| Inelegantly stated, but essentially correct. We had a clear strategic doctrine, containment of the Soviet Union, and institutional structures, such as NATO, to embody it. Now, we are in a far murkier position. We know that we have to counter terrorism, especially emanating from the Arab world, but the adversaries are somewhat amorphous. We are in strategic competition with China, particularly in the Pacific Rim, but we are not sure how that relationship will evolve. As was demonstrated in the Balkans, regional problems may flair to such an extent that they have strategic consequences, but it is not always clear what messes are important to intervene in. The possibility of a deteriorating situation in the former Soviet Union leading to major conflicts with repercussions on Europe is pretty great, but we are not sure what is going to happen. For example, the was actually a chance that Russia and Ukraine would go to war over the Crimea. Fortunately, it didn't come to that. There is a chance that Russia will try to destabilize one of the Caspian republics in order to get more of the action in the development of oil resources. Considering that Kazhakstan, for example, is almost half ethnic Russian, there is a real potential for conflict. Even in countries like Hungary, there is still some potential for conflict with national minorities leading to interstate conflict, as Romania seeks to sponsor ethnic Romanians and so on, until there is a volatile situation similar to that predating World War Two. Anyway, Bush is quite right, the strategic situation is fluid and we are in an unusually high level of uncertainty....... |
