The Pentagon's New Map

[Grits]

lada,

You wrote this in the "Iran" thread:

Iran will join WTO and all people around the world will be happy that they can make bussines with Iran instead of having war with Iran.
Once world will be open for iranian, they will have better tool for creating preasure on goverment.

I agree with your statement completely. This is exactly Thomas P.M. Barnett's position on Iran, and this is also his position on China. After China joined the WTO, they no longer became a threat as far as he was conerned..

You, and I agree on this, we just dont agree that the Iranians need nuclear energy for any other reason than a threat.

[Vulcan]

I'd just like to point out that some of that map is complete and utter BS. For example, they show peacekeeping operations in the Phillipines, East Timor, Indonesia, and Cambodia, none of which have had US troops near them (UN Troops maybe from other countries, East Timor and Cambodia both had NZ and Australian forces there in peacekeeping and mineclearing duties).

It also excludes countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Thailand from from the "global" economy which is false as well. (hell Vietnam is making BMW's, and Malaysia assembles most NEC and Packard Bell PC's these days).

edit: he also misses unstable portions of the old soviet union.

[Grits]

Vietnam is not in the WTO, and therefore no in the functioning core, BMW's not withstanding.

I dont have my book right now, I gave it to my dad to read, but I'll get it and check the map, I think he details the map and gives reasons for each dot for you nit-pickers.

[soda72]

What do you think of his stance on China Grits?

[Grits]

He thinks the threat from China is a fiction created by parts of the Pentagon to find a  "Cold War" style military enemy, so they can in return justify the old style military structure they like. Its a case of searching the world for a next giant enemy to justify fighting the last war and not looking ahead to what we will need in the furute, which is asymetrical warfare like in Iraq. He says that China is not a threat militarily because they own more of our debt than any other country, and I think he is correct. Its not in their interest to be a threat to us militarily regardless of superficial saber rattling.

[capt. apathy]

I was under the impression we were using this map to track this administrations goals.

[Grits]

Thank you for introducing petty and irrelevant partisan rhetoric to an otherwise constructive thread. If you had bothered to read what Barnett says, you would know that he is very critical of the Bush administrations policy in severeal areas, and that Barnett himself is a Democrat. This is larger than Bush, or even the US, this is a global issue and like it or not, this is the plan for the future.

[soda72]

Originally posted by Grits
He thinks the threat from China is a fiction created by parts of the Pentagon to find a  "Cold War" style military enemy, so they can in return justify the old style military structure they like. Its a case of searching the world for a next giant enemy to justify fighting the last war and not looking ahead to what we will need in the furute, which is asymetrical warfare like in Iraq. He says that China is not a threat militarily because they own more of our debt than any other country, and I think he is correct. Its not in their interest to be a threat to us militarily regardless of superficial saber rattling.

He also mentioned the 1, 2 , 4 problem they have which is something I wasn't aware of.  Looks like they are in for some tough times supporting the older population...

[Grits]

Ah yes, I forgot about that Soda. We share a similar problem, but to a lesser degree in regard to Social Security. Barnett thinks, contrary to most folks in the US, that we absolutely NEED immigrants, most of the ones who are now illegal immigrants, to keep our age ratio in check and to be able to support our aging population. Immigrants from Mexico and Central America are going to save us by making us a younger country. Its an angle on the immigration issue I had never thought of.

[storch]

Originally posted by Grits
Ah yes, I forgot about that Soda. We share a similar problem, but to a lesser degree in regard to Social Security. Barnett thinks, contrary to most folks in the US, that we absolutely NEED immigrants, most of the ones who are now illegal immigrants, to keep our age ratio in check and to be able to support our aging population. Immigrants from Mexico and Central America are going to save us by making us a younger country. Its an angle on the immigration issue I had never thought of.

10 million and counting abortions are the reason why America is in gentrification.  We absolutely need immigrants.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by Grits
Vietnam is not in the WTO, and therefore no in the functioning core, BMW's not withstanding.

I dont have my book right now, I gave it to my dad to read, but I'll get it and check the map, I think he details the map and gives reasons for each dot for you nit-pickers.

Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia are all in the WTO. What about them?

And as far as the WTO goes I would hardly consider it an economic participation measuring stick with the likes of: Angola; Cameroon; Chad; Congo; well you get the idea... its got lots off "oddball" members.

Signs of a typical armchair strategist, perhaps a good theory, but it needs more on the ground work - starved of up to date information on the goings on outside the USA. Vietnam would be a good example to hold up, now manufacturing for many western countries, a booming tourist trade, its own growing international airline servicing the broad asiapac market.

The other thing I disagree about is the Chinese thing, lots of sabre rattling for sure. But who needs who more? The Chinese have always been shrewd, and they don't always play by western rules.

[Grits]

Originally posted by Vulcan
Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia are all in the WTO. What about them?

And as far as the WTO goes I would hardly consider it an economic participation measuring stick with the likes of: Angola; Cameroon; Chad; Congo; well you get the idea... its got lots off "oddball" members.

He also says regardless of other things,  countries that have below $3000 USD anual income per family are part of the "Gap", and those above that level become stable and relatively violence free. This overrides other criteria such as WTO or IMF membership. Will there be exeptions? Of course, its a guideline, not a set in stone rule. Interestingly, Saudi Arabia's anual incom per family has steadily fallen and not too far in the future will fall below the $3000 USD level. We are in a race against time to connect them to the world community before its too late.

Signs of a typical armchair strategist, perhaps a good theory, but it needs more on the ground work - starved of up to date information on the goings on outside the USA. Vietnam would be a good example to hold up, now manufacturing for many western countries, a booming tourist trade, its own growing international airline servicing the broad asiapac market.[/b]

He has singlehandedly changed the Pentagon's rulesets and thought processes, moreso than Rumsfeld ever could have. He must be doing something right because if you know anything about the Military they dont like change, you have to be awfully darn persuasive to get them to change their minds.

The other thing I disagree about is the Chinese thing, lots of sabre rattling for sure. But who needs who more? The Chinese have always been shrewd, and they don't always play by western rules. [/B]

They also have the fastest aging population in the world. They are aging at a rate that will not allow them to sustain continued economic growth at their current levels.

Why dont you download the streaming video of his presentation and listen to his ideas before dismissing them out of hand? He is not political, he started work on this in '98, long before Bush, long before Rumsfeld, long before 9/11.

I have yet to see anyone in this thread do anything more than pick around the edges at his ideas. IMO his core arguement is irrefutable.

[cpxxx]

Originally posted by Nashwan
I remember Mitchell being asked to head the decomisioning body by the Biritish and Irish governments, along with a Canadian general and a former prime minister of Finland.

All 3 were then invited to jointly chair the all party talks.

The point is the talks were the idea of the British and Irish government, who invited 3 foreigners to chair them, because they would be seen to be impartial.

That's not "mediation". Mediation would be a good description of US efforts to bring peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

CAIN has got a very good chronology of the peace process at http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/pp9398.htm

Nashwan I understand what you are saying but you are nitpicking. It wasn't simply '3 foreigners' chosen.  You don't really have the big picture. It was important to every side that America was involved. It still is. George Mitchell played a much larger part than the chronology allows as did Clinton.  It was said at one stage that a late night telephone call to US president saved the process. Mediation it may not be but an intervention of sorts it was.  The US does not get full credit but it's help was crucial.
No matter what way you spin it it's a good example of what America can do if it puts it's mind to it.

The map itself is inaccurate in many ways but nevertheless it represents a general overview of American interests throughout the world. The ambitions represented there are good ones. The more liberal democracies (liberal in this case meaning free not left wing. The US is a liberal democracy) there are the better. No two liberal democracies have ever fought a war with each other. Equally and oddly enough no two countries with a McDonalds have fought each other either.  If that is the pentagon's or GWB's ambition then it's a good one. Free democracies I  mean not Big Macs. Iran is a democracy if not a particularly free one but it could be easily. The people seem to want it. The very last thing needed in Iran is clumsy sabre rattling by hawks in the US administration against Iran. Right now Iran does not particularly represent a threat. They are effectively enemies of the Sunni extremists in Arab countries and that includes Al Qaeda. If GWB and Condy Rice play their cards right they could have another de facto ally in the Middle East. When a McDonalds opens in Teheran then you know it's succeeded.  

[soda72]

lol,  I didn't know that about mc'ds.....  

[genozaur]

Originally posted by Eagler
anyone who does not see the big picture in Iraq, lives in la la land

the question is, does America have the stomach to hold the course - Nov 04 says they do, today anyway

the media is doing everything in its power to make it another nam

It's not the problem of digestion. It's the problem of the not wide enough mouth to swallow soup from different plates on several tables at the restaurant.

The "Core - Gap" theory is just the explanatory thing. From it the wrong global strategy sprung.
The Hitler-like strategy allowing to have at the same time the main front together with one or severall lesser fronts. Such strategy works when the war effort has reached the final winning stage. But I think that the USA war effort has not reached this stage yet. So now it's better  to concentrate on the problems at hand than to start a new front.
Why am I still convinced that Roosewelt's strategy was better than Hitler's ? Oh,  yes !
The Allies won, and the Axis lost !