Showing posts with label Great Powers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Great Powers. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

April 12, 1861: The Second Most Important Day In American History



The most important date in American history is July 4, 1776 Independence Day, the second most important day is April 12, 1861 , the day the Civil War began. The attention paid to this date is scant even on the 150th anniversary. Why is it important? First and foremost the war brought an end to slavery and led to citizenship being granted to all born in the United States . Beyond the monumental achievement of ending slavery, the Civil War  set the legislative stage for Lincoln to start the country moving from a loose collection of states, as Lincoln called them, to becoming the United States of America as we know it today.

Homesteaders


1862 dollar

An equally lasting achievement, according to Thomas Barnett in his recent book Great Power: American and The World After Bush, was that Lincoln "front loaded" America's post-war recovery which spread people and connectivity across the continent so that within a quarter century, America was poised to become the the dominant power of the 20th Century. Using five bills passed in the 37th Congress, Lincoln set the stage that would shepherd America into the next century. The Homestead Act  transferred 270 million acres of federal land to private hands. The Pacific Railroad Act began to tie the nation together and linked those far flung homesteads with the developed east. To make it easier to conduct business across the nation, Legal Tender Note made the "Greenback" bill we came to know and love. To lay the groundwork for higher education, the Morrill Act was the first federal aid to education bill by providing land for colleges in each state. Finally, the Second National Bank Act stabilized the banking institutions with the issuance of Treasury bonds and created a uniform monetary policy. Lincoln pulled this off with the 37th Congress that was seated with a Republican majority in both houses after the Southern states withdrew their members.

So When you are next casting about for something profound to say at the next social get-together remember the second most important date in American history. And for those who like counter-factual considerations, imagine how we would have fought World War I or II or contronted the Cold War if we were still a loose collection of states. We'd have looked just like NATO, made up of European Union countries, trying to organize themselves to end Gaddafi's rule or muster more that token support for Afghanistan. 

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Two Reads on Foreign Policy

G20 Membership
Chinese Congress Hall

Great Powers by Thomas Barnett


The Bellum: A Stanford Review Blog. since it's launch in February has become a must read blog that never fails to raise the level of attention on important issues as diverse as food, Fungi Don’t Know Borders and interviews, John Nagl on the Media and COIN. In this next post they turn their attention to U.S. foreign policy and the direction it should take in the coming meeting of the G20.

They begin by citing:
Esteemed strategist Leslie Gelb’s Sunday editorial, It’s Time to ‘Go to Strength’ on Foreign Policy, recommends that US foreign policy focus on areas of comparative strength, steadily withdrawing from those arenas where regional complexities prevent American force from being a “sure thing”. Gelb’s argument hinges on the idea that US foreign relations require a black-and-white decision—either leaders can focus on hotspots like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran at the expense of developing “greater power” alliances or they can engage fully in proven modes of diplomacy in a way that avoids unilateral involvement. Parsing this construction, unilateralism is weakness and US-directed multilateralism is strength.

They continue:
Gelb’s underlying thesis– that “this is the worst time to link our fate to crises beyond our control [and] our strategy has to focus on anchors that provide stability”—is well-received.

Bellum then poses this question.
But is the United States’ present choice really equivalent to 1946 as Gelb seems to suggest?

And counters with this opinion.
Bellum takes exception with the implication that international terrorism can be fenced in using the same tools—“containment and deterrence”—that were used against the Soviet Union.

The final analysis from Bellum follows:
It’s understandably unsettling for a man whose career has spanned a period characterized by unquestionably dominant US power, but the financial crisis requires that we sit and wait. Certainly, China’s no Soviet Union and cooperation offers mutual benefits, but it’s not apparent that the US has the flexibility to take charge in a coalition-forming process. Before we can pursue multilateralism, it’s critical that we first ensure our affairs are in order within the G-2. China is likely to multiply its influence through the course of the global economic recovery, but if US policymakers are selectively deferential to Chinese preferences, America can remain at the strategic forefront of geopolitics.



In a related post Tom Barnett column this week, takes on the the threat of great power war and deftly deflates some of the pressure being pumped up by the big war planners.

While difficult to keep in mind amidst today's economic nationalism, a global middle class of unprecedented size rises in the emerging markets of the East and South. This accomplishment logically ensures the continuation of great-power peace, as America's grand strategy of spreading its liberal trade order reaches its global apogee.

Countering this view is a growing cohort of academics and analysts who insist that such rising consumer demand will inevitably trigger "resource wars" among the world's great powers, with climate change as an unforgiving accelerant.

Barnett's answer to this rhetorical opinion.
A little secret here: A good portion of America's defense establishment desperately needs the long-term specter of resource wars to continue justifying the big-war-centric structure of our armed forces. It needs to sell this vision of future conflict because, without it, the small-wars community will triumph in a looming budgetary battle that will define the Obama administration's legacy in national security affairs.

To find out why read the whole column linked below. Here is Barnett's conclusion based on the evidence that awaits your perusal.

Don't believe me? Imagine a world where there's no Chinese demand for U.S. debt or no U.S. demand for Chinese exports.

Dreaming up future "resource wars" to obviate our military's necessary adjustment to this era's security tasks will not render them moot. Indeed, like Somalia's recent pirate epidemic, they invariably attract the collaborative efforts of other great powers, like China and India, which have no choice but to defend their growing economic networks.



Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Mid-Week Reads

Hump day calls for a pause to refresh one's prospective and take a few minutes to read some of the recommended posts around the blogosphere this week.

Leading off is this summary of the "Underwear Incident" in the South China Sea posted on Information Dissemination.

In the maritime domain, China is best seen as primarily seeking to extend and consolidate its sovereignty, rather than to protect its sovereignty per se, since the likelihood of invasion from the sea probably approaches zero. Its strategy is two-pronged. First, China is actively attempting to extend its authority in areas already under its jurisdiction by recasting the traditional relationship between coastal states and the international community and pressing for enhanced coastal state jurisdiction over traditional international freedoms in coastal waters and air space. Second, China has many claims over islands and sea space that are actively disputed by its neighbors. China is consolidating and defending its historical claims to islands in the East and South China Seas and to the maritime zones that will accrue to whoever gains undisputed sovereignty over them.

Read more: Observing the Incidents Off the Chinese Coast

Staying on a naval centric tack, comes this post on United States Naval Institute Blog. It was reprint of an article in the 1954 edition of the Naval Institute Proceedings Magazine, entitled; NATIONAL POLICY AND THE TRANSOCEANIC NAVY by Samuel P. Huntington.

The introduction:

By almost any measure Harvard Professor Sam Huntington was the preeminent political scientist of his generation. When he was but 27, three years before he wrote The Soldier and the State, the classic on civil-military relations, Professor Huntington authored a May 1954 Proceedings article, ‘National Policy and the Transoceanic Navy’. In this powerful essay, he laid down a challenge to the military services that resonates today even more than it did over 50 years ago: “If a service does not possess a well-defined strategic concept, the public and political leaders will be confused as to the role of the service . . . and apathetic or hostile to the claims made by the service on the resources of society.” And specifically of the Navy, “What function do you perform which obligates society to assume responsibility for your maintenance?”

Tom Wilkerson Major General, USMC (Ret.)
U. S. Naval Institute CEO


Read the whole post.
From Our Archive: NATIONAL POLICY AND THE TRANSOCEANIC NAVY by Samuel P. Huntington


Turning to thoughts on America and the current attempts to navigate out of the shoals of despair caused by greed and Nestbeschmutzers, a word used by a professor friend when he encountered people who ruined their own country. To illustrate this, comes this pair of posts from Fabius Maximus.

Our ruling elites scamper and play while our world burns.
And,
The eternal truths of history can guide us through this crisis.

Finally from Mark at Zenpundit, this review of Thomas Barnett's Great Powers: America and the World After Bush

Great Powers: America and the World After Bush is a book whose influence will be deep and long. It is also a book that will be loved and reviled. Loved because in it, Barnett connects history with strategy and foreign policy and does so with unvarnished, supremely confident, optimism regarding a future of an Americanized Globalization and a globalized America. It will also be bitterly reviled for exactly same reason.

In essence, Great Powers is an intellectual-political Rorschach test.

Read more: Book review: With Great Powers comes Great Responsibilities….


Sunday, March 8, 2009

Five Good Reads for a Sunday Afternoon




Shawn of Asia Logistics wrap has begun a series of posts that will address the importance of a secure global supply chain.

Shawn explains his series:

In this series of posts starting with this introduction, I will do the following:

1. Explain Dr. Barnett's "Ten Commandments of Globalization" in the context of Asia-Pacific maritime security and trade.

2. Describe the current, key concerns supply chain managers have in regards to maritime security in the Asia-Pacific.

3. Summarize the potential "flashpoints" that would threaten maritime security and their potential impact on key supply chain nodes in the Asia-Pacific.

4. Comment on the role of security in existing cross-border, government-level discussions of logistics integration in Northeast Asia (China, Korea, and Japan).

5. Speculate on the possibility of a formal, comprehensive maritime security regime coming to fruition in the Asia-Pacific.

Despite the fact that I have no experience in the military, the military-market nexus is intriguing and of strong interest to me in the development of my supply chain knowledge. As a result, I look forward to the process of writing on these topics.

Read more: Maritime Security and Trade in the Asia-Pacific, Introduction

Shawn continues with this post that adds detail to his introduction.
Maritime Security and Trade in the Asia-Pacific, The Ten Commandments of Globalization.


The Bellum: A Stanford Review Blog. makes these observations about North Korea.

The Hermit Kingdom has been getting awfully crabby in recent headlines, and Bellum proposes that it’s time to step back and formulate a recourse to the inevitable: Parallel to intimating that it will shoot down South Korean aircraft that enter its airspace during the course of war games with the United States and that it will confront the “puppet state” on its disputed western sea border, North Korean authorities claim that they will soon launch an innocuous “communications satellite” that it has been preparing since January. Of course, as with most snarky announcements out of DPRK’s state-run Korean Central News Agency, the noise has got analysts up in arms on suspicions that the object-in-question may instead be a malevolent Taepodong-2 missile capable of reaching the western United States (and thereby picking up where Yasuyo Yamazaki left off in 1943, harrying Aleut-Americans just trying to go about their business). Upon further inquiry, NK’s spokesman betrayed juche by responding with a Buddhist coan, legacy of an earlier subjugated age: “One will come to know later what will be launched”. Zen indeed.

Read more:


And finally China based Shanghaiist has these two posts that add a measure of levity to the weight of confronting the really serious issues of the day.

The Adult Care Expo is in town and we, being the naughty naughty chlidren we are, decided to give it a look see earlier this morning. Was it everything we hoped it would be? Unfortunately, no. As one vendor informatively told us, the expos in Hong Kong and Macau are much bigger and rowdier - the Shanghai market for sex-related goodies just hasn't matured yet. Still, there was plenty to giggle at and we've documented it for those of you too prudish to go yourselves.

Read more:

and for those under eighteen or too prudish to see the humor in the above post:

Pssst, guess what? The six story monolith to America's favorite representation of unattainable beauty standards has now been fully realized! Today, the 3400-square-foot Barbie flagship shop on 555 Huai Hai Zhong Road opened its doors officially and let in the public. The Barbie-adoring masses were greeted with a building that not only contains dolls and their clothes, but a fashion design center, a runway chock full of models dressed up in Barbie clothes, a Barbie day spa, and even a cafe.

Read more:


Failed States II









This week Pakistan commands our attention alongside Afghanistan as both countries seem to teeter on the brink of an abyss. Last week I wrote about Afghanistan and Failed States, this week we lead off with this column by Thomas Barnett.

In my latest book, "Great Powers," I advance the controversial notion that America's success in spreading our model of globalization around the planet will force us into many compromises with local extremists seeking cultural sanctuary from its revolutionary norms of individual emancipation. My argument is that - as a rule - most such compromises will be generational, for what is "radical" to elders soon becomes "normal" to youth.
But then I'm confronted by the recent political agreement between Pakistan's faltering government and the ascending Taliban in Swat Valley, whereby the latter is granted judicial emancipation from Pakistan's laws to enforce Islamic sharia.
Is not such accommodation a form of national suicide?

Read the whole story:


Offering another view of how Shariah Law would be administered, is this next post from LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT by Anwaar Hussain.

Now that the state of Pakistan has effectively rolled over, paws up, at the feet of the beheaders, it is time to get a glimpse into the abyss the state has brought us onto.

But before that glimpse, the lessons first.

The lesson that other militants draw from the state’s capitulation to the Taliban in Swat; the more brutal, the more ruthless, the more insane your actions against the state and the common citizens, the more concessions you can extract. If the Swat Taliban, essentially only a few hundred unruly Pathans, can bring the government of Pakistan down to its wobbly knees, why can’t the same be done in the heart of Punjab by the sons of the soil? Witness the brazen Lahore attacks.

The lesson that common citizens draw from the shameful debacle; the state is simply incapable of protecting their lives and property therefore safety lies in meekly kowtowing to the people who kill in the name of God. Witness the sad happiness of the poor Swatis after the truce with the militants was announced by the provincial government. These are the same people who, just over a year ago in the election of 2008, had comprehensively booted out religious parties in favour of a liberal, secular party to rule them.

This post is written with a pen that barely contains the rage of the author towards those who in the name of religion, impose a level of barbarity, mostly aimed towards controlling women and the weak.

Read more:

Turning our attention back to Afghanistan, this post by Agha Amin, author and former officer in the Pakistani Army comments on a recent pessimistic article by former CIA officer Milton Bearden, entitled, Curse of the Khyber Pass.

1-I am rather disappointed with this article.

2-Milt does not realise that British occupation of Afghanistan was a success story.The brits with about 15 lakh an year controlled Afghanistan's foreign policy and Afghanistan did not harbour any anti British groups with success.

3-Afghanistan's problems are centred in its neighbours.The USSR failed not because the mujahids were more martial butb because the USSR failed to realise that the centre of gravity of the problem was the Pakistani base being used by USA and Saudi Arabia.A simple solution that the USSR could have followed was massive aid to India to mount a conventional invasion of Pakistan.As a matter of fact this if done in 1983-87 would have finished the Afghan problem.

4-Presently the Afghan problem is again centred in its regional neighbours.Now no one including Russia,China,Iran,Saudi Arabia and parts of the powers that matter in Pakistan do not want the USA to succeed in Afghanistan.SEEN IN THIS CONTEXT THE USA ULTIMATELY WILL HAVE TO :

1-Agree on a settlement of Afghanistan in alliance with Russia,India and Central Asian States.

2-Divide Afghanistan into a Northern Alliance led North and a wasteland of Talibans in the south.
3-Maintain air bases to pound targets of opportunity in the region think its a myth to think that Afghanistan cannot be pacified.
.
In 17th century Kabul had a Hindu Rajput Governor and Kandahar and Herat was Persian ruled.

I am surprised that respectable US analysts are so pessimistic.
.
Agha Amin is an outspoken observer who brings a prospective of one seems to know the lay of the land. His observations are sometimes biting and controversial, but always worth the consideration of his point of view.
.
Read more:

I realize the photos that accompany this post are disturbing, but I make no apologies for using them. The mistreatment of women is one of the greatest anchors holding back the advancement of a society to raise itself out of the abyss of poverty and disconnectedness.

The point raised by Tom Barnett in his column is that Pakistan can follow the example of how the United States is able to co-exist with the 562 tribal areas inside her borders. First and foremost, those tribal areas are able to exist by conforming to the Constitution of the United States as well as state laws. Pakistan as a nation must have enough power to enforce the barest constitution guarantees of basic civil rights. Without that, we must then accept the fact that parts of this world will forever remain festering sores, that the world avoids and hermetically seals off from transmigration. The course seems clear that the world can not ignore and disengage from confronting this problem. It will take the combined skill and courage of all to use the tools of diplomacy, intelligence, military and most of all economics to help pull these disconnected societies out of an abyss from which for many there seems no escape.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Barnett Describes How Globalization and Intervention Have Led to a Safer World


Fragile States


Conflict States

Mini Atlas of Human Security

If anyone wants more evidence that Thomas Barnett's Great Powers: America and the World After Bush is on the right track in defining our world since the end of the Cold War, they only have to read Barnett's latest column where he summarizes growing evidence that state on state war has declined to the lowest levels in modern history.

Here are some of the highlights

The just-released "Mini Atlas of Human Security," published by the World Bank and Canada's Simon Fraser University, details the pacifying impact of globalization's advance. That globalization is a direct descendant of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order that has been consistently defended by U.S. military forces in the decades since, but at unprecedented high frequency since the early 1990s.

Armed conflicts worldwide have decreased 40 percent since then, with casualties decreasing by a stunning 80 percent.

Civil wars have decreased in frequency by 75 percent from 1992 through 2005, while the internationalized version of the same now stands at its lowest levels since the mid-1970s, a trend described by the report's authors as constituting the "most sustained decline in two centuries."

The Cold War was not a stable period and should not be romanticized as such by those who now try to sell us the image of "perpetual war" and "chaos" caused by some combination of globalization's advance and America's willingness to defend it with military force.

But, as the report highlights, 1992 marked "the beginning of a sharp decline" worldwide, albeit one unevenly divided between those regions with strong connectivity to the global economy and those lacking such stabilizing ties.

Read more:Thomas Barnett: Globalization and American intervention spread peace

Here is the link to the MINI ATLAS OF HUMAN SECURITY. Take a long look, it is filled with data that at first blush makes several countries like the United State, Great Britain, France along with Russia look like the fabled Spartans for participating in the most conflicts. But if one considers that almost all of these were peace keeping missions or interventions in failed states the pattern begins to change.

Some data, is somewhat misleading. The United State is shown to be one of the countries that used child soldiers, giving the impression to someone uninformed on our laws that the United States uses children in combat on the same plane as the infamous "Blood Diamond" wars. The only way someone under 18 can join the U.S. military is if their parents give written permission when they are 17. It might be further noted that no America soldier under 18 has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Getting past those first maps will reveal the pattern that Barnett has so adeptly argued since introducing his first book, The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century in 2004.


The choice seems clear. We here in the United States have two choices. We can do as the Ming Chinese did in the 15th century when based on the reports brought back from the Treasure Fleets that their empire possessed all that was needed to sustain their cultural and economic superiority and further contact would not be worth the effort. We could wall ourselves off by withdrawing from these trouble spots and erect protectionist tariffs and risk suffering the same fate as China as the rest of the world passed them by in the 19th century.
The rapid growth of globalization would not give us three centuries to see the effect of non-participation take it's toll. The second choice, is to continue to lead in concert with fellow nations, efforts to raise humanity to levels exceeding those already achieved during the past decades as connectivity and economic empowerment has led to more people on the planet living better than any time in human existence.


Saturday, February 28, 2009

Afghanistan and Failed States




Steve DeAngelis of Enterra Solutions has a couple of timely posts that call attention to the broken parts of our world. The first addresses the need for the core states of the world to act in concert to address the failing and failed states of the world.

Steve begins:

The Economist, in a recent International section article, asserted that "in almost any discussion of world affairs, there is one thing on which doves and hawks invariably agree: much more needs to be done to shore up states that are failing, in a state of collapse, or so poor that they are heading in that direction" ["Fixing a Broken World," 31 January 2009 print edition]. Since Development-in-a-Box™ is one of Enterra Solutions' core offerings, development is a topic I frequently address in this blog [see, for example, my posts entitled Dealing with Failed States, More on Dealing with Failed States, and Fixing Fragile States]. As an opening to its article, The Economist claims that "the planet's most wretched places are not always the most dangerous." That shouldn't come as too great a surprise since the residents of some of those countries are so poor that they spend nearly every waking moment just trying to stay alive.

Drawing this quote from the article, Steve shows the correlation to observations made by his associate Tom Barnett.

A rather precise taxonomy is offered by Robert Cooper, a British diplomat and Eurocrat, in his book, 'The Breaking of Nations'. He splits the world into three zones: Hobbesian or 'pre-modern' regions of chaos; areas ruled effectively by modern nation-states; and zones of 'postmodern' co-operation where national sovereignty is being voluntarily dissolved, as in the European Union. In his view, chaos in critical parts of the world must be watched carefully. 'It was not the well-organised Persian Empire that brought about the fall of Rome, but the barbarians,' he writes."

You might recognize some similarities between Cooper's taxonomy and Tom Barnett's, my colleague at Enterra Solutions. Tom's Core States comprise Cooper's modern and post-modern states and his Gap States comprise Cooper's pre-modern or Hobbesian states. Between the two, Tom places Seam States, which are often the places exploited by criminal and terrorist organizations as gateways into the developed world. Tom believes that diplomacy is the only security tool necessary for working with the Core, but in the Gap, a capable military force (a Leviathan force) is also a necessary part of the kit. Between the extremes of diplomacy and conflict, Tom recommends using a nation-building force (a System Admin Force) to help Gap countries along the path to prosperity. He was preaching his gospel of "shrinking the Gap" long before it was adopted by the U.S. or the EU. The Economist's article provides a brief history of why thinking changed.

This post is well worth the time taken to read and understand that ignoring these problems will eventually grow like a pandemic to engulf the functioning states of the world.


Read more:


Steve turns to the dean of American diplomats, Henry Kissinger who as DeAngelis notes is still making grand strategic observations at the ripe age of 86. In this post, Kissinger offers sage advice for President Obama and America on the treacherous course in Afghanistan.

Henry Kissinger, who has labored in academia's ivory towers as well as Foggy Bottom's government offices, remains, at age 86, keenly interested in world events and U.S. responses to them. Never shy to express his opinions, Dr. Kissinger offers up his views on the war in Afghanistan for consideration by the Obama administration ["A Strategy for Afghanistan," Washington Post, 26 February 2009]. As one might expect, Dr. Kissinger is not happy with the direction the war is heading; otherwise, he would have likely have remained silent. He writes:
"The Obama administration faces dilemmas familiar to several of its predecessors. America cannot withdraw from Afghanistan now, but neither can it sustain the strategy that brought us to this point. The stakes are high. Victory for the Taliban in Afghanistan would give a tremendous shot in the arm to jihadism globally -- threatening Pakistan with jihadist takeover and possibly intensifying terrorism in India, which has the world's third-largest Muslim population. Russia, China and Indonesia, which have all been targets of jihadist Islam, could also be at risk."

The post ends with these cautious words aimed at both the President, but the oposition party.

Dr. Kissinger suggests that the Obama administration should not count on much help from outside the region (especially from America's NATO allies). Conflict in the Middle East remains unpopular in Europe and Kissinger doesn't believe that President Obama's popularity will change that sentiment. He is more sanguine that Europe would be willing to help rebuild Afghanistan should the security situation there be stabilized. Kissinger concludes his op-ed piece with these words: "Whatever strategy [President Obama's] team selects needs to be pursued with determination. It is not possible to hedge against failure by half-hearted execution." I hope that members of Kissinger's own party heed his words as well as the administration.



Monday, February 23, 2009

The Eagle Eyed Armchair Admiral Spots a Quote At 6834 Miles!






Galrahn the Admiral of Information Dissemination broke out his spyglass to report this sighting. Hillary Channels Thomas Barnett.
.
.
Interesting bit of back ground from a twitter post by Tom when he was in Washington last month.
.
Books handed personally to Obama and Clinton Sunday night. My emissaries are being turned loose.

I wonder what Hillary was reading during that long flight?

Saturday, February 21, 2009

A Few Thoughts on the Importance of Teaching American History

Alexander Hamilton
Senator Henry Clay


Theodore Rooesvelt Jr.


An item that caught my eye today, stimulated me to write about the importance of teaching American history to both young and old in this country.

First, an article that Thomas Barnett posted today Cheap houses, happy immigrants where he comments on this article in Newsweek "A Fence Can't Stop the Future.

The main point of the article is that:

The law of large numbers guarantees that Latinos will move the national averages in almost every measurable area of American life. The question is how. If current trends continue, Latino growth could actually speed our national decline. Need a cautionary tale? In California, the under performance of Latino students has pushed the state to the bottom of the heap—45th among 50 states in educational attainment. On the other hand, if we invest in services that lift Latinos into the middle class, they could become the dynamic heart of a continuing American success story.

This point about an investment in education is critical in my opinion. And that brings up an issue where I differ with the current trend in studying American history by focusing too much on our failures over the triumphs that led to the conditions that brought us to the place we are today. I do not advocate ignoring those shortcomings as was done in past decades, just a re-awakening of the strengths that have led us to continue to be the desired destination of millions like those above who seek what Barnett describes in Great Powers as an; "America..built for speed, for the cutting edge, and for both producing and attracting ambition." Where, "Our promise is of equal opportunity, not equal outcome." Phrases, that best define why we continue to be the magnet that turns the turbines of innovation and change.

Those new to our country send their children to class where they learn so much about the negatives that when I get them in my college classrooms, they are mystified to learn about roles that men such as Alexander Hamilton, Henry Clay, and Theodore Roosevelt played in shaping a future that today's Americans enjoy.

Understanding how our system of government works in relation to the civil government that their parents were familiar in their home country is another area where a massive effort to educate would pay off in dividends that would make the most jaded hedge fund trader jealous.

If we as Americans care about our future, we need include the lessons learned by studying the virtues of America's past along side the scars left by that journey.

One of my favorite passages was found written in the margins of a copy of The Pilgrim's Progress, carried by Brigadier General Theodore Roosevelt Jr. son of President Theodore Roosevelt and discovered after his death during World War II. "I do not repent me of all the trouble I have been at to arrive where I am...My marks and scars I carry with me" And later to his wife he had written after being relieved by General Patton in Sicily. "The longer I live the more I think of the quality of fortitude--men who fall, pick themselves up and stumble on, fall again, and are trying to get up when they die."*
General Roosevelt went on to win the Medal of Honor for leading his men ashore on D-Day. He died of a heart attack one month later, on the eve of taking command of the 90th Division.
.
Roosevelt's words serve as an allegory to the American spirit and the importance of introducing there meaning into the minds of those seeking that opportunity of equality, so that they have a full measure of what being American means.





*Rick Atkinson, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944 (New York: Henry Holt, 2007), 160.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Thoughts on a Sunday Morning

Connectivity to Major Cities
Wealth concentration Year 1 CE, to 2015 CE.

World Economic Freedom
Per Capita GPD



Sunday mornings are a chance to reflect on the week that was and give thought of the week ahead. This last week saw the passing of a second stimulus package of $787 billion that joins the previous outlay of $750 billion passed last October as the twin thumbs in our financial dike. This amounts to 1.5 trillion dollars or over 10% of our current Gross Domestic Product or 14 trillion dollars.

That is enough to make even the most die hard believer in government social spending pause and wish for something stronger than coffee. But coffee it must be to sober Americans up to facing a changing world.

The past several weeks I have been promoting Thomas Barnett's new book Great Powers: America and the World After Bush. Between it's covers Dr. Barnett charts out a course that he recommends America consider following in order to preserve the dominate role we have played in the past century and ensure that the source code of a free market economy, our DNA as Dr. Barnett labels it, continues to spread across the globe.

To begin collecting our thoughts about the course that Great Powers offers, it is helpful to read Barnett's column this week, where he defines America's role this way.

The United States has been the demand center in the global economy for so long that we can't remember when that wasn't true. And yet global corporations increasingly view us as just another market among many as the global middle class expands dramatically and rising India and China collectively compete with America's demand function.

Read more:

In the column you will note that Barnett lists our states by region and compares the economies of those member states with it's counterpart nation in the global economy. To take that line of thought and project it out consider this, in the coming decade our economy is projected to grow about 23% by 2014. The rest of the world's combined economy, GDP is projected to grow by 46% from 60 trillion to 87 trillion. Most of this growth will occur in the emerging nations that Tom Barnett labels the "New Core". Here is a brief list of the growth projected for a few of those nations.

2008-2014 projections
China, 114% 4.2 to 9.1 trillion, USD
.
India, 80% 1.2 to 2.2

Russia, 135% 1.6 to 3.9

Brazil, 75% 1.6 to 2.8

Mexico, 100% .9 to 1.8
.
List of 2008 forcast from the Economist.

Even countries emerging from decades of war like Vietnam and Cambodia are projected to see growth rate of 105% and 122% respective. The point I am making is that the connectivity that Dr. Barnett has so clearly outlined is something that like water will seek it's natural course and over time wear away the resistant rock that blocks its path.
.
As a nation that has for the past century emerged to do more to equalize the people of the world than any body of people in history, we are faced with two choices. One, withdraw, as was done by another "Great Power" the Chinese in 1435, when they abandoned their treasure fleets and sealed themselves off from the outside world believing that their way was secure by limiting contact and selling off their assets to the highest bidders through strictly controlled gateways. They ended this adventure cut off, stagnant, technologically far behind and easy pickings for the new "Great Powers" the Europeans and in part, the United States.

Or, we can stay engaged, renew our goals by remembering our past and the setting course with just as much self assurance as our ancestors. This has always been the legacy of the New World. Even those we named "Native Americans" took up that challenge thousands of years ago when they continued to advance across the land bridge and down the twin continents that make up this hemisphere. Our legacy is that sense of wanting to see what is over the next hill and then finding a way to improve what we find there to enhance our community. We Americans are a conglomeration of people who were not satisfied to stay behind and enjoy the status quo.

It seems our course is clear to let our natural instinct as Americans be our guide.

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Announcing! The Great Powers Junto Club Reading Group







Here is an important announcement just posted over on Thomas Barnetts web site about an upcoming series that I have been invited to host.

Beginning a week from tomorrow, Monday, February 16th, I will be hosting a reading group to read and discuss Great Powers: America and the World After Bush.

We will be covering one chapter a week and discussing the content and ideas contained within each chapter. All are invited to read along and join in the discussion with your questions and comment. My role will be that of a facilitator to encourage participation and stimulate discussion.

In this endeavor, I like to think that we will be following the great tradition of the Junto Society that Benjamin Franklin founded in 1727 to discuss the important issues and books of the day. We may not found any libraries, fire departments or hospitals, but hopefully we will enlighten ourselves by sharing our thoughts and learning from each other.

Next week we will begin with the Preface and chapter one. The Seven Deadly Sins of Bush-Cheney.

Read the post.


So if you are interested, and haven't ordered, here is a link. to buy Great Powers. Get it, read it, polish off your keyboards and join us next week for a free and informative discussion about this important new book.


Saturday, February 7, 2009

Ten Questions with Thomas P.M. Barnett

Three days in release, and Thomas Barnett's new book, Great Powers: America and the World After Bush is number six and seven on Amazon's top ten, non-fiction list for the most popular books on politics and International Relations.

Part of my continuing focus on recommending this book will be to highlight an interview of Tom, by Mark Safranski, of Zenpundit at Small Wars Journal.

The stand out sentence that describes what Great Powers is about is best illustrated by this paragraph in Barnett's response to Mark's first question.

"What is “grand strategy” and why is it vital that America have the right one?"

So the book’s really about navigation, which is the essence of grand strategy, and I designed it to be an intellectual journey akin to John Boyd’s OODA loop: I want you, the reader, to observe where we are now in history (post-Bush), then orient yourself in America’s long-standing grand strategic arc (our American System-cum-globalization), then decide on a series of strategic realignments (economic, diplomatic, security, technological, social) I think we need to make as a nation in the days ahead, and finally act by doing what you can to bring it about.

I think everybody in this super-empowered age needs their own foreign policy, I just want my “300”--million, that is—all paddling in the same direction, because if we don’t move faster than the current, we are simply moved by the current.

To help understand this concept is this short primer. The John Boyd Roundtable, Debating Science, Strategy, and War

Another key area that has been written about on this blog, is China.

Part of Tom's response to question 9, incorporates thoughts that I have expressed before, A String of 600 Year Old Pearls and Chimerica? A Team of Rivals?

The strategic implications of a rising China has figured prominently in your writings and Great Powers is no exception. Why is China today more like Teddy Roosevelt’s America to our Great Britain and not like the Kaiser’s Germany?

But more to the point, China’s never—across its thousands of years—displayed any real ambition for empire beyond its historical borders, and if you check out the emerging middle class in China, there’s simply no stomach for it. Not too many parents over there are looking to send off their one child to die in some great power war that self-destructively eliminates its most important economic bond to the outside world—access to America’s markets and technology.So the simplest explanation of why China won’t be Kaiserian Germany or Nazi Germany is that we’ve already infected its society with the sort of consumerism and middle-class ambition that makes that path simply inconceivable to a populace with a reasonably clear sense of what’s possible in terms of great-power conquest in this world.

Read the whole interview for a primer on why this book is important to every American.
Ten Questions with Thomas P.M. Barnett

Other fellow bloggers have been adding their voice to recommend this book.

Information Dissemination who says this about: Great Powers: America and the World After Bush.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

One Day to Go! Great Powers: America and the World After Bush






Tomorrow February 5th is the release date for Thomas Barnett's important book, Great Powers: America and the World After Bush. This blog has been promoting this book, not because I am a paid lackey or a star struck fan of Thomas Barnett. I was introduced to Dr. Barnett when I picked up his book, The Pentagon's New Map, during one of my forays into a Barnes and Noble, as my wife was shopping at a local mall. As I scanned the book, I became intrigued and when I rejoined my wife, I had the book to match her purchases.

Over the next few weeks, I read and reread his premises. At the time, I was fully involved in a masters program for history and immediately began to draw the connection between American history and it's trajectory within Barnett's strategic vision. I found his blog and became a daily reader and began sending articles that I thought Dr. Barnett would find an interesting read. Soon I began to see my name appear in a hat/tip for the story. I guess it was like being an "unpaid stringer" in the old newspaper days. Later, as I began to offer comments I created the nom de guerre of historyguy99. After a couple of years of posting comments, Tom's webmaster, Sean Meade and another friend Brad, of the Potbangers Blog, suggested that I begin my own blog. Hence, HG's World was born.

Enough of my digression about how I came to follow Tom Barnett. The next segment in the ongoing posting of commentary on chapter five is up and noted below.

Tom begins:

Obviously, the chapter's theme is inspired by Doris Kearns Goodwin's book on Lincoln, elevating the "team of rivals" concept up to the level of nation-states. I like the concept plenty, but just as clearly, the notion of resetting our alliances from Old Core to more New Core isn't a new idea for me.

Nothing else overarching to say about this chapter, so let's start the page tripping.

What follows is the section headers:

THE UNDENIABLE TRAJECTORY: THE "GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR"
It is already amazing how past tense that phrase sounds. I don't think we'll hear it ever from the Obama people. It will be interesting, however, to see what they call things.
The quick tie-back to our own history on democracy.

THE AMERICAN SYSTEM PERTURBED: THE BIG BANG LAUNCHED
This was a fairly easy choice: in effect, making the decision on the invasion of Iraq the seminal thrust of the Bush-Cheney grand strategy, which it ended up being whether they wanted it or not.

THE NEW RULES: FROM INDISPENSABLE SUPERPOWER TO INSOLVENT LEVIATHAN
The "burned very brightly across his eight years" line is one I draw from "Blade Runner" the movie, when Tyrell says to Roy Batty: "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy." Just an explanation, because the image there (Africa) is decidedly disturbing. Then again, I always found that scene very disturbing.

THE NEW NORMAL: AMERICA THE CONTAINED
I note the general bureaucratic rebellion within the U.S. Government on the possibility of going to war with Iran in the second Bush term. Here I likewise briefly note Fallon's firing, stating that "this time 'Truman' removed 'MacArthur' because the latter resisted adding a third country to the war.

THE GLOBAL ACCELERANT: SOFT-POWER BALANCING
There is the system danger posed by less-than-bright leaders who approach the global economy and the resource question with this own-in-the-ground mentality. They don't realize the risk isn't supply, but merely price. Plus, when push comes to shove, nobody respects those I-own-your-resources-deal-and-here's-my-piece-of-paper. They simply shut you out.

THE INESCAPABLE REALIGNMENT: REBRANDING A TEAM OF RIVALS
Note I'm writing this a solid year before Obama starts up with his version, so I will claim that great minds think alike--or at least like the same authors.

THE BETTER NORMAL: THE SERVICE-ORIENTED ALLIANCE
Basic point here: We're now watching the first global generation grow up totally inside globalization instead of migrating there from some lesser past. So like AOL was good enough for most nervous transplants from the world of broadcast to the world of the web, the general "walled garden" mentality will rise and fall with generational speed once the totally globalized generation appears and isn't interested in such a filtered experience.


Read the whole post:


If you haven't done it already order them from your favorite vendor.


SPECIAL PROGRAM NOTE!

Hugh Hewitt put up a post announcing his and Tom's coming interview series: "Great Powers" with Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett. Local program: 870 AM at 3pm PST, in the Los Angeles area.
Hugh writes:
.
A couple of years back I conducted a series of interviews with Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett on his best-selling and hugely influential The Pentagon's New Map. We spent an hour a week for eight weeks doing a chapter-by-chapter conversation about the book. I don't think anything like it had ever been done on talk radio, but the audience loved it. Dr. Barnett and I don't agree on crucial issues --especially on how to deal with Iran-- but my job is to deliver a program that attracts as wide an audience as possible for subjects that matter greatly. That series did exactly that.
Dr. Barnett has a new book out, one that is often very critical of President Bush and his Administration's conduct of American foreign policy. Unlike most such books, this one balances the criticism with calibrated appreciation, and argues not from any agenda of scoring political points but of advancing a competing approach to the conduct of grand strategy. It is thus a fascinating and detailed counter-account of what just happened, and a detailed prescription of what should happen next. Great Powers: American and the World after Bush is thus part of the necessary bookshelf that any serious participant in the conversation of where we ought to go next will have to read.
As an assist to that project, I begin a series of interviews with Dr. Barnett on Wednesday's program. We'll cover chapters one and two of Great Powers in the first hour of the program, and reconvene for about a chapter a week for the next few weeks thereafter. Get the book, catch up and read along. You will be very glad you did, even if you are, like I am, a great admirer of the Bush Administration's strategic direction.

Here are Tom's comments about Hugh: The Hewitt taping went very well

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Glossary for Great Powers: America and the World After Bush




As part of the run up to the release of Great Powers: America and the World After Bush by Thomas P.M. Barnett (Hardcover - Feb 5, 2009). I have enlisted myself, and my blog as a squire in his quest to bring America a vision and a course setting towards a more connected and safer world.

Over the next three weeks, I will be cross posting material from Tom's blog, that will help to prepare the ground for the engagement of words that Great Powers will inspire. Make yourselves ready my fellow thinkers; read, ponder and reason with all the powers of your critical minds as we prepare to carry this message afar.


A Glossary of terms from

GREAT POWERS: America and the World After Bush
By Thomas P. M. Barnett

Asymmetrical Warfare - A conflict between two foes of vastly different capabilities. After the Red Army dissolved in the 1990s, the U.S. military knew it was basically unbeatable, especially in a straight-up fight. But that meant that much smaller opponents would seek to negate its strengths by exploiting its weaknesses, by being clever and "dirty" in combat. On 9/11, America got a real dose of what asymmetrical warfare is going to be like in the twenty-first century.

Big Bang - Refers to the strategy (alas, seldom articulated) of the Bush administration to trigger widespread political, social, economic, and ultimately security change in the Middle East through the initial spark caused by the toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq and the hoped-for emergence of a truly market-based, democratic Arab state. Thus, the Big Bang aimed primarily for a demonstration effect, but likewise was also a direct, in-your-face attempt by the Bush administration to shake things up in the stagnant Middle East, where decades of diplomacy and military crisis response by outside forces (primarily the United States) had accomplished basically nothing. The implied threat of the Big Bang was "We're not leaving the region until the region truly joins the global economy in a broadband fashion, leading to political pluralism domestically." The Big Bang was a bold strategic move by Bush, one that I supported. All terrorism is local, so either deal with that or resort to firewalling America off from the outside world.

Connectivity - The enormous changes being brought on by the information revolution, including the emerging financial, technological, and logistical architecture of the global economy (i.e., the movement of money, services accompanied by content, and people and materials). During the boom times of the 1990s, many thought that advances in communications such as the Internet and mobile phones would trump all, erasing the business cycle, erasing national borders, erasing the very utility of the state in managing a global security order that seemed more virtual than real, but 9/11 proved differently. That connectivity, while a profoundly transforming force, could not by itself maintain global security, primarily because a substantial rise in connectivity between any nation and the outside world typically leads to a host of tumultuous reactions, including heightened nationalism and religiosity.

Department of Everything Else - A Back-to-the-Future proposal (first offered in Blueprint for Action) to return to the past structure when the Army was the Department of War and the Navy was the "Department of Peace" (especially business continuity). This department would fill the gap between the current Departments of Defense and State, engaging in unconventional pursuits such as nation building, disaster relief, and counterinsurgency. In many ways, it could be a virtual department, bringing together various resources from the government, nongovernmental organization, and business sectors, along with foreign governments and the linchpin SysAdmin force. Compare the virtual department with the way movie companies work, coming together to make a film, then dissolving. Such a virtual department would work an Iraq one way and a Sudan very differently. In contrast with the Department of Homeland Security, our first and greatest strategic error in the long war on terror, the Department of Everything Else would realize that our American networks are only as secure as every network they are connected to. Such a department would feature many more civilian and older, wiser roles when compared with the current Defense Department.

Disconnectedness - In this century, it is disconnectedness that defines danger. Disconnectedness allows bad actors to flourish by keeping entire societies detached from the global community and under their dictatorial control, or in the case of failed states, it allows dangerous transnational actors to exploit the resulting chaos to their own dangerous ends. Eradicating disconnectedness is the defining security task of our age, as well as a supreme moral cause in the cases of those who suffer it against their will. Just as important, however, by expanding the connectivity of globalization, we increase peace and prosperity planet-wide.

Frontier Integration - Globalization has entered into an extended period of frontier integration--as in economic and network integration of previously off-grid or poorly connected societies. The historical example par excellence is the settling and taming of the American West after the Civil War. The chief activities are infrastructure building, the extension of social networks and rule of law, state building, the generation of permanent and pervasive security, the squelching of insurgencies and criminal mafias, and the formal marketization of existing and new economic activities--to include both "exploiting" the labor of and selling to the so-called bottom-of-the-pyramid population. America's frontier integration was continental-sized, involving millions. Today's project targets the globe's entire Gap, involving billions in so-called emerging or frontier economies. It also involves the impoverished rural regions of New Core pillars such as China and India. In general, neither Americans nor Europeans will lead this frontier integration effort. We price out too high. Instead, the frontier integrators of the age will be mostly Asians, who know better how to jump-start development in these harsher environments. America's role can be to mentor and enable the integrators, helping especially on security, or we can sit the whole thing out and hope for the best in terms of resulting political outcomes.

Functioning Core - Those parts of the world that are actively integrating their national economies into a global economy and that adhere to globalization's emerging security rule set. The Functioning Core at present consists of North America, Europe both "old" and "new," Russia, Japan and South Korea, China (although the interior far less so), India (in a pock-marked sense), Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, and the ABCs of South America (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile). That is roughly 4 billion out of a global population of more than 6 billion. The Functioning Core can be subdivided into the Old Core, anchored by America, Europe, and Japan; and the New Core, whose leading pillars are China, India, Brazil, and Russia. There is no substantial threat of intra-Core war among these great powers. However, there remain competing rule sets regarding what constitutes proper Core interventions inside the Gap, as recently indicated by Russia's contested intervention in Georgia's ongoing civil strife.

Globalization - The worldwide integration and increasing flows of trade, capital, ideas, and people. Until 9/11, the U.S. government tended to identify globalization primarily as an economic rule set, but thanks to the long war against violent extremism, we now understand that it likewise demands the clear enunciation and enforcement of a security rule set as well.

Grand Strategy - As far as a world power like America is concerned, a grand strategy involves first imagining some future world order within which our nation's standing, prosperity, and security are significantly enhanced, and then plotting and maintaining a course to that desired end while employing--to the fullest extent possible--all elements of our nation's power toward generating those conditions. Naturally, such grand goals typically take decades to achieve, thus the importance of having a continuous supply of grand thinkers able to maintain strategic focus.

Leviathan - The U.S. military's warfighting capacity and the high-performance combat troops, weapon systems, aircraft, armor, and ships associated with all-out war against traditionally defined opponents (i.e., other great-power militaries). This is the force America created to defend the West against the Soviet threat, now transformed from its industrial-era roots to its information-age capacity for high-speed, high-lethality, and high-precision major combat operations. The Leviathan force is without peer in the world today, and--as such--frequently finds itself fighting shorter and easier wars. This "overmatch" means, however, that current and future enemies in the long war on violent extremism will largely seek to avoid triggering the Leviathan's employment, preferring to wage asymmetrical war against the United States, focusing on its economic interests and citizenry. The Leviathan rules the "first half" of war, but it is often ill suited, by design and temperament, to the "second half" of peace, to include postconflict stabilization-and-reconstruction operations and counterinsurgency campaigns. It is thus counterposed to the System Administrators force.

Non-Integrated Gap - Regions of the world that are largely disconnected from the global economy and the rule sets that define its stability. Today, the Non-Integrated Gap is made up of the Caribbean Rim, Andean South America, virtually all of Africa, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, and most of the Southeast Asian littoral. These regions constitute globalization's "ozone hole," where connectivity remains thin or absent in far too many cases. Of course, each region contains some countries that are very Core-like in their attributes (just as there are Gap-like pockets throughout the Core defined primarily by poverty), but these are like mansions in an otherwise seedy neighborhood, and as such are trapped by these larger Gap-defining circumstances.

Rule Set - A collection of rules (both formal and informal) that delineates how some activity normally unfolds. The Pentagon's New Map explores the new rule sets concerning conflict and violence in international affairs--or under what conditions governments decide it makes sense to switch from the rule set that defines peace to the rule set that defines war. The events of 9/11 shocked the Pentagon and the rest of the world into the realization that we needed a new rule set concerning war and peace, one that replaces the old rule set that governed America's Cold War with the Soviet Union. The book explained how the new rule set will actually work in the years ahead, not just from America's perspective but from an international one.

Rule-set Reset - When a crisis triggers your realization that your world is woefully lacking certain types of rules, you start making up those new rules with a vengeance (e.g., the Patriot Act and the doctrine of preemption following 9/11). Such a rule-set reset can be a very good thing. But it can also be a very dangerous time, because in your rush to fill in all the rule-set gaps, your cure may end up being worse than your disease. The world is currently engaged in such a reset concerning international financial flows, in response to America's subprime crisis.
.
System Administrators (SysAdmin) - The "second half" blended force that wages the peace after the Leviathan force has successfully waged war. Therefore, it is a force optimized for such categories of operations as "stability and support operations" (SASO), postconflict stabilization and reconstruction operations, "humanitarian assistance/disaster relief" (HA/DR), and any and all operations associated with low-intensity conflict (LIC), counterinsurgency operations (COIN), and small-scale crisis response. Beyond such military-intensive activities, the SysAdmin force likewise provides civil security with its police component, as well as civilian personnel with expertise in rebuilding networks, infrastructure, and social and political institutions. While the core security and logistical capabilities are derived from uniformed military components, the SysAdmin force is fundamentally envisioned as a standing capacity for interagency (i.e., among various U.S. federal agencies) and international collaboration in nation-building, meaning that both the SysAdmin force and function end up being more civilian than uniform in composition, more government-wide than just Defense Department, more rest-of-the-world than just the United States, and more private-sector-invested than public-sector-funded.

System Perturbation- A system-level definition of crisis and instability in the age of globalization; a new ordering principle that has already begun to transform the military and U.S. security policy; also a particular event that forces a country or region to rethink everything. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 served as the first great "existence proof" for this concept, but there have been and will be others over time. Some are purposeful, like the Bush administration's Big Bang strategy of fomenting political change in the Middle East, but others will be accidents, like the Asian tsunamis of December 2004, or America's recent financial crises.


From GREAT POWERS, to be published by G. P. Putnam's on February 5, 2009.