I am sure every author has his own, often set, ways of stimulating his writing. For me, playing classical music - as long as it contains no voices! - both helps drown out the background noise and spurs my thinking and composition. The same is true about what might be called case studies. I find abstractions unconvincint; in contrast their specific implications and applications, in specific places and time periods, in short case studies are illuminating. Thus, to state that we owe it to Afghanistan and Iraq to reconstruct their countries after the ravages of war sounds right. However, when I studied - and then dedicated a segment of Security First to describing - what reconstruction actually entailed on the ground, the absurdity of this claim stood out. Afghanistan is in a very early state of economic development; practically everything it needs must be provided de novo. To refer to 'reconstruction' here is like speaking about 'rebuilding' a city where there was barely a village. Iraq's economy was allowed by Saddam to deteriorate. To fix it would take huge amounts of resources and a decade or more, I found. It is not obvious who will have to pick up the tab for all this.
Similarly, I used other essentially short historical-sociological concrete reports to study – and try to give the reader a feel for – developments in eight other situations, ranging from failed nation building in Kosovo to the rising role of religion in newly liberated countries, especially former communist nations including Russia and China. I wonder if these case studies work half as well for the reader as they worked for me.
Finally, I benefited when I stumbled across some little known facts, which I found highly illuminating, although by themselves they are hardly world shaking. For instance, I show in the book that our first priority should be the prevention of nuclear terrorism. The U.S. is paying (via a program informally named Nunn-Lugar, the two senators who initiated it) for reducing this key danger by removing or securing the materials terrorists need to make or obtain such bombs. I was dumbfounded when I learned that the budget for this program is about the same it was before 9/11!
Moreover, Nunn-Lugar get less than 20% of the funds we grant to Transportation Security Administration to ensure that box cutters, pocket knives, and more than 3 ounces of shaving cream or shampoo will not be taken on airplanes. It showed to me that our priorities are all screwed up, making us much less secure than we could be, given the same budget.
Just one more for now: when I found that China recently built a nuclear reactor in Nigeria that uses weapons grade uranium (that is, uranium from which bombs can be made), it startled me. About the last thing I expected, as we are trying to shut down such reactors across the world, is that new ones are being built! Moreover, that China proceeded with the full approval of the international authorities in charge (in this case, the IAEA)! This tidbit served for me to see, and call attention in part VI of Security First, huge gaps in the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) that must be plugged one way or another if we are to sleep better at night.
I would love to hear from you on this or any other point relating to this new book.
Please leave your comments at www.securityfirstbook.com
Comments