Gunmen raid police academy in Lahore

It’s being reported this morning that a police training center in Lahore has been raided by gunmen disguised as police officers. There was an 8-hour standoff, and the death toll currently stands at 27 (with more than triple that number wounded). This is significant for a number of reasons, but here’s two: 1) this attack took place in the generally placid city of Lahore, in Punjab — not in the Northwest Frontier Provinces, the Swat Valley, Baluchistan, or the FATA, and 2) this is the second time in about six months that massed bands of militants have assaulted a target using military-style tactics and then engaged with security forces in an attempt to hold ground.

The most dangerous threat facing America in the future?

UPDATE: This post was made over a year ago, but the friend cited in the first line is Bobby, who is a grad student now and has his own blog. 

Ryan and I recently discussed this question with a friend who is writing an essay on the subject, and I found that (as is often the case) while it’s easy for me to dismiss the suggestions of others, I had considerable difficulty deciding on an answer of my own. Many will give simplistic, near-meaningless answers like “terrorism” or “radical Islam,” others will go to Ol’ Faithful, the near-peer competitor (usually in the guise of China), and I guess a guy like Kincaid would say “excessive multilateralism.” I have problems with all these answers, though I’ve listed these in descending order of legitimacy.

I had considered writing about this subject last week when I first addressed the question, but set it aside for other things. Then yesterday I picked up the October issue of GQ, which contains an interview with Colin Powell. When prompted about whether or not the world we live in is more dangerous than was that of another former Secretary of State, George Marshall, Powell responded with this:

What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?

I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the greatest opportunities out there–ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists. 

And really, he’s nailed it. The answer I had given my essay-writing friend a week ago was very similar:

If you want to go with external threats, I would broaden “islamic radicalism” to “violent, rejectionist anti-globalist elements” (which include the Salafists). It’s increasingly an American national interest (always economic, increasingly security) to get people to buy into and maintain the global economic order, which underlies and sustains our prosperity.

The root of Salafism/bin Ladenism is a rejection of that system. (This is why I always contend that The Long War/GWOT is not a religious matter, but a socio-economic one — these guys are no different than anti-globalization protesters at the WTO conferences, except that they actually blow [stuff] up and kill people….) So really the threat is that people would start wholesale rejecting globalization because of the threat of terrorism, or because of radical populism/nationalism, etc.

Powell makes an interesting point when he talks about “creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave…” Excessive focus on “coalitions of the willing” to address American foreign policy priorities has obscured the real reason that international collaboration is important: the biggest American foreign policy priority of all (or “national interest”) is the unimpeded spread of the American-led global economic system. What many Chicken Littles fail to consider is that while terrorists threaten American life and property, the much greater threat is that U.S. responses to terrorism could destabilize the vital international consensus that underpins our global leadership.

Realists have been speculating since 1991 that a balancing coalition would rise against the United States in the wake of the Soviet Union’s demise. This hasn’t happened, in large party because the rising tide of globalization has lifted (and continues to lift) nearly all boats. Those elements that reject this trend – Salafist terrorists, notably, but also nationalists and populists of many other stripes around the world, like the leaderships of Iran and Venezuela – are encouraged by the success of “the little guy” like al-Qaeda. But Russia and China haven’t used 9/11 as an excuse to balance against the U.S., or as a signal of American weakness (despite what Tony Corn says about the rise of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is about as potent as the Commonwealth of Independent States or ASEAN). Why not? Because their leaders recognize that 9/11 – however awful, unspeakable, and avoidable – was not an existential threat to this country, nor did it mark a time when others would be able to manageably pose such threats.

Am I MoveOn.org-ing you and saying that American unilateralism/imperialism/warmongering is the greatest threat to world peace and our national security that’s out there? No, not at all. What I am saying is that we are very much in control of the threats that face us, a sentiment that’s probably obvious in my writings about a potential conflict with China. The U.S. is still globally predominant, if not hegemonic. The status quo is still good for America, something that I think is lost in scaremongering about dirty bombs and fighting them over there so we don’t have to over here. The best way to truly threaten this predominance – and prosperity – is to take actions that encourage more parties to “opt out” of the framework that we’ve created and largely direct. This doesn’t just mean the small, violent, rejectionist elements, but also those already-invested parties who could decide that American leadership, mentorship, management, etc is no longer something they’re interested in. There will always be those who resent the Big Guy, but as noted, for the most part they’ve avoided direct obstructionism until now. We just have to make sure we don’t help give them any reasons to change their minds.

Hostage-taking as an emerging tactic in Afghanistan

UPDATE: This entry has been picked up by The Issue’s July 31st edition. More details here.

Several months ago I blogged an article about the return of an Italian journalist who had been held hostage in Afghanistan. The Prodi government orchestrated the exchange of five jailed Taliban for Daniele Mastrogiacomo, much to the dismay of the U.S. government. Speculation was rife that such exchanges would further endanger westerners in Iraq and Afghanistan by increasing their value as potential targets of kidnapping, and it seems that the Taliban have taken a lesson from the whole affair.

Twenty-three South Korean aid workers were abducted in Afghanistan over a week ago, and one has turned up dead. Entreaties by the Seoul government for its citizens’ safe return have been ignored, though a deadline for prisoner exchange set by the Taliban captors came and went without incident.

Hostages and the diplomatic response

Saturday’s IHT contains a very interesting piece by Ian Fisher about the way that governments deal with kidnappings and ransom demands. The article was no doubt conceived as a commentary on the recent prisoner exchange between the Taliban and Romano Prodi’s government, where 5 militants were released from Afghan jails in exchange for the return of Italian journalist Daniele Mastrogiacomo. Though not mentioned in the piece, Friday’s capture of 15 British sailors and marines by the Iranian navy presents a similar challenge to a Western government; while the IRI doesn’t seem likely to execute the Britons, Jimmy Carter learned that even live hostages are a political nightmare.

Iran op-ed chuckles

I’m finding it a bit difficult to get back in the flow of writing about meaningful things, so let’s start by making fun of someone. Namely one Frederick Grab, who we’re told is a former California AG. This, to open a column that later advocates war with Iran: