To summarise part 1 quickly, had spoken of the jehadi forces consolidating with new fillip from Yemeni and Somalian recruits. There is word that Al Qaeda is emerging as an umbrella organisation that provides drive in terms of spirit and also working on higher end weapons for a sustained campaign against the US of A. The latter is looking vulnerable, not because of erosion in its military might but rather by its own internal economic and political climate. Any major attack by its enemies at this time, either nuclear or biological, could trigger a surprising response. This could be in the form of pulling back and becoming completely detached from the World and its affairs, leaving the World to fend for itself. We wanted explore what would be the fall-out and benefits of such a scenario..... Read on....
The American Pull-back Let us look at the benefits to itself from its pull-back and becoming an isolationist state yet again. Imagine the many trillions of dollars it would save the US for not keeping its troops on foreign lands, protecting so called American interests overseas. It would do wonders to their deficit as Government spending could be cut significantly. Now I can hear many of you saying, "hey.... Wait a minute.... What would happen to the famed American "Military Industrial complex" (MIC). How would it manage the loss of revenues? Would the stake holders of the MIC allow it, however strong the American public view and the political will? Let's put some numbers together to analyse this.... The annual defence budget of the US, arguably, is between US$ 600 Billion to US$ 800 Billion. This represents between 4 and 5% of its GDP. There is a feeling that US would never give up selling arms to all the trouble spots of this World turning off its major source of revenue. This argument, while powerful, looks untenable in terms of the numbers. It sounds powerful 'cos the US holds the largest share of this market at 34%. Nevertheless, this is just about US$100 billion with increasing competition from several countries like France, UK, Russia, Sweden and China. The US is a $15 Trillion economy that represents a third of the World economy. Am sure it can afford to lose exports worth 0.1 trillion to buy peace for itself and focus on its people, especially if it tastes nuclear or biological devastation. And then the MIC need not be shut down. Far from it, it would become an even more active and lively entity and will push for Starwars and other Strategic Defence Initiative type shields for the country and keep its revenue stream and innovation engine running. Remember that this is the innovation engine that keeps the US as the technology (and hence the World) leader and also drives its services and other economic sectors. And importantly, isolationism does not preclude the exports of services and other non military use technology and products. Honestly, this could outstrip the current export revenues of the US as it would no longer give away freebies to the World but would strictly charge for everything.
So if the benefits for the US are far greater than the losses, why would it keep the aid packages and role of global policeman. This could be a topic for another write-up but suffice it to say that the World Leader crown it wears gives it a sense of aura and other intangible benefits. Let us simply say that the ego tends to be quite sublime... not only for people but also for nations. I also see another "collateral benefit" from a US pull-back... A major threat to the US would, in my view, be greatly mitigated or go away as Muslims in the middle-east would see it as their triumph over a dominant nation who thrust Israel on them. This could start the healing process among the Muslims the World over too. Muslims have long felt they were "losers" in spite of outstanding strides some of the islamic countries have made in the last few decades. This could, for the first time, make them feel that they are clear winners. Winners are not resentful, winners generally end up being benign and large-hearted and importantly morally and ethically evaluate themselves and their actions through introspection and cause minimal damage, if any, to the world around them.
Now for what would be the collateral damages of an American pull-back scenario? Remember, that this time around Europe would not like to take the lead clearly. This is because at least demographically Europe is not in the strongest of positions to provide the cannon-fodder for a sustained operations in various theatres around the World to maintain order. This is given their negative population growths and an aging one too. Europe, therefore, would prefer to keep its limited human resources at home churning out goods and services. And getting England, France and Germany to agree to anything is next to impossible given the dynamics of their historical baggage. Russia with its own problems and contradictions would find it too hot to handle. Japan, recovering from a major economic setback and unstable Governments over several years, would be hard-pressed to lead from the front. That brings us to China.... the new big man on campus (BMOC) or is it really? I beg to differ and say that the media hype notwithstanding China still has miles to go to take its rightful position among the top. It has to redistribute the amazing wealth of its south-east to rest of the country and empower its people in the truest sense so that every act of the Government is well endorsed by its 1 billion plus populace. It will happen but not before another decade. Till then it can ill afford to take on the World leadership role. And ironically it needs the US of A to be "minding" the World in the meantime as it indulges in nation-building. So China would be focussed on itself. So all this means is it would be every country to itself in a pan-continental chaos. Yes..... the world would be prime for another World War or several internecine struggles. I shudder to imagine the plight of Africa or smaller countries like Korea, Philippines, or the Baltics and most importantly Israel.
History they say repeats itself but this is one history that I would not like repeated. Because this could mean the end of the World. Simply because this time around we have several small nations nuclearly armed and with very loose command and control infrastructures even in times of relative peace. A chaotic World will provide the right milieu for despot(s) of all hues and colour to take control of a potential nuclear switch. So the World may yet end in 2012 but not because of Global warming or glaciers melting or the Earth's core becoming unstable. It may just be a single act of man, in the name of God..... undoubtedly the same entity that we intend to address with so many different names and forms......
God save this World if that is God's will....
Comments
Post a Comment