John G said: > Well, I might rank the world situation in 1986-1991 (Rejykavik - > Soviet coup), as on par with this situation, but yeah, exactly > right. If the US fails* here in disarming a rogue State, even before > it goes nuclear, the prospects for Western Civilization in the > Terrorism Age look grim.
Why is this the "Terrorism Age"? We've seen some not awfully impressive use of chemical weapons in terrorist attacks in Japan, some letters with anthrax in them posted in the US, and a rather spectacular new terrorist use of airliners, but that hardly makes terrorism the defining characteristic of the age. Indeed, a number of countries have faced much more sustained terrorist campaigns (for example, by the IRA in Britain or by groups supported by Pakistan in India) for decades and that hasn't pushed terrorism to centre-stage. It's not even as if the threat of nuclear terrorism is a new concern - there were studies of September 11 style attacks by aircraft carrying nukes conducted by the UK's ministry of defence way back in the 1950s which concluded that such attacks were a real danger. It seems to me that the central novelty now is the undermining of the traditional system of states: by the fracturing of existing states along ethnic-linguistic faultlines or by the total failure of governments and the collapse into anarchy. We've seen such things in the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the fragmentation of Yugoslavia, the collapse of Somalia into a series of warlord-states, the anarchy in parts of western Africa, the attempts of the Kurds to create an independent Kurdistan, the secession of the Cechens, and maybe we're going to see such a tranformation in China, which might convert itself into a collection of special economic areas. The responses of the great powers to this has been generally inconsistent and only recently are they starting to realise that perhaps such chaos isn't such a good idea, especially as it greatly weakens the partial monopoly of states on organised use of violence. Terrorism being pretty much such organised use of violence by non-state groups, the War Against Terror is perhaps better seen as an attempt to uphold and strengthen the monopoly of states on the machinery of modern warfare. > P.S. A question mostly for Gautam, since he seems to circulate in > Poli Sci circles much more than most (its his degree after all), but > is it just me, or is the Soviet Coup one of the least-studied and > least-analyzed events of the last 15-25 years, or what? I mean, > whatever happened to those guys? How did it happen? And how could > it happen again? I'd also like to know more about this. Are there any good books on the subject? Rich _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
