1
   

Offshoot of tribalism concept in joe's long thread:

 
 
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 02:22 pm
Got me to thinking about whether we are still focussed on being part of a small tribe or a global tribe... Perhaps Bush has been reading the work of Thomas Barnett? He contends that we cannot play by the rules that worked in WW2, or during the cold war, that there are a new set of rules, and Bush is trying to get the whole world to play by them: that Iraq, and countries like theirs are trying to remain separate from the globalization process, which is inevitable, and going to define us in the future... Confused... I'm not sure *I* can explain just what this all means, but let me try to give it a shot... Samuel Huntington wrote, The Clash of Civilizations, positing that the future wars would be cause by civilizations bumping up against each other, like fault lines or something... with differing values placed upon being connected bumping up against content flow (think of this example: how different cultures would welcome the Internet, which brings information, but also access to pornography...) Thomas Friedman offered another scenario: with competency vs. culture: think high tech goods vs. a simple life... These are the 2 main choices in the world as its borders become less defined and global possibilities change one and all (for the better? in the future... Bush isn't waging a war just against Iraq... He is waging a war to advance globalization... attempting to define the old divisions with new ones the U.S. and other powerful countries will be in control of defining... in other words, setting the rules for the future... do you follow me so far? Maybe, just maybe this is what it's all about... Maybe we have been arguing about what is right or wrong based upon the old rules set in place after WW2... Maybe they worked for the world then, but this is a new world... Maybe...

Anyway, Barnett has written a book, The Pentagon's New Map which suggests this is what is going on... And Bush isn't just being an arrogant asshole, but is actually redefining where tribalism is going... and it's going toward a global tribe of haves... Confused http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0399151753/002-4689540-8160050?v=glance

Here is an article: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/published/pentagonsnewmap.htm
Quote:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 865 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 02:38 pm
Bookmark
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 04:08 pm
I know I always say somewhat dumb things, but what does it mean when someone simply post "bookmark" around here?

As for bush being complex enough to come up with all that, I can't hardly see it. I think he was simply chosen by those in the plan for a new american century because of his connections. but that is just my guess.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 04:24 pm
revel, to "bookmark" a thread is just a way of assuring that any new posts on that thread will be brought to your attention, either via e-mail updates or by being included in the "your posts" portfolio. This precludes the need for having to browse all through a given category to find the thread again. It's a way to start participating in the thread w/o actually posting anything...yet.

Then there are those verbose bastids, like myself, who take up unconcionable amounts of space, posting something not at all germane to the subject, just so that they, too, will have "bookmarked" it. Smile
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 05:00 pm
read it through once. digesting. I must be missing something because I'm not hearing a new way of looking at the world other than defining the Third World as the Gap.

bookmark.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 07:47 pm
Joe Nation wrote:
read it through once. digesting. I must be missing something because I'm not hearing a new way of looking at the world other than defining the Third World as the Gap.

bookmark.


You actually read all that verbiage, Joe? No wonder your avatar has a pair of strong looking glasses. Me, I just skimmed it real quick-like in order to have some concept of what's being discussed here.

Merry (still pretty much in the dark) Andrew
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 08:02 pm
Thanks Merry Andrew for answering my question. I think I will explore a little and see if there is bookmark button push as that sounded like a good idea.

I just find it distasteful to try and be world manipulaters no matter the motivation myself.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 09:01 pm
I see that the neocons are pushing for globalization, and they maintaing the result will be world-wide democracy. But, if the same persons in charge today are anywhere close to successful, I believe it will be a fascist system with the poor struggling by with the scraps from the corporate table of plenty.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 09:04 pm
Ok, lemme try again... Embarrassed Ahem, what if Dubya isn't being an asswipe defining culture for Iraq and other countries who reject what America and the rest of the connected-to-power countries (defined after WW2 as U.S., Western Europe, and Japan) have to offer but, rather is redefining tribalism as being global in nature... Before, we have nationalistic tendencies which grew out of tribalism. Rather than being an asswipe, just suppose he is attempting to redefine things to meet new needs...? Confused Think about it, the old rules were put into place after WW2, when technology had just had a boom... and we had another boom with the Information Age... The World Trade Center represented the global connectedness and the freedom it unleashes, a new world where a computer virus could be more destructive than just about anything... What is at the other end of the spectrum? Barefoot and pregnant repressed women? The poor down trodden of any third world nation- or Islamic nation?- with the elite hoarding the wealth... In a general sense, any country that rejects *our* values is against us- as Bush has said time and again. Now, of course, he could just be being an arrogant elitist thinking *his* views are the best ones to hold, but what if he is on the brink something major in history- a new age, the global one, with a need for a new rule set, and he is somehow the one who gets to define it for the rest of the world? and by doing so, he redefines the boundaries of tribalism to be the best technologically, and the rest...? Does that make any more sense?

I'm not sure I think that's good for everybody, but I'm willing to imagine that that may be what he is trying to do...
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Sun 9 Jan, 2005 09:17 pm
If he is then he still has it wrong, P, the opposition to the US isn't about our ideas or values, it's about our actions.

J
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2005 03:26 am
revel -- actually, there is a "bookmark button." Check the lower right hand corner of this page. You can click on "Turn on email updates" and accomplish the same thing as typing something into this here li'l box. Typing in "bookmark" or some other one-word code is just an old habit from forums where no such service was available, e.g. Abuzz.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2005 07:02 am
This sure is shaping up to be one high tech forum. It will probably take me years (if ever) to figure it all out.

thanks again.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2005 09:07 am
Re: Offshoot of tribalism concept in joe's long thread:
There's a lot here, so I'll pick and choose a few quotations for comment.

Thomas Barnett wrote:
The reason I support going to war in Iraq is not simply that Saddam is a cutthroat Stalinist willing to kill anyone to stay in power, nor because that regime has clearly supported terrorist networks over the years. The real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire Gap as a strategic threat environment.

This is the luxury of someone whose biggest decision of the day is whether to get cappucino or a latte at Starbucks. Barnett accuses others of engaging in false binary thinking, yet presents the same sort of false dichotomy when assessing the US's options with regard to Iraq: either total disengagement or invasion. Policymakers should, on the other hand, know that there are other options available.

Thomas Barnett wrote:
If you take this message from Osama and combine it with our military-intervention record of the last decade, a simple security rule set emerges: A country's potential to warrant a U.S. military response is inversely related to its globalization connectivity. There is a good reason why Al Qaeda was based first in Sudan and then later in Afghanistan: These are two of the most disconnected countries in the world. Look at the other places U.S. Special Operations Forces have recently zeroed in on: northwestern Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen. We are talking about the ends of the earth as far as globalization is concerned.

This is actually some good advice. Of course, following it would mean that the Pentagon should scrap any plans for a missile defense shield, since such "Gap" countries don't have any ICBMs.

Thomas Barnett wrote:

Well, this is rather confusing. Israel is criticized for being a bully among bullies, but what does Barnett see as America's role in the Mideast? As another bully, of course.

Thomas Barnett wrote:
But it is the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it, and we are the only country that can. Freedom cannot blossom in the Middle East without security, and security is this country's most influential public-sector export. By that I do not mean arms exports, but basically the attention paid by our military forces to any region's potential for mass violence. We are the only nation on earth capable of exporting security in a sustained fashion, and we have a very good track record of doing it.

And here is really the "core" of the problem: Barnett equates "invading countries" with "exporting security." As is evidenced from events in Iraq, that clearly hasn't proven to be a valid equation.

Thomas Barnett wrote:
Show me a part of the world that is secure in its peace and I will show you strong or growing ties between local militaries and the U.S. military. Show me regions where major war is inconceivable and I will show you permanent U.S. military bases and long-term security alliances. Show me the strongest investment relationships in the global economy and I will show you two postwar military occupations that remade Europe and Japan following World War II.

A classic correlation-causation fallacy (in this case, a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy). Barnett looks at a map and says "wherever the US is, there also is peace;" hence he concludes that the US presence causes the peace. To put it mildly, the causal link that Barnett assumes is largely unproven.
0 Replies
 
princesspupule
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jan, 2005 06:41 pm
Re: Offshoot of tribalism concept in joe's long thread:
joefromchicago wrote:
There's a lot here, so I'll pick and choose a few quotations for comment.

Thomas Barnett wrote:
Show me a part of the world that is secure in its peace and I will show you strong or growing ties between local militaries and the U.S. military. Show me regions where major war is inconceivable and I will show you permanent U.S. military bases and long-term security alliances. Show me the strongest investment relationships in the global economy and I will show you two postwar military occupations that remade Europe and Japan following World War II.

A classic correlation-causation fallacy (in this case, a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy). Barnett looks at a map and says "wherever the US is, there also is peace;" hence he concludes that the US presence causes the peace. To put it mildly, the causal link that Barnett assumes is largely unproven.


I agree w/what you say, and have read some about this Thomas P.M. Barnett guy, and he is a professor as well as
Quote:
Senior Strategic Researcher in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, U.S. Naval War College. Currently, Thomas is on temporary assignment as the Assistant for Strategic Futures, Office of Force Transformation (OFT), Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he is working with OFT Director Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski (USN, ret.) on a cluster of strategic concepts that link change in the international security environment to the imperative of transforming U.S. military capabilities to meet future threats.

http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail238.html

So I think you are right on the money about his real world decisions being more about which coffee to get than something more sensational, but he's an interesting guy and I believe has access to Dubya's ear... Here's another of his concepts,
Quote:
Consider this compelling analogy from Barnett: I believe that history will judge the 1990s much like the Roaring Twenties -- just a little too good to be true. Both decades threw the major rule sets out of whack: new forms of behavior, activity, and connectivity arose among individuals, companies, and countries, but the rule sets that normally guide such interactions were overwhelmed. These traditional rule sets simply could not keep up with all that change happening so quickly . . . Eventually the situation spins out of control and nobody really knows what to do. Economic crashes effectively marked the end of both tumultuous decades, followed by the rise of seemingly new sorts of security threats to the international order. In the 1930s, it was fascism and Nazi Germany, while today most security experts will tell you it is radical Islam and transnational terrorism. In both instances, the community of states committed to maintaining global order was deeply torn over what to do about these new security threats -- try to accommodate them or fight them head-on in war? . . . My shorthand for rule-set divergence in the 1990s is roughly the same one I would offer for the 1920s: economics got ahead of politics and technology got ahead of security . . . We didn't construct sufficient political and security rule sets to keep pace with all this growing connectivity. In some ways, we got lazy, counted a little too much on the market to sort it all out, and then woke up shocked and amazed on 9/11 to find ourselves apparently invited to a global war."
http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail238.html

But I think you are wrong about him making a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. I think he isn't concluding that the U.S. brings peace by being a bully. I think he's suggesting that we are the only nation large enough to define what the global tribe of the future's area and rules will be... http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail238.html
Quote:
He argues that the Cold War strategy of "containment" no longer applies. We cannot simply contain the Gap, we must shrink it. And the U.S., as the only remaining superpower and the only nation with a truly transnational military, must lead the way in shrinking the Gap.

Barnet believes the U.S. has a moral responsibility to provide a "security export" to the rest of the world and to spend its time NOT just envisioning ways to mitigate disaster and global conflict, but to envisioning a "future worth creating." "There is no denying that problems in the Gap reflect a tremendous legacy of past abuse and unfairness on the part of the Core in general," he argues, "but shrinking the Gap as a strategic vision is not about making amends for the past. Instead, it is a practical strategy for dealing with the present danger that will -- on regular occasion, I believe -- reach into our good life and cause us much pain if we continue to ignore it. But more than just looking out for ourselves, shrinking the Gap is a strategy that also speaks to a better future for the roughly one-third of humanity that continues to live and die in the Gap."
and
Quote:
Regardless of your political and religious persuasion, regardless of your support or opposition of the current Administration, you cannot secede from this debate. The decision cannot be made by default or by a political process that does not include the collective voice of our citizens. Barnett appears to be the only person telling us the full truth about this engagement and its cost: " . . . we are never leaving the Gap and we are never 'bringing our boys home.' There is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking the Gap, and if there is no exiting the Gap, then we'd better stop kidding ourselves about 'exit strategies.' No exit means no exit strategy."

Whether you can reluctantly accept this result as inevitable, or it frightens you to the core, there is no denying that we, as a nation, cannot shrink the Gap and care for our own citizens in any reasonable way IN THE FACE OF continued tax cuts and deficit spending. We must wake up, consider the challenges ahead of us, force our leaders to address these challenges and our options in more substantive and coherent forums than those allowed in an election year, and make our voices heard.


If I'm not mistaken, he's talking about redefining our tribe to be as wide as the internet community... A future where your tribe will be to be connected, or part of the have-nots, and it's not going to be about third world countries vs. the more industrialized ones, it'll be defined by a different, new set of rules. Yes, it smacks of either manipulating the rest of the world or bullying it into agreement with *our* new definitions (ours, by default as hooked up and connected, joe.) Some sort of brave new world, with a much larger merged tribe of cohorts. Shocked
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Offshoot of tribalism concept in joe's long thread:
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/29/2022 at 03:57:24