Posted on 12/29/2004 3:07:26 PM PST by AndyJackson
Well, only this--from Barnett and McCaffrey's Feb '01 memo:
This bugaboo must also be disaggregated to make sense of it. Starting with terrorists, the hype ignores historical data. According to the State Department’s annual report on terrorism, the phenomenon peaked in the second half of the 1980s, when it averaged 630 international attacks a year. Then the Soviet Bloc’s support system disappeared and so did much of the terrorism. Since 1989 terrorists have averaged 382 attacks per year—a 40% drop.[3]
It looks like when those planes crashed into the towers, his new paradigm crashed as well....
At least it woke him up, obviously.
Which paradigm crashed, his new paradigm or his new new paradigm?
Sounds like "works make free" the emblem on the German concentration camps for JEWs..
The entire world is becoming a Socialist enclave.. The U.S.A. just lags a little..
LOL! His 'new' post cold war paradigm. I thing his new new paradigm is dead-on in the post 9-11 world....
I am amazed at the number of troglodytes around here who want to undo Iraq so that we can go back to continuing to fight the cold war with cold war force levels and structures. Sorry, but the democrats won't support you and 1/2 of the Rpublicans will nto support you. You I am sure number among those who accuse the rest of us of being blind. But a lot of us were on the front lines in the cold war, and the world picture looks very different than it did then.
In the first place, no where are are facing a super-power willing and able to devote a major fraction of its GDP to an arms race. And don't tell me China. Is China an issue? Of course. Are there worries? Of course. Is it a threat that we cannot deal with if we remain firm and vigilant? Many think not, myself included. Remember, if we put China in the position of having to shoot down a large number of air force aircraft, sink a carrier and perhaps a couple of nuke submarines to get to Taiwan, then they will have to think hard about whether they want to run the risk of nuclear war - and believe me we would view sinking a carrier as a direct assault upon a supreme interest of the U.S.
But China is in no position to match our defense spending, even after the proposed 2006 cutbacks. They have population that wants to be better off. In 50 or 100 years will things be different. Probably, but we will have to watch and see which direction things go.
Me like kill commie.. BONK..BONK.. on head..
You got attitude wrong.. No doubt wrong on other things too..
Read chicken bones.. it all in bones.. Little chicken wing bone you use for nose.. Make handsome..
Thanks for the indirect ping. :')
Hallelujah!!! The Wicked Witch is DEAD! Got caught supporting Kerry no doubt. GWB supports no treason but his own....
quidam????
Funny that he supports our efforts in Iraq and thinks that Rumsfeld has been doing exactly the right things. With enemies like this, who needs friends. Yeah, he is a liberal, but we have bigger fish to fry.
Me no quidam....
Me from another tribe.. put feathers in hair..
Much better looking tribe..
quidam put feathers in cracks in body..
even moron know you put feathers in hair..
There was a review of Barnett's self-inflatedly-important work that is just too solidly on target not to include here verbatim:
Reviewer: W. Barquist "web667" (usa)
Barnett has a PhD in political science from Harvard University, which, like many people who have gone to Harvard, is the first thing he tells you about himself. He thinks this means he is very smart, which he also tells you, over and over and over and over again. He also KNOWS a lot of very smart and important and powerful people, who may also have gone to Harvard, which he also tells you ad nauseum (that means until you want to throw up, in case you're wondering).
This is basically the story of how Barnett went from Harvard to Washington and found THAT ONE SLIDE that made his career in the big-time, as an important "pol-mil" analyst. He tells you all this, and much, much more, in the first part of his book, up to page 154. It just gets worse from there until it finally ends on page 389.
In the course of this book we learn that Barnett has lots of important friends and acquaintances, that he works 18 hour days holed up in Pentagon briefing rooms with admirals who yell at each other, that he single-handedly showed the Pentagon how to do their job right, that he left his wife to eat Thanksgiving dinner alone in order to spend time in briefing rooms with admirals, that he is a Democrat (no surprise there), and that his wife ("a card-carrying member of the ACLU") worries that he is becoming a Republican.
We learn a new language for expressing old ideas: "globalization" means "American world hegemony", "disconnectedness" means "no one has cell phones or computers", "the Gap" and "lesser includeds" mean "poverty-stricken countries" (what used to be called "The Third World") - you get the idea. New lingo, old ideas.
We learn that Gorbachev really deserves the credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, not Reagan (although I don't think Gorby really meant for things to come out that way), that "the world has effectively surrendered the seas to the US Navy, and it has done so out of immense trust that America will not abuse that unprecedented power", that the Bush administration has engaged in "bone-headed" diplomacy and "political gamesmanship of the most venal sort", and that when we "successfully exported that rule set to the other great powers" (he means the fall of the Soviet Union), "the threat of global war basically ended in human history".
The full onslaught of this incoherent torrent of self-referential egomaniacal Wilsonianism has to be experienced to be believed. I would recommend that every American taxpayer read this book at least up to page 154 just to get a feel for the kind of claptrap we are paying for in Washington. One can only pray that Barnett is a flash in the pan, and will not be taken too seriously.
He has an action plan, which starts on page 379:
1. Democratize Iraq (he calls it "reconnecting" Iraq)
2. Get rid of Kim Jong Il and unify Korea
3. Foment counterrevolution in Iran
4. Form a Free Trade Area of the Americas
5. Pressure the Saudis to stop funding Islamic maddrassahs, by shifting our automobiles to fuel cells
6. Develop a military and financial alliance with China
7. Form an Asian NATO
8. Merge that Asian NATO with NAFTA and the European NATO
9. Admit a dozen more states to the US (presumably from Mexico and Central America), with the first Mexican president of the US coming from a Mexican state. 10. Africa just will have to wait until the Middle East is pacified ("integrated into The Core")
The first three of these goals aren't total moonshine, except that Barnett doesn't tell us how we are going to accomplish them, other than through the use of military force, as in Iraq. I suppose that's the Pentagon's problem, now that Barnett has pointed them in the right direction. As to the rest of it, it's highly unlikely that Mexico WANTS to be a part of the US, and Africa may or may not be willing to "wait its turn". History is not nearly as predictable as Barnett seems to think. Of course, overwhelming military superiority tends to make things go your way, as long as it lasts.
Whether or not American world hegemony is a good thing for either America or the world is something people of good will may have honest disagreements about, but don't look for that discussion in The Pentagon's New Map. And if Barnett wants to call American world hegemony "globalization", I don't think anyone is going to argue the point with him, as long as 12 nuclear carrier battle groups and a large fleet of advanced attack nuclear submarines like the James E. Carter are there to back him up. However, it is highly unlikely that the world's problems are going to be solved by giving everyone cell phones and access to internet pornography, or even by giving women political power. We've had quite a few wars since women got the right to vote in America.
Barnett restrains himself from talking about himself long enough to make a couple of good, though unoriginal, points, namely that there is a strong relationship between military power and economic prosperity, and that we should try to avoid forcing China into a corner where they feel they have no choice but to fight us, like we did to Japan in the 1930's. But these points have been made better by other people, and wading through Barnett's tedious self-aggrandizement is too high a price to pay for these couple of nuggets of truth.
The book would be more readable if it had been edited, instead of being merely a verbatim regurgitation of Barnett's Pentagon briefings. Some elementary copy editing would also help: I don't think "static quo", used twice by Barnett, is a word in the English language. But no amount of editing will improve Barnett's half-baked ideas.
5 stars because the book is being read by important people, minus 5 stars for sloppy editing and out-of-control narcissism.
The Chinese, Iranians, and legions of traitors at home?
There was a review of Barnett's self-inflatedly-important work that is just too solidly on target not to include here verbatim:
Reviewer: W. Barquist "web667" (usa)
Barnett has a PhD in political science from Harvard University, which, like many people who have gone to Harvard, is the first thing he tells you about himself. He thinks this means he is very smart, which he also tells you, over and over and over and over again. He also KNOWS a lot of very smart and important and powerful people, who may also have gone to Harvard, which he also tells you ad nauseum (that means until you want to throw up, in case you're wondering).
This is basically the story of how Barnett went from Harvard to Washington and found THAT ONE SLIDE that made his career in the big-time, as an important "pol-mil" analyst. He tells you all this, and much, much more, in the first part of his book, up to page 154. It just gets worse from there until it finally ends on page 389.
In the course of this book we learn that Barnett has lots of important friends and acquaintances, that he works 18 hour days holed up in Pentagon briefing rooms with admirals who yell at each other, that he single-handedly showed the Pentagon how to do their job right, that he left his wife to eat Thanksgiving dinner alone in order to spend time in briefing rooms with admirals, that he is a Democrat (no surprise there), and that his wife ("a card-carrying member of the ACLU") worries that he is becoming a Republican.
We learn a new language for expressing old ideas: "globalization" means "American world hegemony", "disconnectedness" means "no one has cell phones or computers", "the Gap" and "lesser includeds" mean "poverty-stricken countries" (what used to be called "The Third World") - you get the idea. New lingo, old ideas.
We learn that Gorbachev really deserves the credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, not Reagan (although I don't think Gorby really meant for things to come out that way), that "the world has effectively surrendered the seas to the US Navy, and it has done so out of immense trust that America will not abuse that unprecedented power", that the Bush administration has engaged in "bone-headed" diplomacy and "political gamesmanship of the most venal sort", and that when we "successfully exported that rule set to the other great powers" (he means the fall of the Soviet Union), "the threat of global war basically ended in human history".
The full onslaught of this incoherent torrent of self-referential egomaniacal Wilsonianism has to be experienced to be believed. I would recommend that every American taxpayer read this book at least up to page 154 just to get a feel for the kind of claptrap we are paying for in Washington. One can only pray that Barnett is a flash in the pan, and will not be taken too seriously.
He has an action plan, which starts on page 379:
1. Democratize Iraq (he calls it "reconnecting" Iraq)
2. Get rid of Kim Jong Il and unify Korea
3. Foment counterrevolution in Iran
4. Form a Free Trade Area of the Americas
5. Pressure the Saudis to stop funding Islamic maddrassahs, by shifting our automobiles to fuel cells
6. Develop a military and financial alliance with China
7. Form an Asian NATO
8. Merge that Asian NATO with NAFTA and the European NATO
9. Admit a dozen more states to the US (presumably from Mexico and Central America), with the first Mexican president of the US coming from a Mexican state. 10. Africa just will have to wait until the Middle East is pacified ("integrated into The Core")
The first three of these goals aren't total moonshine, except that Barnett doesn't tell us how we are going to accomplish them, other than through the use of military force, as in Iraq. I suppose that's the Pentagon's problem, now that Barnett has pointed them in the right direction. As to the rest of it, it's highly unlikely that Mexico WANTS to be a part of the US, and Africa may or may not be willing to "wait its turn". History is not nearly as predictable as Barnett seems to think. Of course, overwhelming military superiority tends to make things go your way, as long as it lasts.
Whether or not American world hegemony is a good thing for either America or the world is something people of good will may have honest disagreements about, but don't look for that discussion in The Pentagon's New Map. And if Barnett wants to call American world hegemony "globalization", I don't think anyone is going to argue the point with him, as long as 12 nuclear carrier battle groups and a large fleet of advanced attack nuclear submarines like the James E. Carter are there to back him up. However, it is highly unlikely that the world's problems are going to be solved by giving everyone cell phones and access to internet pornography, or even by giving women political power. We've had quite a few wars since women got the right to vote in America.
Barnett restrains himself from talking about himself long enough to make a couple of good, though unoriginal, points, namely that there is a strong relationship between military power and economic prosperity, and that we should try to avoid forcing China into a corner where they feel they have no choice but to fight us, like we did to Japan in the 1930's. But these points have been made better by other people, and wading through Barnett's tedious self-aggrandizement is too high a price to pay for these couple of nuggets of truth.
The book would be more readable if it had been edited, instead of being merely a verbatim regurgitation of Barnett's Pentagon briefings. Some elementary copy editing would also help: I don't think "static quo", used twice by Barnett, is a word in the English language. But no amount of editing will improve Barnett's half-baked ideas.
5 stars because the book is being read by important people, minus 5 stars for sloppy editing and out-of-control narcissism.
This statement alone shows how little "Barquist" understands what Barnett is saying. That you repeat it shows how little you understand.
If you had understood it, you would have understood that globaliztion, in Barnett's understanding of the term, is simply the ongoing process of greater interconnectedness politically, economically and culturally that is going on. It is not another word for American hegemony, and if you paid any attention, you would understand that he expects American hegemony, or the relative power of the US vis a vis the rest of the world to decline as a natural result of disproportionate economic growth. It is simple math. a 1% growth per year in India or China would overwhelm a 3% annual GDP growth in the US simply because of population differences.
Globalization is also not, in Barnett's usage of the word, a prescription for turning over US sovereignty to the UN or any such right-wing conspiratorial ravings.
In future, if you want to argue about what Barnett says or believes, argue from what he says and not what some rather over-the-top, jelous of Harvard graduates says he says.
Yes, Barnett is an egomaniac. But, as Dizzy Dean said, if you can do it it ain't braggin.
So respond to the following factually-reported points in "Pentagons New Map" that more or less self-discredit the "ego-maniac" you admit Barnett is:
He has an action plan, which starts on page 379:
1. Democratize Iraq (he calls it "reconnecting" Iraq)
2. Get rid of Kim Jong Il and unify Korea
3. Foment counterrevolution in Iran
4. Form a Free Trade Area of the Americas
5. Pressure the Saudis to stop funding Islamic maddrassahs, by shifting our automobiles to fuel cells
6. Develop a military and financial alliance with China
7. Form an Asian NATO
8. Merge that Asian NATO with NAFTA and the European NATO
9. Admit a dozen more states to the US (presumably from Mexico and Central America), with the first Mexican president of the US coming from a Mexican state.
10. Africa just will have to wait until the Middle East is pacified ("integrated into The Core") .
Note, nowhere does the author of the critique make the allegations you condemn in Red Herring fashion...but since the shoe fits, brother....WEAR IT! Show us how any of Barnett's points from 4 on down are consistent with preserving individual liberty and representative government of THESE UNITED STATES.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.