Skip to comments.Global Transaction Strategy [author of the Pentagon's New Map #3 at Amazon]
Posted on 09/05/2004 3:23:34 PM PDT by AndyJackson
click here to read article
At the concluson, C-SPAN indicated that they have these programs available for purchase.
Thr US shoudl offer to a 99 year lease for Siberia.
Thera are already increasing links between the people of Alaska and the Russians in Siberia.
If the Russians were to lease mineral/timber(/water?) rights, they'd get hard currency which they badly need, doubtless a nice percentage of concessions, introduction into other investment possibilities, and enormous good will all around. It's win-win for them, completely...and they'll negotiate a VERY good deal for themselves, trust me on this. Russians have historically been a very practical people -- we'll see if that comes into play here, and if they go into leasing.
Potential lessors are STILL going to be highly skittish, though, until there is in place at least a fairly clear rule of law concerning property. This minute, the body of ''law'' that exists is utterly chaotic.
I believe if you read Barnett carefully you will discover that he suggests that China and Russia have a lot of challenges to face.
The author drones on and on about America's export of 'security'. He could have saved everyone alot of time and mentioned the old cliche that America's chief exports are guns and butter. Okay, grain, oats, rice, etc.
But the author is obviously disrespectful of the chief distinguishing characteristic of America, freedom. He is also unwilling to connect that distinguishing trait with technological innovation and business prosperity.
So what has the United States provided the world in return? Clearly we are a leader in technology and cultural exports, but these are fundamentally private-sector transactions that any advanced economy can provide.
Completely wrong. This statement completely ignores the foundation upon which the American economy is built and which is truly unique in all the world.
America has for better or worse introduced the greatest economic inventions to itself nationwide and to the world attracted to its success. Supermarkets in France, Home Depots in Lithuania, Computers and operating systems in every country, and on and on. The refinement of these innovations and their products may be attributed to other economic cultures, but more often than not refinements are speared by American entrepreneurs and counselors themselves, e.g. Deming in post-WWII Japan.
American sales, promotion techniques and marketing are so pervasive that France must pass laws to outlaw English and Mullahs must brainwash their young that America is evil.
And all of this American success can be attributed causally to the stubborn notion that no government may control absolutely the American citizen. There are illusions of hierarchy and many Americans accept a hierarchical imposition but there are always those that rebel against such structures. And more importantly, the laws of America promote such rebellion.
There is no other country with that kind of culture. You cannot find it anywhere except in America. The only country that exhibits some notion of this rebellious attribute is Russia but it is not yet established there in economic terms.
To be lenient one can say the author makes a nice summary of information already hashed and rehashed. Perhaps he will make himself into a cottage industry of Beltway-ThinkTanking pundit preaching.
I got a faint whiff of an attitude that America should run the UN, or simply announce what was going to happen, and let the UN me-too in order to survive as an institution.
Clearly he favors the CORE nations, (the INS), promoting interactivity all over the world, while the GAP nations, the OUTS), either learn to play ball, or we will eventually send in some rehabilitation trainers.
As to his personal politics, the show was recorded on June 2, which was before the crummy no-bounce Democrat Convention, before the national out-pouring of good feelings for Ronald Reagan, and before the impressive and stately Republican Convention.
He may well be an academic who is leaning heavily on his co-analysts at the War College for his brilliance.
Still, I plan to follow this "thread."
No, the fact that the United States consumes 25% of the world's natural resources is not a matter that is under dispute among those who keep count. Our foreign aid is a miniscule fraction of GDP.
The alleged injured co-analyst[s] might have popped off about this academic injustice, were it to have occurred. What you try to argue is a bit like the theory that no one could have been smart enought to write Shakespeare's plays and so some other genius must have written them, or the other silly theory that they concot is the one impossibly brilliant person is so hard to imagine that the only explanation is the even more unlikely co-existance of two or more impossibly brillian people.
I am afraid the democrat or not, he is the real thing. It takes only a few minutes listening to him to realize that he is the one who thought at least a lot of this up.
''Sun sets in West -- tape at eleven''.
Boy did you miss the point about what he says, what questions he is asking, who he is and what he does. You are not even close.
Very well said, and thank you!
You see - you missed his point entirely. It is not about selling or giving away guns. It is about having and using the ability to send several hundred thousand troops 1/2 around the world and use them to overthrow a bad political actor. No one else can do that.
the author is obviously disrespectful of the chief distinguishing characteristic of America, freedom. He is also unwilling to connect that distinguishing trait with technological innovation and business prosperity.
Where do you get that notion? I think you are putting words in his mouth.
Oh really. I thought it shallow and banal and stuff that we all already know. This wasn't an essay about freedom passed down from our founding fathers. It was an essay to explain the U.S. role in an altered security environment and to explain it in enough detail that decision-makers can think clearly.
Let me try a different tack. Since you seem to find him shallow, silly with a pejorative attitude towards American values, explain to me why military commanders chose to have him teach at the Naval War College, at the National War College and other command and staff colleges. Explain why Rumsfeld would use him as a leader in the transformation of the military.
Stick with your hero worship, laddiebuck. Good luck to you.
No reply required -- or even desirable. I'll just have to make my own way through all the muddles of life without your valuable help.
Mr. Chips, a Latin teacher in Georgia, noticed this about the book and its origin...
"It says By Thomas P.M. Barnett and Henry H. Gaffney Jr. . . . and I think I saw Gaffney on CSPAN the other day in a "debate" with Gary Hart, and Gaffney was brilliant."
I didn't mean to imply that Barnett was not brilliant, I meant to imply that he may simply be a better organizer or presenter than some of the others in his group. One of the reasons to organize into think tanks is so that thinking can be additive.
"What you try to argue ... " -- Me?!! Argue?! Perish the thought.
"The alleged injured co-analyst[s] might have popped off about this academic injustice, were it to have occurred." -- Well, yes, perhaps, but I would not be surprised to find that Dr. Barnett may have heaped lavish praise in his book for the contributions of his comrades.
I would be surprised to discover that his brilliance outshone that of the combined intellect of his companions, but I suppose it is possible.
And I might even be coerced into the admission that an admitted Democrat could be intelligent, but I won't go that far right now.
I saw most of the presentation, and I was duly impressed. I felt as if someone had given my stool a kick, and spun me around to see the actual objects that were casting those confusing shadows into Plato's cave. It really was illuminating.
I think he is probably even smart enough to pick other smart people to hang around with.
And quite possibly he might be the single entity who proves that Military Intelligence is not always an oxymoron.
I didn't even know that Opus, the penguin owned a tuxedo!
Ok, so you love the guy. Buy his book or books.
SAJ wrote a book, too.
Heck, so did I. Don't know about Andy, but he made a great President.
Everybody go out and buy books. You can skip the Koran, I think.
Best regards to you, of course!
No, I think you missed the point.
America's success has nothing to do with government policies or individuals such as the author of this summary of old news and facts.
It has everything to do with innovation and prosperity. Those two things rest on the energy, spirit and drive of America's free markets and the individuals that keep those markets on the cutting edge. It has nothing to do with the War College, Rumsfield or the current view that Chiina needs more energy and less centralization, etc.
The War College and its league cannot invent a prosperous society as a means of supplanting a warlike culture. To see this, note that the policies and strategies the author summarizes have existed for decades.
The problem is that the American prosperity model is rejected in cultures that are vertically concentrated. Although injections of economic products and services can help erode this vertical concentration, such injections more often than not must be imposed by force.
So the author has found himself a bone from which he can generate what I described before as generic chit-chat, suitable for filling conference schedules with something that appears somewhat current, i.e. he's a boe.
They're possibly worth the read, if you happen to trade in a certain fashion. Do as you wish on this, certainly.
Opus? What opus? Who's leaving FR? Not I. I'm merely discontinuing commentary on this thread, conceding that I haven't the faintest clue whereof I speak regarding this and related topics, and geopolitical historical trends in general, and thus leaving the field of discussion entirely open to the agape of AndyJackson for Doctor Who.
Is there some rule here that says that one cannot simply become tired of having his ankles bitten on a given thread? (N.B. ... for the SLOW here (I expect the number of which to be either 2 or 3, btw), that was a rhetorical question.)
For those of you who like diagrams, it seems as if Barnett not only likes maps, but sees our role as the Global Network Administrator -
I was using the word opus in the sense of a bail-out. In this case from a conversational connection. I was bending its meaning.
But I meant the word classy. (Note Well, It seems to be difficult to pick up Latin these days. It used to be so much easier to do that when Rome was the System Administrator.)
I am not sure where you think you have a disagreement with the author. Is it that he points out the obviously true fact that increasingly we consume goods produeced outside of the U.S., paid for by debt that is purchased by those countries (evidence is the balance of trade figures and the figures on who buys our debt). He asks a question worthy of answer, which is why do foreign entities buy so much of our debt? His answer is because we provide global security.
Dr. Barnett is voting for Kerry.
Oh really? It did not sound like it when I heard the presentation last night. For several reasons. First he had nothing but high praise for Rumsfeld's conduct of the war and efforts to transform the Pentagon. Seconde, given his ennunciation of international strategy it would make no sense, whatsover, since, it is the strategy the Bush is following and Kerry would more or less abandon.
4 -Andy Jackson-
Thanks for posting a great article Andy. -- And torie, thanks for your comical reply.
As to Kerry abandoning our current military strategy, - don't bet on it. -- If elected Kerry will flip his 'opposition' position in a minute. The republocratic regime in charge in DC is commited to the 'Global Cop' tactics as outlined by Barnett.
Kerry/Bush, it makes no real difference; we will play out the hand as dealt.
He isn't the only one. One despairs of folks who cannot accept a good new idea for a good new idea because its proponent claims to support some democrats. This is not old hat, since most of this is about how to understand and think about the US role in the post 9/11 world and what that conotes for force structure. One thing Barnett is not is a socialist.
There is a vast gulf of folks in the middle who balance back and forth between democrat and republican based on which they fear most - the left wing taliban or the right wing taliban. Intelligent, free and open dabate on the directions of our society is crucial and a point of view should not be rejected because someone associates himself with the democrats out of fear of the obvious strain of anti-illectual authoritarianism that infects the republican party.
In fact I have a prediction. The next big political move in the U.S. is going to be one of the principal parties ejecting its radical extreme, and when that happens there will be a seismic event in U.S. politics. It is likely to be the democratic party that does it first, and shortly after this election, just in order to survive. Done right it will instantly create a party in the middle with the authoritarian socialists and the authoritarian right left out in the political cold. If that were to happen it would be a very good thing.
Thanks for the link. I only heard his CSPAN talk on the radio and have not had access to his visuals.
If the Democrat party ejected its radical extreme, that would leave ... Zell Miller.
And a very disappointed Tom Dashle.
It would have been nice to have a discussion over whether and how the ideas presented herein apply to our current circumstance, but no, it is met with a derisive who would bother to read an article written by a democrat.
Yep. -- Unfortunately, 'derisive' partisan politics has become the be all & end all of the site.
We used to at least give lip service to restoring respect for Constitutional government.