Critique of Thomas Barnett’s “The Pentagon’s New Map”
1. Critique the Author’s Thesis: Thomas Barnett, in the article, “The Pentagon’s New Map: It Explains Why We’re Going to War, and Why We’ll Keep Going to War,” says that disconnectedness defines danger . Barnett describes two parts of the world he calls The Functioning Core and The Non-Integrating Gap . The Functioning Core, also called the “Core”, features regions thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, collective security, with stable governments, rising standards of living and more deaths by suicide than murder . The Non-Integrating Gap, also known as the “Gap” features regions where globalization is thinning or just plain absent,
…show more content…
Our security problem becomes one of managing countries that are weak in globalization. This is clear in our responses to Afghanistan and Iraq. Both countries sit firmly within the Gap. Barnett talks about the importance of stopping the terrorists from access to the Core via the “seam States” along the boundaries of the Gap . This is a good argument if the movement of the terrorist cells were strictly ground forces moving through the neighboring states. However, the concept of seam states is lessened in these times of increased mobility. It is vital to protect seam states, as it is vital to protect other areas of entry, such as airports. The Gap terrorists can skip over the seam states directly into Core countries. In the way ahead, he argues that the goal of the United States should be to concentrate on shrinking the Gap by all means possible . Ultimately the members of the Gap need to become connected with the Core. Barnett states that in the future integration of the Gap will depend on more private investment. For example, Africa will need a lot more aid than has been provided in the past and more than public Core can handle . I submit that before these areas can be assisted by private investment, there will have to be substantial resources expended in the form of money and soldiers required to stabilize these regions. For a nation that has been at war with two different Gap countries for more than 11 years, this will
Jared Diamond is a world renowned scientist, author, Pulitzer Prize winner, and currently a geography professor at UCLA. Of his six books published, we will be looking at the last chapter of his fourth book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. In this book Diamond utilizes the comparative method to find resemblance in past societal collapses with our current society. In the chapter entitled, "The World as Polder: What Does it Mean to Us Today," Diamond points out that there are indeed many parallels between past and present societies and that our modern day society is currently on a path of self destruction , through examples such as globalization and the interdependency of each country.
In our present times national security became a priority. According to Tricia Escobedo, the last year’s terrorist attack in Paris on the night of November 13th left 129 people dead and hundreds wounded. The perpetrators were a mix of French nationals, and Syrian refugees that migrate to Europe due to the current open door policy for asylum seekers (1). We have a problem because our southern border is an open door for foreign terrorist to enter our country, due to the fact that the many people cross illegally. According to Stephen Dinan, nearly 800,000 people arrived in the past two years (1). I am veteran of the United States Army that deployed many times to Afghanistan, I lived in what we call forward operating bases, this forward operating bases had a secure perimeter due to the presence of physical barrier in this case a wall, in order to protect the people inside, and this solution work because it keep any threats away. We had 100 percent control of the people entering the Forward Operating Base, this kind of control reduced drastically any possibility that a foreign terrorist could enter inside the base, and cause severe casualties between the civilian and military personnel.
So far, terrorism has been a key obstacle to many foreign nations, as they are struggling to prevent terrorist attacks. From the year of 1997 up to the year of 2003, international terrorist attacks have gone from less than 500 to almost 3000. Overall, global terrorism has grown by almost 1200% from 1997 to 2003. (Johnston 1). This massive increase in terrorism reflects on other nations' lack of control of the safety of their nation. These statistics also show that something needs to be done to protect the
The great concern lately though has been the issue about national security and threats from terrorist attacks. The spatial relationship is no longer limited to the sovereign state’s geographical location. Farmer clearly presents his argument by using the example of how criminal law now extends to cyber attackers that can be across national borders, as was the case with the hackers that attacked Sony recently.
There is a solidarity and interdependence about the modern world, both technically and morally, which makes it impossible for any nation completely to isolate itself from economic and political upheavals in the rest of the world, especially when such upheavals appear to be spreading and not declining... We are determined to keep out of war, yet we cannot insure ourselves against the disastrous effects of war and the dangers of involvement. We are adopting such measures as will minimize our risk of involvement, but we cannot have complete protection in a world of disorder in which confidence and security
Border Control has been a somewhat delicate issue since the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, where countries such as the US have been infamous for introducing more harsher airplane and airport security, which marked the start of a new wave of security measures, fear and a whole new war on terror, many suggest that closing or tightening borders is a sign of weakness of the power of the state (Mary Bosworth, 2008) but in recent times, it has been a subject that has had heated discussion by areas of the government and bodies such as the UN, with the current terrorism issues currently plaguing the world, it has been a topic with heated debates on what measures need to be done, what are extreme measures, and the issues that come with either.
As I explored the way a society lives in an interconnectedness world, it brought two words into mind. Interdependent and associated. An Interconnected world in a new globalized environment can be explained by comparing something you do every day. These everyday rituals you make take apart of are connected to our contemporary society we live in. To give some basic information on what I will be discussing. To start off, there are a few key terms I am going to discuss to better enhance the understanding of this topic. Globalization occurs when it “captures elements of a widespread perception that there is a broadening, deepening and speeding up of world-wide interconnectedness in all aspects of life, from the cultural to the criminal, the financial
The global trend of connectedness enhances incentives for international cooperation. This is an opportunity for countries to play an important role in advances in mutual security interests. The US has many advantages
In Tomas Barnett’s “The Pentagon’s New Map: It explains why we’re going to war and why we’ll keep going to war,” the author provides an analysis regarding the relationship between globalization and future U.S. military engagements. The author contends that the future strategic framework of United States military operations will be heavily focused on nations that have not integrated the principles of globalization and continue to foster socio-economic instability, lack of security, and failed political structure.
Stephanie Liang WR98 C1 Prof.Michaud Essay 1-Final states”(103). Had he not used these constructions and instead stopped at “drama”, the readers would not be able to understand the various relationships during Cold War. These succinct constructions allow a straight-forward understanding of the essay and help gain readers’ agreement. In addition of short phrases, the author contrasts the global atmosphere during Cold War period to that at present in separate paragraphs but with highly identical structures. For example, he utilizes the features of “division” and “wall” (102) to serve as a foil to the “integration” and “web” (102) concepts of globalization system by including detailed description of the better-being in the latter system, and in doing so, makes it obvious to readers that two systems possess different nature and that the new one is favored. Another structure technique Friedman uses is parallelism, which illustrates the divergent communication phenomena of two systems: “In the cold war we reached for the hotline, which was a symbol that we were all divided but at least two people were in charge…In the globalization system we reach for the Internet, which is a symbol that we are all connected and nobody is quite in charge” (103). This equal paragraph distribution of two discussed subjects enables readers to
When the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred the United States responded in a manner which was seen as a traditional reaction to such an attack; it used its overwhelming superior military to invade the nation of Afghanistan. As Afghanistan was the operating base of the terrorist group responsible for the attacks, Al Qaeda, the invasion all but destroyed the group's operating capacity. But in response to the United States' apparent victory the terrorists have re-organized themselves into a looser confederation and turned to alternative methods of finance and operation. One could say that the success of the American military's answer to the September 11th attacks have created a new environment in which terrorists currently operate. This includes the use of the internet, unconventional alliances with international criminal organizations, as well the inception of the "lone wolf" terrorist. Faced with these new type of threats, the United States and its allies must find a way to identify and deal with them.
While all perspectives are present, liberalism and constructivism influenced this proposal the most. The objectives were deliberately organized to employ more elements of constructivism as the proposal developed. The constructivist perspective was important to this national security challenge because it emphasizes norms, ideas, and that international actors create their own context.6 The case of terrorism in South Asia is a culmination of different norms and ideas that each have a history of their own. The realist perspective focuses on security and state interactions to quell anarchy.6 However, terrorism is not a traditional state and has not operated under the values that are consistent with traditional U.S ideas. Consequently, the liberalist perspective focuses on international organizations, economics, and the spread of democracy.6 Once again, this cannot fully explain the international focus on human rights and how cultural values have presented challenges to mutual exchange. A focus on cultural interactions transcends the liberalist economic focused view. With shortfalls in every IR perspective, the constructivist view provides the most flexible means to view this dynamic situation. This paradigm is also helpful in relating the actors’ different motivations, which are defined best by their ideas and historical context. To explore this further, I will discuss the different perspectives in the context of each strategic
As a direct consequence of September 11, a number of substantial challenges lie ahead in the area of counter-terrorism.. The most prominent of these is the changing nature of the terrorism phenomenon. In past years, when terrorism was largely the product of direct state sponsorship, policymakers were able to diminish prospects for the United States becoming a target using a combination of diplomatic and military instruments to deter potential state sponsors. Today, however, many terrorist organizations and individuals act independently from former and present state sponsors, shifting to other sources of support, including the development of transnational networks.
In this paper, I will propose a strategy which the United States (US) can employ to address the security challenges against terrorism in East Africa, specifically Somalia. I will use the Ends, Ways, and Means model to discuss the US strategic objectives, concepts, and resources. First, strategic objectives (or ends) will be developed based on national interests. Second, strategic concepts (or ways) will be presented in order to explain how the strategic objectives can be accomplished. Third, this paper will examine resources (or means) required to support the strategic concepts and objectives. Fourth, I will describe how the international relations perspective of liberalism most influenced this proposed US strategy.
In a recent speech in Washington, President Donald Trump stated, “We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,”. Mr. Trump has sworn to put America first. What does this mean for the rest of the world? Is globalization a defective idea? While globalization does have some cons, there is no denying that it has had commendable effects in many present day nations and metropolitan areas. Although it would be rather predictable to say that globalization is advancing, the trend of economic globalization is likely to retreat in the future rather than advance due to the standing of current politics. Concurrently, especially in recent years, political leaders have emphasized populism and portrayed nationalism in a way that supports the idea of anti-globalization. Internationalism has consistently been a primarily metropolitan idea, while in contrast those in smaller rural communities do not always support globalization. Increasingly often, political leaders dig into this separation, in conjunction with the growing separation between rich and poor.