War as we have come to know it assumes the destruction of armies, the capture of enemy leaders, and capitulation followed by negotiations for peace. But these conditions, which normally constitute victory, no longer exist. Capture the capital — and you have not won. Capture Saddam — you still have not won. No one is there to sign a capitulation agreement. Agreements are meaningless anyway, because there is no army as such. It is my deep conviction that many problems began because there was no peace agreement signed at the end of the Cold War, and it remained unclear who had won and who had lost.

Everything is different now — armies no longer clash on the battlefield. The fight is now between two systems of communication, two systems of information. Victory is achieved through the creation of a new regime with financial structures and political organizations, all intertwined with civil society.

The world doesn't have many answers to these new challenges. The US is forced to seek practical solutions under severe time constraints. A great number of non-government organizations have appeared, like al-Qaida, which can negatively affect world stability. When dealing with al-Qaeda, international law, which is meant for nation-states, does not apply. Al-Qaida has no president who could be captured, no economy that could be subject to sanctions, no territory to occupy. There is no UN representative who could be invited to the Security Council and offered certain conditions. Our entire system of international law is based on the assumption that there is a legal representative of the state. This is where the American indifference to the UN stems from, because its structures are helpless in such situations.

From the viewpoint of international law, government is losing its functions. International corporations are gaining strength. Developed western countries have increasingly less control over their economy and resources. Goods, people, money and information are crossing national borders at will. It might be appropriate to pose the question of whether Vladimir Putin or George Bush can fully control the situation. To what extent can they, as army commanders, rely on the army to take care of security problems? In truth, it is impossible to control army morale, to assure the loyalty of a society toward its government. It is impossible to sustain a propaganda campaign, especially in open democratic societies. If in 1991, during the Persian Gulf conflict, America was able to assure supportive propaganda, today this is practically impossible. All of America watched al-Jazeera and read a wide variety of news on the internet. The BBC covered the war from a different perspective than the American stations.

Brzezinski once suggested creating states around the USSR that would gradually chip away at it. The US is creating a similar structure, but with the flow of influence going outward from a single country. What is the US policy toward countries of the former Soviet Union? First — help in creating national armies, because this serves American interests, no matter how paradoxical that may appear. Second — creation of structures to protect the borders. Instead of ensuring their own military domination in the region, Americans are investing a huge amount of money into other armies and sharing their experience and technology, because it's important for the US to have professional armies in these countries that can combat terrorism, human trafficking, and the drug trade. Instead of creating your own armies, it's safer and more profitable to create armies in friendly states to fulfill these functions. It has been said that America wants to dominate Russia militarily. This is absurd. The US benefits from a strong Russia. America would be interested in the creation of a single Eurasian sphere from the Atlantic to the Urals, and perhaps even to the Far East, which would exist under the uniting principle of security.

Americans understand that they cannot dominate the whole world. They haven't the strength, the money, or the army to do it. That's why George Bush's team is looking at another question, something that might be called a creation of a new model. Look at what the Americans did in Japan in 1945. America spent a lot of money in strengthening the Japanese economy, and as soon as it took off, the whole Asian landscape changed. Taiwan, Singapore, and Hong Kong appeared because an effectively functioning model was created. It's the same with Iraq. America didn't choose Iraq because it needed it, but because, from a pragmatic point of view, it was a country that fit the criteria for a prototype. If it's possible to launch Iraq on the same path as Japan, many things in the region will change. Instead of using their military might, Americans are using their money, ideas, and administrators. And this conception benefits national security far more than any military force.

September 11 was a massive shock for Americans, and the issue of security came to the forefront of demands placed before the administration. America's business is now security, and the administration is forced to act. Huge resources are being spent on the problem — intellectual, political, military, and economic. What we have now is nothing less than an experiment in rethinking old conceptions.