Betsy Devine sent me a note about an extraordinary author and blog and
book and set of ideas about global security and the role of the military.
The book is The Pentagon’s New Map, and the author is Thomas P.M.
Barnett, of the Naval War College.
Barnett’s argument is that most of
the trouble in the world now is bred in failed states and rogue nations
that are not part of the globalized world economy and
society. And that the United State’s security depends on progress on
two fronts: (1) Extend global social and economic connectivity to
people and regions that are now “off the map”–or “in the gap” to use
Barnett’s terminology. (2) Reconfigure the US military to
be able to move into countries like Iraq and Sudan and Afghanistan, and
get them connected. This is the military’s main new mission,
Barnett argues, and will require a large force of what he terms
“sys admins” (”nation builders” would be another more familiar
but also more loaded term) to be stationed for extended periods in gap
regions, in order to establish “transparency and individual choice
about connecting to the larger world” (rather than the more ambitious
“democracy” or “market economies”). A smaller portion of the
military will do war-making when necessary–in a continually evolving,
smart-bombing way–with less and less need for field forces.
This vision, Barnett says, is already being implemented by the
Pentagon–but needs to be made more explicit and conscious so that it
can be skillfully developed. Iraq shows the terrible result of
using conventionally-trained troops as sys admins and nation
builders. On the other hand, Barnett thinks that we need to go
into places like Iraq and Afghanistan and the Sudan and the Congo and
do such nation building. We need to strategize for it, recruit
for it, and have systems and training and leadership and skills to do
it well.
I like the comprehensiveness of Barnett’s argument. I agree that
failed states and places off the traditional map are our sources
of major threat–and that our military needs to adapt to this
condition. I like his focus on establishing peace, rather than
solely on making war–and his recognition that these are different
tasks. This idea is much like Kucinich’s of a “Secretary of
Peace” and a “National Peace College.” On the other hand, I
wonder whether such a US-centric vision of the future makes sense in a
complex, decentralized world. Perhaps Barnett’s is a more
optimistic version of American exceptionalism, but one that is–like
other versions–out of step with the decentralized, fragmented reality
of our multi-cultural world. Still, his ideas are well worth
considering. As Stewart Brand famously said, “we are as gods and might
as well get good at it.” Perhaps this is true–though often
lately I wonder if we are not slipping into idolatry, and might
do with more humility about our ability to be as gods.
More important, while Barnett’s view is
breathtakingly comprehensive, it is perhaps not comprehensive
enough. To
put it bluntly, our current version of globalization doesn’t
work. If we bring more folks into it, we will have to
radically change the system or face ecological and probably social
collapse. Edward Wilson, the noted ecologist, calculates that to
support an American life style for the rest of the planet’s
population will require the resources of FIVE earths. So in order
to have a sustainable globalization we in the US have to live on less
than one-fifth of our current resource expenditure–as does the
rest of the industrialized world including the newly middle class
populations of India and China. Hmmmm.
The current version of globalization deals with the ecological limits
problem in two ways: First, by locking in inequity–so that for some,
“connecting” means working in Thailand in a shoe factory, or farming in
Africa with GMO seeds licensed from Monsanto. Second, by borrowing
resources from future generations–through allowing polution,
over-dependence on oil, and destruction of globally important natural
resources such as the Amazon rainforest and the ocean’s fish and
coral. Neither of these strategies can last.
Thus if we set up our military to “connect” people to the current
system we simply extend an unsustainable status quo. This means
entraping populations on the lower rungs of an unsustainable
industrial economy, and
increasing the total environmental threat posed by humans to themselves
and the planet.
If we are going to connect anyone to anything, let’s try to
connect people to a sustainable future. This would mean that we
would establish in the gaps our most far-sighted technologies and
social processes. The gap regions would become laboratories for
the future—places to which we might start to migrate as the old order
becomes unworkable.
Hmmmm. Utopian communities, established by the military, in third-world
outposts. Obviously this is far fetched–but then, how and where
ARE we going to attempt to establish a sustainable future? And with
what organizations as mid-wives? And based on what design science
and wisdom?
All good questions to wrestle with–and thanks to Barnett for helping us do so at a new level of clarity and boldness.
And thanks to Betsy for bringing this book to the attention of the blogosphere.
