Winds of Change.NET: The Core, The Gap and American Foreign Policy

August 10, 2003

The Core, The Gap and American Foreign Policy

by Trent Telenko at August 10, 2003 8:26 PM

Esquire's March 2003 issue had an article titled "The Pentagon's New Map" that had a series of maps and text arguing that the world can essentially be cut up into two spheres. Those areas of the globe who had made the leap to globalization, "The Core," which is defined as places thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security that features stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. And places where it hasn't happened, or "The Gap."

This article, written by Thomas Barnett of the U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE, posits that the real danger in the world is disconnectedness between the Core and the Gap with the Middle East as "exhibit A."

The crux of the article is this passage:

IF WE STEP BACK for a minute and consider the broader implications of this new global map, then U.S. national-security strategy would seem to be: 1) Increase the Core�s immune system capabilities for responding to September 11-like system perturbations; 2) Work the seam states to firewall the Core from the Gap�s worst exports, such as terror, drugs, and pandemics; and, most important, 3) Shrink the Gap. Notice I did not just say Mind the Gap. The knee-jerk reaction of many Americans to September 11 is to say, �Let�s get off our dependency on foreign oil, and then we won�t have to deal with those people.� The most na�ve assumption underlying that dream is that reducing what little connectivity the Gap has with the Core will render it less dangerous to us over the long haul. Turning the Middle East into Central Africa will not build a better world for my kids. We cannot simply will those people away.
The Middle East is the perfect place to start. Diplomacy cannot work in a region where the biggest sources of insecurity lie not between states but within them. What is most wrong about the Middle East is the lack of personal freedom and how that translates into dead-end lives for most of the population�especially for the young. Some states like Qatar and Jordan are ripe for perestroika-like leaps into better political futures, thanks to younger leaders who see the inevitability of such change. Iran is likewise waiting for the right Gorbachev to come along�if he has not already.

What stands in the path of this change? Fear. Fear of tradition unraveling. Fear of the mullah�s disapproval. Fear of being labeled a �bad� or �traitorous� Muslim state. Fear of becoming a target of radical groups and terrorist networks. But most of all, fear of being attacked from all sides for being different�the fear of becoming Israel.

The Middle East has long been a neighborhood of bullies eager to pick on the weak. Israel is still around because it has become�sadly�one of the toughest bullies on the block. The only thing that will change that nasty environment and open the floodgates for change is if some external power steps in and plays Leviathan full-time. Taking down Saddam, the region�s bully-in-chief, will force the U.S. into playing that role far more fully than it has over the past several decades, primarily because Iraq is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East�a crossroads of civilizations that has historically required a dictatorship to keep the peace. As baby-sitting jobs go, this one will be a doozy, making our lengthy efforts in postwar Germany and Japan look simple in retrospect.

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.

Show me a part of the world that is secure in its peace and I will show you a 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.

This country has successfully exported security to globalization�s Old Core (Western Europe, Northeast Asia) for half a century and to its emerging New Core (Developing Asia) for a solid quarter century following our mishandling of Vietnam. But our efforts in the Middle Ease have been inconsistent�in Africa, almost nonexistent. Until we begin the systematic, long-term export of security to the Gap, it will increasingly export its pain to the Core in the form of terrorism and other instabilities.

If this sounds a great deal like recent speeches by Condoleezza Rice or the Grand Strategy that the Bush Administration has published, it is no accident. From Condoleezza Rice's August 7th 2003 Speech:

Confronting Saddam Hussein's Iraq was also essential. Let me be very clear about why we went to war against Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to the security of the United States and the world. This was a regime that had pursued, had used and possessed weapons of mass destruction. The regime had links to terror, had twice invaded other nations, defied the international community and 17 United Nations resolutions for 12 years, and gave every indication that it would never disarm and never comply with the just demands of the world. That threat could not be allowed to remain.
Now that that regime is gone, the people of Iraq are more free, and people everywhere need no longer fear his weapons, his aggression and his cruelty. The war on terror will be greatly served by the removal of a source of instability in the world's most volatile region. And, ironically, Saddam Hussein's removal will provide new opportunities for a better Middle East.

But if that different future for the Middle East is to be realized, the United States and its longtime allies must make a generational commitment to helping the people of the Middle East transform their region. This has been the president's clear and consistent message.

So there you are. America has a grand strategy in the War on Terrorism. The Bush Administration is out selling it, and it has a firm theoretical basis for action. Those that deny this have a vested interest in the Bush Administration failing.

UPDATE: As usual, a fine Comments section. May of them address the relationship between the War on Terror and the War on Drugs.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/1654

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"The Core, The Gap and American Foreign Policy"

Comments

#1 from Dishman at 9:26 pm on Aug 10, 2003

That's beautiful.

#2 from M. Simon at 10:31 pm on Aug 10, 2003

What almost every one of these guys fails to deal with is that drugs are a self inflicted problem.

1. Drugs are not the cause of addiction
2. Prohibition provides excess profits to providers

If drugs are not the cause of addiction preventing the flow of drugs will be:

a. Difficult
b. Useless

The reason for difficult is that profits attract sellers.

The reason for useless is that drugs do not cause addiction.

So if we solve our self inflicted drug problem that leaves only two major points of interest in the Gap.

1. Terror
2. Disease

#3 from Trent Telenko at 10:56 pm on Aug 10, 2003

Simon,

One of the end products of a successful War on Terrorism will have to be the decriminalization of recreational drugs combined with severe civil/insurance penalties for their inappropriate used in the transportation sector.

#4 from Francis W. Porretto at 11:27 pm on Aug 10, 2003

I love this article. It is perfectly focused, brilliantly incisive, and clear as a bell. Thank you, Trent.

#5 from M. Simon at 11:45 pm on Aug 10, 2003

Israel is a bully?

How does defending against bullies make you a bully?

==============================

This whole article smacks of too much conventional wisdom not enough clear thinking.

==============================

He says that those that ally with the American Military do well. Followed by silence about Israel.

==============================

BTW how come they never mention the alcohol danger? When did that menace go away?

#6 from M. Simon at 11:54 pm on Aug 10, 2003

Trent,

The end of the war on drugs will not be a result of the end of the war on terror it will be one of the causes.

The rents caused by the war on drugs are part of the terror finance system. We ought to do as much as we can to reduce OUR funding of our enemies. Oil may be difficult but drugs are easy.

BTW if you are up on the connection between drugs and transportation accidents you will find that regular pot smokers are actually safer than sober drivers. Does this mmean we should make pot smoking mandatory?

As to penalties for driving drugged - they ought to be similar to the penalties for any medicine that makes you drowsy. Unless, like pot, the medicine makes you a safer driver.

#7 from Balagan at 12:07 am on Aug 11, 2003

"One of the end products of a successful War on Terrorism will have to be the decriminalization of recreational drugs combined with severe civil/insurance penalties for their inappropriate used in the transportation sector."

i compltely agree with trent. whether it is an end result or a corresponding parallel, the decriminalization of recreational drugs (which isnt the same as total legalization of even the most deadly drugs) will and should go hand in hand with the war on terror. at the heart of these wars is a question of basic human freedom. the war on drugs denies it of us, the war on terror is a fight for our very lives... and therefore our freedom as well.

#8 from Boris A.Kupershmidt at 12:23 am on Aug 11, 2003

"The Middle East has long been a neighborhood of bullies eager to pick on the weak. Israel is still around because it has become—sadly—one of the toughest bullies on the block."

Why can't these phonies understand the simple
idea that not hiding one's inbred antisemitism
makes their potential readers to tune the
grand posers out?

#9 from Joe Maller at 12:42 am on Aug 11, 2003

I remember reading this article back in March, it gelled quite a bit of my thinking and perception of America's foreign policy post Sept. 11th. These ideas personally reinforced my ideological shift from left to center.

I'm glad that our civilian and military leaders are considering the future as a global enterprise, and I'm proud that their means are ultimately altruistic. I wish more people could read this and grasp the implications of Barnett's strategy. The world can and will be a better place, but it won't get there without work.

#10 from M. Simon at 12:56 am on Aug 11, 2003

Baglan,

Ending the war on drugs is not a paralell effort or the end result of the war on terrorism.

It ought to be a part of our war. Because, not financing our enemies is a fundamental part of the war on terrorism. Thus ending drug prohibition is a fundamental part of the effort.

It does a number of things:

1. It stops financing our enemies - domestic and foreign.
2. It frees up tremendous police resources to apply to the terror/fascist problem. It amounts to increasing our police resources by a minimum of 50% and as much as 100%.
3. It adds to our military resources in the range of 10 to 20%.
4. It frees up $40 to $100 billion in federal, state, and local spending. It reduces insurance losses by $10 to $200 billion depending.
5. We could cut back significantly on prison spending. The guards could be doing something productive.
6. It reduces the burden on our courts.
7. It stops the persecution of people in pain.

The war on drugs also absorbs a lot of resources in our intelligence and counterintelligence community. The FBI still has more manpower on the drug war than on the terror war.

On top of all this if drugs do not cause addiction as I claim them we are in fact fighting a phantom menace. Not just a total waste but causing collateral damage in addition.

A military analysis that fails to see the parallels between alcohol prohibition and drug prohibition has failed to see the big picture.

Add the fact that he got Israel wrong and I'm inclined to doubt some of the other conclusions.

#11 from Trent Telenko at 3:59 am on Aug 11, 2003

Simon,

Two points, first, you are talking about the empire building impulse of the "Prison-Industrial Complex." This is something that is independent of the War on Terrorism, as the relationship between the California legislature and the California Prison Guard Union showed.

You are merely keying in on the incestuous relationship between "three strikes and you are out" criminal punishment legislation with multiple non-violent drug offenses.

There is a definite need for a three-strike rule for violent habitual criminals and repeat sex offenders because liberal judges won't punish them.

Until the public gets over it's nuttiness about drugs, we are going to have three time non-violent drug offenders being sent up for life. The solution here is either political leadership not unlike what is required to to reform Social Security or another 9/11/2001 attack that rubs in the American public's face the role the Drug trade plays in terrorism.

To get the Federales out of the "Prison-Industrial-Complex" business requires a different mission to replace it. The need to police our borders and our resident alien population will be that mission.

Second, Israel prior to the 1980's was very much a "bully" in the Arab sense. It is their defeat in Lebanon and subsequent Oslo inspired softness towards the Palestinians that has caused the Palestinians to escalate their fantasy ideology to child suicide bombers.

Israel changed and became more peaceful...and the Arabs did not. Israel engaged in a fantasy ideology of its own about the possibility of living with the Palestinians. It did this as it was common knowledge that the Palestinians were propagandizing their children in the Islamic Death Cult.

Sharon is well aware of this. He has been playing a game of waiting until the overwhelming majority of the Israeli public agrees that there is no living with the Palestinians. Until then he is going to enjoy his power and play games of military symbolism with pin prick retaliation.

When the Israelis finally toggle over, something between Jordan's "Black September" purge of the PLO's fighters and Syria's Hama massacre will happen in the West Bank and Gaza. The longer the Israelis delay, the bigger the final Palestinian body count.

If the Palestinians were doing what they have done to the Israelis, to Americans, that day would have come a decade ago.

#12 from M. Simon at 7:13 am on Aug 11, 2003

Trent,

The empire building of the Prison Industrial complex is not a new phenomenon. There is always that problem when you can put any where from 5 to 30% of the population in prison for status crimes. Take alcohol prohibition for instance. The prison problem was one of the many reasons for the end of that nobel experiment. Prison expansion is not a guard union defect, it is a prohibition feature.

Second point: The Israelis of the 1980s were created by the Arab progroms from at least 1921 on and the wars of 1948, 1953, 1967, etc. After each war the Jews asked to settle, the Arabs reply: no peace, no recognition. Lebanon was an effort to deal with the same problem that caused the 1967 war. Cross border attacks. In fact we may see the Israelis in Lebanon soon if the cross border attacks currently taking place continue. I hardly see how defence from cross border attacks is bullying. Taking the territory from which the attacks originates is acceptable international practice. Even going so far as to drive out the attackers is OK. For almost every nation but one.

Now wether such a move is wise is different that asking is it a sign of pushing people around just because you have the power to do so. Attacking Lebanon was not the move of a bully. The attacks coming from Lebanon are/were.

#13 from ForNow at 5:04 pm on Aug 11, 2003

Just two notes on the idea of ending the war against drugs.

1. As with weapons, so with drugs: it�s a new world with the potential for rapid development.

2. The transition from less to more freedom can be a most dangerous time, as some inexperienced people flounder (or flip out) under their new freedom. This pattern is certainly not limited to the realm of drugs.

#14 from Trent Telenko at 1:18 am on Aug 12, 2003

Simon,

What is distinct in politics now as opposed to the 1920s prohibition of alcohol is the role money plays in elections as opposed to old fashioned corruption. That is what makes the "Prison-Industrial Complex" far more enduring and powerful now than then.

Second, The Israeli cross border raids of the 1960s included the killing of Arab civilians including children. Arabs, for cultural reasons, only think the other side is serious when it gets close to kill civilians with edged weapons. The pre-1980s Israelis were perfectly willing to do that. (Sharon lead a number of commando raids where that was a mission objective.) The post Lebanon War Israelis were not.

That and the withdrawl from Lebanon in the face of Hezbollah suicide attacks has convinced the Palestinians they can win. Until the Israelis readopt their pre-1980s mindset, they are going to lose a lot of people unnecessarily to suicide attacks and deserve to.

Afghanistan and Iraq show that Americans don't put up with that kind of attack on their homes. If the Palestinians had tried what they have done to Israelis on Americans, they would be either extinct or much reduced and in US administered reservations.