On The Pentagon's New Map
I just reached page 161 of The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas Barnett, one of the key strategic analysts the Pentagon turned to after September 11th. I love it and hate it. It is extraordinarily simple, but it confuses me.
Barnett's thesis divides the world into two distinct, opposing types (I suppose is the best word), the Functioning Core and the Non-Integrating Gap. Conflict is the result of disconnectivity, he argues; connect the Third World (Dr. Barnett, sorry for the Cold-War terminology) to the functioning world and everybody will get along. Entities like Iran (which is disconnected for religious purposes) North Korea (which is disconnected for ideological/personal purposes), and Al-Qaeda (which in Barnett's view seeks to disconnect the Middle East from the civilized world for ideological purposes) present the greatest threat to American security.
The points which generate the greatest reluctance in my realist soul are three. First, he suggests we will never develop conflict with China because they have begun the inevitable road to political reform (Deng Xiaoping, of course...) through economic growth. I hesitate. Second, he believes the eventual abolition of major conflict is possible if we handle this crucial time properly. He is an optimist; I am not. (My favorite statement was that the Gap can transition from Hobbes to Kant (Perpetual Peace - the apparent state of the Core) through Locke (rule of law). Third, he believes that making the jump from seeking national security to seeking Core security is the most effective way to protect America. That creates discomfort in my American nationalist skeletal system.
Comments are welcome here... I am struggling through it and asking my friends. Is there a better way to interpret the strategic environment?
Barnett's thesis divides the world into two distinct, opposing types (I suppose is the best word), the Functioning Core and the Non-Integrating Gap. Conflict is the result of disconnectivity, he argues; connect the Third World (Dr. Barnett, sorry for the Cold-War terminology) to the functioning world and everybody will get along. Entities like Iran (which is disconnected for religious purposes) North Korea (which is disconnected for ideological/personal purposes), and Al-Qaeda (which in Barnett's view seeks to disconnect the Middle East from the civilized world for ideological purposes) present the greatest threat to American security.
The points which generate the greatest reluctance in my realist soul are three. First, he suggests we will never develop conflict with China because they have begun the inevitable road to political reform (Deng Xiaoping, of course...) through economic growth. I hesitate. Second, he believes the eventual abolition of major conflict is possible if we handle this crucial time properly. He is an optimist; I am not. (My favorite statement was that the Gap can transition from Hobbes to Kant (Perpetual Peace - the apparent state of the Core) through Locke (rule of law). Third, he believes that making the jump from seeking national security to seeking Core security is the most effective way to protect America. That creates discomfort in my American nationalist skeletal system.
Comments are welcome here... I am struggling through it and asking my friends. Is there a better way to interpret the strategic environment?
posted by Brian at 7:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home