For one the target areas are about where JFK directed the Peace Corps. His approach seems to blow up the new map, so we can contract to put the elusive indoor plumbing into place at great expense. Never mind some of the terrain had indoor plumbing before, however our previous militarism and aid to tin pot dictators destroyed it, when it was never replaced.

Of course it is clear he has a peace plan, indeed contractors as huge as the Pentagon. But it begs the question, why not put the indoor plumbing in there at the onset, and a few other thing debt free? His criteria is blow people up, then teach them how to fish, and the tuition is eternal debt. It looks like a con job to deploy and dispose of depleted uranium, while the half life of it is 4.2 billion years and injures our own troops greatly. The man and his ideas not only no panacea, they are insane while adopting a future in concrete. Futurists cannot predict even a few years ahead, but his ideas fit into a 100 year plan that looks like a 100 year mortgage they have in the UK for overpriced real estate.

[edit on 29-12-2004 by SkipShipman]

I think the point is, The Pentagon IS a security contractor, pretty much has been for the past 60 years, and as such is actually our largest and most unique export. As Dr. Barnett points out, we are now the only nation capable of fielding a superior military force somewhere far away for any sustained period of time.

Assume that Globalization is coming, if not here already. The very medium we are using to discuss the subject and the fact that we might be halfway across the world from each other assures it. Like it or not, at the present time, the United States appears to be the blueprint or "source code" for it. As the source code and primary security provider for the Core, what can the US do differently than what Dr. Barnett suggests? Should the US abandon it's current role as major Core partner? As BobJ mentioned, there is always China. Would we rather have their "source code"? No, but as we see inside the US, multi-cultural societies always adopt aspects of each culture, so as the Core nations become more solid and economically connected (there is that word again), the lines between both cultural and idealogical differences will blur.

BobJ, I agree that average people probably won't get it, but I think that is a shame. I think he puts a lot of stuff in perspective and his analysis finally gave me a framework and some teminology for some ideas and observations that I've been having for a while now. I found it interesting to get a sense of how things are planned, and more importantly sold to and paid for by Congress in this area. I think many people would be a lot more rational when they discuss these subjects if they could absorb some of this material.

I don't really see any sinister plan there, Skip. Considering the alternatives, a world that is connected, cooperating, and co-existing, doesn't sound too bad. The US is doing it (if in fact we are) because no one else can at this point and someone has to or people just aren't going to stop killing each other over stupid crap like Religon. Skip, if you have a better plan that will ultimately produce a better outcome or even a better way to get to the same peaceful, well-connected world most of us hope for, feel free to elaborate...

I do see something sinister when our moral integrity is insulted by such a statement as the very title page. "IT EXPLAINS WHY WE’RE GOING TO WAR, AND WHY WE’LL KEEP GOING TO WAR."

That is a defense contractor and financier dream come true, total stability in planning for war without the uncertainty of any Mother Theresa bursting your bubble.

You could seriously reconsider when the powers that be, the financiers, and the military as its pawns, would change their world view within such a picture of globalization. One would have to persuade many people on the merits about such plans as Buckminster Fuller and his World Game, for example. Consider putting that into practice, while enforcing simple laws on the uncivilized, rather than annihilating them because of their detestable practices such as female "circumcision." You could try some new Valium in the water supply even Lithium to induce a new kind of Quaker ideal incorporated by the Islamics on their own terms. You could inform yourself and the Islamics, that their deepest faith was hijacked by the British, with Wahhab at the helm within the earlier plan to destroy the Ottomans. Their tolerant Empire was replaced with a kind of Jim Jones fundamentalism, in many places. Above all read "Confessions of a British Spy," to detect the fraud that continues. Repeal some laws, so you do not have to introduce violence to enforce unworkable tyrannies.

Curiously the earlier Report From Iron Mountain On the Possibility and Desirability of Peace, considers inevitability of war, and how we are totally dependent upon it for our economy. The Pentagon's New Map puts that book introduced as "science fiction," on steroids but leaves the sensitive topics such as "reintroducing slavery," to the imagination. Already you need your chip and pass or you are not allowed to live in some places when Iraqi.

I could go on and on why even his basic premise about terrorism is laughably dependent upon major news outlet views that are ostensibly refuted with the most rigorous Google search for this 911 fraud. Our government clings to that story while producing policies from that false set of premises. A thinking person therefore cannot accept the raison de entrée from it.

Surely it gives us a visual framework, but so does National Geographic Magazine. His only problem is the lack of color pictures from the latter, and substituting a horrendous future from his basic premise of how good unending war will be. People who already own us may like it because it puts their hooks into us even more strongly, but any freedom loving person would be appalled totally. We would like to keep at least our illusion of freedom. As a futurist, I have to reject his positions as untenable and ill conceived. The most basic future studies indicate no positions set in concrete, they are at best heuristic, a matter of flexibility, through continuous examination of concurrently workable outlooks. One may set policy in concrete, but it will fail unless there is some give, and further structure support. Contingency planning itself does not set its feet in any one outlook and succeed. Key words are "perception, evaluation, and control." Preordination is not a viable hallmark of future studies, you do not set a juggernaut and watch the Leviathan roll. Leaders change their minds when things do not work, although sometimes far too late for the astute among us.

I could elaborate and pick his thesis apart bit by bit, to even better favor a less dysfunctional Pentagon, but that would require more time and equal research dollars. The man will not debate anyone with opposing views insofar as I am aware, if you know different let me know.


[edit on 29-12-2004 by SkipShipman]