Watch, watch, watc, wat, wa . . . You should really see Barnett's interview. He says we have the wrong sort of military force for what we'll need in the future and what we needed in Iraq. He said Rumsfeld was right about what it took to win the war. We won the war in very little time, but he was wrong in regard to what it would take to win the peace. He thinks we need five times the number of troops to win the peace that it took to win the war. He thinks . . . but shoot, let him tell it. Lawrence _____ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Andy Amago Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 6:21 AM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action "He sees Americas military as guaranteeing security to such nations so that timid investors will feel safe about investing money." Except in Iraq, where the American military can't even guarantee it's own security. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: 9/11/2006 2:14:35 AM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Barnett's Blueprint for Action Eric, No, I dont recall his mentioning the depletion of oil reserves, but Im 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 Americas 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. Im guessing that Barnett might see the eventual oil depletion as just another opportunity for entrepreneurs to generate new wealth -- by means of alternate fuel sources, vehicles, etc.