Corn’s Revolution In Transatlantic Affairs

I’d like to offer some thoughts on this excellent piece by Tony Corn that go beyond just identifying key points.

While there is much to admire about the ideas and strategies outlined by Thomas PM Barnett and others who try to transcend zero-sum thinking and the incredible self-destructive force that is the military-industrial complex as currently composed, i.e. the beast, there is little reason to have faith in improved relations between America and China. Beyond quixotic fantasies of permanent electoral majorities at home and the universal spread of democracy and free markets by the force of our arms and the power of our debtor economy with its rotting physical, social and educational infrastructure, the quality of national leadership and that of our elites has been in stark decline over the past 16 years.

Do we really dare to believe that our growing weakness will not be taken advantage of by other nations on the rise (China, India) and on the mend themselves (Russia)? While the thinking of Barnett and other visionaries is well-fit for the medium and long-term, in the meantime, we must hedge our bets across the board, not only because of the ever less likely triumph of peace and prosperity in most corners of the world but also because of our own shrinking ability to shape trends and influence events.

Corn’s essay is a good start on that process, wherein we can find common cause with NATO and perhaps even Russia in protecting our energy interests and preparing for the repercussions of our strategic daydreaming for the past 16 years. It skewers ideology in most places, offering cold-blooded analysis on the challenges we face in dealing with the countries and regions that compose the SCO, the substantial regressive elements at the UN and the very real dangers of focusing entirely too much on counterinsurgency or stabilization operations. Its not necessarily a call to arms for the Pentagon’s “peer competitor” champions but certainly a remainder that many, many important tenets of our globalized world have key elements in the sea and we overlook that fact at our great misfortune.

Will China be our enemy next year, 5 years from now or 20 years from now? Will Russia? Will Pakistan? Will Iran? The answer is not as important at this time as our response now to minimizing the chances of such an outcome severely affecting our goals and interests. That starts with building cooperation with nations based on lasting alliances, not “coalitions of the willing” or ad hoc “contact groups”. Such alliances need not be climatic in nature, forcing New Zealand to commit to America’s defense should a future US president decide to preemptively invade another nation. However, certainly they should be defensive-minded, where if an Estonia faces again the type of sophisticated cyber assault as occurred earlier this year, our own alliance can respond in kind or in another manner that gets the point across. While America is today under assault from within, beset by a selfish political class and a weak military leadership, there may one day be brighter, better leadership in Washington. While that day may be far away, its nice to imagine what a real comprehension of opportunities and dangers would entail.