I find Luttwaks" distinction between power and force useful within the context of the nation state method of organization, yet I do wonder how one could effectively translate this concept into the realities of today.
In short, we have the essential dictatorship of a global oligarchy that works in secret, through the manipulation of politicians, media, intellectual domains, and of course, currency and economics.
We can see this translated through, for example, global mobile capital and the push for digital currency. The case can certainly be made that the climate in the world is one where the nation state complies with the aims and goals of oligarchy, to the extent that military action is no longer a projection of national power, rather a device of the oligarchy to achieve its own aims, such as control of natural resources.
The fact that oligarchic power hides in the shadows, offering its visible puppets as the face of oligarchic policy means that there is no perception of oligarchic power, and no connection made in the public view with an oligarchic power, and the orchestration of events both foreign and domestic.
Certainly the dictatorship of the oligarchy is able to use force through their political, economic, and information assets, yet the perception of power remains at the nation state level. So, is Luttwak still relevant in the current picture?
I find Luttwaks" distinction between power and force useful within the context of the nation state method of organization, yet I do wonder how one could effectively translate this concept into the realities of today.
In short, we have the essential dictatorship of a global oligarchy that works in secret, through the manipulation of politicians, media, intellectual domains, and of course, currency and economics.
We can see this translated through, for example, global mobile capital and the push for digital currency. The case can certainly be made that the climate in the world is one where the nation state complies with the aims and goals of oligarchy, to the extent that military action is no longer a projection of national power, rather a device of the oligarchy to achieve its own aims, such as control of natural resources.
The fact that oligarchic power hides in the shadows, offering its visible puppets as the face of oligarchic policy means that there is no perception of oligarchic power, and no connection made in the public view with an oligarchic power, and the orchestration of events both foreign and domestic.
Certainly the dictatorship of the oligarchy is able to use force through their political, economic, and information assets, yet the perception of power remains at the nation state level. So, is Luttwak still relevant in the current picture?
An open question.
This is a banger