Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 8 June 2004

I keep getting traffic and reviews that suggest the giant blind spot in my work is my lack of appreciation of the dangers of radical Islam, or as it is known more generically—the non-rational actor. In short, people keep asking me to come clean on the enemy.

If I wanted the book to be about an enemy, I would have titled it, "The Pentagon's New War." But because I wanted to express a grand strategy, and not just describe the current conflict, I chose a higher ordering principle. As I say in the book: our enemy is not a region (the Middle East, arc of instability), nor a civilization (Arab), nor a religion (Islam), but a condition—disconnectedness.

Now I know that's not normative enough for many people, who want the description in terms of good (us) versus evil (them). Some want that description because they prefer to motivate themselves through hatred versus love (makes sense, doesn't it, since we call it a "global war"?), others because they feel it makes their mental models more "realistic" (as in, "Let's be honest about the clash of civilizations going on here."). Still others like to cite that non-rational actor crap simply because it sounds cool in their review ("Hey buddy, I took an undergraduate course in poli sci, so there!").

In the end, they're all telling me the same thing: too naïve, too simplistic, too theoretical, too all-inclusive.

"Yes, a brilliant framework . . . but deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeply flawed!" (He purred, his head shaking with the knowing sorrow that only a true realist possesses).

I plead guilty to it all, primarily because I don't think any victories are really achieved by killing off the fanatics, only by drying up the sources of their fanaticism. Radical Islam is a response to modernization increasingly encroaching upon traditional societies in the Middle East. No encroachment, no radical Islam, because that chunk of the world would have simply remained as isolated as it was before. But once encroachment began, choices had to be made by those who encountered these external influences: embrace and integrate with the larger world outside, or retreat and remain separate. The degree to which those who choose the latter have taken their struggle down pathways of increasingly perverse violence only signal the depth of their fear-threat reaction to globalization's inevitable advance.

In the Middle East, the fear-threat reaction is called radical Islam, but the Middle East is only one part of the Gap, which includes much of Latin America, almost all of sub-Saharan Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, and southeast Asia. There are elements of radical Islam in the rest of those regions, but they are far from the only game in town when it comes to resistance to—or political tumult generated by—globalization's creeping advance.

To claim this global war on terrorism is the West vs. Islam is merely to focus on the current hotspot of this grand historical struggle, which stretches all the way back to capitalism's birth in Europe. Ever since then, we've seen an anti-capitalist/globalization force take various bloody stands over the course of the decades: first in European Russia (1917) and Germany (1918-19), then in Asian China in 1949, then onto other Asian satellites and Third World "countries of socialist orientation." Each movement represented yet another retreat back in time, as the forces resisting the global economy's advance were forced into seeking ever-more backward economies and societies within which to attempt their preferred vision of exclusionary rule sets designed to keep the evil world economic system at bay.

The current name we give to such resistance today is radical Islam. People now want to cast this named threat as the always-been-there-and-will-always-be-there danger. By doing so, they paint all of the Middle East/Arab world/Islam with the same Darwinian brush: these people are backward because they're crazy! The implication is: we were never like they are now and they will never but like we are now. Neither assumption is true. We were like they are now for most of our history, and they will be like us well within my lifetime.

Ending the disconnectedness that defines the Gap is not the historical defeat of radical Islam, but merely it's mainstreaming. Globalization has triggered a civil war within Islam, one to which we are largely bystanders despite our growing role as globalization's bodyguard. Radical Islam is not my enemy nor the focus of my strategic vision; it is merely the latest obstacle in humanity's long effort to foster a truly integrated world.

I say, keep your eyes on the prize: making globalization truly global. Leave the race-baiting, the fear-mongering, and the Islamophobia to the smaller minds with the smaller visions. Integration is about love. It's about not leaving anyone out. It's about everyone wanting that essential human connectivity that begets freedom, choice, and individual opportunity.

This grand historical struggle is so much bigger than radical Islam—always has been, always will be.

Today's catch:

Other shoe drops in South Korea on U.S. troops

“U.S. Plans To Cut Third of Troops In South Korea: 12,500 May Be Moved Out: Withdrawal Follows Shifts From Europe, and Sets Off Debate in Seoul,” by James Brooke and Thom Shanker, New York Times, 8 June, p. A1.

“Genital Cutting Shows Signs of Losing Favor in Africa: A woman who cut her daughters is now a foe of the practice,” by Mark Lacey, NYT, 8 June, p. A3.

“Iraq and Middle East at Center of Economic Summit,” by Richard W. Stevenson and David E. Sanger, NYT, 8 June, p. A6.

“Karzai Shows He’ll Cast Lost With a Corps Of Warlords: In a new Afghanistan, signs that power still flows in old avenues,” by Carlotta Gall, NYT, 8 June, p. A8.

“U.S. Offers Iraqis Public-Works Jobs: In Strategic Shift, Military Aims to Stem Insurgency by Employing the Unskilled,” by Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, 8 June, p. A4.

“The Great-Grandson of Star Wars, Now Ground-Based, Is Back on the Agenda,” by Carl Hulse and William J. Broad, NYT, 8 June, p. A20.

“Racing to Ruin the C.I.A.: An ‘intelligence czar’ wouldn’t make us any safer,” by Robert M. Gates, NYT, 8 June, p. A23.

“G.M. to Speed Up Expansion in China: An Annual Goal Of 1.3 Million Cars,” by Keith Bradsher, NYT, 8 June, p. W1.

”BHP Billiton Remains Upbeat Over Bet on China’s Growth,” by Wayne Arnold, NYT, 8 June, p. W1.

“Changes Are Reshaping China: Strains Surface on Social, Political and Economic Systems,” by Kathy Chen + “Big Banks Pay Heed to New Bottom Line,” by Andrew Brown and James T. Areddy + “Smaller Banks: Success Story Sours,” by Phelim Kyne, WSJ, 8 June, p. A13.