It was hard to believe that the Office of Director of National Intelligence, Chairman of the National Intelligence Committee, David Gordon, could have been any less unequivocal in his opening statement. . If you'd listen to this guy, it's all doom. He pretends to be a prophet for 20 years. He makes the STUPID claim that emerging China is just like Germany right before WWI. At no point does he distance himself from the idea that "Ergo, China will start another world war" or does he draw any meaningful parallels. Who is China's Bismarck? Bismarck started many wars. Neither Prussia nor Germany's governments had anything in common with the governmental structure of totalitarian China. Germany was part of the new colonialism. Who represents this new China-as-Germany's European competitors, the French, Portuguese, Spanish, Russian and Ottoman Empires?
The factors that spawn terrorism, he says, shows few signs of abating in the new few years. This he has right, but neglects to point out our own responsibility as Americans.
We are really fucking things up if this guy is listened to.
He said that the terrorists are going to become hackers to "physically damange" our information infrastructure. Is he smoking crack?
The terrorists are trying to "thwart our global leadership." FUCK THE UNILATERALISTS! We are sucking ass at leading ourselves. We have no damn business doing anything overseas that _can_ be thwarted that exists outside a certain consensus.
He says technology is the (did he say primary or fundamental or only) way for anyone on the technology scale for "coping" with our military might. I think if we aren't talking about jammers, I don't know what we are talking about, and if you think the military isn't on top of jammers, then you (like D Gordon) are an idiot.
His discussion of Israel/Palestine was pretty much the US line. But his discussion of India/Pakistan seemed to downplay troop movements and recent progress. No sense of movements over the last four decades of troops towards and away from the border (say, during times of peace).
One of the global possibilities of Iran continuing a nuclear program (no hedging by saying "nuclear power") is that Israel could strike. Now our foreign policy is to be dictated by the consequences of what two other states _might_ do, especially when one of those States is very, very, very, very dependent on us? Fool!
Later Gordon refers to the "losers of globalization." and, you must admit, that none of the players (governments, corporations who engage in international trade) are going to end up "losing" this game (as if life is a game). Not when one, by comparison, examines the results on the poorer subsistence farmer who finds their entire livelihood scrapped because of, for example, cheap foreign imports.