing money indiscriminately at the problem isn't the answer, as our own welfare program is a testament to and we certainly can't expect transnational organizations to have much of an effect as long as there are those who would abuse the rule they enjoy at the expense of their people.
The short answer is that those of us who do enjoy the most of what the world offers have to come together and make a concentrated effort to do something. That means the UN and western Europe has to stop pussyfooting around the issues and step up to do something more than issue strongly worded resolutions and that the United States has to get off it's high horse and accept the help of others. It's been established that we can beat anyone down with impunity now let's move on. That also means that we as a whole might have to roll up our sleeves and get a little dirty something that few people can stomach and even less can do. This is where I fully anticipate losing people as I talk about why I think this war in Iraq can be a good thing, and other uncool things.
I won't lie, I was for the war in Iraq before it started for many reasons, but the basic one to me was man these dudes are sucking, I wish someone would've helped my ass out so, so yea lets go do something. I certainly haven't agreed with a lot of the things that has happened since we went in, but I definitely don't think it's the first step towards a new nazism. In this case I'll defer to the actual book to sum up why I think the war in Iraq was\is the right thing to do in the context of the last few pages of text:
>What is so amazingly courageous about what the Bush Administration has done in trying to generate a Big Bang throughout the Middle East is that it has committed our nation to shrinking a major portion of the gap in one ell swoop. By doing so I believe this Administration has forced America to finally come through on promises repeatedly offered during the cold war but never delivered. In effect, America has been telling the gap for decades that we would really love to come in there and help straighten things out security-wise, but we always seemed to have bigger fish to fry: the Soviets, the fabled near-pear [The promotion of China has our inevitable adversary], our own self-improvement as the world's sole military superpower... whatever. But by taking down Saddam Hussein and turning Iraq into a magnet for every Jihadist with a one way ticket to paradise, America has really thrown down the gauntlet in the Middle East – It has finally begun exporting security for real. In the past, we always had ulterior motives: to keep the Soviet's, to keep the oil flowing, to keep Israel safe. But reconnecting Iraq to the world is so much bigger than any of those goals. It's about creating a future worth living for a billion Muslims we could just as easily consign to the past... Political commentators who prattle on about how George W. Bush has “staked his entire presidency” on Iraq cannot see the forest for the trees. Bush has staked a whole lot more than his political career on Iraq: He has set a showdown between the forces of connectedness and disconnectedness in our world.. In reality, there are plenty of forces within the Core who favor disconnectedness over connectedness, and we will face as many battles with them in coming years as we will face with the Bin Ladens of the gap. That is because many governments in the core still view the world system as a balance of powers, so any rise in U.S. Influence or presence in the Middle East is seen as a loss of their influence or presence there. Too many of these “great powers” are led by small minds who prefer America's failure's to the Core's expansion, because they see their national interests enhanced by the former and diminished by the latter. They prefer the Gap's continued suffering to their own loss of prestige, and they should be ashamed for their selfishness.
>That is not to say that America's motives in the gap, or more specifically in the Middle East, are selfless, because they are not. In the end, it took .. 9\11 .. and all the pain it inflicted to motivate America to finally do something significant to address the long standing security issues and big “significant” I mean more than keeping rogue regimes in the box.
I've been saying for some time that I think the war in Iraq, means a lot more than weapons of mass destruction, or free oil. In reality, it means either a major step forward in the “Global war on Terrorism” on one hand, and a crushing defeat that if we're lucky our great-grandchildren will be able to recover from, on the other. So, as much as I may dislike the “kill em all” attitude espoused by some on the right I absolutely loathe those who would have us leave because people died or even better because “we're one to talk”. Whether or not you like it, we were in this for the long run before 9\11 or even the first desert storm. We just didn't know it then. So, pointing your finger and saying I told you so doesn't really do a whole lot to help. We as a whole need to seriously approach this issue from where things stand, today.
I'd just like to point out that I'm not in the boat that believes throwing a couple hundred thousand more soldiers into harms way will rectify the matter either. My personal experience is that there are a lot of people in Iraq really making a difference, but then there a lot of people are just there to be there. Hey look ma, I'm in Iraq! No hands!
What we need in addition to boots on the ground is a definite plan to rebuild this country and connect it to the rest of the world (something we don't have right now). The governments of the world have to make a commitment to rebuilding Iraq and establishing an infrastructure and a legitimate government entity and yes that entails providing the security necessary to make that happen. It also means outside economic investment from the public and private sectors, which can' t be limited to oil development if it is to have a lasting effect. Unfortunately, people will make money during all of this, so we might as well prepare ourselves for that 'horrible” outcome.
Of the above, the most important aspect is that of formulating a realistic plan for the future. We need a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. I'm not trying to suggest to that there aren't people who are doing this very thing, but the fact is they need to work faster. In the 1940's people couldn't watch the video of their family members getting blown the hell up 5 hours after it happened. So while, a little patience may be in order, the higher ups need to understand that they don't have the time that their ancestors may have had in the 1940's. I'd say the first order of business is a serious re-evaluation of the Department of Defense and it's commitments worldwide and not just Iraq. Like I said earlier there are a lot of people in Iraq who are just kinda there, that doesn't mean that they aren't doing anything, far from it, but the fact is a lot of the shit is made up as they go along to justify someones silver star. I won't even begin to get into the ridiculousness of having tanks patrol cities when we're trying to settle things down. We may have the best military in the world, but our police force is severely lacking and that is something that needs to be addressed if we are to do any good in Iraq or anywhere else and in all seriousness you won't see people lining up to do anything in Iraq as long as they think it's pointless. That's just one of the many reasons we need to supply that point.
Ultimately, I'm not really concerned about the military's ability to adapt to the coming changes in the world. There are a lot of intelligent, motivated people who's job depend on it, and if history is any indication they'll come through with flying colors. Prior to the Vietnam war there were those who believed that we were incapable of fighting in the jungles as it was trained for the preceding Korean and World Wars. However, that same mis trained military was able to win every single battle, but it wasn't the strength of arms that lost the conflict it was a weakness of heart. We as a people just didn't have the heart to support that war (and for good reason) and I'd be lying if I said I thought the people of today had what it took to change the world for the better, let alone win the war in Iraq.
Ask some people to give a dollar to a homeless guy and they'll act like you want their first born, and god forbid you ask someone to give some time or effort. We as a people are too caught up in what we think we deserve, that we have no choice but to turn a blind eye to those people who would kill to get a fraction of it. We'll easily spend a few hundred if not thousands of billions on entertainment in the form of video games, movies, television and other such superfluous things and yet we're talking about withholding our dues form the United Nations.
The down side to connecting the rest of the world is that we have to share a part of their burden, and for that to happen we all have to seriously sit down and reconsider our operational needs. If it necessary to have this big truck? Or an Xbox and a Playstation? I know what I'm saying sounds like bullshit, but in reality its a small price to pay for our security and continued economic prosperity.
Since, I've talked about this book and how great it is I guess I'll mention the one thing that I had a problem with, and it wasn't really what was said, but rather what wasn't. For all it's worth it doesn't even begin to touch the subject of our own disconnectedness. I mentioned myself a couple times earlier, and the fact is that just as there are people in Africa who would threaten our security because they don't feel apart of this world, there exists people in our own borders who feel the same way. If we as a world are going to open ourselves up then that means that there will be more different kinds of people in what we consider our homes, and chances are they won' t be the well to do. So as the system we have perpetuates the inequalities within we'll never really have peace domestically. The classic example is how the American public for the most part didn't give two shits about the drug epidemic in the black and Hispanic community until the same problem began to confront their own children and the response was to systematically go after those people same black and Hispanic people as if they were the root of the problem and they weren't. So we, in the west ,need to look not only without but within if peace is to prosper. How can we honestly tell people to straighten up when there are till systematically depressed people in our own societies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a policy of inaction until we are capable of dealing with our own problems, but we need to move into the information age and start multi-tasking.
I'm alluding to is more of the micro aspect of the book's macro and just like economics I don't think either side can be ignored. As countries continue to make efforts to better themselves they will undoubtedly look for those already there for an example and we if we can't do it what hope do we have for countries like North Korea?
Anyway, the entire purpose of this was to illicit some sort of discussion on the topics covered and so far It's been more of an essay, or even worse a book report. So I guess I'll touch on some things in particular I would really like to talk about so I can get a better idea of what other people are thinking.
1. Do you agree with the premise that the road to world peace is through more connectivity in the modern world, i.e. Through greater economic interdependence etc? If not, why and if you still think its possible by what means do you see it happening?
2. Do you think the United States has the responsibility or even the capability of stepping up to the global plate to secure a better future for us all?
3. Do you think we even should bother with the above?
4. What sort of obstacles do you see presenting themselves as the war in Iraq and the Global War on terrorism progresses? What sort of solutions do you see to these problems?
As an addendum to everything that is said, I'm pretty much going off the assumption that we as Americans aren't totally malicious people hell bent on screwing over the rest of the world. So I'd rather not get into debates on how we're so fucked up that we should just be happy the rest of the world even talks to us. If you've made it this far I thank you for reading. It's just another afternoon for me.
Daniel - Metalfists
http://thecla923.blogspot.com
:
:
When I started posting on these boards several years ago (it seems like yesterday) I really didn't' t know a lot about politics. In fact, up until that point I really didn't care because I had much more pressing matters in my life to take care of, but being in the military I found myself in a situation where global politics would effectively define how the next few years of my life went. So, being the type of person I am I set out to find out as much as I could about this politics business and I eventually found my way here. It was only natural as I spent too much time posting here as it was.
To say that was a “novice” in the field of politics would have been a pretty big understatement as the extent of my knowledge was the few (few being purely relative) books I had read and my beliefs of what constituted right and wrong. I can't really say that things are too different today but I have read a lot more books and improved my ability to articulate my feelings significantly. For the most part I've tried to approach things objectively without aligning myself with any one side out of general principal. In short, I try not to be a lemming like most of the people who have a vested interest in politics. It's been hard and I'm sure I've contradicted myself on several occasions, but hey no ones perfect.
Anyway, moving on to the point I'm writing this post to announce the fact that I think I've finally reached a consensus on what it is I truly want out of the world and the war in Iraq more specifically and I can't really claim that its something that I came up with all by myself because it's not. In fact, it comes from a book that I recently read and before I go further I'd like to really stress the fact that it's taken a lot for me to admit that I don't know everything and defer things to an outside source. Hopefully it's for the best.
The book is The Pentagon's New map by Thomas P.M. Barnett a guy who works at the Naval War College and a security expert of some kind. The thing that really appealed to me about this book was that a lot of what he said coincided so perfectly with my personal beliefs that at points I knew what was gonna come on the next page before I even got there. Before, you start getting scared I'll just say that this guy goes far more in depth and makes a lot more sense than I ever have. Needless to say the book comes highly recommended, and while I don't entertain any notions that everyone will necessarily agree with what is said I hope that people can get something out of it.
The book is about security in the next century and the role the pentagon has to play in securing peace and waging war. It's also fairly old (a couple years) so you'll have to bear with me if you all have already covered all this. You can blame the cute girl who worked in the O'Hare airport who made me think that I just had to buy a book. ;)
Anyway, on to the basis of the book; He goes along with the premise that the United States has the greatest power to influence the world and that the pentagon is the great entity in the government to accomplish anything. I'm sure there is a certain level of bias inherent in this assumption but I'm more than inclined to agree with it. He also begins with the notion that the age of state wars, or wars between two competing states is over, thanks in large part to the cold war and the subsequent fall of the Soviet Union. I'm not so convinced of this myself and I'll return to it in a few sentences. Playing off this he's done a considerable amount of research into the nature of post cold-war conflicts around the world and created something he calls the Pentagon's new map.
The short of it is that he believes that the world is split into two “camps” for lack of a better world, the “core” which principally includes North American, Western Union and several other Eurasian countries among others, and the “Gap” which is everyone else in the Southwest and Southeast Asia, Africa and certain parts of central and southern America. He believes that the major dividing factor between these areas is connectedness or the lack of globalization, meaning the people of the “core” enjoy such things as universal rights, representation in their respective governments, relatively open markets and most importantly the ability for social and economical mobility. In the book he includes a map of the world with a dotted outline around the “gap” and dots to indicate the major US and UN military operations between 1990 and 2003. I don't think I need to say that most of these “dots” fall within the gap.
If this is true, then there are those (mainly conservative) who would say that we should just say screw it and leave these areas to their own devices, as the welfare of some ass backwards degenerates isn't worth our blood and money. These people couldn't be more wrong, and I don't say this just because it says so in the book. All I can think about is the time in my life where I couldn't really be considered an asset to society (to put it nicely) and the mentality that I had to justify the things I did to myself, which could briefly be summed up as “these people don't care about me so fuck em”. At that time I didn't feel like I was apart of the “American society” so when it came time to do things that went against the established rules, they weren't even a consideration. In the words of Dave Chappelle “You got Kids?! Oh yea, well I eat cottage cheese for dinner”.
The simple fact of the matter is that western society as a whole will never be safe as long as we try and justify our median $30,000 a year incomes while people around the world struggle to get by with less than a dollar a day. We can continue just getting it while the gettin's good, but all we're really doing is setting up another 9\11, if not for ourselves than for our kids.
It may sound like that things are starting to jump into the realm of Marx with the whole “economic disparity is the source of conflict” but It's not. The book believes that the answer to this particular problem is “shrinking” the gap or bringing this areas of the world not connected with the rest into the leviathan that is globalization. The reason that he believes that state-centric wars are a thing of the past is because in today's interconnected world there is no good to be gained from a war when both sides are interdependent on one another. Take the instance of China for example: There are many who believe that China will be America's next adversary and that conflict is inevitable between the two as China grows into it's role as a global superpower. However, the question is, why would China instigate a conflict with it's largest trading partner? It's a good question that I had never really considered, but where my thoughts differ is that I think the author may be discounting the irrationality of people with power. That's not to say that anything is certain but that it remains to be seen.
However, I don't think that uncertainty is enough to entirely disregard what he has to say. I'm forced, once again, to think about how I got to be where I am today and how I came to be the person I am from the person I was. When I went into the Army the first thing I noticed was that there were 3 black kids out of 300, which was remarkably different from what I was used to on the south side of Chicago. My mother was white, but that really didn't make much of a difference as I still thought I was screwed, but as I was forced to live with people I never thought I'd even talk to I began to realize that things were far different then I believed. I mean, who knew there were cool people from Montana? The more I came to know these people I absolutely hated, the harder it became for me to justify the enmity that I believed existed between our respective “worlds”. It's true that I had a white mother, which might have made things different for me, but the same thing has held true for all my friends who gone into the military themselves.
So, yea, I can certainly buy into what this guy is saying. The tougher question is how we go about doing this, especially since there are those who would rather see us just mind our business I.e. The Bin Ladens of the world. Throwing money indiscriminately at the problem isn't the answer, as our own welfare program is a testament to and we certainly can't expect transnational organizations to have much of an effect as long as there are those who would abuse the rule they enjoy at the expense of their people.
The short answer is that those of us who do enjoy the most of what the world offers have to come together and make a concentrated effort to do something. That means the UN and western Europe has to stop pussyfooting around the issues and step up to do something more than issue strongly worded resolutions and that the United States has to get off it's high horse and accept the help of others. It's been established that we can beat anyone down with impunity now let's move on. That also means that we as a whole might have to roll up our sleeves and get a little dirty something that few people can stomach and even less can do. This is where I fully anticipate losing people as I talk about why I think this war in Iraq can be a good thing, and other uncool things.
I won't lie, I was for the war in Iraq before it started for many reasons, but the basic one to me was man these dudes are sucking, I wish someone would've helped my ass out so, so yea lets go do something. I certainly haven't agreed with a lot of the things that has happened since we went in, but I definitely don't think it's the first step towards a new nazism. In this case I'll defer to the actual book to sum up why I think the war in Iraq was\is the right thing to do in the context of the last few pages of text:
>What is so amazingly courageous about what the Bush Administration has done in trying to generate a Big Bang throughout the Middle East is that it has committed our nation to shrinking a major portion of the gap in one ell swoop. By doing so I believe this Administration has forced America to finally come through on promises repeatedly offered during the cold war but never delivered. In effect, America has been telling the gap for decades that we would really love to come in there and help straighten things out security-wise, but we always seemed to have bigger fish to fry: the Soviets, the fabled near-pear [The promotion of China has our inevitable adversary], our own self-improvement as the world's sole military superpower... whatever. But by taking down Saddam Hussein and turning Iraq into a magnet for every Jihadist with a one way ticket to paradise, America has really thrown down the gauntlet in the Middle East – It has finally begun exporting security for real. In the past, we always had ulterior motives: to keep the Soviet's, to keep the oil flowing, to keep Israel safe. But reconnecting Iraq to the world is so much bigger than any of those goals. It's about creating a future worth living for a billion Muslims we could just as easily consign to the past... Political commentators who prattle on about how George W. Bush has “staked his entire presidency” on Iraq cannot see the forest for the trees. Bush has staked a whole lot more than his political career on Iraq: He has set a showdown between the forces of connectedness and disconnectedness in our world.. In reality, there are plenty of forces within the Core who favor disconnectedness over connectedness, and we will face as many battles with them in coming years as we will face with the Bin Ladens of the gap. That is because many governments in the core still view the world system as a balance of powers, so any rise in U.S. Influence or presence in the Middle East is seen as a loss of their influence or presence there. Too many of these “great powers” are led by small minds who prefer America's failure's to the Core's expansion, because they see their national interests enhanced by the former and diminished by the latter. They prefer the Gap's continued suffering to their own loss of prestige, and they should be ashamed for their selfishness.
>That is not to say that America's motives in the gap, or more specifically in the Middle East, are selfless, because they are not. In the end, it took .. 9\11 .. and all the pain it inflicted to motivate America to finally do something significant to address the long standing security issues and big “significant” I mean more than keeping rogue regimes in the box.
I've been saying for some time that I think the war in Iraq, means a lot more than weapons of mass destruction, or free oil. In reality, it means either a major step forward in the “Global war on Terrorism” on one hand, and a crushing defeat that if we're lucky our great-grandchildren will be able to recover from, on the other. So, as much as I may dislike the “kill em all” attitude espoused by some on the right I absolutely loathe those who would have us leave because people died or even better because “we're one to talk”. Whether or not you like it, we were in this for the long run before 9\11 or even the first desert storm. We just didn't know it then. So, pointing your finger and saying I told you so doesn't really do a whole lot to help. We as a whole need to seriously approach this issue from where things stand, today.
I'd just like to point out that I'm not in the boat that believes throwing a couple hundred thousand more soldiers into harms way will rectify the matter either. My personal experience is that there are a lot of people in Iraq really making a difference, but then there a lot of people are just there to be there. Hey look ma, I'm in Iraq! No hands!
What we need in addition to boots on the ground is a definite plan to rebuild this country and connect it to the rest of the world (something we don't have right now). The governments of the world have to make a commitment to rebuilding Iraq and establishing an infrastructure and a legitimate government entity and yes that entails providing the security necessary to make that happen. It also means outside economic investment from the public and private sectors, which can' t be limited to oil development if it is to have a lasting effect. Unfortunately, people will make money during all of this, so we might as well prepare ourselves for that 'horrible” outcome.
Of the above, the most important aspect is that of formulating a realistic plan for the future. We need a Marshall Plan for the Middle East. I'm not trying to suggest to that there aren't people who are doing this very thing, but the fact is they need to work faster. In the 1940's people couldn't watch the video of their family members getting blown the hell up 5 hours after it happened. So while, a little patience may be in order, the higher ups need to understand that they don't have the time that their ancestors may have had in the 1940's. I'd say the first order of business is a serious re-evaluation of the Department of Defense and it's commitments worldwide and not just Iraq. Like I said earlier there are a lot of people in Iraq who are just kinda there, that doesn't mean that they aren't doing anything, far from it, but the fact is a lot of the shit is made up as they go along to justify someones silver star. I won't even begin to get into the ridiculousness of having tanks patrol cities when we're trying to settle things down. We may have the best military in the world, but our police force is severely lacking and that is something that needs to be addressed if we are to do any good in Iraq or anywhere else and in all seriousness you won't see people lining up to do anything in Iraq as long as they think it's pointless. That's just one of the many reasons we need to supply that point.
Ultimately, I'm not really concerned about the military's ability to adapt to the coming changes in the world. There are a lot of intelligent, motivated people who's job depend on it, and if history is any indication they'll come through with flying colors. Prior to the Vietnam war there were those who believed that we were incapable of fighting in the jungles as it was trained for the preceding Korean and World Wars. However, that same mis trained military was able to win every single battle, but it wasn't the strength of arms that lost the conflict it was a weakness of heart. We as a people just didn't have the heart to support that war (and for good reason) and I'd be lying if I said I thought the people of today had what it took to change the world for the better, let alone win the war in Iraq.
Ask some people to give a dollar to a homeless guy and they'll act like you want their first born, and god forbid you ask someone to give some time or effort. We as a people are too caught up in what we think we deserve, that we have no choice but to turn a blind eye to those people who would kill to get a fraction of it. We'll easily spend a few hundred if not thousands of billions on entertainment in the form of video games, movies, television and other such superfluous things and yet we're talking about withholding our dues form the United Nations.
The down side to connecting the rest of the world is that we have to share a part of their burden, and for that to happen we all have to seriously sit down and reconsider our operational needs. If it necessary to have this big truck? Or an Xbox and a Playstation? I know what I'm saying sounds like bullshit, but in reality its a small price to pay for our security and continued economic prosperity.
Since, I've talked about this book and how great it is I guess I'll mention the one thing that I had a problem with, and it wasn't really what was said, but rather what wasn't. For all it's worth it doesn't even begin to touch the subject of our own disconnectedness. I mentioned myself a couple times earlier, and the fact is that just as there are people in Africa who would threaten our security because they don't feel apart of this world, there exists people in our own borders who feel the same way. If we as a world are going to open ourselves up then that means that there will be more different kinds of people in what we consider our homes, and chances are they won' t be the well to do. So as the system we have perpetuates the inequalities within we'll never really have peace domestically. The classic example is how the American public for the most part didn't give two shits about the drug epidemic in the black and Hispanic community until the same problem began to confront their own children and the response was to systematically go after those people same black and Hispanic people as if they were the root of the problem and they weren't. So we, in the west ,need to look not only without but within if peace is to prosper. How can we honestly tell people to straighten up when there are till systematically depressed people in our own societies. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating a policy of inaction until we are capable of dealing with our own problems, but we need to move into the information age and start multi-tasking.
I'm alluding to is more of the micro aspect of the book's macro and just like economics I don't think either side can be ignored. As countries continue to make efforts to better themselves they will undoubtedly look for those already there for an example and we if we can't do it what hope do we have for countries like North Korea?
Anyway, the entire purpose of this was to illicit some sort of discussion on the topics covered and so far It's been more of an essay, or even worse a book report. So I guess I'll touch on some things in particular I would really like to talk about so I can get a better idea of what other people are thinking.
1. Do you agree with the premise that the road to world peace is through more connectivity in the modern world, i.e. Through greater economic interdependence etc? If not, why and if you still think its possible by what means do you see it happening?
2. Do you think the United States has the responsibility or even the capability of stepping up to the global plate to secure a better future for us all?
3. Do you think we even should bother with the above?
4. What sort of obstacles do you see presenting themselves as the war in Iraq and the Global War on terrorism progresses? What sort of solutions do you see to these problems?
As an addendum to everything that is said, I'm pretty much going off the assumption that we as Americans aren't totally malicious people hell bent on screwing over the rest of the world. So I'd rather not get into debates on how we're so fucked up that we should just be happy the rest of the world even talks to us. If you've made it this far I thank you for reading. It's just another afternoon for me.
Daniel - Metalfists
http://thecla923.blogspot.com