A battle for energy, democracy, international accountability, and freedom has already begun. Just look at any satellite photo of the Middle-East and accept it. Bastions of power and influence now clash behind closed doors and spin their decisions for public consumption. A growing uneasiness in the economy is well-justified... our global market is now vulnerable to recession on a global scale--local economy is inconsequential to the powers that be. Many examples are available: today's $40+ oil prices now strain any hopes for economic growth in the near term. Our current recession originated in the jarring recoils of Japan and Southeast Asia's economies. Corruption in Turkey, and South America has led to currency devaluation and economic destitution. Market-dominant minorities are being contested in Africa and Venezuela. All of this injures the global trade system and can be linked to current economic woes.

Clearly the U.S. has a sort of strategy for dealing with the economic issue... Take a look at the federal government's simultaneous refusal to alleviate state deficits while committing to spend billions on market reform in countries like Turkey, Israel, Iraq--these countries are potential powerhouses for a world economy now that developed countries are lagging in growth. There are individuals in the United States who are global economic powerhouses by themselves--a nice chunky tax cut will help to maintain their place in the economic order. Note that places of little economic note recieve little attention from the U.S. media and government. Our "international community" really only includes nations with military and economic might (USA, Russia, China) or U.N. veto power (Great Britain and France). While our president claims the tax cut will help those who are hurting most from the recession, it is in fact only solidifying the wealth of a few extremely affluent citizens.

What does this have to do with war in Iraq/Afghanistan/Israel/Chechnya/North Korea/China/Cuba/E.U.? There are pockets of humanity that simply haven't bought into our system. It's not enough for them that our system lets us sit in traffic jams each day on our way to work. It's not enough for them that we get all our information from a talking glass box. Or maybe it's the fact that while i sip my latte at an air-conditioned Starbucks, the coffee harvesters are stuck with the honorable duty of serfdom at the hands of the global economy--oh yes.. it is serfdom. These people are bound to the land where they have been born, and as long as wages are kept low enough, their options and alternatives for life are dished out to them by the businesses of the "international community." I digress.

What does this have to do with war, you ask? Basically, the U.S. is arguing that the international community needs to have a strong military if it's going to maintain the current order. This is entirely logical--if the global economy changes in the wrong way, it would be disastrous for American lives. The only reason we're in power today is because of the system that we have developed--if that system is challenged, then our power, wealth, and way of life is endangered. These pockets of dissent are a threat to the global order as it now stands. One argument is that a strong and active military will serve to deter most in the world from engaging in globally revolutionary activities. Anyone developing WMD is a prime candidate for either (a) diplomatic assimilation (anti-proliferation treaties, economic trade, UN membership, military alliance) or (b) if that is not possible--as in the case of Saddam--military annihilation. The threat of countries like North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, and even China is palpable to countries like the U.S. These countries have foreign cultures, religious or communist governments, and WMD. Thus, they are able to pose a front of opposition to the current world order if they so decide. The E.U. has a more leftist stance, but it full well understands that its power and lifestyle depends on maintaining the current world order.

The U.S. has taken a gamble that the "international community" would support it in this battle for global control--after all, the "international community" only stands to lose if WMD and dissent grows amongst the developing world. But U.S. strategy has been and continues to be poorly communicated and strongly overshadowed by a string of acts of self-interest. Many disagree that our current strategy of taking out Iraq would even work to our advantage. The great unknowns involved in this endeavor boggle the mind. The U.S. is taking a big gamble now that it is losing support from many of its traditional allies. Where will this policy take us?