Reviewing the Reviews: The Amazon Tribe (Part 4 of 4)

Gets the challenge

8 of 13 people found the following review helpful

5 out of 5 stars

Vision and Responsibility, June 6, 2004

Reviewer: Jim Smith (Brookline, MA USA)

This is an exceptionally well written book. This author presents a vision for our world as it moves into the early stages of the 21st Century. As the United States of America faces the responsibility of being the strongest military power within our global community of nations, we must address that responsibility with sensibility and with clear articulated vision. We know we can win wars, as the author notes, but we are not a nation of "excellence" when it comes to the next steps - development of stability, peace, and economic strength for those countries that are in disarray. He refers to the "Connected and the Disconnected" areas of our world, which comprise the new map. The "disconnected" are the "disadvantaged", both in terms of economics as well as human rights, safety, health, food, shelter, self-governance, freedom, education, economic development, and other important basics of living that we in the USA cherish and assume as essential, as well as normal. The containment of the groups, whom the author refers to as the "rouges", is an important step - but not enough. If the strategy of our national defense system included the creation of a competent and efficient "systems administrator" capability to its fullest, we could be the key peace insurers for the world. This will assist the developmental processes required for the "disconnected" and "disadvantages" to eventually become a part of the larger global community. In other words, the author is suggesting strongly, which he supports with the presentation of extensive data that we who are the "haves" must protect and provide for the "have-nots." This does not mean our "taking over" those who "have-not!" It does mean that we are responsible to be proactive in the removal of the infectious, as well as contagious "bacteria" that contaminates the well-being of those members of the community. However, removal and containment of these isolationistic "bacteria" or "rouges" is just a minor first step. The larger steps and most responsible ones are to insure the on-going well-being of the people and their nation in order that they can thrive. In the end, this will mean the greater durability and health of the entire globe.

The author is suggesting, and has been for almost two decades, to the US governmental agencies (such as DoD) and the economic leaders of our country some specific strategies on how this can be fully and successfully implemented. There will be differences among us who explore this publication as to some of the author's suggestions. However, whether we agree totally or not with the author's specifics - especially in the containment and removal of the "rouges", the message that we all need to hear is that we in America are one member of a larger membered community. And, we must care for all members of the larger community in the same way that we care for ourselves. The author is suggesting and maps out possibilities of how this can be done. Furthermore, the author is suggesting quite emphatically that it is doable.

For us as readers of Dr. Barnett's work, we are left considering whether we have the "guts" to support this vision and to be proactive responsible citizens as respected members of this global community we desire to keep alive and well.

COMMENTARY: Clearly, the book answered this guyís mail. He was looking for something that would give him hope plus a desire for action, and he found it in PNM. He is the perfect reader, in many ways.

You canít ignore this book

12 of 13 people found the following review helpful

4 out of 5 stars

Thought provoking analysis, June 2, 2004

Reviewer: Charles Miller (San Jose, CA USA)

Whether you agree with it or not, Barnett's analysis of the current security structure of the United States, and how it should change, will irrevocably affect the way you will think about this subject. The strategic structure Barnett posits is based on his map of the world which divides countries between the Functioning Core and the Non-Integrating Gap. The Core includes North America, Europe, Russia, China, Japan, India, parts of South America, South Africa, and Australia. The Non-Integrating Gap includes those countries we normally think of as being in the third world. The Core is economically developed, offers personal freedom to its inhabitants, and is highly connected with the rest of the Core. The Gap is non-connected, poor, experiences little personal freedom, and has a number of "bad guy" rulers who make trouble for the Core.

Barnett's thesis is that the US should prepare for a twenty-first century mission of "shrinking the gap". Unfortunately, he finds us ill-prepared to do so. He points out that our military still has the cold war focus of preparing to engage a "near peer" foe using massed high tech weaponry. What is needed instead is a dual-mission force that can fight actions like Afghanistan and Iraq by applying overwhelming force against relatively unsophisticated foes, as well as provide the nation building expertise now woefully missing in Iraq.

Barnett is a Pentagon think tank type who has worked with Wall Street financial analysts to project what the security environment will be in this century. He concentrates on four flows: money, energy, population, and security. He sees the US as an exporter of security to the rest of the world. By the judicious application of force (read: get rid of Saddam, Kim Jong Il, and the ayatollahs) he believes the US can create a world in which poverty is decreased, personal freedom is increased, and connectivity serves as a ballast against disruptions of order.

A subtext of the book is Barnett's recounting of how policy is made in the Pentagon and how analysts vie for the "killer brief" as a path to influence and promotion. I seriously doubt that anyone will agree with all, or even most, of what Barnett presents. However, there is little doubt that his ideas are shaping the debate, and informed citizens would do well to acquaint themselves with them.

COMMENTARY: Hard to complain. Almost sounds like a publicist writing itís so complimentary and slick.

So he read the WSJ profile . . .

7 of 38 people found the following review helpful

1 out of 5 stars

Dr Strangeglove, Power Point, and "disconnec t", June 1, 2004

Reviewer: L. F Sherman "dikw" (Wiscasset, ME United States) - See all my reviews

Dr. Strangeglove meets Power Point in a world where we are the only major Power and finds world conquest necessary because our economy (necessary to support the military) may run low on gas.

The thoughts are interesting and dangerous reminding one of how some of our Generals wanted to fight with Hitler to defeat Communism and after the war wanted to Nuke the H-ll out of the Soviets before they became powerful. Now we need new excuses (states "disconnected"; Islam and Green Peril; Terrorist/pirates; oil security). The "disconnect" of states outside pervasive internet and satellite TV webs are totalitarian and offensive to us. They do not participate in the world economy on our terms (as Freidman would mourn they have no MacDonalds either. If ever there was terror because "they don't like our way of life" this is it -- but our terror against them.

Intellectually not convincing, morally reprehensible - no wonder they like him at the Pentagon and in the Board Rooms of what once was a democratic country that inspired others rather than dominated them.

COMMENTARY: This kind of review really comes off like someone whoís read other reviews and decided to chime in. There is nothing in this review that suggests he actually read the book, just that he hates globalization and believes the U.S. is a dominating force in global affairs. Fine and dandy.

The perfect compliment to Mr. Sherman

10 of 43 people found the following review helpful

5 out of 5 starts

Good wording. Hmmm. . ., June 1, 2004

Reviewer: DoTheRightThing (RightThingTown, Earth)

This is a darn good book because of the great ways the words are strung together in that, uhm, that really good way. Yeah, that good way! So I am bestowing on it five stars because that is exactly what it deserves. I deem it so!

Dumb review, huh? But no dumber than a great many you can find on am4zon. The problem, as Iíve just demonstrated, is that any nut (present company excepted! :-) can write just about any inane thing they want about a book on am4zon, and if it doesnít fall miles outside some vague and inadequate ìguidelines,î the staff typically refuses to remove it despite complaints from readers, authors, and publishers.

If it werenít for our admission that this is a bogus review, it would likely stay up permanently!

Here on am4zon you can find one line reviews, meaningless reviews, reviews that say things like, ìI didnít read it, but someone said it sucked,î and generally clueless reviews that make you wonder what on earth the reviewer was thinking in actually posting publicly such total nonsense.

These grossly ill-informed reviews affect sales (a wash for the site as some of these reviews are positive but equally silly), authorsí and publishersí reputations, and the quality of information available to book buyers. But the site doesnít care, and its unwillingness to remove even the most absurd reviews means they stay. This is why there was the recent scandal wherein it was learned that many authors had countered ridiculous bad reviews with their own anonymous reviews of their own works. (Could you blame them for being deceptive on a site that the N.Y. Times reported to have accepted payments from publishers to ìplaceî their books near the top of the siteís ìbest sellerî list?)

Clearly, am4zon needs to improve the policies and methods by which it administers reviews. Please join me in getting this message out in your own reviews. Sadly, nothing else seems to get the attention of the staff here.

This ìreviewî should be no reflection on the book listed on this page. We suspect the author would support this effort to reform am4zonís review policies.

COMMENTARY: Amen brother!

Barnett explains all

32 of 40 people found the following review helpful

4 out of 5 stars

What he writes explains a lot, May 31, 2004

Reviewer: A reader

I saw his interview 5/30/04 on C-SPAN, and then tracked down the book. I am a retired military officer who could not understand why our country's leadership was taking us in the direction they are. It is against the very basis of our constitution we all swore to uphold and defend.

This book explains a great deal about why we are heading in the direction we are. Barnett articulates the world's hot spots, and why he thinks we should be a global aggressor-to connect those third world unconnected regimes with our society.

If nothing else, it helps explain what our leaders are thinking and doing. While morally we may question what is the purpose of invading other countries, this book explains the theory well, and for the first time I understand what we are doing.

God help us all if the current political leaders truly believe that they can alter the world by conquering those disconnected countries. If there is one book to read to get an understanding of our position in the world, and what our political leaders are doing killing others and destroying our Army in the process, this is the book to read.

COMMENTARY: He knows better now and heís even more scared. Fair enough. Big thing is he knows better now. Disagreeing is just fine.

Neener neener neener!

34 of 52 people found the following review helpful

1 out of 5 stars

Whatever he assumes is true; whatever others do is a myth, May 26, 2004

Reviewer: Chris Griffith (New York, NY)

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.

COMMENTARY: Maybe Mr. Harvard should write his own book! Seems like a bad case of crimson-eyed jealousy. How dare I write this superficial book when I should have written something truly academic that no one but the Harvard-types of the world would have bothered to read. Really, professor, have you no shame? This is the classic form of critique that I myself learned at Harvard: find tiny bits you can claim the author ìcompletely ignoredî and then crap all over the book as a whole. This guy drank deep at the fountain of wisdom that is Harvard.