Considering 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian crisis, we have to conclude that the next war we fight will be less about acquiring land, natural resources, capital or slaves and more about changing concepts, values and economics. Terrorists say they are fighting to throw off western culture and political influence, not capture southern California. Through trade agreements, foreign aid, and political alliances, China and Russia are battling to make their currency and their production more valuable than ours in the global marketplace, and so far we are taking most of the casualties.

The real war zone today—the place where nations compete—is political influence, global finance, industrial efficiency, and personal productivity. And the primary weapon is information. Whether we win or lose depends on how well we anticipate the resources and tactics of our opponents. It will depend on how well we control the money, the political power, and the cultural forces in the new “terrain”. It will depend on how effective we are in making successful decisions in an information world.

In five years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States has suffered nearly 5,000 dead, about the level of casualties experienced over five months during the height of the Vietnam War, in five weeks during World War I, or in five hours at the battle of Antietam during the American Civil War. The importance of inflicting death on the enemy has declined, and yet the focus of our nation’s offensive strategy continues to be on combat. Consider the possibility that the global struggle over the next decade or two will depend less on war and more on technology innovation, economic growth, and political support around the world. And the keys to victory on that bright plain will lie in a more informed army, a more coherent and self-interested economic policy, and a better educated people. Our advantage will be how we handle information, not how we handle a gun.

Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, recently argued that the failure of American economic policy and subsequent financial turmoil was a national security threat, weakening our already fragile allies, reducing America’s political influence and creating potentially grave instability in the developing world. And while we retreat, others advance.

Al Qaeda has a world-wide program of communicating its goals, its recruitment messages and its fundraising efforts through videos and blogs on the internet. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, commenting on the skill and pervasiveness of that effort said: “It is just plain embarrassing that al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the internet than America. As one foreign diplomat asked a couple of years ago, 'How has one man in a cave managed to outcommunicate the world's greatest communication society?’”

The United States currently spends about four times as much on the military ($685 billion/year) as it spends on activities that might be more helpful in an information war, including foreign intelligence, education at all levels, space exploration, alternative energy, basic science, climate change and medical research, combined. Four times. A shift of 20% of that budget might prove to be a better long term investment, not because information makes us healthier, or more efficient at our jobs, or better at making decisions, although it does all three. But because in the global competition for a better standard of living, economic power and a persuasive political philosophy, we are losing control of the battlefield and the casualties are piling up.

(Originally published at GoArticles and reprinted with permission from the author, Christopher Burns).