Dateline: chilling above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 6 March 2005
My brother Jerry says that sometimes, when he's feeling stressed, he goes back to Amazon to read the reviews because he finds some of them so hilarious. I have to admit: I have done the same.
What I find so interesting, is how many of the very negative reviews nonetheless give me four out of five stars.
This will catch me up for now.
Where does he think democracy comes from?
I think Democracy is more important then economics
February 26, 2005
5 of 5 stars
No one's yet judged this review
Reviewer: Timothy (Arkansas)
Barnett seems to describe the problem using a systems method and an economic model of the world state. He seems to underestimate the great ideas of western civilization in favor of economics. While I empathize with his ambitions, I am troubled by his solutions.
Great men and great ideas change history, not just economics.
The goal of the military complex should be to establish individual liberty and natural rights for the majority of the world population. Freedom is very different then economic prosperity.
Lines of Freedom should be established. We should demarcate the world into areas of basic freedoms. The core should be defined as fundamentally democratic (little d), and having values very similar to ours, the gap should be defined as non-democratic.
Integrating non-democracies into the core is risky. We should be exporting "democracy," not "security." Exporting security is what you do when you just want to trade. Exporting democracy, on the other hand, is a much more stable long-term solution. History has shown that economic appeasement can only be viable as a temporary solution. Eventually, as history has shown, non-democracies can without deliberation, or consensus become tyrannies. So we may, in our attempts to integrate, be creating enemies with large and powerful military or inadvertently be subsidizing violations of basic human rights. I am skeptical of the 4-2-1 argument.
The recommended solution of exporting money and capital, and mass importing of immigrants will disenfranchise US citizens and cause cultural strain. They will feel betrayed and wonder whom to blame.
The Project for the New American Century seems to have the right idea for our troubled world.
COMMENTARY: Bingo! Since I never used the 4-2-1 argument anywhere but in C-SPAN appearances, I know this guy hasn't read the book whatsoever (not that that small fact should stop him from a review on Amazon, mind you). So he thinks it would be easier and safe to export democracy over economic connectivity—and they call me optimistic! This guy is obviously a bit to the right, and scared of furreigners!
Cheapskates should take the original article for a test drive!
Article mentioned within just as good as book. You decide
February 22, 2005
2 of 5 stars
No one's yet judged this review
Reviewer: tendayskomyathy (Long Island, U.S.A.)
Rumsfeld's Pentagon sees in our world an "Arc of Instability" which runs from the Caribbean, Mid East, South Asia, and North Korea. Mr. Barnett argues in this book that such a view is too myopic. He agrees with President Bush in that the pathway to global security begins in the Persian Gulf, but adds that it must travel elsewhere---not just along the "Arc of Instability"---but throughout that part of our globe that can be characterized as part of the non-integrating GAP. The world in his view can be split in two: countries that are part of the functioning CORE, that are integrating into the world economy---USA, EU, Japan, China, India, Brazil, Russia, et al.; and counties that are not functioning, that are not truly part of the world's economic system---i.e., The Middle East, Africa (except South Africa), Central Asia, Columbia, Peru, Burma, et al. "What America really needs to do," the author concludes "is understand we are in a race with history, connecting the disconnected before globalization's spread grinds to a halt, which would ensure no escape from the GAP for hundreds of millions and thus provide the forces of disconnectedness with a captive population." Making all these countries in the GAP democracies is not his argument, however. Rather America needs to export security to these countries, giving to states so afflicted something America has in abundance---"A belief in the future," by reconnecting these states to the world economy. With security no longer an issue, resulting economic development in such states (largely from the private sector, driven by foreign direct investment flows) will gradually result in increased liberties---and hopefully lead to democratic evolution; or so the author believes. "Did we win the Cold War," Barnett asks "just to hang back and let the world run itself? Wasn't that the same bold choice we made after World War 1?" Akin to the post-World War 2 era, in contradistinction, what America needs to do now, according to Mr. Barnett, is re-set the rule book once again, now that large power, state-on-state warfare is becoming a thing of the past. How is this to be accomplished? Mr. Barnett offers the following prescription: Divide the roles of the Pentagon into a go-it-alone if necessary, "Big stick" force & a world-system administrator force skilled in peacekeeping and allied coordination; Encourage creation of more alliances throughout CORE countries & create an alliance in Asia around U.S.-India cooperation; Modernize the UN Security Council; Revamp the U.S. State Department to allow it to have a strategic vision; Continue to sign bi-lateral free-trade agreements & regional free-trade agreements while working toward global free-trade agreements---anything & everything, in short, to make countries more connected to one another and the world system itself. In this manner "The Good Life" we in the CORE enjoy can best be preserved, and expanded upon for the future, the author argues. So, is this book worth reading then, or not? I'm going to let you decide that, actually, by letting you in on something. This book grew out of an article the author wrote for Esquire magazine which basically gives the rough case that he has fleshed out rather thoroughly in this work. So I suggest you read the article first (websearch: March 2003 esquire Thomas Barnett for the article) and then make your decision whether or not to give this book some of your time. Cheers!/blockquote>
COMMENTARY: Pretty chintzy review. Can't make up his own mind and won't make up yours. Oh, and he's got a "secret" to tell! I want to report this guy!
God-damned Yalies!
An important, but TERRIBLE book
February 22, 2005
5 of 5 stars
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
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.
COMMENTARY: What can I say? Everything I've done in PNM somebody else has done better—somewhere else. I find it interesting when people read something they obviously hate simply so they can crap on it somewhere. Me, if I don't like a book, I simply put it down. Then again, I have a strong sense of self-confidence, as our man points outs—and as he clearly lacks. He's clearly pissed off that someone not nearly as smart as he has scored a book of PNM's level of success (hence the five stars for this stinking piece of shit), and buddy, he don't [copy edit please!] like that. I will just learn to live with W's envy. But my editor Mark Warren's still steaming mad about this one. Oh yeah!
Oh, and it's "copyediting," not "copy editing," and you never start a sentence with a number. The numbered list should have a period at the end of the last entry, and I don't think you can say "Wilsonianism" (just "Wilsonian" will do).
But that's just me being petty.
A sense of hope is powerful
Has GWB read this book?
February 22, 2005
5 of 5 stars
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: M. J Lane (Whitestone, NY USA)
It seems like the rhetoric from GW Bush has certainly fallen in line behind the thinking of this book. Gone is the talk of "bring em on" to be replaced with talk of the march of freedom, and calls for Russia to continue on the path of liberalization (with the carrot of WTO membership dangling). Personally, I hope so!
The notion of a future worth creating has been almost completely absent in the 1st Bush term. The war on Iraq was sold as a sinkhole of effort on a nation full of people who could do nothing for themselves. I know that sounds harsh but that is essentially how they sold it. What Barnett does is help put this effort in a context that makes sense in terms of a future worth creating. Barnett, for me, took the word globalism from an evil word to a positive one in the course of one book. That is powerful writing.
If you asked me about the optimal economic system I may not argue it is one dominated by corporations. However, I'm forced to admit that where globalism spreads, people stop starving and killing each other (on a mass scale anyway). Globalism is not the end of the road but it certainly does appear to be the optimal intermediary step and Barnett makes a strong case for it. Of course he does not look beyond globalism and perhaps that it just a bit too much to ask from one book.
COMMENTARY: Chris Rock likes to say that anyone who makes up their mind on a political issue before they know anything about it is a complete dumbass. This guy isn't clearly someone who approaches things with a fairly open mind—even things that really disturb him (like the first Bush administration). Fair enough, as was his criticism. I do take globalization for granted in PNM in terms of its positive impact. That's something I explore more in Vol. II but in PNM-I, I said to myself, I can't do a better job than any of the fine economic books on the subject, so why bother? Anyway, it's not what I'm best at, and I figured the book should be about that which I know best. So, it's perfectly reasonable to point out this limitation of the book.
I should have gone with feel-bad strategies . . .
The Author Should Visit the Real World
January 30, 2005
2 of 5 stars
7 of 14 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: Stanton A. Swafford "Balicat" (Bali, Indonesia)
I'm having trouble finishing this book. And I probably won't. The author goes on ad nauseum about how the U.S. can change the world for the better if only the senior people in the Pentagon and the armed services would agree to transform the military so it can deal with globalization and "everything else". As an American who lives in Indonesia, I have news for Mr. Barnett. The PEOPLE in the "gap" matter. And unfortunately for America, the people in these countries today are not inclined to follow American leadership regardless of how much security we wish to "export". Case in point. The Indonesians, thanks mainly to the Iraq invasion, no longer admire the United States. I live here. I feel it. The U.S. Navy provided a tremendous response to the crisis in Aceh. Rather than hearing expressions of gratitude for performing as Mr. Barnett indicates our military should (in the gap), a typical Indonesian commentary is that it is all an American conspiracy to control the Malacca Straits. Go Figure! There is just too much hostility to overcome today in the "disconnected" regions for Mr. Barnett's theories to see the light of day. I give him two stars for his optimism. And no stars for his knowledge of the people and how their sentiments toward America and Americans rip his feel-good theories apart.
COMMENTARY: What can I tell you about my sheltered life? I've learned four foreign languages, good enough to do graduate research in all of them (French, Russian, Romanian, German). I lived in the Soviet Union for a summer in 1985, and got a chance to tour Eastern Europe a bit. I've traveled to do research or give talks in a number of countries over the years: Austria, UK, Panama, Canada, India, China, Denmark and Norway. I interact with foreigners on a regular basis. Does that suggest I am as un-self-aware an American as the reviewer makes me out to be? Can't say I've lived in Indonesia, but I have met more than a few of them, and yes, their anti-Americanism and conspiracy-clouded outlook tends to be frighteningly pervasive—though hardly universal. Moreover, Indonesia ain't exactly the world, so I guess I'll have to take this guy's self-righteous indignation with a grain of salt. I could go on, but I'm having trouble finishing this retort.
Hotmail makes me grumpy too
New Maps, New World, New Ideas: A TEXTBOOK
January 11, 2005
5 of 5 stars
7 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: Frederick C. Monson "Hotmail's Grumpy" (Philadelphia, PA, USA)
Having seen the CSPAN presentation, I acquired and read the book. All criticism aside, and I am a student (of 65) on this playing field, I found this book a very clear exposition (description) of Planet Earth in political, economic and philosophic terms. As a life-long scientist and ersatz 'teckie', I look for the reality in political discourse in an attempt to unravel the polemic from the nutrients. I have feasted on Dr. Barnett's image of the world of 'now', and felt quite comfortable after such a BIG meal of political science that is, to my mind generally insubstantial, vague and loaded with an agenda. Dr. Barnet, however, holds fast to his visualization of the current state of things, and I left the table with a manageable concept of what is going on; not unimportant in these times. The consequence of what I have learned from him is that I feel engaged in a new way when I watch the evening news and listen to the 'experts'. A very interesting and enlightening read, it is the only book of this type I have been drawn to read that has altered my view of the world by organizing it for me. I am much the better for the experience, and appreciate seeing the 'New Map' prominently displayed on my bookshelf. Any book that is both informative and lubricates my gears is one that I keep.
COMMENTARY: Well, all implied criticism aside, you gotta respect a review like that. If you make someone feel smarter and more empowered in the end, then it's up to him to do what he feels is right with such information and analysis.
Disappointed in election
Great stuff. . .Stop what your doing and get this book
January 5, 2005
5 of 5 stars
7 of 19 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: Review "Review Done" (NYE)
Before I ran into TB on cspan I couldn't have told you why we were in Iraq other that some general feeling that the US wanted to exert influence in the mid east. Now I feel like I have a much clearer view of the world and America's place in it. It all makes perfect sense to me though I would be interested to hear a intelligent critique of the work with some alternatives proposed.
I have to say I'm disappointed that during the course of the election nether candidate made this strategy clear. They both must be aware of this work. Barnett says he briefed Congress IE Kerry. I'm sure Bush got the sock puppet theater version of the brief at some point. Got to keep his attention somehow and I'm sure if you ask Cheney he'll tell you, "The more puppets the better."
COMMENTARY: This person is searching for answers, and is disappointed that the presidential elections didn't feature something as clear and understandable as PNM. Nice compliment, sad commentary.
This review, in a word: Brilliant
This book, in a word: Brilliant
January 2, 2005
5 of 5 stars
8 of 11 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: Joel R. Helgeson "JRHelgeson" (St. Paul, MN USA)
Thomas P.M. Barnett does and incredible job of articulating the events of this world and America's involvement in them. This book provides the context to the world in which we live. I stumbled upon this work on C-SPAN late one night while on vacation. The broadcast of his presentation is available on-demand from C-SPAN, which I'm showing to anyone who is interested in politics.
His entire premise is built upon a solid foundation of common sense, backed by historical facts and figures. From this point on, if you want to argue politics, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you come from, you'll have to have read this book or you'll be left out in the cold.
Mr. Barnett is not some right wing "talking head" spouting off about something he read about; he's not even a Republican. He is a Harvard Graduated PhD wielding government analyst with a resume that is enough to impress even his staunchest critics. Neither side of the aisle can discredit his work without sounding like a conspiracy theorist.
Overall, this book is a momentous work that will forever change the discussion of politics as we know it. A must read if you're interested on what the future has is in store for our Military, our Government, even the United States of America and the rest of the world.
Only one criticism: The end of the book reads like it was written to meet a deadline. He starts to repeat himself in places but not too badly, only for a paragraph or two.
COMMENTARY: Amazing how some find the book so lacking in content and argument, while for others it's such an amazing feast of both. The end of the book did get near the deadline, but I disagree that it reflects that. I just wanted to get a certain number of ideas out on the table in the last chapter, knowing that I wouldn't be able to explain them all but wanting to end on a very high note. In retrospect, that last chapter was the great set-up for the sequel, but to be honest, that was the last thought in my head. I was just afraid the book would land with a complete thud and receive no attention whatsoever.
The best review possible from the average reader
A hope to solve the rifts around us
January 2, 2005
5 of 5 stars
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: Stuart Berman (Grand Rapids, MI United States)
This book offers hope, a hope to solve the rift within our nation, the rift between us and the other civilized nations of the world and the rift between civilized nations and the rest of the world. Read other PNM reviews on Amazon - quite a few liberals and conservatives seem to agree with Barnett which is quite a feat and offers important common ground in all of the three arenas mentioned above.
My first praise for the book is that it defies the partisanship that most of us have grown weary of - we want a solution that addresses the real problems and works and not one that gives our 'side' a 'point'. He is unafraid to praise and criticize the administration and its critics as his analysis sees fit. People are now aware of the dangers in this world and want results regardless of who provides them because the stakes are so high.
Along similar lines, Barnett's book is well reasoned and clear but not a dry academic work. He takes us through the background and history we need to put the situation in context. As others on Amazon have stated, through his force of reasoning you end up reevaluating some of your positions that you may have held dear, such as immigration policy, foreign policy, military policy, and outsourcing.
Another area of high praise I have is in his richly human presentation throughout the book. His perspective is not from some detached analyst in an 'ivory tower' but from a person with real feelings and experiences who isn't afraid to share them with you. He offers a profound interconnection between his personal life and his work that reveals the depth of his thinking, for example he shares his experience with battling his young daughter's cancer and how it taught him to never give up the battle for a positive outcome. How often do you read a book about globalization that is inspiring at this level?
I also relished the moments when he waxes philosophical as he reveals the differences between horizontal and vertical thinking. He uses this in describing his own experiences growing up, how his son is learning this and how nations often behave this way. There is a place and role for each of us no matter how we think the trick is to apply the appropriate type of thinking to the roles we choose. (You want a physician who knows his subject deeply but an architect should know his broadly.) As a horizontal thinker he qualifies as a Renaissance Man.
After reading The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Thomas Friedman, I was inspired to believe that globalization was a positive trend, however globalization seemed like little more than noise (such as Seattle anti-WTO & the waves of outsourcing pain) in the events unfolding around us. Now in perspective, globalization takes center stage in all of our lives. Thomas Friedman is about a general concept of globalization whereas Barnett describes the historical context, the practical impact and the hope it offers all.
After seeing Barnett on C-SPAN and reading his blogs I thought his book would simply offer greater insight into his thinking on globalization, however it has become much more than that it has become a textbook that I have filled with notes and questions. His book also offers a glimpse into the future synergy between written copy and online technology. On his website he offers the 'extended DVD' version of his book. You get the 'deleted scenes', the slides, updates and so much more.
Some critics view his work as overly optimistic, and it is typical to hear criticisms without positive solutions but he offers a solution that gives the world hope. Do you prefer to sit paralyzed with fear or move forward with the best answer you have?
I know the book is a success when I find myself continually asking, "What do we need to do to now?" or "How do I apply this in my life?", and then attempt to put issues into the context of the maps Tom has provided.
And my criticisms? They pale in comparison - buy the book and prepare for a complete education.
COMMENTARY: This is exactly the review from an average, not-too-informed-but-desirous-of-solid-and-straightforward-analysis reader that we (my editor Mark Warren and I) were looking for. Perfect, really.
I sold this guy the sequel
One of the few books that has ever caused me to change
December 28, 2004
5 of 5 stars
8 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: Alexander B. Anderson "bruiser2" (Dallas, Texas United States)
Like many of you, I have essentially abandoned literature the last three years and have done nothing but read Niall Ferguson, Thomas Friedman, Michael Scheurer, Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington, etc., and of all those brilliant works I have read, this one has caused me the most internal strife. This is the only book that has truly caused me to question my extraordinary opposition to the war in Iraq, although this book has done little to sanction my incessant Bush Bashing.
What I found most enjoyable in this book is Barnett's overwhelming optimism, which initially struck me as naiveté, but which by the end of the book caused me to reconsider my view of America's role in the world. Dr. Barnett's basic thesis is that the United States is the source code for globalization and that it is our moral duty to finish what we started. We saved the world from Nazi and Japanese terror, stood off the Soviets in the Cold War, and have basically ended State on State Conflict in the process. He does not see a resurgent Russia, a threat from China, or the EU challenging the United States. His view is that the new role of the US military is to basically spread globalization and the American way throughout the world. Now, he does not postulate a need for invading one country after another; military intervention is a last resort when a Non-Integrated Country (Failed State) refuses to abide by the new rule sets of the 21st century, which are still obviously evolving.
What I found most thought provoking is this. Let's say we do not continue to "police" the world. Let's say we retreat and allow the Non-Integrated Gap to go on its merry way. What will happen? Probably more of the same - Iran v. Iraq, Iraq v. Kuwait, various Middle Eastern Countries v. Israel, India v. Pakistan, Yugoslavia v. Yugoslavia, an ever-quickening spread of terror. Not hard to imagine, is it? If other countries know that we will do nothing if they break the international rule sets, then guess what? That is what they will do.
However, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq make clear to non-rule abiding states that if they transgress the international rule sets, then they will pay mightily and they may pay the ultimate price - invasion by us. Our global presence very much helps to keep the world in line and instead of just keeping the world in line, we need to do everything we can to integrate as many countries and as many people as possible. What country can you think of that has ever completely rejected US-led globalization once it has established firm roots? Been to France lately - the home of haute cuisine is inundated with fast food joints. Why? Because the young people like it. What are the most popular (NOT the best) movies in the world - Hollywood flicks. Why? Because people like them. If we can expose people to what Americans have created (an amazingly free and good life that I pray Bush does not steal via the Patriot Act and the infusion of radical Christianity into the government) then the world will not just become safer for America, it will become safer for everybody because everybody will become interconnected.
Where many people come to disagree with Barnett (especially veterans) is his idea that the US military branches no longer need to focus on fighting one big enemy (one peer war) because there is no one country out there that poses any sort of threat to us in a conventional military sense. What threatens us are rogue states, nuclear proliferation, and international terror. If we mold our military to meet those threats, even further expand trade and contacts with the non-integrated countries, and judiciously use our military when countries or terror groups refuse to play by the rules that most of the civilized world (including China) plays by, then we may truly be in a position to expand stability throughout the world, making us AND them safer.
The only problem with all of the above is the execution. How do you do it? I know the way you do not do it is by lying to the American people, lying to the world, and bulldogging your way into another country's capital. When that happens, you lose credibility and when you lose credibility, other countries will resist anything and everything you try to do, even when well intentioned. That is why I believe the next 3 years will be among the most important years of this generation. If we fail in Iraq and/or we make other missteps based on complete crap (you know, the way Bush sold us the Iraq war), then all will be lost and I will be forced to move to isolate myself in Reykjavik, doing nothing but bathing in hot thermal baths with beautiful blonde women and drinking lots of vodka, all the while Bush-bashing in pig-Icelandic.
COMMENTARY: Interesting review, given the tough sell of the ideas with this guy, but that only makes his comments all the more gratifying. The sequel is really written for this guy: couldn't put down PNM or deny its logic easily, but desperately wants to hear about execution. The Blueprint for Action notion is made for this reader.
One lazy-ass peacenik
This is an excerpt - (Can we change / learn from Iraq?)
December 26, 2004
3 of 5 stars
2 of 19 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: R. Allen Rydberg "Peace Activist" (minnesota)
When the Cold War ended, our real challenge began.
[He then excerpts the bulk of the Preface, ending with this bit o' analysis]
Barnett's view is still as a super power - Can we ever change?
(We spend $10 billion on Star wars! A total white elephant!)
COMMENTARY: Clearly, the guy hasn't read the book, just the preface, and tossing in this comment on Star Wars, where we've spent close to $100 billion, and yeah, I agree it's a total white elephant. Thanks for nothing!
The Army War College is heard from
A Galaxy Wide and An Inch Deep
December 23, 2004
2 of 5 stars
10 of 17 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: Analyst (Carlisle, Pennsylvania)
There are nuggets here but most of the meat of the book consists of broad, unsubstantiated assertions. And only about half is "meat"--the rest is nauseating, narcissistic self-praise with a smattering of "defense 101" level information. Dr. Barnett takes credit for inventing many ideas that other strategic thinkers developed first and with much more rigor. In general, the book is like a pop song--its "hooks" stick in the mind but it's no symphony built on development, depth, and nuance. As a result, the important arguments in it aren't made convincingly, but are simply asserted or suggested.
COMMENTARY: The Army War College is located in Carlisle PA. I've read this guy's review of other books, and he must have some "saint" he worships that I neglected to mention, cause he constantly harps on this "self-centered" issue a lot. Then again, maybe he's a professor whose book I didn't mention!
This guy gives the reviews one big "Duh!"
Influential & On The Inside
December 21, 2004
5 of 5 stars
19 of 27 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: B. Green "Master of Mediocrity" (Santa Cruz, CA)
Some of the reviewers here that critique Barnett crack me up. First, raking Barnett over the coals over not coming up with original thinking or paying proper tribute to others is just unfair. "There is no such thing as an original/new idea." New ideas are built upon old ideas, and Barnett has come up with an original synthesis of ideas and spells things out in a clear, concise manner. I learned in college that one doesn't need read every word of a book to "get it," so complaints by some reviewers that he takes too long to make a point tells more about the reviewer's ability to read than the author's ability to write.
Bottom line, Barnett occupies a rather influential and respected position within the "system." He has the eyes, ears and minds of many of our active military leaders and those in training. He's not just some columnist/pundit who is trying to sell books, papers, magazines, etc. Barnett's vision seems to be getting more embraced, and such thinking will certainly find it's way into policy decisions/discussions as our country navigates it's way through the challenges globalization brings.
Don't remain "disconnected" from some very important strategic thinking. Read this book.
COMMENTARY: This is a review of the reviews that I could have written myself. In fact, I think I have several times over the months. It always kills me that no one ever questions their reading or analytical ability, just my writing and analytical ability. But that's what you get for writing a book, I guess.
Wants his realism straight
Vision of Global Peace
December 17, 2004
4 of 5 stars
11 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: E. David Swan (South Euclid, Ohio USA)
Thomas Barnett comes right out and says it. Don't ask when the troops are coming home. They're not coming home. Obviously troops will be cycled in and out but the war on terror and closing of the Gap will be an ongoing process.
Author Barnett takes a refreshing and non-partisan look at America's goals for the coming decades. The world is divided into the Core (integrated countries) and the Gap (nonintegrated countries). Integration includes economics and information. The goal is to increase the size of the Core and reduce the size of the Gap. Barnett invokes a much brighter future than the dismal one expressed by President Bush. In fact Barnett describes the Administrations efforts to sell their plan as "Boneheaded". I might suggest that it's not Bush's failure to elucidate his vision it's the fact that Barnett's vision and Bush's vision are not the same.
Mr. Barnett is explicit about the fact that he's not trying to sell the Pax Americana that's so vogue these days amongst neo-conservatives. His goal is American global hegemony with a dream of seeing the end of war. Barnett points out that we've already entered an era where wars between nations seem to have practically halted. He argues that it's now time to focus on internecine wars in order to cement global security.
I am completely opposed to Bush's war in Iraq but I can, at least, appreciate Barnett's vision. The problem as I see it is that any book advocating global hegemony should at least address the fear of corruption from within. I don't agree with Barnett that we can rely on past successes and idealism. George W. Bush is not FDR and he's not Truman and he's not Lincoln and his predecessor will be something even entirely different. The willingness to become the global policemen does not make us above the law. Barnett agues that there needs to be a different rule set in policing the Core and policing the Gap but where does it end? Does the Geneva Convention apply in the Gap and if not who decides that? Is Abu Ghraib type torture ok in the Gap? Is it ok for the United States to write the Constitution of Iraq and allow it to be carved up by foreign investors? How much suffering do people have to go for their own good? Now more than ever the American people should carefully scrutinize that actions of the Federal government.
I wish Barnett could have expressed the responsibility of global hegemony instead of using the unfortunate phrase "might makes right".
COMMENTARY: Fair review. Points to a lot of things I naturally take on in Vol. II, so it's encouraging.
Reviewer way too smart for my book
Lots of implied assumptions, but good analysis
December 14, 2004
4 of 5 stars
12 of 15 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: Brian Villanueva "bdvillanueva" (Elk Grove, CA)
First note: The editor should have cut about 100 pages out of this book. The problem is that every now and them is a gem of real genius interspersed in tired prose.
In it's simplest form, this book can be summed up as: "Violent places are poor places to invest money. Make them secure, and money and prosperity will come." Some readers will get nothing more than that out of it, which is a shame.
Barnett is nether utopian socialist nor a pro-America imperialist. He is an odd hybrid arguing that essentially American economic dominance of the world is over, and that our most lasting contribution to the global economy today is our security apparatus, which can and should be applied to stabilize markets throughout the world. It is both a tempting and ambitious idea. However, his analysis reminds me of a layman's form of game theory, and suffers from a couple of problems:
1) All players (in this case states) are rational actors. What we do with the Kim Jong-il(s) of the world is unclear. (Can't pound them into the ground, and can't trade fairly with them.)
2) It is possible to create a coherent, capitalist rule set that allows Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism to become tightly integrated economically which retaining their cultural and religious identities. (This one poses the greatest problem, although intergenerational cultural change might allow for it.)
3) Western countries (particularly the US) have the political will to continue a long and costly military, public relations, and economic campaign to gradually improve countries throughout the world. (Probably true, if the goal is articulated correctly. Consider the popular support for the Cold War over 3 generations.)
There are some gold nuggets in here though. His arguments on coming immigration trends, the myth of resource depletion, and the low-likelihood of a US-China military confrontation are all very compelling, and the book is probably worth a read purely on that basis:
1) An aging Western population, unencumbered by a large working-age voting bloc fearful of their highly-paid jobs, could very likely demand looser border policies to gain access to cheaper, foreign labor.
2) Human history chronicles a gradually increasing level of energy demand, and exploitation of new energy sources to meet that demand. There is no historical evidence for either trend abating.
3) Even if military action against the West were culturally desirable to the Chinese, by 2020, their need for foreign energy supplies and capital markets will make such a war economically untenable.
The long-term question of globalization is ultimately: are individuals rational enough to see that their own self-interest lies not with xenophobic, us-vs.-them methodologies, but with legitimate embrace of globalization across both labor and capital? Barnett believes they are; only time will tell if he's right.
COMMENTARY: This reviewer does a very specific digest of the book from the globalization angle, where he obviously feels a lot of self-confidence in his analysis (and seemingly deservedly so). He never touches any of the military stuff, which must have been too hard for him to follow in the same way, thus it was perceived as a lot of useless BS. I could have shortened this review by about 250 words.
Friend of a friend, review of a review
See review below
November 28, 2004
5 of 5 stars
3 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: L. Cary (Little Elm, Texas United States)
A friend of mine who is a futurist for a major defense contractor phoned to say I'd better read this book. It changed his thinking. His is a professional interest in these matters, mine that of a simple citizen layman. I don't know who wrote the "Ready or not: new world order" review below dated Nov 4, but I agree.
COMMENTARY: What he said.
The average reader: two thumbs up!
Good Book. Very Informative
November 14, 2004
5 of 5 stars
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: Daniel C. Michener (Apple Valley, MN United States)
Judging by some of the reviews previously, I am going to assume they were written by people in the field that Dr. Barnett writes about. I am not. Being an average person, I found his book very informative and clear. I think that the ideas he presents are well thought-out and important. If you are a average reader new to the subject of Globalization and the concepts that are popular today when dealing with terrorism (pre-emptive strategy, etc). Then I would highly recommend this book. I think that it does present a very compelling view of how the world has been shaped in the last 50 years and what must be done to ensure that the world is free of terrorism.
COMMENTARY: Do you ever notice how the average readers don't talk about the book being "too long" and "too repetitive," but rather "very informative and clear"? If you want to sell tens of thousands of books instead of just a few thousand, you don't talk over and you don't talk down.
Globalization: Be afraid! Be very afraid!
A corporate Peter the Hermit
November 12, 2004
4 of 5 stars
12 of 32 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: P. M. DIBENEDETTO "mrcrouton" (USA)
I give Thomas Barnett's book The Pentagons New Map four stars because I see it as a useful tool for those who might want to get a glimpse into the mind of an archetypical globalist.
As he urges Americans to fight for the advancement of globalism from the safety of his ivory tower, he seems to have little regard or concern for his countrymen (or are they his globalmen?) and the freedoms promised them in the American Constitution.
Hamburger imperialism and the advancement of McWorld across the globe is the globalist aesthetic of Barnett, a dystopic world where biochipped mongrels wear the mass advertised clothes of the day, eat hydrogenated industrial food and are intimidated by hate laws for speaking out against what's been foisted upon them by the global elite. And although the world will be "connected", the net result is a world filled with fat and illiterate mass malleable men, a globally vulgar man, the natural result of consumerism since economics is all, and all that matters to men like Barnett.
Barnett's ideology is dangerous, and if put into action would enslave American's to an endless series of wars for his hackneyed utopian vision of the world, a vision common among marijuana smoking Grateful Dead fans in the 1970's, and other silly types who worry over people so far away, but who later put down their bongs and became realists as they sober up.
Even ex-dead heads learn to stop imposing their will upon others and would never think of using military force. But not Harvard grads like Barnett who believe in showing the world how righteous their theories and megalomania are, via modern streamlined gunboat diplomacy.
Doesn't the Catholic Barnett know that Jesus says to be your brother's keeper, not a foreigner's keeper thousands of miles away? And doesn't the American Barnett realize that the founders of this nation advised to steer clear of foreign entanglements? As he urges our young soldiers to entangle themselves to "close the gap" for globalism's holy crusade, all the while he just so happens to be in sync with in the exact interests of international corporations.
And so Barnett is the perfect spokesman for the Wall Street Journal and the class interests of the elite, and yet doesn't seem to be aware of how he makes a living. He's a parasite to the American taxpayer as he travels from agency to agency selling his brand of imperial snake oil to Pentagon bureaucrats with PowerPoint presentations. I believe there's more dignity cleaning toilets for a living.
And does Barnett mention the lowering of the standard of living within the United States due to his beloved globalism? Or the cost to Americans (I dare not call them his fellows) of the arbitrary and endless pursuit of "connectedness"? Of course not, because being a globalist advocate Barnett's concern is rhetorically for the poor in the Gap nations while the American working classes standard of living declines without his notice or concern. Just like the Wall Street Journal who seems to have fired the first cannon shot in America's domestic class war.
So Barnett parades around his corporate morality as though conscripting Americans towards his vision is a summary good and worthy of American blood and treasure.
Personally Barnett does not walk the walk of the Gap/Core world he espouses, since he mentions that he adopted a female Chinese child into his household; why did he adopt from within the functional core and instead adopt from the (Gap) Africa? Or even the inner city (Gap?) USA? Or did he not want a dysfunctional Gap child in his functional Core household? Clearly there was no closing the Gap inside the Barnett family.
Barnett is a silly man, and his ideology is the perfect corporate ideology, the ideology of eternal growth on a finite planet, an ideology of America the global meddler and nursemaid. America a slave to the worlds well being while indifferent to the loss of American's liberty whose interests he's supposedly advancing.
Either way Barnett's thesis is the polar opposite to what our founders had wanted for Americans, which was only to their liberty, and not to embark upon a quixotic fantasy of serving a global nirvana.
And so any decent American should eye his work skeptically and stay on the lookout for "Americans" who try to sell foreign adventurism, and talk about how they care so much for foreigners while not signing up for the Peace Corp like true idealists who walk the walk do.
Barnett could be nothing more than a modern Peter the Hermit urging Americans on a corporate crusade of economic man so capitalism can expand markets and governments can tax formerly free people.
I suggest that we let the fool march alone on his global crusade. Unfortunately the Pentagon might be listening to his nonsense, and so we must keep an eye out for them and men like Barnett.
COMMENTARY: My daughter was born, as I said in the book, in one of the poorer, interior regions of China. That the reviewer targets an adoptee for ridicule certainly says a lot about his character. The rest of "Mr. Crouton" is too stupid for words.
Wants his visionaries humble
Great except for the dose of ego
November 8, 2004
4 of 5 stars
3 of 8 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: J. Fowler (Texas)
I concur with the above reviews on depth of content. The author attempts to mimic Thomas Friedman's metaphorical style but falls short here. The book could have been about 80 pages shorter if Barnett did not have to ramble on about how great a briefer he was, and that he was the master of all things PowerPoint. Maybe that kind of ego is what it takes to make it in his profession, but his editor should have chopped it. Otherwise, an eye opening alternative to other global scenarios put forward by Huntington et. al.
COMMENTARY: Eye-opening but lacks content? Interesting. But it's true, I do go on about my briefs for approximately 80 pages, give or take a paragraph. That was, perhaps, a bit too long. If someone can ever point out exactly which 80-100 pages were focused solely on my PowerPoint skills, I'll make a point of cutting them in the paperback. Just don't email me unless you find at least 10 full pages that are about nothing but my briefing prowess.
I said, "Norman Angell with nukes!"
Ready or not: new world disorder
November 4, 2004
4 of 5 stars
11 of 18 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: A curious reader
Barnett's remarkable book is based on a view of the world that he has been evolving since the 1991 Persian Gulf war. It explains so much about the world that we live in and will be living in, that it will seem overwhelming to the casual reader. The consulting and military jargon also seems intimidating and frequently needs translation into plain English. But the book is the result of a synthesizing genius - everything from globalization, to the Pentagon's endless mini-wars, to global financial and disease crises, to American's unique place among advanced countries will make sense. Some reviewers wish it had been shorter. I too think that the book could have been about half of its length, with just the policy argument and some background about how the US government works (or fails to work). The personal material better suits the article or weblog format. (Barnett has a weblog: www.thomaspmbarnett.com.)
The world has been here before - the last such crisis was precipitated by the First World War and reached its climax in the 1930s and 40s. The center of it then was Europe and Japan. It took more than half a century to undo the damage. The center of crisis now is Barnett's "Gap" - how long will it take to get to the other side?
Barnett's arguments best fit the political views of those called "liberal hawks," but looking forwards, not backwards. He mates the naive Clinton emphasis on the economic and humanitarian side of globalization and the Bush post-9/11 panic over security - borderless world versus endless layers of security. His argument will rightly offend the two extremes of the political spectrum - the post-Cold War isolationist right and neo-isolationist left. The bankrupt left has never recovered from the collapse of communism. The right wants the outside world to go away. Conventional liberals (as suggested by the Kerry campaign) and establishment Republicans (like Colin Powell and James Baker) want to return to the mid-20th-century categories of intergovernmental diplomacy with fellow "Core" and potemkin "Gap" governments and, behind a smokescreen of multilateralism, politely ignore the world's most serious problems. The Powell-Rumsfeld attitude clings to a blinkered, Vietnam-inspired paradigm of warfighting that says, "Don't bother us with politics!" - as if war isn't inherently political. The post-9/11 Bush is aware of the terrorism challenge, but apparently aware of nothing else. (The Bush democracy rhetoric is only tenuously related to Bush policy. The overwhelming imperative is destroying terrorists.) The Bush administration itself is an exercise in group autism. No one really knows what to do, and all are in denial.
Barnett leaves some critical questions unanswered. Americans are not alone willing to carry this burden, nor should they. Will the (mainly Asian) allies (including China) who buy our debt and so purchase American security continue to do so? Are Americans of this and future generations ready to meet such challenges the way the WWI-WWII generations were? Is there a role for Europe in this new world? Barnett is not by any stretch a unilateralist - read the book to discover that for yourself. He insists on "a whole Core to shrink the Gap." But those who hyperventilate about unilateralism need to answer a question themselves: Hasn't the end of the Cold War also meant the end of multilateralism as we know it? Why should the US bear the whole military burden while allied governments mainly whine and contribute little? The current evidence on these questions is not encouraging.
There is a classic that bears on this question, Norman Angell's once-famous The Great Illusion (1910). In it, Angell, an economist and journalist, argued for the irrationality of a great European war. All true, and to no avail in 1914. It all worked out in the end, by 1989, but only after the deaths of a couple hundred million people.
Taxpayers pay for someone to think about this stuff, so that at least someone is not surprised by 9/11, or the rise of China, or outsourcing to India, or why the hi-tech Pentagon has been chronically unprepared for the post-Cold War era. Better rational thought like Barnett's than irrational conspiracy theories - which tend to be rampant in such times as these, when people lose their grip and stop understanding the world around them - like the 1930s.
Read this together with Thomas Friedman's recent books and Fareed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom. Robert Kagan's classic Of Paradise and Power serves as a prologue to Barnett's book, summing up the fading Eurocentric age of the Cold War. Also consider Dana Priest's excellent The Mission, about the post-Cold War US military and why it's all turned out very differently from what anyone expected 15 years ago.
COMMENTARY: Fair enough review. Obviously just wanted his concepts to skim and screw the narrative. Fine. Raising Norman Angell, when I address that specifically in the book, is a bit weird. He must have missed that section in his skimming. The best criticisms are dealt with directly in Vol. II, which I think this reviewer will also like.
The most generous review of the 21st century . . . so far
The Most Important Book of the 21st century. . . .so far
October 30, 2004
5 of 5 stars
9 of 19 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: Robert Spellings Jr. (Eugene, or United States)
THE PENTAGON'S NEW MAP will be the most important book you read this decade. The world doesn't make sense right now and our leaders are failing us because they are more interested in fighting with each other than in fixing the problems that plague the world and hold the future of humanity in the balance. Dr. Barnett, a prof at the Naval War College, not only makes sense of the world and clearly articulates that what we are seeing in the world is not mere chaos, but he also proposes a SOLUTION. . . .and it's a solution that everyone from all sides can agree on. It's based on evidence and analysis and not on politics. No matter what side you are on, this book is not what you think.
If you have any desire at all to help "fix" the world's current situation vis-à-vis terrorism/globalization, then read this book and pass it on. The guy is nothing less than a visionary and is probably a genius. Don't take my word for it, go check it out yourself, and don't hesitate! You won't be disappointed.
COMMENTARY: This guy's focus on the solution set is gratifying, and that probably accounts for his exuberance, which is great, if a bit over the top. People want understanding and they want to be empowered with a vision of the future and a sense of how we can bring that future about. This is the exact niche PNM occupied in the debates of 2004: the only optimistic vision of a global security order.
Fair and balanced
A worthwhile read, puts the Iraq war in a different light
October 19, 2004
4 of 5 stars
13 of 15 people found the following review helpful
Reviewer: A. Batwash "brewha37" (Jersey)
Barnett's work introduces many new conceptual tools for understanding the world that the reader will need to understand his argument. He divides the world into a "Core" and a "Gap", each of with functions according to different rule sets. Generally, the Core includes the US, the EU, Japan and the rest of the developed (and developing) world that operates through the rule sets of interdependence and connectivity. Generally, the Gap includes the Middle East, Africa, parts of South America, and South Asia. This part of the world is not connected to the Core because it operates with different, dysfunctional rule sets. This distinction is not perfect, there are anomalies in both the Core and Gap. The outliers notwithstanding, it boils down to globalization being part of the Core and not being part of the Gap.
Barnett argues that the Gap's disconnectedness is a threat to the Core and thus the Core should "shrink the Gap" (or "grow the Core" if you like). The 9/11 attacks represent this threat. Barnett calls the attack a "System Perturbation", but he essentially means that the operating rules in the Core were disrupted. Bin Laden attempted to change the US' rules sets to drive it out of the Middle East, but in the short term he had the opposite effect. The US realized that its post-Cold war rule sets were not sufficient to deal with the threat of disconnected states, so the US developed new rule sets like the Patriot Act and pre-emption.
Barnett argues that the US' (and eventually the entire Core's) adoption of new rule sets must work to shrink the gap over time. Much like what happened on 9/11, the US must create some system perturbations in the Gap. He argues that invading Iraq was a sort of big bang for the region where a whole new operating system will eventually emerge and develop from one cataclysmic event. The old rule sets were disrupted and new ones will emerge over time.
According to Barnett, the Core must hang around and ensure that connectivity results from the new rule sets in the Middle East. To do so he proposes a bifurcation of the existing US force into one more suited for war and one more suited for nation-building. Barnett stresses the importance of Core-wide cooperation in this regard; the rest of the Core will be more capable of helping the police force rather than the US warfighting force.
Basically, Barnett wants the Core to progressively baby-sit parts of the Gap until they are connected to the Core and no longer pose threats. A tremendous task to be sure. But unlike most pundits and experts he offers something better than reasons for despair, which I like. We need some guidance towards a better world in our policy. If nothing else his ideas ought to be debated and it is good to see that some of his strategic principles are gaining traction.
Nevertheless, I do not know what to make of his argument as a whole. It sounds like many before it in promising a peaceful, interdependent world, dating all the way back to Kant. Even in the decades before the first World War many in the Manchester school out of England made similar claims about the growing interdependence and prospects for peace in Europe. What I am trying to say is that while there may be a strong correlation between interdependence and peace, is there any causality? Barnett does caution by quoting Tolkien, offering "hope without guarantees" and I do not agree with doing nothing If anything, Dr. Barnett has clearly identified the systemic problems that pose threats to the Core, and particularly the US. However, I do wonder about the particulars of some of his ideas. How can we be sure that we can control system perturbations of our own making and of those by others against us? How do we reconcile differences within the Core yet alone come to a consensus on shrinking the gap? What about the stability of the global economic structure during this process of aggressively spreading globalization? Maybe trivial points, but before undertaking such an enormous challenge we ought to pin down some of these details.
Overall a good read though. Barnett's a decent writer for someone who works in the defense community. I recommend it, if for nothing else to get you think about the national security issues facing this country in a different manner.
COMMENTARY: Pretty fair review. Nice summary. His concerns are valid and well-expressed. I believe Vol. II will answer many of his fears, but not all. But again, see how reviewers cite PNM as unique among the many tomes on foreign policy that came out in 2004.
| Permalink |
