View Full Version : The Pentagon's New Map
NousDefionsDoc
04-05-2005, 14:21
The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas P. M. Barnett
Amazon link (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399151753/qid=1112732424/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/002-0810981-9671234?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
Ok, I finally finished it. It is basically a more detailed discussion of the Esquire article here (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm) . I think the overall concept is outstanding. He makes a case for dividing the military into two groups for example, that while it probably won't happen, makes a lot of sense. His explanation of the strategic "whys" of recent conflicts makes sense to me and could have been used by the admin to better explain the need for military intervention in Iraq and other places.
His PollyAnna-ish views on the future nearly drove me crazy and are at least part of the reason it took me so long to finish it. His use of globalization as a cure-all is also very naive IMO. As is his glossing over of the illegal immigration issue. His knowledge of the current state of affairs in Colombia is sophomoric at best. But then his training was in the USSR.
All in all, it was worth the money, but if you understand the article, you pretty much have the plot.
[...]PollyAnna-ish [...]
What does this mean?
Thanks.
NousDefionsDoc
04-05-2005, 14:27
Pol·ly·an·na Audio pronunciation of "pollyanna" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pl-n)
n.
A person regarded as being foolishly or blindly optimistic.
Thanks for the review NDD. I've only read the article, not the book. It helped explain US military intervention for me.
One question I had reading the article was whether it was too US-centric, i.e., what is a gap state to us might not be a gap state to say, China. He appears to explain that away using globalization, meaning it's not whether you are aligned with US interests or not, but rather your degree of connectivity to globalization, that will place you within the core.
Is that what you meant by globalization as a cure-all?
NousDefionsDoc
04-06-2005, 06:25
He seems to think that if everybody is connected to the internet and selling their crap on it, war will go away. He is also convinced that war between states is over. I am not so optimistic.
He seems to think that if everybody is connected to the internet and selling their crap on it, war will go away. He is also convinced that war between states is over. I am not so optimistic.I agree.
Barnett has an article in the new Esquire: The Monks of War (http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/Esquire/2006/03/01/1183066?ba=p&bi=25&bp=24).
NousDefionsDoc
02-17-2006, 15:32
Can't read it without paying yet. But from what I could see, looks like somebody should have been prepping the battle space with FID before 9-11.
Yeah, sorry, it's in the current issue. I'll try to get a scan.
The Reaper
02-17-2006, 16:04
I think that in light of ongoing events and the recent QDR, we should review a bit.
Can someone send a copy of this to our leadership?
TR
SOF Truths
Humans are more important than Hardware.
Quality is better than Quantity.
Special Operations Forces cannot be mass produced.
Competent Special Operations Forces cannot be created after emergencies occur.
tcharles
03-09-2006, 08:30
I picked this book up a couple months ago and put it on my list. I guess Ill tackle it soon. The author resides in the fine state of Indiana.
I'm working my way through this, and have a couple of questions.
Disclaimer: I'm not that well-read in military history overall, having concentrated on certain time-periods as research for other studies, so my questions might seem rather obvious to you all. My apologies. :)
1. Barnett states (p.84) that "like all politics, all terrorism is ultimately local: it occurs within states and it typically involves specific grievances even as it rages against the system..." Do you agree?
2. Barnett states (p. 85-6) that "basically, wars between states have disappeared" and that Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was "not to conquer a state for particularistic gain but rather to readmit that disconnected state back to the system -- or community -- of peaceful states." Is he denying that Kuwait was a state? Any why did he think Iraq invaded Kuwait, if not for gain? Am I missing something here?
lrd,
While there are much more informed minds on this board then myself, I would like to take a crack at it.
1. Barnett sources violence in the international security environment to 3 separate perspectives:
- System – think Cold War turning hot, Warsaw Pact v. NATO. Or simpler flags v. flags
- States – Iraq invading Kuwait in ’90. Or simpler flag v. flag
- Individuals – Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing in Serbia during the 90’s.
He includes transnational terrorism in “Individuals”, b/c it is violence that does not occur between states but inside them. This is because “all terrorism is local”. Ultimately all terrorist acts have to happen in a State (think flag) and typically the acts involve specific grievances with the State (think policy done under the flag). But the acts are committed by actors of neither a system (flags) nor a State (flag) but by individuals (no flag).
2. I believe you have misread. The "not to conquer a state for particularistic gain” sentence is in relation to the U.S.-led coalition representing the system liberating Kuwait from Iraq in ’91. Gain was a motive for Iraq, but the system spearheaded by the U.S. did not invade Kuwait for its own gain but rather to return Kuwait to the system.
lrd,
While there are much more informed minds on this board then myself, I would like to take a crack at it.
1. Barnett sources violence in the international security environment to 3 separate perspectives:
- System – think Cold War turning hot, Warsaw Pact v. NATO. Or simpler flags v. flags
- States – Iraq invading Kuwait in ’90. Or simpler flag v. flag
- Individuals – Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing in Serbia during the 90’s.
He includes transnational terrorism in “Individuals”, b/c it is violence that does not occur between states but inside them. This is because “all terrorism is local”. Ultimately all terrorist acts have to happen in a State (think flag) and typically the acts involve specific grievances with the State (think policy done under the flag). But the acts are committed by actors of neither a system (flags) nor a State (flag) but by individuals (no flag).
2. I believe you have misread. The "not to conquer a state for particularistic gain” sentence is in relation to the U.S.-led coalition representing the system liberating Kuwait from Iraq in ’91. Gain was a motive for Iraq, but the system spearheaded by the U.S. did not invade Kuwait for its own gain but rather to return Kuwait to the system.
Thanks for the post. I have comments re: this, but I just got in from a trip.
I'll get back to you.