UPDATE: Tom Barnett writes a critique of my article. Here's my rebuttal. I agree with Tom that globalization will win in Iraq, eventually. Our dispute is solely on how we get there. It isn't a contest of light (light) and dark (pessimistic) views. We are both optimistic about the future.
Where do we differ? Tom views our future through the lens of the state. I don't. I view the world as a complex network of dynamic flows that only begrudgingly heed the dictates of the state (and often treat those dictates as damage to be routed around if they are not in alignment) -- in short, Friedman's flat world. This viewpoint translates into our approach to solutions. He's sees Iraq as a non-attempt at state-sponsored nation-building and I see it as the best attempt that this approach could muster.
In the long view, everything will likely work out. However, the path we take to get there matters. A short-term, heavy-handed approach will put us into unworkable situations. This is precisely the case with Iraq. We have boxed ourselves into a very difficult situation that may end in a Pyrrhic result. It may be inconvenient to point this out, but that is the reality of the situation.
Change in the future requires a decentralized approach and success will be measured in small steps that mitigate risk and improve system function. It will not come from reckless system shocks and grand schemes of reconstruction -- these only serve to fuel the workable but sub-optimal solutions posed by our open source competitors. Remember, in this networked-world both states and guerrillas gain power through their influence on global supply chains. Let's not give them the window of opportunity to do so.
Recent Comments