But the author strikes an alarming note to the reader's ear when offering his most controversial predictions, such as the United States' possible annexation of nearby nations fifty years hence. Perhaps the most controversial assertion of the text is that the "terrorist attacks of 9/11 simply revealed the yawning gap between the military we built to win the Cold War and the different" military system, strategy, and strategic alliance, "we need to built" to "secure globalization's ultimate goal," which is the end of war as we know it. (2) Although we would like "connectivity" to trump all, this is not an easy thing to achieve -- is the end to war really a valid long-term military objective, and will not the active pursuit of dysfunctional states create more war, rather than less conflict in the short-term?
Barnett's book is interesting to read in view of recent, frequent criticisms of the United States' recent actions in Iraq, for even the staunchest supports of the war now critique the Bush Administration, perhaps with the benefit of hindsight, for failing to seek regional and international support for the war. The administration sought instead to 'go it alone,' which Barnett himself finds ill advised. However, if America had not 'gone it alone' would we ever have toppled Saddam Hussein? Although Barnett is persuasive in arguing that we all have as a world an interest in great permeability of information, borders, economies, and military alliances, in combating terrorism, he fails to address how different national cultures and attitudes...
The United States has had difficulty passing a bill to create greater sharing of information between our own CIA and FBI, so great is the territoriality in military culture. The Defense Department's "hunger" for new "strategic vision" does not necessarily mean that it will enthusiastically adopts the new, two-pronged command structure advocated by the author. The creation of two distinct parts of the new military in the form of a quick-strike force and one to carry out nation- building activities also contains no mention of the role of the UN, which could cause international political problems, as the United States assumes more duties that once used to be enforced, in peacekeeping form, by this international rather than national organization.
Despite his cry for an end to war, much of Barnett's argument, such as using the United States military aggressively against what he calls dysfunctional or renegade states could be read as a simply resurrection of the idea of the United States as the world's policeman, with other nations in its service. Ultimately, the text provokes but does not really provide a real political as well as theoretical answer to the problems of today.
Works Cited
Barnett, Thomas. (2003). The Pentagon's New Map. New York: Putnam.
