Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

" a getting ahead at all costs" grand strategy."

Sounds a lot like the zippies Friedman refers to in his works. He makes little mention of how this mentality has permeated the non-West.

The scary tie together that I make when reading this article is when "getting ahead at all costs" has not only a chance encounter with "not thinking about tomorrow" but rather an intimate affair. The end result of that could be a war to get ahead not by truly winning but also by taking down someone else. Not realizing that the tomorrow brought about by that war will ultimately be less productive than one brought about by collaboration.
Another link I make, and I could be wrong on this, is that these two lines remind me too much of an inner city hustler mentality. A "do whatcha gotta do to win" mentality. When the do what you gotta do involves education, invention and collaboration, we all win. When it involves the darker portions of the human mind, scary.

Matt,

Go watch "And there will be blood" to get a Cliff Notes version of this. It's a phase, but you're right, it's an emotional one.

Could it be that America's current grand strategy is not focused on the shoulders of globalization's Bell Curve (terrorism and democracy) but is, instead, focused on the peak of this curve, to wit: The rise of China and the resurgence of Russia?

In this context, would not "containment" be seen, once again, as America's grand strategy, and "terrorism" and "democracy" noted, respectively, as the application of hard and soft power toward this goal?

If this is accurate, then one must ask: What might be the implications for globalization, population, other emerging markets, consumption, energy, etc?

Grand strategy to accomplish what? The end of a two hundred fifty year period of continental exploitation, with substantial global exploitation seems to dictate the rise of "sustainabiltiy issues and policies." Just domestic trends dictate at least 150M more citizens and residents this Century in the US and perhaps 300M. How do we resource adequacy for that projection alone? Or is the US objective adequate resources for the entire world, whatever political beliefs or economic systems? Trending out production and supply of energy, metals-ferrous and non-ferrous, food supplies, etc. seems to be the areas where a grand strategy is necessary for calibration to resource demands. Going to be an interesting century. My guess is the resources of Africa, S. America, and Siberia are all going to be in play once the dynamism of modern Asia and S.Asia is fully effective in world politics a quarter-century down the road. My guess is that the last gasp of the world's great religions has already occurred but of course could be wrong there. Leadership could make a big difference and that's where the US needs to upgrade drastically. It is already looking like sub-state conflict is going to dominate the century. Where are the peacemakers? Or is grand-strategy left to other means? Perhaps shades of grey and not black and white, good vs. evil analysis will help.

Tom:

You make some great points, but is America really obsessing too much over terrorism given the potential threat for a nuclear weapon here in the states? Even if the odds are low, the potential damage is so high that many believe we must fight it with every tool at our disposal.

I like your point about securing the future, but it's a tough sell here in America, particularly in Appalachian KY where I live and work in technology economic development.

Folks want a factory and they want us to "stop sending jobs overseas." Meanwhile, there's very little leadership anywhere with people informing those dissafected by globalization that the benefits outweigh the costs. There are even fewer programs that actually help folks dissafected by g'zation.

I agree that we have to find a way to bring up those in the, what was it you called it in your book, the non-integrated core?

Random observations:
If we get hung up on natural resources as a strategic goal, we not only risk making ourselves unpopular with the rest of the world but making ourselves economically irrelevant. Energy sources can be diversified, metals can be replaced, knowledge and an ability to deal with others. . .

In an information economy, people power is more important. In the short-run, that means being open to immigration, getting our act together on education and relieving companies of the some of the burden of taking care of the work force.

In the long-run, that means a paradigm of realizing- and harnessing- the value of ALL our people.