Förbittringens tidsålder

I Foreign Affairs hittar jag en analys av en professor på USAs National War College, Michael Mazarr, som tecknar ett intressant perspektiv på dagens och morgondagens säkerhetspolitiska utmaningar:

This new wave of terrorist activity, moreover, is not an isolated trend; rather, it portends a new era for international security, one that could be called an age of grievance. Increasingly, the driving forces of world politics are not merely geopolitical but psychological, as well.

This new dynamic is playing out for two primary reasons. First, the context of geopolitical rivalry has changed. Several trends — including the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons, global economic interdependence, the declining utility of territorial aggression, and the strengthening of borders — have lessened the value of realpolitik. Meanwhile, in the absence of geopolitical strife, cosmopolitan ideals, promoted through mass media, have worn away at indigenous cultures and values. In many countries, particularly in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, perceptions of cultural erosion have given rise to reactionary grievances.

Today, the world’s major security risks stem from the wrath of societies or groups that feel alienated or left behind by the emerging liberal order. Moving forward, most security threats will issue from a wounded people determined to overcome perceived humiliations and recapture their self-worth.

Kan USA hantera en sådan utveckling ? Mazarr är skeptisk:

As conflicts heat up, it would be a cardinal error to mistake the politics of humiliation for cold-eyed realism. Direct confrontation would only validate the claims of aggrieved radicals. Washington must therefore be prepared to absorb plenty of insults and provocations in the years to come. In an era of shadow conflicts, moreover, resilience against attack will be a more direct route to security than deterrence. Preparedness in the face of a constant stream of attacks will be essential — not only to preserve the safety of Americans but also to dampen the effects of the attacks and thus forestall excessive reactions.

Such a strategy will be hard for Washington to swallow. Americans prefer direct action. They remain hostage to the doctrine of credibility. A national security strategy for the age of grievance, however, is all about balancing various dilemmas. Bold and decisive U.S. leadership will still be critical — it’s just that the issues demanding leadership, from international financial stability to cyberthreats, will demand slow, steady progress that won’t always be satisfying. As U.S. strategy confronts an era that demands patience and restraint, then, it remains an open question whether Washington is up to the challenge.