TW: For those of you not familiar with Barnett's books, he argues that military forces consist of Leviathan and SysAdmin type components. The U.S. has since the fall of the USSR had a Leviathan force, the stuff (planes, missiles etc.) the kills and blows up things, without compare worldwide. The SysAdmin stuff does nation-building, peacekeeping; we have too little of those forces as evidenced by Iraq and AfPak. Leviathan forces get the testosterone crowd gung-ho; its use tends to be quick and decisive if brutal. SysAdmin is a slog albeit a deadly one in some respects even more deadly than Leviathan activities, it breeds cynicism and tired populaces.
Another theme of Barnett's is that the old NATO/Anglo-Saxon security structures are no longer adequate to manage globalization. He advocates a strong presence in AfPak but he does so within the context of embracing new allies and participants- India, China, Brazil, Iran, Turkey etc. The challenge for Obama or any POTUS is that those open to the new alliances in the U.S. tend to wilt at aggressive military action, those supporting aggressive (although typically Leviathan oriented) military action, are not comfortable with new alliances which inherently would require sharing of not only blood but power.
This stuff is nuanced which is to say not easily explained to a populace far more inclined to follow the minutiae of Tiger Woods' marriage or a couple of losers who crash a State dinner.
From Tom Barnett:
"So the math is easy: 40k troops for Afghanistan equals $40B.
...We can play Leviathan given our force structure, but we are inherently limited by the same regarding the follow-on SysAdmin stuff, hence my oft-stated line that America writes checks with its Leviathan that it can't possibly cash with its SysAdmin forces...
One answer is to build in the direction of the SysAdmin, of course, but to do so in sufficient fashion would make the Leviathan too small, thus my argument from day one that the answer is to shift the old burden sharing arguments from the Leviathan (where little exists anyway) to the SysAdmin (where our allies are far more comfortable operating anyway).
Extending the logic further: since our old allies (Europe, Industrialized Asia) typically can't muster the necessary ROE (rules of engagement), because SysAdmin work ain't all passing out food packets, we need to expand the pool of allies to include people willing to kill and sacrifice in defending globalization's expanding networks (colonialism to the small-minded who believe people should be left alone to enjoy their pristine poverty).
At that point, you're talking logically about the rising pillars with expanding economic interests--meaning the incentivized.
These states will typically claim, "I don't want to get involved with such nasty stuff. Everybody loves me! Leave it to the Americans."
But, in truth, if you're an agent of globalization's advance, eventually the enemies of that advance come looking for you, so given enough time and enough hassles, the motivation will arise. Why? You like your future more than you're willing to preserve THEIR past.
Then, in the final calculation, you get past the hyperbole and nonsense and realize that the opponents of connectivity fall into two, rather small but still potent camps: 1) the dictators that must maintain it to maintain their power; and 2) the fundamentalists who must detach from this "evil" assimilation process that liberates women, "ruins" kids, and gives people all sorts of "dangerous" ideas.
Do-able?
Not with our current set of allies. But when the entirety of the Core is considered? Absolutely."
http://thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2009/11/post_1.html
No comments:
Post a Comment