Barnett the synthesizer
5 of 10 people found the following review helpful
5 out of 5 stars
Should be part of the national debate! June 17, 2004
Reviewer: A reader

Quite the thought provoking book. Does get to the heart of the rising threats to the West. Also, in an amazing synthesis, Barnett connects the main Left Wing and Right Wing arguments about the 'root causes' of terror.

His solutions also encompass the Left/Right arguments: Fruit and Fist. Connect the disconnected in the global marketplace and let them reap the fruit. . ..as well as bring the fist down on those tyrants who are keeping their people apart from the global community.

I wish he had explored more the opportunities for more nations to be part of the 'fist'. While he's correct that the US is the only nation currently capable to providing global security, that doesn't mean we can't encourage others to develop their capabilities (he seems to dismiss the EU and China as secondary military powers)

If I have one critique it is in style. Too much jargon. Could have been written in simpler prose and thus accessible to a larger public. The contents of this book should be part of the national debate.

COMMENTARY: Alright, so I like this ìreaderî better! Actually, the bit about jargon seems more a function of this personís vocabulary than anything else. I had to correct about 10 spelling errors in the text before reposting. But thatís quibbling. Whatís nice is that the ìreaderî (okay, my aunt if you must know) sees the middle-ground arguments for what they aspire to be, a mixing of left and right that tries to be inclusive.

Book my flight to Oslo please!
6 of 9 people found the following review helpful
5 out of 5 stars
Nobel Prize for Barnett, June 11, 2004
Reviewer: Ben A. Green (Scotia, NY USA)

Thomas Barnett's analysis, which seems right on to me, attempts to show us the way to permanent world peace. It may take a long time and a lot of money, but it could take the world to a new place.

And the key to this permanent world peace is the establishment of economic prosperity EVERYWHERE, even sub-Saharan Africa. To get there, however, we have to make globalization safe for everybody, one nation at a time. The key to motivating a nation to join the global prosperity is connectedness -- internet, satellite TV, and world trade.

Read baldphil's review of the book for more details, but best of all READ THIS BOOK. It will be talked about for a long time.

COMMENTARY: To me, this guy gets the most important message of the book, one that I am very proud to be associated with: making globalization truly global. A vision that demands sacrifice requires a very happy ending. To me, that is one, and Ben agrees.

Check please!
14 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
5 out of 5 stars
A 21st Century Marshall Plan, June 10, 2004
Reviewer: "baldphil" (Los Angeles, CA United States)

In "The Pentagon's New Map,î Thomas Barnett presents a revolutionary new doctrine for foreign policy, which, if adopted, would be as dramatic a shift in America's international role as the Monroe Doctrine or the Marshall Plan. Briefly stated, the United States military should make the integration of developing countries into the world system its highest strategic priority.

Barnett employs a mild bait and switch tactic to get to his main point. The bait is a map of the world with a compelling new feature: a closed loop around the portion of the world that produces almost all of the world's instability. The loop surrounds the Middle East, the Balkans, Central Africa, Southeast Asia and the Andean region. This area is called the 'Non-Integrating Gap' (or just 'Gap'), and the rest of the world is called the "Integrating Core" (or just 'Core'). These terms reflect the basic difference between these two regions-the Core is connected politically, economically and militarily, whereas the Gap is disconnected in all of these ways. The map's validity is reinforced by plotting all US military interventions since the end of the Cold War. Of course, almost all fall within the Gap.

But the main thrust of Barnett's argument-the switch-is the idea that the military must stop fighting wars "within the context of war" and begin fighting wars "within the context of everything else"; that is, in the context of civilian life. Barnett does well the make this phrase awkward; if it were easier to say, demagogues would tear it apart as a new incarnation of "nation building". "War in the context of everything else" is actually more ambitious than nation building. It basically requires dividing the military into two distinct parts. Army #1 would be the traditional force, made up of a few large, expensive pieces of super high-tech equipment, similar to our current force. In a war, it would go in first, guns a-blazing, and kill most of the bad guys, along with a few others. Army #2 would look like a hybrid of the Coast Guard and the Peace Corps on steroids. It would employ a large number of small, inexpensive pieces (e.g. lots of ships resembling Coast Guard cutters), as well as police forces and other civilian-style personnel units. It would follow Army #1, and basically show those bush league natives how it's done in the Show.

The truly revolutionary nature of this doctrine is summed up when Barnett states, "There is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it." This means WE CAN NEVER LEAVE, until countries develop economically and politically. Exit strategies have gone the way of the Dodo.

And what's the rationale for all this? What's the reason Barnett gives to take a perfectly good military and chop it in two? Surely the reason must be global terrorism, right?

WRONG!!!

Barnett's reasoning instead subordinates war to market forces. He presents four crucial entities whose flow dominates the current process of Globalization: security, people, energy, and investment.

Security: In Barnett's scheme, the U.S. military is merely the most important exporter of security based upon global demand for its services. Indeed, considered on a global scale, the U.S. military is the only viable exporter of these services. Everything else depends on America's global security guarantee.

People: The population in the Core is aging rapidly, meaning that Core countries will require a huge influx of younger people to maintain enough of a workforce to keep pension systems afloat. These young people will all come from Gap countries, but this emigration will be politically unpalatable unless security is assured.

Energy: China and India are growing at phenomenal rates economically. They will consume huge amounts of Mideast oil and gas, possibly becoming more dependent on them than the United States. I need not mention how essential security is in this regard.

Investment: Gap countries will require a safe business environment if they are to attract the immense amount of capital required to raise living standards. Improved living standards are, of course, the only true guarantor of long-term security.

And what if we don't do what Barnett says? In 2050, Grandma won't be able to afford the gas required to go pick up her medicines, which is just as well, since the bankrupt Medicare system won't be able to pay for them. This assumes that she is lucky enough to have a doctor when there are only a few workers for every pensioner. Meanwhile, a perfectly well trained doctor in Gappistan will not be able to emigrate to the U.S. because Gappistan is a disease ridden, terrorist infested dump. He will, of course, be unemployed, since Gappistan lacks the capital to build hospitals.

What if we do follow Barnett's prescriptions? I wasn't so clear on that, but strains of "We are the World" spontaneously come to mind. Everyone loves each other, all Grandmas are properly taken care of by (formerly) third world doctors, and the Gap is criss-crossed with shimmering lanes of well-trafficked concrete. The only costs are perpetual low-grade war, and thousands of U.S. troops permanently scattered across Africa, Central Asia and the Andes.

I can't wait.

COMMENTARY: Baldphil apparently likes his coffee black and his truth unvarnished. Heís one of those guys who wants the bad news up front and then heís happy to move ahead, because he feels he has a firm grip on the task ahead. I tried to write the book in enough of a ìrealistî fashion to accommodate people like baldphil, and apparently it worked.

Another hater of my life story
11 of 23 people found the following review helpful
1 out of 5 stars
needles for thought in a wind-bag haystack, June 9, 2004
Reviewer: A reader

The good thing about this book is that the author has some exciting and insightful ideas about the future of the world (nothing trivial here!) and what America needs to do to cope, especially the Pentagon. There are some fascinating data on world economics and demographics as well as entertaining insights on the world of government operations and bureaucracy.

Unfortunately, these nuggets are almost buried in a turgid writing style, relentless self-promotion and bragging, and almost limitless mountains of jargon. Fundamentally, I decided this book is really about the author and how right he is about things; this almost swamps the enjoyable parts of the book, which have to be looked for and dug out of the verbiage. Overall: save your money and read the lengthy reviews here on Amazon.

COMMENTARY: We knew weíd alienate some with the personal narrative, but we felt we probably wouldnít win those readers anyway with the ideas alone, and it was more important to win readers who needed to be reassured about who I am to buy into the entire vision. To write only to the high-concept audience is to put your book quickly into the remainder bins at bookstores. Do you notice how the really negative reviews are never appreciated by a majority of readers?

Brilliant + flawed = brawed
14 of 19 people found the following review helpful
3 out of 5 stars
Brilliant new paradigm, but flawed., June 7, 2004
Reviewer: Greg Peterson (Hawaii USA)

Thomas Barnett presents a new paradigm through which to view our current struggles. The author describes the world as being divided between those nations that are connected and part of the globalization process (the Functioning Core) and those disconnected from globalization, (the Non-Integrating Gap). The cause for conflict in the near to mid term future will not be between great powers such as the U.S., Europe, China and Russia. Rather conflict will occur because of the problems associated with the disconnectedness that is in the Gap. As the author sees it the difference between the Core and the Gap is the Core plays by rule sets that are known, understood and obeyed by all the players. These rule sets include the WTO, GATT, NATO, and the IMF to name a few. As a result of playing by these rules a nation becomes integrated into globalization and the Core. The GAP does not recognize or play by the same rules and as a result does not enjoy the benefits of globalization and remains disconnected to the advancement of mankind.

The solution to the problems in the Gap according to Mr. Barnett is for the Gap to become integrated into the globalization process and eventually become part of the Core. This is achieved by the U.S exporting security into the Gap to allow those nations to become stable enough to adopt and play by the accepted rule sets. The author observes the U.S. must play the Leviathan in the Hobbesian world of the Gap to force the forces of disconnectedness to play by the rules. True security for the U.S. and the Core as a whole lies in integrating the Gap into the accepted rule sets so the Gap does not continue to export terror and instability across the globe.

The authorís analysis and description of the two groups and what separates them is first rate in its logic and demonstrates that the author has given this a great deal of scholarly thought. His solution is also well thought out and if you listen to policy statements put out by the U.S. government you will see that his work has gained influence in certain circles.

However I feel the author has glossed over and conveniently ignored certain factors in his analysis.

1) The author does not take fully into account culture. For him itís ìall about the economy stupid.î He briefly touches upon some of the cultural difficulties that some cultures have with the globalization process but then more or less just wishes them away. As he sees it as soon as people see the benefits of globalization they will whole-heartedly embrace it and forget about all they previously held dear. I fear that this is unrealistic and smacks against human nature.

2) He disregards any threats posed by other nations that are in the Core and especially holds for contempt those who view China as a threat. Mr. Barnett feels that our military should focus on the threats from the Gap and not worry about a threat from China, as it is unlikely we will fight them as they become more integrated into the Core. He recommends wholesale changes in military force structure to reflect this belief. I concur that war with China is unlikely but that is in part because our military outclasses theirs and they know it. If our military cannot be perceived as being able to defeat theirs the equation could change. Peace can be maintained through strength.

3) He assumes a rational actor model with all the leaders and actors in the Core and does not account for nationalism.

4) He states that the U.S. will not become the ìGlobocopî but yet fully endorses the idea of the U.S. becoming the Leviathan in the Gap and intervening and enforcing the rules as needed. Isnít enforcing the rules the job of a policeman?

5) He states that this is not a ìclash of culturesî but yet talks about changing the role of women, beliefs in individual freedoms and forms of government in the Gap. All these beliefs are based on a nationís culture and how it sees how the world should function. So if we are to change these beliefs we are in essence changing their culture to look more like ours. If this isnít a ìclashî I donít know what is.

All in all this book is well thought out and worth the time in reading. Unfortunately I feel the author ignores human nature and culture to the detriment of the overall concept.

COMMENTARY: A good summation of all the usual criticisms of the book. Basically the State Department review. As a former regional studies scholar, you take it all in stride. Yes, I am open to all these criticisms, but I deal with all of them in the book directly and basically say that while there is some truth in them, the overall labels simply do not stick in my mind. For some, though, those labels stick just fine. Overall, a smart review that sees the value in the book while deftly summarizing all the usual criticisms.

No comments
4 of 13 people found the following review helpful
5 out of 5 stars
Even a seamless argument has seams. . ., June 7, 2004
Reviewer: "johnny_zucchini" (Houston, TX United States)

My head is spinning. We can't be "the world's cop" is now "we are the unilateral perpetual world's cop" 'cause, well darn it, because we're good and we can be. The necessity for a "compelling national interest" has been ditched for "the world is our global beat and our boys and girls in camo are off to the inevitable rescue via pinpoint death." We don't want to get involved in "nation building" goes poof and now "nation building" is to become our rather obsessive hand off to the always-ready-to-help" world, on their tab, thank you very much. The Cold War is over, but Marxist/socialist states with not-long-for-the-world dictators, and even nation states with working democracies that dare to elect a lefty and express even mild defiance to the US, seem to remain morsels on his war platter, and there is no apparent means by which they can remove themselves: not so much perpetual war as an unavoidable, inexorable march toward war despite any mounting evidence to the contrary, Act (aw shoot, pick a big number.)

But why care? Even if the military should mess up left and right and all over the place, what can the world do? Any expression of defiance, especially withdrawal from the world scene, is evil disconnectedness, and we can just Toby Keith the evil bad boys and nobody can do anything about it. Seamless - compassionate violent intervention for the lonely. But I agree 100% that disconnectness is bad for people.

Somebody, please put some Kryptonite in Professor Barnett's Wheaties. His Captain Kirk act may be as insufferable as the excellent original, and he has turned my imaginings of all Pentagon briefings into similar camp classics. How did I miss the Borg becoming a service branch?

But I loved the book. It is thought provoking and Professor Barnett's ultimate goal, something I call " permanent peace though perpetually victorious war" cannot be dismissed because he offers not only peace, but quality of life, too - to the survivors, of course. His snappy jingoisms are a riot. I didn't think they could be equaled until my inner child talked me into renting "Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation-SP.", and the writers of that everlasting war tome chopped Professor Barnett off at the knees before the tarnish could form on his war-jingo trophy. But hey, you can't be the champ forever.

Or can you?

All in all, an excellent and highly informative read with loads of surprises, including serious ones. The future is important, and Professor Barnett is a likely, slightly 911-tipsy Architect. Gotta go; bugs to kill.

COMMENTARY: What can I say about Johnny that hasnít already been thought by anyone who ever read one of his many postings on my weblog? Two words: no comments.