posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 09:42 PM
I've got more, I'm just trying to decide on how to tie everything together.
Eventually, this great discussion will have to come to a close. I do have something interesting to note. During the Cold War, internationalism was
very vital to our efforts. In order to defeat the Soviet Union, you had to stop them "out there." You had to build alliances and create barriers,
physical or theoretical, in order to stave off any Communist advances.
But in 4GW, internationalism actually seems counter-productive. Terrorists do not enter the U.S. in order to gather intel, that intel is of no use to
them. Rather, they come in to hurt us. Therefore, internationalism, open borders, and anything and everything related to it (including globalization)
serves to hurt us. So while the USA PATRIOT Act is definitely a step too far, I really would not mind seeing the country become a bit more "built
up." Maybe we need to be a bit more introspective and learn to secure and build up what we already have instead of seeking to add more.
How we approach the issue of foreign policy is in many ways the essence of what will define our survival (not success) in the post-Cold War,
post-modern world. Many people complain about why we have not intervened in Darfur yet. These people don't realize what a disaster intervention in
Darfur would result in. In these times, there is no room for peacekeeping and police actions. Our leaders constantly preach the doctrine of "staying
on the offensive." It makes sense, after all, we are stronger than the terrorists and the guerrilla fighters. Unfortunately, the non-state actors
play on a completely different set of rules. That supposed weakness is suddenly the strength. It looks as if we are indeed the ones who have to play
defense in order to survive.