[UPDATE: Reposted for those who missed it]

OP-ED: "From 'Connectedness' to Conflict," by David Ignatius, Washington Post, 22 February 2006, p. A15.

Here's the key bit on me and PNM:

Among military strategists, the bible of connectedness is a book called "The Pentagon's New Map," by Thomas P.M. Barnett. He argues that the world today is divided between an "integrating core" of orderly commerce, stretching from America and Europe across to China and India, and a "non-integrating gap," which is his shorthand for the messy rest of the world. The task of U.S. foreign policy is to connect the two. Thomas Friedman's influential book, "The World Is Flat," argues that technology is driving this process of integration, and that it's creating a richer, smarter global community.

So why does the world feel so chaotic? Why is there a growing sense that, as Francis Fukuyama put it in a provocative essay in last Sunday's New York Times Magazine, "More democracy will mean more alienation, radicalization and -- yes, unfortunately -- terrorism"? I have been discussing this conundrum with friends, and I've heard two interesting theories worth sharing.

The first comes from Raja Sidawi, a Syrian businessman who owns Petroleum Intelligence Weekly and is one of the most astute analysts of the Arab world I know. He argues that Barnett misses the fact that as elites around the world become more connected with the global economy, they become more disconnected from their own cultures and political systems. The local elites "lose touch with what's going on around them," opening up a vacuum that is filled by religious parties and sectarian groups, Sidawi contends. The modernizers think they are plugging their nations into the global economy, but what's also happening is that they are unplugging themselves politically at home.

Now, I am tempted to retort here on a variety of levels.

First, the entire notion of PNM is that the spread of the global economy creates tumult and change that ultimately but not instantly leads to connectivity, which in turn leads to stability. If connectivity led instantly to stability then I wouldn't have needed to call it the Pentagon's New Map, because there would have been no role for the military in this process. In truth, I am arguing Huntington's "clash" on many levels, just rendering that concept dynamic in relation to globalization's spread, so my Seam is basically the moving front of globalization that reformats "olive tree" places into "lexus" venues, to borrow from Friedman. PNM's advance was to combine Huntington's sociological determinism with Friedman's economic determinism by adding the third leg of the stool: political-military determinism--as in, where globalization is encroaching, look for conflict.

Second, PNM's entire discussion of the Big Bang as strategy not only admits the greater likelihood of more violence, it welcomes it. This is a notion I continue at great length in BFA, which I know Ignatius has read, yet, for some reason, he chooses not to explore in print. (I know, because he told me in person how much he liked BFA when I saw him at the "Diane Rehm Show.")

Third, my entire notion of "The Train's Engine Cannot Travel Faster Than Its Caboose" is a purposeful exploration of just this point. But again, David, for whatever reason, chooses to curtail his public understanding of my ideas to PNM, when in so many ways I moved beyond that initial expression by publishing Blueprint for Action. So I don't "ignore" the elites question, I just didn't get to it in PNM.

Fourth, I actually do a better job of defending Fukuyama's "End of History" argument in BFA than Fukuyama does in his NYT Mag article of last week (cited by David)! The whole "wars of the spirit" stuff was always part and parcel of Fukuyama's argument. In fact, it was the punch line of the entire book!

Fifth, my exploration of the Middle East ("Winning This War With Connectedness") in BFA argues that our pursuit of the GWOT will not lead to lower levels of violence, but instead--as I so often point out in this blog--speed the killing.

Sixth, in BFA I offer a detailed exploration of the possible sequencing of Gap shrinkage, and in that process I reiterate a point I make in Chapter 2 on "Winning This War": the fight, if done well, heads south into sub-Saharan Africa, meaning not less violence over time, but a geographic shifting of its center of gravity. This is why the term Long War is a good one.

It's hard for me to pick a fight with Ignatius, because I admire his writing so much and because he's been quite generous with me in the past. I will admit to being too damn prolific, and thus forcing a sequel into the marketplace while book #1 is still spreading in its impact. But I mean, it's not like I'm just pointing to my blog, or my new column, or my articles for Esquire in defense here. I'm actually pointing to an entire book already in print!

Still, "bible" and comparison to World is Flat is hard to complain about, and frankly, now that I write a column, I appreciate what it is for someone like Ignatius to work an issue, bit by bit, across columns.

My second column for the Knoxville News Sentinel is sort of an intro piece by me on China. Do I get the Internet stuff in? No. Do I explore Taiwan? Not really. I get what I can get in across 720 words. It's good stuff, starting a conversation, but I easily could have used about 5,000 more words to deal with this or that aspect. But my sense, especially with a biweekly, is that I need to build a case and an understanding over time. So I do a little bit in my first column on China, then a bit more a couple of months later when I revisit, and so on.

Sure, it would be different if I were 2x a week like Ignatius, but if and when I achieve that frequency, my guess is that I'll be singing the same whiney tune on this subject (so much to cover in 720 words!), that I really don't think Ignatius has it any easier. Ignatius' real point in this piece was to introduce the yin-yang-like interplay of connectivity and chaos as globalization spreads, a concept I stake my entire vision on. So he uses me as a bit of a foil here, understandably straw-manning me a bit, but doing so in a very nice way and plugging me just fine in the process.

Would I love to push Ignatius into some treatment of BFA? Damn straight, but I have to accept the fact that I'm a bit too prolific for my own good. The marketplace of ideas will catch up eventually, and BFA is sitting there, waiting to answer so many of the criticisms leveled at PNM like this one. That is a very cool position to be in.

I am also reminded of what Barry McAffrey told me when he saw the original PNM brief: he said that the vast majority of people would need multiple exposures to the material before adequately absorbing it. In fact, he said I would need to brief most people several times before they actually "got it." I know what McAffrey meant by that, because--quite frankly--I needed several dozen "exposures" to get the material myself! So how can I expect anything better from anyone else? In the end, then, Ignatius is carrying my water, so it's hard for me to complain. By giving PNM repeat exposures in his column, he does me a very good turn. Understandably, he will "abuse" the material a bit here and there to make larger points, and you have to accept that. As someone who's written a lot himself, I know I do that to people all the time. Remember, my original text for the "Monks of War" Esquire piece as about 14k, so you're always battling the reality of limited space, meaning you advance the argument as much as you can in any one piece and make your peace with that limitation.

Richness versus reach, my old mentor Art Cebrowski liked to say. So very true.

It's like that (largely) critical review I got from the high school kids in the Indy Star last week. Sure, I would have liked it better if they had actually read either book, but I got what I could across in that brief (highly shortened due to time and my perception of bit rate with the audience--no insult, you simply adjust to the audience from the stage). So you're happy with the exposure and you recognize the richness/reach tradeoff is inescapable. I mean, look at how many people misinterpret Fukuyama simply because of that title (End of History) and the fact that almost no one has actually read his book to the end!

Readers are constantly pushing me to push myself and my ideas into new venues, acting like I should be as impatient as they are. I appreciate that desire and sense of urgency--immensely. But it's been my experience of the last 16 years that the acceptance comes when the marketplace is ready. My job as visionary is to keep the pipeline full, not get all antsy about the timeline. The grand strategist's greatest strength is his sense of patience. Spending a weekend back in my hometown of Boscobel reminds me that I've been dreaming these dreams for a good three decades. I have been patiently working on this trajectory since I became aware of a larger world in the 1972-73 timeframe, so I refuse to get all wrapped around the axle at any one point in the process, which I still see unfolding over decades, not 24-hour news cycles.

I have written about this weird phenomenon before here: PNM was the big hit among the media types but it is BFA that has dramatically elevated my facetime with policy players and military leaders. So here is my conundrum: PNM is taken more seriously by commentators but BFA is taken more seriously by practitioners (meanwhile, the academics largely condemn both for not citing them enough).

I am beginning to think the Schopenhauer bit about truth going through three cycles (ridicule, opposition, "acceptance" as self-evident) is dead on.

But again, no game clock for the grand strategist ...

Know your role in life and stick to it. Do history the favor it needs from you and remain true to your beliefs.