I blogged about this question briefly last fall when Gary Kasparov did an interview where he laid out an argument that Putin was playing poker while the rest of the world plays chess. Now it seems that at least a few high ranking (potentially) people in the U.S. defense arena think that Putin is the biggest threat to U.S. security. In confirmation hearings the current choice of Obama to be Secretary of the Air Force (Deborah James) called Putin the biggest threat. Also, the man tabbed to be the next Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Joe Dunford) called Russia (led by Putin) the biggest threat to U.S. security.
For my two cents, I tend to agree, sort of, kinda, maybe. I'm waffling here and I know it (my students will point to rule 20 of my picky rules of writing). I generally detest waffling, it generally shows weakness of character, and hedging does not stop one from being wrong, nor increase your possibility of being right. But I am waffling for a reason.
I know, I know, we have this great war on terror and radical Islamic groups are a threat to everyone everywhere. Is terrorism, particularly radical islamic led terrorism a threat? Absolutely terrorism is a threat, but how many people are actually at risk in the U.S. and how many U.S. citizens abroad are at risk because of terrorism? What amount of U.S. citizen's economic activity is at risk because of terrorism? We could say all of us and all of our economic activity are at risk, so we should narrow this criteria. Rather than simply at risk (heck I am at risk of death today because I am human, so risk is a risky proposition as a social criterion), what about likelihood of loss of life or likelihood of economic loss? When we check those criteria, terrorism is not a big deal--simply put it really does not cause us, as U.S. citizens that much loss of economic activity nor cause likelihood of injury or death on a great scale. (For my friends and family who have friends and family still serving in the U.S. military you must remember that the total U.S. military force is less than 1% of the entire U.S. population).
I am well aware of Putin's threat to Ukraine and parts of eastern Europe. Face it, under Putin Russia stole Crimea. But is this a real threat to the security of the citizens of the U.S. and our economic activity? Is a real threat to the livelihood of our allies in Europe a real threat to the security of the U.S.? This question is one worth our investigation. I make no claims to being an expert on the subject of alliances. I understand them mostly to be useful deterrent tools that generally tend to be short-lived and serve as pathways of confusion if the world is multipolar or lacking a singular hegemonic state. But, if maintaining alliances is fundamental to ordering of global security then a threat to our largest and most lengthy security alliance is a very important threat.
But, I hesitate to say Putin of Islamic led terrorism is the bigger threat because I study security issues in other areas of the world than Europe and the Middle East/North Africa. We have had cyber attacks from China and North Korea, and the Chinese are causing security concern to allies and friends and others (not sure what to call Vietnam these days) in East Asia and Southeast Asia. Cyber attacks can make it difficult to engage in economic activity (ask the NYSE). Cyber attacks can disrupt the use of military hardware that is highly network and globally integrated. So, I am personally not sure which is more threatening to me these days--Putin, Islamic Terrorism, Cyber Attacks, China, or North Korea.
Are our threats even more clearly known to us today? Even if we "know" Putin is behind something, even if we "know" the North Koreans orchestrated a cyber attack, even if we "know" that terrorism is a threat, what do we really know? What type of security forces do we need to protect our lives and our interests? Great times to be involved in the study of national security.
and, because I am a James Bond fan:
For my two cents, I tend to agree, sort of, kinda, maybe. I'm waffling here and I know it (my students will point to rule 20 of my picky rules of writing). I generally detest waffling, it generally shows weakness of character, and hedging does not stop one from being wrong, nor increase your possibility of being right. But I am waffling for a reason.
I know, I know, we have this great war on terror and radical Islamic groups are a threat to everyone everywhere. Is terrorism, particularly radical islamic led terrorism a threat? Absolutely terrorism is a threat, but how many people are actually at risk in the U.S. and how many U.S. citizens abroad are at risk because of terrorism? What amount of U.S. citizen's economic activity is at risk because of terrorism? We could say all of us and all of our economic activity are at risk, so we should narrow this criteria. Rather than simply at risk (heck I am at risk of death today because I am human, so risk is a risky proposition as a social criterion), what about likelihood of loss of life or likelihood of economic loss? When we check those criteria, terrorism is not a big deal--simply put it really does not cause us, as U.S. citizens that much loss of economic activity nor cause likelihood of injury or death on a great scale. (For my friends and family who have friends and family still serving in the U.S. military you must remember that the total U.S. military force is less than 1% of the entire U.S. population).
I am well aware of Putin's threat to Ukraine and parts of eastern Europe. Face it, under Putin Russia stole Crimea. But is this a real threat to the security of the citizens of the U.S. and our economic activity? Is a real threat to the livelihood of our allies in Europe a real threat to the security of the U.S.? This question is one worth our investigation. I make no claims to being an expert on the subject of alliances. I understand them mostly to be useful deterrent tools that generally tend to be short-lived and serve as pathways of confusion if the world is multipolar or lacking a singular hegemonic state. But, if maintaining alliances is fundamental to ordering of global security then a threat to our largest and most lengthy security alliance is a very important threat.
But, I hesitate to say Putin of Islamic led terrorism is the bigger threat because I study security issues in other areas of the world than Europe and the Middle East/North Africa. We have had cyber attacks from China and North Korea, and the Chinese are causing security concern to allies and friends and others (not sure what to call Vietnam these days) in East Asia and Southeast Asia. Cyber attacks can make it difficult to engage in economic activity (ask the NYSE). Cyber attacks can disrupt the use of military hardware that is highly network and globally integrated. So, I am personally not sure which is more threatening to me these days--Putin, Islamic Terrorism, Cyber Attacks, China, or North Korea.
Are our threats even more clearly known to us today? Even if we "know" Putin is behind something, even if we "know" the North Koreans orchestrated a cyber attack, even if we "know" that terrorism is a threat, what do we really know? What type of security forces do we need to protect our lives and our interests? Great times to be involved in the study of national security.
and, because I am a James Bond fan:
No comments:
Post a Comment