This is done by training foreign militaries, supporting surrogate forces or providing humanitarian, financial and civic backing to areas viewed as possible breeding grounds for terrorists.
(From the article)
I question whether this is sustainable in the long term. I can understand that dire poverty can create a spawning ground for new terrorists; but relieving poverty may have a problematic side effect.
Back in 1950, the U.S. Agriculture department started a program called the "Green Revolution"; their idea was to use artificial fertilizers, mechanization, irrigation, and specialized cultivars to substantially increase crop yields. The program worked magnificently - but with improved nutrition, populations increased. We went from a global population of 2.5 billion to the present 6.5 billion, and continue to increase.
Now, we seem on course toward a Malthusian imbalance between food and population - in fact, we're down to a 57 day reserve of grain. That's low by historical standards, and futures market prices seem to reflect it.
It's also interesting that the current emphasis on bio-fuels has caused a move upward in corn prices, which cascaded into a 400% increase in tortilla prices in Mexico, leading to riots.
So - we help people, increase the lifespan, and bring them some hints of prosperity. But the overall trends of energy prices, food prices, as well as energy and food availability may override attempts at interventions. Still worse, the ongoing increase in population will add to other pressures.
Should the trends continue to develop, the world may become more volatile at every level, from global to local. And, if poverty and hopelessness provide fertile ground for the growth of terrorists, then the consequences of existing trends becomes clear.
__________________
Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero
Acronym Key:
MOO: My Opinion Only
YMMV: Your Mileage May Vary
ETF: Exchange Traded Fund
Oil Chart
30 year Treasury Bond
|