Soob

Politics, Foreign Policy, Current Events and Occasional Outbursts Lacking Couth

The Finest of Debates

A discussion fueled by Dan’s post regarding John Robb's Global Guerilla theory has spawned one hell of a debate. I’ve watched , instigated and partaken in many debates online, mostly in forums and I’ve yet to see an intellectual conflict of such quality. And no, this isn’t pandering but simply an honest statement. With ry and phil jones formidably entrenched in their defense of Robb's theory ; TDL, Isaac, purpleslog and Lex providing a moderate position shifting here and there; Dan and Curtis are on full offensive, with sidling bits from a517dogg, Steve French and yours truly. Even Thomas Barnett tossed his lot in, though the climax was, of course, Robb's own presence in his own defense. Amazing.

My hope is that the debate continues, each side pouring more information into the virtual bonfire of knowledge they’ve created.

Within the context of the excellent debate I presented my initial issues with the GG theory.

“How does the endgame result (and goal) of GG's dissolution of the state jive with the real aspect of human social evolution? Haven't human beings conglomerated to form increasingly large social structures throughout history?

Additionally as nation states become more intwined economically (and strategically) isn't the antithesis of the GG theory more likely in the form of hegemony?

I think it's an intriguing theory and certain aspects bear a good deal of cogency (global black market allowing GG's financial sovereignty from states, for instance) but it seems counterintuitive to the direction human kind has been and continues to head for.
Even the most horrific human misadventure (Nazism) had at it's base the element of a social collective rather than essential anarchy.
Why a sudden 180 degree twist to effective social devolution? I think the GG theory needs a remarkable event or "spark" (like German nationalism on the heels of a humiliating defeat, economic ruin, etc.) to be more understandable.”


First off, I believe the short term will bring a fracture of the cold war unity we’ve enjoyed for the past 60+ years. As failures mount in Iraq we’ll see a further division in strategic and philosophical unity amongst the US and it’s allies. Should the NATO offensive breakdown in Afghanistan the NATO principles and effectiveness will be delivered a rather heavy blow producing an even more fractious environment.
Other less obvious events will further the global divisions: Sudan, Somalia, Palestine, Israel, Iran the list is long and the state positions vary.

These fractures ignore what is, perhaps, the most enduring tie that binds international relations today. Money!

We have reached a point in history which presents an incredible impossibility: Nation based war amongst the Core (or "semi" core [Israel for example]) states. Match any given Core state against each other in a conventional war and the first effect is always the same. Near immediate national bankruptcy and global economic stress or collapse. In effect, we’ve reached a point where war between Core states is simply too expensive and too destructive to national economies to occur. Amazingly, to some extent, the uberliberal World Peace vision of the late ‘60’s has enjoyed a huge step toward realization. Even more amazing is that the same political elements that honored such a scenario are now the leading opponents to the principles that are effectively delivering their dream. But that’s a subject for a later time.

The strategic and philosophical divisions we see now will reverse themselves much in the same fashion of the 80’s craze that assured us the Japanese would own America by the 20th century did. As time passes, Iraq realizes finality, Afghanistan succeeds or fails, the Nork dictatorship implodes (democratic unity ensues,) Iran modernizes, etc. the simple unity born of currency will not only hold the Core together but will add to it. Shared strategies and principles will be either dusted off and slapped down on the table or simply realized through the haze of war much in the same fashion of post WWII alliances only on a global scale and a much more complex fashion.

Which leads us to the principle of Hegemony… And 5GW. That conventional conflict is impossible does not deliver us into a world free of international or hegemonic tugs of war and I’d put the only true (IMO) chronologically cogent form of the GW theory at the forefront. 5GW.

Contrary to TDL’s reaction, my post on tdaxp wasn’t one that envisioned a global hegemony (albeit I‘m guilty of not defining my vision of Hegemony,) rather entertained the idea of various international confederacies, each essentially acting as it’s own hegemony. In short; principles, economic relations and strategies will realize national partnerships beyond that of the black and white alliances of the cold war.

That’s enough for now. More to follow.