Critique of The Pentagon's New Map
Critique of Thomas Barnett’s “The Pentagon’s New Map”
1. Critique the Author’s Thesis: Thomas Barnett, in the article, “The Pentagon’s New Map: It Explains Why We’re Going to War, and Why We’ll Keep Going to War,” says that disconnectedness defines danger . Barnett describes two parts of the world he calls The Functioning Core and The Non-Integrating Gap . The Functioning Core, also called the “Core”, features regions thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, collective security, with stable governments, rising standards of living and more deaths by suicide than murder . The Non-Integrating Gap, also known as the “Gap” features regions where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists . Barnett makes some very valid arguments. Although he makes broad and sweeping generalizations, the concept holds true for the areas he specifies as the Core and the Gap. All of the wars, all of the U.N. peace keeping missions, and all of the United States interventions and nation building since the end of the Cold War have taken place in the Gap regions. It makes sense these less connected areas are more dangerous. These are generally older cultures that are traditional in nature. Without the influences of the outside world, these cultures do not evolve and change as quickly because they do not have a steady influx of new ideas. Additionally, because of the depressed nature of these areas, the fundamentalist groups like the Taliban can secure a foothold because they are able to offer and control the basic needs of the people.
2. Critique the author’s main arguments: Barnett begins with the historical concept of how the United States planned for the next war, and how those plans influenced the way the United States built their military forces
1. Critique the Author’s Thesis: Thomas Barnett, in the article, “The Pentagon’s New Map: It Explains Why We’re Going to War, and Why We’ll Keep Going to War,” says that disconnectedness defines danger . Barnett describes two parts of the world he calls The Functioning Core and The Non-Integrating Gap . The Functioning Core, also called the “Core”, features regions thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, collective security, with stable governments, rising standards of living and more deaths by suicide than murder . The Non-Integrating Gap, also known as the “Gap” features regions where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists . Barnett makes some very valid arguments. Although he makes broad and sweeping generalizations, the concept holds true for the areas he specifies as the Core and the Gap. All of the wars, all of the U.N. peace keeping missions, and all of the United States interventions and nation building since the end of the Cold War have taken place in the Gap regions. It makes sense these less connected areas are more dangerous. These are generally older cultures that are traditional in nature. Without the influences of the outside world, these cultures do not evolve and change as quickly because they do not have a steady influx of new ideas. Additionally, because of the depressed nature of these areas, the fundamentalist groups like the Taliban can secure a foothold because they are able to offer and control the basic needs of the people.
2. Critique the author’s main arguments: Barnett begins with the historical concept of how the United States planned for the next war, and how those plans influenced the way the United States built their military forces