Is this the best negative review I can get?
Wednesday, May 5, 2004 at 9:23AM Commentary: One of those amazing reviews where the guy agrees with the diagnosis almost completely (save for the bit about a Cold War between us and Islam), but then argues about the solution (he wants a draft and tax increases, and hates the idea of bifurcating the military so some of the force specializes in waging the peace). Putting aside the tax issue (I believe the cuts of this White House were a huge mistake), the draft concept is stupid beyond belief. Ask anyone in the military if they want to return to the days of the draftees. Anyone. The reason why we have the finest military in the world is because we went to an All-Volunteer Force, meaning we ìprofessionalizedî our military.
'The Pentagon's New Map' - unrealistic world order
By Tom Bowman
Sun StaffMay 2, 2004
The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas P.M. Barnett. G.P. Putnam's Sons. 448 pages. $26.95.
This book left me deeply conflicted.
Much of the argument by Thomas P.M. Barnett, a Harvard-trained Ph.D. who teaches at the Naval War College, makes sense: The new global war on terrorism must be subordinated to spreading economic globalization to what Barnett calls "The Gap." This is a band of backward states stretching from Central America and parts of South America to Africa and the Middle East, and extending through the old Soviet Asian lands and into Indonesia.
America and other supremely developed "Core" countries, such as Japan and England, must devote their troops and treasure to helping Gap nations become connected to the Internet and trade, sometime overthrowing the "bad actors that account for the bulk of the insecurity in any country or region." By achieving that, "The end of war is within our historical grasp."
But as I read the book, I couldn't help recalling the words of Graham Greene in The Quiet American: "God save us always from the innocent and the good."
Barnett suggests creating two distinct military forces to push through this plan - a "Leviathan" force to perform the heavy combat role and a "System Administrator" force to carry out peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance and reconstruction efforts that would pave the way for private investors. And we should expect other countries to pitch in.
He ticks off a list of "bad actors" in The Gap who "should all go" - Castro in Cuba, Chavez in Venezuela and, most importantly, North Korea's Kim Jong Il.
Barnett, who worked for the Navy's think tank, the Center for Naval Analyses, and was labeled by Esquire magazine as "The Strategist," is alternately chatty and self-important, with glowing reviews about his own Power Point briefs to top Pentagon officials. He needs to get out of academia and get some fresh air.
Never in the book do I see the elements that would be needed to kick-start his plan: military draft and tax increases.
The wars and occupations of the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq have over-stretched the military. And the Core allies - with their troops and treasure - are still largely on the sidelines. How can the Core embark on any new adventures?
Being Navy-centric, he entirely misstates the role of the National Guard troops, who, he says, are now "diminished as a war fighting asset" and mostly provide security at American facilities and military bases around the world. Really? Guard troops are key to keeping peace in the Balkans, which Barnett wrongly assumes are now on a "completely" different track. The ethnic groups there are still not working together. And the Guard now makes up about 40 percent of the troops - including two combat brigades - struggling with a stubborn insurgency in Iraq.
Barnett's argument that the present military is not organized or equipped to rebuild nations is also off mark. But as Iraq has shown, the military must be taught to fight and build, often at the same time. Some of the best rebuilding work was done by the 101st Airborne and its commander, Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, in northern Iraq, while it continued to take casualties that exceeded those suffered in major combat.
The 101st built schools and clinics and doled out money like city bosses while the Coalition Provisional Authority dithered. There is a push now to give the division commanders more funds to rebuild Iraq, since they are the closest to the average Iraqi. The soldiers are not cloistered in the CPA's Green Zone, described by one wag as "Alcatraz without the view," and populated largely by young Republicans eager to stamp their resumes and move on.
And how does Barnett suggest removal of the man he calls a "nutcase," Kim Jong Il? A single bullet? Tactical nukes, professor? Besides, as we can see in Iraq, sometimes a few "bad actors" bring along thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of understudies. Another Ivy League Ph.D., Paul Wolfowitz, told us how easy it would be to overthrow Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to Iraq.
While much of the work of the professor is ill-informed or painfully naive, he is correct that the developed world must focus more on The Gap, helping them through trade negotiations and new international reconstruction institutions.
He is also right to say that Africa should figure last "because Africa offers the least." The Middle East, with its rising population of aimless youth and Muslim fundamentalists sitting atop the world's largest energy reserves, leaves the Core with enough work for at least a generation. It is here that the Core's new Cold War will be waged, with the necessary Trumanesque wave of aid. The book should be entitled: "The Comfortable World's New Map: Spreading Largesse and Technology in the Twenty-First Century."
It would benefit Barnett to leave the grand stone buildings of Newport and sit down with those who are grounded by experience and sobered by reality. Start with General Petraeus, a Princeton Ph.D. in international relations. You'll find him in Baghdad, getting his hands dirty and drawing his own map.
Tom Bowman, The Sun's military affairs correspondent, has a master's degree in American studies from Boston College. He has covered the U.S. Naval Academy and the National Security Agency. He has traveled to Army bases and training facilities around the world and deployed to Afghanistan with the 101st Airborne in 2002.
Copyright © 2004, The Baltimore Sun
As for the bit about Petraeus: no argument that heís awfully good. Whether he moves up in rank will say a lot about how MOOTW is upgraded within the Pentagon as a worthy demonstration of leadership. But remember heís in the north, not in the south, and thereís a huge difference in that. Doesnít mean heís not good, it means he was good enough. Good enough isnít cutting it in the south. To say that means we need to do better in how we field a force to wage peace is not to denigrate the current effort, but simply to admit we are not winning the back half.
Embedded reporters sometimes go awfully native, and BC grads definitely have a thing about Harvard ones, but the personal jibes aside, itís clear we need to do better in waging the peace. To do anything less is to denigrate the lives lost since 1 May 2003. My new friend the reporter should go to Leavenworth and check out how the Army is conducting its lessons learned on Iraq. What theyíre talking about lacking in Iraq looks an awful lot like my Sys Admin force. I too visit military facilities all over the world, and I too spend a lot of time working with and talking to personnel whoíve seen action. Maybe the difference between Bowman and me is that I still retain a critical perspective.
Reader Comments (1)
Dr. Barnett;
I am currently a grad student in International Relations, National Security Affairs and your book, the Pentagon's New Map, War and Peace in the 21st Century was one of my reading assignments. I was impressed by your ideas. I did have a thought though. Instead of splitting the military to conduct peace work, do you believe it is plausible to create a MOS for this type of work? This would be a specialty that those who do not want to fight (scared of their own shadow & unreliable under fire) could go to support their country. They would still be required to be trained up for combat, but primary would be peacekeeping. I would greatly like to know your thoughts.
Thank you for your time.