"The World Since 9/11" - The Economist

I initially felt like writing about the David Henderson article, "The Case Against corporate Social Responsibility". However, this afternoon I came across a reprint of an article from "The Economist", ( a magazine that might not be in favor with ardent anti-global views) in the VA Pilot commentary section. The article dealt with the question of exactly what has happened since 9/11 when a new era of a global war on terror emerged. I do not know exactly how to incorporate 9/11 with any one aspect of globalization. The easy example would be to make the obvious connect to "Jihad-McWorld" article. It would be valid since it stands to reason that the terrorists are easily linked to a strong anti-western and liberal agenda. (Despite my earlier rebellion of constantly asking the question 'one man's terrorist, another's freedom fighter-now somewhat answered in my head that anyone who kills thousands of civilians, no matter what their motivation- war or freedom-is a terrorist or criminal)
What would be more interesting is to see how the advent of the war on terror has affected the daily world in all aspects (law, economic transactions, society, media, etc). To me, each of these things has a global aspect to it. The media for example does not seem an immediate relation, despite it's coverage. In Julie's earlier blog, she noted that states have failed to recognize that globalization extends beyond economic matters. I agree and disagree with her. It is valid to say that no state has yet to understand the matter at hand. Going back to the media, it seems to me that the rapid exchange of info has allowed the combatants on both sides to use it as a means of worldwide propaganda. It would be difficult for terrorists in the Middle East to relay and help further their cause with other sympathizers in Southeast Asia without the inter-connectivity provided by satellite based media coverage and the internet. Vise versa the US seems to try and capture in on the global change of ideas by promoting the ideal of democracy in the new Iraq as reason for the war. Agree or disagree, I think the government is evolving to grasp other aspects of globalization even if it does not know how to use them for good.
The article itself gave an overview of the past five years. Two things stood out at me. First the article argued that while radical Islam did not create terrorism, it has entered a new stage both due to its actions and of the US led response.
Second, the conclusion said, "The world must still strive to destroy Al-Qaida...But it had better do so with cleverer means than those used by Bush so far". The political judgment at the end does not interest me so much as the use of the word "world". (I had to include the last part so the rest of you would not immediately attack me for being some neo-con hawk). Notice the writer did not say the US, coalition of the willing, the UN, NATO, the EU, or any other single organization; it said world. I feel that this is what might be missing in the debate on how to combat terrorism. If the world became truly involved, then perhaps all aspects of globalization could be used to disseminate the causes for terrorism while still providing security.
I know this is a sensitive subject. No one has made it easy to discuss. Keep in mind, no matter how easy it is to lay blame on the evil conspiracy of oil interests or any other easy to blame leviathan, we as citizens are the ones who stand the chance of feeling terrorism's harsh reality when it does occur. I look forward to seeing how the rest of the class relates terrorism to globalization. Good night.