Stage Setter Assessment
11 September 2013
Intermediate Level Education (ILE) Common Core
C100: Foundations
C110: Stage Setter Assessment
Thomas Barnett’s article titled, “It Explains Why We’re Going to War, and Why We’ll Keep Going to War” presents the author’s theories on the relationship between globalization and the risk of U.S. and allied nation involvement with war and conflict. In this context, globalization can easily be defined as technology, a higher level of education, and financial prosperity. The author goes further to define specific areas of world: the Core, the Gap and seam states. The Core consists of many functioning and prosperous countries and continents, for example, North America, parts of South America, …show more content…
the European Union, Russia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and much of Asia. The Gap consists of many regions that are excluded from the globalization’s growing Core, for example, most of Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southwest Asia. Lastly, the seam states are key element of this discussion. These generally “bloody” areas are considered access points into the Core located along the boundaries of Gap regions.
Barnett’s thesis certainly has a great deal of merit.
These less developed parts of the world have attracted U.S. military intervention for the past two decades. Historical data reveals a constant and continuous threat by religious extremists and political idealists from Gap countries struggling to obtain prosperity. Barnett also describes a previous assumption that large prosperous countries considered “less included” regions as non-threatening, because they lacked a large-scale military force. But we can never under estimate individuals that are willing to give “life and country” for their cause and beliefs. Furthermore he mentions how the attack on September, 2001 serves as supportive evidence. This devastating event continues to shape our government and influence our defense strategies. It has resulted in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, military restructuring, and moreover, the launching of the global war on …show more content…
terrorism.
The author has many supportive arguments to validate his theories. First, the ever changing U.S. national-security plan can be divided into three categories: increase the capability of the Core countries to prevent and respond to events and threats similar to 9/11, fortify the seam states with the intent of preventing the spread of the Gap’s violence, disease, and drugs, and lastly, and most important, decrease the size of the Gap. Next, Barnett uses the Middle East as prime example of how the lack of globalization has certainly contributed to the consistent presence of conflict, and need for U.S. involvement. The Middle Eastern culture, for the most part, is devoid of personal freedoms. The people are severely oppressed and controlled by fear – the fear of death, being labeled a traitor, of targeted, or fear of religious consequences. Lastly, the author discusses and the past, present, and future political and military activity involving a detailed list of 19 Core and Gap countries.
Essentially, the most severe threat is the spread of the regions that lack globalization.
The boundaries of these regions, including the seam states, are ever changing. With our current state of economic crisis, prosperity can quickly make a turn for the worse, severely impacting a region’s stability. Consequently, we can predict that this de-globalization will ultimately lead to turmoil, conflict, civil war, etc. Which further leads to the problem of controlling the access of terrorist groups into the Core countries through the seam states. This gives the U.S. and other Core or allied countries, the opportunity to provide security forces. This exporting of U.S. security forces to the Gap brings the opportunity to change our military to meet our current needs of deploying in smaller, more independent, and more mobile elements. In addition, as in Operation Enduring Freedom, there is the opportunity to empower the indigenous people, giving them a chance to stand strong against the terror of the
Taliban.
As the advisor to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and consultant to the Pentagon, Thomas Barnett is a credible and influential author. One can only agree to his theories, because he certainly has valid and sensible points. If we simply reflect upon history, war can be traced back to overpowered Core countries attempting to establish control over lesser Core or Gap countries. Alternatively, we have also seen stronger Gap countries attempt to establish control over less globalized regions within the same country -- the Korean War for example. However, it can be disagreed that the U.S. maintains the responsibility to intervene during every threat of regional conflict and strife.
The author’s theories have the potential to have a significant impact on today’s military force. As he discussed earlier, Gap regions are continually changing. Boundaries are being dissolved and relocated on a frequent basis. And preexisting Gap countries continue to de-globalize, leading to an increase risk for a security presence. It’s not as much as where we will go, but where we will go back – i.e. Iraq, Korea, or Afghanistan. Our enemies will likely continue to be South American drug lords, African dictators, and Middle Eastern terrorists. Barnett’s work is logical and relevant reading, and will certainly continue to be a very influential part of both present and future professional military education.
Bibliography
Barnett, Thomas P.M. “It Explains Why We’re Going to War, and Why We’ll Keep Going to War.” Esquire, March 2003.
Intermediate Level Education (ILE) Common Core
C100: Foundations
C110: Stage Setter Assessment
Thomas Barnett’s article titled, “It Explains Why We’re Going to War, and Why We’ll Keep Going to War” presents the author’s theories on the relationship between globalization and the risk of U.S. and allied nation involvement with war and conflict. In this context, globalization can easily be defined as technology, a higher level of education, and financial prosperity. The author goes further to define specific areas of world: the Core, the Gap and seam states. The Core consists of many functioning and prosperous countries and continents, for example, North America, parts of South America, …show more content…
the European Union, Russia, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and much of Asia. The Gap consists of many regions that are excluded from the globalization’s growing Core, for example, most of Africa, the Middle East, and Central and Southwest Asia. Lastly, the seam states are key element of this discussion. These generally “bloody” areas are considered access points into the Core located along the boundaries of Gap regions.
Barnett’s thesis certainly has a great deal of merit.
These less developed parts of the world have attracted U.S. military intervention for the past two decades. Historical data reveals a constant and continuous threat by religious extremists and political idealists from Gap countries struggling to obtain prosperity. Barnett also describes a previous assumption that large prosperous countries considered “less included” regions as non-threatening, because they lacked a large-scale military force. But we can never under estimate individuals that are willing to give “life and country” for their cause and beliefs. Furthermore he mentions how the attack on September, 2001 serves as supportive evidence. This devastating event continues to shape our government and influence our defense strategies. It has resulted in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, military restructuring, and moreover, the launching of the global war on …show more content…
terrorism.
The author has many supportive arguments to validate his theories. First, the ever changing U.S. national-security plan can be divided into three categories: increase the capability of the Core countries to prevent and respond to events and threats similar to 9/11, fortify the seam states with the intent of preventing the spread of the Gap’s violence, disease, and drugs, and lastly, and most important, decrease the size of the Gap. Next, Barnett uses the Middle East as prime example of how the lack of globalization has certainly contributed to the consistent presence of conflict, and need for U.S. involvement. The Middle Eastern culture, for the most part, is devoid of personal freedoms. The people are severely oppressed and controlled by fear – the fear of death, being labeled a traitor, of targeted, or fear of religious consequences. Lastly, the author discusses and the past, present, and future political and military activity involving a detailed list of 19 Core and Gap countries.
Essentially, the most severe threat is the spread of the regions that lack globalization.
The boundaries of these regions, including the seam states, are ever changing. With our current state of economic crisis, prosperity can quickly make a turn for the worse, severely impacting a region’s stability. Consequently, we can predict that this de-globalization will ultimately lead to turmoil, conflict, civil war, etc. Which further leads to the problem of controlling the access of terrorist groups into the Core countries through the seam states. This gives the U.S. and other Core or allied countries, the opportunity to provide security forces. This exporting of U.S. security forces to the Gap brings the opportunity to change our military to meet our current needs of deploying in smaller, more independent, and more mobile elements. In addition, as in Operation Enduring Freedom, there is the opportunity to empower the indigenous people, giving them a chance to stand strong against the terror of the
Taliban.
As the advisor to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and consultant to the Pentagon, Thomas Barnett is a credible and influential author. One can only agree to his theories, because he certainly has valid and sensible points. If we simply reflect upon history, war can be traced back to overpowered Core countries attempting to establish control over lesser Core or Gap countries. Alternatively, we have also seen stronger Gap countries attempt to establish control over less globalized regions within the same country -- the Korean War for example. However, it can be disagreed that the U.S. maintains the responsibility to intervene during every threat of regional conflict and strife.
The author’s theories have the potential to have a significant impact on today’s military force. As he discussed earlier, Gap regions are continually changing. Boundaries are being dissolved and relocated on a frequent basis. And preexisting Gap countries continue to de-globalize, leading to an increase risk for a security presence. It’s not as much as where we will go, but where we will go back – i.e. Iraq, Korea, or Afghanistan. Our enemies will likely continue to be South American drug lords, African dictators, and Middle Eastern terrorists. Barnett’s work is logical and relevant reading, and will certainly continue to be a very influential part of both present and future professional military education.
Bibliography
Barnett, Thomas P.M. “It Explains Why We’re Going to War, and Why We’ll Keep Going to War.” Esquire, March 2003.