[lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 23:14:28 -0700
Eric,
No, I don't recall his mentioning the depletion of oil reserves, but I'm not
sure he sees that as a problem. If a Middle Eastern nation presently
dependent upon income from oil moves into the functioning core then it will
have other sources of revenue. He sees America's military as guaranteeing
security to such nations so that timid investors will feel safe about
investing money. Once investment begins, economy grows probably under an
autocratic regime and eventually (and this is in agreement with Fukuyama) a
democracy is created. I'm guessing that Barnett might see the eventual oil
depletion as just another opportunity for entrepreneur's to generate new
wealth -- by means of alternate fuel sources, vehicles, etc.
He did say that we should let Iran have their nukes because there was no way
we could peacefully stop them and China and India are dependent upon Iran's
oil. If we ask China and India to back us while we remove Ahmadinejad they
will side with Iran against us; so we avoid that by letting Iran have their
nukes. Bombing their country or taking it over will make, Barnett says,
China and India very very nervous and we don't want to do that.
The interviewer asked Barnett whether Israel would sit still for Iran
getting nukes, and Barnett said, "If they're smart they'll . . . " and I
can't remember what he said,. I'm going to have to watch it again. This is
the area in the interview that I feel most uncomfortable about, but maybe
I'll feel better hearing him a second time.
He would like to see us form something like NATO with China, Japan, South
Korea and maybe one or two other nations. He doesn't think we should
tolerate too much more from North Korea. He sees that as a disrupting
danger that could spoil things. He says NK is like a parent that has kept a
child in a cellar for ten years. How much consideration should you give
that parent, and he answers, "none."
He thinks we should make very clear to Taipei that we will only support them
against Mainland China under very specific circumstances. He thinks Taiwan
is a leftover from the Cold War and we should make very clear to China that
we have no interest in going to war with them over it. China is being very
agreeable saying they will tolerate an independent Taiwan for now -- as long
as Taiwan has done nothing politically to preclude their eventually getting
together.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Eric Yost
Sent: Sunday, September 10, 2006 9:06 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action
>>Well, I really wanted Eric's take on what Barnett had to
say about Iran, perhaps China as well.
I saw Barnett's entire presentation on CSpan, but haven't
yet downloaded the interview because (a) I use dial-up and
it will take a long time to download and (b) I'll also have
to download the Real player. Yet I plan to do so.
Here's my general take. The idea of partnering with China
and Iran is intriguing. His notion of pushing the Islamist
conflict farther south into Africa and neutralizing it there
is also interesting. It would take supreme diplomacy on our
part to create this partnership, especially since so many
groups would oppose us in our grand strategy--the Russians
for starters and possibly the EU later on.
It's also heartening to see the Global War on Terror does
have a demographic ceiling or deadline -- that the Middle
Eastern countries currently have a "youth spike" which means
that in twenty years, their Johnny Jihad swill have calmed
down a bit as they enter middle age.
Yet in all of his optimistic presentation, I saw no mention
of the depletion of world oil reserves. (I welcome future
oil shortages as a way of stopping globalism and returning
us to nations and smaller-scale societies. Barnett on the
other hand is an enthusiast globalist.) So unless I missed
his mention of the depletion of oil reserves, I think
Barnett is overlooking a state of affairs that could undo
all the plans for moving nations into the functioning core.
Other related posts:
