The Pengagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century by Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

After unraveling of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, fears of war breaking out between the major powers of the United States and the Soviet Union were greatly reduced. Numerous commentaries, reports, and studies arose out of the question of what to do with the excess U.S. forces, and how to reshape them for a new era (Snider & Carlton-Carew, 1996). Since the birth of the United States, the military has been an important part of the United States. The US military has been a fundamental part of foreign policy, including fostering democracy, establishing rule of law, and assisting with economic development in territories allied with the U.S. (Ludema, 2007).

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

“The struggle against international terrorism is different from any other war in our history. We will not triumph solely or even primarily through military might.” (National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2003) And so to combat this in the post 9/11 time, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was born. And as we have seen in the past event, DHS is needed more today than ever. But DHS was born out of not only necessity but also function.

As we move into the twenty-first century people are confronted with complicated and compromising matters affecting the intricately convoluted global system. New forms of aggression and threat are the faces that greet policy-makers as they spend many hours arranging ways to counter future attacks such as terrorism or massive drug trafficking across national borders. President George W. Bush has issued a mandate in an undertake to regain control over future acts of aggression such as terrorism in the United States; he issued the Executive Order of Homeland Security as that initial step.

There are striking parallels between the eras of the Cold War and the War on Terror and America’s International Relations. After World War II, the Truman Doctrine became America’s ideology for combating communism throughout the globe. Similarly, after the September 11th terrorist attacks in 2001, America’s philosophy was then succeeded by the Bush Doctrine to battle the new threat, the war on terror. In addition, both the long climatic wars of each era (Vietnam War and War in Iraq) shared comparable lead-ups, beginnings, and endings in their conflicts in each region, their politics and shared resentment by the American public. The final parallel is the common suspicions

Ensuring the safety of the American people and homeland is the first and most fundamental obligation of the American government. Current policies are not fulfilling that obligation and are unlikely to do so if continued. This planning exercise has therefore focused exclusively on the problems that threaten the safety and prosperity of the American people and on ways of ensuring their security today and into the future. No secondary considerations – democracy promotion, humanitarian activities, or support and expansion of American values, for example – have been allowed to intrude into our deliberations, despite the importance we and many Americans attach to each.

A safe homeland is the country’s first main concern and is important to the successful implementation of its military policy. The United States military will persist to play a critical part in safeguarding the homeland because of military missions overseas and by implementing homeland defense and civil support duties and maintaining emergency preparedness planning actions. Though, it is important to realize the difference involving the part the Department of Defense (DOD) plays with regard to national security and the part Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as lead federal agency (LFA) for Homeland Security (HLS), as outlined in the National Strategy for Homeland Security. With this example in mind, this defines the tactic appropriate

This paper will supply a robust summary along with detailed analysis of the article Manufacturing Insecurity: How Militarism Endangers America by William Pfaff. This topic is important and poignant because, if it is true that America’s tendency to sustain military presence internationally is leading to an uptick in the rate of radical insurgents who emerge from the ruins of war than it may mean that US policy makers may have to completely reevaluate how they analyses overseas threats and how to best prepare for these threats to national interests. This paper will address this issue first by providing a summary of the Pfaff article to allow the reader a clearer understanding of the issue at hand. After this summary, this paper will analyze the

“North America – Our Nation’s most vital interests are the safety and security of our people and territory and our way of life. We will defend the homeland and play a critical role in supporting homeland security. We will work with the Department of Homeland Security, particularly the Coast Guard, to improve air, maritime, space, cyberspace and land domain awareness to help secure the approaches to our continent and Nation.” (National Military Strategy, Mullen, 2011, p.10) The National Military Strategy outlines specifically that the U.S. military will work synergistically with the Department of Homeland Security to ensure the security of our nation’s core territory and interest. The requirements levied upon the homeland defense mission are very overt in nature. The military takes bold action to the conventional threats against the United States such as nuclear inter-continental ballistic missiles or unwarranted territorial expansions. Today we see violent extremism spreading across and controlling other nations which poses a major threat

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States was the unquestioned hegemon of the western world acting in a unipolar world. However, recently the United States has fallen into a series of deprival causing its reputation to fall as a state. Despite this, under the Bush Doctrine, the United States currently has a preemptive hegemonic imperative policy. Under this policy, the United States takes into account that the world is a perilous environment in need of a leader to guide and to control the various rebel states unipolarly. Under this policy though, the United States acts alone with no assistance from other states or institutions. Global intuitions that would assist under other types of policies are flagrantly disregarded in this policy in spite of its emphasis on the international level. As well as not participating in international institutions, this policy states that the United States should act entirely in its own wisdom. The UN (the United Nations), GATT (General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade), along with other institutions advice is not heeded within this self-made policy. Though the United States currently acknowledges these global organizations, it no longer takes them into account with severity. Instead of acting under the international system, the United States currently acts through its military, and large economy to instill fear within the various actors in the intercontinental system. According to this philosophy the

The state of the United States today is in many ways similar to what it was following the Vietnam War. Then as is now, there are concerns over the misuse and overreaching of military force. As well, today’s economic dispair mimics that of the inflation that gripped the nation in the 1970’s and 1980’s (Snow, 2014, p. 5). Left unidentified is a comprehensive strategy for United States national security. What are the priorities for American national security today, and how can they effectively be met? What are the overarching goals of the United States going and how can they be achieved? Answers to these questions are too often divided along partisan lines, making it difficult to construct a strategy that most policy-makers

At present, the United States of America is widely regarded as the strongest state on the planet, but this position is becoming more vulnerable. During recent times it has become apparent that the United States has in fact lost power through an evolution in other nations’ own power shares and the nature of warfare itself. While currently the strongest military force on the planet, the United States has suffered from its inability to sufficiently engage in modern, non-conventional warfare, as seen in Vietnam. The unparalleled rise of China since the late 1900s also poses a significant threat to the power of the United States. The unipolar post-Cold War Earth has since begun evolving into a multipolar world where what control means is multifaceted. From this, the United States must review its position in the world and determine what it needs to be as its control shifts and wanes.

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.