We are all interested in the future...
There's been a great deal of speculation around the blogosphere regarding the future prospects of the War on Terror. Debate especially rages in regards to the causes of the phenomenon of Terrorism, and its cures.
There are a number of theories, but there are essentially two major ones. The first is the Blair-ite theory. It's an extension of his "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" mantra. Terrorism is a result of socio-economic conditions- poverty and lack of education. The cure is a comprehensive programme of aid, along with select military intervention. They believe that, once given a taste of the End of History, the Sixth Century hold-outs would "drop out and tune in" willy-nilly.
This was the prevalent theory during the 1990s. It is no coincidence that terrorism changed fundamentally during this time: it moved from a phenomena primarily being concerned with temporary political objectives. An example of this would be PFLP-style hijackings that demanded the release of prisoners, or targeted bombings as part of a campaign against an organisation.
It seems most of the aid money disappeared, and little made it to the populations in question. Perhaps we'll never know exactly what happened to it, but the progressive exploits of the King of Swaziland might provide a clue.
The other theory, which seems to be slightly more realistic. This states that terrorism is an ideology, much like Communism, Fascism (sort of- fascism is a "lite" ideology) &c. People, regardless of socio-economic burdens and the like will flock to terrorists because they like their ideology. Thus, aid packages will do little to prevent terrorist recruitment, because as long as fanatical Islamists exist, they will continue to utilise militaristic and less-than-legal methods to bring their fight against an ideology they view as a direct threat.
The implications of this theory are much more profound. Instead of draining a few bucks from the GNP and firing an occasional cruise missile and thus keep the problem under control, we're faced with exterminating an ideology that will continue to utilise the tools of decentralised warfare against western civilisation.
Because ideologies spread across borders, there's no easy way to hit back, especially with decentralisation provided by secure electronic communications. This means that conventional military power is not sufficient. In addition, it will require years and years to confront the damage done. In the meantime, with the capability that these forces have attained, the amount of damage that they can inflict is large.
As a result of these and other factors, large changes are necessary in the fabric of western society. Methinks that it might be time to spell out some possible future world-views based on some current trends to-morrow.
There are a number of theories, but there are essentially two major ones. The first is the Blair-ite theory. It's an extension of his "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" mantra. Terrorism is a result of socio-economic conditions- poverty and lack of education. The cure is a comprehensive programme of aid, along with select military intervention. They believe that, once given a taste of the End of History, the Sixth Century hold-outs would "drop out and tune in" willy-nilly.
This was the prevalent theory during the 1990s. It is no coincidence that terrorism changed fundamentally during this time: it moved from a phenomena primarily being concerned with temporary political objectives. An example of this would be PFLP-style hijackings that demanded the release of prisoners, or targeted bombings as part of a campaign against an organisation.
It seems most of the aid money disappeared, and little made it to the populations in question. Perhaps we'll never know exactly what happened to it, but the progressive exploits of the King of Swaziland might provide a clue.
The other theory, which seems to be slightly more realistic. This states that terrorism is an ideology, much like Communism, Fascism (sort of- fascism is a "lite" ideology) &c. People, regardless of socio-economic burdens and the like will flock to terrorists because they like their ideology. Thus, aid packages will do little to prevent terrorist recruitment, because as long as fanatical Islamists exist, they will continue to utilise militaristic and less-than-legal methods to bring their fight against an ideology they view as a direct threat.
The implications of this theory are much more profound. Instead of draining a few bucks from the GNP and firing an occasional cruise missile and thus keep the problem under control, we're faced with exterminating an ideology that will continue to utilise the tools of decentralised warfare against western civilisation.
Because ideologies spread across borders, there's no easy way to hit back, especially with decentralisation provided by secure electronic communications. This means that conventional military power is not sufficient. In addition, it will require years and years to confront the damage done. In the meantime, with the capability that these forces have attained, the amount of damage that they can inflict is large.
As a result of these and other factors, large changes are necessary in the fabric of western society. Methinks that it might be time to spell out some possible future world-views based on some current trends to-morrow.
posted by The Admiral at 7:45 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home