You can tell that NDD's been reading too much Barnett.
But actually, I agree. Thomas Barnett's
The Pentagon's New Map and Thomas Friedman's
The Lexus and the Olive Tree together make for a good primer on globalization and security concerns. They accurately describe what I would see as the primary security situation today: not great-power warfare, but rather the legacy of failing to understand and keep up with globalization: failed states (Somalia, Haiti, Afghanistan, Liberia) and non-governmental groups who, for various reasons, fear the emergence of freedom, openness, and capitalism (al-Qaeda, most Islamofascist groups, various others). I'm not sure if I agree with Barnett's ultimate optimism in globalization leading us to a world where war is obsolete (people will always fight over some of the same old things), but I think he does a very good job of explaining how the usefulness of the old Big War legacy systems are on the decline (B-1 and B-2 bombers, major surface warships, Comanche) in favor of a more decentralized boots-on-the-ground approach (SF, basic infantry skills, Strykers, UAVs, UH-60s). But as we can see from watching procurement battles, a lot of generals don't want to give up their big-budget items, even if they don't adequately meet the nation's current or near future security needs (F-22s are sleek and sexy; UAVs are ugly and don't give ticket-punchers a clear path to general). Barnett's right when he complains that everyone is looking for the next near-peer competitor (which always ends up being China) while ignoring the real threats to our national security (all of the little bad guys around the globe biting at our ankles).
As for globalization in a larger sense, I'm with Greenhat and some of the others here. Business is a harsh thing, and it's meaningless to complain that the Chinese "don't play fair." Are we to expect them to boost their wages to US union levels out of some sense of international fair play? Of course not; that's absurd. I can understand the plight of people in the United States who are at the wrong end of the globalization stick; however, all of the other options are worse. Everyone in the US seems to love market economics right up until they find out that someone else can do their job just as well and for less.
Capitalism is a hard road, sometimes, and globalization is merely the logical extension of it to the international sphere. American lefties love to sit around and grouse about how bad working conditions are in other nations; what they forget, however, is that all of these people are doing it for a reason: working long hours in a factory for a tiny (to us) wage beats the hell out of starving to death in a mud hut. There's a reason why factories in Malaysia and Indonesia, call centers in India, and maquiladoras in Mexico constantly have crowds of would-be workers out front, hoping for a job. Capitalism, even exploitative and corrupt capitalism (which is a stage every nation inevitably goes through in the transition), has raised standard of living more than any other force in history.