I think that Barnett raises some interesting points with his gap and core theories.

However, I don't think there is anything at all revolutionary about "rule sets". A rule set is nothing more than a combined model and framework, and as such it will have to be completely revised if the measured factors are too drastically changed or become irrelevant, or others become more important.

A rule set explains the world in a very limited time frame with a narrow sense of situational awareness. This is essential for many reasons, some being:
  1. It addresses the world as a whole based on situational factors, this is impractical on the verge to impossible. There are too many. It also increases probability of successful deception of self.
  2. With the caveat that I have only read the PNM (Esquire) and some other articles by Barnett, it seems like he fails to address specific regional differences and causes for demise.
  3. While connectivity is a very important factor, since he fails to properly address others he has doomed his current rule set to be insensitive to situational change.
  4. A time limited model for which it is not clear when update is required and which does not factor in many significant reasons for hostility makes you blind.
  5. At best it can serve to explain some phenomena in our world at this time, it leaves much more to chance.
  6. Hence it cannot serve as an effective guide to the future.
  7. Consider this model or framework as a drawing of the world, from his memory of what he has seen. If you put this into an OODA view you will notice that Barnett, unfortunately not alone in doing so, base his drawing primarily on what is happening in the world. That is quite alright and is something that must be done to a certain degree, and for some situations it is the most efficient. What that implies is that the thinking behind actions is lost. What you're seeing are symptoms, it's the end of the unfolding cycle. That's what his drawing portrays. How many world views and feelings about connectivity, although it is still not the lone factor, do you think exist? I don't think it is even remotely likely that he has predicted this correctly. Even if connectivity would be the overaching measure stick, it still does not address whatever influences people in other directions and which may have a major impact on what they decide to do and make others do.
  8. Barnett needs to ask himself just what is communicated between people. He can start with himself and any senior Pentagon official and then do an estimate of the chat between al-Zarqawi and Ali al-Jihadito the VBIED constructor. It matters not only that people are connected and are influenced by western culture, the effects of which are not apparent and are not the same for everyone, they will also use that connectivity to communicate their ideas, their teachings, their hatred.
  9. And so on...

So, no, I don't see why I should either like or not like his ideas. I don't think there is anything at all novel about his IMHO misconceived perception of communication and usage of same-old ancient, useful human tools (models and frameworks). I don't think it can fill the horizontal plane of anywhere from the tactical to strategic level.

I think that what we need is a structural change of western and eastern institutions. And some adaptive thinking, among other things.

Just my .02.

Martin