By George!
5 out of 5 stars
A Must Read!, August 2, 2004
Reviewer: Michael Bussio
Professor Tom Barnett's book, "The Pentagon's New Map" is a must read for historians, economist, businessmen and women, media superstars and those journalists not of the super star status, educators and ordinary, everyday American citizens.
After the Second World War George F. Kennan, a Russia specialist in President Truman's State Department proposed and assisted in molding a new American Foreign Policy for this nation. It was known as the Containment Policy. The policy was set in place from 1945 until the 1990's when the Soviet Empire collapsed. Throughout the 1990's however American Foreign Policy, what there was of it, drifted aimlessly with no visionary at its helm. However, one lone (and he is not so alone since there are many of us here in the hinter land of America who strongly support his views and vision) spoke out, wrote and power-pointed his way to the attention of the Bush Administration. His name is Tom Barnett and he is the George Kennan of the 21st Century.
Barnett's vision is of a world where war is obsolete, "where dictators fear for their lives. . .where the world's great armies no longer plan great wars but instead focus on stopping bad individuals from doing bad things. . ." Barnett sees a world in which America's definition of the big threat has downshifted progressively from an `evil empire' to `evil states' to `evil leaders' This is not Alice In Wonderland stuff. He means what he says and his is convincing. This vision can be attained if the United States has the political will and the perseverance to see what needs to be done, done.
Barnett's goal and the goal we should all embrace is to, as he puts it, ". . .nothing less than a revolution in how the Pentagon thinks about war and peace in the 21st Century." Simply put Barnett encourages the Defense Department of the United States to take a greater responsibility in connecting those nations and peoples disconnected from the Global Community. This can be done by preemptive strikes as seen in Iraq to remove a tyrant and give the Iraqis the chance to join the Global Economy or as a cop on the beat, so-to-speak as in the Balkans and Liberia, there to keep the peace so those nations can begin to connect to the Global Community.
It is imperative that those countries and regions not of the World Community, Gap nations as Barnett refers to them, areas where all the terror, oppression, denial of basic human rights, lack of education, lack of infrastructure, are located. It is where all the problems that plague the Earth originate from. It is the region that needs to be connected to the Global Economy. It is in those regions that the U.S. must concentrate its efforts militarily, economically and politically, whether than means a preemptive strike to remove people like Kim Jon IL, the dictator of North Korea and the man responsible for murdering nearly 3 million of his own people, half a holocaust, while the world stood by and did nothing or merely using American clout in the Global market place to give economically a helping hand to a country slowly making its way into the community of nations.
Barnett has pointed the way. However, time is of the essence. We can not wait for people like Bin Laden or nations like Iran to get their hands on some very nasty weapons before we move. We must act now.
COMMENTARY: I gotta admit it: I really hate it whenever I hear people write that Sam Huntingtonís ìClash of Civilizationsî article in Foreign Affairs in the early 1990s is the real ìX Articleî of the 21st Century, because it ainít. One, the diagnosis is way off base. Two, the old ìsome will simply never ëgetí globalization is fundamentally a racist argument, even though I know Sam doesnít mean that. Finally, as much of a genius as that man is, he offers no grand strategy in the piece. But you see, because I wrote my baby in Esquire, that article can never be the ìX Article.î No way, not with some beautiful babe on the cover. So yeah! I feel it when I get a review like this. I jump out of my chair and do the big punching-the-air jab!
Give me five!
5 out of 5 stars (no data on ìfound this helpful?î)
Explaining US politics in a compelling way, July 26, 2004
Reviewer: M. Schokker "m_schokker" (Europe)
According to the title one could think this book is all about war and military but that would be a wrong conclusion. The subtitle describes it much better; it is all about "war and peace in the twenty-first century". The book does this on a very positive and upbeat fashion, it is not about worries about the future, but it tries to paint an ideal world worth creating.
The writer has worked as a Pentagon annalist and during this book he gives us insight in the world of the Pentagon. But this is not at all what this book is about. The book is mostly about how we should see the importance of globalization. The writer sees globalization as a way, how all people in the world get access to security and prosperity. Everywhere the globalization fails there is trouble for the people and eventually also for the rest of us. Because this comes down to the notion to see globalization as willingness to work together and have a lot of common interest. It is then easy to see, that the nation who do not want to share in a common interest and do not want to work together are most likely hostile to us.
The main theme of the book is that the world is divided by countries that are able to work together and hence are part of globalization and countries that do not function well and hence are offline of globalization. The first are part of the core states and the later are located in the gap. The core offers the people living in it, security, the good life and peace but the states in the gap cannot provide for all of these. Hence our main task as core states is to let the core grow and the gap shrink. This for the better of human kind, because the core offers a better life for people and the gap is a security risk for the core. The map that shows the world divided between the core and gap, is what the title represents: The Pentagons new map.
The book makes a large case for this vision and also describes how the military of the core states should work together and should be used. The compelling thing about this positive vision on the world and its future is that the writer succeeded in it by describing it free of direct reference to (Western) culture. Because of this, the vision could possible have more appeal to people across cultures. If US policy is modeled in this way, it can have great appeal to people in all countries around the world. Hence, it could be a way to help other cultures to take the step to embrace the good life.
The weak part of the book however, is also its lack of recognition of these cultural clashes. By not recognizing the pervasiveness of cultural differences between people, it seems to breathe the air of ignorant multiculturalism. This is to bad because that does undermine his strong case, that the western way of working together by trade (AKA globalization) is an enhancement for human kind that all cultures in the world can profit from. But never the less, this book is very much worth reading and I highly recommend it.
COMMENTARY: I like that this guy picks up on the fact that the book, despite the title, is really all about globalization first and foremost. He also appreciates the civilization-neutral language I use to describe my future worth creating, so heís a fairly sophisticated reader. The charge about ignoring cultural clashes I find a bit odd, because I basically describe al Qaedaís resistance to globalization in this manner quite vividly, but I guess what heís going for here is the notion that even after you disconnect the disconnectors, there will still be underlying clashes of culture as globalization spreads. Maybe he wanted a hugs-and-kisses definition from me about how I would make that all better, but I think Iím pretty clear in the text that globalization simply changes any society far more than that society can hope to change globalization in return. So I donít feel like I am weak on that point in the book, just that I stipulate it rather badly and then move on, which is disturbing to a lot of people.
Jack Reed, not Jack Ryan!
5 out of 5 stars
A military . . . with a heart., July 21, 2004
Reviewer: John Jacobs "Pen for Hire" (Tequesta, FL United States)
Although brilliant (named one of Esquire's 'Best and Brightest' for 2002), Thomas Barnett occasionally keeps his ego in check by reviewing his September 2001 calendar for appointments at the top of World Trade Center One. No, he didn't predict 9/11, but as early as 1996 he outlined the new nature of 21st century war characterized by the attacks.
In his book, 'The Pentagon's New Map', Barnett proposes a revolutionary strategy for meeting the fundamental changes in modern war. He suggests a 'bifurcated' military, which is actually two militaries: one for large pounding wars, and the other for routine peacekeeping maintenance.
He likens teaching this strategy at the Pentagon (populated mostly by 'Cold Worriers' still stuck in an outmoded mindset) to teaching football to soccer players. It's that revolutionary.
For the rest of us, though, it's a piece of cake -- Barnett's straightforward style makes for the painless absorption of ideas. Unexpected similes, sometimes referencing Gen-X popular culture, both illuminate his ideas and stimulate the mind. Mantra-style repetition serves well to clarify important concepts. And finally, his material, highly polished from having delivered it repeatedly as a brief, is peppered with supporting data and compelling examples.
He begins with the collapse of the Soviet Union, which causes the Pentagon an identity crisis. So carried away by its momentum against a 'near-peer' enemy superpower, it mistakenly picks China out of the line-up, and begins strategizing right away on how to defend Taiwan's burgeoning democracy.
In the vacuum left by the Soviets, Barnett asks, why conjure up a near-peer enemy? Why not use our now-unmatched military might to end wars and export peace? His great idea is to 'reach for a future worth creating' by fully extending our national interest to include the entire world -- not imperialistically, mind you -- but guided by our democratic and capitalist ideals. 'We the people,' he writes 'needs to become we the planet.'
Barnett's professed Catholic faith shows as compassion and humanity in his description of life in globalization's 'Gap' -- those countries sidelined by the globalization trends of the 1990s. Life in the Gap is Hobbesian (nasty, brutish, and short), and data backs him up: countries disconnected from the global economy experience diminished life expectancy, overpopulation, and low incomes. The Gap is 'where the wild things are.' Anything can happen. Like ethnic cleansing by chainsaw (Sudan).
The 'Core', on the other hand, is relatively peaceful and stable. These countries experience lowered birth rates, longer lives, and higher incomes. They are more educated, have more opportunities, are governed by elected leaders, and obey the rule of law. By drawing a circle around the Gap's nation-states, roughly demarking both the Core and the Gap, we have our new enemy, large enough for Congress to approve big budget line items. We have 'The Pentagon's New Map,' and salvation for the military.
Even if we don't care about the poor quality of life in the Gap, Barnett argues, exporting connectedness and inclusion will create new consumers for our economy, as well as "drain the swamp" of vitriolic hatred, the likes of which caused 9/11, and which is primarily based on their exclusion. Should we not wish to improve the daily lot of those "with their noses pressed to the glass," Barnett concludes, there are still good selfish reasons to reconnect these states to the global economy.
The brilliance of the book is in its idyllic world vision, which introduces an interesting blend of patriotic internationalism ('Globalization is this country's gift to history'). Although its progressive ideals are slightly muted (maybe because compassion and humanity are not the Pentagon's stated ideals), don't be surprised if you end up hoping that Barnett's bright futuristic vision redefines our nation's military for a long time to come.
COMMENTARY: Overall, a pretty slick review. I appreciate how he appreciates the lively tone and accessible delivery of the text, because we put a lot of effort into that. I also like that he points out the self-interest argument for shrinking the Gap, because his last para makes me sound awfully idealisticólike a capitalist Jack Reed. So a nice balance.
Bitch slapped for 4 stars!
11 of 16 people found the following review helpful
4 out of 5 stars
Young Man, Narrowly Read, Has Big Idea with Few Details, July 14, 2004
Reviewer: Robert D. Steele (Oakton, VA United States)
This is another of those books that started as an article and should have stayed there. The author, who appears to be either unfamiliar with or unwilling to credit works from earlier decades as well as more recently that present ideas similar to and often superior to his, has essentially three good ideas that can be summed up as follows:
Idea #1: World can be divided into a Functioning Core and a Non-Integrating Gap. The disconnected gap is bad for business (risky) and the US military can protect its budget by getting into the business of exporting security so that Wall Street can do more business safely.
Idea #2: Connectivity or disconnectedness are the essential means of defining and influencing which countries are able to move into the Functioning Core and which remain in the Non-Integrating Gap [too state-centric for my taste, but a good point--my 1990's call for Digital Marshal Plan remains valid.]
Idea #3: Economic relationships have replaced military power as the essential attribute of relations among nations--for example, we cannot deal with China as a military power without first having a comprehensive economic strategy and economic tools with which to influence them.
There are many points where I agree with the author, and I give him credit for thinking of all of this on his own, without much attention to decadeís worth of scholarship and informed professional opinion in the military journals. He is absolutely correct to note that we cannot fence the Gap, we must stabilize it. Of course, Joe Nye and Max Manwaring and Mark Palmer and Bob Oakley and Jonathan Schell, to name just 5 of the 470+ national security authors have made important points along these lines, but their work is not integrated here. This is one massive Op-Ed that should have remained an article.
The author has irritated me with his low-key but obvious assumption that he is the first to break out of the box and "get it." On page 63 he goes on at length with the view that America has lacked visionaries, and the implication that he is the first to come forward. Not true. From John Boyd to Chuck Spinney to Bill Lind to GI Wilson to Mike Wylie we have had many visionaries, but the military-industrial complex has always seen them as threats. We tend to dismiss and shoot our visionaries, and I am truly glad that the author's personal relations with Cebrowski and a few others--as well as his fortunate association with a couple of naval think-forward endeavors--has given him some running room.
There is actually little of substance in this book. The article has been expanded, not with substance, but rather with very long descriptions of this young man's engagement in the process of the Pentagon and the process of strategic reflection. His discussions of the many forums that he found boring if not hostile to free thinking are excellent, and that aspect of the book takes it to four stars where it might normally have only received three.Two weaknesses of the book, perhaps associated with the author's urgent need to "stay inside the wire" in order to keep his job:
1) All his brilliance leads to just two forces being recommended: the "big stick" force and the "baton-stick" (constabulary) force. In fact, were he more familiar with the literature, he would have understood that from diverse points we are all converging on four forces after next: Big War, Small War including White Hat/Police Ops, Peace War, and Cyber-Economic War. Inter-agency strategy, inter-agency budgeting, and inter-agency operations, with a joint inter-agency C4I corps under military direction, are the urgently needed next step.
2) The author is delusional when describing and praising our operational excellence in defeating well-armed enemies. Were he more familiar with the after action reports from Iraq, particularly those done by the Army War College (clearly on a different planet from the Navel War College), he would understand that Iraqi incompetence was the foremost factor in our success, especially when Rumsfeld insisted on throwing out the sequence of force plans and sending us in light and out of balance. He also ignores the vulnerability of complex systems and relies much too heavily on University of Maryland and CIA unclassified publications that are completely out of step with European conflict studies and other arduously collected ground truths about the extent of state and sub-state war and violence.
I disagree with his concluding recommendations that place Africa last on the list of those areas to be saved. His overall recommendations are simplistic, focusing on the standard litany for Pentagon go-alongs: Iraq, Korea, Iran, Colombia, Middle East, China, Asian NATO, Latin American NATO, Africa.
I note with interest his use of the term, "the military-market link." I believe this refers to an assumption, matured by the author in the course of his Wall Street wargames, and certainly acceptable to the neo-conservatives, to wit, that the U.S. military exists to export security so America can do business. I would draw the reader's attention to Marine Corps General Butler's book, "War as a Racket", and his strong objection to having spent his career as an "enforcer" for US corporations.
I do want to end with a note of deep sympathy for the author. On the one hand, he overcame a period of time when his sanity was questioned by ignorant Admirals and other "lesser included" Captains of limited intellect. On other he is trapped in a system that does not like iconoclasts but rewards those who innovate on the margins. His book is most useful in describing this environment, where people who rely on secrets are completely out of touch with reality, and service chiefs focus on protecting their budgets rather than accomplishing (or even defining) their mission. He appears to have discovered the Catholic mafia within the naval services, and his several references throughout the book lend weight to my belief that we need to do religious counter-intelligence within the government.
COMMENTARY: Talk about the green-eyed disease! And I mean that in more ways than one. You have to suspect a former Marine here, given the references, and clearly someone whoís own brilliance in cracking my entire code years before I did (ìI was breaking out of the box when you were still trying to bust outta your diapers!î) has left him bitter about his lack of recognition for his deeds. When he gives us his laundry-list categorization scheme for war, he pretty much reveals himself as someone who has spent a lot of time working the same territory, hence the resentment at (apparently) not including him in my footnotes. To his credit, though, he fights through the envy and gives me four stars, largely because I capture the insider game of the Pentagon (that he knows so well from experience). Talk about wearing it on your sleeve!
The code cracked
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful
5 out of 5 stars
the current model explained, July 12, 2004
Reviewer: A reader
This book sets out the current model of the world that our government is operating under. It is laid out clearly and argued persuasively. Whether or not you buy this model, you cannot get a clearer explanation of why we went into Iraq, why the Taliban think that MSF is part of an American conspiracy, and just where this entire thing is likely to go. You really should read this one.
COMMENTARY: Pretty basic, saying this book is a useful guide. He loses me on the ìMSFî reference.
Reads the paper differently
3 of 5 people found the following review helpful
5 out of 5 stars
The Pentagon's New Map, July 10, 2004
Reviewer: Harold C. Trescott (Cedarburg, WI USA)
If you frequently watch cable news and read the daily newspapers looking for insight concerning world events, you're missing something important - a comprehensive perspective. Thomas Barnett has given us just such an overview. At last I feel like I truly understand what is going on in this world and how it will affect our future. This is a must read, a very important work.
COMMENTARY: If you have to go short, this is about as good as it gets. I love it when people say they look at the news in an entirely differently way after reading the book or seeing the brief. That is exactly what Iím going for with the average readeróa clear sense of empowerment.