I was walking in and out of the vice presidential debates at work last night, and I heard Edwards say (and presumably Cheney agree) that “the best defense is a good offense” with regard to terrorism.

Let’s block that sports metaphor, shall we? One of the problems the Bush administration (and, sounds like possibly the future Kerry administration) is that we’re stuck in a Cold War mode of thinking about New World Order problems. We can’t seem to get out of the state-to-state conflict style response. It’s not helping. For example, when we were attacked by a terrorist group we took over Afghanistan, which is kind of like bombing Naples after the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. And by the way, all that crap Bush was saying about going after countries which harbor terrorists is bullshit. Sierra Leone’s leader openly welcomed Al-Qaeda after 9/11 and nobody said a thing. And as for “harboring terrorists,” the cells are already in the field, buddy. We’re harboring terrorists right now. But instead of devoting his efforts in “The War on Terror” to, I don’t know, rounding up rogue nuclear material or perhaps building international goodwill with countries whose intelligence we need to help actually stop terrorist acts, Bush saw the opportunity to go after Saddam in rip-roaringly stupid military adventure out of which there just happens to be no good way out.

Speaking of defense, I personally don’t think the best defense in “The War on Terror” is a good offense. A good offense is great against, say, an opposing army. But against a distributed guerilla network, I’m not sure what the army is really doing nowadays except recruiting and training more terrorists. The defense against terrorists, I think, would be to get a head start in the new arms race–national security. Fighting terrorism is like fighting a virus or a script kiddie; they will continue to evolve and we should keep up. C’mon, even Republicans who long for the heydays of the defense industry should be able to get on board with this one. But I then see them on Fox News seem dismissive of the idea that we should be handling this “War on Terror” as a police matter, which is foolishly jingoistic.

There’s a broader point here as well. Remember in the 90’s when you had idiots like Francis Fukuyama saying that the end of history had arrived because liberal capitalism is the most perfect system and nothing will be able to fuck with it once it takes over the globe? The idea was that Coase’s theorem and similar buzzwords would keep states who trade with each other from warring. This is also known, in poli sci circles, as “the McDonald’s Theory of International Relations” – no two countries that each have McDonald’ses can go to war with each other (oops! It’s not true, ask former Yugoslavians).

Well, guess what? Terrorism is one of those new, adaptable entropic forces that’s screwing with the Fukuyama’s global market economic system. Terrorist acts like those of Al-Qaeda have no other purpose but to create chaos, so they can’t be controlled by economic means.

Think about how much we invest both monetarily and militarily, setting up markets in our new conquests and controlling markets with our old inferiors. Neo-conservatives (elsewhere known as neo-liberals) would have us believe the wars of the future will be to install “market democracies.” But the terrorists’ war doesn’t fit into that neat little paradigm, because its aim is to disrupt and destroy the works, without a having state and a territory to defend. It’s the future of war, and we are just fucking dumbfounded as to what to do about it.