REQUIEM FOR PREVENTATIVE WAR (AND POLITICAL BIG BANGS...)

Since 9/11, the US has been following a strategy of forward defense -- engaging threats outside of its borders long before they can strike. In the vernacular of the US press and domestic politics, this roughly translates as "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." The thinking behind this strategy is:

• Rogue states are behind terrorism. Non-state threats are of little consequence without rogue state support.
• Removal of these rogue states will diminish terrorism by eliminating its sponsors/havens.
• Converting a rogue state into a democracy will completely eliminate them as a threat and change regional politics.

The Real Threat

The result is that we are now in two hot guerrilla wars and global terrorism is at an all time high. Further, the soft power exercised by the US is at the lowest level we have seen since WW2, mostly due to an inexorable process of isolation driven by this strategy (as demonstrated within the framework of Boyd's theoretical framework). What went wrong? The flaw in preventative war is due to a fundamental misconception of what the threat really is. As we have discovered in the briefs on this site, the threat doesn't emanate from rogue states, but rather from non-state entities. These non-state groups are a product of globalization's super-empowerment of individuals that connect to it. Given this situation:

• Collapsing rogue states doesn't reduce the threat, it does exactly the opposite: it creates ungoverned spaces and failed states where non-state groups thrive.
• Nation-building is impossible in this situation. The humpty-dumpty rule applies. All of the talk about mismanagement of Iraq is fruitless, counter-productive (and should be seen merely as a rationalization of failure as we saw in Vietnam and the Russians did in Afghanistan), and will only lead to disasters in the future if we try it again. Since the real threat is from non-state groups, pushing nation-states (even rogue ones) into failure only makes the situation worse. It catalyzes the development of non-state groups. As a result, rectification of the situation becomes impossible since these non-state groups, with newly developed organizational models and methods of attack (systems), can easily collapse our attempts to return cohesion to the nation-states we toppled.
• It seeds the global development of non-state groups. As we have seen in London, Madrid, Toronto, and increasingly in the US (Reuters), new opponents will spontaneously emerge from nascent primary loyalties in response to these attacks. The more pressure applied, the greater the number of threats we face in our own back yard. Further, these groups are learning the lessons of guerrillas in Iraq -- the ultimate proving ground of advanced fourth generation warfare -- to become global guerrillas. As they continue to evolve, the very oil supply we hoped to secure will be increasingly put at risk (as we have seen in Nigeria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc.).

What This Means

As these bastardized preventative wars continue to percolate, we can expect the following:

• An Iraq/Afghanistan syndrome. Extended heated conflicts in these locales will have a long term impact on the willingness of both the US and NATO to intervene in future conflicts (and particularly nation-building). The costs, particularly in the US, of these conflicts will only exacerbate existing limits on future action. Hamstrung?
• Long tail markets in warfare. The market for private military services will continue to grow as states retreat from conflict areas and open source foes proliferate. These PMCs will function as the global marketplace's guards. Within a larger context, the arrival of these forces represent a return to the military structure of Europe's chaotic thirty years war. Since many of these firms will become brands as identifiable as Hawkwood's "White Company" was in 14th century Italy, will we also see the return of great mercenary captains like Wallenstein? Hard to see this happening, unless it occurs as a natural outgrowth of CEO celebrity culture.
• The tipping point for open source warfare has been breached. Our inability to disconnect from these conflicts will only catalyze its continued development, increase the likelihood that we will experience blowback, and create opportunities for black swan events (like an attack on a major oil facility that knocks out 3-5 million barrels a day of production).

One final note: these political big bangs are accelerating history, although the popular conception of where history is taking us is completely wrong.

Comments

[osp]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2220267,00.html

senior UK MOD guy predicts return of Goths, sounds like GGs...

[Cavolonero]

If blue eye shadow and jeans with heels come back I'm really moving to Canada.

[Duncan Kinder]

Comparing the current state of Western Civilization to the decline and fall of Rome is nothing new. Pessimists have been doing this for a long time.

The question is, if another barbarian age is indeed looming, what do we do about it?

One response would be Thomas Cahill's _How the Irish Saved Civilization_, which discusses how an isolated outpost preserved and then spread civilization after all else had been lost. Sort of a counter-global guerrilla movement of civilization.

Here's the Amazon.com link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385418493/sr=8-1/qid=1150299089/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-1605843-8946515?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[evolvedreason]

John,

Thank you for moving the discussion about the consequences of a globalized world forward. The overly simplistic (but positively appetizing) view that we simply need to "build a connected nation state and all will be happy" is quickly succumbing to the reality of the results. Our current world view projected into the future does not seem to defends us against the shock waves unleashed by the Big Bang of globalization.

Some would have us believe that the less then positive results so far emanate from bad execution alone. Which, conveniently, means that those who continue to hold to these views do not have to re-think their original big think. Others are more wisely beginning to see the less positive capability of globalization to bring about change to the dissolving idea of the nation state (the pillar in our current world view). This evolution, not a disconnected nation, is what gives the Global Guerrilla both life and strength.

With this knowledge in play the question now moves from "How do we successfully connect a globalized grid of stable node nations?" to "Out of what do we fashion the nodes in a globalized world in order to have a stable globalized grid?"

Now that is the question, if answered correctly, that will separate the real futurist from those who merely play one on TV.

[Tom Lord]

Is map melting and the creation of identiy fragmentation obviously the wrong answer? I'm not so sure.
Arguably, it creates a condition of identity flux, in the context of a global platform. The presentation of successful models on that platform, and demonstrations of their power which spell out a promise and a methodology, is how new identities can be promoted. While this is fatal for some states, and challenging to all, it does not obviously spell the end of the state per se -- perhaps just a time of, pardon me, but: revolution.
If all you are saying is that the game doesn't end with flinging bombs to bring down a state -- yes, I think we've got that by now. If all you are adding to that is that we are vulnerable to systems disruption and systems disruption open source strategies reliably thwart classical state-building efforts -- who's going to argue?
How do we adopt the lessons of open source warfare to win the revolution?
-t

[Walter]

Gosh, I'd like to see a requiem for the word "preventative" -- why use such a clumsy word when the simpler and more common "preventive" is available?

[Adam]

Because a preventative is a nickname for a condom... which neatly demonstrates the life expectancy - and eventual resting place - of the policy.

[Duncan Kinder]

Tomorrow, Thursday, May 15, 2006, the United States House of Representatives will conduct a debate on the Iraq War. According to a confidential memorandum issued by Republican House leadership, the Republican Party will assert a position that contrasts strongly with John Robb's. The memo, in its entirety, is as follows:

Confidential Messaging Memo – Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on Terror

To: House Republican Members

From: House Majority Leader John A. Boehner

Date: June 13, 2006

Re: Confidential Messaging Memo – Floor Debate on Iraq and the Global War on Terror

This week, the House of Representatives will engage in a debate about the war in Iraq, the Global War on Terror and our efforts to strengthen our national security in a post-9/11 world.

The past week has brought news of several important, positive developments in Iraq and the Global War on Terror:

– U.S. military forces eliminated the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda’s top commander in Iraq and a cold-blooded killer.

– The Iraqi government named new interior, defense and security ministers as part of the new government’s continued progress.

– Just this morning, President George W. Bush traveled to Baghdad to meet the newly appointed Prime Minster of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki and to discuss our growing partnership with the new democratic ally.

Clearly, these positive developments are the result of steadfast support of both our military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and across the globe. We should not refrain from touting such progress

During this debate, our Republican Conference should be focused on delivering these key points:

The Importance of Our Actions

It is imperative during this debate that we re-examine the conditions that required the United States to take military action in Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The attacks we witnessed that day serve as a reminder of the dangers we face as a nation in a post-9/11 world. We can no longer expect oceans between us and our enemies to keep us safe. The plotting and planning taking place in terror camps protected by rogue regimes could no longer go unchecked or unchallenged. In a post-9/11 world, we could no longer allow despots and dictators like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein to ignore international sanctions and resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council.

So, during this debate we must make clear to the American people that the United States had to take action in the best interests of the security of our nation and the world community. As Republicans who supported military action against Saddam Hussein and terrorists around the globe, the United States had to show our resolve as the world’s premier defender of freedom and liberty before such ideals were preyed upon, rather than after standing witness to their demise at the hands of our enemies.

As President John F. Kennedy once stated so eloquently:

“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”

A Portrait of Contrasts

This debate in the House of Representatives gives our Republican Conference the opportunity to present the American people our case for strong national security policies whose purpose is to protect the nation against another attack on our own soil.

Similarly, we must conduct this debate as a portrait of contrasts between Republicans and Democrats with regard to one of the most important political issues of our era. Articulating and advocating our core principles will allow the American public to witness Members of Congress debate a fundamental question facing America’s leaders:

In a post-9/11 world, do we confront dangerous regimes and the threat of terrorism with strength and resolve, or do we instead abandon our efforts against these threats in the hopes that they will just fade away on their own?

Republicans believe victory in Iraq will be an important blow to terrorism and the threat it poses around the world. Democrats, on the other hand, are prone to waver endlessly about the use of force to protect American ideals. Capitol Hill Democrats’ only specific policy proposals are to concede defeat on the battlefield and instead, merely manage the threat of terrorism and the danger it poses.

These are troubling policies to embrace in a post-9/11 world. During this debate, we need to clarify just how wrong the Democrats’ weak approach is and just how dangerous their implementation would be to both the short-term and long-term national security interests of the United States.

Resolve Will Triumph Over Retreat

As a result of our efforts during this debate, Americans will recognize that on the issue of national security, they have a clear choice between a Republican Party aware of the stakes and dedicated to victory, versus a Democrat Party without a coherent national security policy that sheepishly dismisses the challenges America faces in a post- 9/11 world.

Let there be no doubt that America and its allies in the war in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism face difficult challenges. The American people are understandably concerned about our mission in a post-Saddam Iraq. There have been many tough days since Iraq’s liberation and transition to a sovereign democracy.

Democrats are all too eager to seize upon the challenges we face as their rationale or motivation for retreat. As Republicans, we understand the diplomatic and national security hazards of such a move. We must echo the American public’s understanding of just how great the stakes are in Iraq and our long-term efforts to win the War on Terrorism.

Building democracies in a part of the world that has known nothing but tyranny and despotism is a difficult task. But achieving victory there and gaining democratic allies in the region will be the best gift of security we can give to future generations of Americans.

http://www.thinkprogress.org/confidential-boehner-memo

What is remarkable about this memorandum - for purposes of this blog - is that it portrays how little the lessons of the Iraq War have yet to sink in. John Robb's position is not even considered or discussed, much less adopted.

It is difficult, when the so-called War on Terror, is being framed as this memorandum frames it, to see how John Robb's viewpoint - or any like it - can be intelligently discussed, much less prevail.

To the extent that, nevertheless, John Robb is correct, the United States is in for a very bloody nose.

[sammy small]

Surely you aren't so naive to believe that politicians will openly discuss such a complex issue based upon strategic thinking rather than political posturing.

[Vox]

If the worldwide economic statistics for the last several years are anything to take into account, globalization has, on balance, been very constructive to the interests of many nations.

Rapidly increasing tax receipts around the world also suggest that nations aren't having any trouble getting their hands on their share of their citizens' *ahem* loyalty.

[James Bowery]

Of course preemptive attacks are necessary from time to time. That's why when preemptive attacks are abused, they should be dealt with at least as severely as simple aggression.

[redcurve]

"As we have seen in the Middle East, the attempt to remake Middle East politics by toppling regional dictatorships to ensure low-cost oil exports from terrorism free nations has backfired."

The fly in the ointment here is: The US (along with BP and Shell) don't want low-cost oil, but high-cost oil.

Actually, cost per se is secondary, as is well known. Rather, control of the energy markets is the name of the game.

But on the subject of cost, the bottom line is absolutely clear to everyone: 'high-cost' oil justifies higher end user prices, which accounts for the stupendous profits the oil corporations are pulling in.

The oil corps have directed their White House and Congress lackeys to do whatever it takes to keep oil-costs high, and that is what is being done and what will continue to be done.

Dead GI's is something BushCorp has concluded constitutes a "nice" cost, and the oil corps are happy about it too.

redcurve

[steve laudig]

Speculation driven capitalism thrives greatly in uncertainty. The results in Iraq now being seen are the desired results that benefit the dark lords of war and profit. The observed results are not well-intentioned plans resulting in unitended consequences. But well-intentioned plans that have achieved their purposes.

Let us not be naive about their sinister intents.

Those who currently own final political authority in the U.S. are now reaping the benefits of their investments in the dim son of Bush One gang.

[salsabob]

"... which neatly demonstrates the life expectancy - and eventual resting place - of the policy"

Adam, that provided a really good laugh. Thanks! ;-)

[Salsabob]

Certainly, as sammy s suggested, the need for political posturing may prevent an open discussion amongst political leaders of the otherwise excellent thinking in Robb’s postulate. However, I wonder if there are aspects of the thinking, itself, that keeps it from being fully examined in more serious discourse by those who, while less visible, hold some degree of sway over the field.

Certainly, as made clear in some posts above, what Robb postulates is quickly grasped as further evidence by folks predisposed to attributing our current woes and tribulations to only sinister profit-motivated conspiracy and shadowy class warfare as opposed to simply mere incompetence (see Mark Twain). This may be a turn-off to those who are seriously engaged and, through their own personal experiences, know better. However, one would presume that those with serious engagement on these issues are worldly enough to accept that any information or postulate will be torqued by the predisposed and that it’s unlikely that they would be scared-off from examining any idea that offers better answers, particularly Robb’s creative and insightful thinking.

Instead, perhaps the problem lies with the implied black-or-white dichotomy of - if global guerrillas, then no rouge states ("Sir, we’ve determined that the mortar fire is the real threat, and not that machine gun nest that's killing us"). I think it might be this absolutism that might give pause to someone struggling to discern and perhaps address the real world inter-consecutiveness of these actors.

And while I can weave scenarios of independent operators bringing about even the balkanization of the US, I would accept that challenge as reasonable risk-benefit blowback from the de-fanging of a nation-state capable and hellbent upon sophisticated delivery of a WMD to our doorstep. Certainly there is the key issue to debate of whether or not such a nation-state existed, now exists, or is emergent, but to dismiss the notion out-of-hand because of potential GG threats seems a little bit rash.

[AoT]

The Nation-State is dying, these wars are but the death spasms. The United States, the strongest nation-state, will of course last quite a while, but nation-states are on their way out. I don't claim to know what will follow, but this is the crux of the issue.

[Stephen]

Kropotkin's voice echoes down the corridors.

[Roland]

The level of ignorance you display regarding the work of intelligence agencies, with terrorist movements is astonishing. Further, your apparent ignorance of the ulterior motives on the part of the countries invading Iraq clouds your judgement. Given your analytical insights into military matters, I find it difficult to believe that you are ignorant of the two aspects I've noted, here. Which leads me to question you on the whole.

[Cavolonero]

I knew there was something hinky about this guy. I bet they've gotten too him too !

[Vox]

I wish somebody would demonstrate a useful metric or suite of same for verifying the often asserted premise that the nation state is on its way out, dying, etc. Frankly I don't see it. I clearly see some 19th and 20th century empires and their colonies becoming confederated or broken up but I just don't see it at the national level.

I'm old enough to remember a Red Army in Japan: guerrilas without a doubt. Where are they now? Extinct. I remember Brigatisti Rossi in Italy and what was once a functional cluster of communist parties in Western Europe to egg them on. Where are they now? Extinct. I went to Belfast when it was "occupied territory" and rival gangs terrorized every subset of the population. Now all of Ireland is a boomtown and the envy of Europe. I could go on and on.

My point is, you can't make a blanket prediction that a condition of anarchy wil gain momentum or prevail, or that some inexorable and inevitable "forces of history" are going to destroy the nation state.

If only some of the chronic posters on this Board had been around at the end of the 18th century. May I suggest that they would have predicted:

1. The English Empire is about to unravel. Of course that prediction would remain wrong for the next century and a half.

2. France will descend into anarchy and cease to be a nation. No, that country experienced a revolution leading to a short lived republic and then it rapidly and quite unpredictably emerged as the most powerful empire on the European continent.

3. The bankrupt and dysfunctional U.S. Colonies will throw off their equally dysfunctional Articles of Confederation and then it will be every state for themselves as each cleaves unto its primary loyalties. Ah, no, while that wouldn't be a stupid prediction at the time (and was the desired end for some) that would be very wrong, too. The far more unlikely federalization of the states occurred.

4. Japan will remain a backward and isolated island fortress under the thumbs of a series of competent, if paranoid, Shoguns. No.

Enantiodromia. It's what's for breakfast!

[John Robb]

Patrick Porter over at Oxblog has an excellent critique of this brief.

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2006/06/grand-strategy-and-my-god-argentina.html

[sammy small]

"Further, the soft power exercised by the US is at the lowest level we have seen since WW2"

In the decade after the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was little to keep the nation states of either side marching to the same drumbeat. Communism vs. the West dissolved so suddenly that nothing was there to replace its stability. It became every man (state) for himself without the shackels tying them to the Soviet Union or the U.S. team.

Thus soft power became exponentially more difficult due the the fragmented diverse opinions and self interests of all involved. It would be parallel to our 2 party political system vs. dealing with trying to form a coalition system of 100 independent parties.

Soft power will never work as it used to. What are we left with?

[John Robb]

Vox, I am not making a case for the total demise of the nation-state. Here's a little philosophy of complex systems to put my view in perspective.

Just as in programming complex systems, nothing is ever thrown out once it becomes part of the core bootstrap. I am saying that the bulk of new vigor is shifting to a newly emerging platform, leaving the older platform as an important but increasingly inconsequential legacy participant.

[Duncan Kinder]

"If only some of the chronic posters on this Board had been around at the end of the 18th century. May I suggest that they would have predicted: [various nonsense about the 18th century]"

This is a classic example of the "Strawman Fallacy" in logic.

See, eg, Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
"A straw man argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, since the argument actually presented by the opponent has not been refuted."

A proper grounding in logic and rhetoric would help both you avoid such fallacies and - more importantly - help others to detect them.

Actually, with respect to the late 18th century, I believe that statesmen such as the Founding Fathers in the United States, Talleyrand in France, and Edmund Burke in England were more effective than the current crop of politicians because they - and their contemporaries - were better educated in grammar, logic, and rhetoric. That education would have given them better chances for success than current statesmen now enjoy.

Nevertheless, like Canute ordering the tides to stop, efforts to preserve the nation-state - no matter how great the statesmanship seeking to preserve it - are doomed to failure because the great forces of history surge against it.

[Adam]

Duncan is right that this is a strawman. Lets shoot it. To answer for 1799:

"1. The English Empire is about to unravel. Of course that prediction would remain wrong for the next century and a half."

What empire? In 1799 the East India Company runs India, and trading groups run other areas. The 4th round of the Mysore wars are running, paid for by commercial interests, and the Sultan Tipu dies in this year. In fact so much did money run this operation that successful, expensive battles like Assaye in 1802 would see the victors all being recalled home for wasting money! The trade monopoly of the East India company remains intact for another decade. Persian would remain the legal language in India until the mid 1830s before being replaced by English and local dialects. The British Empire really doesn't get going until the 1850s, when the East India company loses its rights owing to incompetance and a massive revolt in Northern India which was attempting to reassert the Murghal empire.

I suppose we could look at Australia and Canada, both of which are miles and miles of bugger all at this stage. Some might say that they still are. Or maybe the West Indies which were, in the American revolution, far more important to the British than the US (certainly in footballing terms this remains true). Or Gibralter. Even so its hard to get excited about the "empire" at this stage.

In 1799 Britain is, and remains for nearly 2 centuries, the premier military and commercial naval nation and the premier naval technological nation. Its hard to see how someone in 1799 could see the British empire in decline. a) because there isn't one and b) because Britain is safe behind the Royal Navy (oh yes, and c) because he Scots got annihilated at Culloden about 20 years earlier ending internal dissent).

"2. France will descend into anarchy and cease to be a nation. No, that country experienced a revolution leading to a short lived republic and then it rapidly and quite unpredictably emerged as the most powerful empire on the European continent."

In 1799 the revolution is 10 years old. The Commission on Public Safety had ended 3 years earlier and the Directory were in charge. Even so, this is the year that Napoleon stages his coup in November, making himself First Consul in the Triumverate, pretty much for the reasons you mention.

So what you are saying would be a big score for people predicting this in early 1799, and rather pointless in December 1799. France, in 1799, is one of the most populous and technically advanced states in Europe at the time so saying that it will kick everyone else would be a fair guess - because it had, and would continue to do so for another fifteen years.

By this stage France had managed to:
Capture the Pope and forcibly send him to France.
Set up the Roman Republic in Italy. Conquered Switzerland and created the Helvetian Republic under the French model
Conquered the Kingdom of Naples and created the Parthenopean Republic.
Conquered Sardinia.

So at the start of 1799 the French Republic isn't exactly broken. Of course at this stage everyone is allied against them, and there are some military reverses early in the year (for example the Battle of the Nile) hence Napoleons move. Even so in 1799 Russia and Britain were quickly knocked out of the ground-fighting. This left the Austrians, who get hammered in 1799. The coalition against France collapsed and Austria had to give up Northern Italy.

As for 3 + 4 I cannot remember what is happening in 1799 in either location. Neither is particularly an exciting area of history for me. The US constitution is about a decade old. Hamilton is foolish enough to duel around that time, providing a martyr to his Federal cause. The broadly sympathetic to Federalism Adams is president. By staying out of the looming Napoleonic wars early on the US avoided getting hammered by the British. The minor skirmishing of 1812 was late, and a US loss, but by then the British had bigger fish to fry.

As for Japan in 1799 the Dutch and British are trading there. China is still the "big boy" but Chinese manufacturing doesn't take on Western industrial ideas in quite the same way as Japan. Either way these are still in their infancy in the West - Spinning Jenny is 30 years old and the Cotton Gin gets invented around 1795 - so its kind of hard to see that anyone could predict that.

[Rich Rostrom]

1) No one ever claimed there were no "non-state threats". The point of eliminating rogue states is that one can't eliminate a "non-state threat" when it is sheltered on a state's territory; and the support of a rogue state gives a "non-state threat" access to far more dangerous weapons.

2) The assertion is made that when a rogue state is overthrown, anarchy results and "non-state threats" multiply. This implies that only Saddamoid brutality can stifle "non-state threats". Well, maybe they can, if they want to: Saddam funded terrorism in Palestine and the Philippines. I suppose he could have been bought off, but at what moral and strategic price? Probably it would include backing him against Iran again - and Iran would respond by sponsoring terror against Saddam's friends.

Furthermore, it is obviously in the interest of rogue states to keep the Islamist and other kettles boiling, so they have threats to deploy at will.

If we dare not touch rogue states, then we become tributary to them. And if they have nuclear weapons…

Oh, and who says "global terrorism is at an all time high"? Khobar Towers, USS COLE, the Kenya Embassy, 9/11, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Moslem Brotherhood - all before the U.S. went into Afghanistan. And of course ETA, FARC, IRA, LTTE…

[exguru]

Virtually all of the attacks in the West have been the work of al-Quaeda. The 17 just nabbed in Toronto had ties to Egypt and Sawahili. All of them, the shoe bomber, the Madrid bombers and the London bombers had training, brainwashing, and funding from al-Quaeda and contact with agents from al-Quaeda. This says to me the "home grown" muslim extremists are not going to incinerate us and our children if we can successfully drain the swamp in the Middle East... It is hardly clear, either, that "nation-building" a la Iraq doesn't work. It may work just fine in the long run. Let's hope so. We would hear more about these connectons with Toronto, London, and Madrid except that the facts, when widely promulgated, will increase support for President George W. Bush and attest to the wisdom of his 9/11 response.

[Adam]

Rick,

"Oh, and who says "global terrorism is at an all time high"? Khobar Towers, USS COLE, the Kenya Embassy, 9/11, Abu Sayyaf, Jemaah Islamiyah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Moslem Brotherhood - all before the U.S. went into Afghanistan. And of course ETA, FARC, IRA, LTTE…"

In 2005 the US government (well, Condaleeza Rice) suppressed reports showing that the "War on Terrorism" had been an utter failure. In 2005 the number of major terrorist attacks worldwide went from 175 in 2003 to 625 in 2004. This is of course modified by the fact that the IRA and ETA have been on ceasefire all that time. Effectively this meant that the War on Terror had resulted in terrorism going up at least five-fold.

This information was generated by analysts at the National Counterterrorism Center. Rather heroically they declined orders to reduce the number of terrorist attacks, so the government simply ended publication of the State Department’s annual “Patterns of Global Terrorism” report. After all we're in a War on Terror, no reason to study it. If we're losing (and we are) then such metrics cannot be helpful.

It gets more complicated. Since 9/11 the US has declared war against all terrorists; defining terrorists as any armed (or potentially armed) government or non-governmental entity that doesn't agree with U.S. policies or dictatorships. For example, the U.S. government used the 9/11 attacks to renew ties with the Philippine government. The tiny Abu Sayyef group were a provincial mafia of roughly 90 people, hardly a threat to the Philippines government and certainly not to the U.S. But that isn't important, whats important is that people in the States think that something is being done. Bush certainly uses Abu Sayyef a lot in his speeches, he may know they are irrelevant, but he also knows that his preferred audience simply don't know anything and lack the ability to learn, Randy Newmans "Rednecks" should be the theme song here.

I'd question why 9/11 or the US invasion of Afghanistan are relevant time constraints. History did not start in 2001 and the US has been active in internal Muslim affairs for 60 years. Most of the groups you list are in direct opposition to US policies - the exception is the Muslim Brotherhood which is pro-US policies, just not pro-the-particular US-backed-dictatorship (hence they're also terrorists in modern US idiom. One of the key charges of Bin Laden is that the US is hypocritical).

[John Robb]

Just a quick note on process here at global guerrillas. I occassionally edit my posts. The reason is twofold:

First, almost half of my visitors go directly to my archive (I have a lot of inbound links and people use my site as a source for research). As a result, I want my archived posts as good as they can be.

Second, I don't have an editor working with me before I post (you are my editors). So if you offer a great suggestion, correct an obvious mistake, or ask for clarification I will usually add it to the post. I'll try to point these out, but I don't always have the time to do so (sorry).

Please remember, this is a work in progress. It is also my personal notepad for writing I plan to do in print.

[Vox]

Oh and by the way... if you care to consult a source such as www.royal.gov.uk they describe the Hanoverian period as an "empire". I guess some of you will need to reeducate the English monarchy about their own history and disabuse them of their pretensions.

"For all that, the Hanoverian period was remarkably stable, not least because of the longevity of its kings. From 1714 through to 1837, there were only five monarchs, one of whom, George III, remains the longest reigning king in British History.

The period was also one of political stability, and the development of constitutional monarchy. For vast tracts of the eighteenth century, great Whig families dominated politics, while the early nineteenth century saw Tory domination.

Britain's first 'Prime' Minister, Robert Walpole, dates from this period, and income tax was introduced. Towards the end of the Hanoverian period, the Great Reform Act was passed, which amongst other things widened the electorate.

It was also in this period that Britain came to acquire much of her overseas EMPIRE, despite the loss of the American colonies, largely through foreign conquest in the various wars of the century. By the end of the Hanoverian period, the British Empire covered a third of the globe."

[Vox]

Oh, and when shooting down my strawmen, it would also help if wars, such as the War of 1812 weren't described as "a U.S. loss". Reading through several histories of that war, mainstream historians tend to agree that; that one of the parties to that war was known as the "British Empire"; and, that the British lost presitge for being fouhgt to a stalemate; and, that while the Treaty of Ghent restored a status quo ante bellum, that the British ceased to violate American sovereingty thereafter (the proximate cause of that War). This latter may well be a moot point considering that the British no longer found it necessary to impress American sailors.

And still, nobody has offered anything by way of an objective standard to suggest that nation states are failing, becoming obsolete, being superceded and etc. Then again, that would be hard to do when the prosperity of nation states is at an all-time high, or, when their powers to raise taxes are similarly as good or better than ever. And etc....

[Barry]

John Robb: "Just as in programming complex systems, nothing is ever thrown out once it becomes part of the core bootstrap. I am saying that the bulk of new vigor is shifting to a newly emerging platform, leaving the older platform as an important but increasingly inconsequential legacy participant."

John, using programming as an analogy for the state of the world is a bit much. In terms of historical artifacts layering, it'd be more accurate to use the real world as an analogy for programming.

[Adam]

Vox,

Meant to reply earlier, but work-life got in the way. I am sorry for the delay.

I think the problem with the quote is that you may not know that Victoria is Hannoverian - she married Albert Saxe-Coberg in 1840, some argue that makes her a Saxe-Coberg, others say she remains a Hannoverian. Its her kid thats a Saxe-Coberg, and her grandkids that changed the name to Windsor during world war 1. Its not common that the issue comes up. The current queen remains the House of Windsor, rather than the house of Schleswig-Holstein-whateverville (renamed Mountbatten) that Phillip is from. American tourists would be horrified if they knew that most British traditions were made up as we went so its hardly surprising that we're not consistent.

Anyway Victoria is the first British Empress (of India). The earlier Hanoverians (Kings of England, Ireland and Electors - later Kings - of Hannover; but not emperors) had not declared an empire, nor did they consider one to exist as declaration of such things were matters of national pride. Still my point is that none of the kings of England prior to 1837 officially claimed to be emperors, and this wasn't something that people were shy about in the period.

The split in the timeline is because Victoria claimed the throne in 1837, and lived to 1901. Its Victoria who is crowned Empress of India, in the 1870s, but that merely reflected things that had been in place for a generation, whilst 1799 is simply too soon.

So the article is right, but so am I, it just left one fairly major point out. To be honest its not a well written article, but its intended for kids.

Anyway 1812-15 isn't really my period, but as no one else can be bothered and it beats mowing the lawn, here we go. I'm more interested in the French Revolutionary side of things so its a bit of a stretch for my elderly memory. Anwyay, as I recall, that the US lost. I remember that the British overran the US capital city and used the burning buildings to toast marshmallows. Perhaps that is a US version of "won", in the same way that Germans in 1946 could say "we came second".

The reason that its called a stalemate is that the British, rather more focussed on the French than some rural backwater called America, didn't haggle too much over the peace treaty that the Americans needed. What did the US have that the British wanted? As the old joke has it do the British go to war with France or Germany first? Germany; its always business before pleasure. Waterloo is in 1815. Thats after the US surrendered.

The US objectives were to
a) Invade Canada successfully.
Result: Utter failure. I've actually read one American history that announced that the Americans had halted any British attacks into America. Its a bit of a damning comment when you start the war, but thats US historians for you.
b) Halt the Royal Navy stopping American ships.
Result: Who cares... Its a causus belli, not anything real. Going to war for a bunch of ball-scratching illiterate drunken swabbies is never a good idea. This one tends to get dragged up by people saying things like "when the war against France ended, it stopped the British from doing things that they did in war against France". Irrelevant to US actions, but an insight into US political propaganda.
c) End trade embargos by France and Britain.
Result: The end of Napoleonic wars fixed that. The war of 1812 saw American shipping annihilated.

Unofficial US objectives were to continue to operate the slave trade and recover slaves freed by the British. Neither occured. The British took many of the former slaves to London, Nova Scotia or the West Indies. Some were sold back into slavery in the Bahamas, most were not as slavery was illegal in Britain adn Canada. On the other hand in the US, slaves that had been promised their freedom in exchange for military service were whipped back into the fields. For this betrayal Jackson is remembered - especially in the South - as an American hero. It did see him get to the White House, so its not mentioned as it would upset the children, particularly the ones that have the temerity to be un-white. The worst that the British can be accused of is being better than the US.

All US objectives appear to have failed or were irrelevant. The reason that the US talks about facing the British Empire is more to do with the "feel good" way that US history is taught in schools. Admitting that the US lost to the tiny island of the United Kingdom whilst it was fighting someone else a lot bigger would be a major blow to US prestige. Therefore the Americans say that they lost to the British Empire. The fact that there wasn't one is besides the point, US history at high school level is more about indoctrination than reality. In reality had there been a British Empire, with the massive resources available and a real reason for war then the US would have been in trouble - and its likely that world history would be very different.

Maybe the abject failure to achieve US the objectives might be considered to be a win, or even a draw, but I do have my doubts. Some US historians claim that failed British attacks on New Orleans in 1815 makes the war a US victory, but the war was already over and the loss of Washington is a pretty major defeat. Some even argue that New Orleans was a major blow to British prestige, but I'll swap you New Orleans for Waterloo in the same year. For that matter I'll swap Trafalgar for whatever meaningless naval skirmish the Americans drag up - probably involving 2 ships, a hundred men, and a dachshund named colin.

Anyway the US attacked the British and made a total hash of it, not the other way around. Bluntly, if the US isn't up to sticking a knife into someone's back don't come crying to me about it.

[AoT]

The best metric to track the fall of the nation-state is the number of failed states, which seems to be rising.