jueves, 29 de noviembre de 2007

En que piensan los que tienen las armas

Lo habia leido hace mucho, lo reencontre y lo dejo en ingles con links y todo de wikipedia

The Pentagon's New Map

The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century is a 2004 book by Thomas Barnett based around an earlier article he wrote for Esquire magazine. It outlines a new grand strategy for American foreign policy. It is an iteration of a PowerPoint presentation that Barnett has been making for years that is known simply as "The Brief." Interested parties include the public and private sectors, encompassing military organizations and foreign governments.

At least two versions of Barnett's presentation have aired on C-SPAN as of 2005. In December 2004, the network broadcast one of Barnett's recent presentations followed with a live call-in program in which Barnett discussed his book and its effects. See the article on Barnett for an outline of his ideas.

Barnett was asked by the United States Air Force to give the presentation to every new officer who attained the rank of General.

In late 2004, Barnett's employer (the Naval War College) gave him the choice of either writing the second book or retaining his job. He chose the former, and wrote Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating. Barnett also continues to write articles as a contributing editor at Esquire and consult on global security issues as a senior managing director at Enterra Solutions. He is currently in the planning stages of a third book on Resiliency with co-author Stephen DeAngelis, founder of Enterra Solutions.

Key ideas:

  1. Systems of rules called Rule-sets reduce violent conflict. Violence decreases as rules are established (e.g., the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding) for dealing with international conflicts.
  2. The world can be roughly divided into two groups: the Functioning Core, characterized by economic interdependence, and the Non-Integrated Gap, characterized by unstable leadership and absence from international trade. The Core can be sub-divided into Old Core (North America, Western Europe, Japan, Australia) and New Core (China, India). The Disconnected Gap includes the Middle East, South Asia (except India), most of Africa, Southeast Asia, and northwest South America.
  3. Integration of the Gap countries into the global economy will provide opportunities for individuals living in the Gap to improve their lives, thereby presenting a desirable alternative to violence and terrorism. The US military is the only force capable of providing the military support to facilitate this integration by serving as the last ditch rule-enforcer. Barnett argues that it has been doing so for over 20 years by "exporting" security (US spends about half of the world's total in military spending).
  4. To be successful the US military must stop thinking of war in the context of war but war in the context of "everything else", i.e. demographics, energy, investment, security, politics, trade, immigration, etc.
  5. In recognition of its dual role, the US military should organize itself according to two functions, the "Leviathan" and the "System Administrator."
    • Leviathan's purpose is employ overwhelming force to end violence quickly. It will take out governments, defend Core countries, and generally do the deterrence work that the US military has been doing since the end of WWII. The Leviathan force is primarily staffed by young aggressive personnel and is overwhelmingly American.
    • The SysAdmin's purpose is to wage peace: peacekeeping, nation building, strengthening weak governments, etc. The SysAdmin force is primarily staffed by older, more experienced personnel, though not entirely (he would put the Marines in SysAdmin as the " Mini-me Leviathan"). The sys Admin force would work best as a Core-wide phenomenon.
  6. By exporting security, the US and the rest of the Core benefit from increased trade, increased international investment, and other benefits.

1 comentario:

manolo dijo...


Muy buena data, sobre todo señala la obsesión americana por el control.
Los planes de contingencia son su especialidad, el problema esta cuando no tenes un contendor que te “ayude” a estabilizar el tablero.
Es lo que le esta sucediendo a USA en Irak y Afganistán.
El dilema que tienen es que para estabilizar tienen que permitirle a Irán desarrollar todo su potencial.
Pero pierden el “Control” del golfo y el petróleo.
Si no estabilizan, se contagia Arabia Saudita y es muy probable que la maneje gente afín a Bin Laden.
The project is a unique collaboration between military and financial analysts. The project name comes from the idea of "rule sets," the combination of written and unwritten rules that people within a region use.
Esta frase te demuestra cual es el objetivo estratégico, y señala hacia donde se orientaran sus medidas.
El abandono de la población civil en Irak, es un costo que ya le habían señalado los franceses e ingleses.
Recorda que los ingleses después de controlar manu militari a la Zona de Basora, remplazaron sus tropas de “choque” por fuerzas especializadas en control de civiles.
El equivalente a nuestra gendarmería o los carabineros chilenos.
La alternativa de la "mission civilisatrice" francesa, que ya lanzo Sarko, es extremadamente “costosa” para la visión americana clásica.
Tendrían que aceptar como iguales a los asimilados, especialmente a los latinos.
¿Te imaginas unas fuerzas armadas llenas de “Yeneral Gonsales”?
A los WASP bíblicos se les pone piel de gallina.
Un abrazo, después te la sigo