The Pentagon's New Map

Rating:
Summary: The Author Should Visit the Real World
Review: I'm having trouble finishing this book. And I probably won't. The author goes on ad nauseum about how the U.S. can change the world for the better if only the senior people in the Pentagon and the armed services would agree to transform the military so it can deal with globalization and "everything else". As an American who lives in Indonesia, I have news for Mr. Barnett. The PEOPLE in the "gap" matter. And unfortunately for America, the people in these countries today are not inclined to follow American leadership regardless of how much security we wish to "export". Case in point. The Indonesians, thanks mainly to the Iraq invasion, no longer admire the United States. I live here. I feel it. The U.S. Navy provided a tremendous response to the crisis in Aceh. Rather than hearing expressions of gratitude for performing as Mr. Barnett indicates our military should (in the gap), a typical Indonesian commentary is that it is all an American conspiracy to control the Malacca Straits. Go Figure! There is just too much hostility to overcome today in the "disconnected" regions for Mr. Barnett's theories to see the light of day. I give him two stars for his optimism. And no stars for his knowledge of the people and how their sentiments toward America and Americans rip his feel-good theories apart.

Rating:
Summary: A 21st Century Marshall Plan
Review: In "The Pentagon's New Map", Thomas Barnett presents a revolutionary new doctrine for foreign policy, which, if adopted, would be as dramatic a shift in America's international role as the Monroe Doctrine or the Marshall Plan. Briefly stated, the United States military should make the integration of developing countries into the world system its highest strategic priority.

Barnett employs a mild bait and switch tactic to get to his main point. The bait is a map of the world with a compelling new feature: a closed loop around the portion of the world that produces almost all of the world's instability. The loop surrounds the Middle East, the Balkans, Central Africa, Southeast Asia and the Andean region. This area is called the 'Non-Integrating Gap' (or just 'Gap'), and the rest of the world is called the "Integrating Core" (or just 'Core'). These terms reflect the basic difference between these two regions-the Core is connected politically, economically and militarily, whereas the Gap is disconnected in all of these ways. The map's validity is reinforced by plotting all US military interventions since the end of the Cold War. Of course, almost all fall within the Gap.

But the main thrust of Barnett's argument-the switch-is the idea that the military must stop fighting wars "within the context of war" and begin fighting wars "within the context of everything else"; that is, in the context of civilian life. Barnett does well the make this phrase awkward; if it were easier to say, demagogues would tear it apart as a new incarnation of "nation building". "War in the context of everything else" is actually more ambitious than nation building. It basically requires dividing the military into two distinct parts. Army #1 would be the traditional force, made up of a few large, expensive pieces of super high-tech equipment, similar to our current force. In a war, it would go in first, guns a-blazing, and kill most of the bad guys, along with a few others. Army #2 would look like a hybrid of the Coast Guard and the Peace Corps on steroids. It would employ a large number of small, inexpensive pieces (e.g. lots of ships resembling Coast Guard cutters), as well as police forces and other civilian-style personnel units. It would follow Army #1, and basically show those bush league natives how it's done in the Show.

The truly revolutionary nature of this doctrine is summed up when Barnett states, "There is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it." This means WE CAN NEVER LEAVE, until countries develop economically and politically. Exit strategies have gone the way of the Dodo.

And what's the rationale for all this? What's the reason Barnett gives to take a perfectly good military and chop it in two? Surely the reason must be global terrorism, right?

WRONG!!!

Barnett's reasoning instead subordinates war to market forces. He presents four crucial entities whose flow dominates the current process of Globalization: security, people, energy, and investment.

Security: In Barnett's scheme, the U.S. military is merely the most important exporter of security based upon global demand for its services. Indeed, considered on a global scale, the U.S. military is the only viable exporter of these services. Everything else depends on America's global security guarantee.

People: The population in the Core is aging rapidly, meaning that Core countries will require a huge influx of younger people to maintain enough of a workforce to keep pension systems afloat. These young people will all come from Gap countries, but this emigration will be politically unpalatable unless security is assured.

Energy: China and India are growing at phenomenal rates economically. They will consume huge amounts of Mideast oil and gas, possibly becoming more dependent on them than the United States. I need not mention how essential security is in this regard.

Investment: Gap countries will require a safe business environment if they are to attract the immense amount of capital required to raise living standards. Improved living standards are, of course, the only true guarantor of long-term security.

And what if we don't do what Barnett says? In 2050, Grandma won't be able to afford the gas required to go pick up her medicines, which is just as well, since the bankrupt Medicare system won't be able to pay for them. This assumes that she is lucky enough to have a doctor when there are only a few workers for every pensioner. Meanwhile, a perfectly well trained doctor in Gappistan will not be able to emigrate to the U.S. because Gappistan is a disease ridden, terrorist infested dump. He will, of course, be unemployed, since Gappistan lacks the capital to build hospitals.

What if we do follow Barnett's prescriptions? I wasn't so clear on that, but strains of "We are the World" spontaneously come to mind. Everyone loves each other, all Grandmas are properly taken care of by (formerly) third world doctors, and the Gap is criss-crossed with shimmering lanes of well-trafficked concrete. The only costs are perpetual low-grade war, and thousands of U.S. troops permanently scattered across Africa, Central Asia and the Andes.

I can't wait.

Rating:
Summary: Connects the Dots
Review: In the flood of sound bites, war drama and daily tragedy, this book provides a most helpful context to view the big picture for the war on terror. I was struggling and searching for linkage of the major polictical and military moves since 9/11, amid all of the varied opinions that make it to the headlines. This is it. It provides a valuable way to measure the success of our efforts in world security, homeland security and our performance as the only major superpower in the world. Thanks for the vision. Clarity really does help calm the mind.

Rating:
Summary: Has GWB read this book?
Review: It seems like the rhetoric from GW Bush has certainly fallen in line behind the thinking of this book. Gone is the talk of "bring em on" to be replaced with talk of the march of freedom, and calls for Russia to continue on the path of liberalization (with the carrot of WTO membership dangling). Personally, I hope so!

The notion of a future worth creating has been almost completely absent in the 1st Bush term. The war on Iraq was sold as a sinkhole of effort on a nation full of people who could do nothing for themselves. I know that sounds harsh but that is essentially how they sold it. What Barnett does is help put this effort in a context that makes sense in terms of a future worth creating. Barnett, for me, took the word globalism from an evil word to a positive one in the course of one book. That is powerful writing.

If you asked me about the optimal economic system I may not argue it is one dominated by corporations. However, I'm forced to admit that where globalism spreads, people stop starving and killing each other (on a mass scale anyway). Globalism is not the end of the road but it certainly does appear to be the optimal intermediary step and Barnett makes a strong case for it. Of course he does not look beyond globalism and perhaps that it just a bit too much to ask from one book.

Rating:
Summary: One of the few books that has ever caused me to change
Review: Like many of you, I have essentially abandoned literature the last three years and have done nothing but read Nial Fergueson, Thomas Friedman, Michael Scheur, Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington, etc., and of all those brilliant works I have read, this one has caused me the most internal strife. This is the only book that has truly caused me to question my extraordinary opposition to the war in Iraq, although this book has done little to sanction my incessant Bush Bashing.

What I found most enjoyable in this book is Barnett's overwhelming optimism, which initially struck me as naivete, but which by the end of the book caused me to reconsider my view of America's role in the world. Dr. Barnett's basic thesis is that the United States is the source code for globalization and that it is our moral duty to finish what we started. We saved the world from Nazi and Japanese terror, stood off the Soviets in the Cold War, and have basically ended State on State Conflict in the process. He does not see a resurgent Russia, a threat from China, or the EU challenging the United States. His view is that the new role of the US military is to basically spread globalization and the American way throughout the world. Now, he does not postulate a need for invading one country after another; military intervention is a last resort when a Non-Integrated Country (Failed State) refuses to abide by the new rule sets of the 21st century, which are still obviously evolving.

What I found most thought provoking is this. Let's say we do not continue to "police" the world. Let's say we retreat and allow the Non-Integrated Gap to go on its merry way. What will happen? Probably more of the same - Iran v. Iraq, Iraq v. Kuwait, various Middle Eastern Countries v. Israel, India v. Pakistan, Yugoslavia v. Yugoslavia, an ever-quickening spread of terror. Not hard to imagine, is it? If other countries know that we will do nothing if they break the international rule sets, then guess what? That is what they will do.

However, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq make clear to non-rule abiding states that if they transgress the international rule sets, then they will pay mightily and they may pay the ultimate price - invasion by us. Our global presence very much helps to keep the world in line and instead of just keeping the world in line, we need to do everything we can to integrate as many countries and as many people as possible. What country can you think of that has ever completely rejected US-led globalization once it has established firm roots? Been to France lately - the home of haute cuisine is inundated with fast food joints. Why? Because the young people like it. What are the most popular (NOT the best) movies in the world - Hollywood flicks. Why? Because people like them. If we can expose people to what Americans have created (an amazingly free and good life that I pray Bush does not steal via the Patriot Act and the infusion of radical Christianity into the government) then the world will not just become safer for America, it will become safer for everybody because everybody will become interconnected.

Where many people come to disagree with Barnett (especially veterans) is his idea that the US military branches no longer need to focus on fighting one big enemy (one peer war) because there is no one country out there that poses any sort of threat to us in a convential military sense. What threatens us are rogue states, nuclear proliferation, and international terror. If we mold our military to meet those threats, even further expand trade and contacts with the non-integrated countries, and judiciously use our military when countries or terror groups refuse to play by the rules that most of the civilized world (including China) plays by, then we may truly be in a position to expand stability throughout the world, making us AND them safer.

The only problem with all of the above is the execution. How do you do it? I know the way you do not do it is by lying to the American people, lying to the world, and bulldogging your way into another country's capital. When that happens, you lose credibility and when you lose credibility, other countries will resist anything and everything you try to do, even when well-intentioned. That is why I believe the next 3 years will be among the most important years of this generation. If we fail in Iraq and/or we make other missteps based on complete crap (you know, the way Bush sold us the Iraq war), then all will be lost and I will be forced to move to isolate myself in Reykjavik, doing nothing but bathing in hot thermal baths with beautiful blonde women and drinking lots of vodka, all the while Bush-bashing in pig-Icelandic.



Rating:
Summary: Article mentioned within just as good as book. You decide
Review: Rumsfeld's Pentagon sees in our world an "Arc of Instability" which runs from the carribean, Mid East, South Asia, and North Korea. Mr. Barnett argues in this book that such a view is too myopic. He agress with President Bush in that the pathway to global security begins in the Persian Gulf, but adds that it must travel elsewhere---not just along the "Arc of Instability"---but throughout that part of our globe that can be characterized as part of the non-integrating GAP. The world in his view can be split in two: countries that are part of the functioning CORE, that are integrating into the world economy---USA, EU, Japan, China, India, Brazil, Russia, et al.; and counties that are not functioning, that are not truely part of the world's economic system---ie., The Middle East, Africa (except South Africa), Central Asia, Columbia, Peru, Burma, et al. "What America really needs to do," the author concludes "is understand we are in a race with history, connecting the disconnected before globalization's spread grinds to a halt, which would ensure no escape from the GAP for hundreds of millions and thus provide the forces of disconnectedness with a captive population." Making all these countries in the GAP democracies is not his argument, however. Rather America needs to export security to these countries, giving to states so afflicted something America has in abundance---"A belief in the future," by reconnecting these states to the world economy. With security no longer an issue, resulting economic development in such states (largely from the private sector, driven by foreign direct investment flows) will gradually result in increased liberties---and hopefully lead to democratic evolution; or so the author believes. "Did we win the Cold War," Barnett asks "just to hang back and let the world run itself? Wasn't that the same bold choice we made after World War 1?" Akin to the post-World War 2 era, in contradistinction, what America needs to do now, according to Mr. Barnett, is re-set the rule book once again, now that large power, state-on-state warfare is becoming a thing of the past. How is this to be accomplished? Mr. Barnett offers the following prescription: Divide the roles of the Pentagon into a go-it-alone if necessary, "Big stick" force & a world-system administrator force skilled in peacekeeping and allied coordination; Encourage creation of more alliances throughout CORE countries & create an alliance in Asia around U.S.-India cooperation; Modernize the UN Security Council; Revamp the U.S. State Department to allow it to have a strategic vision; Continue to sign bi-lateral free-trade agreements & regional free-trade agreements while working toward global free-trade agreements---anything & everything, in short, to make countries more connected to one another and the world system itself. In this manner "The Good Life" we in the CORE enjoy can best be preserved, and expanded upon for the future, the author argues. So, is this book worth reading then, or not? I'm going to let you decide that, actually, by letting you in on something. This book grew out of an article the author wrote for Esquire magazine which basically gives the rough case that he has fleshed out rather thoroughly in this work. So I suggest you read the article first (websearch: March 2003 esquire thomas barnett for the article) and then make your decision whether or not to give this book some of your time. Cheers!

Rating:
Summary: Whatever he assumes is true; whatever others do is a myth
Review: The author is obviously a sharp guy, but he should've paid better attention to an old professor of his (and mine) Richard Pipes. Pipes never assumed away inconvenient facts or scenarios, as Barnett seems to do on every page.

To cite one example, Barnett plainly holds in utter contempt those Pentagon thinkers who believe the PRC will pose a strategic problem for the US. He assumes that an improved standard of living for tens of millions of coastal Chinese will inevitably lead to China's integration into the "Core functional" group of states. But did the fact that the UK and France were Imperial Germany's largest trading partners prevent WWI? And what happens when China's bubble bursts and all those hundreds of millions of poor rural folk get restive? A diversionary war, perhaps? Wouldn't be the first time a failing state tried that tactic. Now, to postulate a threat from the PRC in the medium-to-long term isn't the same as saying the Pentagon should plan solely for a Great Power conflict with China at the expense of attending to other force structure needs. But, in Barnett's world, his in-house rivals at the Puzzle Palace who worry China might move on Taiwan are simply trapped in a Cold War mindset.

Further, Barnett totally ignores the EU. Will it collapse? I think so, but he refrains from comment. If it doesn't, will it ever build a legit military force? Again, no comment. And what about South America? Sure, the larger economies are becoming more integrated into global capital markets. But nationalism is on the upswing, and, frankly, even the healthier economies there aren't doing too well.

Another blithe assumption Barnett makes is that migration from Gap (3rd World) states to Core states is inevitable and the US should just lie back and enjoy it. To that, I say, consult Sam Huntington's latest work.

He's correct on the primacy of the Indo-American relationship. And does bother to address Columbia's problems (albeit briefly).

Overall, though, this tome is unworthy of its author's esteemed credentials. It is little more than simplistic economic determinism coated with a thin veneer of legalistic happy-talk. Barnett often castigates his intellectual opponents in the defense establishment (to whom this book seems to be addressed, and which probably accounts for its snarky, know-it-all tone) as the irredeemable pessimists, but his "trade & modem" elixir will no more cure deep-seated cultural, geographic, religious, nationalistic, and power rivalries than two Tylenol will cure a brain tumor.

Rating:
Summary: A Nasty Book by a Dangerous Ideologue
Review: The book argues that the cultures of 2 billion people living in the "disconnected" societies of what he calls "the Gap" must be fundamentally changed essentially through Americanization. Should these countries not become "globalized" the United States is justified in seeing them as potential sources of terrorist attacks. "In sum, the United States needs to play System Administrator to globalization's continued functioning and advance, periodically waging war across the Gap as its de facto Leviathon" (p. 369). Her sees these wars stretching across generations as the U.S. changes the world through cultural but also military force. The Iraq war is merely first in a long sequence of invasions that Thomas P M Barnett finds fully justified. A nasty book by a dangerous ideologue.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent primer on how policies develop....
Review: This book is a *must-read* for anyone interested in how the US gov't. policies & processes were not ready for the post-Soviet world. If you are a Fed, manager or 'in-the-trenches', this should be required reading to understand that the boxes of bureacracy impede the flexible thinking required by today's world and fast-moving technology.

The style is very readable, almost like you're sitting with Barnett in his office. He has made the process of intelligence & policy-making accessible, and I'm continually amazed how similar my own experiences with government work are to his analyst work. (Basically, if you have something different to say, or have an 'out of the box' solution, you're in for a difficult time.)

Highly recommended!!!

Rating:
Summary: empty and long winded rhetoric
Review: This book is stylistically a miserable failure. Barnett apparently likes big words and grand metaphors, but usually uses them for no particular purpose, other than to sound like a typical DC blowhard at a cocktail party. As for analysis, there's a lot more ink spilled about how many generals wait breathlessly for Mr. Barnett's prescient analyses, rather than any actual analysis. One xample of how miserably idiotic this book is: in his "map" of the the "pentagon's new map," he includes Turkey, Indonesia, Thailand, and Slovakia are part of his "Non-Integrating Gap," those countries which are failed and failing states because they are not integrated into the larger global political economy. Since when do EU and NATO member states count as "non-integrated." Or countries with high levels of trade, foreign investment, and GDP growth? A simplistic book for simpletons.