) My opinion

Both Friedman's argument and Druicker's perspective have their particular merits. We can well see how Friedman may be correct. After all, there are fewer wars now than in the past; the world is more closely interconnected; resources are sparser; and countries are earnestly concentered about their economic welfare. Friedman's reasoning does sound legitimate enough and it explains why many countries are deterred from fighting. On the other hand, it does not explain the exceptions, such as continuous fighting in Africa and India, as well as Islamic resolution to continue battering the West. At the end of the day, governments are not always in control of their people. An Egypt for instance may be secular-led and liberal during one period, and during this period its government cares about economic concerns to the point that it refuses to drive its country into war against another nation realizing that to do so may well usher the country into poverty. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, may wrest control of the government and turn a democracy into an Islamic theocracy where it may be the determination of the now-ruling party to dominate the West and convert it to Islamic faith. All of this is speculation, but these circumstances do happen and the Muslim Brotherhood -- the granddaddy of Islamic fundamentalist movements -- has recently won a majority in the Egyptian Parliament with one of its leaders, Mohamed Morsi, became president. The Muslim Brotherhood, whilst advocating social reform, has deep hostility towards the West, and it does not refrain from voicing this regardless of economic results. So Friedman's theory, therefore, has its exceptions.

Druicker's assessment seems to be more accurate. Whilst the world is becoming increasingly more globalized and interconnected on the one hand -- and this is largely due to economic factors -- there is also a simultaneous shifting of plates to fragmentation. Some countries...

We see this for example with the conflict in the Middle East where, far from making peace with the West, determination has only been to intensify the war. These are not just individuals, as manifested in the Egyptian or Al Quida example (where Iraq fell prey to extremists overrunning the government). This is also the case sometimes with entire countries, such as Russia, where economic challenges and the growing gap between West and some other parts intensifies dissatisfaction and frustration and exacerbates the gap between the West and some other countries.
We may need to particularize rather than generalize and realize that there are numerous conditions that go into instigating and maintaining strife. We may also need to define strife and realize that distinction must be drawn between active and passive strife. Whilst Friedman's thesis may be correct in the literal sense in that active war may have reduced itself, there are still huge pockets of passive alienation and suspicion in large parts of the world and these only increase as the West (particularly America) becomes more aggressive in its money-making matters and in its expansion. This has been evidenced with the recent worldwide financial crisis where distrust to and between specific countries deepened and where each nation draw closer upon itself to ensure its particular survival. Even with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, there is still a ribbon of strife all along the perimeters of the old USSSR.

To summarize therefore, there are aspects of Friedman's Dell Theory of Conflict Prevention that do resonate but Druicker seems to be more correct for the reasons given in this essay.

Sources

Friedman, TL. The world is flat, Farrar et al., NY, 2006.

Duicker, WJ. The Essential World History, Spielvogel 2007