Posted on 10/27/2003 6:22:03 AM PST by OESY
Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace, by Ralph Peters, Stackpole Books, $22.95
RALPH Peters is the retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel known to regular readers of the Post's opinion pages as a tough, patriotic columnist, the one who predicted the course and outcome of our most recent wars with astonishing accuracy. But those readers know only a portion of the man, and "Beyond Baghdad," a collection of Peters' writings over the last couple of years, will allow them to see more. The rest is certainly worth seeing, because Peters is one of the most remarkable American strategists of our time.
"Hidden Unities," an essay apparently written for the U.S. Marines, is a fearless analysis of current states and cultures, with an eye to their impact on the next century and on American security.
On Peters' guess, the Arab core of the Islamic world is going to remain sadly failed and a continual source of violence. But China and India will probably be nothing of the kind - despite the current consensus that China is the next expansionist superpower, and India the likeliest flashpoint for a nuclear war. Peters sees neither as an effective threat to the United States or its major interests.
Where does the future lie? Probably in America, whose continuing dynamism Peters never doubts, or possibly in cultural and economic fusion with Latin America and Africa.
Peters produces an entirely new set of categories. His conceptual world is trisected into a monotheistic zone, a Sino-Vedic Zone and a Postcolonial zone, and his states are classified as (among other types) Bridge States, Barrier States, Survivors, Sleepwalkers and Pioneers. New terms are usually a con game, not these. They are inspired and inspiring, sometimes debatable, often exhilarating.
Peters, a former intelligence officer, served in more than 50 countries, sometimes undercover and at great personal risk. His former boss, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, spills the beans in the preface.
Peters' assessments of our situation are unsentimental but optimistic. He knows America's strengths because he has spent a whole career studying our enemies. And he is betting on us.
Peters is also a hell of a writer. "Beyond Baghdad" is a highly readable and engaging collection.
Fred Smoler, a contributing editor at American Heritage Magazine, teaches literature and history at Sarah Lawrence College.
More specifically, Peters was convinced that there was no plan, and whatever existed called for too few boots on the ground to be successful. Peters never mentions Turkey's refusal, in effect, to permit a northern front, the roll-off just-in-time backup strategy, or the need for a strategic reserve for global contingency operations. Peters never commented on the advantages of the preparatory psychological operations, or the success of special operations forces to secure key port facilities, airports, oil fields, dams and bridges -- other than via some curious cheerleading. Furthermore, Peters did not cover the speed and surprise factors of the assault in maintaining overwhelming force, the synchronization of service capabilities, or the superiority of new battlefield technology in fixing and destroying the enemy. Other than that, Peters' book should be a good read, right up there with Harry Potter.
You know how to ask a tough question, especially for those of us who haven't yet read the book, only a brief review, so it's hard to evaluate the key factors in Peters' thesis.
Nevertheless, my gut feel is that economic and communications ties (Internet, travel, commerce) bode well for developing nations that want a piece of the action. Thus I think Peters is correctly optimistic on most countries named, but too pessimistic on Muslim nations if and when the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved -- with either a two-state or one-state solution. India and Pakistan do present risks, but I think many are beginning to taste the good life that comes with increased trade. Unfortunately, poverty and strongman rule in Africa will probably not be solved for generations to come.
The biggest question mark is China, yet I see signs we can work with them. They would have too much to lose otherwise. North Korea and Iran will experience regime change in the near future, whether executed externally or internally. Meanwhile, the U.S., and to a lesser extent a reformed Europe and Japan, are societies too dynamic to relinguish leadership for many decades. I am, however, concerned about the coarsening of the body politic in the U.S. which must remain healthy if we are to continue our moral, intellectual and economic leadership.
I detect you have some thoughts on the subject, and wanted to invite you to share them.
I wish I had such thoughts...but I'm afraid all I possess is intense curiousity. Your jiffy analysis is a good one. I too worry a great deal about the coarsening of our body politic. My only solace is that people have always so characterized the present. :) I am more pessimistic than you about the Arab world because cultures are notoriously resistant to peaceful and quick change. And I am more pessimistic generally because I believe overpopulation and environmental degradation are real problems. Not unsolveable - but the political will necessary to generate workeable solutions is lacking.
You make some valid points. IMHO, in the not too distant future, western countries will begin transforming their economies from their current petroleum base as resources begin to dwindle, a function of overpopulation and robust economies, and as we begin to see more of the fruits of technological innovation in this area. Arab states had better be ready with stable political and legal systems that will invite the investment they will need to stop their slide.
I'm embarrassed to have ignored Russia, but many of the same dynamics will apply to this resource-rich nation. It may soon become the third largest economy. Putin, for all his good and bad, seems to have a vision and a firm hand on the tiller, if only he too can solve his Muslim problem and keep Russia from fracturing further. But any one of these countries could lose out if they get the wrong, often populist-style, leader.
On food, it may not be what we were used to but gene technology is likely to help generate sufficient food supplies. Acceptance of GM food will come as other nations develop their GM products and have to sell them, barring any significant health side effects which I suspect are zero to none.
Perhaps you haven't noticed the "fat revolution" currently ravaging Western nations? I'm kidding, but only just... What I'm trying to say is we're in uncharted territory. Our burgeoning population forces us to rely on relatively untested technologies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.