The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century

I'm reading a number of books on the Middle East and our dilemmas there, and this was one I picked up almost on a whim. It apparently generated a great deal of controversy when the idea was originally put forward (as a magazine article) and it's been greeted with a lot of hostility as a book, too. Let's go over the premise of the book, and then some of the criticisms of it. The author of the book was educated to be a Cold War analyst. Unfortunately, as he received his doctorate the Soviet Union collapsed, and he was left without anything to specialize in. He spent much of the 90s studying the Russian military (especially their navy) and after 9/11 morphed himself into a prophet looking at the world through a new perspective, at least in his mind, so that he can see what needs to be done in the next 50 years, and the goal that could be achieved. Barnett contends that the end of the Cold War wasn't the disaster for the world that various pundits opined that it was. He makes the point that up until the day the Soviets collapsed, they were the root of all Evil as far as the Pentagon was concerned. The day after, the world without them was a much more dangerous place, because they'd held all the nationalism movements in check and kept a bunch of civil wars from happening. Barnett insists this is bunk, and examines the world in some detail, pointing out that major portions of the world now don't have insurgencies or wars at all, and haven't had since the fall of the Soviets. The main premise of the book, however, is Barnett's new perspective, the map of the title. Instead of splitting the world up into Communist and Capitalist sectors, with a "Third World" not aligned with either, he instead now divides the world into two groups: what he calls the "Functioning Core" and the "Non-Integrating Gap". Both of these terms are rather clumsy and unfamiliar, so he spends a great deal of time discussing what exactly he means by each of them. The Gap consists of most of Andean South America and the Caribbean rim, all of Africa outside if South Africa, the Middle East, and SouthEast Asia. The Functioning Core is the rest of the world, including such newly developed countries as Argentina and India. The main premise of the book is that we need to shrink this Gap to the point where the countries involved transform themselves into democracies with more independant economies that allow money to flow freely. The countries involved would also (with the shrinking of the Gap) improve the situation of the women in the country, and allow foreign investment and exchange of ideas. The result, optimally, would involve the end of war as we know it, and the transformation of the world into a more tranquil, stable world. Much of the criticism of Barnett's idea comes from the hard left and the hard right. The left worries that we're imposing our society and civilization on other cultures and societies, so that other nations wind up disliking us. A corollary, of course, is th

Mr. Barnett's book is a critical source for serious individuals who feel the need to view current events in a larger context. This book creates the sense of context that the media and, frankly, our government should but does not provide. There is consistent food for thought and serious analysis of where we are and how we got there in terms of global security issues and our capabilities to address them. This is not a Democratic/Republican, left/right piece of work. This book does create new understandings of the geopolitical challenges and opportunities we face as a nation and creates a significan focus on what we have to do and why we have to do it.

The Pentagon's new map relies on the concept and importance of connectedness (aka globalization) as the key to world stability. Barnett defines two 'camps' in the world: 'core' nations who follow the rules of civilization, and 'gap'countries who are focused on disconnecting civilization for their own gain. He explains that connectedness is facilitated and preserved by free movement of people, energy, investments, and security (I would add ideas/information and technology to these 4 but one could argue that 'they're in there'). This elegant model has roots in history and with considered thinking does not appear overly simplistic as some reviewers have suggested. It is appealing to portray the world as so complex that nothing can be accomplished (Barnett alludes to this) but solutions that work are generally the simplest (Sir William of Occam). One of the alarming messages from the book is the low quality of thinking and decision processes prevalent in the defense establishment. It is commendable that Barnett took the uncommon action of connecting to business/economics thinkers but if defense analysts are not routinely tapping into the private sector for information, tools and processes, they are in the dark relative to what is happening in the world. The descriptions of what passes for problem solving and decision making processes in the Pentagon sound third rate. The only problem with this book is it is about 3-5 times longer that it needs to be, saying the same things over and over with slightly different nuances. The saving grace is Barnett is a good story teller and it is very readable. However, it can be a 'tough slog' to absorb all the tidbits in support of the major thesis. It would be easy to lower the rating to 4 stars just on the basis of writing style and verbosity. Barnett may be a good brief writer but he's a wordy guy. He would have a tougher time 'making it' in a cutting edge business because he wouldn't have enough time to get his message out.

Some people have commented that this book is an execellent 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 a 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.

I think Barnett does us a great service by explaining in clear language that the old rules no longer apply, and that new thinking is needed. The 21st century is shaping up to be far more complex and interesting than some Pentagon planners with their fossilized mindset realize (and Carnes Lord, Barnett's colleague at the Naval War College, typifies this kind of old thinking). Globalization, economic self-interests and economic interdependence, domestic political evolution - none of these are important to some of the folks at the Defense Dept who continue to look at the world as a one-dimensional chessboard, with monoliths pitted against monoliths in a zero-sum game (as in the Cold War). Barnett's vision is realistic, highly analytical and well-informed. This book is partially autobiographical and is a little confusing at times (I wish he would separate his own life in an appendix perhaps). But still it makes very good reading. Barnett is a new Kennan for America, only this time with a totally new vision expressed in terms which would be surprising to Kennan. The same brilliance though.