Comments on: Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace http://www.ethnography.com/2008/02/thomas-barnett-the-pentagons-new-map-for-war-and-peace/ A group blog on a wide variety of topics realted to anthropology Fri, 30 Dec 2011 16:34:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Thomas Barnett, the military, and anthropology | Ethnography.com http://www.ethnography.com/2008/02/thomas-barnett-the-pentagons-new-map-for-war-and-peace/comment-page-1/#comment-216 Thomas Barnett, the military, and anthropology | Ethnography.com Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:14:34 +0000 http://www.ethnography.com/2008/02/thomas-barnett-the-pentagons-new-map-for-war-and-peace/#comment-216 [...] Mark Dawson posted the video of Thomas Barnett’s talk to Ethnography.com on Febrary 2 in the expectation that you might be pissed off, or you might be impressed. I appreciated seeing it. I was mostly impressed, and not too pissed off even though I disagree with a number of Barnet’s basic assumptions about how the world and the military work. Anyway, Barnett seems like an articulate guy, and I recommend you have a look. [...] [...] Mark Dawson posted the video of Thomas Barnett’s talk to Ethnography.com on Febrary 2 in the expectation that you might be pissed off, or you might be impressed. I appreciated seeing it. I was mostly impressed, and not too pissed off even though I disagree with a number of Barnet’s basic assumptions about how the world and the military work. Anyway, Barnett seems like an articulate guy, and I recommend you have a look. [...]

]]> By: Tony http://www.ethnography.com/2008/02/thomas-barnett-the-pentagons-new-map-for-war-and-peace/comment-page-1/#comment-196 Tony Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:24:30 +0000 http://www.ethnography.com/2008/02/thomas-barnett-the-pentagons-new-map-for-war-and-peace/#comment-196 Barnett’s view probably illustrates well the views of those supporting McCain. They do not believe that the underlying logic of the War in Iraq is flawed, rather they just do not like losing. But this view also requires buying into the idea that military action is an effective way to install compliant governments serving both the interests of the United States, and popular rule. In my view, the data since both before and after World War II do not necessarily support this, Barnett’s view probably illustrates well the views of those supporting McCain. They do not believe that the underlying logic of the War in Iraq is flawed, rather they just do not like losing.

But this view also requires buying into the idea that military action is an effective way to install compliant governments serving both the interests of the United States, and popular rule. In my view, the data since both before and after World War II do not necessarily support this,

]]> By: Tony Waters http://www.ethnography.com/2008/02/thomas-barnett-the-pentagons-new-map-for-war-and-peace/comment-page-1/#comment-195 Tony Waters Mon, 04 Feb 2008 11:55:10 +0000 http://www.ethnography.com/2008/02/thomas-barnett-the-pentagons-new-map-for-war-and-peace/#comment-195 Ok, I had a look at this, and it was really interesting. It makes a good argument for why there should be two types of military, i.e. the one with the hammer which is composed of 19 year old males, and the soft civil-administration type which focuses on nation-building, and is made up of 40 year old family people. The idea that there are two separate tasks abroad make sense. It also makes sense that we should not ask well-armed but weakly educated 19 year-olds to shift back and forth between shooting at adversaries one day, while distributing food and humanitarian goods in the same village the next day. This would tax the patience of even the best trained cultural relativist. However, I still think Bennett has a bit of American hubris to his approach. His idea is still that the catastrophic problems of others are best solved by outsiders, especially the United States. Indeed, he uses the dubious example of the IMF, which in fact has a checkered record in the third world for bringing about economic change, as a good model. It is true that IMF prescriptions have worked in some countries, particularly in eastern Europe. But other countries have had catastrophic consequences following IMF prescriptions, including places like Zimbabwe, Zaire/Congo, and Rwanda. Anyway, maybe I will write more for the blog in a couple of days… Ok, I had a look at this, and it was really interesting. It makes a good argument for why there should be two types of military, i.e. the one with the hammer which is composed of 19 year old males, and the soft civil-administration type which focuses on nation-building, and is made up of 40 year old family people. The idea that there are two separate tasks abroad make sense. It also makes sense that we should not ask well-armed but weakly educated 19 year-olds to shift back and forth between shooting at adversaries one day, while distributing food and humanitarian goods in the same village the next day. This would tax the patience of even the best trained cultural relativist.

However, I still think Bennett has a bit of American hubris to his approach. His idea is still that the catastrophic problems of others are best solved by outsiders, especially the United States. Indeed, he uses the dubious example of the IMF, which in fact has a checkered record in the third world for bringing about economic change, as a good model. It is true that IMF prescriptions have worked in some countries, particularly in eastern Europe. But other countries have had catastrophic consequences following IMF prescriptions, including places like Zimbabwe, Zaire/Congo, and Rwanda.

Anyway, maybe I will write more for the blog in a couple of days…

]]>