Posted on 12/29/2004 3:07:26 PM PST by AndyJackson
If you don't like his thesis you should state: Dr. Barnett's principal thesis is.... This is wrong because of .... Furthermore, those who agree with this thesis are idiots because ....
But, incapable of making your own arguments you refer us to some other persons equally as
In fact, let us quote from this revie that you so highly praise: "Like many of you, I have essentially abandoned literature the last three years and have done nothing but read Nial Fergueson, Thomas Friedman, Michael Scheur, Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington, etc., and of all those brilliant works I have read, this one has caused me the most internal strife. This is the only book that has truly caused me to question my extraordinary opposition to the war in Iraq, although this book has done little to sanction my incessant Bush Bashing."
That this book caused an incessant Bush basher to question his opposition to the war in Iraq among all of the books that he has read hardly constitutes the prelude to an intellectually based criticism of the book.
If the book causes someone to question his prejudices on any subject then it has the foundations of being a great book.
I presume you are being sarcastic. As this is somewhat in doubt the other conclusion is that you are an idiot.
Just out of curiosity, what do you believe that we need to be doing about the PRC. More armor in Taiwan - or in the Sonora desert to block the move North when they land in Mexico. Perhaps we need to reinforce the Aleutians to stop them from leap-frogging across and then coming down through British Columbia and Alberta. Please tell me. I am all ears.
An excerpt from an Amazon review by James Kielland
"The essential problem here is one of complexity. Mr. Barnett's strategy focuses on the US spending extreme amounts of resources to bring order to troubled lands to harmonize them with current global economic realities. But the universe naturally tends towards disorder. As Mr. Spock pointed out, "Logic suggests that it's easier to destroy than to create." Chaos and disorder come naturally; order takes a significant input of resources. In attempting to create order in disordered places, the United States would be left extremely vulnerable to potential rivals and enemies who would simply try to create or enhance disorder in those places. This process would cost potential rivals very little but could have extremely high costs on the US on a sustained basis. An example would be Iraq, where we are hoping a mere $100 billion will bring about some kind of order. Anyone who wanted to harm us could spend far less money just to destroy that delicate order we've struggled to create. And in looking at Iraq right now, there's no guarantee that we are anywhere close to creating an orderly society.
As Mr. Barnett makes a big point about "disconnectedness defines danger" he doesn't really adequately bring the importance of this back to the home-front of American society. In an increasingly interconnected world, the US benefits not just from additional connectedness to others but to additional connectedness to ourselves. Improvements in infrastructure, a better business climate, improved efficiency, and so forth all serve to make the US a more competitive place on the international level and also serve to make the US a more attractive place for international capital and human resources. Barnett wants to put off making the US more connected in a highly dicey proposition to make dysfunctional societies more safe for international capital and human resources. Considering how intractable so many of our own various social problems have been it's rather presumptuous to assume we can go about fixing other places. And the cost/benefit analysis is lacking and, at least on the surface, not all that appealing."
the fact that they have AIDS is no threat.
Oh no???
You wrote that review? Cool! It was one that I agreed with. Nice job.
Does he now? Where does he say that? From my hearing of him he understands US problems quite well.
What Barnett is adressing, specifically, is where they US needs to place its strategic focus where significant military force may be required. Unless we decide to take arms against Mexico, I know none of your issues which require the application of military force.
"Thomas Barnett is one of the brightest minds of our time."
At least you and Barnett think so.
"That this book caused an incessant Bush basher"
This reviewer was a nitwit before he read PNM and he is still a nitwit after he read it.
Thereby making the book completely unreadable and so it has been relegated to the remainders stake - oh it reached the Amazon Top Ten, well never mind.
This is not criticism. This is a self-promoting intellectual snob trying to tell the rest of us not to bother reading something that we could not possibly understand. That enough have been able to understand enough of it to recommend it to our fellows so that it has become a best-sellar refutes this argument.
"But, incapable of making your own arguments you refer us"
I referred you to a couple reviews with which I agreed. No need to reinvent the wheel.
You sound like the critics of Einstein who said there is nothing new here that was not already written by Lorentz and Mach. Lets move on.
I liked this guy when he had a lecture on CSPAN but he seemed to overly downplay a possible confrontation with China.
Again, what is your prescription for dealing with the PRC. We have provided the nuclear trip wire and made it clear that cross this line and holocaust occurs. What more do you want?
Have you learned nothing from the cold war. I think what we have asked the Chinese is whether they learned nothing from the cold war - i.e. we will maintain a strategic nuclear deterrent and we guarantee that if you sink a carrier off of Taiwan or commit any other prohibited actions, you will be destroyed. Now, do you want to get stuck in this rut for 60 years or do you want to move on to something more productive.
One of the lessons of the cold war is that MAD works unless the guy you are dealing with is insane.
The question that Barnett asks, and adresses is what else? What do we do after all of that.
"what do you believe that we need to be doing about the PRC."
With your sarcastic suggestions, you obviously do not think China is ever going to be a threat.
I think we better make sure that we have plenty of F-22s, get a naval version of the F-23, and keep on developing the ABM defenses.
We also need to get Taiwan those subs we promised them and some Aegis equipped destroyers.
Was it rational the way China acted when they forced our intelligence gathering airplane down? Were their demands for an apology for flying near their territory to be forced down by a maniac pilot reasonable? Are their threats against Taiwan reasonable? They are pric*s and bullies and sooner or later, probably sooner, we will get into it with them.
"While not identified as a "gap" country, China made the mistake of thinking that it could ignore SARS."
There goes the theory. No problem, the theory was not worth anything anyway, except to stroke Barnett's ego and attract groupies.
Get real. If China decides to take Taiwan, it will take Taiwan. The question is the consequence. Are we willing to use our nuclear deterent in that case. If not, color it gone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.