- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Since the end of the Cold War, America's national security establishment has been searching for a new operating theory to explain how this seemingly "chaotic" world actually works. Gone is the clash of blocs, but replaced by what?
Thomas Barnett has the answers. A senior military analyst with the U.S. Naval War College, he has given a constant stream of briefings over the past few years, and particularly since 9/11, to the highest of high-level civilian and military ...
Since the end of the Cold War, America's national security establishment has been searching for a new operating theory to explain how this seemingly "chaotic" world actually works. Gone is the clash of blocs, but replaced by what?
Thomas Barnett has the answers. A senior military analyst with the U.S. Naval War College, he has given a constant stream of briefings over the past few years, and particularly since 9/11, to the highest of high-level civilian and military policymakers-and now he gives it to you. The Pentagon's New Map is a cutting-edge approach to globalization that combines security, economic, political, and cultural factors to do no less than predict and explain the nature of war and peace in the twenty-first century.
Building on the works of Friedman, Huntington, and Fukuyama, and then taking a leap beyond, Barnett crystallizes recent American military history and strategy, sets the parameters for where our forces will likely be headed in the future, outlines the unique role that America can and will play in establishing international stability-and provides much-needed hope at a crucial yet uncertain time in world history.
For anyone seeking to understand the Iraqs, Afghanistans, and Liberias of the present and future, the intimate new links between foreign policy and national security, and the operational realities of the world as it exists today, The Pentagon's New Map is a template, a Rosetta stone. Agree with it, disagree with it, argue with it-there is no book more essential for 2004 and beyond.
WHEN THE COLD WAR ENDED, we thought the world had changed. It had-but not in the way we thought.
When the Cold War ended, our real challenge began.
The United States had spent so much energy during those years trying to prevent the horror of global war that it forgot the dream of global peace. As far as most Pentagon strategists were concerned, America's status as the world's sole military superpower was something to preserve, not something to exploit, and because the future was unknowable, they assumed we needed to hedge against all possibilities, all threats, and all futures. America was better served adopting a wait-and-see strategy, they decided, one that assumed some grand enemy would arise in the distant future. It was better than wasting precious resources trying to manage a messy world in the near term. The grand strategy ... was to avoid grand strategies.
I know that sounds incredible, because most people assume there are all sorts of "master plans" being pursued throughout the U.S. Government. But, amazingly, we are still searching for a vision to replace the decades-long containment strategy that America pursued to counter the Soviet threat. Until September 11, 2001, the closest thing the Pentagon had to a comprehensive view of the world was simply to call it "chaos" and "uncertainty," two words that implied the impossibility of capturing a big-picture perspective of the world's potential futures. Since September 11, at least we have an enemy to attach to all this "chaos" and "uncertainty," but that still leaves us describing horrible futures to be prevented, not positive ones to be created.
Today the role of the Defense Department in U.S. national security is being radically reshaped by new missions arising in response to a new international security environment. It is tempting to view this radical redefinition of the use of U.S. military power around the world as merely the work of senior officials in the Bush Administration, but that is to confuse the midwife with the miracle of birth. This Administration is only doing what any other administration would eventually have had to do: recast America's national security strategy from its Cold War, balance-of-power mind-set to one that reflects the new strategic environment. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 simply revealed the yawning gap between the military we built to win the Cold War and the different one we need to build in order to secure globalization's ultimate goal-the end of war as we know it.
America stands at the peak of a world historical arc that marks globalization's tipping point. When we chose to resurrect the global economy following the end of World War II, our ambitions were at first quite limited: we sought to rebuild globalization on only three key pillars-North America, Western Europe, and Japan. After the Cold War moved beyond nuclear brinkmanship to peaceful coexistence, we saw that global economy begin to expand across the 1980s to include the so-called emerging markets of South America and Developing Asia. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, we had a sense that a new world order actually was in the making, although we lacked both the words and the vision to enunciate what could be meant by that phrase, other than that the East-West divide no longer seemed to matter. Instead of identifying new rule sets in security, we chose to recognize the complete lack of one, and therefore, as regional security issues arose in the post-Cold War era, America responded without any global principles to guide its choices. Sometimes we felt others' pain and responded, sometimes we simply ignored it.
America could behave in this fashion because the boom times of the new economy suggested that security issues could take a backseat to the enormous changes being inflicted by the Information Revolution. If we were looking for a new operating theory of the world, surely this was it. Connectivity would trump all, erasing the business cycle, erasing national borders, erasing the very utility of the state in managing a global security order that seemed more virtual than real. What was the great global danger as the new millennium approached? It was a software bug that might bring down the global information grid. What role did the Pentagon play in this first-ever, absolutely worldwide security event-this defining moment of the postindustrial age? Virtually none.
So America drifted through the roaring nineties, blissfully unaware that globalization was speeding ahead with no one at the wheel. The Clinton Administration spent its time tending to the emerging financial and technological architecture of the global economy, pushing worldwide connectivity for all it was worth in those heady days, assuming that eventually it would reach even the most disconnected societies. Did we as a nation truly understand the political and security ramifications of encouraging all this connectivity? Could we understand how some people might view this process of cultural assimilation as a mortal threat? As something worth fighting against? Was a clash of civilizations inevitable?
Amazingly, the U.S. military engaged in more crisis-response activity around the world in the 1990s than in any previous decade of the Cold War, yet no national vision arose to explain our expanding role. Globalization seemed to be remaking the world, but meanwhile the U.S. military seemed to be doing nothing more than babysitting chronic security situations on the margin. Inside the Pentagon, these crisis responses were exclusively filed under the new rubric "military operations other than war," as if to signify their lack of strategic meaning. The Defense Department spent the 1990s ignoring its own workload, preferring to plot out its future transformation for future wars against future opponents. America was not a global cop, but at best a global fireman pointing his hose at whichever blaze seemed most eye-catching at the moment. We were not trying to make the world safe for anything; we just worked to keep these nasty little blazes under control. America was hurtling forward without looking forward. In nautical terms, we were steering by our wake.
Yet a pattern did emerge with each American crisis response in the 1990s. These deployments turned out to be overwhelmingly concentrated in the regions of the world that were effectively excluded from globalization's Functioning Core-namely, the Caribbean Rim, Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and much of Southeast Asia. These regions constitute globalization's "ozone hole," or what I call its Non-Integrating Gap, where connectivity remains thin or absent. Simply put, if a country was losing out to globalization or rejecting much of its cultural content flows, there was a far greater chance that the United States would end up sending troops there at some point across the 1990s. But because the Pentagon viewed all these situations as "lesser includeds," there was virtually no rebalancing of the U.S. military to reflect the increased load. We knew we needed a greater capacity within the ranks for nation building, peacekeeping, and the like, but instead of beefing up those assets to improve our capacity for managing the world as we found it, the Pentagon spent the nineties buying a far different military-one best suited for a high-tech war against a large, very sophisticated military opponent. In short, our military strategists dreamed of an opponent that would not arise for a war that no longer existed.
That dilemma is at the heart of the work that I have been doing since the end of the Cold War. How do we describe this threat environment? How did we fail to heed all the warning signs leading up to 9/11? How do we prepare for future war? Where will those wars be? How might they be prevented? What should America's role be in both war and peace?
I believe I have found some answers.
Now might be an appropriate time for me to tell you who I am.
I grew up-quite literally-as a child of the sixties, somehow maintaining my midwestern optimism in America's future through the dark eras of Vietnam and Watergate. Captivated by the superpower summitry of the early 1970s, I set my sights on a career in international security studies, believing there I would locate the grand strategic choices of our age. Trained as an expert on the Soviets, only to be abandoned by history, I spent the post-Cold War years forging an eclectic career as a national security analyst, splitting my time between the worlds of Washington think tanks and government service. Though I worked primarily for the U.S. military, my research during these years focused on everything but actual warfare. Instead, I found myself instinctively exploring the seam between war and peace, locating it first in U.S. military crisis responses and then America's foreign aid, and finally focusing on its leading edge-the spread of the global economy itself. What I found there in the late 1990s was neither "chaos" nor "uncertainty" but the defining conflict of our age-a historical struggle that screamed out for a new American vision of a future worth creating.
And so I began a multiyear search for such a grand strategy, one that would capture the governing dynamics of this new era. Working as a senior strategic researcher at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, I first led a long research project on the Year 2000 Problem and its potential for generating global crises-or "system perturbations," as I called them. Early in the year 2000, I was approached by senior executives of the Wall Street bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald. They asked me to oversee a unique research partnership between the firm and the college that would later yield a series of high-powered war games involving national security policymakers, Wall Street heavyweights, and academic experts. Our shared goal was to explore how globalization was remaking the global security environment-in other words, the Pentagon's new map.
Those war games were conducted atop World Trade Center One; the resulting briefings were offered throughout the Pentagon. When both buildings came under attack on 9/11, my research immediately shifted from grand theory to grand strategy. Within weeks, I found myself elevated to the position of Assistant for Strategic Futures in the Office of Force Transformation, a new planning element created within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Our task was as ambitious as it was direct: refocus the Pentagon's strategic vision of future war. As the "vision guy," my job was to generate and deliver a compelling brief that would mobilize the Defense Department toward generating the future fighting force demanded by the post-9/11 strategic environment. Over the next two years I gave that brief well over a hundred times to several thousand Defense Department officials. Through this intense give-and-take, my material grew far beyond my original inputs to include the insider logic driving all of the major policy decisions promulgated by the department's senior leadership. Over time, senior military officials began citing the brief as a Rosetta stone for the Bush Administration's new national security strategy.
But the brief was not a partisan document, and the Defense Department was not the only audience hungry for this strategic vision. Within months, I was fielding requests from the National Security Council, Congress, the Department of State, and the Department of Homeland Security. When Esquire magazine named me one of their "best and brightest" thinkers in December 2002, I began getting more requests, this time to brief in the private sector, concentrating in the field of finance and information technology. After I then published an article in the March 2003 issue of Esquire, called "The Pentagon's New Map," which summarized the strategic thrust of the brief, invitations from both the public and private sectors skyrocketed. The article was republished many times over in Europe and Asia, and e-mailed to generals and diplomats and policymakers worldwide, and when I found myself in London one fall evening speaking in the House of Commons, I knew the material's appeal had vastly outgrown my ability to deliver it on a room-by-room basis.
Thanks to this book, I am finally able to deliver the brief to you.
I was once asked by a visiting delegation of security officials from Singapore how my vision of future war differs from traditional Pentagon perspectives. My answer was, "Pentagon strategists typically view war within the context of war. I view war within the context of everything else." This book will be mostly about the "everything else" associated with war in the twenty-first century, or that essential connectivity between war and peace that defines globalization's advance.
This vision constitutes a seismic shift in how we think of the military's place in American society, in how our military functions in the world, and in how we think of America's relationship to the world. All such "contracts" are currently being renegotiated, whether we realize it or not. As citizens of this American union, we all need to understand better the stakes at hand, for it is not the danger just ahead that we underestimate, but the opportunity that lies beyond-the opportunity to make globalization truly global.
This book will describe that future worth creating. It will explain why America is the linchpin to the entire process, not because of its unparalleled capacity to wage war but because of its unique capacity to export security around the planet. It will provide a way to understand not only what is happening now, but also what will happen in matters of war and peace across this century. It will explain where and why conflicts will arise, and how we can prevent them. It will explain why this new strategy of preemption and this new global war on terrorism must be subordinated to the larger goal of spreading economic globalization around the planet. My purpose here must be clear from the outset: I am proposing a new grand strategy on a par with the Cold War strategy of containment-in effect, its historical successor. I seek to provide a new language, or a new context within which to explain strategic choices that America now faces. By design, it will be a language of promise and hope, not danger and fear. Some will interpret this as naïveté, others as unbridled ambition. I choose to see it as a moral responsibility-a duty to leave our children a better world.
Thanks to 9/11 and the two wars it has so far spawned, Americans now understand that there is no other great power like the United States. Instead, we begin to see the world for what it truly is: divided into societies that are actively integrating themselves into globalization's Functioning Core and those that remain trapped in its Non-Integrating Gap-that is, largely disconnected from the global economy and the rule sets that define its stability.
Excerpted from The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas P. M. Barnett Copyright © 2005 by Thomas P. M. Barnett. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
The Pentagon's New Map Preface: An Operating Theory of the World
1. New Rule Sets
Playing Jack Ryan
New Rules for a New Era
Present at the Creation
A Future Worth Creating
2. The Rise of the "Lesser Includeds"
The Manthorpe Curve
The Fracturing of the Security Market
The Rise of Asymmetrical Warfare
How 9/11 Saved the Pentagon from Itself
3. Disconnectedness Defines Danger
How I Learned to Think Horizontally
Mapping Globalization's Frontier
Minding the Gap
To Live and Die in the Gap
Different Worlds, Different Rule Sets
Why I Hate the "Arc of Instability"
4. The Core and the Gap
The Military-Market Link
The Flow of People, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Population Bomb
The Flow of Energy, or Whose Blood for Whose Oil?
The Flow of Money, or Why We Won't Be Going to War with China
The Flow of Security, or How America Must Keep Globalization in Balance
5. The New Ordering Principle
Overtaken by Events
The Rise of System Perturbations
The Greater Inclusive
The Big Bang as Strategy
6. The Global Transaction Strategy
You're Ruining My Military!
The Essential Transaction
The System Administrator
The American Way of War
7. The Myths We Make (I Will Now Dispel)
The Myth of Global Chaos
The Myth of America as Globocop
The Myth of American Empire
8. Hope without Guarantees
Barnes & Noble.com: What is the main theme among the many addressed in your book?
Thomas P. M. Barnett: I specialize in thinking about war -- the seam, so to speak, between war and peace. The shorthand I use for everything else is globalization. Globalization is an all-encompassing compass, if you will. It is why the factory shuts down, why you go back for another degree at 45, why you switch jobs. America must wage a war on terrorism, but if there is a great criticism of this administration and America in general right now, it is that we are waging this war on terrorism without understanding the larger context of everything else. I wanted to write the book because unless we explain it so that it is understood, people on one side are going to shout "Empire" and on the other side are going to shout, "You're not defending America." Neither of those positions gets near to discussing the task at hand or what we need to achieve. The idea of empire is a caricature. If we want to get terrorism to go away, we need to connect the disconnected -- to make them a part of globalization.
B&N.com: What is the meaning of "Map" in the context of your title?
TB: I mean it both figuratively and literally, in a sense. The military uses the term because it likes to view information in a visual fashion. It's just like the original warriors of ancient times who drew plans with sticks in the dirt. Maps are vital for the military. "The Pentagon's New Map" is the new map of globalism. And on this map, where globalization has not spread, there has been violence.
B&N.com: Globalization is a key theme in your book. Please elaborate on it.
TB: What we need to do with the globalization map, so to speak, is to identify the big sources of violence, position ourselves around them, and shrink them over time. We are the only ones who can go somewhere and do things and help. Through our power, military and economic, we can establish stability. We are not interested in empire. When we export security to places that lack it, we do not seek to extend our rule.
Globalization does not come with a ruler -- it comes with rule. We extend rules, not our rule. The map I am talking about is a new map for the globalization for the new century. It is a new understanding of how nations come together. It is not the old balance of power that existed in the 19th century. It's different.
B&N.com: You spend a lot of time distinguishing between those countries and their people that are part of globalization and those that are outside of it. You relate that to the idea of the map, too, don't you?
TB: Yes, the map also has that feeling of a road map. The key question that doesn't get asked enough concerns the makeup of that global map. Where is it leading? The new map says that two-thirds of humanity is in what I like to call "the club." One-third is not. In the end, what shrinks this vital gap is money and investment. That's how we got China on board.
B&N.com: How did 9/11 change the basic defense posture of the United States?
TB: Since we created the Department of Defense in 1947, we have prepared for a war with a great power. But 9/11 transformed all that. We had to go to high-tech and completely alter the way we looked at things. We learned that traditional definitions of war do not exist anymore. We are a military made to fight other militaries, but the fact is there is no one left to fight on a scale like ours. Now the grand historical struggle is between those are willing to integrate into the new global economy and those who are not. What we had driven home to us on 9/11 is that groups like al-Qaeda want to hijack societies like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and disconnect them from the future. There is pain in what I call the integration process of these societies outside the globalized world.
B&N.com: You point out that, surprisingly, only a very small portion of the oil that America consumes comes from the Persian Gulf. Where does the Persian Gulf oil go?
TB: Only 40 percent of our energy is oil and only half of our oil comes from abroad. Only one-fifth of what we import is from the Persian Gulf. So, the oil we import from the Persian Gulf is only in the single digits. What people need to know is that the Persian Gulf provides oil for the global economy. We get most of our imported oil from Mexico, Canada, Venezuela, West Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Chad, and the North Sea. The important thing is that global energy markets have regionalized. Remember, OPEC includes Mexico and Venezuela. It is important to realize that Persian Gulf oil -- 60 percent of it -- goes to developing Asia. Those countries are overwhelming consumers of oil and Persian Gulf oil.
B&N.com: You write about the flow of oil as being central to your theory of the new kind of war and globalization. Could you elaborate on that?
TB: Remember, the key thing is that oil has to flow, investment has to flow, people have to flow, and security has to flow. Again, to emphasize that theme, war falls within that context of everything else. There are the four great flows, so to speak, that define globalization's ability to expand: They are the flow of energy, the flow of people, the flow of investment, and the flow of security. Without security, energy won't move, people won't move, money won't move. So the notion that if America pulls back its military from the world, this will somehow lead to less conflict and more stability is wrong.
Security that American military strength provides is as important as any of those other flows. If you remove that security, you will feed the disruption of the flow of people, investment, and energy. Walls will go up and globalization can be killed. That is one thing that the American public does not understand. Our export of security is one thing -- it does not mean exporting arms. It means paying attention to mass violence around the world. The Department of Defense is the world's largest consulting force. It goes to where the "client," so to speak, lives. The American public only wants to hear about the exit strategy. But "the boys" are not coming home until we make globalization truly global. People don't want to hear about that long-term effort.
B&N.com: The last few years have been so harrowing. Are you optimistic or pessimistic?
TB: I am optimistic about the future. But I don't see how you can expect other people to sacrifice or put trust in government unless you are telling them a happy ending. The failure of the Bush administration is not the action or the deeds but the words that are failing. And we need more out of a Democratic contender than to blame a Bush administration. Bush needs to define a happy ending, and he needs to define a finish line in the war on terrorism. Yes, we are all against empire, but what we need to know what he is for.
People might say a "happy ending" is naive, but there is enough in the book for me to show that I am not "a wooly-headed peacenik." I come from the world of national security -- I work at the Naval War College -- I can say that there is a happy ending if you have the courage to recognize the path that lies before us and the tremendous opportunity that lies beyond. The society is on the verge of eliminating war as we know it. That is what the book seeks to describe.
Posted July 14, 2009
Barnett paints a hopeful, rosy picture of the future, if the gap (the third world) can absorbed into the core (the modern world). Barnett proposes this will occur through continued globalization. Barnett is a self-proclaimed liberal, having said that he voted for Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, but has unchallengeable military strategy credentials; having served as an analyst in Navy think tanks, and currently as a professor at a US War College. He describes 4 flows: immigration/labor, finance, technology/information, and security. The United States biggest export is security. Without security, the core will not provide the gap with investment, finance, and technology that it will need to connect to the core. The Pentagon can act as a force to topple the leadership of rogue regimes such as was done in Iraq and Afghanistan, and proposes should be done in North Korea, Iran, and several African nations. Barnett persuasively argues that toppling the Hussein regime in Iraq will speed Iraq's connection to the core. A successfully core integrated Iraq may influence the fall of the mullahs in Iran. Barnett sees China not as America's next big confrontation, but as a core state and partner that obeys the rule set of the global core. It Barnett's thesis that economically connected core states do not go to war with one another. In the overview, this thesis is true, but Barnett ignores the duality of China that can trade globally but repress its own ethnic minorities with great violence towards Tibetans, Uighurs, religions, and students on Tiananmen Square. Barnett worries about the cohesiveness of China and says the US must support the stability of the repressive Chinese Government. In the final chapters of the book Barnett predicts the future of the United States will involve more free trade pacts with North and South America and Asia. He predicts in 50 years time that the US will expand beyond its 50 state Union to include many others state including Mexico and Canada. He predicts that a President may be elected who was born in one of these annexed states; most probably Mexico. In this prediction, Barnett ignores the cultural differences that divide Spanish speaking Mexico and the predominantly English speaking US. The fairly peaceful Canada has divisions and separatist elements between its English and French speaking provinces. Barnett ignores that even the US territory of Puerto Rico has its own separatist elements that prevent it from fully integrating into the Union.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 22, 2006
El libro esta escrito para tener mucha pasiencia y entender como funcionan las ideas generales del ejercito de los Estados Unidos. Sin embargo le faltan ejemplos mas sencillos para el lector menos sofisticado. El libro hace referencias a veces desconocidas al lector si este no esta familiarizado con el lenguaje de los militares. Seria de mucha ayuda el incorporar mapas geograficos de verdad para entender mejor su teoria de la globalizacion. De todas maneras recomiendo a quien tenga la pasiencia de leer este extraordinario libro y a este extraordinario intelectual.
0 out of 1 people found this review helpful.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted May 7, 2006
Barnett does an admirable job taking us through the transformation of thinking at the Pentagon that allowed military leadership to adjust from a Cold War perspective to one that can deal with the threats of the day. His text, while somewhat free flowing, contains historical facts, personal anecdotes, and a view from the inner ring of U.S. military power--though some of this time was as a contractor. An interesting read but, in good Navy flag tradition, Barnett must like to hear himself talk because he often takes the winding road when the direct path would suffice.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted July 11, 2005
Thomas Barnett stresses that we have not yet found an alternative to the containment strategy that allowed us to win the cold war (pp. 1, 30, 40-41, 80, 117, 171, 189-190, 341). The cold war¿s raison d¿être was to discredit Communism though the spread of globalization under our leadership after WWII (pp. 31, 296). We considered the further spread of globalization in the decade following the end of the cold war in Europe our peace dividend (pp. 31, 33). We deployed our military overwhelmingly in the Non-Integrating Gap to put out fires in this decade (pp. 23, 81, 145). At the same time, the Pentagon was bracing itself for the confrontation with an emerging Big One (read China) (pp. 3¿4, 62-63, 91, 101, 108, 274, 317, 381). Barnett makes an interesting link between the 1990s and the Roaring 20s by stressing that both periods were just a little too good to be true (pp. 27, 31, 157, 309). Barnett wrongly dismisses the threat of a potentially aggressive Big One completely under the pretext that the globalization process is on the march (pp. 4, 62-70, 149, 172, 229, 302, 339). First, China and Russia remain a source of concern to the Integrating Old Core because they have not yet fully embraced the tenets of Liberalism (pp. 54, 113, 121, 130, 225-26, 241-42, 263). Furthermore, the Modern State aims to be as efficient as possible to wage war when the opportunity arises to maximize its chance of survival and prosperity. Finally, the current liberal hegemony cannot be taken for granted because of the presence of nihilist forces who do not offer any workable alternative to Liberalism. Barnett reasonably claims that 9/11 was a blessing in disguise, even if it was well hidden (pp. 34, 96-106, 282-83). We cannot rest on our laurels in spreading globalization (pp. 50, 82, 105, 298, 307). Barnett rightly recognizes that we have not been very successful in selling our new security rule set (preemption strategy, global war on terrorism, etc.) as a policy by which the New and Old Functioning Core is trying to expand its stable security rule set into the Disconnected Gap (pp. 31, 40, 46, 52-55, 143, 167, 171-76, 231, 278, 294, 335-36, 354-57, 363-64). Barnett correctly observes that the enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (the Middle East), but a condition (disconnectedness) (pp. 49, 54-58, 83, 122-137, 161-66, 177, 187, 205, 239, 288). Barnett also stresses that we are increasingly dealing with individuals, not states, behind mass violence while our traditional economic power and competition are progressively moving from the state to the system (pp. 85-88, 93, 261, 271-72). Barnett is not always consistent when he generally states that transnational terrorism and poverty could be eliminated totally one day by closing the gap (pp. 40, 53, 110, 158-60, 178, 193, 291). Terrorism and poverty can be at best reduced to a marginal phenomenon because miscalculation is in the human DNA (pp. 225, 333, 347-48, 353-54). Our apparently piecemeal approach to our lofty war against terrorism and poverty is haunting us for several reasons: 1) We are not leveraging enough the financial/technical help we provide to non-democratic regimes, especially in the Middle East, to drive security, economic and political changes for the better (pp. 184, 186, 218, 283-87). 2) Unsurprisingly, some local populations perceive us as being the close collaborators of their undemocratic and unaccountable governments (pp. 185, 187, 216-17, 238, 293). 3) We are too often isolating instead of engaging rogue states such as Iran, Syria and North Korea without showing any significant results for our pains (pp. 83, 171-73, 330). We won the cold war because we not only contained but also engaged the former Soviet Union to drive changes for the better. 4) We are sometimes generating much bad blood even among some of our closest allies (pp. 143, 177, 243, 291). For example, the states next to the rogue regimes are not in a hurry to hoWas this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted July 8, 2005
I originally read Mr. Barnett's article in Esquire magazine a couple of years ago and was amazed at the amount of important information he attempted to squeeze into a magazine article. Apparently I wasn't the only one impressed and left wanting more. It is less a thesis on military strategy and focuses more on how the military should function in an increasingly connected world. Surprisingly fun to read.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted September 14, 2004
Whichever side of the political fence you fancy, you need to read this title. It will clear up many of the questions you might have around what our government's policy is regarding global security. After reading this, when you hear the term, 'War on Terror', you will know exactly what is meant, what we are doing to win and what all it will take to get there. It is encouraging to see the government doing many of these things over the last 3 years! In a nutshell, his thesis states that by expanding globalization (trade, human capital, accountable governance) and the strategic use of US military supremacy against rouge regimes, the US will help 'non-integrating states' enter into the 'functional core' of globalization, bringing more peace and prosperity across the globe. These new rule sets and the dynamics between the specific actors are laid our in a well-researched, visionary manner. The most interesting thing about this book is that when you are done reading it, not only will you better understand the state of world affairs but will actually be able to wrap your mind around the idea that the US is not only on the right track, but is making substantial progress in this long, hard and costly struggle we were forced to undertake as a result of 9/11.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted September 11, 2004
Watching him speak on c-span recently had me on the edge of my seat just trying to keep up with his fast paced and creative reevaluation of both our world today, it's gnawing econoimc and social gaps, and his vision of how we are going to get from here to tomorrow...this is a must read to fully comprehend the high speed paradigm shift detailed in his presentation. His is a presentation that is being carefully evaluated at the highest levels of our government, military planners and boardrooms across America. This book is quite posssibly as insightful as A.Toffler's Future Shock was twenty five years ago.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 9, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
Posted May 15, 2009
No text was provided for this review.