Niall Ferguson wrote a piece about 9/11 soon
after (Dec2001) that sees the event as a marker in certain trends occurring in
the world: 1) international
spread of terrorism with its arrival in NYC so recently 2) ECONOMIC
contraction of the world economy due to the paradoxical segmentation occurring
despite efforts at globalization and free trade. He cited the growing wealth inequity across
richer and poorer countries as well as the strain of demand on raw materials
esp oil as a source of energy and its long term pressure on the world
economy. He specifically cited the
dilemma in Saudi Arabia of decreasing prices at the demand of western allies
which contracted the internal economy of the country. He did not comment on the irony that
globalization of economic development would favor the emergence of China and
India as it has to challenge US and European dominance. 3) The shift from informal to formal imperialism
in US foreign policy. He chose to
frame this as "imperialism" because he was writing a book comparing US as
an imperial power to Britain in the late 19th and early 20th
century. I think it is more accurate
to frame this as the failure to transition from a view of the US as a
superpower antagonist to some other role in international relations.
He did not explore the subtle interweaving of the three elements: The spread of terrorism is the globalization of a symptom. Terrorism arises when a minority attempts to overpower a vastly more powerful majority. It is the statement that the minority does not see a more legitimate route to power and is always abandoned for legitimate recognition. The majority recognizes the power demand for what it is, and can be caught in a struggle to prevent sharing of power. When this occurs a totalitarian shift seems inevitable because of the population control needed to manage, and end, terrorism in a country. And paradoxically, it ends almost immediately when its power sharing demands are recognized (Ireland, Algeria , etc).
The economic changes in the world are about a complex shift in inequities: in developed countries, the lower tier of the labor market and middle tier of white collar labor are being devalued down to a level of world wide labor costs. At the same time, in underdeveloped regions like China and India there is substantial improvement in the economic position of labor in the middle and upper range tiers, and some improvement in lower tiers as well. This is a shift of economic activity across borders, and not an overall contraction, but in developed countries it is felt as a contraction. One would expect that this would lead to terrorism in these countries, and is probably doing so in individual acts of violence,and more dramatic political changes.
Islamic terror does not always seem to be primarily religious, and the anti-Americanism provides the focus for this energy, but not its fundamental source. The 9/11 bombers were identified out drinking before the attack, not a sign of Islamic purity and tradition. The US response to challenge terror "completely," in the Bush administration and after, misses the problem of rising expectations and economic instability. All those who preached NAFTA and etc are now reaping the whirlwind of rapid and unstable economic changes. Instead of addressing the root issues in world affairs, which are north/south issues now tearing apart the UN, the current administration has set itself in a hardline imperialist position, the exact response to favor the view of the terrorists about the US role. When the US does things to ameliorate the north-south divide, as in responding to humanitarian crises in other countries, it immediately undermines the terrorist position in the local region.
He did not explore the subtle interweaving of the three elements: The spread of terrorism is the globalization of a symptom. Terrorism arises when a minority attempts to overpower a vastly more powerful majority. It is the statement that the minority does not see a more legitimate route to power and is always abandoned for legitimate recognition. The majority recognizes the power demand for what it is, and can be caught in a struggle to prevent sharing of power. When this occurs a totalitarian shift seems inevitable because of the population control needed to manage, and end, terrorism in a country. And paradoxically, it ends almost immediately when its power sharing demands are recognized (Ireland, Algeria , etc).
The economic changes in the world are about a complex shift in inequities: in developed countries, the lower tier of the labor market and middle tier of white collar labor are being devalued down to a level of world wide labor costs. At the same time, in underdeveloped regions like China and India there is substantial improvement in the economic position of labor in the middle and upper range tiers, and some improvement in lower tiers as well. This is a shift of economic activity across borders, and not an overall contraction, but in developed countries it is felt as a contraction. One would expect that this would lead to terrorism in these countries, and is probably doing so in individual acts of violence,and more dramatic political changes.
Islamic terror does not always seem to be primarily religious, and the anti-Americanism provides the focus for this energy, but not its fundamental source. The 9/11 bombers were identified out drinking before the attack, not a sign of Islamic purity and tradition. The US response to challenge terror "completely," in the Bush administration and after, misses the problem of rising expectations and economic instability. All those who preached NAFTA and etc are now reaping the whirlwind of rapid and unstable economic changes. Instead of addressing the root issues in world affairs, which are north/south issues now tearing apart the UN, the current administration has set itself in a hardline imperialist position, the exact response to favor the view of the terrorists about the US role. When the US does things to ameliorate the north-south divide, as in responding to humanitarian crises in other countries, it immediately undermines the terrorist position in the local region.
The President Bush/Secretary Rice view reframed the north/south issue as "promoting democracy". This has given rise to the result that in deposing the Taliban and Saddam, we have left the resulting countries in a
worse position re economic stability than they were before and less democratic! ISIS and the horrible mess in Iraq and Syria are the direct consequence that Colin Powell predicted before the 2nd gulf war: It's the Pottery Barn slogan: you break it, you own it.
It appears that the laws of Karma operate in international affairs:
1) US deposes the ruler in Iran and install the Shah for more favorable oil relationship
2) The Iranian people revolt and install Khomenei to attack the US and reject the intrusion
3) Saddam H is armed and encouraged to fight Iran as a proxy.
4) He fails but attacks Kuwait instead.
5) US eliminates Saddam in two invasions and leaves Iraq in chaos.
6) The residual military and others unite with forces in Syria to create ISIS and recapture the country.
7) The war to topple ISIS destabilizes both Iraq and Syria and facilitates Russia's re-entry.
A similar Karmic cycle can be drawn for the interventions in Afghanistan that led to Bin Laden.
The 9/11 attack on the US sent a message that the US interventions could be countered by external agents. The US responded to this by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2) ignoring the karmic implications. Bin Laden's goal was to cause fundamental political fragmentation of the US. The long and unproductive wars in both countries have weakened and divided the country. The failures of previous administrations has given President Trump the resources to take advantage of the very divided country. This is not just a disagreement like Vietnam, whether to fight or not, it is a loss of national resources: respect for US interventions, decimation of the military and the young men and women injured in the endless war, and the economic costs.
The lessons of 9/11 have not yet been learned.
It appears that the laws of Karma operate in international affairs:
1) US deposes the ruler in Iran and install the Shah for more favorable oil relationship
2) The Iranian people revolt and install Khomenei to attack the US and reject the intrusion
3) Saddam H is armed and encouraged to fight Iran as a proxy.
4) He fails but attacks Kuwait instead.
5) US eliminates Saddam in two invasions and leaves Iraq in chaos.
6) The residual military and others unite with forces in Syria to create ISIS and recapture the country.
7) The war to topple ISIS destabilizes both Iraq and Syria and facilitates Russia's re-entry.
A similar Karmic cycle can be drawn for the interventions in Afghanistan that led to Bin Laden.
The 9/11 attack on the US sent a message that the US interventions could be countered by external agents. The US responded to this by the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (2) ignoring the karmic implications. Bin Laden's goal was to cause fundamental political fragmentation of the US. The long and unproductive wars in both countries have weakened and divided the country. The failures of previous administrations has given President Trump the resources to take advantage of the very divided country. This is not just a disagreement like Vietnam, whether to fight or not, it is a loss of national resources: respect for US interventions, decimation of the military and the young men and women injured in the endless war, and the economic costs.
The lessons of 9/11 have not yet been learned.
No comments:
Post a Comment