oldreliable67
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- 1,102
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
On another thread GySgt wrote:
Gunny is on the right track. The answer, IMO, is globalization and a new deterrent paradigm: MAD. But MAD is not the 'mutually assured destruction' of the cold war. The new paradigm is 'mutually assured dependence'. And 'globalization' is not used here in a pejorative sense.
Much of what follows is paraphrased from or like the following is quoted from Thomas Barnetts "The Pentagon's New Map",
"Where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, you will find stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. But where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, you find politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important-the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists."
In the new 'mutally assured dependence' paradigm, , the war in Iraq is not simply settling old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. It is a historical tipping point-the US has taken real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.
The reason I supported going to war in Iraq is not simply that Saddam is a cutthroat thug willing to kill anyone to stay in power, nor because that regime has clearly supported terrorist networks (even if not al Qaeda directly) over the years. The real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire economically non-integrated parts of the world as a strategic threat environment.
NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman, in his book "The World is Flat" wrote that no two countries have McDonalds outlets have ever gone to war. Thats globalization. Thats MAD II. Thats what I'm talkin about!
There is plenty of room for discussion for posters of all persuasions. So have at it!
Gunny is on the right track. The answer, IMO, is globalization and a new deterrent paradigm: MAD. But MAD is not the 'mutually assured destruction' of the cold war. The new paradigm is 'mutually assured dependence'. And 'globalization' is not used here in a pejorative sense.
Much of what follows is paraphrased from or like the following is quoted from Thomas Barnetts "The Pentagon's New Map",
"Where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, you will find stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. But where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, you find politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important-the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists."
In the new 'mutally assured dependence' paradigm, , the war in Iraq is not simply settling old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. It is a historical tipping point-the US has taken real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.
The reason I supported going to war in Iraq is not simply that Saddam is a cutthroat thug willing to kill anyone to stay in power, nor because that regime has clearly supported terrorist networks (even if not al Qaeda directly) over the years. The real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire economically non-integrated parts of the world as a strategic threat environment.
NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman, in his book "The World is Flat" wrote that no two countries have McDonalds outlets have ever gone to war. Thats globalization. Thats MAD II. Thats what I'm talkin about!
There is plenty of room for discussion for posters of all persuasions. So have at it!