Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Dr. Barnett:

Though I enjoyed your presentation to the Command and General Staff College, and agreed with much of it, I was troubled by the role you suggest for our forces in what arguably amounts to armed economic interventionism. You posed, as a blueprint for the future employment of Soldiers and Marines, the use of force during the “trans-Mississippi” period of our history. Given that the demographics of the US Army in the mid-1800s was almost exclusively white and Christian; the primary basis for westward expansion was the divinely bestowed Manifest Destiny; and that those on the receiving end of the use of force were indigenous brown people; your analogy applied to today’s operational environment is even more perplexing.

The westward expansion of the American frontier was encouraged – demanded, perhaps – under the premise of Manifest Destiny: the God-granted right of Anglo-Saxons to dominate the New World from coast to coast, ensuring “the great experiment of liberty” was given to all. Thousands upon thousands of pioneers did exactly that, though their interests were more in line with making money than with spreading democracy. The US Army was there to ensure they were granted safe passage, but there only. Our escort in the mid-1800’s was a one-way trip, because neither the government nor the settlers themselves intended a return to the east. Do you then, for today’s military, advocate the logical conclusion as well? That wherever we go, we should intend to stay?

A questioner ably pointed out another difficulty with your analogy, that of the millions of Natives that perished as a result of the European occupation of North America. This number was spread, of course, over a few hundred years, and I would never make the argument that the US Army was the responsible party. But your answer – that the Native population was largely decimated prior to the Civil War – avoided the question completely. Your point, I assume, was to refute the supposition that American soldiers might somehow be co-opted to participate in genocide. But your original use of the “trans-Mississippi” analogy was to illustrate how American service members should be used in your brand of globalization. To state that the majority of the eradication of Native Americans was completed prior to the Civil War is a red-herring.

Though the Trail of Tears occured in 1838, General Custer facilitated the gold rush into the Black Hills in 1874; we were still searching for Cochise in the Dragoon Mountains until 1871; and we chased Crazy Horse all over the Midwest and Chief Joseph all the way to Canada until their surrenders in the late 1870s. And to belabor a point, I think Custer himself might disagree with any suggestion that our interaction with the natives was largely complete prior to the US Civil War.

Is our role then to ensure the figurative Black Hills of some foreign country remain open for a new expansion, this one east instead of west? That US forces will ensure safe – and preferably permanent – passage and occupation of Western business interests? America is still, hopefully, that City upon a Hill, and our armed forces will continue to guard the gates, both at home and abroad. I’m just not certain it should be under your particular flag of globalization.

Sir,
While your points about Westward Expansion are all clear and with little, if any, room for dispute, I would argue, as I believe Mr. Barnett would as well, that while the military plays a similar role in westward expansion and today’s global economic integration, the economic goals and driving impetus behind policy makers’ decisions are vastly different.

Notably, in considering the Native American population in contrast with those whom the military spends most of its time interacting with now, we see a great difference in how we perceive success. Success with the Native Americans, and which some believe is Globalization’s end goal, meant total cultural domination, relocation as a means of eliminating the security threat to American economic expansion, and political subjugation.

Were Westward Expansion to take place today, in the most modern incarnation of Globalization, great emphasis would be placed on empowering the Native American to be able to enter the global market by stimulating Native American-run businesses and working with them to integrate rule-sets, politically, economically, militarily. It would be NAFTA and Joint Security Agreements, rather than sending in the Calvary.

While this is no doubt an idyllic interpretation of Globalization at best, we must also consider that within the modern technological context, the means to wage asymmetric war have become widespread and effective, and in a sense empowered many diverse minorities throughout the world. Because of this, we will likely never encounter an enemy as technologically and institutionally disadvantaged as we did when we fought the Native Americans. The model of Western Expansion is simply no longer viable, and safer, more economic, means of integration have become available, which go beyond supporting “western business interests” and encourage domestic growth and empowerment.

Rather, the role of the military is two fold: first, to engage those who most violently oppose global integration, not because their argument is invalid, but because the means they utilize to defend traditionalism are perverse and have a destabilizing global effect even in their tamest forms. And second, to help foster stability by managing global crises of every sort, whether caused by man, nature, or a combination thereof. Hence, we revive 4th Fleet to undertake humanitarian operations in South America, we create AFRICOM primarily to aid and train existing African nations. The emphasis is on so-called "soft power" that implies that the Hospital Ship is mightier than the JDAM.

Dr. Barnett,
I would like to hear your thoughts on the assumption you make about the core not becoming involved in conflict with each other during globalization based off of the recent events in Georgia.
Do you see the situation in Georgia escalating and spreading into other former Soviet countries that could cause the European Union and the United States to get involved? If so, the northern half of the globalization core will become involved in some type of political struggle. If not, this could be one of the first gap countries to become part of the larger core based off of their natural resources, energy.