I found somebody more evil than Cheney. Thomas Barnett........

[Joanne98]

Thomas P.M. Barnett is a strategic planner who has worked in national security affairs since the end of the Cold War and has operated his own consulting practice (Barnett Consulting) since 1998. A New York Times-bestselling author and a nationally-known public speaker who's been profiled on the front-page of the Wall Street Journal, Dr. Barnett is in high demand within government circles as a forecaster of global conflict and an expert of military transformation, as well as within corporate circles as a management consultant and conference presenter on issues relating to international security and economic globalization. An award-winning teacher, Prof. Barnett has written for Esquire and the Washington Post, and has been interviewed in Rolling Stone. Having appeared on numerous national TV shows since 9/11, Tom Barnett has been described by U.S. News & World Report's Michael Barone as "one of the most important strategic thinkers of our time."

Dr. Barnett is best known as the author of The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 2004). Described by the Council on Foreign Relations as "a tour de force," the wide-ranging volume has generated an enormous amount of reaction from around the world, leading to foreign rights already being sold in Japan, Turkey and China, as well as profiles in London's Daily Telegraph, Paris' L'Express (forthcoming), and Tokyo's Nihon Keizai Shimbun (forthcoming). Mr. Barnett's book was likewise the subject of a Book Notes show on C-SPAN (with Brian Lamb) and an On Point show on National Public Radio.

In addition to his teaching and consulting, Tom Barnett is a prolific blogger on current global events at his website www.thomaspmbarnett.com, where he counts among his regular readers representatives from all the major U.S. military commands, virtually all U.S. federal departments, numerous foreign governments, and major research and corporate entities the world over.

Prof. Barnett is a Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, U.S. Naval War College, Newport RI, where he teaches and works--in a senior advisory role--with military and civilian leaders in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Central Command, Special Operations Command, and Joint Forces Command. From November 2001 to June of 2003, Dr. Barnett was on temporary assignment as the Assistant for Strategic Futures, Office of Force Transformation (OFT), Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he worked with OFT Director Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (USN, ret.) on a cluster of strategic concepts that link change in the international security environment to the imperative of transforming U.S. military capabilities to meet future threats.

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/biography.htm

He wrote a book called "The Pentagon's New Map". He was on C-Span 1 last night giving a power point presentation. I SWEAR TO GAWD. It was the most EVIL thing I've ever seen. Did anybody else see it?

[Snotcicles]

1. Phrase New

World Order ring a bell? I saw it.

[Joanne98]

4. Where you as horrified as me.

[Hotler]

2. Probably couldn't ride in an elevator

with that man and not come out wanting to take a shower.

[Joanne98]

3. This guy is so EVIL I was so SHOCKED I had to watch it twice.

he had this big screen behind him with had maps and strategys. His big beef with the muslim countries was, the large amount of young people they have- they haven't put women into the work force- they haven't globalized. His solution, bring them to heel, militaraly if you have to, destroy their culture (women's rights), privatize everything (duh) cause a generation gap by turning the young against the old. Dominate dominate dominate......

this guy hates old people. especially in OUR country. American seniors are practically a threat to our national security. His soultion, "Let the wolves eat them". I kid you NOT. He said it as a joke but he wasn't joking.

There was a muslim guy in the audience who asked a question afterwards and he was so shocked he could barely talk. Not surprising because all the muslum countries were in "the gap" (the target countries) the countries in "the gap" are on the shit list because they haven't globalized enough because of their traditional cultures.
(a women's right to be a corporate slave)

Thomas Barnett has just become my choice for "THE BEAST".

[Junkdrawer]

11. CSpan link...

Note: This is NOT last night's. I'm still looking for that...

http://www.booknotes.org/Program/?ProgramID=1782

[Joanne98]

25. Thanks JD

[KoKo]

5. I watched half and taped half for later. I actually agreed with much of

what he said until he got to the part about Old People and "The Gap."

Then I thought it was going in a direction I wouldn't be comfortable with, but had to leave the rest for taping.

I wonder if there's a good critique of this guy somewhere. He isn't a Bush fan or a supporter of Doctrine of Pre-emptive strike. I got the impression that he had some good ideas on re-organizing the military and
our foreign policy. What bothered you guys so much? :shrug:

[graywarrior]

6. Go to his blog and read Sept 3. Apparently he is voting for Kerry

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/

[Joanne98]

9. OH GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This guy needs some publicity NOW. He did say it doesn't matter who wins the election. This is the plan ANYWAY. Resistance is futile. I want Kerry to denounce him NOW. He's a fucking insect from another planet.

[Joanne98]

26. His utter coldness. My blood froze and it wasn't his style either. n/t

[Joanne98]

7. Another interesting thing he said.

"If you replace 5% of the military every year in 20 years the whole thing is replaced. or something like that. To me that said, "Rumsfield is privatizing the entire DOD. GIVE IT TO THE CORPORATIONS. what a nightmare. These people have to be STOPPED. the Pentagon's new map has nothing to do with our defense. it's all about sticking pepsi and GE flags all over the planet. the borderless world ruled by WALL STREET.
Humanity is DEAD. Kill grampa, divide parents and children, destroy tradition and human traits. Become part/slave part comsumer or DIE.

[graywarrior]

8. After reading People's History of the US

I realized that the US is in the "business" of war. Period. It's all based on profit. Barnett just confirms that.

[readmylips]

10. Thank God I was not the only one watching Barnett....

The program was too in tensed and the powerpoint effects were distracting....the ding, ding from Law & Order..I'd like to see it again. He did say some things against bush and it was too late in the night for me to write down his comments.

He did say, the Patriot Act that keeps foreigners from entering the US is a big mistake. Mexico and the Philippines already have contracts with other countries to allow Mexico and Philippine's cheap labor force to be sent oversees. He also said, Mexicans and Filipinos find less hostility in those countries than in the US.

Barnett also said that the US funding for weapons not needed must change. The big bulk of the money should go to Homeland Security which is barely being funded.

I'd like to read some of your comments...

[graywarrior]

13. I'm not real saavy with this kind of info

but what I got from it is that the US is a super power war planner, and that no one wants to fuck with us. We adapt to global shifts but are really not too concerned with human outcomes unless it damages our image of power.
We have blown our wad in Iraq, and now we need some balance, another regime to come in and slow down the machine a bit until our next move. The rest of world feels this and is supporting Kerry. That doesn't mean he will win. The Bush people don't give a fuck about readjusting the balance. They want to keep what they have, at any cost.
When Barnett talked about the next step of gathering alies being important to establish balance, I believe he implied that the current admin is not in the position to accomplish that. We need a change. Normally, voting would give us that change. This campaign, however, is not being run fairly. We're at a turning point.

[Joanne98]

22. But he didn't dislike the Patriot Act for the same reason we do....

It was all about the age of our population. he was obsessed with that. he was practically laughing at Europe for not having the balls to deal with it. (old people)
He didn't really like Bush but that just made me actually like Bush for once. something I thought would never happen.
I'm not going to splice and dice his statements. He was too "tounge in cheek" a real smartass. he got his message across. He hates humans and all there qualities. They need to be fixed. The Gross National Product is GAWD. I hope the freepers watched this. he stands for everything they hate, immigration, borderless world, traditional family values, religion. For once i'm in agreement.

[coyotefish]

12. Interesting stuff... I watched the whole thing.

I also read s bunch of his papers and his blog, so my question to you is:

Evil in what way?

Point: Barnett is voting for Kerry. He thinks the Dems can do a better job of running things.

Point: Many of the changes he envisions as desirable for the "Gap" as he calls it, are liberal ideas, two examples of which are:

Emancipation of women (especially in the Islamic world)
Free Markets (And yes, this is a liberal idea.. read your history)

Point: His vision of a sys-admin (peacekeeping, nation building) function for the military and other multinational and international agencies) is desperately needed and is exactly where we are failing in Iraq, and where the Bush administration has no clue how to proceed.

Point: His vision for this sys-admin function includes making it open-source, involving academia, public policy makers, the citizenry, etc.

While you may not agree that globalization as currently envisoned by the powers-that-be is desirable, it is coming and is here to stay.

A world in which democracy is the norm, and people are free to vote, travel and do business is desirable, and is fundamentally a liberal world. This requires security and stability.

Most analysts of Iraq on both sides agree that the goal there is a LIBERAL democracy. Achieving this requires a strategic overview that Bush and his neocons lack. Barnetts view is quite cogent and many of the outcomes desirable all around.

The struggle between the haves and have'nots has always been one of compromise and dealmaking. For instance: The haves can pursue money and power (who know why?), but the have'nots get a social safety net or we raise hell and burn down mansions. That's how it works and has always worked.

The question now is: What do we get out of globalization?

From the perspective of "One World" - that long held liberal vision of a planet without war, of peaceful cooperation and freedom - the next century is really about 'civil war' in the global body politic.

Who do you want to win? The fundamentalists on either side? Globalism is not necessarily a bad thing - but we have to make sure our voices are heard and we have some say in the process. Barnett does not like fundamentalists of any stripe.

Capitalism is a great economic engine, but it is not a system of government and must be regulated and subordinated to the democratic process so that it is neither strangled nor allowed to corrupt the process. This is one of the great struggles of this century. I think Barnett is on side of democracy in this.

Barnett essentially has a strategy for bringing liberal democracy to the world. You may not like it, but don't dismiss it as evil. Offer alternatives, critiques and be part of the process, ok?

[graywarrior]

14. Well said

Plus, you can't fuck with natural balance. We need Kerry now. The laws of nature want that.

[Eloriel]

16. What gives us the right to "bring democracy to the world" -- esp

at the point of a gun?

Oh, and another thing: If Michael Barone likes him, that's enough of a condemnation for me.

Hah! Edited to add: and this sneering response to a LTE in response to one of his articles seals the deal for me:

Kasdan’s whine is just what you want in a negative letter: some name-calling, an insult of my moral character, and then the fear voiced that this vision may well represent the way the government is actually moving. In short, he doesn’t lay a glove on me, and simply frets over my apparent influence. Boo hoo. He should think about moving into the Gap if he’s so high and mighty in his moral outlook.

A real prince.

[Joanne98]

19. He loves the Wall Street too.

I'm so mad I'm afraid to say what I really think......

[coyotefish]

20. .... who said anything about the point of gun?

Ask anyone in almost any country.

What system of government do you want to live under?

The answer is always "a democracy". And if they live in some kind of tyranny, I think most of them would love it if someone came in and got rid of the bad guys. I know I would. I'll bet you would too.

The point here is that power is not going to go away. It can either be used judicously or badly. We should use it to support and engender democracy.

How this gets done is through open source government and debate.

[Eloriel]

21. Oh, what unadulterated claptrap

".... who said anything about the point of gun?"

Um, perhaps you haven't noticed that we are even now in the process of violently imposing our version of "democracy" on what used to be a sovereign nation (or trying to). AND that we are meanwhile busily planning further misadventures of the same kind. Iran is in our sights.

Ask anyone in almost any country.

What system of government do you want to live under?

The answer is always "a democracy".

Oh, I didn't say democracy was bad -- altho to be honest, there are some places in the world where it may not work as well as in other places (and currently, the U.S.A. is one such place, which is a subject for another discussion).

The point here is that power is not going to go away. It can either be used judicously or badly. We should use it to support and engender democracy.

Oh, what have we here. The PNAC Code of Honor, I'd call it: Power -- use it or lose it, so might as well use it "judiciously" by throwing our weight around and "remaking" huge swaths of the globe to our imperialist liking.

How this gets done is through open source government and debate.

Open source government? Now that's an interseting term. You think we have ANYthing remotely resembling that? You think there was adequate "debate" on such things as the Patriot Act, and the IWR or any of a thousand other things that have gone on especially during the Bush administration? If you do, your standards are low indeed.

You're serving as an apologist for the wrong man, and the wrong philosophies -- at least for this board.

[KoKo]

28. I did agree with his thoughts that we need to get out of the Middle East

and that it would be necessary to create a "Berlin Wall" between Israel and Palestine guarding both borders to do it. He felt it was the only way we can avoid WWIII with the Islamic world.

I thought that was an interesting propostion. He had some other thoughts that were very interesting about how fighting for Peace is better than fighting for War. He says now our military is geared towards War and winning battles. America doesn't do Peace so well. Now there's a contradicition in that statement in that we seemed to do okay with the Marshall Plan after WWII. But, he feels in the last decades and in the Cold War we geared ourself to "Win" rather than establishing Peace which we need to do with our allies and not alone.

I haven't had a chance to watch his Part II which I taped. I think I would have some arguments with him from just the snip I saw before I went to bed. But, I do think he has an interesting way of looking at what problems are facing our country and the world. It's a "fresh" look and while I might not agree with his whole philosophy, I think there are some thoughts there which are much more forward thinking than PNAC and the Cold War Repuglicans have proposed or our Democrats who really don't seem to yet have a counter to the Repugs/PNAC which will invigorate the country. :shrug:

I'm tired of the same old Repug/Dem tired policies. Barnett at least has some quirky fresh ideas. Gives us new thoughts which can be argued about to hammer out a position which might get us out of the Black and White Rut we are in fighting over Swift Boat Vets/re-Arguing Viet Nam..

[KoKo]

29. I thought he was saying just the opposite. That we "cannot" impose

Democracy at the "point of a gun." I thought his point was that, this is what we are doing in Iraq and it won't work in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. That's why he proposed a "Berlin Wall" for Israel and Palestine. He feels our support of Israel is what's hurting us in the Muslim world.

:shrug: ON EDIT: I'm repeating myself here. Too much Hurricane Francis coverage and was up too late watching Barnett...:eyes:

[Eloriel]

30. Which "he" are you talking about?

I was responding to coyotefish about HIS remarks.

[KoKo]

31. Can we get a more detailed discussion going here?

I think that Barnett says some interesting things...After all we only have oldie hacked up Cold War/PNAC...Corporatists/Globalists views of what's going on.

Why not listen to this guy...and pick out his better points and discard what he says we don't like, rather than just trashing him? :shrug:

[Eloriel]

32. If you're addressing this to ME, KoKo

I've seen enough of him to know that I'm not particularly interested in what an arrogant, sneering, bullying rightwinger has to say. YOU'RE so goddamned fond of him, YOU talk about him. Don't try to draw me in. I don't have time for that shit.

And if that represents a closed mind or something like it to you, so be it. I don't have time to make nice with people who are basically fascists, even if (you think they're) some "kinder, gentler" version or something.

[KoKo]

35. No...not at all...what I'm trying to say is that the Past is the Past...

No Democrat is going to come out and challenge the PNAC/Srauss/Cold War/Nixon/Criminals/Reagan/Iran Contra Criminals/Government Criminals who've led us into unjust wars since Viet Nam and who knows how long before that.

It will all NEVER be investigated to the extent that these "manipulator/criminals are EVER PUT BEHIND BARS...just as Ken Lay and the others WILL NEVER BE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE!]

I've given up that either Repugs or Dems will PROSECUTE! SO.....

(sorry for shouting...but it's for "emphasis" not to burst your ear drums)

So....We must move forward. Which means we need to bring "other" ideas into the FORUM...and Barnett... isn't so "off the wall to me" as "other ideas." ???

(and...I'm one of "you" Eloriel...) I just feel that we need a third or fourth way just to get a dialog going, since the "whore Bush media" want's to paint us into either Repug or Dem Solution...

That's what I mean. :shrug:

[Eloriel]

38. You keep engaging me, KoKo, and I keep saying I have no

interest in this guy or his ideas. Perhaps there are others in this discussion to whom you should address your ideas? MY last words on Thomas P. Barnett are posted downthread.

Go read the Esquire article Joanne linked to below. If you're not aghast, then he's succeeded at precisely what he's trying to do: lull you (and others) into reassured acquiescence for the New American Imperialism. I agree completely with Joanne: he's evil. For my reasons why, check out my comments on just the first 7 paragraphs of that article (downthread).

Beyond that, I have NO interest in discussing this with you or anyone else, and I'd ask that you stop badgering me to do so. Go talk about it with the bloke to whom I initially responded. He seemed rather eager to accept this monstrous shit.

[KoKo]

40. Hey...He's Evil...okay...whatever...and I wasn't badgering you into a

discussion. I assumed here on DU folks do try to discuss because this was posted in the "General Discussion" Forum...

I have better things to do than "badger" folks on DU that most times I agree with...sheesh...

[wtmusic]

34. The problem is: how do you decide who the bad guys are?

Right now Iraqis say, "Americans are the bad guys." Do we flip a coin?

The answer is to stay the fuck out of other country's business, while encouraging via trade restrictions/bonuses democracy where we can. The answer is most decidedly NOT:

"to expand the U.S. Military's--and specifically, the U.S. Navy's--vision of where and how it can wield maximum influence across the international security environment of the Era of Globalization."

He is a nutcase, although at least he's an honest nutcase, unlike Cheney.

[Joanne98]

18. Have you checked what 'globalization" has done to other countries.

Check out Argentina before you speak. I'd rather have constant WAR then live under "peaceful corporations". All the "global economy has done is MAKE EVERYBODY POOR. Including US. Check the numbers there IN. Fuck Adam Smith and FUCK Ricardo too. It's all BS.
The widening of the gap between the rich and the poor, within every country and between every country. Globalization is the HATRED of humanity. It's over.

[kodi]

41. me too. he made more sense than anyone about the military since clauswitz

christ, anyone listening carefully heard him skewer bush and rumsfield for not preparing for the back end of iraq occupation. he slipped in that shinski was right about the force requirements for the occupation.

so he spoke in an objective, a-moral way about national security. so what? doctors talk clinically about even the worst surgery cases.

he even said that he would reduce defense dept spending by $200B and shift it to homeland secutity, and have all exports to the US by ship inspected in the port of origin. that is right on.

the guy is brilliant, not a demon.

his take on the pakistani who asked about islam's response to the west was amazingly pungent and on target.

essentially he said, "when you start treatig your women like humans with the same rights as you demand for yourselves you'll become modern."

[Joanne98]

15. I just sent him a e-mail

On C-Span. i have no idea why Brian Lamb put you on but I glad he did because you were the most horrible thing i'd ever seen. Watching you actually gave me an "Invasion of the Body snatchers" moment. I'm sure you came from a POD.
Your hatred for humanity was astounding. I especially liked the "Old people should have the wolves set on them" remark.
I promise you. I'll personally make sure THAT gets put on every senior citizen discussion board in America.
My heart broke for the muslim man in the audience who was so shocked he could barely speak.
You may consider the human race nothing but products but the human race will fight back.
Your SCUM.
Thanks for the warning. Now I know what to resist.
Joan Ranade
Zanesville OH
PS I'm a democrat. Your not welcome in my party

[coyotefish]

17. Actually, what he said was....

..something like this:

(Talking about social security)

In the future we're going to have an older population and fewer younger workers to support them.. this is an historical anomaly..

".. in the past, the wolves would have eaten us."

.. including himself in the statement as a future "old person".

Also - did you stick around for his solution to this? More immigration - more and younger workers from the developing world coming to the United States - something he knows will change the US forever.

[Joanne98]

23. In the past the wolves would have eaten us. HA HA

But that was the past before technology. Old people don't have to run fast anymore. I'm only 51. Not really that old. It's the "old people aren't productive" talk i find coming from everywhere now. Alan Greenspan being the latest. But it's really, "privatize the profits, socialize the risk", Grow your families GNP kill your parents. That's what their really saying. THE OWNERSHIP SOCIETY. I bet he likes that one.

[KoKo]

36. I heard what you heard...the "wolves should eat us" was "ironic" and not

a "literal." :shrug: I think we were all tired when we watched it last night. We need a transcript or to read his book before we do "snap" judgements...but that there are a few of us here who find his thoughts so controversial...means maybe his book is a good read for the future?

Who knows...he might be the NEW PNAC and grab a "following." I'd rather know about this now...and get on it with criticizm or praise than to be sitting here living with the PNAC LIE of the New American Supremacy!
:shrug:

[Joanne98]

24. Thomas (kill the old people) Barnett............

I hope he likes his new nickname cuz it's going to stick.

[Joanne98]

27. Here's an article on "The Pentagon's New Map"

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/ThePentagonsNewMap.htm

Alot of people are going to read this and say. It's not that bad. But it is. It's rule by corporations. The ultimate defeat. This is the Holy Grail to them and the only goal. I'm just shocked that they would actually talk about it in the open. I guess that's how far we've fell. I would love to hear what Ms. Roy from India has to say about "The Pentagon's New Map". She'd be able to explain it way better than me.

[Eloriel]

33. Thanks for the link, Joanne

I'll read it a little later.

[Eloriel]

37. Oh, man

I am having trouble getting past the first 7 paragraphs -- in fact, had to push myself EVEN past the first:

LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good.

And catch this choice morsel:

Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point—the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.

That is why the public debate about this war has been so important: It forces Americans to come to terms with I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger. Saddam Hussein’s outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.

So, because Saddam was isolated from the rest of the world, we should go bomb the hell outta him. Sure, I get it. Why not?

Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder.

Um, like the United States?

But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.

Oh, so it's the dearth of globalization that causes terrorists. Whodathunkit? Sure glad we've got Barnett to 'splain it to us.

snip So where do we schedule the U.S. military’s next round of away games? The pattern that has emerged since the end of the cold war suggests a simple answer: in the Gap.

Away games. That's just sick. And there it is again, the sick, twisted, imperialistic (and thoroughly unchallenged by the Dems)_ premise that we somehow have the right to go imposing our military might on the rest of the world, THIS time with the excuse that they're not sufficiently globalized.

How ANYone can support this fascist is a mystery to me. (I wonder if he's involved with PNAC, or the Straussians?)

I'm bookmarking this, but I won't be reading another word of it right now. I am glad to have the link, though.

[sadiesworld]

39. self-delete.