Could the economic collapse lead to a new kind of warfare?
Today, the House Armed Services Committee is holding a hearing entitled Security Challenges Arising from the Global Financial Crisis. I realize this sounds like a lot of jargon but I found the topic and Chairman Ike Skelton's opening statement fascinating. The hearing is basically trying to tackle how the world economic collapse could affect U.S. national security, but not in the way we have come to think of that threat in the past few years.
I have spent the last six years reporting on the national security threat from rogue elements, usually operating in unstable states. My pieces focus on insurgencies and asymmetric warfare. Indeed, when the U.S. military talks about preparing for the future, it talks about counterinsurgencies and the need to stop groups from rising and plotting attacks against the United States, not wars fought along proper battle lines. But the hearing raises the question: What threat could proper states now pose to the United States because of the economic crisis?
My editor, Roy, interestingly pointed out to me that tough economic times can lead to the rise of extreme nationalistic leaders. That kind of ideology can often lead to war on its own. After all, the argument goes, our country, economy and way of life is superior. Therefore the military will prevail. A weak economy can further fuel the march toward war. As Skelton is his opening statement: “Hyper inflation in Germany was a significant factor in the rise of Hitler. The economic decay of the Soviet Union led to regime change across Eastern Europe So we know that economic crises can have consequences for national security of the highest order.” Roy added that Slobodan Milosevic's rise to power in Yugoslavia, at a time Communism had run out of steam, and the economic prospects were sinking, was on a wave of extreme nationalism, which led almost directly to war.
Could Pakistan’s collapsing economy lead to a new government, one that whose interests strongly diverge from U.S. interests? Could the rapid drop in oil lead Hugo Chavez to start a war of some kind to jump start his economy, perhaps with a U.S. ally? Could Egypt’s economic strain lead to the rise of a government other than the U.S. friendly regime of Hosni Mubarak?
Could the United States or a key ally once again find itself fighting a traditional army because of this economic crisis?
I realize these issues seem years in the future. After all, new nationalist leaders usually don’t rise overnight. But this economic crisis could last long enough for that to happen. And that means, the U.S. military may have to start preparing for that kind of war now.

A better question than whether the economic collapse can spark a new foreign war is whether it can lead to another US civil war. With a federal government accelerating toward insolvency, it is not inconceivable to think that one or several states will conclude that they are better off on their own.
Posted by: Jack Mozloom | March 27, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Interesting side-effect of the Chinese purchase of US Treasuries - their finance minister was recently quoted as saying, "Be nice to countries who lend you money." But, as more of you are realizing each day, the power in a deadbeat/creditor relationship is ultimately with the deadbeat. Loan sharks only break knees; dead men don't pay bills. It seems that the current debt structures encourage world peace. Going to war with the US would kill the debtor, and kill the creditor, too. Better to wait and get paid.
These recent Chinese remarks, they were predicted, too. Every world clock-watcher who wants to be somebody has to try to mouth off to a rookie US president. Bellicosity and provocation are only dangerous if the target is credulous enough to take the bait. So far, the only group Obam has felt safe insulting directly to their face is service-injured US veterans. The Chinese can actually fight back, so he's smart enough to blow them public kisses. And again, debt leads to peace.
Question O-thority
Posted by: peterspal | March 17, 2009 at 05:15 PM
Nancy Youssef,
To answer your question, the biggest external threat to the US would be China. They're holding $1 trillion in US Treasuries and they're starting to get their feathers ruffled over the possibility they may be holding worthless paper. With the US occupied in Iraq and Afghanistan, I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese make a move to occupy US territory and hold it for ransom.
Posted by: Outside Looking In | March 15, 2009 at 05:41 PM
Pay very close attention to what you boss said ..."tough economic times can lead to the rise of extreme nationalistic leaders". I don't think he was talking about threats outside the US borders. With the circus act the republicans are pulling against Obama, Democrats and the stimulus, I'd say there are some extreme nationalistic leader types attempting a coup d'etat at this very moment. The time is ripe and they may be foolish enough to try.
Posted by: Outside Looking In | March 15, 2009 at 12:01 AM
Further example of a country which switched sides after being under the wrong thumb for too long: Iran, throwing out the Shah and bringing in the mullahs. Close example would be Algeria in the '80's with their domestic insurgents who were actually on the side of what looked like the winners of a free and fair election, but if they'd won the country would be run by hypernationalists today. But right now Pakistan is the worrisome one due to its nuclear arsenal and tenuous grasp on democracy. Imagine hypernationalists taking over Pakistan, then starting a war with India or Israel, both nuclear powers themselves with the means to deliver them.
Posted by: borisjimbo | March 14, 2009 at 12:51 AM
Could the global financial crisis lead to changes in governments that may or may not be in alliance with the US? The answer is yes. Could we find our country in a war with some of these countries? Again, the answer is yes. Could the present financial crises bring about radical changes within our own country? Once again, the answer could be yes.
An aside for hassebisse. These people which you fear, the ones who protect The Constitution and The Bill of Rights are the very people who will keep you free from government tyranny.
Posted by: Warren B | March 13, 2009 at 09:14 PM
Just a comment to GreyCoat. People with ideas like yourself are the scary ones. Nationalism is the the most dangerous thing, one nation under God, and those flag wavering people. And that is close when, as you said "anti-sovereign measures only subject us to an undemocratic tyranny of elites . . " -happens. Just take Hitler Germany as an example. And as far as I am concerned we are pretty close in this country, after eight years of Bushism.
Posted by: hassebisse | March 13, 2009 at 03:01 PM
The Cognitive opposite of aggression is counter aggression as in George W Bush.
The Motivational opposite of aggression is its cessation as in Barack Obama.
Posted by: Faisal Kadri | March 13, 2009 at 01:41 PM
We ALREADY have a fascist regime. Radical Marxist Obama & Co. are a fascist regime. Those angry people who would rise up against DC are patriots fighting in defense of the Constitution and for liberty and freedom. I don't "fear" those angry whites and others of all races in the hitherlands, but the fools of every color in DC. I thank God for those angry in the hitherland and for the Second Amendment.
As to nationalism, I am a nationalist. I thank God for nationalism. Globalism and/or anti-sovereign measures only subject us to an undemocratic tyranny of elites on another shore. We are a sovereign nation and that is worth fighting for and defending.
Posted by: GreyCoat | March 13, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Ask not who will attack your country. Ask, rather, whom your country will attack.
Posted by: oldfaithless | March 12, 2009 at 05:31 PM