| Abstract: | This essay was stimulated (provoked) by discussions in three separate venues: (1) a U.S. Naval War College conference on Alternative Futures in War and Conflict: Implications for U.S. National Security, held in late 1999; (2) several recent widely circulated blue-ribbon reports on the subject; and (3) recent papers emerging from the U.S. defense bureaucracy speculating on strategic visions of the next ten to twenty years. My contention is that the prevailing official and quasi-official debate exhibits excessive and overly definitive emphases on: (1) particular facets of insecurity; (2) attributions to the U.S. of benign intent and capacity; and (3) assumptions that most others share that interpretation of our words and deeds. There also tends to be unwarranted neglect of representation and standing issues which discriminate for and against different policy perspectives and forms of program expertise. A plea is offered for an alternative approach based on what we know about how persons, organizations, and communities can best position themselves for (in)security futures. |
