Tuesday, May 27, 2003

On its Present Course, the U.S. is doomed to lose Here is an item from today’s Wall St. Journal  (subscription) “Mr. Rumsfeld, chastened by the unprecedented power of terrorists and the threat of weapons of mass destruction falling into the wrong hands, is preparing U.S. forces for a future that could involve lots of small, dirty fights in remote and dangerous places. The new strategy assumes that the U.S. is far more likely to send troops into countries that are disconnected from the global economy, either because they reject the whole concept or because they lack the resources to compete, says Thomas Barnett, a Defense Department analyst.    "Disconnectedness defines danger," he says.  The quote is from a larger story involving a group in the Pentagon rethinking U.S. strategy, to focus on places like Afghanistan and Somalia, rather than China.   Rumsfeld’s fear is that terrorists will be able to get nuclear weapons or something similar, and cause mass destruction.   In this, he is undoubtedly correct.  One of the most important trends over the past several hundred years has been that as global societies grow more complex and interconnected, the power of an individual, or a small group, to cause huge losses has increased exponentially.   For example, in the 19th century a single individual or small group could blow up a building, stage an assassination, or sabotage a factory or ship.  Despite the small scale, sometimes a single event could cause a chain reaction that spun out of control, such as the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand in Sarajevo in June, 1914, which directly led to the outbreak of world war 1about  8 weeks later.   Today, a small group, with the backing of a government, or operating beyond the reach of a government, can create a bigger bang, as happened on Sept. 11th, and as has happened in the Israeli Palestinian conflict.  Suicide bombers can terrorize entire societies, forcing changes in the behavior of millions of people, simply by rejecting the fear of death.   So, in a complex, interdependent society, individuals operating outside the accepted values can create great havoc.   The problem for Rumsfeld, and why the U.S. is destined to lose this war, is that a command and control approach, based on repression and an attempt to infiltrate, control, and militarily intimidate all possible enemies is too unwieldy and costly to be maintained forever.   Twenty armed men willing to die within a few years can tie up billions of U.S. money, military men, equipment, and attention.  When they are gone, twenty more can spring up to take their place.   Like the Greek myth of Cadamus and the founding of Thebes, Rumsfeld can slay one dragon, only to have new enemies spring up.   Repression and control will always be more expensive and less effective than the next group of individuals willing to challenge the U.S.   The vitality and creativity needed for sustainable economic growth cannot exist in a repressive, fearful society.  In fighting this war, the U.S. could turn into a garrison state, with much individual freedom of thought and action sacrificed and repressed in the name of an ideological “freedom”, as in “America loves Freedom” or the terrorists “hate us because we are free”.    So, is there another way?  A different approach to the power of the individual in a complex society is to decentralize.  Decentralize means deliberately allowing a flourishing non-U.S. material culture, where the reach of corporations and privatization would be limited—not out of some hatred of power, but from the understanding that it is the concentration of control and power that makes our societies most vulnerable.   So, the principle of redundancy and multi-polarity can prove stronger than any individual or small group.  A healthy multi-polar world may have some centers more powerful than others, but all would recognize that their collective strength lay in their diversity and differences, not in their loyalty to the U.S. hegemon.   The idea of rooting security in local groups, equally competing for resources and at the same time mutually supporting each other, is a socialist ideal.   No matter how you cut it, there are in fact two visions of how to make the West safe—one that relies on military power and hegemony by the U.S., and one that forsakes hegemony for the strengthening of multilateral institutions.  Unfortunately, the radical rightist ideologues now controlling our institutions see only power and hegemony as the road to security, almost guaranteeing our failure to achieve it.   Rumsfeld reminds me strongly of Robert McNamara, who ultimately bought into the idea that “we must destroy the village in order to save it.” 11:18:37 PM   comment []

© Copyright 2003 Toby Sackton. Last update: 6/12/2003; 12:31:44 PM.