Tom Barnett, who I interviewed last year on IT Conversations, has a very rational view on what terrorism really means. We tend to give them too much credit for being strategic and smart when in fact their weak and without hope. He says, in response to the recent train bombings in India:

There is a profound reason why we're rich and powerful and connected and the enemy is none of those things. Terrorism is a strategy of the weak, and it earns them only what the powerful decide they no longer want.

As I opined in BFA, there are no lasting 4GW victories. Yes, sometimes conflicts are won, but what is really achieved? Look at Cuba or Nicaragua or Palestine--or best yet--Vietnam or China?

All these 4GW "victors" got was amazingly bloody disconnectedness, and--when they got smart--then they came back crawling to the system, the nets, the rules, the "decadence."

4GW is not some apogee. No Kaplanesque romanticism please. This is the dregs and nothing more.

Our nets are our strengths. They will attack and we will grow more resilient. Bush was right: Bring it on. Speed the killing. Flush the losers. Extend the nets. Be resilient.

Watch India. These attacks will accomplish nothing.

From Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog: 4GW is not some advance, but the Gap's last gasps
Referenced Thu Jul 13 2006 09:39:10 GMT-0600 (MDT)