Here is a group of ten reviews posted on Amazon from mid-September through early October. Tomorrow I'll offer nine more that stretch from mid-September to early August, and that will catch me up on all of the (currently) 53 Amazon reviews.
As always, I offer a short commentary after each.
Read it over breakfast (1st of ten)
2 of 7 people found the following review helpful
1 of 5 stars awarded
"Koo Koo For Cocoa Puffs," October 6, 2004
Reviewer: Roy Tyrell "Roy" (Orlando)
Yet another would-be napolean neocon nutjob living in academia fantasy-land dreaming of empire. This is the peoblem with the pentagon and their official day-dreamers, too long are these people seperated from the real world to make any meaningful and rational observations about the world around them. They are the Boy In The Bubble. Worst thing is, they, and their idiotic and dangerous musings, are all financed by the taxpayers.
can't these people get real jobs?
COMMENTARY: You really got the feeling he read the book, don't you? Seeing that he doesn't mention even one aspect or concept from it, but rather simply calls me a variety of names. The "isolation" argument would a hold bit more water if only I were ever to spend more than two days in a row in my "ivory tower," instead of traveling the world over talking to military of all stripes, private industry, advocacy groups, political leaders, community grass-roots organizations, universities and research center, actual military commands and more people just back from Iraq than I can count. Then there are all the foreigners I meet with, or who come to Newport to see me. Yes, I do lead a life of splendid isolation. I just wish I got to sleep in my own bed more often.
Add it to to your collection today! (2nd of ten)
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
4 of 5 stars awarded
"a worthwhile read," October 5, 2004
Reviewer: J. Dretler (Tucson, AZ USA)
"The Pentagon's New Map- War And Peace In The Twenty-First Century, by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a strategic researcher and professor at the U.S. Naval War College, is another of the many books that assess the current world geopolitical situation and offers a valuable general perspective and somewhat less valuable specific remedies or solutions. Although the book exhibits a fair amount of depth and rigor, its main theses are easily stated. Those countries that are civilized, have the `rule of law', free or mostly free democratic societies, believe in free trade and transparency in business and government, are all members of what he calls "The Functioning Core". They are the pro-globalization, pro-connectivity elements that will supplant what Walter Russell Mead in "Power, Terror, War, and Peace" called the "Fordist" state and are the antithetical elements to what Barnett calls "The Non-Functioning Gap", the non-free, non-connected, chaotic and/or repressive states which reject globalization and would be termed "pre-modern" by Robert Cooper in "The Breaking of Nations". Mr. Barnett is clear in his indictment of "The Gap" as the seat of most of the trouble in the world and specifically our future challenge in the post 9/11 world. He maintains that we need to reorganize the world or specifically "The Gap" according to "The Core's" rule-sets. He does exhibit humor in his writing; "This diagnostic approach isn't about assigning blame or pointing fingers; that's what Congress is for", isn't bad, his "Mind the Gap" is. Another focus of this book is the challenge of transforming the Pentagon into two complementary organizations; one to deal with fighting and force projection, the other with the transition to and maintenance of a functioning rule-set based society. He refers to these roles as that of Hobbes' Leviathan and that of a System Administrator. Although he rejects Niall Ferguson's ("Colossus") view of America as a benevolent imperial power on a definitional basis (we are not imposing our will, nor do we have an imperial executive to act as an emperor), he doesn't reject our role as `The Core's' rule enforcer in `The Gap'. He also shares the views of Ferguson and Samuel Huntington (in "Who Are We?" although he rejects "The Clash Of Civilizations") when he declares that `We are a multi-cultural free-market economy whose minimal rule-sets allow for maximum individual freedom.' He also says that the US government is the greatest force for good the world has ever known and that the US military is the single greatest instrument of that good, so it's surprising that he claims to be a Democrat.
One of his transforming suggestions for the future that is sure to be badly received is the idea that there be no service designation (between Army, Navy, Air Force) for officers of Flag rank. Another, similar to that of Walter Russell Mead, is to increase the UN Security Council permanent membership to 20, but with weakened vetoes for the non-original members. The book ends with a Ten-Step plan for world integration that starts with Iraq and ends, admittedly in the far future, with Africa. It also echoes Ambassador Mark Palmer's "Breaking The Real Axis Of Evil; How To Oust The World's Last Dictators By 2025 ". Barnett has added several new terms and concepts within an organized, detailed defense of the merits of globalization to the literature. It is a worthwhile read.
COMMENTARY: Kind of a dry recitation, the main purpose of which seemed to be to demonstrate how many other books this person has read. Thus, everything seems to run into everything else for this person, thus it all begins to sound the same after a while. Also gets you a rather bland compliment ("worthwhile read"). Not sure why this person bothered if all he or she wanted to do was list points from the book that reminded them of other books. If it had been me, I simply would have passed on reviewing the book if that was all I planned to say.
War! What's it good for? Absolutely nothing! Say it again! (3rd of ten)
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful
3 of 5 stars awarded
"Barnett needs a reality check," October 5, 2004
Reviewer: Alexander E. Paulsen "AlexP" (Jacksonville, Fl United States)
According to the author, America as a beacon of freedom must implement a program to export this freedom and liberty to the world. Presumably these plans will be backed up military force as always.
It apears as if Thomas Barnett has never bothered to examine the history of government programs - and the sad record of failure after failure after failure. It isn't just the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty or the War on Illiteracy that has failed to fulfill its promises. There hasn't been a single American war in this century or the last in which the U.S. government actually achieved the results that were promised when it went to war.
For example: WWI was to bring democracy to all the countries of the world and a new world order that would end wars forever. The actual result: American entry into the war prevented the two sides from negotiating a just end to the war. The actual result was an expansion of the British and French empires, subjecting millions more people worldwide to foreign rule. The U.S. entry into the European war also prompted the Germans to finance and facilitate Lenin's takeover of Russia - creating the Soviet Union. And the oppressive peace terms imposed on the German people caused them to accept a thug named Adolf Hitler as their avenging angel.
World War II was fought to liberate Europe and China, and impose peace upon the world.The actual result: Half of Europe was controlled by the Soviet Union, and China was quickly taken over by the Communists.
The Cold War was to free subjugated countries. The actual result: The U.S. government imposed or assisted dictators in Panama, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, China, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, and numerous countries in Africa.
The Korean War was to save South Korea from being taken over by an oppressive dictatorship. The actual result: South Korea was left in the hands of an oppressive dictatorship.
The Vietnam War was justified to save Indochina from Communism, and prevent dominos from falling all over the world. The actual result: Indochina was overrun by communists. (the world didn't come to an end.)
The Panamanian War was to stop Panama from being a conduit for drug-running.The actual result destroyed the Panamanian army, leaving the country a haven for drug-running.
The First Iraq War Objective was to free Kuwait and stop Saddam Hussein from taking over the world. The actual result: Kuwait is still run by a family dynasty that has no interest in democracy or in providing rights for the people. Apparently, Saddam Hussein wasn't stopped from his diabolical plans of world domination - at least according to George H.W. Bush's son.
The Bombing of Serbia Objective was to end the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo, perpetrated by the Serbs. The actual result was that the Albanians ethnic-cleansed all the Serbs and gypsies out of Kosovo, as well as terrorizing the Macedonians in Macedonia.
The War in Afghanistan Objective was to stop the country from harboring terrorists, get rid of the Taliban, create human rights for women, and establish a free Afghanistan. The actual result: Al-Qaeda operatives continue to function there, and Osama Bin Laden himself may be safely hiding in Afghanistan. Women are still treated as tools and as for freedom, the Afghan people are subjugated by brutal warlords, and the Taliban have been invited back in to help restore order.
The War in Iraq Objective was to "disarm" Saddam Hussein and liberate the Iraqi people. The actual result: Well it turns out that there was nothing to "disarm." and over 10,000 Iraqi deaths later, Iraq is not only not liberated, it's being occupied by a foreign power that's being fought by a determined resistance movement.
So while Mr. Barnett's objectives may be attractive, they are irrelevant - since the odds against the U.S. government actually achieving them are at least 1000 to 1.
The Pentagon will try to export rule-sets to other countries, with no success (rule-sets that, incidentally, don't apply in the U.S.). If history is any guide ( And it needs to be, - "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it") The "core" countries will be those whose rulers who agree to do whatever the U.S. President tells them to do, and the "gap" countries will be those run by rulers who insist on making their own rules.
There is no way that America can make the entire world peaceful - or, in fact, any part of it except America itself. Our only chance to try to being peace is a solution ignored by the author: Lift the state of siege in America tomorrow morning if the U.S. would simply stop meddling in other countries' affairs.
The supposed "hate America" feeling is really the fear that America is going to come into one's country and throw its weight around - as it has in Afghanistan, the Sudan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, Libya, Colombia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Grenada, Guatemala, Indonesia, East Timor, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Pakistan, the Congo, and dozens of other countries.
This book is a fanatasy and sounds too much like the "perpetual war for perpetual peace" or an "enemy of the month club". Leave this sort of nonsense for Tom Clancy. These things work out much better in Clancy's world than the real one.
COMMENTARY: An amazing recitation of history where the reviewer sees only the downside. Isn't it amazing that once America decided to run the world security system for real that great power war disappeared? Isn't it amazing that after standing up to the Soviet bloc for all those years, it disappeared without a shot fired? Isn't it amazing that once we demonstrated to the post-Cold War world that the U.S. won't stand for aggression by rogue states against their neighbors, that state-on-state war essentially disappeared across the 1990s? Isn't it amazing that wherever the U.S. military has strong relationship with a region's military, there you find no wars and lotsa economic integration, and that that integration lifts hundreds of millions out of poverty?
No, none of these things are amazing. Better to see the U.S. as the root of all evil on the planet. We should just stay home and let all those crazy dark-skinned people kill one another. That's the right thing to do because that would be the sort of leadership the world really needs.
And if I'm so "unreal," then why 3 outta 5 stars?
Americans are selfish pigs! Get over it! (4th of ten)
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
3 of 5 stars awarded
"the America that Barnett needs doesn't exist," October 3, 2004
Reviewer: R. Hutchinson "autonomeus" (a world ruled by fossil fuels and fossil minds)
Tom Barnett has constructed a map of the post-9/11 world, a model of how that world works, and a new grand strategy for the U.S. Barnett is full of can-do optimism. He sees capitalist globalization as a great thing, and wants to Connect the Disconnected to the "Functioning Core" of the modern capitalist world, not to exploit them, as in world-system theory, but to liberate them. The "Gap," which is what he calls that part of the world being left behind in the current wave of globalization, is the source of the new post-9/11 threats, according to Barnett, and the Pentagon needs to finally shift its force structure from fighting the Soviet Union to fighting in the Gap, as part of a grand strategy of "shrinking the Gap." It's easy to see the appeal of this to the Pentagon, once they get past the inertia and sunk costs of the old force structure. It gives the military something to do, and something to justify a massive budget, bureaucracy and power.
Barnett is an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush Administration's invasion and occupation of Iraq, and he basically wants to extend operations in Afghanistan and Iraq across the globe. Reading Barnett induces temporary euphoria, as he dazzles the reader with a vision of the U.S. ending world poverty and bringing about Kantian universal peace. Then the realization sets in that Barnett wants to colonize a huge chunk of territory for an indefinite period of time. Of course he doesn't call it colonization, and he is adamant that it is not imperialism either. But Barnett's book and Niall Ferguson's COLOSSUS (see my 4/26/04 review) are a matched set in every respect except their terminology. Oh, and one other respect -- Ferguson realizes that the U.S. is unlikely to foot the bill for his proposal to emulate the British Empire in the 21st century, while Barnett seems either blissfully unaware of this, or perhaps agrees with the Bush Administration that it can be done on debt and the promise of an inflow of capital from grateful allies.
Barnett, like Ferguson, is a cheerful imperialist. He has true faith, he believes that the U.S. Empire will "set everybody free" just like in the Randy Newman song "Political Science." He proposes creating a "System Administration," basically a global colonial administration, alongside the fighting forces of the military. I'm sure he's sincere (unlike the Straussian neoconservatives he is allied with in his global democratic crusade), but post-9/11 military operations are not likely to be supported on the basis he proposes. He doesn't seem to factor in the consistent U.S. support for bloodthirsty dictatorships throughout the so-called "Cold War." He doesn't seem to see that Americans prefer massive bombing campaigns to protracted nation-building. He doesn't seem to notice that the country has been lurching away from the New Deal's commitment to the collective good and toward rampant greed and callousness since the rise of the so-called "conservatives" of the Republican Party under Reagan, Gingrich and the Bushes. Americans are no longer willing to sacrifice for the common good of one another -- how does he expect them to sacrifice for the greater good of humanity in general (in Hume's terminology), especially the very ones who see the U.S. as the great evil power of the planet, the Evil Empire? Think about this -- if Americans had been willing to support Barnett's magnanimous, selfless vision over the last several decades, 9/11 would never have happened! Americans seem capable of action only in response to FEAR of a threat, real or imagined. What Barnett wants, basically a proactive, massive Marshall Plan for what used to be called the Third World, complemented by vigorous and constant military operations, needs an America that doesn't exist.
If that wasn't bad enough, there are two more major problems with Barnett's rosy vision -- 1) competition among core powers, and 2) energy -- the oil is running out. He brushes over both, scarcely addressing the first, and dismissing energy with a wave of the free market magic wand -- "China needs energy, so it will have to pay market price for it." The U.S. military is supposed to subdue and democratize and liberate the impoverished Gap for the good not only of the U.S., but of the entire Core. Nice for the rest of the core countries! Barnett must have skipped the course on Realist Theory at Harvard. Treating the Functioning Core as a unitary entity as opposed to a group of competing powers is not realistic, in either the everyday or theoretical meaning of the word. This oversight might be minor if there was no doubt U.S. dominance will last for a couple of generations, but the global Hubbert's Peak for oil is going to be upon us no later than 2020. Competition for control of oil is already the source of Great Power rivalry, and this is certain to get uglier in the very near future. I see this as one of Barnett's greatest oversights. If energy supplies were infinite, perhaps we could make Barnett's triumphal move from Hobbes to Kant's universal peace via Lockian laws (rule-sets) over the course of the 21st century. But as I see it, we're drifting toward catastrophe (as Einstein put it), unless our Grand Strategy becomes a global move to renewable energy.
(See my OVERSHOOT AND COLLAPSE? list, and several reviews of books on oil and energy, as well as more reviews of books on U.S. foreign policy. I have been a student of U.S. foreign policy and strategy since the early 1980s.)
COMMENTARY: This person is just dripping with the "blood for oil" argument. Americans are selfish pigs (not like the good old days) and we're all headed to either hell in a handbasket or perpetual war with other great powers over oil (which is disappearing by the minute, of course, so more wars must follow). Funny thing is, the U.S. keeps fighting these wars in the Middle East without ever grabbing the oil for our country. I mean, isn't it funny that less than one-fifth of the oil we import actually comes from the Persian Gulf? While the bulk of it goes to Asia? Shouldn't we be fighting China over this oil? Man, I really must not understand how the world truly works. I just wish someone would tell the other great powers so they wouldn't keep missing out on all this nifty war stuff.
And again, why give me 3 outta 5 stars with all my mistakes?
A ringer enters the fray (5th of ten)
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5 of 5 stars awarded
"Barnett revises global security policy for the 21st Century," October 2, 2004
Reviewer: Robert Jacobson (San Mateo, CA USA)
This book is a must-read for anyone interested in foreign relations, globalization, industrial history, and yes, even security. Despite its catchy title this book is as much about civilian politics and commercial activity as it is about the military. Maybe even more so.
I recently had the privilege of speaking privately, extensively with Tom Barnett about the issues addressed in PNM. His ideas continue to evolve and shortly we can expect a sequel to PNM, as well as a paperback version of the original.
Tom's main credo is to plan for and wage war "in the context of _everything else._" That means, don't wage war unidimensionally: you take into account all of the existing "rule sets" governing the situation, paths to desired outcomes (in many sectors), and then carefully introduce a "system perturbation" (an invasion, sanctions, a cultural statement that would appeal to many nations' under-30 majority populations) to shake things up.
Once a military action has occurred, Barnett advises through example, be sure to have ready or in place post-conflict systems for the reconstruction and development of the local economy, schools, health care, security, and the press; and then stay low, work with the locals. This will be a longer and costlier process than fighting a war. Serious funding is required just to stay in the game; and that means more, not fewer, international alliances to help share the burden. Eventually, we will get to a point where bonds of affiliation -- like those that developed between Greece and Turkey, after hundreds of years, when the two nations exchanged earthquake rescue teams to each other in 1999 -- hold the world together despite the stresses and strains of environmental factors.
PNM isn't about willful arrogance or the externalization by fearful political actors of uncontrollable factors on the world scene. Tom's not like that, to answer the ad hominem argument. What Barnett has recognized and applied well within his corpus is that globalization, having been set in motion, is a nearly unstoppable force -- and additionally, it has upsides IF we engage with globalization in all its facets, from all points of view. Barnett's "New Road Map" is just what it says it is, a way to move forward. I've yet to hear any conservative critics, classical or neocon, offer a persuasive alternative.
The ostrich-head-in-the-sand philosophy, that we should let the Gap nations solve their own problems or let them go down in flames -- shared by ultra-radicals on the Left and rockrib reactionaries on the Right -- is patently unworkable. The disease that breed in the Gap (and I don't mean Al Quaida, I mean more virulent killers like a resurgent smallpox) respect no boundaries. The same could be said for ignorance, ecological predation, and suppression of liberties in the Gap nations.
Barnett may not have worked out all the right answers, but he asks all the right questions. For now, that degree of candor is very welcome.
Tom's also very funny, recounting how when the Berlin Wall came down, it almost cost him his job at the Naval war College; (he was trained at Harvard as an expert on Soviet Cold War plans and assigned to the Pentagon). Now he's touting China and India as two of the likeliest future allies for the U.S., as each gets its population in hand and stabilizes, then liberalizes its economies.
BTW, here's Barnett's webpage. It's informational, a reference library of everything Tom's done prior to, during, and after 9/11 and the Iraq invasion.
http://thomaspmbarnett.com/
If you wnat to know what Tom's thinking about right now, however, visit his terrific blog:
http://thomaspmbarnett.com/blog/
All in all, PNM is a very good book, an important book, right for our time, surprisingly non-jargonistic, written by an authority who's alive to our changing environment, not frozen in space and time. And you know what? The Powers That Be are listening -- and that goes for folks across the political spectrum and around the world.
COMMENTARY: Bob Jacobson is a veteran of Silicon Valley who loves ideas that don't shy away from complexity, so he read the book and became a strong believer in the material. I met Bob for a very long conversation watching the sun go down in San Diego a few weeks back, and he opened my eyes to a world of possibilities regarding what could actually be achieved with the sort of vision I've laid out in PNM, if only I broaden my perspective beyond the Pentagon even more. I like interacting with Bob by email quite a bit, because he always makes me feel smarter and more knowledgeable about the world, and you need to interact with people like that as much as possible. And if you can't tell by the review, Bob is also a big-time optimist who likes to ask "why not?" as much as possible. The best thing PNM has done for me is to bring people like Bob into my life, because such people help me to keep stretching the material.
Plus, I need the five stars every now and then to keep my average up!
What a minute! I thought I was a rightist crackpot! (6th of ten)
3 of 6 people found the following review helpful
1 of 5 stars awarded
"A Leftist Crackpot," October 1, 2004
Reviewer: R. Wallace "Bob Wallace" (St. Louis, Mo USA)
The author has plans to remake the world according to the crackpot fantasies in his head. Apparently, he believes he is some kind of messiah, too. Those two traits are the defining characteristics of leftism. Toss in the author's belief in mass murder, and what we've got here is something similar to Communism and Nazism, no matter how many pretty words he uses to disguise it. In fact, this book reminds me of the Borg Queen's complaint about those who resisted assimilation: "Why do you resist us? We only wish to improve the quality of your lives." As both Jesus and Aesop pointed out, tyrants always call themselves benefactors. The author obviously is not familiar with this ancient wisdom. And that's a pity.
COMMENTARY: You got to like someone who can work in Jesus Christ, crazy people, communists, Nazis, the Borg, and Aesop's fables. As big thinkers go, I have met my match—or maybe Gene Roddenberry has. Come to think of it, that's about one-third of the Star Trek episodes right there!
But at least this guy gives me only 1 star to go along with my apparent insanity.
Perhaps I'm the Baha'i messiah?(7th of ten)
0 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5 of 5 stars awarded
"The big picture," September 27, 2004
Reviewer: Dean Dobbert (Dover, DE USA)
So much of history is clear only when we step back and see the big picture. . .after all, how many Romans were able to look at the first attacks of the Barbarians, and say, "Whoa, looks like the beginning of the end for this empire!" Tom Barnett gives a refreshing view of the bigger picture of where the world is headed, and he does it in a convincing fashion. My own optimistic view of the future has been fashioned for decades by the writings of the Baha'i faith, but this is the first time I've seen the same point of view in a secular publication.
COMMENTARY: You would be amazed how many people read the book and swear I'm either a Buddhist or a member of the Baha'i faith. No kidding. That's why I tend to get a lot of flaming labels from negative reviewers (Hitler, messiah, etc.). All these references tell me that people are hungry for a way to reconnect America's foreign policy to some purpose higher than the perceived "blood for oil" nonsense, and I think that hunger is good because it shows that many Americans want this country to do better by the world.
Ouch! Says Mark Warren (8th of ten)
1 of 2 people found the following review helpful
3 of 5 stars awarded
"A Solid Theory On Where America Should Be Heading," September 25, 2004
Reviewer: Kristofer O. Wempa
This book presents a map for the future of America and backs them up with a lot of good explanations. It also lists out several things that must, or SHOULD, occur for our country to achieve this goal. The only problem I had with this book is that some of the theories and ideas seem to be repeated over and over again. I feel that the first 300 or so pages could have been shortened to about 100. Other than that, I think the book is a decent read.
COMMENTARY: This guy clearly likes his coffee hot and black, and doesn't like it waste any time getting to the punch line. Clearly, he just needed the facts and now he's ready to act, but frankly, most people need you to tell them a little bit of story before they get all jacked up about saying the world. It's just not as black and white as this guy wants it to be.
And as my editor Mark Warren likes to say, "It's not repetition. It's called a theme!" I just had more than one in my book, so I used them repeatedly in order to get people comfortable with the new lexicon. Boring to some, but very useful to others.
And it's interesting that this fairly positive review gives me the same 3 stars as many of the hyper-negative ones do.
The pissed-off Puerto Rican—not that there's anything wrong with that! (9th of ten)
6 of 10 people found the following review helpful
1 of 5 stars awarded
"Starts poorly, goes nowhere," September 24, 2004
Reviewer: A reader (The Triangle)
My biggest problem with this book stems from the inside front cover. This is unfortunate, since I'm talking about the map which supplies the title for the book. According to it, Puerto Rico is in the non-integrating gap - which is odd because its inhabitants have been US citizens for nearly a century. The fact that someone who considers himself an expert on geopolitics could be unaware of Puerto Rico's status is frankly mindblowing. But there it is, labeled on the map just in case we had any doubt. I looked in vain for an explanation, but there is none.
The rest of the book contains cliches about globalization and a rationalization of America's dominance that military leaders want to hear. It boils down to "America can do whatever it wants within the gap of non-globalized nations, so they should." States that don't want to be integrated are wrong, according to Barnett, and must be rightened by the Integrated Core. I didn't see any moral arguments, let alone international law, that would condone the willful violation of sovereignty. Plus there is little examination of the more compelling topic of why the lines have fallen the way they have, and what is to be done about citizens in the CORE who disagree with the conclusions - I could see a militia group reading this book, agreeing with it, and looking out the window for the black helicopters to come any minute and enforce the New World Order.
There's nothing outstanding or grounbreaking in this book. It's little more than a puffed up travelogue the author has made to countless military strategists. They may have itching to hear it, be we deserve more.
COMMENTARY: Yes, I knew that I left P.R. inside the Gap when I drew the line to include basically all of the Caribbean. Leaving Puerto Rico inside the Gap is no more bizarre than leaving Israel or Singapore—in fact, it's far less bizarre given its meager economy and the fact that it's never become a state after all these years. As I stated in the book, the Gap concept speaks to the entirety of the environment, not to every single state within it. There are outposts of the Core in the Gap, and there are pockets of Gap-like environments inside the Gap (in fact, inside every major city).
As for the moral arguments, it gets pretty weak to pretend that state sovereignty means the same thing in the Core, which is populated by and large by strong, good states, compared to the Gap, which is populated by and large by weak or bad states. When you're law-abiding in any community, your "sovereignty" is solid, but when you're not or you're just plain incompetent, then your "sovereignty" is diminished—plain and simple. The Core is a collection of adults, the Gap is basically a collection of minors, incompetents and people not in their right minds (with a few solid exceptions). People like this reviewer love to go on and on about a global community where everyone plays by the same rules and enjoys all the same rights, and I want to see that too. I just don't see that reality in existence throughout the entirety of the world. In fact, where I don't see it I call that situation the Gap. You can pretend that situation doesn't exist. You can say, "It's not our job to do anything about that!" You can say it should all be done by sanctions, or the UN, or more fair trade negotiations. But wishing these bad security situations would just go away on their own won't make it so.
This reviewer, like so many, condemns my moral arguments while offering none of their own. The bankruptcy of this intellectual approach should be clear to anyone who's read PNM.
The empowered reader (10th of ten)
4 of 8 people found the following review helpful
4 of 5 stars awarded
"Clarifies our war on terror," September 14, 2004
Reviewer: S. Brady (USA)
Whichever side of the political fence you fancy, you need to read this title. It will clear up many of the questions you might have around what our government's policy is regarding global security. After reading this, when you hear the term, "War on Terror", you will know exactly what is meant, what we are doing to win and what all it will take to get there. It is encouraging to see the government doing many of these things over the last 3 years!
In a nutshell, his thesis states that by expanding globalization (trade, human capital, accountable governance) and the strategic use of US military supremacy against rouge regimes, the US will help "non-integrating states" enter into the "functional core" of globalization, bringing more peace and prosperity across the globe.
These new rule sets and the dynamics between the specific actors are laid our in a well-researched, visionary manner. The most interesting thing about this book is that when you are done reading it, not only will you better understand the state of world affairs but will actually be able to wrap your mind around the idea that the US is not only on the right track, but is making substantial progress in this long, hard and costly struggle we were forced to undertake as a result of 9/11.
COMMENTARY: Clearly, this is the sort of response I was looking for in terms of average citizens picking up the book and feeling a lot more empowered intellectually about the world outside and how the United States' foreign policy shapes that world over time. I wanted to take the mystery out of the situation, as well as the gobbledygook jargon about "national interests" and "will" and "hegemony" and so on (none of these phrases are employed in the book except to dissect their basic disutility). I wanted people to walk away from PNM feeling a whole lot more confident about their own ability to understand what's going on around them, and clearly that's what happened with this reader.
| Permalink |
