(Don't worry everything you'll read is open source material and my crazy opinions)
You might be thinking, damn did I miss one? Well it depends on how you consider wars. The cold war was a war of idealogies, that did cover the world. Granted the two powers never went overtly head-to-head, but everyone became their proxy. It seems to me, the rising conflict in the Middle East and terrorist acts around the world is the next round of idealogy wars.
We are not fight any specific nation state, like we have in previous wars, but we seems to be following a trend. During the cold war, we battled Russia and vice versus through nation states. This seems strikingly similar to state-funded terrorism we are seeing today....ok the analogy breaks down there...sort of. There are nation states out there that hate our way of life, similar to communism. They can not directly attack us, without be smashed flat, but rogue elements can pick at our sides.
So how does this lead to World War 4 (WWIV)? Iran/North Korea/Pakistan/Whoever decides they want to spread their idealogy, which is a direct affront to America. By funding and directing terrorist organizations to tie up our resources and split our attention, they have greater freedom. If we were not completely stuck in Iraq right now, do you think Iran would be so uppity? or North Korea? I will grant the Bush's policy of strike first probably scared the crap out of them, but the problem now is, we can't carry through on that threat. We have a straw man holding down the fortress and we can only extend so far.
So how do we actually get to WWIV? Escalation of the current conflict. Hezzbolah has remarkably survived an intense bombing campaign from Israel (long than any nation state in that area). If Hezzbolah is not removed/destroyed, there will be a grand new terrorist training ground from the popular support they receive by "beating" Israel. This inevitably will overflow into Iraq. Now with us tied up more so in Iraq, China/North Korea/India/Pakistan may starting getting jumpy. The tiger's tail is caught, now's the time to expand our reach. These mini-conflicts could start popping up everywhere and before you know it, North Korea/Iran are allies, China smashes Taiwan, Russia invades Georgia.
So how do we diffuse such a situation? I recommend we start doing the one thing we should have from the start. Fight the idealogical battle with words, not guns. Create centers dedicated to helping the disenfranchised Muslims, who are most likely to turn to terrorism. Prop up governments where Al-Qaida is trying to take over, fight them in small controlled battles. I think we made a huge mistake in trying to pin all of terrorism on a single nation. It is in the undercurrent of most societies, we should be spreading our resources widely and not be drawn into one stuck theatre. Of course if this were a perfect world we could do this.
So my question finally to all of you, A) is this a reasonable approach, B) if so, how do we extract ourself from our quagmire and apply this strategy?
THE COST/BENEFIT VIEW
ReplyDeleteI. BENEFITS
[REDACTED FOR SPACE]
II. COSTS
The disincentives are: loss of people (both in death and diverting them to fight the war), and the "hardware" costs of waging war (guns, ammo, bombs).
These disincentives have changed dramatically over the last hundred years.
First off, We have a lot more people these days. It's easier than ever to raise larger armies, and larger numbers of deaths can be absorbed.
Secondly, the hardware of war has grown exponentially more effective and incredibly cheap.
Finally, many nations have pursued more humane wars. This has resulted in fewer relative casualties, especially for civilians.
Each of these factors has lowered the cost of war, making it more probable that a given nation will consider war in their best interests.
If technological and population trends are the product of natural forces, as I believe they are, only one of these options is under our direct control: how humanely we wage war.
So what is the best way to end global warfare?
I'm not sure that Ryan's solution, fighting with ever greater restraint, is the only obvious one.
Where to start!
ReplyDeleteWorld War 4 (3 if you're Newt Gingrich) is definitely an interesting scenario. The US is over-extended millitarily, and it's the perfect opportunity for anyone with a gripe against the current world order to take action.
And we're definitely seeing some of that, especially with Iran and NK. China I don't worry about, they've "Bought In" and won't rock the boat until they have a change in leadership. But I think you were suggesting that the main conflict is between the US/West and non-state proxies (terrorist groups) like Hizbollah and Al-Qaeda.
The battle of words is a tough one.
One might think that appealing to poor, disenfranchised muslims would be a good starting place. In fact, poor people are usually too busy surviving to be politically efficatious. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi billionaire, the 9/11 hijackers were middle-class; running away to be a Mujahadin is a luxury.
Supporting regimes that oppose Al-Qaida reminds me of the Cold War when we supported Pinnochet. We've actually been doing this in the Arab world for years (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt)
In order to win the "War of Ideas" with the Muslim world I think we need to:
- Create a system to integrate moderate Muslim countries into global and regional free-trade areas and create clear guidelines for accension.
- Leave Iraq with a government capable of protecting its citizens
- Convince young muslims to abandon Islam by gradually introducing sexual themes into Arab language television.