Post-Globalism means ending the need for War

By Zachary Alexander on

A lot of very serious people have voiced concerns that the United States is no longer feared as it once was. They talk about President Barack Obama not being strong enough to safe guard the interests of the American people. Many say that the actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin shows that he understands how the world works better than President Obama.  Post-Globalists should keep in mind the disruptive nature of insurgents.

Stronger countries can still impose their will on smaller weaker countries on their borders just like in World War I and War II. However, those who have voiced concerns should also look at the impact of the 21st century insurgents. Post-Globalists should think about the damage that Afghan insurgents did to the Russian Army and the Russian psyche. They should look at Russia’s inability to squash the Chechen Rebels or the Georgian Separatists.

A better strategy would be to end the practice of using war as a means of economic expansion. America has gone to war twice in the 21st century and it has resulted in mixed results. The war in Iraq was a complete waste of time while the war in Afghanistan resulted in the killing of Osama bin Laden. Indirectly, it has also ensured that the Pakistani nuclear weapons have not fallen into the hands of terrorists.

As the shadow of the 20th century deems, the enduring impact of globalization will become more pronounced. On the other hand, a new pro-growth strategy like Post-Globalism will be needed to combat the inequities of the Globalism ideology. So-called strong men and their wives (i.e. bad actors) will not go away overnight because of Post-Globalism. However, a strategy that capitalizes on the disruptive potential of small business owner/operators like Post-Globalism will blunt the havoc bad actors can wreak on those less fortunate.

Zachary Alexander