Pentagon's New Map

[NDD]

If anybody is willing, I would be interested in hearing this illustrious body's take on Barnett's theories.

[M. J. Dougherty]

ALCON,

My personal opinion is that Dr Barnett is correct in his assessment of how the Beltway works and how pursuit of funding and resources for narrow parochial service/agency interests drives national security policy. But then, personal experience has jaded me considerably.

I also believe that he is overly optimistic in his believe that the "non-integrated" countries and regions will embrace new rule sets or even have the desire two. Furthermore I disagree that some of the countries/regions he includes in integrated countries are truly part of the team. From my perspective countries like Malaysia and South Korea play a good game of smoke and mirrors, but lack strategic depth in economic development, democratic political institutions and social stability.

[NDD]

I agree that he is overly optimistic. His assertion that inclusion is a panacea is naive, although he admits to extreme optimism in his book.

I like the breakdown of core, gap and seam. And I think in less radical cases, he is correct. Cuba, for example, I believe could be solved with engagement.

[MikeGreene]

I'm currently working my way through PNM, but I get really distracted by him tooting his own horn. Granted, to be a visionary one probably needs a significant amount of ego. Unfortunately, it's kept me working on this book for over a month.

Generally speaking, I like the concept as I've seen so far. I haven't reached the part when I decide if it's pie in the sky or actionable.

Am I the only one who finds this book much more difficult to consume? I guess they can't all be like COL T.X. Hammes' "The Sling and the Stone."

Regards,

Mike Greene
Major, FA

[YellowJack]

Am I the only one who finds this book much more difficult to consume? I guess they can't all be like COL T.X. Hammes' "The Sling and the Stone."

Like the others I found his material on rule sets, the gap/core divide and the knowledge of dealing with military bureaucracy insightful. However, Barnett also totally lost me with tooting his own horn. So you're not the only one.

My own personal bias from reading his work and blog, and it is an ad hominem I guess, is I don't see the guy as a competent strategist at a personal level. Barnett is gaining a wide influence within government and within the community. Yet he gives an air of personal arrogance and does not take criticism very well, especially if it doesn't fit in with his PNM world view (see his 'reviewing the reviews'). I might add though, that his discussion with John Robb was a lot more civil than he usually is, so maybe he is capable of control. These two traits which he sometimes exhibits: Arrogance and Academic insecurity, leave me to believe that Barnett might be exploited by a cunning enemy in war time considering his influence. I guess that is my own view though. I've never met the guy. He may be totally different outside of being a strategic showman that I've seen portrayed in his books and blog. Does anyone else think different?

[Hansmeister]

Agree with the posters here. Barnett has one idea of how to look at the world and the problems we face in it. His is a good idea, which is why we should pay attention to it; however, it is still only one idea and should not be looked at as a "grand unifying theory" that explains everything.

He sometimes comes across as trying to simplify things too much, like Thomas Friedman in "The Earth is Flat".