Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

It is curious how old Core national governments and societies feel the need to retain the military structure and political perspective from old conflicts, and that new Core, and Gap countries striving to modernize, feel the need to acquire benchmark warplanes and warships.

They modernizing Gap countries seem to have a need to stir the pot with a neighbor to justify those values and priorities. Both old Core and new Core arms industries seem to welcome the opportunities to market to the new 'power wannabes.'

I know there have been improvements in this weird power oriented world perspective, but it does seem that we may need a global psychiatry assistance program more than anything else.

The reason why "balance of power thinking is so attractive to writers," it would seem, is that it has so many historical precedents.

The reason why "the stunning rise of globalization's network trade is, sadly, a poor relation in such discussions," one would guess, is that such a theory (1) seems to have no historical precedent and (2) seems to favor a potential opponent.

Thus, it is not that "great games sound just so much more exciting," but that they -- lacking evidence to the contrary -- just seem so much more likely.

This, I think, is the essence of the problem, which, I must admit, I do not know how to overcome.

I love Kaplan's reporting when it comes to his books but haven't been swayed by his editorial work. Nobody has the access that he does when it comes to books like Imperial Grunts. The price is that you have to ignore his weak theory on "America the Empire" while you're reading it. Sometimes I wonder if he just came up with that so he'd have some sort of narrative to build chapter transitions around!