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

The Next Decade

So, I feel like should post again since it has been nearly a year, I am absolutely terrible at keeping up with this thing.

So, I thought I'd comment briefly on a book I am currently reading (since it's laying on the desk next to me) called "The Next Decade: Where We've Been...and Where We're Going" by George Friedman of STRATFOR. I have posted on topics along this line before. George Friedman is the founder and CEO of STRATFOR, a private intelligence and global analysis firm with a lot of interesting things to say about world events happening, and where things could go from here. I read his book "The Next 100 Years" a couple years ago and he had a lot of interesting things to say about the world and where it is probably heading in the next century. He is certainly aware that predicting a century with any detail is impossible, but he does believe overall trends and ideas can be predicted. He made some interesting predictions such as China slowing way down/crashing within the next 20 years and having internal turmoil, despite what many people say. He also thinks we'll have another, albeit less intense, cold war with Russie in the next few decades and that countries such as Turkey and Poland will come onto the world stage. (For more on this see a previous post)

Anyways, this book came out last week and he has narrowed it down to just the next decade. So far he has mainly talked about America and its place in the world and how it affects all of the world in so many ways, regardless of whether you want it to or not (he tries to stay as ideologically agnostic as much as he can and just look at the facts, both a virtue and a vice I think). As I get further into this book, I'll try to share a little more on some of his predictions. The interesting thing about his perspective on Geopolitics is he sees it (especially longer term) as very deterministic. Everything is dependent on geography. What countries will and won't do, and can and can't do comes down very much to geography. Whether you have fertile agricultural land for wealth with a navigable river down it (the US) or no river making it nearly useless (Russia, parts of Europe), or whether you are placed strategically (Poland in the northern European plain between Europe and Russia) in a position that has strategic value essentially always. Shorter term, such as a decade, he believe leaders (particularly the President of the US) individual decisions affect people's lives a lot, but in the long run things will go the way they will nearly regardless of individual decisions by leaders. I think he can see a lot that others can't perhaps, but I think he misses the mark sometimes because he does neglect the human factors (that are so hard to predict) such as society and religion and family and morals and the things that those can affect. He takes a very pragmatic, utilitarian, and often Machiavellian view.

Well, that's enough for now, I'd encourage you to check out the website, they have a lot fo good information; a good free weekly email and a good subscription service that is reasonably priced it you're a student.

Hopps