War and Peace
Locked
 
|
Taking the fight to the Terrorists is only about picking the ground.
Afghanistan is a backwater in the Moslem world, the Ossarks of the Middle East, but Iraq is the Central, it's where Middle Eastern History has taken place. Osama could not ignore us there, and yet fighting us there is losing him support throughout the Moslem world. He is murdering large numbers of Moslems and denying them a future they are clearly voting for. The Pew Charitable Trust has a large Middle Eastern poll showing a growing perception of Islamic Extremism as a threat: http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248 With recent polls finding further motion: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007699 The logic of warfare has always applied a localized solution, traditionally a battle, to a decentralized condition, such as conflict between nations. With Terrorism, the potential battlespace is everywhere. How do we manage that? Something new is emerging out of globalization and Iraq and Bin Laden are only parts of it. How will security be delivered in the 21st Century? Something new, something which is not colonialism or imperialism or nationalism or even religious chauvinism is emerging in this altered landscape, we are mostly too distracted by arguments and polarization to notice. One person saying new things is Thomas P.M. Barnett: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/ with links to his books "The Pentagon's New Map" and "Blueprint for Action." Working inside the Pentagon, and being a fairly liberal democrat (radical by Pentagon standards), and yet always moved by the people in the Pentagon and their passion, he makes a very unpredictable mix. I don't always agree with him, by I find his take on things fascinating. -MikeO > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:28:45 -0700 > From: J T Johnson <tom at jtjohnson.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 30, Issue 37 > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > <Friam at redfish.com> > Message-ID: > <e04090490512221028gc1e2399t75245d070f965443 at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > I don't know how "new" the concept of surveillance is to > Europeans. For example, think of how many places in Europe, > and Latin American, where you're required to surrender your > passport when checking into a hotel. Or, in Central America > anyway, everyone is required to carry and present on demand a > "cedula," a national ID card. > > But "taking the fight to the terrorists"? I think not: the > Bush Administration is trying to use -- and unsuccessfully so > -- a traditional centralized solution for a decentralized > condition/problem that appears to be having some success in > continually and creatively adapting to changes in its environment. > > Let us recall that Ben Laden is/was in Afghanistan NOT Iraq. > So if he's such a threat, how come the U.S. has actually > reduced the number of troops in Afg since the initial > incursion post-9/11? Or if there is a logic to this > so-called "war against terrorism," how come there is more > anti-terrorism money going to Wyoming on a per capita basis > than East Coast states with concentrated populations and > major air and ocean ports? How come the Pentagon, it was > reported in recent days, has proposed to actually reduce the > number of troops in the military? How come the National > Guard is making up the bulk of the force in Iraq? If there's > a real war, how come the administration isn't moving to > reinstate the draft and increase taxes to pay for it? > > All this "war against terrorism" has done is reveal the > sweeping incompetence and intellectual and moral bankruptcy > of the current administration, which chooses to rely on > bombast, political payoffs and faith-instead-of-facts to try > and make its case (Johnson said bombastically). > > -Tom Johnson > > On 12/22/05, Mike Oliker <mike.oliker at comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > My thought is that we are taking the fight to the > Terrorists, and are > > thus less concerned about them attacking at home. If we were just > > waiting, waiting, powerless to do anything, I think we > would totally > > freak ourselves out. But I could be wrong. > > -Mike Oliker > > > > > Message: 3 > > > Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:59:30 -0700 > > > From: Owen Densmore <owen at backspaces.net> > > > > > > Spooky! > > > > > > I have to say I'm completely surprised by the European > reaction to > > > terrorism. As far as I can tell, their measures makes Homeland > > > Security and all its attendant nonsense seem tame. > > > > > > Any insights into why this is so? > > > [.. other than I'm an idiot and wrong as hell! :) ] > > > > > > -- Owen > > > > > > Owen Densmore > > > http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - http://friam.org > > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: > > > > > > > Civil liberties? Pah, who needs 'em. > > > > > > > > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece > > > > ============================================================ > > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe > > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > >> ============================================== > J. T. Johnson > Institute for Analytic Journalism > www.analyticjournalism.com > 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) > http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.com > > "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. > To change something, build a new model that makes the > existing model obsolete." > -- > Buckminster Fuller ============================================== |
|
|
I have been following Barnett for a while ever since seeing his really entertaining presentation of "The Pentagon's New Map" on CSPAN some time ago.
I would be very interested in seeing what folks on FRIAM have to say about his ideas. I don't like the role he seems to see America taking on as a natural consequence of his model (that of global policemen), but I am intrigued by many of the connections he makes. Keith > Taking the fight to the Terrorists is only about picking the ground. > Afghanistan is a backwater in the Moslem world, the Ossarks of the Middle > East, but Iraq is the Central, it's where Middle Eastern History has > taken place. Osama could not ignore us there, and yet fighting us there > is losing him support throughout the Moslem world. He is murdering large > numbers of Moslems and denying them a future they are clearly voting for. > The Pew Charitable Trust has a large Middle Eastern poll showing a growing > perception of Islamic Extremism as a threat: > http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=248 With recent polls > finding further motion: > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007699 > > The logic of warfare has always applied a localized solution, > traditionally a battle, to a decentralized condition, such as conflict > between nations. With Terrorism, the potential battlespace is everywhere. > How do we manage that? > > Something new is emerging out of globalization and Iraq and Bin Laden are > only parts of it. How will security be delivered in the 21st Century? > Something new, something which is not colonialism or imperialism or > nationalism or even religious chauvinism is emerging in this altered > landscape, we are mostly too distracted by arguments and polarization to > notice. One person saying new things is Thomas P.M. Barnett: > http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/ with links to his books "The Pentagon's > New Map" and "Blueprint for Action." Working inside the Pentagon, and > being a fairly liberal democrat (radical by Pentagon standards), and yet > always moved by the people in the Pentagon and their passion, he makes a > very unpredictable mix. I don't always agree with him, by I find his take > on things fascinating. > > -MikeO > >> ------------------------------ >> >> Message: 5 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:28:45 -0700 From: J T Johnson >> <tom at jtjohnson.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Friam Digest, Vol 30, Issue 37 >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> <Friam at redfish.com> Message-ID: >> <e04090490512221028gc1e2399t75245d070f965443 at mail.gmail.com> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >> >> I don't know how "new" the concept of surveillance is to Europeans. For >> example, think of how many places in Europe, and Latin American, where >> you're required to surrender your passport when checking into a hotel. >> Or, in Central America anyway, everyone is required to carry and present >> on demand a "cedula," a national ID card. >> >> But "taking the fight to the terrorists"? I think not: the Bush >> Administration is trying to use -- and unsuccessfully so -- a >> traditional centralized solution for a decentralized condition/problem >> that appears to be having some success in continually and creatively >> adapting to changes in its environment. >> >> Let us recall that Ben Laden is/was in Afghanistan NOT Iraq. So if he's >> such a threat, how come the U.S. has actually reduced the number of >> troops in Afg since the initial incursion post-9/11? Or if there is a >> logic to this so-called "war against terrorism," how come there is more >> anti-terrorism money going to Wyoming on a per capita basis than East >> Coast states with concentrated populations and major air and ocean >> ports? How come the Pentagon, it was reported in recent days, has >> proposed to actually reduce the number of troops in the military? How >> come the National Guard is making up the bulk of the force in Iraq? If >> there's a real war, how come the administration isn't moving to reinstate >> the draft and increase taxes to pay for it? >> >> All this "war against terrorism" has done is reveal the sweeping >> incompetence and intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the current >> administration, which chooses to rely on bombast, political payoffs and >> faith-instead-of-facts to try and make its case (Johnson said >> bombastically). >> >> -Tom Johnson >> >> On 12/22/05, Mike Oliker <mike.oliker at comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> My thought is that we are taking the fight to the >> Terrorists, and are >>> thus less concerned about them attacking at home. If we were just >>> waiting, waiting, powerless to do anything, I think we >> would totally >>> freak ourselves out. But I could be wrong. -Mike Oliker >>> >>>> Message: 3 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:59:30 -0700 From: Owen Densmore >>>> <owen at backspaces.net> >>>> >>>> Spooky! >>>> >>>> I have to say I'm completely surprised by the European >> reaction to >>>> terrorism. As far as I can tell, their measures makes Homeland >>>> Security and all its attendant nonsense seem tame. >>>> >>>> Any insights into why this is so? [.. other than I'm an idiot and >>>> wrong as hell! :) ] >>>> >>>> -- Owen >>>> >>>> Owen Densmore http://backspaces.net - http://redfish.com - >>>> http://friam.org >>>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:23 AM, Robert Holmes wrote: >>>> >>>>> Civil liberties? Pah, who needs 'em. >>>>> >>>>> http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/transport/article334686.ece >>>>> ============================================================ FRIAM >>>>> Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at >>>>> Mission Cafe lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at >>>>> http://www.friam.org >>>>> ============================================== >> J. T. Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism >> www.analyticjournalism.com 505.577.6482(c) >> 505.473.9646(h) http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.com >> >> >> "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change >> something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." -- >> Buckminster Fuller ============================================== > > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied > Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at Mission Cafe lectures, > archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |