Looking for Opinions

I would like the members of this list to view this presentation on the Pentagon’s New Map in its entirety and give me your reaction. The presentation is approximately 1 hour long. I keep recommending it, but I don’t really know what people think of it.

[To view the 12/26 C-SPAN brief + call-in segments, click here for online streamed video from C-SPAN](“http://switchboard.real.com/player/email.html?PV=6.0.12&&title=Thomas Barnett&link=rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/ter/ter122004_barnett.rm?mode=compact”)

I will view later today when I find the hour. Thanks for warning us of the timing of it.

[quote=gilliam]I would like the members of this list to view this presentation on the Pentagon’s New Map
[/quote]

I got a chance to view the presentation but not Q&A. Thanks Gilliam for the recommendation.

I was not able to understand what he was presenting. Was this the recommendations of a study? Is this a presentation of a transformation strategy that has been embraced by the pentagon and political movers?

The historical background seems to make sense. The fact that this presentation occurred in 12/03 seems to give him added credibility as events since then appear to have followed what might be expected from the description of current and projected situation.

I am thinking that this is the report of a study and not something that had becoming integrated into defense structure planning. Without the continued problems in Iraq I would think that this major shift in direction could not gain traction. I even wonder if it is even being considered by enough of the right folks to reach a critical mass. I also wonder about the political roadblocks to this plan. I cannot think of any major political philosophical objections except for: temptation to increase use of force and/or empire building.

During the presentation I kept wondering about the problems we are having with many of the other countries within the core (primarily Europe). What are their strategic planners thinking is going on? If they concurred with this description of the threat situation then they would be acting very differently. My impression is that they disagree with this threat model or that populist political forces in Europe override efficacious security actions.

I have never understood why there seems to be such militant opposition to globalization. I figured it was a protectionist thing (don’t export our jobs). Perhaps anti-globalization trumps this type of strategy towards shrinking the “gap”.

I guess I buy into the concepts. However I wonder why there appears to be such a large rejection of this concept in Europe. I also wonder if this is getting any traction in the pentagon and/or the Bush administration. Any idea?

He is a outside consultant who is on contract with the Navy. You can classify him as a ‘futurist’ which means he looks out long term.

The Pentagon needs to look out long term to see what kind of threats the US will have, then build a force to address those needs. Forces take a long time to build (e.g., and Air Craft carrier or new submarine can take 10-20 years from concept to commissioning). Information like this goes into the preparations of these plans.

The Pentagon is looking at this work (as well as others) when they go into their planning. The Air Force has asked that all of their new one star generals be given this briefing (so they must think highly of it).

Gilliam,

One of the more interesting statements is that other countries (China, Japan etc) are paying us for our security “product” through our public debt.

Do you think he is implying that this is being done consciously or that that this is coincidental?

[font=‘Times New Roman’][font=Arial]I have been hearing a few alarmists talking about what would happen if these countries started [/font][font=Arial]massively [/font]selling this debt. I am wondering if it is true that holding our debt is paying for our security product that this would keep these countries from selling our debt. What do you think?[/font]

[quote=JamesD]Gilliam,

One of the more interesting statements is that other countries (China, Japan etc) are paying us for our security “product” through our public debt.

Do you think he is implying that this is being done consciously or that that this is coincidental?

[font=Times New Roman][font=Arial]I have been hearing a few alarmists talking about what would happen if these countries started [/font][font=Arial]massively[/font]selling this debt. I am wondering if it is true that holding our debt is paying for our security product that this would keep these countries from selling our debt. What do you think?[/font]
[/quote]

Personally, I don’t know. Sorry to cop out like that, but I don’t know even enough to speculate.

bump for comments

[quote=gilliam]bump for comments
[/quote]

The link won’t work for me. Is anyone else having this trouble?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.