View Single Post
Old 03-19-2006, 15:28   #13
tk27
BANNED USER
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: RI/MA
Posts: 230
lrd,
While there are much more informed minds on this board then myself, I would like to take a crack at it.

1. Barnett sources violence in the international security environment to 3 separate perspectives:
- System – think Cold War turning hot, Warsaw Pact v. NATO. Or simpler flags v. flags
- States – Iraq invading Kuwait in ’90. Or simpler flag v. flag
- Individuals – Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing in Serbia during the 90’s.

He includes transnational terrorism in “Individuals”, b/c it is violence that does not occur between states but inside them. This is because “all terrorism is local”. Ultimately all terrorist acts have to happen in a State (think flag) and typically the acts involve specific grievances with the State (think policy done under the flag). But the acts are committed by actors of neither a system (flags) nor a State (flag) but by individuals (no flag).

2. I believe you have misread. The "not to conquer a state for particularistic gain” sentence is in relation to the U.S.-led coalition representing the system liberating Kuwait from Iraq in ’91. Gain was a motive for Iraq, but the system spearheaded by the U.S. did not invade Kuwait for its own gain but rather to return Kuwait to the system.
tk27 is offline   Reply With Quote