Kathianne
12-01-2010, 06:48 PM
Two very good, related articles from Wizbang. While the premise began over the wikilinks fallout, al Queda and the problems arising from the end of the Cold War make this something that needs to be considered. Actually, as the second article points out, some foreign affairs experts (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2003/01/01/five_wars_of_globalization) have been doing so, at least since 2003:
I just went and looked at the foreign policy site, didn't realize that you needed registration. Here's a working site for that piece:
http://www.fsa.ulaval.ca/personnel/vernag/eh/F/noir/lectures/Five_wars_of_globalization.htm
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/11/29/none-dare-call-it-treason.php
None Dare Call It Treason
Posted by Jay Tea
Published: November 29, 2010 - 5:00 AM
Over the last few days, there's been a lot of talk about the whole WikiLeaks release of over a quarter million diplomatic cables stolen from the US. The harm being caused is incalculable, and I've heard a lot of people using the term "treason" in relation to the whole mess.
Which is almost completely inaccurate, and a misuse of the term treason.
Oh, it's fair to describe the alleged actions of PFC Bradley Manning, who has admitted to turning over a large amount of the documents WikiLeaks has released. (It's questionable if he had access to all the ones he's claimed to have taken.) But beyond that, it's really not a matter of "treason."
That's because, beyond Manning, the principals behind the mess aren't Americans. "Treason" only applies when one betrays one's own nation.
No, what is going on here is espionage. Espionage during a time of war.
What we are seeing with WikiLeaks is very akin to what we are seeing with militant Islam and the War On Terror: a non-state entity taking on some of the powers and influence previously accorded only to nation states. WikiLeaks is acting like the intelligence agency of a nation hostile to (if not at war) with the United States. They, like the terrorists, have declared a modern form of war against us, and are waging it just like the KGB would. They are violating our secrets and publicizing them for their own ideological ends -- which are inimical to our own national security....
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/12/01/the-democratization-of-war.php
The Democratization of War
Posted by Jay Tea
Published: December 1, 2010 - 1:30 PM
(Title shamelessly stolen from commenter "Mr. Evilwrench.")
When I first wrote my piece on WikiLeaks, discussing their actions in the context of geopolitics, I grasped at the edge of a much, much larger picture. I compared them to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups -- in that they have taken on some of the powers and roles heretofore relegated to nation-states. Where the terrorists are acting as a military, WikiLeaks is an intelligence service -- stealing our secrets and disseminating them among our enemies, as well as sowing dissent among our allies.
In both cases, as in many others, we are seeing a phenomenon evolve that is very, very ominous: the democratization of power.
For a couple of centuries, the model of the world's geopolitical structure has been the nation-state. That has been the apex of social, economic, scientific, and military power. The only threat to a nation-state was another nation-state (or coalition of nation-states). It literally took a nation to harness the power to damage, conquer, or destroy another nation.
But coupled with that power were limitations and vulnerabilities. Nations had interests; they could be threatened or bribed or reasoned into using or not using their powers. In that model, the Cold War brought that balancing act to its ultimate expression: MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. Several nations -- first the US -- had developed weapons to the point of being able to destroy other nations utterly. Then others did the same, and the peace was (by and large) preserved by the threat: take us out, and you go, too. The United States and the Soviet Union held each others' citizenry hostage under the threat of nuclear annihilation to guarantee the others' good conduct.
But within that Cold War, there was still fighting. Proxy wars were fought around the world. And in the shadows, an all-too-deadly game of Spy vs. Spy was fought...
But above all those rogue nations, there is one force in the world that gives the most aid and comfort to the rogue groups. One body that has done more to push the assault on the contemporary nation-state than any other:
The United Nations.
The UN has, for years, tried to establish itself as a super-government, the body to which sovereign nations can be called to account for their deeds. It has taken upon itself many of the prerogatives of a nation-state: it levies taxes (in the form of "dues"), it has a military (the U. N. "Peacekeepers"), it recognizes a judicial system (The World Court), it exchanges ambassadors, it has departments that parallel government agencies, and so on. It is, essentially, a super-nation.
But without the burdens of being a nation. It is a governing body that doesn't have any citizens.
And it is run in a near-pure form of democracy, perverted in obscene ways. In the general assembly, all nations are equal. Even the rogue nations. Absolute dictatorships are treated exactly the same as free democracies. And as there are a lot more dictatorships than democracies, the free nations often find themselves outvoted...
The protected status of civilians, under the nation-state model, is contingent on an oft-overlooked, implied restriction: that the civilians act like civilians. That they conduct themselves as civilians, and not actors. That they refrain from taking actions that are restricted to actual agents of a nation-state.
To my way of thinking, once you stop acting like a civilian, you've voluntarily forfeited the protections thereof. A terrorist is not entitled to be treated as a captured criminal, or a prisoner of war.
To repeat my earlier point: once you demand to play in the big leagues, you play by those rules. You don't get to bring your T-Ball stand and aluminum bat to the World Series.
We need to recognize the dangers being posed by these rogue actors, recognize those rogue states who are empowering and enabling them, and recognize the many bodies that are protecting the rogue actors and rogue nations.
And once they're recognized, we need to develop ways to properly deal with them.
Or we can simply accept defeat.
I'm not ready for that. And, I suspect, neither are the majority of my fellow Americans.
The second one is very long, I wanted to post enough to give you some idea of the breadth of the article.
I just went and looked at the foreign policy site, didn't realize that you needed registration. Here's a working site for that piece:
http://www.fsa.ulaval.ca/personnel/vernag/eh/F/noir/lectures/Five_wars_of_globalization.htm
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/11/29/none-dare-call-it-treason.php
None Dare Call It Treason
Posted by Jay Tea
Published: November 29, 2010 - 5:00 AM
Over the last few days, there's been a lot of talk about the whole WikiLeaks release of over a quarter million diplomatic cables stolen from the US. The harm being caused is incalculable, and I've heard a lot of people using the term "treason" in relation to the whole mess.
Which is almost completely inaccurate, and a misuse of the term treason.
Oh, it's fair to describe the alleged actions of PFC Bradley Manning, who has admitted to turning over a large amount of the documents WikiLeaks has released. (It's questionable if he had access to all the ones he's claimed to have taken.) But beyond that, it's really not a matter of "treason."
That's because, beyond Manning, the principals behind the mess aren't Americans. "Treason" only applies when one betrays one's own nation.
No, what is going on here is espionage. Espionage during a time of war.
What we are seeing with WikiLeaks is very akin to what we are seeing with militant Islam and the War On Terror: a non-state entity taking on some of the powers and influence previously accorded only to nation states. WikiLeaks is acting like the intelligence agency of a nation hostile to (if not at war) with the United States. They, like the terrorists, have declared a modern form of war against us, and are waging it just like the KGB would. They are violating our secrets and publicizing them for their own ideological ends -- which are inimical to our own national security....
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2010/12/01/the-democratization-of-war.php
The Democratization of War
Posted by Jay Tea
Published: December 1, 2010 - 1:30 PM
(Title shamelessly stolen from commenter "Mr. Evilwrench.")
When I first wrote my piece on WikiLeaks, discussing their actions in the context of geopolitics, I grasped at the edge of a much, much larger picture. I compared them to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups -- in that they have taken on some of the powers and roles heretofore relegated to nation-states. Where the terrorists are acting as a military, WikiLeaks is an intelligence service -- stealing our secrets and disseminating them among our enemies, as well as sowing dissent among our allies.
In both cases, as in many others, we are seeing a phenomenon evolve that is very, very ominous: the democratization of power.
For a couple of centuries, the model of the world's geopolitical structure has been the nation-state. That has been the apex of social, economic, scientific, and military power. The only threat to a nation-state was another nation-state (or coalition of nation-states). It literally took a nation to harness the power to damage, conquer, or destroy another nation.
But coupled with that power were limitations and vulnerabilities. Nations had interests; they could be threatened or bribed or reasoned into using or not using their powers. In that model, the Cold War brought that balancing act to its ultimate expression: MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. Several nations -- first the US -- had developed weapons to the point of being able to destroy other nations utterly. Then others did the same, and the peace was (by and large) preserved by the threat: take us out, and you go, too. The United States and the Soviet Union held each others' citizenry hostage under the threat of nuclear annihilation to guarantee the others' good conduct.
But within that Cold War, there was still fighting. Proxy wars were fought around the world. And in the shadows, an all-too-deadly game of Spy vs. Spy was fought...
But above all those rogue nations, there is one force in the world that gives the most aid and comfort to the rogue groups. One body that has done more to push the assault on the contemporary nation-state than any other:
The United Nations.
The UN has, for years, tried to establish itself as a super-government, the body to which sovereign nations can be called to account for their deeds. It has taken upon itself many of the prerogatives of a nation-state: it levies taxes (in the form of "dues"), it has a military (the U. N. "Peacekeepers"), it recognizes a judicial system (The World Court), it exchanges ambassadors, it has departments that parallel government agencies, and so on. It is, essentially, a super-nation.
But without the burdens of being a nation. It is a governing body that doesn't have any citizens.
And it is run in a near-pure form of democracy, perverted in obscene ways. In the general assembly, all nations are equal. Even the rogue nations. Absolute dictatorships are treated exactly the same as free democracies. And as there are a lot more dictatorships than democracies, the free nations often find themselves outvoted...
The protected status of civilians, under the nation-state model, is contingent on an oft-overlooked, implied restriction: that the civilians act like civilians. That they conduct themselves as civilians, and not actors. That they refrain from taking actions that are restricted to actual agents of a nation-state.
To my way of thinking, once you stop acting like a civilian, you've voluntarily forfeited the protections thereof. A terrorist is not entitled to be treated as a captured criminal, or a prisoner of war.
To repeat my earlier point: once you demand to play in the big leagues, you play by those rules. You don't get to bring your T-Ball stand and aluminum bat to the World Series.
We need to recognize the dangers being posed by these rogue actors, recognize those rogue states who are empowering and enabling them, and recognize the many bodies that are protecting the rogue actors and rogue nations.
And once they're recognized, we need to develop ways to properly deal with them.
Or we can simply accept defeat.
I'm not ready for that. And, I suspect, neither are the majority of my fellow Americans.
The second one is very long, I wanted to post enough to give you some idea of the breadth of the article.