Those who've read the likes of Martin Van Creveld and Thomas Friedman will find some familiar thinking in this book.The author's main contention is that "disconnected" countries, those that aren't connected via information and economic networks to the rest of the world, are a huge source of danger.Such countries are usually run by a nasty elite who essentially tyrannize their populations who are left poor and angry.Having been left poor and angry, these disconnected people are ripe for becoming terrorists and their nations ripe for the location of terrorist networks, crime syndicates, and so forth. Hence, we need to use military force to go in, defeat the nasty people running things, and enforce a new order that will give the oppressed people of these societies hope so they won't need to bomb us.In the process, we'll give them new law enforcement agencies that will crack down on criminal syndicates.
Reactionary types will accuse Mr. Barnett of being some kind of neo-imperialist or perhaps a global fascist.Nevertheless, I personally think that Barnett sincerely believes that what he is proposing would be a "good thing" and that it would improve the lives of the people he seeks to liberate.I'll leave the name-calling to someone else, as there are unquestionably lots of people running around who are willing to do just that.While the moral dimension to Mr. Barnett's proposal is fascinating and worthy of serious discussion (far different from the name-calling and character assassination I've heard up until now) my primary concern is whether or not the proposals in this book are cost-effective or even feasible.
I'm afraid that what Mr. Barnett is proposing is far more complicated, sophisticated, and expensive than what he leads the reader to believe.Barnett frames the issue in either doing something (what he proposes) or doing nothing.He points out that in light of September 11, 2001, we can't do nothing.And then he implies we're only left with his proposal.But he doesn't fully entertain the consequences of failure.Those consequences would be lots of dead young Americans, even higher levels of anti-American sentiment around the globe, and billions of dollars wasted.And due to the complexity of what Mr. Barnett is proposing, failure is more likely than success.
The essential problem here is one of complexity.Mr. Barnett's strategy focuses on the US spending extreme amounts of resources to bring order to troubled lands to harmonize them with current global economic realities.But the universe naturally tends towards disorder.As Mr. Spock pointed out, "Logic suggests that it's easier to destroy than to create."Chaos and disorder come naturally; order takes a significant input of resources.In attempting to create order in disordered places, the United States would be left extremely vulnerable to potential rivals and enemies who would simply try to create or enhance disorder in those places.This process would cost potential rivals very little but could have extremely high costs on the US on a sustained basis.An example would be Iraq, where we are hoping a mere $100 billion will bring about some kind of order.Anyone who wanted to harm us could spend far less money just to destroy that delicate order we've struggled to create.And in looking at Iraq right now, there's no guarantee that we are anywhere close to creating an orderly society.
As Mr. Barnett makes a big point about "disconnectedness defines danger" he doesn't really adequately bring the importance of this back to the home-front of American society.In an increasingly interconnected world, the US benefits not just from additional connectedness to others but to additional connectedness to ourselves.Improvements in infrastructure, a better business climate, improved efficiency, and so forth all serve to make the US a more competitive place on the international level and also serve to make the US a more attractive place for international capital and human resources.Barnett wants to put off making the US more connected in a highly dicey proposition to makedysfunctional societies more safe for international capital and human resources.Considering how intractable so many of our own various social problems have been it's rather presumptuous to assume we can go about fixing other places.And the cost/benefit analysis is lacking and, at least on the surface, not all that appealing.
For all my criticisms of Mr. Barnett's proposals I need to stress that I don't necessarily think his approach will lead to catastrophe on a nationwide scale.I just fear it will be exceptionally costly and put tremendous strain on our society, our military, and our economy.All for results that are highly improbable and quite unlikely to be successfully obtained.In short, it's a prescription for a gigantic waste of resources that even if it were successful would be possibly not worth the price. There are arguably more cost-effective and sure-fire ways of achieving a more secure future for the United States.
Americans who are interested in the future of US strategy need to be familiar with this book.While I strongly disagree with Mr. Barnett's proposals I also very well realize that they are and will continue to be highly influential.If you don't know what Barnett's talking about you can't even begin to understand the future debates about the US's role in the world.If you want to be a part of the discussion, get your hands on this book and become familiar with one of the most highly influential proposals available for the future of the United States and the world.
Click Here to see more reviews about: The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century (Hardcover)
No comments:
Post a Comment