Globalization 3.0 and Iraq

One of my favorite books, one which I occasionally re-read, is “Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance” by Robert M. Pirsig. In this book, the narrator writes directly to the reader in what he calls a “Chautauqua”. In this style, he explains a concept or event to you informally, like one-on-one with your favorite teacher or your father. This is similar to the style of writing in “Things My Girlfriend and I Have Argued About”, and it leads to a very engaging read, one in which the reader can relax, trust, and lose themselves in the text. I think I shall borrow from this style.

And, dear reader, it is this style that I will use to introduce Thomas L. Friedman’s book to you, and then use it as a springboard to launch myself onto my own electronic soapbox. Friedman’s book, “The World is Flat”, is so chock full of ideas, wisdom, lists, and stories that I could blog on it for years.

Friedman breaks the history of globalization down into 3 upgrades. Globalization 1.0 lasted from 1492 until 1800. In this era, the world’s economy was driven by nations. You did not trade, or even travel, internationally without the initiative of a national government. In the 1800’s, through 2000, the era of Globalization 2.0 meant that multinational companies became the primary agent of change. International trade was primarily initiated by multinational companies. The national government became less necessary for ideas, products, and services to compete globally. We now find ourselves in Globalization3.0, and it is the individual who has become the source of power on a global level. I no longer need the benefit, initiative, consent, or protection of my government to compete on a global scale. I no longer need my multinational corporation’s marketing, manufacturing, operations, and capital. All I need is a good idea and the Internet and I can compete as effectively, or at times more effectively, as a multinational corporation or government institution.

So while thinking about this, I started thinking about Al Qaeda. Below is what I wrote for an online class I am taking called “Cross-Cultural Risk Analysis”:

Since we are in Globalization 3.0, it really isn't about nations anymore when it comes to trade, so why wage war at the national level? The reason so many Americans, Brits, and other allies have died in Iraq and Afghanistan is because Al Qaeda is fighting on an individual and small group level, while we still wage war on a national level. Al Qaeda knows where to find us, what we will be doing, and how we will react because we do so on a trained, uniform basis. Moreover, they constantly evolve their tactics and weapons while we continue to walk in a column of twos and drive unarmored hummers down main street. There are Navy Seal and Green Beret teams who are having some success (how much success is classified, but National Geographic and Discovery have been allowed a couple of stories) who are not waging war "like Americans". They drive different vehicles. They use different weapons. They use different tactics. They grow out their beards, wear different uniforms, and generally approach military life from a different perspective. Most importantly, they work in smaller but more empowered units. In this manner, it appears that they are inhibiting many attacks and gathering more intelligence than a standard infantry unit would. Therefore, I think we will be forced to redefine "peace" in the coming years, as we are redefining war today. When the 18th century American colonists sniped at formations of British soldiers from behind trees and rocks, it changed warfare forever. Al Qaeda, Hammas, Timothy McVeigh, John Muhammad & Malvo, and others are now demonstrating what war will be in the future: disassociated individuals in small, concealed groups that can and will attack without warning. Though nations with Mickey-D's may be less likely to strike, any Mickey-D's employee or customer could be a threat. Which is all the more reason to lock down nuclear programs in nations full of disassociated people.

Larry Slobodzian Sedit qui timuit ne non succederet