New Pentagon Map that Seeks to Erase the Gap - Literature review Example

July 31, Analyzing the New Pentagon Map that Seeks to Erase the Gap: Expanding Blurred Boundaries and Preparing for Imminent Threats In “The Pentagon’s New Map: It Explains Why We’re Going to War and Why We’ll Keep Going to War,” Thomas P.M. Barnett argues that the best strategic military map that predicts the wars that the United States will be involved in is the one that realizes and responds to the division of the world along the lines of the “Functioning Core” and the “Non-Integrating Gap” because the latter are disconnected enough to threaten the Core.1 The Core is composed of nations that exhibit globalization characteristics of liberal media practices, network connectivity, liberal business and financial policies, and a collective sense of security, while the Gap has “thin” or “absent” globalization factors, and so they have widespread political repression, poverty, disease, mass murder, and conflicts.2 Barnett contends that the Gap is globally disconnected, so they have no stake in partaking in globalization or protecting it, thereby threatening peace and security in the Core.3 In addition, Barnett clarifies that the boundaries between the Gap and the Core is always shifting because of the perceived positive and negative effects of globalization.4 At the same time, Barnett points out that the happenings during 9/11 are invaluable in reminding Americans that they have real enemies in the Gap, particularly the “Super Empowered Individuals” who are manifestations of the Gap’s disconnectedness.5 Moreover, Barnett underscores that if Americans want to protect their country, they must realize that the best defense is an offensive strategy that “shrinks the Gap,” and not merely recognizes its existence.6 The main targets are states or territories where global connectivity is at its lowest, starting with the Middle East.7 This offensive strategy also includes strengthening the “seam states” to prevent the threats from entering the Core.8 Barnett presents a “Disconnectedness” theory that is predictive of U.S. military actions and decisions. The theory is persuasive in capturing the thinness of globalization and its connection to becoming a threat to the Core because globalization conditions are indeed factors in explaining disconnectedness and war. Barnett makes sensible claims that economic globalization can contribute to peace and development. Erik Gartzke and Quan Li noted from their empirical studies on globalizing economies that economic integration reduced and can reduce interstate conflicts.9 They asserted that economic integration provides economic and political incentives that make it costly to enter wars.10 Solomon Polachek, Carlos Seiglie, and Jun Xiang confirmed that trade and foreign direct investment (FDI) promote development and peace among nations. Barnett is right then that states that reject liberal economic and political connections are threats to peace in the world order. Economic integration through globalization increases the incentives to preserve peace and, without it, the Gap shows that its agenda is to preserve its independence to the detriment of the Core’s peace and security. The theory, however, is not persuasive in capturing those globalized countries that are still a threat to the Core and the seam states. Some examples are China and Russia. They are not exactly places where globalization is thin because they have access to the Internet and they have somewhat open economic markets. They exhibit some of the characteristics of the “Functioning Core”11 because they are economically linked with the rest of the world. However, these said nations are threats to the Core because they do not fit global norms for collective security. They are disconnected to these peaceful global norms because they do not have qualms in threatening other nations, verbally and through physical measures. China, for instance, continues to assert that it owns everything on the West Philippine Sea (also called South China Sea), despite other nations that are pressing claims on it, such as Vietnam, Brunei, Malaysia, Indonesia, Taiwan, and the Philippines. China is expelling Philippine and Vietnamese ships, while preventing them from conducting usual fishing and security operations in the said area, to the point of ramming Vietnamese ships this year.12 Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine also shows that it is not necessarily supportive of peaceful global relations. These said nations have their own economic and political agenda in securing or supporting the territories that they believe are theirs or they believe that they must control. They may not be directly breeding Al-Qaeda terrorists but they are terrorists in a way because of how they are terrorizing countries that they think are politically, economically, and/or militarily inferior to them. The theory lacks further definition on how the U.S. should contend with these powerful states that appear like they are joining the Core or like they are members of the Core, but also belong to the disconnected Gap. Apart from the persuasiveness of the theory, Barnett describes threats, challenges, and opportunities through imagining future scenarios through states’ past behaviors and analyzing the existing agenda and interests of Gap and questionable Core nations. First, he demonstrates the threats as coming dominantly from the Gap because they are disconnected enough from the Core to not care for the latter’s welfare.13 Instead, the Gap, such as Afghanistan and Sudan, are full of “Super Empowered Individuals” who feel that the Core is a threat to their own interests and development.14 As a result, the Gap is the main source of threats that must be the focus of where American military forces should be. Second, Barnett shows the challenges to the U.S., particularly the hardships in convincing the American public of the “Disconnectedness” security paradigm. Though he did not expound on this position, he underscores that because of the human and financial costs of war, many Americans are keeping the attitude of thinking that the Gap will remain as it is, and so it is better to stay away from them.15 Instead of thinking away the Gap, Barnett proposes an active solution of bringing more troops to the Gap and engaging war as needed, 16 a solution that is falling out of public approval. Third, Barnett describes the opportunities for security enhancement through his theory. He provides an annotation of all countries that are in the Gap and the seam, so these are all opportunities for the U.S. to implement his suggestions. His recommendations include improving the immune system of the Core against 9/11-similar attacks, enhancing the seam states’ defensive/offensive capabilities, and shrinking the gap.17 These recommendations are opportunities that act on the Gap in a proactive and international manner. The theory relates to the future operational environment (OE) through focusing on the Middle East, while improving presence in the seam states, expecting both “Super Empowered Individuals” and state enemies, and preparing for dealing with diverse socioeconomic, cultural and political issues in states where there are emerging Asian, African, and European conflicts. Barnett is right that the U.S. should deploy forces in the Middle East where the Gap is most powerful, particularly in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. These are areas where known terrorist cells are actively hiding and operating. At the same time, the U.S. should also improve its presence in the seam states where territorial and political conflicts are brewing. U.S. presence must have government backing from the seam states, however, to avoid being judged too negatively in the latter and by the national and international media and community. The seam states require additional U.S. support to ensure that terrorist and criminal elements are not strengthening enough to become a strong threat soon to the Core. In addition, the U.S. should prepare for different kinds of enemies, expecting both “Super Empowered Individuals” and state enemies. These individuals have strong financial and social connections across the globe through the nations in the Gap and the seam states, so they are direct threats to U.S. security. Furthermore, though economic globalization has decreased the incentives of interstate war, Russia, North Korea, and China are still part of the Gap ideology because of their hard-line approach that manifests more authoritarianism-imperialism-centered than democracy-centered foreign policies and practices. Because of their disconnectedness, the chances of the resurgence of past state-to-state wars are not exactly zero. The U.S. must strengthen seam states to ensure that it gathers intelligence that can effectively predict these wars before they happen for proper preparations. Moreover, the complexities for the U.S. military operations are the social, economic, political, and cultural conditions of target areas. These places of conflicts are places of poverty, political problems, and diseases, and so going to these places also means spending money and resources to some extent in helping alleviate these issues. The U.S. cannot detach its military operations from the ongoing environmental factors that are inherent to these states and which also contribute to peace and development hindrances. To be in these nations is to be part of the solution or to be accused of merely adding to it. U.S. military operations cannot disconnect themselves too from the humane and human rights issues that impact their operations. Organizations and individuals will always be present in opposing their intervention and existence in their domains. Thus, the theory should also include preparation for these different national and regional concerns that will affect how they are received and supported in these particular areas where they plan to operate. The “Disconnectedness” theory is valuable in understanding and explaining future U.S. military deployment and actions, but requires additional enhancement on its analysis of and responsiveness to seam-state conditions and conflicts. Bibliography Barnett, Thomas P.M. “The Pentagon’s New Map: It Explains Why We’re Going to War and Why We’ll Keep Going to War.” U.S. Naval War College (March 2013): 1-9. Gartzke, Erik, and Quan Li. “Chapter 6: How Economic Integration Can Reduce The Incidence Of International Conflict.” Economic Globalization and Peace (2003). Accessed July 27, 2014. http://people.tamu.edu/~quanli/research_papers/glob_chapter.pdf. Linh, Nguyen Phuong, and Michael Martina. “South China Sea Tensions Rise as Vietnam Says China Rammed Ships.” Reuters, May 7, 2014. Accessed July 27, 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/07/us-china-seas-fishermen-idUSBREA4603C20140507. Polachek, Solomon, Seiglie, Carlos, and Jun Xiang. “Globalization and International Conflict: Can FDI Increase Peace?” Proceedings of the 10th Annual International Conference on Economics and Security, 278-302. Accessed July 27, 2014. http://www.city.academic.gr/special/events/economics_and_security09/2006/10-polachek.pdf. Read More