Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Here is a group of nine reviews posted on Amazon from early August through mid-September. This catches me up on all of the (currently) 53 Amazon reviews.

As always, I offer a short commentary after each.

What's in it for America? (1st of nine)
13 of 21 people found the following review helpful
3 of 5 stars awarded
"Whose National Interests is our military fighting for?" September 12, 2004
Reviewer: Timothy K. Crimmins

I watched Barnett do a presentation on C-Span. The topic was an overview of the basic contents of the book.

According to his presentation, there seems to be a global ecomomic plan that overlies the military map, and the two work in concert together. What I don't get, is that at the end of this long term plan, how the standard of living of Middle Class America, as we know it today, is going to survive. In fact, his model suggests a HUGE shift of wealth from the middle class to an overlaying corporate structure, which is further accelerated by a HUGE shift of labor from 3rd World Contries into this "Global Economy". This in turn, suppresses the American labor market even more. His model also requires a HUGE shift of our national budget to the military. After watching the presentation, I just did not see a WIN for the American working class, and I just didn't see how our democracy, as we know it today, is going to survive. I quess I would ask, whose national interests does this plan represent? Corporate interests? Military interests? Certainly not middle class American interests. I will grant that there are some "WINS" militarily on the global landscape, but as "National Interests" are increasingly focused globaly, rather than locally, it would seem to diminish our democracy to the point of irrelavance. Of course, the irony is, we seem to be doing this to ourselves. I have been watching the election news fairly closely, and I don't see any of this brought forward to the voting public in the party planks. This all seems to be going on in the background, well away from public debate, and it is scaring me to death. I hate to sound like an alarmist, but I sincerely believe if we continue to follow the economic and military path we are headed on now, our economy and our cherished democracy is in dire peril. I would also like to add, I consider myself to be a conservative. I suppose I should also add, that since the word "conservative" has been hijacked by talk show extremists looking for ratings, it is more accurate say I am a more "middle of the road" conservative.

COMMENTARY: This reviewer's problem is less with my book than with globalization in general. His language is the give-away: America is a land of workers and laborers, and they are threatened by a globalization that only takes jobs away and never returns any new ones—at least ones that "workers and laborers" get. All this review proves is that many Americans feel just as threatened by globalization as citizens of other countries around the world do. No surprise there, since globalization allows jobs to migrate to cheaper labor, meaning that not only do countries have to move up the production ladder with a speed that is at times dizzying and quite difficult, but so do individuals. More than a few readers believe PNM to be primarily about a war on terror, but it isn't. The main character in the book is the spread of the global economy, not the friction it creates, which gets expressed violently by an al Qaeda in the Gap and plaintively by frightened workers in the Core. Globalization is THE giver of pain and delight in the system at this point in history. My book is an attempt to relate security to that grand historical phenomenon.

Presumably, I'd make the trains run on time (2nd of nine)

11 of 30 people found the following review helpful
3 of 5 stars awarded
"Mussollini would be proud," September 6, 2004
Reviewer: Richard E. Laitinen

In 1932 Benito Mussolini described fascism as a system in which "The State not only is authority which governs and molds individual wills with laws and values of spiritual life, but it is also power which makes its will prevail abroad. . . .For the Fascist, everything is within the State and . . . neither individuals or groups are outside the State. . . .For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative."

Mussolini in a speech delivered on October 28, 1925 delivered the following maxim which encapsulates the fascist philosophy: "Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato," "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".

The word fascism has come to mean any system of government resembling Mussolini's, that exalts nation and often race above the individual, and uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition, engages in severe economic and social regimentation, and espouses nationalism and sometimes racism (ethnic nationalism).

Despite his protestations that "America does not shrink the Gap"--that is, third world countries who do not share in the common "rule sets" of the major superpowers--"to conquer the Gap, but to invite two billion people to join something better and safer in the Core (the "connected" superpowers who share a common 'rule set'). Empires involve enforcing maximum rule sets, where the leader tells the led not just what they cannot do but what they must do. This has never been the American way of war or peace, and does not reflect our system of governance. We enforce minimum rule sets, carefully ruling out only the most obviously destructive behavior. We push connectivity above all else, letting people choose what to do with those ties, that communication, and all those possibilities. Many in the Gap, and not just a few in the Core, will choose to opt out."

To accept Mr. Barnett's position without question or concern is to accept Mussolini's form of governance without question or concern. Though his analysis and description of modern glogalization is worthy of analysis and discussion, Dr. Barnett's blithe assertion that America's military is not about building empire is specious at best. In his own analysis he asserts that countries in "the gap" must become 'connected' with the "core country rule sets" and that the American military is to serve the role of 'security agent' for those multinational corporations willing to carry out foreign direct investment (FDI) in those countries. Of course, those countries will have to play by our rules (oops, "rule sets") which are NEVER discussed in detail within the book. This leaves open questions such as "Who determines the 'rule sets'?" Apparently if it is the WTO and the G7/8/. . ., that's okay with Dr. Barnett.

However, how does that play out with Dr. Barnett's assertion that "This has never been the American way of war or peace, and does not reflect our system of governance." If it is the WTO and the "G" gang that sets the rules, why bother with 'our system of govnernance.'

In his discussion of "rule sets" and "rule set resets", Dr. Barnett continually makes reference to events that shape and change to pervasive rule sets that "push connectivity above all else, letting people choose what to do with those ties, that communication, and all those possibilities." Unfortunately, reality does not support this pollyanna vision of who is setting the rules and for what purpose.

Under the current system of the ever expanding ($450 billion budget) and integration of the miltary/industrial complex and its mission of providing 'security' for multinational investments Dr. Barnett's program for world peace will be Mussolini's ideal come true.

COMMENTARY: This reviewer's basic take is that I'm essentially a liar who trying to seduce the reader into accepting a combination of both American empire and rule by supranational organizations. That's fine (if a bit self-contradictory: I mean, how can it be our empire if we always need to ask our fellow great powers if we can do things with our military?), but the notion that I never discuss what the rules are is just plain wrong. I give examples throughout the book, and offer an entire essay on the rules of the American way of war, being quite explicit from stem to stern. But none of that interests this guy, who clearly has me down as both Mussolini fascist and Wilsonian internationalist, and you just know how those two visions mesh so naturally.

If it's not a global war on terror, then it must be a police state! (3rd of nine)

12 of 40 people found the following review helpful
1 of 5 stars awarded
"Lets make the world into a global police state!" September 6, 2004
Reviewer: Stormin' Norman (California)

The Japanese sold the 1930s policy of a "co-prosperity sphere" to their own population as a way to "help" their neighboors. Their great idea was to bring their backwards neighboors out of what Barnett now calls "the Gap" and help ease them into the (then) modern world. Japan, in theory, only wanted to create win-win mutual gains and mutual expansion. I am sure the Japanese population supported such noble aspirations. But what was the implemented reality? Noble aspirations turned into brutal exploitation of their neighboors. What went wrong? Isn't Barnett's proposal about the same? Isn't it sort of an updated version of the failed Japanese co-prosperity sphere policy--a "US co-prosperity sphere"? Remember in Star Wars movie how the Evil Empire had to build their military and the Death Ray to police rebel resisters and keep order in the Empire? Isn't this essentially Barnett's main idea? What is the reality here? If Barnett's policy proposals are implemented they are sure to be totally corrupted by greed and politics and turn the US into a brutally repressive force--something like the Evil Empire from the Star Wars movie. Orwell quipped about perpetual war--war is peace. Isn't that the thesis? Now Barnett is praising a US role as global cop as our best vision of the future. Cops and global cops embrace a police state as a utopian ideal. I am sceptical. We can do better than this.

COMMENTARY: You can tell he read the book closely can't you? Or maybe he just really likes Star Wars. I'm sceptical alright.

Picking up where Thomas Friedman leaves off (4th of nine)

10 of 14 people found the following review helpful
5 of 5 stars awarded
"Visionary Futurist," September 5, 2004
Reviewer: Robert R. (Philadelphia, PA)

I have just had the pleasure of twice viewing Mr. Barnett's fabulous presentation on C-SPAN this weekend. Having just finished reading Anonymous' (CIA Analyst) two books, "Though our Enemies Eyes" and "Imperial Hubris" I was feeling uncertainty concerning this administration's position on the war "on terror."

After being exposed to this thesis, I believe we are headed in the right direction for ending the remaining [major] conflicts that exist in this world today.

Mr Barnett addresses specific approaches and required paradigm shifts to achieve this end.

It picks up where Thomas Friedman's, "The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization" left off.

It brings clarity to our missions in Afghanistan and Iraq and puts the modern "role" of US into its proper [and global] context.

COMMENTARY: Gotta like this one. He reads both Clarke and Anonymous and feels more confused about U.S. foreign policy. Why? Both are completely backward looking, finger-pointing exercises in self-blame (or, at least, everyone but Clarke). Mine picks up where "Lexus and the Olive Tree" left off because—frankly—Friedman is the real Pollyanna on security, believing the "electronic herd" was going to policy up the Gap, when—in reality—it largely fears to venture there. We'll see if Friedman continues to ignore PNM in his upcoming "geopolitical" book that I expect will continue of treating security issues in his impatient, non-strategic style.

Pointing out what other reviews are missing (5th of nine)

19 of 22 people found the following review helpful
5 of 5 stars awarded
"People have confused a major premise of this book," September 5, 2004
Reviewer: Nick Smith (Colorado)

Some people have commented that this book is an excellent evaluation of the direction that the strategic goals of the USA should take and what may be the framework for forming a coherent policy outlining our grand strategy for what America's role should be in the world. This is correct and true. Others have objected that the author incorrectly assumes the US should police the world. What they fail to realize is one of Barnett's points is that an extremely large military budget is one of the reasons we have such a large deficit, which is bank-rolled by many foreign investors. Why, because they get returns on it (other economic gains in certain instances in how it can affect currency markets), and because the US government exports security which provides stability for the institutions of globalization which some of these emerging economies are plugged into. Anyone who knows what the size of the debt is, take a guess at what happens when these foreign investors don't renew their financing of the debt or pull their assets out? This is why the US has a stake in being globally active because our government is financed by the institutions of global capital which require a stable global environment (not to mention our economy's role in the global system in addition to the government). Regulating global situations is the US exporting it's military expertise as the global good of security and stability. Our country can get the debt constantly financed if our society, economy, and government can provide returns for the capital that is invested in each. People will support American institutions (not just government) financially when we provide goods in exchange. When our country is global, our government must serve global ends; just like any transnational corporation.

COMMENTARY: This guy does me a nice service by highlighting the point about the "global transaction strategy," something he clearly feels was being ignored in a number of previous reviews. But in doing so, this is less a review than a rebuke to other reviewers. So a nice defense offered on my behalf on a major premise of the book, but nothing more.

Either accept that globalization drives security issues or skip this book(6th of nine)

15 of 20 people found the following review helpful
5 of 5 stars awarded
"Strategic Sensibility," August 28, 2004
Reviewer: BP (Cairo, Egypt)

Many of Barnett's critics demonize him for perceiving strategy with so much emphasis on globalization and the international political economy, however this is where Realism is heading. As much as September 11 has changed the nature of international relations and strategy, terrorism and related transnational threats drive strategic imperative only in the larger context of globalization. People unwilling to accept this probably shouldn't bother reading Barnett until they read more about Globalization and the International Economy in general.

For the reader equipped with a basic understanding of current events, foreign affairs, and the nature of the global economy, Barnett's book provides the foundations of strategic logic for this new era of complete 'connectivity.' Even if you disagree with Barnett's conclusions on how to pursue strategic goals, the book is worthwhile for its exploration of the precept that connectivity and freedom are the pillars of peace for the 21st century.

This book is best-suited for citizens seeking the beginnings of a truly informed dialogue and debate on the direction American foreign policy is heading and why.

COMMENTARY: An interesting sort of love-it-or-leave-it review, basically designed to scare off anyone who doesn't buy into the notion of the military-market nexus. Fair enough to offer, but it does discourage some readers from even giving the book a look, and so I don't really care for it, despite the plug. I'm looking more to convert than simply preach to the choir.

Prefers readers try a different book (7th of nine)

18 of 36 people found the following review helpful
2 of 5 stars awarded
"Global Thinking," August 23, 2004
Reviewer: R. Wright (APO, AE United States)

This book is a superficial and ill-conceived attempt to develop a grand strategy for the U.S. in a post 9/11 world. The author of the book is Thomas P.M. Barnett who is currently a professor at the U.S. Naval War College and is an experienced strategic analyst, yet his book lacks intellectual discipline and focus. It is filled with fuzzy concepts, overly simplified descriptions, and irrelevant digressions. For a work by a senior strategic analyst, this book shows an embarrassing lack of sound analysis.

The premise of this book is certainly sound, namely that the phenomenon of globalization should inform the development of a new national security strategy for the U.S. Government. Unfortunately Barnett appears to have only a vague understanding of the complex process called "globalization" which he apparently equates only to economic integration. Most experts on globalization would take exception to such a narrow view and would contend that globalization is a multi-faceted process touching on economic, political and cultural issues. In any event, he then proposes a rather simple-minded map dividing the world between what he calls the core (economically integrated countries) and the gap (those countries that are economically "disconnected" from the core countries). He has based his strategic thinking, such as it is, on this core-gap disconnection and the geo-physical boundary he has created to divide the world between them. Had he bothered to research and reflect on this concept, he surely would have realized that neither his map nor his core-gap division made a lot of sense. Again, most experts on globalization see it as a phenomenon of degrees rather absolute distinctions between those countries that are involved in globalization and those that are not. In short Barnett didn't do his homework and thus failed to build a compelling case for his theories of national strategy.

I would recommend that readers interested in more than a national strategy for the simple-minded might be well advised to read "National Security for a New Era" by Donald M. Snow. While Snow offers no facile answers for solving the many problems of developing new, post 9/11 national security policies, he does provide an informed and accurate framework to address such policies. Snow also provides something so conspicuously absent in Barnett, a reading list of relevant books and articles on the subjects covered in his book.

COMMENTARY: I don't really get this review, since I spent page upon page trying to relate security to a very broadband definition of globalization, but apparently this reviewer rejects all that, preferring to define globalization as so much more than economic integration. No argument there, simply that I did not close the deal with this reader on my efforts to redefine war "within the context of everything else." Then again, I had an entire chapter on the four flows of people, energy, money and security, so how he labels me as myopic in my appreciation comes off a little odd. Maybe if I offered more flows? Anyway, I plead guilty to the main charge: I do see globalization driven primarily by the forces of economic integration. As for the charge of poor research and not enough citations, I'll put my hundreds of endnotes against anybody else's, including the estimable Mr. Snow, whoever he is. That I didn't make my book a vast book report of other people's ideas: to that I also plead guilty and seek the reader's forgiveness as a "bad academic."

Another self-appointed "reviewer of reviews" (8th of nine)

22 of 26 people found the following review helpful
4 of 5 stars awarded
"Important and insightful, but a complete mess," August 22, 2004
Reviewer: Soren Dayton (Washington, DC)

First, I would disagree, at least somewhat, with the previous reviewer who has stated that there is little new in this book. Whether or not this is original (and Barnett certainly does not claim his argument is), it is the first attempt to address these issues that is getting traction in the Washington political community. This is very, very significant. Hopefully, the (many) flaws of this book and its ideas will get corrected and refined over time, but it has captured the imagination and provided the metaphors that probably are and will define our foreign policy over the next 25 years.

Second, I do agree that this book should have stayed an article. It is one-third autobiography, one-third description of Pentagon decision-making, and one-third description of his own ideas. This makes it amusing to read, but difficult to process as an analytic argument.

Third, this book offers what I believe is the most honest reason for the war on Iraq yet. It could not be offered by a politico, but it can be offered by someone on the inside watching the decisions evolve. I think that he clearly illustrates what Wolfowitz meant when he said the war was fought for "bureaucratic reasons".

In summary, I strongly recommend the book for its discussion of a likely strategic direction for our country. The discussion of Pentagon decision-making and planning is likely also useful to people to wonder why it's so hard to change that organization.

COMMENTARY: A bit self-contradictory, meaning the reviewer both criticizes and compliments the structure of the book. Like #5 above, though, this reviewer seems to feel the need to do his own "reviewing the reviews" effort, which is nice alright, but it's cutting in on my territory!

Good book . . . for an obvious Sinophile author (9th of nine)

0 of 7 people found the following review helpful
4 of 5 stars awarded
"A Facinating Theory of the World," August 16, 2004
Reviewer: A. T. Yoshida

Dr. Barnett's theory provides an interesting method of interpreting events in our world. Even if you don't entirely agree (as I don't), I'd recommend that you read this book to get a good idea of the thought process that's going on elsewhere.

Essentially, there are two pro-war camps among political theorists these days: those who view the present conflict against terrorism as necessary for the world and those who view it as necessary for the United States. Dr. Barnett's views place him among the former and mine place me among the latter.

What I mean by that is this: the premise of The Pentagon's New Map is that the world is divided into a "Funtioning Core" and a "Non-Intergrating Gap" and that, ultimately, we need to bring the nations inside the gap into the core for the sake of everyone.

Where I think this fails is in Dr. Barnett's simple acceptance of using existing Cold War rule-sets to govern relations within the core itself- namely that, if we place nice, China will eventually overtake the United States.

COMMENTARY: A standard this-in-an-important-book-to-read-even-if-you-disagree(as-I-myself-do)-with-many-of-the-basic-premises review. Always nice when even the deep skeptics admire the book and give it 4 stars. The comments about China tell me that this reviewer remains fearful of intra-Core rivalries and conflict. Fair enough, as that is a fairly standard criticism of my "rosy outlook" on New Core powers like India, China and Russia.