C122A_Stage_Setter

Barnett's presents a complex thesis that can be best described in areas. First, Barnett believes that the world is divided into two distinct components, those nations participating in the advance of globalization are reaping life's rewards, while those nations not participating in the advance of globalization are not. As Barnett puts it, "Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core. But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and-most important-the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap" base (Barnett, 2004). The second part of Barnett's thesis promotes the idea that the United States must lead the way in promoting connectivity within the Gap, what he calls "shrinking" the Gap, by exporting security. America must lead the way, according to Barnett, because "We are the only country in the world purposely built around the ideals that animate globalization's advance: freedom of choice, freedom of movement, freedom of expression. We are connectivity personified” (Barnett, 2004). While Barnett presents logical arguments to support his thesis I believe that it is still lacking because much like Cold War ideology Barnett is focusing on governments. He briefly discusses what Mr. Thomas Friedman called the “super-empowered (Friedman, 200) individual. By mostly focusing on the States where these individuals call home, Barnett fails to show how an individual can affect the world. Recent examples of this include: September 2011, “Arab Spring”, the initial Twin Towers attack and the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Barnett look into globalization is essentially the same as the Cold War system was characterized by one overarching feature, division. Essentially he claims that the “Gap” is the greatest threat to America and Globalization. This is the same thinking as in the Cold War, instead of United States vs. USSR substitute “Core” vs. “Gap”. Friedman agrees that you have to address balance within the Countries, and that it still remains important, but also introduces the “Super Market” and “Super Empowered Individual”. Barnett Briefly discusses the role of the super empowered individual, but continues to transform back to the States where these super empowered individuals reside. If you really assess what caused the most recent military action is was not the result of a State engaging the US, instead multiple attacks on the US by a super-empowered individual, Osama Bin Laden. Additionally, Barnett fails to identify the role that the Global Economics play within security. A recent example is the situation in Greece and the Euro-Zone. If that economy continues to collapse what void could that open up for a radical thinker. I agree when Barnett concluded that it was the nations in the Gap that would pose the greatest long-term threat to U.S. national security because of the disconnectedness of the regions that were excluded from the Core. His strategy for dealing with this threat is a simple one. The only way to deal with the threat posed by the disconnectedness of the Gap is to reduce the level of disconnectedness, in effect, to "shrink" the Gap. He maintains "America can only increase its security when it extends connectivity or expands globalization's reach, and by doing so, progressively reduces the trouble spots or off-grid locations where security problems and instability tend to concentrate" (Barnett, 2004). The biggest problem with cleaning up the world, as Barnett would like the United States to do, is that the United States just cannot do it alone. By taking this strategy you are walking a fine line between liberator and dictator, and again ignoring the empowered individual or the Super Market. It also extends our rule sets and America’s way of thinking, essentially the same thing most of the terrorist networks discuss as the West influence. Barnett fails to realize that a majority of the Functioning Core is that much of them do not share the same foreign policy or national security priorities so we would be trying to accomplish this unilaterally. Here is a very logical argument against America unilaterally “exporting” security. With China holding most of our debt what could happen to this country if that super market decided to collect because we exported security to North Korea' The way to shrink the “Gap” is empower the people in that “Gap” country. People can make change occur, granted there will be times we may have to send US Forces to assist, but it should be the people that facilitate that change first. I agree with Barnett’s thesis of the “Gap” countries being the Operational Environments (OE) that the US Army could possibly be deployed to in the future. Looking at the current threats and opportunities, the Middle East continues to be the focal point of the world. The issue will remain what type of enemy will the United States and the Functioning Core face within these OEs' Here I would argue that it will not be the States, but instead small rogue forces lead by the empowered individual. Evidence of this enemy continues to be the current terrorist groups that continue to influence Foreign Policies. In order to influence the super empowered individual the current United States military needs to continue transformation. The large scale symmetrical warfare cannot continue to be the focus of the US Military if you truly want to influence the individual. In order to see proof of this you do not have to look no further than current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and the focus on small unit tactics within the Military Transition Teams. (MTTs). We do not have a large enough force to provide long term security within a State by placing multiple Brigades or Divisions on ground, no would we want to these could be looked at as occupation forces and not security assistance teams, instead the military needs to transition to looking at small unit tactics. Barnett's division of the world into a Functioning Core and a Non-Integrating Gap provides a useful model for determining the regions of the world where the United States is likely to encounter its most serious national security threats. A careful look at Barnett's map of the Non-Integrating Gap reveals the majority of the trouble spots that have drawn American military attention since the end of the Cold War. The biggest problem with this thesis is it is too optimistic and based on a secure world all within the functioning core will allow everyone to reap the benefits of globalization. However, it is not that simple, the questions need to be asked and addressed remain what are my second and third order effects' Will I do more harm than good by placing a force in this location' Bibliography Barnett, Thomas P.M. The Pentagon's New Map. New York: G.P. Putnman's Sons, 2004 . Friedman, Thomas. "National Strategies and Capabilities for a Changing World: Globalization and National Security." Luncheon Address. November 15, 2000.