The Next Decade: Terrorism

Alright, so I've had the chance to read a little bit more of The Next Decade.  Friedman has now spent a little time talking about terrorism and the "War on Terrorism" over the past decade, what it has done and what needs to/will change about it.  He makes the point that terrorism isn't really an existential threat to the US, while it will occasionally happen and people will die, it can't do enough damage to threaten the existence of America, "terrorism in and of itself cannot destroy the material basis of the American republic" (73).  The point of terrorism is to use force multipliers, to focus on the psyche to make the terrorist appear more powerful than he really is.  The US has made combating terrorism the central thrust of American global strategy, to the detriment of strategy and issues elsewhere.  Terrorism cannot be eliminated, it is impossible.  To do so would require wiping out entire people groups, obviously not possible or desirable, and this in turn would probably create other groups who didn't like this and would then take over the job of terrorism; even totalitarian states are unable to completely stop such attacks.  This has created an unbalanced foreign policy; while Friedman isn't saying to ignore terrorism, it must be seen in light of the overall national strategy.  Certainly a certain amount of resources should be devoted to preventing terrorism, but the nation needs to also not have a singular focus on one area and be aware and able to respond to events of national interest around the world, such as Russia expanding its sphere of influence over the last decade as they've observed the US being tied up in the middle east.  Or the fact that taking out Iraq created a vacuum in the balance of power in the middle east; it used to be Iraq and Iran balancing each other in the middle east to prevent either from becoming too powerful, now Iraq is incapable of doing that anymore, which then puts the US in a poor position to negotiate with Iran.

Here is where Friedman takes on a pragmatic view of the Presidency.  In response, to say a terrorist attack, a President must soothe the nerves of the public and show his efforts to stop terrorism, but he shouldn't act in a manner that is disproportionate to the effect and shouldn't try the impossible.  "He can lie to the public, but he must never lie to himself." (75)  What this is saying is Friedman believe at times the President must say one thing to soothe and pacify the public, but in reality knows he can't fully act through on that because the costs are way too high for a negligible benefit and keep in mind the long term interests of the US, and so must in reality act else wise.  This has been done in history before, such as Roosevelt calling for vengeance on the Japanese after Pearl Harbor but privately focusing on Germany first, not Japan, because he believed that is what was necessary to win the war. Among other interesting ethical issues presented in this book (and other STRATFOR writings), this is an interesting one, is it ethical for a President to lie to the people when necessary for the "greater good" of the country, knowing he can't tell the full truth, that he must convey a sense of being able to accomplish something even when he knows it can't be done?  Is that OK?  Like I mentioned above, it has been done before, and perhaps should have been done this decade with regards to terrorism, I don't know, but is it right?

From here his main point concerning the next decade is that the US must not focus singularly on terrorism, but must define its interests in different regions throughout the world and deal with them accordingly and proportionately.  To prevent regional hegemons and preserve its balance of power strategy throughout the globe.

I think my next post will touch on his discussion of foreign policy philosophy/paradigm, particularly idealism and realism.


Hopps