Barnett on George Friedman

I quit listening to The Next 100 Years. Now, Thomas Barnett tells us why I did so. Thanks, Tom. If I read this earlier, maybe I'd have saved my self some time.

Barnett Takes Ferguson to Task

Tom Barnett's interesting perspective on the world and the U.S. role in it provides a very thoughtful perspective. In this piece he takes down Niall Ferguson's dissing of the Obama Administration's handling of the Egypt situation, which I've been posting about of late. I like Barnett's perspective, which balances economics, geopolitical strategy, and military concerns better than anyone else currently, although I think Fareed Zakaria usually has a worthwhile and justified perspective on events. Also, I note that Barnett makes a passing but disparaging remark about George Friedman's work. Interestingly, I had to stop listening to Friedman's The Next 100 Years because I thought it too limiting, too 19th century. It's all geopolitics with no nukes or globalization. I get the impression that Barnett doesn't think too highly of it either.

Thomas Barnett on the U.S. and China--Again

This was too good to pass up. Let me provide my executive summary of his key points (i.e., points that I find persuasive):

1. We act in a passive-aggressive manner toward China and many nations. Get over it.
2. We have overlapping interests with the Chinese, and, Oh, yeah!, the rest of the world. We have to work on these relationships. As someone who deals with negotiations and conflicting interests regularly, the need to negotiate relationships is fundamental. The sticking point is the audience (client, voters) whom you have to please, your clients, so to speak. But you have to cut a deal (if you can) even if its with potential (or actual) rivals. It's called leadership.
3. We must accept some "satisficing" (Herbert Simon). This is, we have to expect less-than-perfect outcomes. That's life as we know it. The enemy of the good is the best (or something like that).
4. The idea of a nuke-free world, as attractive as it is, overreaches, at least at present. We need to move to a nuclear-limited world. (See my prior entry for some sanity on that topic.)
5. Real politics involves "consensus building", but also deal-making. Sometimes you have to make deals with the devil (e.g., FDR & Churchill dealt with Stalin to defeat Hitler; Clinton cut deals with Newt Gingrich).
6. Strategic thinking involves a lot more than thinking about war. I suggest that it's all about energy. Not just oil, but money (fungible energy) and attention (human energy), but that's a whole different post.

 Barnett makes some important points here.

Thomas Barnett on the U.S. and China

As I often find, Dr. Thomas Barnett has something interesting to say about the contemporary world. In this case, the growing rift between the U.S. and China. Each nation has its own particular needs, strengths, and weaknesses, and both need each other for continued peace and prosperity. I fear growing Chinese nationalism, but I also fear an increasingly confrontational attitude by the U.S. As Barnett notes, China has a rather unique demographic challenge, one that makes ours seem small. We have to work with their needs if they're going to work with ours. I hope that this and following administrations act out of our long-term interest toward China not out of domestic political expediency.