I know this may all come off as slightly rambling and inchoate, but I'm in that reaching mode toward Vol. III more and more. To me, PNM was all about moving off 3GW and recognizing the realities of 4GW, while BFA suggested the institutional changes and strategic alliance choices necessary to move us beyond 4GW engagement (the Long War, as we call it now) and into what I would call 5GW shaping of the future battlespace (by locking down Asia and gaining its strategic aid in shrinking the Gap in all those places where our enemies are--to date--not yet strong, such as the entire Gap outside of the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan/Pakistan).
Along those lines, I am willing to take the beating in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to give the ultimate "beating" (as in, beating them to the punch) elsewhere throughout the Gap, but I need New Core pillars to make that effort with me, because I know that Old Core Japan and Europe simply aren't up to it. The quickest way to do that, in my mind, is to leap-frog toward strategic alliance with China (and yes, I won't even wait on the solution set on North Korea to emerge before pursuing that). The longer we wait on that, the better the chance that Osama and Co. can create enough doubts about our strengths to convince China that the safer path is hunkering down and building-out their own version of globalization there. Osama wants that because a three-bloc world (Old Core, China-centric New Core, Gap) keeps his strategic goals in play in the Middle East. I want China locked in ASAP because a two-bloc world (strong Core working to shrink the Gap versus a global jihadist movement fighting to keep Islam off-line) basically preordains the outcome.
So giving the jihadists their "cause celebre" in Iraq is just fine and dandy to me, as cynical as that may sound, because that tie-down of their resources and strategic attention gives globalization more time to work the rest of the Gap during this unprecedented global expansion triggered by the rising East and those three billion new capitalists. By tainting anti-globalization through association with the grotesquely frightening masks of the Zarqawis and bin Ladens, I push China toward the self-realization of strategic alliance with the United States in a number of ways: 1) letting their "infiltration" of the rest of the Gap go unchecked (Oh, how lax of me!) and 2) by moving them closer to the identification as the new "face" of globalization (the "Chinese model" as flytrap to the Egypts of the world, thus depressing the old reflexive reach for the notion that globalization = westernization = americanization so good anti-globalization = good anti-americanism).
The great danger, of course, is that by "staying the course" too long on Iraq and Afghanistan, we drive up anti-Americanism among our enemies and their targeted population pools that we reflexively pull away from the Long War (Americans want to be liked, even when waging war), but there again, that danger only speaks to the speed to which we need to lock in Asia's strategic affection.
Our failsafe in all of this? Bush and Co. must go by Jan '09, which is why it's so crucial that we get somebody in who can see the whole board here and not just the need for an exit strategy in southwest Asia. Historically speaking, I'm more than willing to accept the "loss" in the Middle East if that loss suitably triggers the new strategic relationships I need to win the rest of the planet, and to me, the quickest route to that desired end is locking in China to lock-down Asia and set up the combination of our Leviathan and their SysAdmin for closing down future potential pathways for the global jihadist movement to move out of its current center of gravity in southwest Asia into places we should jointly lock-down pre-emptively with China, India, Russia and Brazil--such as Central Asia, southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.
Doing this right, in a 5GW sense, will make it seem as those our New Core pillars are "laughing all the way to the bank," to use Chris Lydon's phrase. This was the cracking-the-code moment for me in the New Map Game: we set the table (Leviathan) and China eats the meal (SysAdmin). We seem to "lose" and China seems to "win," first in East Asia on the East Asian NATO/North Korea solution set, and then in Latin America (where the Chinese-Brazilian "axis" dominates) and Africa (where the Chinese model gets most of the credit).
Throughout this years-in-the-waging 5GW strategy, America will "lose" much global power to China, allowing them to shrink muck of the Gap for us (along with fellow rising India and Brazil and to a lesser extent, demographically moribund Russia). Meanwhile, the Middle East/Islam (to most people) will remain unsolved and screwed up, our "addiction" to oil will go seemingly unaddressed, Europe will be lost to the invasive species known as Muslims, and the West will be in near collapse... (so you see, I do find types like Steyn wonderfully useful...).
Except great power war will be a distant memory, the global economy will have successfully migrated through its greatest expansion ever, the Gap will be effectively shrunk everywhere save the permanently f--ked-up Middle East (which we ceded to Iranian domination), China will be our permanent strategic ally, and life will be very good.
Of course, in that 5GW victory (that will suspiciously seem like a defeat throughout its making), we'll only be setting ourselves up for future domination by the Chinese, much like the Japanese currently subvert us with sushi, Pokemon, anime, etc. Blade Runner's sloppy mix of Asian-American global culture will have been achieved, radical Islam will have been hopelessly marginalized, and Europe will achieve the permament third-tier status it so richly deserves for setting up this huge task called shrinking the Gap, which China and America (two former European colonies) so kindly got together on and finally solved.
There you have it, my personal 5GW dream...
But again, the key dynamic here: the more we "lose" and are perceived to "lose" in the Middle East, the more we are forced to seek (hat in hand) strategic alliance with China (where Kim serves his only useful purpose in life). The more China sees itself as rescuing itself, globalization, and the world from American recklessness, the more self-confidence we build in an ally that will be perceived to eclipse us just as we were perceived to eclipse Great Britain across the 20th century while nonetheless basically doing its strategic bidding throughout the planet for decades on end (the lap dog's tail is wagging its "master"), saving them in two World Wars and a Cold War. Now, if we play our cards right, we suffer similiar such "indignities" at the hands of the Chinese throughout the Gap.
I know, I know. I'm selling America down the river in order to build a stable world order that keeps us fat, rich, and safe for the long haul, getting others to do the heavy lifting for the Gap's pursuit of happiness. It'll never happen because it's too devious and duplicitous to unfold, and all this talk of winning-while-appearing-to-lose simply won't wash. You simply can't manipulate people and countries like that.
All good points. And the more strongly people make them, the better.
Remember when our defeat in Vietnam forced us to make peace with the Sovs and Chinese in the early 1970s, setting up their rapid ideological expansion around the planet? Yeah, we got totally screwed on that one (I mean, look where we are now). What were those 5GW geniuses Nixon and Kissinger doing there?
Apparently giving the world away to the Commies. Worked like a charm, didn't it?
Give me the creeps
Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari
Hatpins of Persian and Arabic design.
On Eurasian Designs
Worse than Romantic Idealism
This enough to make Mr. Red-White & Bluejeans, Victor Davis Hanson, seem a man of moderation. 
