Suchergebnisse

A review essay on books by (1) Andrew DeRoche, Black, White and Chrome: The United States and Zimbabwe, 1953-1998 (Trenton, NJ: Africa World, 2001); & (2) Gerald Horne, From the Barrel of a Gun: The United States and the War against Zimbabwe, 1965-1980 (Chapel Hill, NC: U North Carolina Press, 2001).

The article of record as published may be located at http://dx.doi.org/10,1080/01436590601153572 ; This introductory article provides the context for the contemporary debate about insurgency, counterinsurgency and collapsing states taking place against the backdrop of what originated as the 'global war on terror' (GWOT) and is now increasingly being characterised as 'the Long War'. The Long War and the GWOT are often represented as a 'new' era in warfare and US geopolitics, despite the fact that, rhetorically, George W Bush and other administration officials have on occasion invoked the Second World War as analogous to the Long War. This article argues that the Long War is new in important respects, but it also bears many similarities to the Cold War. A key similarity between the Cold War and the Long War is the way in which insurgency and counterinsurgency are seen primarily in the context of inter- state rivalry in which the critical local or regional dynamics of revolution and counter-revolution are neglected. In this context US policy makers and their allies have again erroneously applied a 'grand strategy' that suits the imperatives of conventional military and geopolitical thinking rather than engaging with what is a much more variegated array of problems facing the changing global order. The Long War is ostensibly a war against various non- state movements, networks and actors, and is even represented as such by the Pentagon and the White House. However, the overall approach to the Long War has continued to fall back on the conventional 'American Way of War' that produces more problems than it solves.

The conclusion to this special issue reiterates some of the wider themes sketched out at the beginning & in the various contributions. At the same time it also foreshadows ways to move beyond nation-building or state-building as they are presently constituted. In contrast to nation-building in the cold war era, the instrumentalities available in the new age of state-building (as it is increasingly termed) are far more limited than they were in the decades immediately after 1945. In the context of the deepening crisis of the UN-centered nation-state system & the wider US-centered post-cold war & post-9/11 era, efforts at state-building in Iraq (which currently involves a major US occupation force) & elsewhere (where the USA or the international presence generally, & the geopolitical significance more specifically, is less profound) are more constrained than at any previous point in the history of the post-1945 nation-state system. As suggested at the beginning of this special issue, there are many trends that define the post-cold war era. One that is of particular importance in relation to state-building is that the contemporary world order can be characterized as having completed the long & uneven transition from exhausted colonialism & we have now entered a new era of exhausted internationalism. Thus, the prospects for successful US-led nation-building in the Middle East & elsewhere are the most limited they have ever been. Also, as suggested at the outset & generally confirmed by the contributions to this special issue, the focus needs to shift from quantitative approaches to nation- & state-building, which either ignore the wider historical context or assume that the right set of strategies can succeed regardless of the particular context. There is instead a profound need to look for & articulate new critical creative paths to achieving prosperity & peace in the post-cold era. Adapted from the source document.