Compare: A Global War on International Business
So one question is:
Why the itinerant nature of the modern terrorist?
Perhaps the most obvious reason is the specialization of resources provided by the particular state or region -- Afghanistan and Pakistan offer the ideal location for small-arms training; the United States and Western Europe offer ideal targets. This is comparable to a Western business person earning an M.B.A. in London, then heading periodically to Las Vegas for conferences, while Chicago might be his final career destination.
In order to gain some clarity on the Global War on Terrorism, it might prove fruitful to comparatively study the the production of terrorists with the production of another international phenomenonon -- the international business person. There is no moral equivalency, of course, but they do follow similar patterns of multilocation skills training. Each gains a benefit from fluency in a second language, travels regularly for business that cannot be taken care of in person, and generally fits a profile that is trackable with substantial consistency. One is concerned with finance, the other ideology, but they might be sitting next to each other on a flight from La Guardia to Heathrow.
The American Global War on Terrorism does not seek only to kill terrorists. Its supporters aim to remove the roots of terrorism, whether found in Saudi financiers, Pakistani madrassas, non-assimilated immigrants to Western Europe, or, more likely, a combination of the above plus other factors.
A Global War on International Business, similarly, would involve many facets.
If one wanted to reduce the number of business executives in Chicago, there are several methods that could be tried. Firebombing the entire city during business hours would eliminate the present practitioners, but the collateral damage would be high. More important to the GWOIB, such a tactic would damage PR significantly and probably inspire a rallying effect in executives around the world.
Street-by-street, block-by-block urban combat in Chicago is a possibility. Urban combat casualty rates are often high (up to 75 percent in many cases), but the lightly-armed business persons would provide a much safer subject than the Iraqi insurgents, for example.
At this point the study becomes ridiculous, as the generally non-violent nature of executives simply cannot be compared to the defensive capabilities and mindset of armed militants. Unarmed, untrained workers would most likely accept arrest, voiding the comparison. (Worthy of note, though, the above cited casualty rate comes from conflicts such as Hue City in Vietnam and Pusan in Korea. The technology and training gaps between Western soldiers and insurgents of any stripe have greatly increased, making urban combat relatively safer -- yet still incredibly complicated and dangerous -- for U.S. troops.)
Another option? Find the root.
M.B.A. schools (as well as business B.A. programs), popular convention destinations, and many "business district" skyscrapers would warrant investigation, if not closure. This would be a massive operation, to be sure, but essential to stop business as usual.
Furthermore, how does one stop those not yet in business schools from desiring to join them? Would a lack of secondary schools offering business study deter any human being from wanting to engage in supervising mergers, futures speculation, or marketing? Certainly a business school could be construed as fostering a fertile environment for such people, but would they find a way to exist without formal academic training? Is there training in firm handshakes and PowerPoint presentations available online, at community colleges, and in how-to books? Indeed there is.
So as we begin to grasp the overwhelming scope of a Global War on International Business (even while ignoring the economic disaster of stopping "business" -- one of several problems with the comparison), we are reminded of some of the all-too-familiar challenges of the Global War on Terrorism. Roots with more roots, fertile soil and water seemingly without end, and weed-removing metaphors that refuse to cease.
If we operate on the premise that such a war (GWOT) is necessary, as a defensive necessity brought about by an enemy that declared war on us, purely traditional defense alone will not serve the purpose. Unless the United States refuses entry of all foreign citizens and kills or imprisons all domestic threats (requiring essentially a near-fascist society involving omniscient pre-crime crackdowns), other options must be considered.
What is the solution for the itinerant terrorist?
The real question, it seems, is How can the United States cooperate with other states to deter terrorist attacks on any state?
Subquestions include:
What is the United States doing now in international relations that it needs to do better?
What is the United States doing now in international relations that it should cease?
What is the United States not doing now in international relations that it should start?
We must ask these questions of every other state on the globe in relation to international terrorism.
Why the itinerant nature of the modern terrorist?
Perhaps the most obvious reason is the specialization of resources provided by the particular state or region -- Afghanistan and Pakistan offer the ideal location for small-arms training; the United States and Western Europe offer ideal targets. This is comparable to a Western business person earning an M.B.A. in London, then heading periodically to Las Vegas for conferences, while Chicago might be his final career destination.
In order to gain some clarity on the Global War on Terrorism, it might prove fruitful to comparatively study the the production of terrorists with the production of another international phenomenonon -- the international business person. There is no moral equivalency, of course, but they do follow similar patterns of multilocation skills training. Each gains a benefit from fluency in a second language, travels regularly for business that cannot be taken care of in person, and generally fits a profile that is trackable with substantial consistency. One is concerned with finance, the other ideology, but they might be sitting next to each other on a flight from La Guardia to Heathrow.
The American Global War on Terrorism does not seek only to kill terrorists. Its supporters aim to remove the roots of terrorism, whether found in Saudi financiers, Pakistani madrassas, non-assimilated immigrants to Western Europe, or, more likely, a combination of the above plus other factors.
A Global War on International Business, similarly, would involve many facets.
If one wanted to reduce the number of business executives in Chicago, there are several methods that could be tried. Firebombing the entire city during business hours would eliminate the present practitioners, but the collateral damage would be high. More important to the GWOIB, such a tactic would damage PR significantly and probably inspire a rallying effect in executives around the world.
Street-by-street, block-by-block urban combat in Chicago is a possibility. Urban combat casualty rates are often high (up to 75 percent in many cases), but the lightly-armed business persons would provide a much safer subject than the Iraqi insurgents, for example.
At this point the study becomes ridiculous, as the generally non-violent nature of executives simply cannot be compared to the defensive capabilities and mindset of armed militants. Unarmed, untrained workers would most likely accept arrest, voiding the comparison. (Worthy of note, though, the above cited casualty rate comes from conflicts such as Hue City in Vietnam and Pusan in Korea. The technology and training gaps between Western soldiers and insurgents of any stripe have greatly increased, making urban combat relatively safer -- yet still incredibly complicated and dangerous -- for U.S. troops.)
Another option? Find the root.
M.B.A. schools (as well as business B.A. programs), popular convention destinations, and many "business district" skyscrapers would warrant investigation, if not closure. This would be a massive operation, to be sure, but essential to stop business as usual.
Furthermore, how does one stop those not yet in business schools from desiring to join them? Would a lack of secondary schools offering business study deter any human being from wanting to engage in supervising mergers, futures speculation, or marketing? Certainly a business school could be construed as fostering a fertile environment for such people, but would they find a way to exist without formal academic training? Is there training in firm handshakes and PowerPoint presentations available online, at community colleges, and in how-to books? Indeed there is.
So as we begin to grasp the overwhelming scope of a Global War on International Business (even while ignoring the economic disaster of stopping "business" -- one of several problems with the comparison), we are reminded of some of the all-too-familiar challenges of the Global War on Terrorism. Roots with more roots, fertile soil and water seemingly without end, and weed-removing metaphors that refuse to cease.
If we operate on the premise that such a war (GWOT) is necessary, as a defensive necessity brought about by an enemy that declared war on us, purely traditional defense alone will not serve the purpose. Unless the United States refuses entry of all foreign citizens and kills or imprisons all domestic threats (requiring essentially a near-fascist society involving omniscient pre-crime crackdowns), other options must be considered.
What is the solution for the itinerant terrorist?
The real question, it seems, is How can the United States cooperate with other states to deter terrorist attacks on any state?
Subquestions include:
What is the United States doing now in international relations that it needs to do better?
What is the United States doing now in international relations that it should cease?
What is the United States not doing now in international relations that it should start?
We must ask these questions of every other state on the globe in relation to international terrorism.
posted by bp at
11:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home