A Brain Pentagon Wants to Pick
Jack Linthicum
really in the loop at DoD. He is scheduled to speak at the National
Defense University before 500 up-and-coming military officers and
defense officials. His aim is to bring the military back into society
from its detached attitude which began as the Cold War ended. There is
little good news for the Navy in his work, one quote "How many Sea Wolf
submarines did it take to capture Fallujah? Not enough." Irronicly the
service that benefits most from his ideas, the Army, wants little to do
with them. For those not hip a "catalyst" (last paragraph) is not a
rancher.
washingtonpost.com
A Brain Pentagon Wants to Pick
Despite Controversy, Strategist Is Tapped as Valuable Resource
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 19, 2005; A19
Global security guru Thomas P.M. Barnett is in the unique position of
being embraced by Pentagon officials and top U.S. military commanders
as a visionary strategist -- even as he openly blames the defense
establishment for botching post-invasion operations in Iraq.
Barnett's best-selling 2004 book, "The Pentagon's New Map," offered a
thesis on the American military's future global role that the Defense
Department found so compelling and easy to grasp that it has invited
him to advise and brief hundreds of senior appointees and officers on
strategy. His book sold as many as 85,000 copies, and his prolific blog
entries -- which mix humor with often cutting insights on Pentagon
strategy -- are closely read in military and intelligence circles.
Now Barnett is back in Washington to unveil his sequel work, "Blueprint
for Action," in a closed-door speech this morning to a select group of
about 500 up-and-coming military officers and defense officials at the
National Defense University.
"No one ever said, 'cut it out' or 'shut up,' or ever put a squeeze on
me," Barnett said in an interview. (In a typical Web log, or blog,
entry yesterday, he wrote: "Iraq is doing just fine given [a] poorly
planned occupation (F to the neocons, C+ to the officers doing their
best in a crappy situation on the ground.")
Barnett spoke fresh from a tete-a-tete last week with the U.S.
four-star general who oversees the Middle East, Gen. John Abizaid, and
Abizaid's personal think tank. Col. Mant Hawkins, director of the think
tank, called Barnett's ideas "significantly visionary."
Barnett, an expert on Russia and the Warsaw Pact who holds a Harvard
doctorate in political science, was a professor of strategy at the
Naval War College and adviser to the Pentagon's Office of Force
Transformation when he devised a PowerPoint briefing that catapulted
him to prominence after Sept. 11, 2001.
He says that since the end of the Cold War, the biggest threats to
America and its allies come from underdeveloped, chaotic regions of the
Third World -- which he terms the "Gap" -- a zone disconnected from the
economic and technological advances of globalization.
To promote peace and combat terrorism, Barnett says that the U.S.
military and its partners in the world's developed "Core" must take on
a far more ambitious role in policing and nation-building in the Gap.
This would require the U.S. military to split into two distinct forces:
a high-tech military, termed the "Leviathan," capable of overthrowing
rogue regimes, as well as a larger corps of follow-on troops, called
the "System Administrators," specialized in peacekeeping and
rebuilding.
Barnett's underlying agenda is to "bring the military back into
society. They became very detached during the Cold War, like a separate
caste," he said. "They became very divorced after Vietnam, [saying] all
we're going to do is kill people -- not this nation-building stuff."
In his new book, Barnett offers a detailed plan for putting his ideas
into action, including a six-point program for transformingpolitically
bankrupt states. "Bad states go in, better states come out," he writes
in his characteristically flippant style.
It's a controversial concept that Barnett readily admits people have
tended to love or hate. "I was either a naive idealist or the cruelest
sort of realist, a wide-eyed prophet of global peace or the most
chilling, warmongering neocon they had ever seen," he writes.
Barnett doesn't shy from far-reaching statements in "Blueprint." In the
preface, he calls the U.S. military "a force for global good that I
believe has no equal." He forecasts the potential for "the most
peaceful period in human history, where war as we have known it for
centuries is banished from the strategic landscape."
But at the same time, Barnett, who backed the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein, offers hard-nosed analysis of the war in Iraq, instability in
the Middle East, and the rise of Asia. He's especially critical of the
Pentagon's "extremely spotty planning" for the Iraq occupation, which
he says "enabled the rise of the disastrously efficient insurgency."
Barnett says his biggest detractors -- one called him "insane" -- tend
to be Army officers averse to the peacekeeping role, as well as Navy,
Air Force and Army officials who see his thesis as undermining their
justifications for fighter jets, warships and expensive ground combat
systems. His advocacy of a U.S. security partnership with China, in
particular, galls some officers who see that nation as a major threat.
"You get people who want to sell $15 billion aircraft carriers, and his
vision is not so compelling," said Shane Deichman, chief of the
capabilities department for the U.S. military's Joint Forces Command,
in Norfolk, Va., which has incorporated Barnett's ideas in future
planning.
"It's kind of a joke," Barnett says. "How many Sea Wolf submarines did
it take to recapture Fallujah? Not enough."
Yet despite the controversy, requests for brainstorming sessions with
Barnett keep rolling in -- including those from Abizaid, who aides say
"absolutely" will ask him back, Gen. Bryan D. Brown, chief of the
secretive U.S. Special Operations Command, and from foreign militaries.
"Tom's grand strategic vision is not doubted at all," Deichman said.
"With his new book, he has described exactly what we're trying to do
with all levels of government." Perhaps most valued is Barnett's
ability to stimulate debate in a military still defined by its
war-fighting, Deichman said. "He's a catalyst."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801461_pf.html
a425couple
"Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> A Brain Pentagon Wants to Pick
> Despite Controversy, Strategist Is Tapped as Valuable Resource
> Global security guru Thomas P.M. Barnett
Lots of good stuff snipped.
Thank you Jack for posting this.
> To promote peace and combat terrorism, Barnett says that the U.S.
> military and its partners in the world's developed "Core" must take on
> a far more ambitious role in policing and nation-building in the Gap.
> This would require the U.S. military to split into two distinct forces:
> a high-tech military, termed the "Leviathan," capable of overthrowing
> rogue regimes,
I think our military is proven and capable of the "Leviathan" task.
> as well as a larger corps of follow-on troops, called
> the "System Administrators," specialized in peacekeeping and
> rebuilding.
In my humble and very limited opinion (which was certainly
greatly shaped by Vietnam and augmented since),
I have concerns with this (2nd) task for US troops.
First, just by our faces continuing to be present, we come
to be viewed as the hated forign army of occupation.
Our presence encorages increased resentment and opposition.
It also reduces the sense that that countries own 'middle ground'
needs to fight (and risk dying) to win.
Secondly, to be very blunt, in a world wide economy, our
forces are extremly expensive. We can do very good work,
but how many places can we stabilize and rebuild at one time ?
(and especially with first point - while increasing opposition?)
How large do we want our military to be?
I think it makes much more sense, if we can create true
world leading partnership, that for a problem country:
1. Our "high-tech military, termed Leviathan," do the shock
work of destroying the existing organized enemy.
Then 2. Get replaced by many many more troops and
rebuilders from a country that is less viewed as oppressors.
Yeah, bluntly, I'm talking of game of "Bad Cop & Good Cop".
If we could have a true working concensus of the leading
powers (weither it be UN Sec. Council, Core, G7, NATO,
Trilateral Commision -- whatever!!) teamworking as
described above, then petty dictators could see the
dangers of flirting with threats of "we will get our own
nuclear bomb."
Currently for example, I think both North Korea, Iran and
others see the US military as greatly 'consumed' in Iraq.
Where as, if it had quickly withdrawn, the "Leviathan"
could quickly rest, replace, rebuild and ready to go again.
William Black
"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zaOdnWygmOPHxsve...@comcast.com...
> I think it makes much more sense, if we can create true
> world leading partnership, that for a problem country:
> 1. Our "high-tech military, termed Leviathan," do the shock
> work of destroying the existing organized enemy.
> Then 2. Get replaced by many many more troops and
> rebuilders from a country that is less viewed as oppressors.
> Yeah, bluntly, I'm talking of game of "Bad Cop & Good Cop".
I'm sure the British could be made to play, they're getting quite good at
this sort of thing :-)
However there are the political realities to face as well.
For a start the British aren't trusted in the third of the world they used
to run, including Iraq...
Second, how trusted would be Brits be when the big rebuilding contracts are
given out.
If Halliburton didn't get a contract to rebuild the docks but a Brit firm
does I imagine the telephone lines would melt.
If the new army of the country suddenly decided to buy its armoured vehicles
from Armstrong's there'd be a similar 'bang and a flash'.
While the US Army may not like nation building there's serious money to be
made doing it.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Jack Linthicum
Anyone wanting to tap into Barnett's stream of consciousness he has
such on his webblog http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/
The ideas Barnett puts forth require adjustments on the part of a lot
of people and he is about the only person that believes in his ideas. I
make a comparison with John Boyd who was apparently personally a real
asshole but had ideas that have been put to use. We are now trying to
find Barnett's "Near Peer", a country big enough and pushy enough to
take us on, so the ideas that Boyd had can be put into action. You give
a boy a toy and he wants to play with it.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm
short version of the PNM published in Esquire
a425couple
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > world leading partnership, that for a problem country:
> > 1. Our "high-tech military, termed Leviathan," do the shock
> > work of destroying the existing organized enemy.
> > Then 2. Get replaced by many many more troops and
> > rebuilders from a country that is less viewed as oppressors.
> > Yeah, bluntly, I'm talking of game of "Bad Cop & Good Cop".
> I'm sure the British could be made to play, -quite good- :-)
> However there are the political realities to face as well.
> For a start the British aren't trusted in the ---
> Second, - big rebuilding contracts - Halliburton / Brit firm /Armstrong's
> US Army may not like nation building - serious money to be made
Wow! Quicker than I could verify my post went out,
you had responed with very valid comments. I envy you.
Yes, the finances do intrude. But if the "Core" would look and
seriously evaluate what they realisticly view the world's dangers
might be, - then maybe serious big picture compromises could
be worked out. Example, does a "North Korean N-bomb really
pose a threat?" "Are we going to posture and worry, or are we
going to do something?"
And I was not thinking of the UK being the prime provider of
manpower for the stabilizing and rebuilding force.
I was more thinking of the developing countries that still have
large numbers of personnel available at reasonable rates.
(Yeah, kind of globilization!)
For example, now in Iraq, I would think that 400,000 people
from other countries would be less polarizing than from US.
Off the top of my head (so please do not nitpick too badly),
Perhaps China, India, Indonesia, even Russia!
(no, , not Pakistan for this particular one, but fine elsewhere)
You want them to be from a developing country that has
made 'progress' with the ideas of democracy, rules of law,
and education. Anything but "Ugly American".
William Black
>
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> > "a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > I think it makes much more sense, if we can create true
> > > world leading partnership, that for a problem country:
> > > 1. Our "high-tech military, termed Leviathan," do the shock
> > > work of destroying the existing organized enemy.
> > > Then 2. Get replaced by many many more troops and
> > > rebuilders from a country that is less viewed as oppressors.
> > > Yeah, bluntly, I'm talking of game of "Bad Cop & Good Cop".
>
> > I'm sure the British could be made to play, -quite good- :-)
> > However there are the political realities to face as well.
> > For a start the British aren't trusted in the ---
> > Second, - big rebuilding contracts - Halliburton / Brit firm
/Armstrong's
> > US Army may not like nation building - serious money to be made
>
> Wow! Quicker than I could verify my post went out,
> you had responed with very valid comments. I envy you.
My ISP is very fast (and reasonably cheap and reliable), and I happened to
be on-line.
> Yes, the finances do intrude. But if the "Core" would look and
> seriously evaluate what they realisticly view the world's dangers
> might be, - then maybe serious big picture compromises could
> be worked out. Example, does a "North Korean N-bomb really
> pose a threat?" "Are we going to posture and worry, or are we
> going to do something?"
>
> And I was not thinking of the UK being the prime provider of
> manpower for the stabilizing and rebuilding force.
> I was more thinking of the developing countries that still have
> large numbers of personnel available at reasonable rates.
> (Yeah, kind of globilization!)
> For example, now in Iraq, I would think that 400,000 people
> from other countries would be less polarizing than from US.
> Off the top of my head (so please do not nitpick too badly),
> Perhaps China, India, Indonesia, even Russia!
> (no, , not Pakistan for this particular one, but fine elsewhere)
>
> You want them to be from a developing country that has
> made 'progress' with the ideas of democracy, rules of law,
> and education. Anything but "Ugly American".
The major problem with using Third World armies, as the UN has found, is
that they're not all staffed by honest people.
In many less developed countries the army is seen as a means of personal
enrichment rather than as 'just a job' as it is in most of Europe, or even
less 'a service to the nation' as it is in the United States.
There are notable exceptions, such as India, but not many.
Howard C. Berkowitz
<a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > A Brain Pentagon Wants to Pick
> > Despite Controversy, Strategist Is Tapped as Valuable Resource
> > By Ann Scott Tyson Washington Post October 19, 2005
> > Global security guru Thomas P.M. Barnett
> > Barnett's best-selling 2004 book, "The Pentagon's New Map,"
> > --unveil his sequel work, "Blueprint for Action,"
>
> Lots of good stuff snipped.
> Thank you Jack for posting this.
>
> > To promote peace and combat terrorism, Barnett says that the U.S.
> > military and its partners in the world's developed "Core" must take on
> > a far more ambitious role in policing and nation-building in the Gap.
> > This would require the U.S. military to split into two distinct forces:
> > a high-tech military, termed the "Leviathan," capable of overthrowing
> > rogue regimes,
>
> I think our military is proven and capable of the "Leviathan" task.
>
> > as well as a larger corps of follow-on troops, called
> > the "System Administrators," specialized in peacekeeping and
> > rebuilding.
>
> In my humble and very limited opinion (which was certainly
> greatly shaped by Vietnam and augmented since),
> I have concerns with this (2nd) task for US troops.
In Barnett's _The Pentagon's New Map_, the System Administrator force
is clearly described as multinational, and not necessarily US dominated
or led.
>
> First, just by our faces continuing to be present, we come
> to be viewed as the hated forign army of occupation.
> Our presence encorages increased resentment and opposition.
> It also reduces the sense that that countries own 'middle ground'
> needs to fight (and risk dying) to win.
>
> Secondly, to be very blunt, in a world wide economy, our
> forces are extremly expensive. We can do very good work,
> but how many places can we stabilize and rebuild at one time ?
> (and especially with first point - while increasing opposition?)
> How large do we want our military to be?
Again, Barnett doesn't assume the SA force is US.
>
> I think it makes much more sense, if we can create true
> world leading partnership, that for a problem country:
> 1. Our "high-tech military, termed Leviathan," do the shock
> work of destroying the existing organized enemy.
> Then 2. Get replaced by many many more troops and
> rebuilders from a country that is less viewed as oppressors.
> Yeah, bluntly, I'm talking of game of "Bad Cop & Good Cop".
>
> Currently for example, I think both North Korea, Iran and
> others see the US military as greatly 'consumed' in Iraq.
> Where as, if it had quickly withdrawn, the "Leviathan"
> could quickly rest, replace, rebuild and ready to go again.
Leviathan isn't limited to the US. Perhaps the closest example to
Barnett's approach was the British intervention in Sierra Leone, taking
down Foday Sankoh's militia, and then withdrawing as the regional
ECOMOG force came in as system administrator. France also has acted as
Leviathan in Chad and Ivory Coast, although the followup there seemed
to be parts of the existing country's political system.
Andrew Chaplin
>
> The major problem with using Third World armies, as the UN has
found, is
> that they're not all staffed by honest people.
>
> In many less developed countries the army is seen as a means of
personal
> enrichment rather than as 'just a job' as it is in most of Europe,
or even
> less 'a service to the nation' as it is in the United States.
>
> There are notable exceptions, such as India, but not many.
I was in El Salvador in '92 with Scandahooligans, Irishmen, Spaniards,
Columbians, Argentinians, Ecuadorans and Indians. Of that lot, the
best by far were the Indians, and they were the only ones we took at
their word. The Argies weren't bad, but somewhat temperamental. The
Irish could not be relied upon over the rank of captain. If it hadn't
been for Lt-Col Bikram Singh of the Sikh Light Infantry, our mob in
Santa Ana would never have got across the LoD, nor would we have had
any relief.
One of the greatest handicaps in any UN mission is there is rarely any
common understanding of what ethics are.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Jack Linthicum
October 20, 2005
Done taping "After Words" on C-SPAN, which will be shown not THIS
weekend, but Halloween weekend
Back to the Jefferson Hotel after taping with Rep. Tom Feeney, who
really knew both his PNM and BFA. He did a much better job of
interviewing me than I anticipated (I mean, what to expect in terms of
preparation from a super-busy Congressman?).
We ask about the broadcast and it will not be this weekend (22-23 Oct)
but NEXT weekend (29-30).
Back here and online, I notice that that is exactly what the C-SPAN guy
emailed me a few hours ago. I just didn't notice the dates because what
I had originally heard from Putnam was that C-SPAN would broadcast this
coming weekend.
But, frankly, I just never figured that was likely, whether it was a
real promise or not, because there's just no way C-SPAN would head into
a weekend without one in the can long before Thursday. If there's one
in the can, then broadcasting mine versus somebody else's would mean
the other person's episode either got bumped or the network wouldn't
decide til the last minute (possible enough, given the culture.)
Why wish for the coming weekend so much? Hope that the show would
generate sales on top of all the pre-sales to crack the "list," meaning
a hope for critical mass of PR generating the requisite velocity.
Then again, you can only control so much and obsessing over this gets
you nowhere.
You just want to be sure you give every day your best shot. Big point
is, there will be plenty of books in the stores when it airs. Plus I
can watch it at home with my family instead of on the road. Much
cooler.
Much more important today: our little Vonne Mei kept all four of her
endangered teeth--each of them successfully crowned. Four crowns before
her second birthday. No picnic. But we thank God for small favors.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 06:09 PM Evoked? Provoked? Ask Tom or
discuss at Blogging the Future
a425couple
> In , a425couple a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Jack Linthicum" <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > Global security guru Thomas P.M. Barnett-'s best-selling 2004 book,
> > > "The Pentagon's New Map," --& "Blueprint for Action,"
> > > To promote peace and combat terrorism, Barnett says that the U.S.
> > > military and its partners in the world's developed "Core" must take on
> > > a far more ambitious role in policing and nation-building in the Gap.
military,
> > > termed the "Leviathan," capable of overthrowing rogue regimes,
> > I think our military is proven and capable of the "Leviathan" task.
> > > Administrators," specialized in peacekeeping and rebuilding.
> > In my humble and very limited opinion (which was certainly
> > greatly shaped by Vietnam and augmented since),
> > I have concerns with this (2nd) task for US troops.
> In Barnett's _The Pentagon's New Map_, the System Administrator force
Thank you for clarifying this Howard.
I admit to ignorance about Barnett and his books and just replied
based on the excerpt (" This would require the U.S. military to split
into two distinct forces: -high-tech military/ "Leviathan," capable of
overthrowing rogue regimes, as well as a larger corps of follow-on troops,
called the "System Administrators," (for) peacekeeping and rebuilding."
I'm well aware sumarizing/paraphrasing by reporters can distort, and
am very glad Barnett's true views do not conflict with "my senses".
I can understand that the US military must gain/retain some capability
to "do all things" needed. This SA/peacekeeping/rebuilding is
critical, and in many ways the toughest - and most productive job.
But I still feel that considering the political realities of world
perception, that the US military (and US industrial/bureaucratic complex)
would likely have more problems being accepted in this role.
Trust and goodwill are critical for this SA/peacekeeping/rebuilding.
As I earlier commented re: Good Cop vrs Bad Cop, sometimes
(even if you are smarter, kinder, etc. , , it is much better to just
get replaced by another.)
> > I think it makes much more sense, if we can create true
> > world leading partnership, that for a problem country:
> > 1. Our "high-tech military, termed Leviathan," do the shock
> > work of destroying the existing organized enemy.
> > Then 2. Get replaced by many many more troops and
> > rebuilders from a country that is less viewed as oppressors.
> > Currently for example, I think both North Korea, Iran and
> > others see the US military as greatly 'consumed' in Iraq.
> > Where as, if it had quickly withdrawn, the "Leviathan"
> > could quickly rest, replace, rebuild and ready to go again.
>
> Leviathan isn't limited to the US. --
Agreed, and I certainly did not mean to imply I thought so.
Any "Core" country can do that task, or help contribute
to a coalition in doing that task to a major "rouge"
Jack Linthicum
One of things missing from a military -based discussion of Barnett is
his belief that globalization is the United States' true gift to the
world. His Core states are in the globalization sphere his rogue states
are outside the globalization sphere. The new map is to keep adding
rogue states to the Core and bringing the world into a truly unified
whole. This is one reason why he thinks China and the United States
will go hand in hand into the future rather than fight. Barnett's
concept is economic and that may be why he hasn't penetrated the
Pentagon's military view of the world.
Jack Linthicum
One problem with a blogging hot author is they seem to wait until the
last minute to announce any appearances. I would guess the 92nd Street
Y show will be open to all, might call if interested and nearby.
Brain . . . dead
Dateline: Jefferson Hotel, Washington DC, 21 October 2005
Watched NDU tape last night, which I guess the college will make
available on their website for public to view soon (according to one
eager fellow who's investigated it for me), and I was pretty happy,
given this was the first time I had done that brief. I will review the
tape over the weekend--slide by slide--so I might boost the PPT slides
to capture what I'm saying that could more logically be presented
visually to drive the point home. I target this for the 92nd Street Y
presentation on the 23rd, where I'll go an hour (perfect) and then do
Q&A.
a425couple
"Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote
> "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
> > The major problem with using Third World armies, as
> > In many less developed countries the army is seen as a means
> > of personal enrichment rather than as 'just a job' as it is in
> > most of Europe, or even less 'a service to the nation' as it
> > is in the United States.
> > There are notable exceptions, such as India, but not many.
>
> I was in El Salvador in '92 with Scandahooligans, Irishmen, Spaniards,
> Columbians, Argentinians, Ecuadorans and Indians. Of that lot, the
> best by far were the Indians, and they were the only ones we took at
> their word. The Argies weren't bad, but somewhat temperamental. The
> Irish could not be relied upon over the rank of captain. If it hadn't
> been for Lt-Col Bikram Singh of the Sikh Light Infantry, our mob in
> Santa Ana would never have got across the LoD, nor would we have had
> any relief.
> One of the greatest handicaps in any UN mission is there is rarely any
> common understanding of what ethics are.
If you or William (or any other) care to write more about
this general subject, I would be interested in reading it.
My interest kinda launched out earlier, and I found an interesting
site www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/database/
armies/default.asp
I will not pretend to understand it all, but it lists all countries
by such things as Population, GDP, number active in military,
annual cost per military person, some key equipment #s,
some quality factors, (doesn't list ethics, but maybe considers
similar in ranking 'leadership', 'experience' and 'tradition')
and ranks by military power.
On the budget per (military) man, it shows (as predictable)
In "Core" US at $243, Canada 146, UK 176, France 144,
Germany 107, Russia 82, Japan 196.
My interest was drawn towards the countries with large
militaries and low cost per man.
(I accept to a large extent you get what you pay for, but as
discussed the 'SA' function may not need 'leavation' quality).
India 1,250,000 men at $12 each,
Pakistan 610,000 at 5
Myanmar 420,000 at 5 (huh??)
China 2,100,000 at 19
Indonesia 290,000 at 4
Ukraine 300,000 at 3 (I do not understand that!)
Poland 200,000 at 17
I was surprised at some of the Americas,
Brazil 285,000 at $63 (why?)
Mexico 190,000 at 29
Columbia 160,000 at 15 (probably needed internally)
And quite disgusted with some figures
North Korea 24 million pop., one million in military, at $1 each.
I believe you posters somewhat understand my point.
But to put one part out, it may be this:
Some countries have raised militaries to meet a percieved
threat, then when these threats have gone away the problem
is how to demilitarize. Do it too quickly and you have
problem of massive unemployment and disruptive influence.
Would it not be better to try to use them to help a world
wide problem (while at same time helping that country).
An adjunct, It can be somewhat believed that India
and Pakistan were gearing toward war, but cooler heads
prevaled. "No point of ego here, is worth the cost of war,
your duty as a moral leaders of a developing country is
to properly feed, house, and educate your people, and
that is best done in peace and developing economic
trade (globalization)." Can we move toward "win-win"?
These figures could be used to argue that Bangladesh
131 mil population, only 135,000 in military, $5 each,
has perhaps understood, "nobody wants to conquor you!"
Jack Linthicum
I have found a recent and actually naval context for Barnett and his
first book, The Pentagon's New Map. It appears the new CNO has read it
and uses it to justify a 'dirt Navy', a replacement for the on-board
Marine detachments that seem to be forming their own force.
The Navy Applies PNM To Its Future
Did the new CNO read "Pentagon's New Map"?
Fleetmfbadge
As the USMC (United States Marine Corps) has largely become a separate
entity (you're more likely to see a Marine jet squadron onboard an
aircraft carrier than you are a Marine standing the once traditional
role of a sentry on the ship) from the US Navy, the Navy's new
CNO,Admiral Mullen, has decided to return the service to its
"go-ashore" essence with a daring plan to establish a naval
infantry. While details are not yet fully available, the
"Expeditionary Combat Battalion" will likely consist of infantry
elements that can project power ashore and support forces (like
hospital corpsmen) that back them up. There are other interesting
proposals floating around to go along with this; like a civil affairs
augment to Seabee battalions, special warfare combat helicopter
squadrons and extensive foreign language training for some if not most
of the ECG forces.
Amazingly, most of the required personnel and infrastructure are
already readily available within the Navy. On many ships (small boys
especially), "TAD" (Temporary Assigned Duty) personnel (usually
from the Gunner's Mate, Boatswain Mate and Fire Control man job
ratings, or "MOS" as non-squids say) form boarding parties that
board and search suspect ships in hot zones, like the Persian Gulf and
East Africa. This means that given additional training and an expansion
of the current boarding team program (to both offset losses to the ECG
and act as a pipeline for interested sailors in the future), the Navy
has a substantial pool of personnel available to form the backbone of
the ECG (which is only expected for the conceivable future to be a few
thousand personnel). Hospital corpsmen (some of whom already deploy
with the Marines everywhere) already have many of the likely perquisite
ECG skills to offer considerable support to ECG ops. UPDATE: This
doesn't even include the many talented and worthy individuals who don't
quite make it through BUDS to become Navy Seals (thank you Senior Chief
Arrojo for pointing that out this evening).
Where the Navy will likely have a problem is in the successful
development of "brown water" ships. We're good to go on the
aircraft carriers, submarines and new destroyers/cruisers/frigates, but
the Navy still has a lot of issues to work on in regards to the brown
water assets. A bold plan for the personnel will have to be followed by
a bold plan for the hardware they'll need in the mid-term future to
truly form an effective ECG. Its critical for the Navy to make sure it
fights for the ships it needs in budget battles in the future.
All of which makes the Navy-Marine Corps fighting team, already the
strongest military force the US has, that much more potent.
But where does it fit into the strategic picture?
Admiral Mullen must have read "Pentagon's New Map", as he's
incorporating PNM related ideas into his new strategy for the Fleet
with this Leviathan/Sys Admin force in the making. The "Leviathan"
force, the ECG, can go ashore and launch raids (like punitive
expeditions or counterterrorism operations) or incorporate the use of
lethal force to stabilize the situation (like in a war-ravaged coastal
city in a place like Liberia, Indonesia or Mexico) to prepare for the
deployment of the larger Sys Admin force (corpsmen, Seabees, logistics
types (SKs-storekeepers), master at arms (the military police of the
Navy) to begin humanitarian aid or short-term peacekeeping.
The scope of the Navy's operations overseas in the future will
increasingly call for a Navy that is able to conduct brown-water ops
(requiring vessels capable of traversing coastal waterways with
relative ease as well as on occasion certain in-land waterways) as well
as ashore operations.
With the widespread deployment of Marines to Iraq (and conceivably,
Syria or Iran in the future), the Navy has no choice but to develop the
ECG both to remain competitive in beltway budget politics as well as to
hone a capability its had the whole time but never properly utilized.
The ECG represents another refreshing chapter in the Navy's ongoing
21st century reformation/revitalization, where the Navy has led the way
in updating the archaic personnel system that has burdened and harmed
the military for decades now as well as spearheading new force
compositions (like the Expeditionary Strike Group combination of
Marines, ships, aircraft and Sailors) that match well with the new
realities of the era of 9/11 and bridging the "Gap".
So what are we waiting for? Where can I sign up after going to intel
specialist school next year?
UPDATE: Thank you to Zenpundit for posting about this (adding his own,
far-better analysis) and bringing it to the attention of the fine folks
at Dr. Barnett's PNM blog.
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/
More On The "Dirt Navy"
Via Naval Open Source Intelligence, I discovered a recent article on
the "dirt navy" concept. Apparently, full details will be announced
later this month, but the article adds some tidbits and updates I had
not seen before. This concept looks even better now:
...."The sailors of history were armed men who swarmed enemy ships and
beaches. During World War II, that job became the specialty of the
Marines. No one suggests a return to the old days; there are other ways
to "bring it to the enemy," as Kirk put it.
Among the proposals:
- A "riverine" component that will take over operations of a
now-disbanded Marine company.
- A force trained to overcome opposition on tricky ship boardings -
currently the role of the over-tasked SEALs.
- Teams who accompany the boarding force to quickly gather intelligence
about crew and cargo.
- Detachments with officers specially trained in foreign cultures and
regions.
If the expeditionary force materializes, candidates will probably be
sailors who didn't quite make the cut for the elite SEALs.
"You have to be really good to even try out for that," said Andrew
Feickert, a defense specialist at the Congressional Research Service.
"It makes sense to put those sort of people together in this sort of
unit to see what they can contribute."
Another military analyst said it also makes good money sense to switch
more sailors from long-range weapons to a more personal type of
warfare.
"We're fighting a different type of war now," said Bob Work of
the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "This one has
lots of boots on the ground. So if the Navy wants its cut of the budget
pie - and that's always a concern - it's got to get in there.
This one can't be fought from a mile or two offshore."
2005.10.22 in Military | Permalink
William Black
>
> "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote
> > "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
> > > The major problem with using Third World armies, as
> > > UN has found, is that they're not all staffed by honest people.
> > > In many less developed countries the army is seen as a means
> > > of personal enrichment rather than as 'just a job' as it is in
> > > most of Europe, or even less 'a service to the nation' as it
> > > is in the United States.
> > > There are notable exceptions, such as India, but not many.
> >
> > I was in El Salvador in '92 with Scandahooligans, Irishmen, Spaniards,
> > Columbians, Argentinians, Ecuadorans and Indians. Of that lot, the
> > best by far were the Indians, and they were the only ones we took at
> > their word. The Argies weren't bad, but somewhat temperamental. The
> > Irish could not be relied upon over the rank of captain. If it hadn't
> > been for Lt-Col Bikram Singh of the Sikh Light Infantry, our mob in
> > Santa Ana would never have got across the LoD, nor would we have had
> > any relief.
> > One of the greatest handicaps in any UN mission is there is rarely any
> > common understanding of what ethics are.
>
> If you or William (or any other) care to write more about
> this general subject, I would be interested in reading it.
The Indian Army inherited the traditions of the British 'Indian Army' along
with its low pay and large numbers.
Amongst those traditions were loyalty to the political authorities and the
idea of long service being a good thing. In India, as in the UK, a career
in the army is not seen as a stepping stone to political high office.
This means that, unlike in many poor countries, the Army can be relied upon
to do stuff reasonably well and also to resent political meddling.
I am informed that serious shock waves went right through the Indian Army
when Mrs Ghandi was assassinated by her army bodyguard, to the extent that
many senior officers offered their resignations from a feeling of shame.
Andrew Chaplin
>
> The Indian Army inherited the traditions of the British 'Indian
Army' along
> with its low pay and large numbers.
>
> Amongst those traditions were loyalty to the political authorities
and the
> idea of long service being a good thing. In India, as in the UK,
a career
> in the army is not seen as a stepping stone to political high
office.
>
> This means that, unlike in many poor countries, the Army can be
relied upon
> to do stuff reasonably well and also to resent political meddling.
>
> I am informed that serious shock waves went right through the Indian
Army
> when Mrs Ghandi was assassinated by her army bodyguard, to the
extent that
> many senior officers offered their resignations from a feeling of
shame.
One of the things I learned from the Indian officers was that their
army had, over some years, been homogenizing the regiments so that,
for instance, Sikh regiments were no longer all Sikhs. I believe this
process was accelerated by the murder of Mme Ghandi. One of the
officers I worked with wore the badges of a Sikh regiment but was
Nepali. For me, it was rather like seeing a "Chaplin" in the Vandoos.
Fred J. McCall
:
:"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
:news:z42dnfwVfqRy_cfe...@comcast.com...
:>
:> "Andrew Chaplin" <ab.ch...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote
:> > "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
:> > > The major problem with using Third World armies, as
:> > > UN has found, is that they're not all staffed by honest people.
:> > > In many less developed countries the army is seen as a means
:> > > of personal enrichment rather than as 'just a job' as it is in
:> > > most of Europe, or even less 'a service to the nation' as it
:> > > is in the United States.
:> > > There are notable exceptions, such as India, but not many.
:> >
:> > I was in El Salvador in '92 with Scandahooligans, Irishmen, Spaniards,
:> > Columbians, Argentinians, Ecuadorans and Indians. Of that lot, the
:> > best by far were the Indians, and they were the only ones we took at
:> > their word. The Argies weren't bad, but somewhat temperamental. The
:> > Irish could not be relied upon over the rank of captain. If it hadn't
:> > been for Lt-Col Bikram Singh of the Sikh Light Infantry, our mob in
:> > Santa Ana would never have got across the LoD, nor would we have had
:> > any relief.
:> > One of the greatest handicaps in any UN mission is there is rarely any
:> > common understanding of what ethics are.
:>
:> If you or William (or any other) care to write more about
:> this general subject, I would be interested in reading it.
:
:The Indian Army inherited the traditions of the British 'Indian Army' along
:with its low pay and large numbers.
One must also compare the 'low pay' numbers to the average income of
the rest of the country and the 'dollars per man' to the GDP per
capita. There are a lot worse things in most Third World countries
than being a professional military man.
--
"This is a war of the unknown warriors; but let all strive
without failing in faith or in duty...."
-- Winston Churchill
T3
Was his name Singh? All Sikhs are Singh's, but not all Signh's are Sikh!
;)
a425couple
"William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
> > > "William Black" <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
> > > > The major problem with using Third World armies, as
> > > > UN has found, is that they're not all staffed by honest people.
> > > > In many less developed countries the army is seen as a means
> > > > of personal enrichment rather than as 'just a job' as it is in
> > > > most of Europe, or even less 'a service to the nation' as it
> > > > is in the United States.
> > > > There are notable exceptions, such as India, but not many.
> > > I was in El Salvador in '92 with Scandahooligans, Irishmen, Spaniards,
> > > Columbians, Argentinians, Ecuadorans and Indians. Of that lot, the
> > > best by far were the Indians,
> > > common understanding of what ethics are.
> The Indian Army inherited the traditions of the British 'Indian Army'
along
Good stuff from 3, thank you.
But should this not also be true of Pakistan?
Or does this take us back to a recurring theme in
soc.history.war.misc about why are Islamic countries ----?
And very specificly to Andrew, what was problem with the Norse?
Certainly well educated and respecting of human rights and
democracy and rule of law. Seems they would be eager to help?
The Norweigans and Finns fought pretty decently in WWII.
And I'm kinda surprised the figures I posted of other
countries did not draw any attention.
a425couple
> his belief that globalization is the United States' true gift to the
> world. His Core states are in the globalization sphere his rogue states
> are outside the globalization sphere. The new map is to keep adding
> rogue states to the Core and bringing the world into a truly unified
> whole. This is one reason why he thinks China and the United States
> will go hand in hand into the future rather than fight. Barnett's
> concept is economic and that may be why he hasn't penetrated the
> Pentagon's military view of the world.
Wonderful information there Jack.
All that fits very well with my humble thoughts.
Meanwhile, I am sure you had good reasons, a few of
which I think I understand (perhaps fewer, more thoughtful,
less bomblastic posters), but would you mind if I posted
the earlier post (your 10-21) over on soc.history.war.misc.?
Andrew Chaplin
news:IbA6f.166083$xl6.1...@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Andrew Chaplin wrote:
> >
> > One of the things I learned from the Indian officers was that
their
> > army had, over some years, been homogenizing the regiments so
that,
> > for instance, Sikh regiments were no longer all Sikhs. I believe
this
> > process was accelerated by the murder of Mme Ghandi. One of the
> > officers I worked with wore the badges of a Sikh regiment but was
> > Nepali. For me, it was rather like seeing a "Chaplin" in the
Vandoos.
>
> Was his name Singh? All Sikhs are Singh's, but not all Signh's are
Sikh!
> ;)
"Gurung".
Jack Linthicum
Saturday, October 29th, 6 and 9 PM Sunday, October 30th.
After Words
A Weekly Look at Selected Book TV Programs
On Sunday, October 30 at 9:00 pm and at 6:00 pm
After Words: Thomas P.M. Barnett interviewed by Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)
Description: This week on After Words Thomas P.M. Barnett discusses his
book "Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating." It's his
strategic roadmap for U.S. foreign policy and a plan to strengthen
national security. He is interviewed by Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL).
Author Bio: Thomas P.M. Barnett is the author of "The Pentagon's New
Map." He is the managing director of Enterra Solutions, which provides
advanced information integration and security in the private and
federal sectors. He advises the office of the Secretary of Defense,
Special Operations Command, and the Joint Forces Command. Rep. Tom
Feeney (R-FL) represents the 24th district of Florida. In Congress,
Rep. Feeney serves on the financial Services and judiciary committees
including the subcommittee on crime, terrorism, and homeland security,
as well as the science committee which oversees NASA, and serves as a
Deputy Whip.
