(Thomas Barnett on Booknotes, Part 4) LAMB: In your book, talking about -- you have got a big book here talking about the Pentagon map and the future and rule sets. But on page 365, you start talking about raging debates, and you talk about the profession of television and the media.
BARNETT: Absolutely.
LAMB: And you say: "I simply cannot watch most of these shows for more than a minute or two without sensing that my strategic IQ is dropping with each idiotic soundbite offered, often hurriedly, so lest the buzzer on the countdown clock drown them out. Most of these discussions focus on generating more questions than answers...
BARNETT: Right.
LAMB: ... because questions are what keeps you from tuning in, but the cumulative result of this flood of unanswered answers is a public that often feels overwhelmed by current international events, when simply put, we need not be." Television doing a disservice?
BARNETT: I think it is in many ways. I mean, a venue like this, where I can talk about a book for 25, 30, 45 minutes, or get a chance to do that on talk radio, I mean, you get a chance to discuss a complex book, complex material, a big vision that describes how the world works and where we need to go. I say, try to soundbite this book in 35 seconds in an explanation on of these countdown shows. It`s hard. Because what you get in that kind of tight timeframe environment, is you get people shouting at each, you know, basic phrases, and the focus is on the tactics of the day. How are we going to get out of Fallujah? How are we going to deal with the uprising in Basra? You know, what, how can we describe what happened in the last 24 hours? How can we describe what we`re going to do in the next 24 hours?
And the public needs that kind of reporting to a certain extent, but with 24-hour broadcast news networks, we also need to see a lot more discussion of the long-term strategy.
LAMB: You get inside the Pentagon, when you brief, and inside corporations when you brief, and have you ever briefed the Congress?
BARNETT: I have. I briefed Mac Thornberry`s group on the Hill.
LAMB: Do they sit...
BARNETT: And I briefed the House of Commons over in England.
LAMB: Do they sit still long enough to hear the point?
BARNETT: Absolutely. Absolutely.
LAMB: Would you say to the public, if they saw what goes on inside the Pentagon, with these hundreds of people devoted to analysis and strategic planning, that people are going through these issues?
BARNETT: They are. They`re thinking very strategically. But you know what? The material that`s developed there that drives a lot of these decisions creates these situations where people say, how did this happen? And you get these tell-all memoirs that we`re flooded with now, what did they know and when did they know it? All backwards looking, all focused on details. Nobody looking to the forward. I mean, that`s where this kind of book, I think, play a certain unique role, because it says let me take you inside those rooms, let me show you how these long-range strategizing sessions unfold. Let me show you the contents that`s involved and how they impact decisions that you think are controlled by, you know, unnamed forces.
LAMB: For instance, you go way out in the future, like 2025, where you say we might need an Asian NATO?
BARNETT: Absolutely. And that`s one of the reasons why I wanted to take down a Kim Jong Il. Because I see, for example, right now, a plan within the Pentagon that`s been recently publicized in "The New York Times" to create a missile shield to deal with the threat coming from North Korea. It would protect Japan. South Korea doesn`t even want to be involved. It would protect Singapore and others.
LAMB: Good idea?
BARNETT: Well, they say it`s about North Korea. What anybody who looks at this picture notices automatically is China is on the other side of that line too. And they will say what this is really about -- unless you believe Kim Jong Il has a very long future -- it`s about creating some sort of deterrence or shield from Chinese missiles.
LAMB: General Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex.
BARNETT: And driving policy. Right.
LAMB: We have $450 and above billion defense budget.
BARNETT: Right.
LAMB: Is it enough?
BARNETT: I think it`s more than enough. I mean, if all you want to do is defend this country, I can defend the country for about $100 billion. If we`re spending $400 billion, we`re doing something besides defending this country. And my argument is, what we`re doing is we`re exporting security around the planet and making the world a more better and stable place.
LAMB: Good idea?
BARNETT: I think it`s a very good idea, because I think we`re the only country that can actually pull it off. And that when we do that, we create peace and prosperity that benefits us in a tremendous way.
LAMB: Shouldn`t some of the others -- I didn`t mean to interrupt -- but shouldn`t some of the others pay for this?
BARNETT: That`s the question I was going to make -- that was the point I was going to make.
They do already. OK? We float $130, $140 billion in treasury bonds, first quarter of 2003. Four-fifths of that money was bought by foreigners. Guess who the two biggest buyers were? Japan and China. OK? That`s a transaction. When I accuse this administration of waging war within the context of war and not explaining war within the context of everything else, that`s what gets you a charge of unilateralism. Did we wage war unilaterally in Iraq? Well, if you don`t count who paid for that war, then I guess we did. But if you count who pays for it, then you understand that that`s a transaction. And if you don`t make China and Japan happy with that transaction, they`re going to stop buying that service, called U.S. military and military interventions.
LAMB: Did you ever have people like Paul Wolfowitz or, to jump to the political side, Karl Rove call you up and say, go Tom go, we love what you`re saying?
BARNETT: Well, I don`t -- I don`t operate at that level, and I try not to operate on that level on some level -- in most instances, because once you get up into that level, then you get caught up into the political debates, and it`s hard to have a vision that could be apolitical, or as "Esquire" likes to call it, maddeningly apolitical. It`s hard to tell, unless I reveal it to you, whether I`m a Democrat or Republican, because I make arguments that seem to fit both camps.
I try to stay out of that Paul Wolfowitz/Karl Rove kind of level, because once you get caught up in it -- it`s -- you get politicized. And I prefer to be operating on a level where I`m talking to the captains and the colonels in the militaries, the guys who are going to run this military 10 years from now, because if I capture them, I capture the future.
LAMB: On the cover of the book, it says Thomas P.M. Barnett. Before we close out, what does P.M. stand for?
BARNETT: My mother named my Thomas Patrick Barnett. When I took my wife in marriage, she said if I`m taking your last name, you`re taking my last name. I said I`ll fit it between my middle name and my last name. So M stands for Moisley (ph), my wife`s maiden name.
LAMB: Here is the cover of the book. It`s called "The Pentagon`s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century." Thomas Barnett, our guest, and we thank you very much.
BARNETT: Thanks for having me, sir.
END
booknotes.org |
