http://www.wikio.co.uk/blog/search/Thomas Barnett Wikio Blogs - search: Thomas Barnett wikio wikio http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=68127744 Always enjoyable, and wonderful to see and hear how the brief has evolved. via his excellent blog, and the post The Latest and Greatest Brief Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:20:43 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=68127744 Joe Crawford 2008-08-18T15:20:43Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=65862489 Tom Barnett - strategist, consultant, Green Bay Packers fan Thomas P.M. Barnett is the New York Times bestselling author of The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century and Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating.... Tue, 29 Jul 2008 05:16:58 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=65862489 2008-07-29T05:16:58Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=68358888 Yes according to Spengler. H/T: Thomas P.M. Barnett who calls this a "Fantasic piece by Spengler". I agree to a point. There is no doubt that Russian geo-political moves are akin to the moves made by a chess player. However, the assertion that Putin's territorial aggression is a move played to address Russia's long term demographics catastrophe is a long bow. Spengler begs an important question though. Does U.S. foreign policy respond by going, in the words of Bobbitt, New Realist or staying New Evangelist? Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:05:43 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=68358888 Manny 2008-08-20T13:05:43Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=63735821 Thomas P.M. Barnett worries about the drift toward conflict after the Iran missile test: On the Israeli side, better to get it done before Obama takes the oath. Ditto for Ahmadinejad, strangely enough. No point in having your best enemy... Thu, 10 Jul 2008 17:27:00 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=63735821 Andrew Sullivan 2008-07-10T17:27:00Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67730927 A U.S. Army Major has pleaded guilty to bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery arising out of his activities as a Contracting Officer in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait in 2005 and 2006, Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division and Matthew Friedrich, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division announced. According to the [...] Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:03:03 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67730927 admin 2008-08-14T08:03:03Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67550131 GUEST COLUMN: Joshua Foust is a defense consultant with TSI Executive Consulting. He blogs regularly about Central Asia and US foreign policy at http://www.registan.net/ . _____________________________________ Thomas Barnett has quite a history to overcome when analyzing political events. In his books, which advocate unending war against the poor , he has written off the non-military angles of the wars the U.S. fights as “they just need more diplomacy,” while claiming that Iraq would have been a raging success if President Bush had just been more charming so we could have had 40,000 troops from Russia, China, and India… each. And that simply having more international, non-Muslim troops would have somehow avoided the insurgency (Afghanistan rarely if ever makes it into his lengthier expositions, as he relies on brief quips on his blog to substitute for serious thinking about why an actually international occupational war of connection, or whatever it is he calls those things, is currently failing). Barnett has seriously advocated the forcible annexation of post-Castro Cuba as well, and sees little moral issue with states aggressively expanding their territory. But Barnett’s sins go much deeper. In Blueprint for Action, which contains a rather disquieting section in which he fantasizes about which countries to invade and occupy first, he highlights the Balkans as the model by which the International community should intervene in civil wars and “fix” countries. He envisions the UNSC acting as a kind of grand jury, the U.S. as executioner, and a magical international force composed mostly of Europeans then moves in for the really difficult nation-building and counterinsurgency work that inevitably follows. The former leaders of said “fixed” country then face war criminal charges at the Hague. Of course this didn’t really work out too well in Serbia… or anywhere else, for that matter. The actual war criminals roamed free for years, some as much as a decade or more, before being caught. And the politics of the Hague make it unlikely any will ever face actual justice for their crimes. While it is nice to see Sarajevo is no longer the hellhole it was in 1993, the Balkans could hardly be called “settled.” Nearly a decade after the NATO-led war there, and even after its halfway-recognized independence, Kosovo still has tens of thousands of foreign troops stationed there to enforce a peace and prevent Serbia from regaining its lost territory. Near the border areas, U.S. government employees are still required to travel in armored convoys thanks to a constant stream of violent activities. It is still not a region that can be called a success, just a mild failure with the potential to erupt into enormous bloodshed at a moment’s notice (such as the violent riots in Belgrade after Kosovo declared its independence). Which brings us to Barnett’s take on Georgia . While he does us the courtesy of NOT quoting “Back in the U.S.S.R.” like every other blogger whose use of “Georgia on My Mind” and variations result in me instantly refusing to read another damned word they write, Barnett can’t really bring himself to mention his previous advocacy of either nationalist expansionism or armed intervention in civil wars. You have to suspect that Russia’s strong response to Georgia’s bold effort to subdue South Ossetia militarily is designed to signal something profound to the West on this overall score. In effect, Russia has largely acquiesced to all sorts of Western “encroachment” (from their perspective, and let’s be honest, that’s basically what it is in terms of economic, political and security integration of former satellites and republics) since the end of the Cold War, but now with Moscow feeling a serious resurgence, we’re getting into different territory in our relationship–meaning Russia will push back… But clearly Russia’s transgressing the advanced-country norms, not even bothering to make an international case here (which we always do before invading anybody). This is more like Britain and Argentina going at it over the Falklands: outsiders look at it in amazement, wondering what all the fuss is about, while the participants fight over the “olive tree” grove like divorced parents squabbling over a child’s custody (i.e., we simply don’t “get” the history–which is long and ugly). We don’t expect either a Britain or Argentina to behave like that, so the U.S. tries to smooth things over… Being in the Core doesn’t mean never going to war, especially against Gap nations. Indeed, my whole point in making the original delineation was to point out that while intra-Core war becomes an increasingly distant possibility, wars inside the Gap by Core nations will be anything but. Just look at our record since the end of the Cold War. The notion of the Core doesn’t presuppose that only America will have permission to do this sort of thing unilaterally. In fact, in both my books, I cited the danger of other Core powers starting to replicate our example if we weren’t careful about embedding our own interventions within an acceptable A-to-Z rule set that the Core as a whole could sign up for, meaning we’d eventually see other Core great powers launching their own efforts inside the Gap–according to their own rules and agendas. To some extent, Russia’s kinetic version is as challenging as China’s non-kinetic version–say–in Africa. So is he saying using his annoying and over-simplified rip-off of Emmanuel Wallerstein’s World System Theory, that Georgia is a “gap” state, and Russia is a “core” state, so this is kind of expected? According to his ever-changing definition of “core,” which is surely a mark of theoretical rigor, Barnett now defines core as “states the core will never go to war with…” which of course would include Georgia, since they’d never fight any other core state, either. Which means the entire concept is crap. Indeed, Barnett’s line of thinking is patently foolish, almost as foolish as pretending Russia is even near the same league as the other G8 countries. Moreover, like all of Barnett’s other writings, he is paternistically contemptuous of every other state’s right to think for itself, reducing the entire planet to dumb monkeys who can only copy what the United States does according to the United States’ rules. Lastly, what serious military or strategic thinker, who routinely brags of his experience at the Center for Naval Analysis and how Sam Huntington once said something nice to him, would contend Russia is a rising power? With the exception of oil prices, Russia has nothing to offer the world—it doesn’t make anything, it can’t produce much of value, its population is growing progressively older and sicker at an increasingly rate, and its political system is really collapsing if Putin can contract it in so short a time. Russia is a dying power, and like most dying powers it is lashing out in fury at its loss of prestige and power. Really, don’t read Thomas Barnett for insight into Georgia. His verifiably useless theories don’t apply here, and he offers no insight into the countries themselves, their histories, or likely after-action policies. And that applies to pretty much everything he’s ever written. Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:53:00 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67550131 noreply@blogger.com (Matt Eckel) 2008-08-12T22:53:00Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67392825 Good info on tactical happenings can be obtained from Information Dissemination, a navy-centric blog that I hadn’t highlighted before (thanks to reader (and writer) Frank for the hat-tip). Also, Blackfivehas some great analysis and OP-FOR has a bit, as well. Thomas Barnett’s is here - if you can make sense of it. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has multiple links to good [...] Mon, 11 Aug 2008 17:16:57 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67392825 Pinch 2008-08-11T17:16:57Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67449477 Thomas Barnett has quite a history to overcome when analyzing political events. In his books, which advocate unending war against the poor, he has written off the non-military angles of the wars the U.S. fights as “they just need more diplomacy,” while claiming that Iraq would have been a raging success if President Bush had [...] Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:52:25 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67449477 Joshua Foust 2008-08-12T05:52:25Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67792924 MIDLAND, Texas, Aug. 14 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Mexco Energy Corporation (Amex: ) today reported net income of $538,789, or .29 per diluted share, for the quarter ending June 30, 2008, the Company's first quarter of fiscal 2009, compared to net income of $34,806, or .02 per diluted share, for the same quarter of fiscal 2008, an increase of 1,448%. Operating revenues in the first quarter of fiscal 2009 increased $829,003 or 97% to $1,679,320 from $850,317 for the first quarter of fiscal 2008. This was another record high quarter of revenues for the Company, breaking the last record set in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2008. This is partially the result of revenues generated from oil and gas royalty interests which include the $1,850,000 royalty interest acquisition in the Barnett Shale gas field on December 31, 2007, the largest acquisition of a property in the Company's history, as well as the additional Barnett Shale royalties purchased on June 6, 2008 for $429,000. For the three month period ending June 30, 2008, revenues from oil and gas royalty interests accounted for approximately 37% of the Company's revenues, compared to approximately 24% for the same period ending June 30, 2007. These first quarter results do not reflect any income from Mexco's Steelhead #1 well in Loving County. The Company is currently in the process of acquiring a right-of-way and preparing to build a pipeline to enable production and sales of natural gas from this well. Nicholas C. Taylor, President and CEO of Mexco Energy Corporation, said, "We are very pleased with the over fifteen times increase in net income due in large part to the significant increase in revenues from natural gas royalties." Thomas Graham, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Company added, "A nearly fifteen fold increase in the Company's earnings is remarkable but it is indicative of the Company's ongoing and expanding asset acquisition program. We look for more of this in the future." The ave Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:50:00 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67792924 2008-08-14T21:50:00Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67668796 Agrees $5.8 Million in Restitution is Owed to the U.S. Government WASHINGTON, Aug. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A U.S. Army Major pleaded guilty today to bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery arising out of his activities as a Contracting Officer in Camp Arifjan, Kuwait in 2005 and 2006, Thomas O. Barnett, Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division and Matthew Friedrich, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division announced. According to the plea agreement entered today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, James Momon, Jr., a U.S. citizen who resides in Virginia, was involved in a criminal conspiracy to accept cash bribes from five Department of Defense (DOD) contracting firms that supplied bottled water and other goods and services to U.S. military bases in Kuwait. In return, Momon awarded contracts as well as Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) calls to those contractors. Momon agreed to accept about $5.8 million from his co-conspirators as payment for his actions. Momon faces up to five years in prison for the conspiracy count and up to 15 years in prison for each bribery count, as well as fines of $250,000 for each count. He has also agreed that $5.8 million in restitution is owed to the U.S. government. "The Antitrust Division is committed to putting an end to corruption of competition within the ranks of our military officials and the defense contractors with whom they do business, particularly in a time of war," said Barnett. Momon took over duties at Camp Arifjan from Major John C. Cockerham, who served as a Contracting Officer in Kuwait in 2004 and 2005. Major Cockerham was arrested on July 22, 2007, for bribery, money laundering, and conspiracy arising out of his activities at Camp Arifjan. Cockerham solicited and received more than $9 million in bribes from DOD contractors in exchange for contracts and BPA calls for bottled water and other goods and services. Cockerham's wife, Melissa Cockerham, and Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:29:00 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67668796 2008-08-13T21:29:00Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67269685 Thomas P.M. Barnett watches the Beijing Olympics, and opines : Returning to the global stage after its "century of humiliation" and the tortuous insanities of Mao Zedong's long rule, China naturally views the Games as its coming-out party. To that end, Beijing seeks to control every possible aspect, seeking to burnish the image of the "China model." [...] But the harsh costs of China's model are also inescapably put on display -- to wit, Beijing's now-legendary smog. The Communist Party wants the world to focus on medals hanging around the necks of Chinese athletes, but the Games' dominant image will undoubtedly be the pollution-filtering masks attached to many competitors' faces. [...] Beijing's frantic attempts to manipulate the weather for smog-clearing rain speak to a wider human hubris: that we can easily engineer our way out of the problems associated with global climate change. Again, the biggest social trade-offs are inherently political questions, not simple equations for unelected technocrats to solve one afternoon sitting around a table -- no matter how supreme their mandate seems. Thomas P.M. Barnett (Scripps Howard News Service)- What Beijing Olympics Tells [sic] Us About Our World Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:41:00 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67269685 Barry 2008-08-10T11:41:00Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67022509 (Read the article in the link in the title. This is a paper that supports the view of the author and tries to throw him in with the only people that know shit about IR, Realists!) In this paper I will try to show that Thomas Barnett’s theories are an extension of classical Realism and I will critique his theories from the Post-Structualist’s and Post- Colonialist’s view points. Thomas Barnett’s article “The Pentagon’s New Map” is a bold statement on US foreign policy that proposes a controversial, but possibly inevitable new direction for US foreign policy the 21st century. Barnett grabs the reader early with this statement, “Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point—the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.” [1] “Strategic Security” is an interesting phrase. In a globalized economy, is power purely the capability to kill more enemy soldiers than anyone else? Or is it the ability to protect not only your citizens, but also the globalized financial and commerce systems that are the basis of your economy? By implying that the real goal of Washington to “own” our strategic security Barnett is not only proscribing a proactive approach to security, he is revising the traditional role of our military in how they will provide that security. Barnetts’s core argument is that “Disconnectedness defines danger.” [2] Countries that have not been fully, or even partially integrated in to the current system of globalization are the most likely to harbor terrorists. This could be taken as a vindication of Neo-liberalism as the most liberal democracies are the least likely to settle differences militarily, but Neo-liberalism doesn’t have a plan for spreading democracy. Taken as a national security issue, a realist is far more likely to understand the need for a pre-emptive strike or a domestic intervention if it strengthens the position of the United States and weakens our enemies. Realists have to adapt to the idea that liberal, democratic globalization is an effective 21st century weapon to be used against 21st century threats. Poststructuralists will easily see this as a definition of the other, but that does not negate the validity of the statement. Barnett notes that the United States’ military engagements for the previous decade have almost exclusively been focused on nations within the “Gap”. Barnett defines Gap countries as separate from Core countries by rating their level of globalization. When dealing with an often stateless enemy, defining the actual aggressor is increasingly important, regardless of CT critiques. The rise of a new enemy, or at the very least a new form of an old enemy, is hardly something to cheer about, but Barnett takes a stab at that. “This may sound like additional responsibility for an already overburdened military, but that is the wrong way of looking at it, for what we are dealing with here are problems of success—not failure. It is America’s continued success in deterring global war and obsolescing state-on-state war that allows us to stick our noses into the far more difficult subnational conflicts and the dangerous transnational actors they spawn.” [3] Our success in making traditional conflicts obsolete has opened an opportunity for stateless actors to operate in areas traditionally reserved for states. Barnett would seem to be caught again by the post structuralist crowd as many of the new threats are from stateless actors, which would seem to support a post-structuralist critique that too much of IR is focused on states as the primary actors while ignoring other important IR actors. But if we are to refine Realism, we need to note that Hans Morgenthau noted that “The main signpost that helps political realism find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.” [4] Few would say that Mohammed Atta was without power. If we look for the bases of the power for the new breed of stateless actors we find that they are almost exclusively based in gap countries. Further we find that even the instances where terror acts are committed by actors based inside a core country, the judicial systems in those countries are usually able to handle these actors and dismantle their base of operations. A realist needs to adapt to the idea that while gap state leaders may not be supportive or even aware of terrorism activities occurring within their borders, they have some culpability due to the fact that many gap countries either have areas that are beyond control or there is a low level of governmental support or at least benign neglect. Gap countries and actors may lack traditional military power but they have access to alternate forms of power. Along with the support and exportation of terrorism, there are other actions that Gap countries can take to effect international events. Neighboring states are often burdened with refugees. A poor populace is beholding to any group that provides any sort of aid whether they be the Red Cross or Hamas. Gap countries also have access to the world media, a power unto its self, and are able to alter world opinions with visual imagery. Barnett states that “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.” [5] Post-Colonialists would be correct to note that this would seem to be a return to imperialism with the age old excuse of security used to sacrifice sovereignty and autonomy. But is it really imperialism when the leaders of a country ask for the assistance of the United States to eliminate an often foreign planted and foreign funded terror network? If imperialism is any foreign intervention in domestic affairs, then isn’t all foreign aid imperialism? And what if the aid most needed is military assistance in removing terrorism that is funded by other states like Saudi Arabia or Iran? Imperialism is an easy label to apply, but it does not do much to clarify the increasingly complex world of international relations. Our actions in Europe and Japan after WWII were quite imperialistic and quite successful. Mearsheimer states that “Indeed, the best guarantee of survival is to be a hegemon, because no other state can seriously threaten such a mighty power”. [6] Many agree that the USA is a hegemon as defined in Cold War, post-WWII terms, but is that an accurate way of evaluating power in 2008? The USA has a large nuclear arsenal that will most likely never be used. We have a large standing army that is trained to fight another large standing army of a near power, which isn’t likely to happen either. Is it possible that we only have a hegemony of power when viewed in the context of the 20th century? Barnett says yes and that we need to change our power and how it is projected to maintain hegemony in the 21st century. To recalibrate Realism, we need to understand that a global projection of power is now more important that a decaying nuclear arsenal or a large standing army. Not only is mobility critical but also having the requisite willpower to initiate the use of force is even more critical. China and Russia both have the military capabilities required to intervene, but lack any willpower to do so. They are operating from out of date views that humanitarian missions only weaken the US and could possibly increase their own power. Recent activities after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the Earthquake in China have shown that decisive actions in soft power can be more effective than the threat of action with hard power. The EU has an economy that could easily support a large military, but it doesn’t have the political will power to create one nor the political unity to use such a force. Even the modest goal of a 20,000 man “rapid response force” has remained out of reach for the EU. I will leave it up to the reader to decide whether the EU has the will power to initiate humanitarian/nation building missions as I see no clear indication one way or the other. Another area that Mearsheimer alludes to is the idea of “survival of the state”. Few think that the current crop of terrorists can literally wipe the USA off of the map like the Soviet Union had planned, but terrorists can cause extensive damage. In an increasingly globalized world with global supply chains, economic health is critical to military health. Terrorist have shown that they are capable of significant economic disruptions and all realists know that a strong economy is required to fund a strong military. Even the threat of terrorism causes damage to a nation’s economy by imposing a security tax as noted by Barnett; “September 11 triggered a system perturbation that continues to reshape our government (the new Department of Homeland Security), our economy (the de facto security tax we all pay), and even our society (Wave to the camera!).” [7] Also in a Democratic state, no discussion of the survival of the state can exist without mention of the representatives that make up that state. In any democracy, the governmental response to a terrorist attack may not decide the fate of the very existence of the state; but what is quite often decided is the fate of the elected leaders. In this way, many democratic representatives equate the survival of the state with the continuance of their personal position and power. So while poststructuralists like to note that driving kills more people than 911, a politician knows that his base accepts the risks associated with driving yet rejects the idea that the mass murder of 3,000 people should not go unanswered. As he equates his position with the survival of the state, the fear of not responding correctly has a very real consequence for the state. Realism is focused on power and how to maintain power over our adversaries. Thomas Barnett has done an excellent job of describing what forms of power will be important in the 21st century and what the United States can do to maintain and increase our power globally. The Critical Theories of post structuralism and post colonialism have many accurate critiques of this new definition and execution of power, but while their validity is supportable, their utility is questionable. [1] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas Barnett, Page 1 [2] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas Barnett, Page 1 [3] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas Barnett, Page 4 [4] Han Morgenthau, Theory and Practice of International Politics, page 4 [5] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas Barnett, Page 4 [6] John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Page 3 [7] The Pentagon’s New Map, Thomas Barnett, Page 3 More... Thu, 07 Aug 2008 20:27:00 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67022509 Il Duce' 2008-08-07T20:27:00Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67552276 We're delighted to have USNews.com's James Pethokoukis offer his postings now and then to Illinois Review. Enjoy, and tell him what we Illinois conservatives think. by James Pethokoukis The thoughts of a former expert on the former Soviet Union—that would... Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:02:04 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67552276 IR Editor 2008-08-12T23:02:04Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67110940 Some of you may be familiar with Thomas Barnett for his The Pentagon's New Map and other books. He also has his own blog on which he's posted a few thoughts (h/t) on how higher energy prices may affect globalization... Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:21:50 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=67110940 Marc Comtois 2008-08-08T15:21:50Z http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=66465748 In this bracingly honest talk, international security strategist Thomas Barnett outlines a post-Cold War solution for the foundering U.S. military that is both sensible and breathtaking in its simplicity: Break it in two. Filmed Feb 2005; Posted Jun 2007 - Barnett points out the primacy of U.S. military forces, claiming that the U.S. "hasn't had an imminent threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis," despite the fact that the premise of an imminent threat is constantly used to justify action About Thomas Barnett Strategic planner Thomas Barnett has advised US leaders on national security since the end of the Cold War. His bold ideas about the future of warfare and the military are spelled out in his.. Wikipedia : Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, from October 2001 to June 2003, Barnett worked as the Assistant for Strategic Futures in the Office of Force Transformation in the Department of Defense under the direction of the late Vice Admiral (ret). Arthur K. Cebrowski, during which time he created a Powerpoint brief that developed into his book The Pentagon’s New Map.[3] ————- THOMAS BARNETT AND 9/11: from HistoryCommons.org http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a060397pnacprinciples May 1, 2000-June 4, 2001: Workshops Held at WTC Discuss Possibility of Terrorist Attack on Wall Street Beginning early in 2000, a unique research partnership takes place between the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island and the Wall Street bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald. The venture is called the New Rule Sets Project and is directed by Thomas Barnett, a senior strategic researcher at the Naval War College. It aims to explore how globalization is altering America’s definitions of national security. In particular, the project leads to three-day-long workshops being held at the Windows on the World Restaurant on the 107th floor of the north World Trade Center tower, where Cantor Fitzgerald has offices. These are in May 2000, October 2000, and June 2001. They bring together “Wall Street heavyweights, senior national security officials, and leading experts from academia and think tanks.” The participants discuss “globalization’s future and the threats that could derail it.” They explore scenarios such as “a terrorist strike on Wall Street, war in the Persian Gulf, and a financial crisis in Asia,” all of which, as Barnett will later point out, “proved amazingly prescient.” [Naval War College, 1/7/2002 ; Barnett, 2004, pp. 5-6, 46-47 and 197 ] At the second of these workshops, three mysterious “spies” turn up. They do not participate or interact with anyone, but just observe. Despite having a Top Secret clearance, project director Thomas Barnett is not allowed to know their identities. This particular workshop involves the future of foreign direct investment in Asia, so Barnett later suggests the “spies” are observing it, “because both the Pentagon and the intelligence community had developed a laserlike focus on China as the ‘rising near-peer competitor.’” Due to the Naval War College’s partnership with Cantor Fitzgerald, Barnett visits the World Trade Center two or three dozen times between 1998 and 2001. The last of these visits will be just four days before 9/11, and Barnett is originally scheduled to meet there again two weeks after 9/11. As director of the New Rule Sets Project, he also visits the Pentagon on a regular basis, and will be scheduled to give another briefing there a week after 9/11, in the Navy’s command center facilities: an area of the building that is destroyed when the Pentagon is struck. [ Barnett, 2004, pp. 46-47 and 224-225; C-SPAN, 5/30/2004 ] Barnett will later reflect, “September 11 was crystallizing. We all just went, This is what we were talking about—a peacetime, war-like event that’s so profound it forces us to rethink everything.” [ Esquire, 12/2002 ] Cantor Fitzgerald will suffer the greatest single loss by any company on 9/11, with 658 of its employees dying in the north WTC tower. [ Business Week, 9/11/2006 ] But Barnett’s two “mentors” at the firm that he interacts with—Bud Flanagan and Philip Ginsburg—will both be out of the building at the time, for “accidental reasons,” and therefore survive the attacks. [ Bloomberg, 9/13/2001 ; Barnett, 2004, pp. 199 ; Institute of International Studies, 3/8/2005 ] Within weeks of 9/11, Barnett will be installed as the assistant for strategic futures in Donald Rumsfeld’s newly created Office of Force Transformation (see October 29, 2001). [ Esquire, 12/2002 ] TED.com Sat, 02 Aug 2008 21:50:00 GMT http://www.wikio.co.uk/info?id=66465748 Whisleblower 2008-08-02T21:50:00Z