Opinions are like...

Tom get this email:

The pentagon's New Map--Comment

You don't know me but i'm a 40 year old National security expert with a Master's degree in Political Science from the University of Dayton. I felt compelled to write you after reading part of your book. It's completely wrong in every way. The premises to the arguements are wrong--even the critique of the right side of the Political Spectrum in this book is wrong. In fact i am completely amazed at your inability to understand even the basis of a good National Security Policy--one of which is not to be drawn into conflicts that bankrupt the treasury of the government. i'll give you a challenge though instead of calling names. I will debate you anytime and anywhere in this country at any forum. You name the place and the time. Your ideas are so left leaning liberal that any good national security person would be able to show you up. And by the way---Power Point presentations are perceptions--not realities---I hope you at least know the difference

Jeff Lanphere

Tom's reply:

Wow! He sure lays me to waste with that stunning critique!

Hard to counter his logic. Certainly, Mr. Lanphere has earned his right to debate me, being 40 and an expert and having read several pages of my first book.

I mean, it's not like he's just another asshole with an opinion.

Comments

[CitSAR]

Actually, I thought a lot of your Big Bang opinions were a bit real politik or even "conservative". Perhps if you send him a CSPAN copy of the Breif?

[Dan Hare]

Tom,I have had similiar jabs from folks who have read about the same or less and make sweeping statements! Funny thing, they are equally ignorant from the left and right side of the aisle.Go man go!Dan

[GJA]

So then why don't you debate this person? I realize you're probably a very busy person but once in a while you're going to have to defend your ideas.

If you don't mind, can you answer one question for me? Do you support the use of foreign SysAdmin troops on American soil?

Thank you ahead of time for your answer.

[James Anderson]

I'm breaking out the popcorn...

[Tom Barnett]

It's funny, but in 18 years of working in an operations research firm, for the government, military and commands around the world, and in all my business consultings, I've never actually had to defend any of my ideas in front of anyone skeptical or hostile.

I just never meet these people. I'm universally accepted everywhere I go. I think I'm totally unique in this manner.

I've been afraid to say that up to now, figuring it would break my streak.

[zenpundit]

Jeez....

First rule of being an expert is that you should not need to announce to people that you are an expert.

Second rule of being an expert is the moment you announce you are an expert, you are mere moments away from being made to look very foolish.

[Jeff]

Evidently nobody in the administration is listening to this "expert". I think we spend $10 billion per month in Iraq right now which clearly violates this guys number one rule.

[kelly]

Tom,Pay this guy no mind.

Reading his comments are like reading the comments on my JMO paper :-) The nature of war/state craft is constantly changing and even dinasors must evolve, be replaced or die. Complex, adaptive problem solving and adaptive planning are required...linear-thinkers beware.

I have been watching your blog since I first saw your brief on CSPAN in 2003. While I do not agree with your every comment, I have enjoyed your enlightening perspective. I must say I like William Lind's as well....which explain my main-stream, solution provider bias.

Keep chargin...and blow this guy off.

K-dog

[Brad B.]

I consider myself center-right and pretty conservative. I also consider Dr. Barnett a genius. A lot of "us" do. In fact, I discovered him when he did a 9 part, chapter by chapter weekly interview on a conservative radio show. What makes Barnett so great is that he ISN'T political at all when it comes to his professional opinions and theories. I couldn't care less about his personal or domestic opinions and anyone who dismisses him because of that is missing out on some great stuff!

Thanks for sharing this with us! It's good to know all those 3 and 4 stars you've been briefing over the years have been so agreeable....

[Anonymous]

GJA: Tom defends his ideas all the time, in his books, articles, and columns and in his public speaking. he doesn't owe this hack anything.

All: Oh, and, in case it wasn't clear, I think Tom was kidding about never having to defend his ideas in front of hostile or skeptical people...

[Brad B.]

We knew he was kidding. Just playing along!

[Anonymous]

glad you got it, Brad. humor is tricky in comments :-)

[Michael]

If Mr Landphere can't be bothered to give actual arguments (You know: data, logic, all that jazz?), none of us should be bothered to respond to him.

[Jesse]

No Thanks.

It's expertise of this guy's persuasion that got us here in the first place.

The "Look Inside" feature on Amazon doesn't qualify as reading the book... neither does reading the reviews.

[GJA]

Sean Meade: I do think Tom's arguments are very strong if we accept that America's role in the world is as he sees it. What I'd like to see more of from Tom is for him debate the central premise of his ideas. That being that America should act as the worlds "order bringer."

If the answer is yes, then as far as I've heard, Tom has the best plan to achieve this order. The thing I can't figure out is whether or not we should and/or can bring this order? My dream is to see Tom debate Noam Chomsky on this question. Most likely this will remain a dream.

One thing I can't figure out is why Tom won't answer one simple question that I keep asking on this blog? So, I will ask it again.

Tom, DO YOU SUPPORT THE USE OF FOREIGN SYSADMIN TROOPS ON AMERICAN SOIL?

Thank you for your time.

[Jarrod Myrick]

GJA,

Check out Dr. Barnett's debate with Chalmers Johnson on opensource.org for your Chomsky fix. He debates his ideas all the time, I'm sure nearly every day. And, yeah, he's a little busy to be wasting time with the Lanpheres of the world. This post was for entertainment purposes.

SysAdmin would be used to connect, reconnect, rehabilitate, reconstruct failed and failing states. Core states are, by definition, not failed or failing.

[GJA]

JRRichard: Thank you for the information regarding Chalmers Johnson vs Tom debate.

As far as the question I asked, in one of Tom's briefs he said something about SysAdmin troops not having to abide by Posse Comitatus. Posse Comitatus is an American legal concept. Therefore, this means that SysAdmin would operate on American soil. Since Tom sees the American role in the SysAdmin force being only about 10% of the total man power, this would result in foreign troops operating in America.

So, I'll ask it again. Tom, pretty, pretty please. Can you please tell me if you approve of foreign SysAdmin troops operating in the United States?

Thank You Sir.

[Brian]

GJA,

The answer to your question is that the US does not need SysAdmin troops operating on its soil. Neither does Japan, UK, France, and almost all other "core" countries. It's pretty much baked into the definition of sysadmin that core countries provide the resources and apply them where needed...gap countries.

Note that this is different from basing. While we have troops in Germany, we are not performing sysadmin functions in Germany. Shortly after WWII we were, but that's no longer needed. Hopefully the same will be true in ever greater numbers of gap countries over the coming years and decades.

[Anonymous]

GJA: i replied on this to you before: there would never be such an occasion.

yes, the US SysAdmin might be used domestically (eg, Katrina) and would then obviate posse comitatus.

a separate issue is the US SysAdmin seeding a much larger international SysAdmin capability which would NOT be some kind of unified command, resulting in foreign troops with SysAdmin capability on American soil (you know, unless things got so bad that foreign militaries were actually helping us, maybe if San Andreas opened up nice and wide...)

[Kurt W.]

Tom,

I notice you occasionally post off-ballanced comments like this one and the guy from Australia who never met a nice American and has a secert wepon that can sink the U.S. fleet. Thanks, it provies some good comic relief amidst the discussion of weighty and important issues. At least this guy didn't pull a Zell Miller and challange you to a duel.

[Jesse]

It seems to me that people are envisioning a SysAdmin force derived entirely of foriegn troops. I would bet such a force would have larger portion of American indivudials than many would realize.

Is it that recognizing foriegn aid on our soil conveys some sort of concession of ability to independently protect ourselves? Sounds like a pride issue in some respect.

If this force is getting the best training in the world, then we would probably see foriegn forces getting American training and on standby already positioned on American soil, ready to deploy worldwide. If an event occured that strained the U.S.'s ability to respond independently - both governmentally and through our citizen's volunteering, the SysAdmin would simply deploy to that location from within.

[Tom Barnett]

By definition, if you're in the Core, you have sufficient internal capacity for any SysAdmin requirements. Otherwise you'd be a state consistently vulnerable to such external requirements, and that--again by definition--puts you in the Gap.

With the U.S., you're talking multilayered capacities (my comment on posse comitatus has to do with our clumsy unwillingness to employ locally-available Title 10 military assets following disasters, instead relying on cross-state National Guard sharing agreements; we saw this with Katrina), although we did come allegedly close to saying yes to a Mexican offer of military aid following Katrina.

But frankly, the question comes off like a journalist's gotcha trick: "Barnett advocates Chinese troops on American soil!" And that's a rather silly prospect.

Our SysAdmin system is already set for domestic use. It's called the National Guard, or 50 state militaries that all need to have the combat components stripped and passed to the Reserves so the NGs can concentrate on homeland responses first and foremost. The days of needing the Guard as strategic reserves (mini-me versions of Army) for WWIII are gone.

[GJA]

Thank You for the reply Dr. Barnett. While I do understand your reluctance to the possibility of being "gotch you'd," please understand that this is a legitimate concern. The reason I ask this question is because I see the potential for core countries to display gap like symptoms as globalization accelerates. As Europe and America continue to become more diverse, this possibility is not such a "silly prospect." I do respect your vision for the future but I must ask these questions in order to expand my thought processes regarding your ideas. I'm not a reporter, just an undergrad with an interest in these issues. Thanks again.

[stuart abrams]

To JRRichard:I don't see Chomsky as being comparable to Chalmers Johnson. While Johnson would usually be categorized as being on the Left, I really see his views on international affairs as being quite similar to the paleo-cons. He is basically an isolationist who wants the US to withdraw from world affairs as much as possible. Chomsky is an internationalist who, like Immanuel Wallenstein, has a view of international affairs that is, structurally, quite similar to Barnett's. The problem with Chomsky/Wallenstein is that they are so bogged down by the constraints of class-based traditional Marxist analysis that they can't see anything good coming from globalization. Thus, they inevitably see US military power as nothing more than the servant of a monolithic US ruling class serving neo-colonialist ends. A discussion between Chomsky and Barnett might be interesting, but ultimately, I don't think it would get anywhere.