[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Master Belisarius:
I was reading the first link (Our World-Historical Gamble)... and honestly, disliked so many the approach of this article (so sided IMHO), that will need a rest before try another.

Just an example:

quote:

---

But it would be a terrible mistake to conclude that such gambles are reckless ventures. In fact, the whole point of a world-historical gamble is that it offers the only possible escape from the kind of historical impasse or deadlock in which the human race presently finds itself. It emerges out of a situation where mankind cannot simply stay put, where the counsels of caution and conservatism are no longer of any value, and where to do nothing at all is in fact to take an even greater risk than that contemplated by the world-historical gamble.
It is because this historical deadlock must be broken that the unavoidable conflict arises between the old order caught up in its impasse and the new order erupting through it.

I'm glad that nobody during the Cold War, finally decided that was needed to broke the deadlock launching Nukes!

---

I think that Harris' reply would be that during the Cold War, you had two "national" entities in opposition who both stood to lose, from their strategic viewpoint, if such an exchange occured. The "deadlock" then was one of balanced power. That situation no longer applies, as you have "nations" now that are little more than fronts for local strongmen - or ideological fanatics. Such folk as these cannot be counted on to view the use of WMD in the same 'balance of power' light that the old US/USSR framework did. Harris' other article, on the mindset of al Qaeda and other such Islamic Groups, illustrates this rather chillingly. These articles should be read in tandem to get the full gut-wrenching effect.

About the old Samuel Huntington, already I knew his views. Still want to understand how I live in the "Latin American Civilization", and using their own definition about "cultural entity", how I share the civilization with the Bolivian citizens, but not with Spain and Italy (form where the 90% of the people here descend).
Honestly, I find their simplifications astonishing.

Point well taken. I will repeat, I do not agree 100% with everything in the articles. As things stand now, South America has a lot in common with its old European "home countries". But, how long will that Last? Just suppose - if Europe continues down the path of secularization, while Latin America becomes a center of a new form of vigorous Christianity (see Jenkin's book), what effect might that have on their relations? Their common cultural links? Just suppose - what if, through immigration and/or cultural accomodation, Europe becomes radically "islamicized"? What if France becomes the next Pakistan? What happens to Euro-Latin American relations then?

My point in posting these articles is to get people to look at the events that are unfolding not just in the old "nation state/liberal rational democracy" model, but in a developing model of regional cultures, diffusion of mass-casualty weaponry, and the role religious conflict may play. I think that the 21st century will be as different from the 20th in how things play out as the 20th was from the 19th.

EDIT: was reading the "Pentagon's New Map", and liked the article (not mean that I share their views... for example, believe that Israel belong to the Gap too!).

Now there's a loaded comment... :-}

[ April 01, 2003, 10:28: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]