Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

In this age of globalization, I believe there may be a third category of war; one that might help define early 21st Century conflicts.

This third category of war cannot be distinguished as "wars for survival;" for the BRIC and other nations of the world would seem to survive without such conflicts.

Nor can this third category of war be described as "wars of discipline," for a peaceful world order with a balance of power favorable to the United States would seem to be able to prevail without such wars.

Rather, this third category of war I would describe as "wars of opportunity." These "wars of opportunity" are unique in that they tend to be undertaken -- not to achieve survival -- nor to maintain the status quo -- but rather to achieve immediate gain. Because of this unique feature, "wars of opportunity," unlike "wars of survival" and "wars of discipline", can (1) jeapordize an otherwise peaceful world order, (2) compromise the existing favorable balance of power, and (3) undermine or detract from globalization.

Should we not consider that there might be such a third category of war -- and consider its consequences?

The real beauty , as an accountant and one who believes in spending only what I make and keeping some back for the future, is that this strategy is relatively cheap compared to the billions per month being spent now on the war on terror. The US spends over $400 billion a year just on interest payments for the national debt. That is more than what is spent on the rest of the federal government combined less defense and health and human services.
The integration of gap countries into the world economy by their natural desire for an improved life will increase peace and reduce the need for the policing function the US plays now. If we can move away from the zero sum politics we are engaged in now relative to other countries, they can help move this process along even faster. The process will move along with or without the US. Based on the continued deficit spending, falling dollar, mortgage foreclosures, yearly double digit health care cost increases only to be made worse by an aging poulation, the US will be forced to change the current strategy anyway. The question eventually becomes how can we afford to be included in this process long term if we are bankrupting ourselves in the short term?

McCain believes that it is an existential threat. Isn't it because of his experience that he is so mistaken? What happens if the more experienced Douglas had beaten Lincoln?