Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating
Thomas P. M. Barnett
The New Map Game
This is a preview of the sequel to The Pentagon’s New Map. Barnett spoke of his relationship with his editor, Mark Warren, as they devised strategic delivery of the book to average Americans. He admitted the need for someone to translate down and explain to the general public.
Tom then provided an overview on how they chose the title for the new book. The first book dealt mostly with the past and this one is a futuristic romp through the next 25 years. Mark wanted the title to be Blueprint for Action and convinced Tom to focus on the next four to eight years to keep the audience engaged. He suggested to take them to 2025 but don’t park them there. Fukiyama’s book, The End of the History and the Last Man influenced Tom prompting him to explore the question, “after ideology what comes next?”
Tom cited Huntington’s and Freidman’s definitions of globalization. Friedman stated, “Globalaiztion; some get it, some don’t but very soon we all will be forced to."
Huntington said, “Globalization; some will never get it and that leads to clashes”. The combination of these thoughts culminates in Tom’s theory, “Globalization: some have it now, some don’t, and its inevitable spread will generate conflict; that historical process can be mapped”-- the basis for Blueprint for Action.
In trying to get people from the past to now, Tom cites arguments from 1973, his coming of age year when he decided to focus on the Soviet Union. The bulk of content of his first book was a backward looking discussion to the present. The second book flips the argument to the future.
Starting with Chapter 1, “What the World Needs Now”, is an exploration of a three-tiered argument concerning system, state, and individual showing the struggle to understand the seam between war and peace. A case is made for mastering the net-centric and for also having capacity to gauge fourth generation warfare. He also presents an argument for an A-to-Z rule set on processing politically bankrupt states.
His favorite bonehead concept from the 1990s is the theory of anti-access, area-denial asymmetrical strategies. His parody is an enemy in a battle space which the US seeks access to while Taiwan becomes involved in anti access strategies. The perfect need for an A-to-Z system in exemplified in the development of the US accessing battle space of enemy combatants inevitably through overwhelming maneuvers. Partners and coalition exist in the transition space. Lasting outcomes are held in the peace space. The battle space is Leviathan and Sys Admin takes over in transition and peace, also considered “the areas of everything else”. We have trouble accessing outcomes in the peace space. The war has been dragging on. We have a brilliant secretary of war but don’t have a brilliant secretary of “everything else”.
We need an A-to-Z process for typical interactions with the rouge states. The current interaction involves a timeline that starts in the front half with UNSC as “grand jury” moving to a US-enabled Leviathan force. The only course of outcome is constituted in an international criminal court. We need to insert executive action before the Leviathan and add core-enabled Sys Admin after. An international reconstruction fund also should be included before approaching the courts. This is an action we followed in the Balkans; we just need to make it regular.
We need to show our seriousness to follow through with the second half and until then we will not build a coalition. This is an emerging process that fundamentally represents a solution on how to deal with rouge nations.
Comments