Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

So how do we get Barnett into the Secretary of State job or the Presidency ... to provide that leadership? We have to dream.

OOH! "Great Powers"--I can hardly wait Tom! =)

Zakaria & Barnett can both be counted on for inspirtion sans jingoism. Gotta remember to save Zakaria articles until the end of Foreign Affairs. Reading Zakaria first then the Haas article leaves a sour taste in my mouth, makes me want to go back & read FZ again.

Great article.

As long as we can stay free from the clutches of socialism, we have a great and positive future.

How can we have a grand strategy and remain a free people, as opposed to a centralized form of government?

It is only possible if we have visionary leadership who can lead without repression.

Precisely why Obama's gift of oratory is so strategically valuable. He's by far the best communicator of the 3.

I qoute from Richard Haass' article in Foreign Affairs (right after Zakaria's) entitled "U.S. Foreign Policy in a Nonpolar World", Page 55, pp2:

"Finally, the United States needs to enhance its capacity to prevent state failure and deal with its consequences. This will require building and maintaining a larger military, one with greater capacity to deal with the sorts of threats faced in Afghanistan and Iraq. In addition, it will mean establishing a civilian counterpart to the military reserves that would provide a pool of human talent to assist with basic nation-building tasks. Continuing economic and military assistance will be vital in helping weak states meet their responsibilities to their citizens and their neighbors."

The sentence that starts "In addition" sounds like going in the direction of Tom's DOEE. Hmmm =)

I wonder if Zakaria read (or reread) Barbara Tuchman's 'The Proud Tower' before he wrote his conclusions?

Global changes on the scope that Tuchman and Zakaria covered should not be reduced to a simple 'glass half empty or half full' assessment.

Instead we should be looking to monitor other aspects, like: 'is the table under the glass wet and getting wetter?'

"the gist here seems to be: balance is coming, but slower than you think: we can self-improve to deal with this loss of power but the loss is inevitable."

You seemed to focus on the "loss," but that is thinking of the world as a zero-sum game ... which it is not. We will need to deal with the increasingly complex and multi-polar world. But what country is better equipped to deal with complexity and diversity than us? They have been two of our primary internal struggles for the past generation (or longer). We have both successes and failures in those areas giving us some unique knowledge.

If our industry is open markets and democratic government then we should encourage expansion of that industry and take the lead in that expansion. Our need for brilliant leadership is greater than ever, and I agree with Zakaria that it is our greatest challenge.

Christopher: noting the relative and absolute loss of power is not zero-sum; it's just observing the fact. does that make us losers? no. we can still 'win'. and there are plenty of win-win scenarios. but China's rise and the rise of other economies do presage a comparative loss in power for us, say from 90 to 80 (just to pick some numbers out of the air).

I think you are still zero-sum and focussed on us and the others. I am not saying there is not some reality to that. But if your wife gets a raise, do you now have less power? Or did you just gain power?

With complexity and integration there does not necessarily need to be a pie that is sliced. The thing about non-zero-sum is that the parties each gain benefits unique to them.