Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 1:34PM Some snippet video of the new brief's opening.
Video and story side-by-side found here at wjactv.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 11:11AM 
Hillary letting the Chinese have it in The Atlantic.
It's perfectly fine for the history books, but I suspect it makes her unworkable in her remaining time as far as the Chinese are concerned. Hence, they will concentrate on Geithner.
Bit of a cashing-out tactic, in my mind, that tells me she is really headed toward the door.
Show goes 1-2. Not sure when I'm on exactly.
POSTSCRIPT: I did only okay. Storming on the CoreGap Bulletin in my short stint at home before I head out for another speech tonight. Guests were uneven: some nutty anti-American former Bush official (Treasury), some good Chinese, Elizabeth Economy (fabulous expert on China's economy and environment) and Joel Kotkin, the demographer who wrote the "Next 100 Million" book.
I will post URL to podcast later. You can hear my home phone and iPhone go off simultaneously when I'm talking. "Brilliant!" as the Brits say (sarcastically here).
Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 7:00AM 
My old classmate Fareed Zakaria recently made the argument that counterterrorism beats nation-building when it comes to winning the war on terror. Taking Osama Bin Laden's killing as a point of American pride, he says that sort of military/intelligence operation is what we're good at, and so we should stick with it versus pursue the larger counterinsurgency (COIN) effort that General David Petraeus has now led in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a broad point to be making off the Bin Laden operation, especially as Petraeus heads to CIA. While I may agree with Fareed WRT Af-Pak, let me express a larger concern.
Read the entire post at Time's Battleland.
Afghanistan, China, Iraq, Pakistan, SysAdmin, US Military | in Time's Battleland | Email Article | Permalink | Print Article Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 5:20AM 
Wikistrat is excited to announce the complete list of competitors participating in the upcoming International Grand Strategy Competition. Teams comprising of PHD and masters students from elite international schools, as well as emerging experts from internationally renowned think tanks, will compete this June in the online wiki-based International Grand Strategy Competition, managed by former Pentagon strategist, and Wikistrat Chief Analyst, Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett.
Students from elite institutions including:
These international universities, which educate tomorrow’s entrepreneurs, politicians, military leaders and innovators, will all compete for the $10,000 grand prize.
They’ll be joined by teams from:
“As the world finds itself in a time of unprecedented change, from the geopolitical turbulence shaking the Middle East with the Arab 2.0 revolutions and the death of Bin-Laden, to the continued growth of emerging economic pillars in the East despite global economic challenges, 2011 presents a fitting time for a revolution in global strategic thinking,” said CEO Joel Zamel. “Utilizing a uniquely interactive Web 2.0 approach that allows for collaboration among experts, Wikistrat is leading the way in revolutionizing the way we conduct geopolitical analysis. We are very excited about the opportunity to expose hundreds of strategic analysts from around the world to Wikistrat’s unique methodology.”
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 1:00AM 
Nice Economist piece on the Chinese in Africa. Echoes of the "ugly American":
Once feted as saviours in much of Africa, Chinese have come to be viewed with mixed feelings—especially in smaller countries where China’s weight is felt all the more. To blame, in part, are poor business practices imported alongside goods and services. Chinese construction work can be slapdash and buildings erected by mainland firms have on occasion fallen apart. A hospital in Luanda, the capital of Angola, was opened with great fanfare but cracks appeared in the walls within a few months and it soon closed. The Chinese-built road from Lusaka, Zambia’s capital, to Chirundu, 130km (81 miles) to the south-east, was quickly swept away by rains.
Chinese expatriates in Africa come from a rough-and-tumble, anything-goes business culture that cares little about rules and regulations. Local sensitivities are routinely ignored at home, and so abroad.
But here's the essential dynamic to take into account when making snap judgments:
In the South African town of Newcastle, Chinese-run textile factories pay salaries of about $200 per month, much more than they would pay in China but less than the local minimum wage. Unions have tried to shut the factories down. The Chinese owners ignore the unions or pretend to speak no English.
They point out that many South African firms also undercut the minimum wage, which is too high to make production pay. Without the Chinese, unemployment in Newcastle would be even higher than the current 60%. Workers say a poorly paid job is better than none. Some of them recently stopped police closing their factory after a union won an injunction.
Good piece that explores a variety of theories as to why the Chinese are wearing out their welcome despite the money flow.
My sense: The Chinese, like anybody else, try to see what they can get away with. If Africa wants better from China, it needs to demand it but likewise provide it. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the continent, which can shape it for the better or squander it like other opportunities in the past that - in many ways - were far less kind.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 12:05AM 
Nice group of contributors.
My blurb there:
Thomas P.M. Barnett has worked in US national security circles since the end of the Cold War, starting first with the Department of Navy's premier think tank, the Center for Naval Analyses. From there he moved to serve as a senior researcher and professor at the Naval War College in Newport RI, where he became a top assistant to Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowksi - the father of "network-centric warfare." After 9/11, Barnett served in Cebrowski's Office of Force Transformation in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the Assistant for Strategic Futures. He developed a famous PowerPoint brief on the subject of globalization and international security, which later morphed into a New York Times-bestseling book, "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century" (2004). Since leaving government service in 2005, Dr. Barnett has amassed a number of duties in the private sector: running his own consultancy, Barnett Consulting LLP; serving as senior managing director to the technology firm, Enterra Solutions LLC; acting as chief analyst for the online strategic community, Wikistrat Ltd. (and editing their biweekly globalization report, the "CoreGap Bulletin"); writing as contributing editor for Esquire magazine and posting to its The Politics Blog; writing his own blog ("Thomas P.M. Barnett's Globlogization") and a weekly column for World Politics Review ("The New Rules"); working as senior consultant to the political-risk firm, Eurasia Group; and serving as Executive Vice President of the New York- and Beijing-based Center for America-China Partnership. Barnett completed his "Pentagon's New Map" trilogy with the volumes, "Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating" (2005), and "Great Powers: America and the World After Bush" (2009). Dr. Barnett holds a PhD in political science from Harvard University. He is based in Indianapolis, Indiana, and travels the world giving speeches and conducting his strategy work with both private- and public-sector enterprises.
Monday, May 9, 2011 at 1:05PM
America's successful assassination of Osama bin Laden, long overdue, naturally renews talk across the country about ending the nation's military involvement in Afghanistan-Pakistan. Coupled with the ongoing tumult unleashed by the Arab Spring, Washington is once again being encouraged to reconsider its strategic relationship with the troubled Middle East. The underlying current to this debate has always been the widely held perception that America's "oil addiction" tethers it to the unstable region. Achieve "energy independence," we are told, and America would free itself of this terrible burden.
Read the entire column at World Politics Review.
China, Middle East, US foreign policy, energy, food | in WPR Column | Email Article | Permalink | Print Article Monday, May 9, 2011 at 12:02AM Saturday, May 7, 2011 at 10:40AM 
From FT story on Russian politics.
If Medvedev gets to stay, this would indicate a sea change. But if Putin reinserts himself - mostly out of ego, then it may not mean all that much.
Putin needs to brush up on his Lee Kuan Yew.
Still, you see a chart like this and you realize that Kremlinology is alive and well. I did this sort of data gathering in the 1980s.
Friday, May 6, 2011 at 11:03AM 
Yes, I plan to level the place with the brief!
People always asking about open talks. This is a rare-enough one.
Local coverage of the event from the Tribune Democrat:
National security expert to speak
National security expert and New York Times bestselling author Thomas P.M. Barnett will speak at a breakfast meeting in Johnstown.
Barnett will attend the May 10 meeting of the Greater Johnstown Chapter of the National Contract Management Association at the Holiday Inn-Downtown. He will discuss the “Strategy of the 21st Century in Transition.”
Barnett is a nationally known public speaker. His areas of expertise include being a forecaster of global conflict and an expert on military transformation. He also is a management consultant on issues of international security and economic globalization.
His newest book, released in 2009, is “Great Powers: America and the World after Bush.”
Registration and breakfast will begin at 7:30 a.m. Barnett will speak from 8 until 9, followed by a Q&A session, meet and greet, and book signing.
Guests and nonmembers of the association are welcome.
The cost, including breakfast, is $25. For details, call Melinda Schreyer at 262-2338.
Other notices:
See you there.
Friday, May 6, 2011 at 10:52AM 
The notion of doing away with traditional big-deck carriers gets a high-profile boost this month in the latest (May) issue of Proceedings, the U.S. Naval Institute's official rabble-rouser. It's written by a friend and colleague, Capt. Henry (Jerry) Hendrix, along with a retired Marine Lt. Col., Noel Williams. Hendrix, a truly innovative thinker, currently works for the legendary Andy Marshall at the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment - a great match. The piece notes the rising capabilities of the Chinese navy and its efforts to keep us - and our carriers - as far from their shores as possible.
Read the entire post at Time's Battleland.
A reworking of my post yesterday about the carrier piece in Proceedings, meaning this was the pilot post I worked out with Thompson at Time. After this shakedown cruise, I'll do the post up first for Battleland and then link from here, like I do with Esquire's The Politics Blog.
Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 1:13PM 
It's the new blog run by the always impressive Mark Thompson and it's focused on security issues. I will cross-post from here on occasion - all the better to get the word out.
I was honored to be asked to participate by Mark, whose work I've long admired.
This won't impact my output here or at Esquire's The Politics Blog, but it will give you all a nice outlet for suggested posts. So when great stuff pops up, please keep me and this new venue in mind.
Easiest way to reach me is thomaspmbarnett@mac.com
Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 11:18AM 
Written by USN Capt. Henry (Jerry) Hendrix, a professional friend, along with a retired Marine LCOL in this month's US Naval Institute Proceedings. See reference below for link.
Hendrix currently works for Andy Marshall at Office of Net Assessment, which is a great match.
Much to quote:
We can’t know for sure in what ways future adversaries will challenge our Fleet, but we can assess with some certainty how technology is affecting their principal capabilities. Judging from the evidence at hand, future Fleet actions will place a premium on early sensing, precision targeting, and long-range ballistic- and cruise-missile munitions. Increasingly sophisticated over-the-horizon and space-based sensors, in particular, will focus on signature control and signature deception. Thus, we must ask ourselves how best to win this battle of signatures and long-range strike.
This is a sideways reference to the rising capabilities of the Chinese navy and their efforts to keep us - and our carriers - as far from their shores as possible.
Given very clear technology trends toward precision long-range strike and increasingly sophisticated anti-access and area-denial capabilities, high-signature, limited-range combatants like the current aircraft carrier will not meet the requirements of tomorrow’s Fleet. In short, the march of technology is bringing the supercarrier era to an end, just as the new long-range strike capabilities of carrier aviation brought on the demise of the battleship era in the 1940s.
The Chinese are targeting our carriers. We can either see the future in defending them as is, or get new carriers. You don't just ditch what you got because it's vulnerable. But if it's becoming vulnerable and the agents of that vulnerability suggest a new era is dawning, then you pay attention.
Factors both internal and external are hastening the carrier’s curtain call. Competitors abroad have focused their attention on the United States’ ability to go anywhere on the global maritime commons and strike targets ashore with pinpoint accuracy. That focus has resulted in the development of a series of sensors and weapons that combine range and strike profiles to deny carrier strike groups the access necessary to launch squadrons of aircraft against shore installations . . .
Accompanying this range deficiency has been the dramatic increase in the cost of the carrier and her air wing. The price tag for the USS Nimitz (CVN-68) was $950 million, or 4.5 percent of the Navy’s $21 billion budget in 1976. The USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), lead ship of a new class of supercarriers, is estimated by the Congressional Budget Office to cost $12.5 billion . . . The Gerald R. Ford is just the first of her class. She should also be the last.
I couldn't agree more. This is Norm Augustine's nightmare come true - the military that becomes so expensive you can only afford one of everything.
The Chinese are emphasizing sea control over power projection. Given this Chinese “vote” and the challenges we continue to face in the Middle East and Northeast Asia, we must rebalance our Fleet to meet new sea-control missions while maintaining reasonable power-projection capabilities for the range of global threats we will encounter. These new challenges mean that the Fleet architecture must evolve rapidly to meet the new mission requirements of our time. We need to recognize this now and avoid a 21st-century Pearl Harbor.
The old paradigm is untenable. Time to move on.
In such a new strategic environment, unmanned systems diminish the utility of the supercarrier, because her sea-control and power-projection missions can be performed more efficiently and effectively by other means. When the carrier superseded the battleship, the latter still retained great utility for naval surface fire support. Similarly, today’s carrier will be replaced by a network of unmanned platforms, while still retaining utility as an as-needed strike platform. Ultimately, the decision to kill the battleships was not because they lacked utility, but because they were too expensive to man and operate. Future budgetary constraints could lead to a similar outcome for the carrier, recognizing that even if we purchased no new supercarriers, we would still have operational carriers in the Fleet for more than 50 years.
So we're not exactly abandoning our current capability.
In the meantime, the America-class big-deck amphibious ship has the potential to be a new generation of light aircraft carrier. At 45,000 tons’ displacement, she will slide into the water larger than her World War II predecessors, and larger even than the modern French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. Designed without an amphibious well-deck, she will put to sea with a Marine Air Combat Element and key elements of a Marine Expeditionary Unit.
However, to view this purely as an amphibious-assault ship would be to miss her potential as a strike platform. Stripped of her rotorcraft, the America class could comfortably hold two squadrons of F-35B short take-off vertical-landing (STOVL) stealth fighter/attack aircraft. Such an arrangement would allow the naval services to dramatically increase presence and strike potential throughout the maritime domain. In addition, if the requirements were instituted in the near term, the new unmanned carrier-launched airborne-surveillance and strike (UCLASS) aircraft could be designed to operate from America-class decks with greater potential utility and distribution than what could be expected when operating from super carriers.
I've liked this argument for many years now. End the big decks and go with the "small" deck amphibs as a cheaper and more flexible package.
The new combatants would actually be “carriers,” but rather than carrying aircraft, they would carry an array of unmanned systems. A balanced Fleet would have a mix of small, medium, and large unmanned carrier combatants to cover the range of Fleet functions. One near-term option would be to truncate production of the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) and replace both the LCS and the Dock Landing Ship (LSD) with a common hull displacing around 10,000 tons.
Thus you start experimenting - relatively cheaply - with mother ships while running out the lengthy lifespan string of the big decks. To me, this is THE obvious way to go.
Strong finish:
Continuing to invest in platforms such as the supercarrier—which are expensive to build, cost-prohibitive to operate, and increasingly vulnerable in anti-access/area denied environments—is to repeat the mistakes of the battleship admirals who failed to recognize air power’s potential in the 1930s.
No less authority than Pacific Commander Admiral Robert Willard has stated that China’s DF-21D antiship ballistic missile has reached initial operational capability. We must recognize the new environments in which we will be operating, as well as the profound impact unmanned systems will have on future operations, and adjust our Fleet accordingly if we are to avoid a Pearl Harbor of our own making. We must reallocate science-and-technology, research-and-development, and acquisition resources toward this new Fleet paradigm . . .
Moving away from highly expensive and vulnerable supercarriers toward smaller, light carriers would bring the additional benefit of increasing our nation’s engagement potential. This type of force structure would allow the United States to increase its forward presence, upholding its interests with a light engagement force while maintaining, at least for the next 50 years, a heavy surge force of supercarriers. Geopolitics and technology are rapidly evolving the future security environment, and we must make decisions today to adapt the Fleet away from its current course to a new design for a new era.
This is how a superpower, suffering relative economic decline, keeps up its global power projection at a reasonable cost.
Excellent piece. Worth reading in entirety for details, if interested.
Thursday, May 5, 2011 at 10:56AM 
A nice archive of a "Blueprint for Action" era version of the brief, delivered in Alexandria Va as part of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory's "Rethinking the Future International Security Environment" series of speakers 2005-2006. A lot of great talks from great thinkers found on the page here.
Video of my talk found here.
Audio only here.
Download notes version.
Download copy of unanimated slides.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 11:28AM 
The FT has a curious headline on this piece, which kicks off a special section on "new trade routes" for Latin America. It says, "China is now region's biggest partner."
A region once known for instability has sailed through the global financial crisis. Poverty is falling, the middle classes booming, and asset markets bubbling.
This is due to a spectacular expansion of commodity-based trade. Over the past decade, fast-growing emerging countries, be they in Asia, India or Africa, have shown a near insatiable demand for the commodities that Latin America has in such abundance, whether Argentine soya, Brazilian iron ore, Chilean copper or Peruvian gold.
The change has been rapid: in 1999, trade betwen Latin America and China was a mere $8bn. By 2009, according to UN figures, it had grown 16 times to $130bn. By comparison, bilateral trade with the US rose by just a half over the same period.
Less well appreciated is how intra-Latin American trade has grown over the same period. During the colonial years, neighbouring countries were more likely to trade with Europe than each other. Now, growing business and infrastructure links are bridging Latin America’s huge geographical obstacles – its vast forests and giant mountain ranges – knitting the region’s economies together.
If anything, the pace of change has increased since the global financial crisis. Developed markets remain mired in sluggish growth and high debt. Meanwhile, emerging economies are surging ahead; they now account for three-quarters of global economic growth, according to the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB).
The rising middle classes of the emerging world are behind this shift. They aspire to own the same homes and cars, and eat the same foods, as their peers in the developed world. As a result, their economies have a higher propensity to consume the commodities that Latin America produces.
Most dynamic new partner, yes, but the same piece later states that US trade with the region was $486B in 2009, or "almost four times China's total." If US trade grew by half over the last decade, then it grew in the range of about $150B, or more than China's entire amount.
Piece also says that 90% of the FDI flowing into the region's two biggest economies, Mexico and Brazil, come from OECD or Old Core economies.
Would seem that an editor got excited.
China, LATAM, US foreign policy | in Citation Post | Email Article | Permalink | Print Article Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 11:26AM 
From the AP on Yahoo news:
WASHINGTON – The top staffer for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is objecting to the U.S. military's use of the code name "Geronimo" for Osama bin Laden during the raid that killed the al-Qaida leader.
Geronimo was an Apache leader in the 19th century who spent many years fighting the Mexican and U.S. armies until his surrender in 1886.
Loretta Tuell, staff director and chief counsel for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, said Tuesday it was inappropriate to link Geronimo, whom she called "one of the greatest Native American heroes," with one of the most hated enemies of the United States.
"These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating," Tuell said.
This is what I said in Esquire's The Politics Blog yesterday:
It's become a drones-without-borders world, befitting the frontier-integrating age we live in. Think of the American West after the Civil War and how we spent years hunting down all the Native American "insurgents" who popped up over the decades. Bin Laden goes down just like a Crazy Horse or Geronimo — a grubby end to a mythical warrior figure. But the larger process goes on, even as the Chinese drive most of of globalization's advance in that part of the world. But, yes, we'll keep hunting them down. That's what bureaucracies do, and that's why the lone-wolf resistance always loses in the end.
I saw comments that indicated that people were offended by my Crazy Horse reference. The Senate staffer takes similar umbrage at the US military referencing Geronimo.
Yes, now, we cast these figures in better lights, but at the time they were considered blood-thirsty killers who preyed on Americans, which, of course, they were and did - whatever the post-dated nobility of their motives.
But my larger point, and I think the military's larger point, is the similarity of the process. The US military hunted Geronimo for many years. With Crazy Horse, it was a sad and grubby end to a warrior's life, getting shot while surrendering at a US government post (I've been to the historical site).
In their time, these guys were magnificent insurgents who brutally murdered in a fashion designed to incite terror. They were fighting for their way of life - and they doomed in the same way that Bin Laden was. The process of frontier integration was too powerful and too vast and they could not adjust. Back then it was the westward expansion of the US - a microcosm of today's globalization expansion.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011 at 11:05AM 
You can download the article I wrote for Esquire's Middle East edition, which isn't owned by Hearst.
It's called, "The Anti-Conspiracist’s Guide to Revolution in the Arab World."
It was just an observation that came to me before falling asleep one night, so I quickly wrote it down in a list form and planned to use it as a column. Then Esquire Middle East contacted me and asked me to write something big picture about events there, so I did. We went through all the pre-production and it was set for the April issue when it was cut by the magazine at the last second out of the fear of offending local authorities. The mag is based in the UAE.
Personally, I saw nothing in the piece that was all that scary.
You can download it here.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 1:27PM 
FT story on Chinese navy trotting out used Ukrainian carrier that it is using to train its personnel for the ultimately home-built carrier it should possess near the end of the decade. China also practiced outfitting a carrier here because it bought the hull from Ukraine in 1998 unfinished (meaning they've been at it 12 years on some level).
Carrier is named Shi Lang, for a 17th century admiral who conquered Taiwan - get it?
The quote from a non-Chinese naval officer:
Owning a carrier is one thing, operating one, or even a carrier strike group, is something completely different.
By the time China can operate a carrier strike group, the US should have left that field and moved onto something far more flexible, fungible and unmanned in execution.
Or we can hang around the 20th century while China plays catch-up.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 8:00AM 
If I ever sat on a psychiatrist's couch, I would definitely admit to having latency issues. I almost cannot use sat TV in hotels because the channels change so slowly.
Anyway, I got me a VGA 15-pin male-to-male cable at Radio Shack, and thinking about my issue while driving to and fro the store, I figured out the problem.
If the animation runs fine in Slideshow on the Mac when I'm just using the Mac, then there's no reason why it should run slow when outputting to the LCD. The machine simply doesn't care about the output, and the real conversation is between my clicker and the PPT program.
Then I realized: in default mode, PPT in Slideshow goes to presenter's mode, which shows two versions of the brief simultaneously: the current click and the next teed-up click. With a simply bulleted presentation, this is handy, because it gives you a cheat sheet for the next bullet at all times. Plus you can read off your notes in this mode, effectively giving you a poor man's teleprompter (the inventor of which just died).
But I don't need any of this: I don't stand behind a podium (it's the only way to induce fear of speaking in me); I have the entire many-hundreds of clicks memorized because my memory is overwhelmingly visual (forget your name, I can remember every click in a 1000-click briefing like a concert pianist playing a long piece by heart) , and I don't use any notes (I have the "text" pretty much memorized too as I hone it over talks; I don't actually ever write anything down and I never start with any prepared remarks, so I'm improvisational-seguing-to-canon that I can alter at will, depending on the audience).
The real problem is the dual visual representation of the brief: it's just too taxing for the computer to run two versions of my super-complex brief simultaneously. In the Office 09, you didnt' have the dual screens - just one. But I never used that either, because when I do use the laptop (meaning, look at it during a presentation), it's only when I can place it in front of me down low, so I use it as a visual feedback (nice conferences provide widescreens for that) so I don't have to turn around and look at the screen at all (except you must do it some, otherwise I feel it creeps the audience out). You want a full-screen representation for that.
So I disable the presenter's mode and voila! I can now run it on my home theater projector (looks fabulous) and when I factor in some reasonably gaps between clicks to account for my talking, there is no latency issue (even as I'm slowing down my animation and motion in this brief so as to slow down my talking pace for the audience's sake). I can keep my fancy transitions (which truly are beautiful), and I think I can add back some of the sound effects (which I am cutting back on).
To say I am relieved is a vast understatement. I built this new brief over many, many days. It represents about a hundred hours of actual labor but really 10,000 hours of presentational experience. It also totally exploits Office 2011 for Mac, which is - with all due respect - years ahead of Keynote, which makes it super-easy to have very cool looking briefs but does not come anywhere close to the animation flexibility of MS PPT. It's not even in the same galaxy. But it is impossible to create an ugly brief in Keynote--unlike PPT.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011 at 3:07AM 
Article on the Jerusalem Post Business News featuring Wikistrat's upcoming Grand Strategy Competition
As instability in the Middle East continues to confuse even the world’s most important decision makers, a small Israeli start-up has launched a new wiki-based competition that it hopes will revolutionize grand strategic planning.
Thirty-five teams of students and analysts from leading academic and military institutions including Columbia, Georgetown, Oxford and the United States Air Force have already registered for Wikistrat’s Grand Strategy Competition. It will take place throughout June and will be judged by Dr. Thomas Barnett, former senior adviser to the US secretary of defense, and Michael Barrett, former director of strategy at the White House Homeland Security Council.
Wikistrat CEO Joel Zamel, who together with fellow Australian expat Daniel Green founded the company in Israel last year, said the competition, which they have dubbed “Grand Strategy 2.0,” would provide participants with a “Wikipedia meets Facebook collaborative space for generating content.”
“Generically this kind of work [strategic planning] is done in the form of static reports: that’s the industry standard,” Zamel told The Jerusalem Post. “This is different because it’s wiki-based, allowing strategists and analysts from around the world to collaboratively generate content.”
Read the full article here.
More on the competition at Wikistrat's website
