One salient theme of global guerrilla theory is that nation-states, from western democracies to developing countries, are finding it nearly impossible to retain legitimacy in a globalized environment. One of the drivers is that good governance of the type we aspired to in the late 20th Century (that delivers a rising tide and a level playing field), isn't possible without a modicum of control over borders, currency, people, media, etc. (all of which which was lost with globalization -- from communications to trade flows). Worse, predators (fueled and superempowered by connections to the globalized system), from global banksters/hedgies to gangs to militias, abound, ready to siphon off, wreck, or corrupt any gains or attempts that are made to deliver good governance. As a result of this theme, fragmentation (either physical or virtual) is inevitable.
Whatever can be said for the whole, it's even worse at the bottom of the pile, in places like Afghanistan. For example, take this exchange (captured by Fred Kaplan at Slate) between Adm. Mullens and the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday (re: Afghanistan). It's interesting:
Then Graham zeroed in. If that's the case, he asked, how is it that the Taliban are gaining ground? The problem isn't the Taliban, it's the Afghan government, isn't that right?In short, a basic rule of warfare/stabilization in the 21st Century (the type that is actually fought vs. the fantasies re: a war with China which is the foundation of our defense budget), is that central governments (states and nation-states) will bleed legitimacy and that the only means of reigning in feedback loops of death/destruction is to support decentralized sources of order and legitimacy.
Mullen agreed. The problem, he said, "is clearly the lack of legitimacy of the government."
Graham pushed the matter. "We could send a million troops, and that wouldn't restore legitimacy in the government?" he asked.
Mullen replied, "That is correct."
Recent Comments