Professional Soldiers ® - 21st century Marshall Plan?

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Library (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=56)

- - 21st century Marshall Plan? (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2207)

21st century Marshall Plan?

The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century by Thomas Barnett.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...885060-4059918

This looks like an interesting read and I am wondering if any of you have heard of this book or its author. Barnett is a senior strategic researcher and professor at the U.S. Naval War College.

I picked this up the other day when I went back for Plaster's Secret Commando's but I have yet to read it.

Basically he says the U.S. is the major exporter of security, and that the world is defined by those who are connected politically and economically ("Functioning Core") and those who are not ("Non-integrating Gap.")

The non-integrating gap includes the Middle East, the Balkans, Central Africa, Southeast Asia and the Andean region.

Since I am not very good at reviewing books, and have yet to read this one, here is what another review had to say:

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Just curious if anyone has read the book or heard of the author.

Sigi.

That sounds a LOT like a website-brief either NDD or Jimbo posted a while back.

Solid

About this particular book, or this type of thesis in general? Been searching for awhile and can't seem to dig it up.

I have it and have not as yet finished it. Great so far though. I'd recommend it to anyone who has an interest in how our nation forms it's defense policy.

This thesis. The terminology (core etc) I think is identical, but IIRC the other one stopped after the analysis of the world situation. It may have been an excerpt of some kind.

Solid

I finished SGM Waugh's book, and I am on page 110 of this book. It is not only optimistic in style, but is unapologetic regarding preemptive strategies.

It is a little slow in the beginning, but that is because he lays down his thesis and how it applies to Cold War thought.

The guy knows his stuff. I'd ask Jimbo what he thought but I am sure he will find this eventually.

Anyway, I agree with Footmobile that it is a good book about forming Defense policy, but this is a policy that we have yet to see from the DOD.

How much has the US' war-fighting posture shifted since the Cold War?

Solid

The point of the book so far is that the posture did not shift post-Cold War. Therein lies the problem.

That was my view of the situation. I need to read this book, thank you for the recommendation.

Solid

Quote:

Originally posted by Solid
How much has the US' war-fighting posture shifted since the Cold War?

Solid

1996.

I am at a U.S. Army Senior School.

I am diagramming the Soviet MRD, in the approach formation. My map is the Fulda Gap area of Germany.

I do this (more or less, may be a Regiment, may be on the defense) for nine exercises.

On the 10th exercise, we do a Central American scenario which dates back to the early to mid-80s.

I ask my instructors why we are spending so much time on a defunct opponent from more than seven years ago, in an area where we will not likely fight in our lifetimes. Why can't we at least do Desert Storm, which was only five years old?

I am told by my instructor (an Armor officer) to shut up and color, and Kumbayah.

This is our conventional Army education. They are probably still doing the same thing.

TR

Quote:

Originally posted by The Reaper
This is our conventional Army education. They are probably still doing the same thing.

Sounds like the Army needs an enema.

I suppose the only true progress is made in the military when it is challenged by a power greater or equal to its own- forced evolution. Having the threat of a potential conventional war with China in the next 100 years looming over its shoulder, the military may also lack incentive to take a more UW orientated stance.

Is there any general consensus among those 'in the know' about what stance the US military should take to fight UW vs. a conventional warfare stance?

Thank you,

Solid

Quote:

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Sounds like the Army needs an enema.

Or a rektal infusion.

Solid:

I would say that it takes someone knowledgable in UW to lead the war against a UW opposition.

I don't see too many people with those quals in the conventional Army.

We won a counter-guerrilla war in El Salvador with 55 soldiers permanently assigned, mostly SF. Of course, we also had popular support and a usable HN military.

TR

Is there still some kind of firm hatred between conventional and unconventional branches of the military? It doesn't make any sense to me that commanders in this day and age, where the US is more likely to fight a war where hearts and minds will enter into the equation, lack actual SF command experience... Or maybe that SF command experience does not imbue the commander with knowledge of UW?

Solid

Several months later I have finished this book. It sounds like what Pres. Bush said in his debate last night - more mobile, less buildup, increased flexibility - accept the book has a theme that takes it much, much further (as I stated in the first part of this thread.)

Just curious if anyone has read this. I realize there are more important books out there but this particular thesis made sense to me and I was wondering who else read it.