Barnett Transcript - 4

[ Page 1 ]    [ Page 2 ]    [ Page 3 ]    [ Page4 ]    [ Page5 ]    [ Page 6 ]    [ Page 7 ]    [ Page 8 ]    [ Page 9 ]    [ Page 10 ]
 

 

A country or region is functioning if it seeks to harmonize its internal Rule Set with the emerging global rule set: transparency, free markets, free trade, collective security.  We forget we have fought a number of civil wars, one big violent one over the rule sets weíve clashed over in this country.  We are fighting a rule set clash right now on gay marriages.  Every time we have one of these rule set clashes we come back to the reality that we are fifty member states and Massachusetts can do what it damn well pleases.

We are seeing our civil wars replicated throughout the planet.  People say, I canít understand these crazy people.  All we need to do is look into ourselves and into our past and we will recognize every conflict we find around the world - every single one including all the ones with religious overtones.   Weíll say the global rule set is always evolving. It is not just Davos manís interpretation.  It is not just Seattle manís interpretation.  Increasingly it is Osama manís interpretation - we donít want your globalization and weíll kill you to keep it out.  Direction is critical not degree.  China is still ruled by the communist party whose ideological mix is about 30% Marxist-Leninist, about 70% the Sopranos. More important to me, China joins the WTO - World Trade Organization, imports rule sets it cannot create indigenously.  China just let a foreign company take control of a Chinese bank - this week.  Why?  WTO rule sets demanded it.  Thatís a rule set change.  A very profound one.  Where will you find it?  Wall Street Journal.  So, if you donít read the Wall Street Journal right now, you canít figure out security [16], I would argue.  Iím not just saying that because they put me on the front page.  Not that I wouldnít mind being back on the front page. 

 

Iíll say a country or region, it may be functioning doesnít mean that bad things canít happen to it.  It doesnít repeal the business cycle by a stretch.  You can always fall off the map.  That's a concern we have an Argentina or a Brazil or an India when you see a shift in the election.  Functioning parts of the world, North American, Europe both old and new, Russia under Putinís managed democracy, India in a pock marked sense, China in a coastal sense, industrialized Asia, South Africa the country, ABCís in South America:     Argentina, Brazil, Chile.  Put a circle around that and call it the functioning core of globalization - roughly 4 billion out of 6.3 -  2/3 of the worldís population.  So when people try to sell me on the notion that the world has gone to hell in a handbasket and itís perpetual war, and its global chaos, and its American Empire and itís a global cop role for us, I say nonsense.  Two-thirds of the world functions just fine without our military interventions and has done so for about a decade and a half.  Just fine.  No major incidents of mass violence anywhere in the core.  

 

Let me show you the other part.  Hereís the natural demand pattern that emerges for security export since the end of the cold war.  U.S. crisis response since 1990 - almost 150 separate interventions not including straightforward humanitarian assistance and disaster relief - so some danger of guns going off.  This is the pattern.  Now simple political scientist that I am, I drew a line around it and I said what is it about these regions that continue to draw our attention.  Understanding that this is a fairly simplistic approach, Iím trapping some very globalized societies in there like a Singapore, like an Israel.  I briefed the Israelis and I briefed the Singaporeans and they say we have no problem with your description of the world.  We know exactly what neighborhood we live in.  This is why we enjoy having you as a big security partnerÖ Singapore says, you want to park that carrier?  Bring it right here. Pier not long enough?  Letís add 50 yards.   And I understand Iím leaving the cold warís tail bone, North Korea up there in an otherwise stable North East Asia and why he matters, I would argue is because his take down should create the basis for a East Asia NATO and the beginning of a strategic partnership between us and China.  So he still has a function to serve. Iím going to call this the non-integrating Gap.  Itís globalizations ozone hole.  Itís bald spot.  If you are fighting against globalization, the content flows you donít want it in your neck of the woods because it is so challenging to your traditional society because it empowers women disproportionately to men, or if you canít win at globalization, youíre too poor, you donít have the legal rule sets to attract the foreign direct investment thatís been integrated into China for the last 20 years.

 

People say China has the ability to build up its military, I say as long as it gets $50 billion a year in foreign direct investment  from the outside world it does but there is just no such thing as unilateral development anymore - not for the United States, not for anybody.  War within the context of everything else. [17] Meanwhile when George Bush asks, Are you with us or against us on September 12th 2001, weíre surprised by who is with us.  You know what?  It is not really a choice so much as an understanding of where they are in history and where they want to go. Now one of the problems the Bush Administration has faced ever since 9-11 is they keep enunciating security policies that seem like reversals of long held cherished ideals that got us through the cold war successfully - like preemption.  My mom called me up after that speech President Bush gave.  She said in effect, donít those idiots in the White House realize what they are doing?   They are going to ruin mutual assured destruction.   Are we supposed to attack China tomorrow?  I said, settle down Mom.  Iím the futurist in the family.  Nothing changes with mutual assured destruction across the core.  Nothing changes in terms of deterrence.  Isnít it amazing that we no longer talk about strategic arms limitations talks with anybody across this core?  Nobody. It was the dominant security agenda for about 25 years.  I thought my whole career was going to be about arms talks.  Nobody talks about it anymore.  Nobody.  Nobody even notices that we donít even talk about it anymore.  When weíre talking about preemption, weíre talking inside the gap.  My best evidence?  International Criminal Court has this article, I think it is Article 98.  It is an exclusionary article, which says in effect, you can be exempted from being sued by another country if you choose to invade that country and engage in acts that could be considered worth suing over.  In effect, it is an interventionary pre-nup.  We have created treaties to take advantage of that exemption under the ICC International Criminal Court.  We have signed about 70 of them at last count.  68 of them are inside the Gap.  So it is no secret about where we are going with this war on terrorism.  And it is no secret where we are not going.  Increasingly we are seeing the definition of a seam of deterrence or suppression for bad things coming out of the gap and into the core: 3 biggies - pandemics, terrorism and illegal narcotics.  So it is not just one rule set for the United States and another for the rest of the world.  It is understanding that globalization is not a binary outcome.  It is not nowhere or everywhere.  Itís a What and a Where.  Show me where globalization is, Iíll show you connectivity. Iíll show you rule sets.  Iíll show you no mass violence.   Show me where globalization isnít, Iíll show you much less connectivity, far fewer rule sets and basically all the wars, all the civil wars, all the ethnic cleansing, all the genocide, all the employment of mass rape as a tool of terror, all the situations where children are forced into combat units, Iíll show you the vast majority of the drug producers, the vast majority of transnational terrorist groups that we care about - all inside the red (gap).   No mystery. 

 

So it is not when unilateralism makes sense, it is where.  The core is still the world of multilateralism.  We are a strange sort of empire.  We go around and ask everybody in the world, Can we pretty-please invade Iraq? before we did it - which was not how empires throughout history have been run; donít remember with Joe Stalin, Adolph Hitler, the Romans; donít remember anybody doing it like that.  We have seen a huge uptick in bilateral security assistance to what I call the seam states that ring this gap.  So we have big interests in South African banking networks that we fear Al Qaeda is accessing as sort of a backdoor.  We are concerned about the ability of people to move in and out of Thailandís northern forests.  Weíre concerned about this juncture of terrorism, narcotics and rebels.  So we are making big efforts.  If you track U.S. bilateral security assistance, since 9-11 you will find it all ringing that gap very explicitly. When we engage in unilateralism inside the gap, frankly it is a form of functional unilateralism.  We are the only military in the world that can send massive amounts of power at great distances an actually use it.  I think it was last year China sent 800 peacekeepers to central Africa and within about 3 weeks, they were bitching about the logistics.  800 guys, their guns and their pup tents and they were straining at the leash.  We send something like quarter of a million troops to the Middle East and all the stuff that goes with them to wage war.  Nobody else comes even close to that.  So we can ask the UN to bless us with a resolution and dress us with coalition partners but frankly we donít need for the war fighting part but we find very handy for the peace keeping part.  But the major employment of war fighting assets around the world  is going to be done by the United States in a functionally unilateral role.  It is not the U.S. flaunting the rules, but stepping up to the unique tasks of not global cop, but a policeman frankly that walks the beat 24/7 inside the gap and there are different Rule Sets between those two arenas. [18] Itís a lot like talking to a cop in Los Angeles.  Do you behave the same way in Brentwood that you behave in South Central? [19]  He says no.. and you ask why?  He says, because I want to get home for dinner in one piece. And the Rule Sets arenít the same in South Central as they are in Brentwood.  If you expect me to go there, youíre going to have to understand that.  Frankly, we have to understand that and our European allies have to understand that.  When we go inside the gap and do these kinds of things. I like to emphasize that this is a very bondable problem but it is a very big problem in terms of geography. 

 

Here is my favorite map.  It is called the Peterís Projection.  It is favored by the U.N.  and no, Iím not talking about Ralph Peters because that map would have a war everywhere.   What is so great about the Peterís Projection is that everything lines up north to south, east to west which makes it really easy to figure things out.  Another thing thatís cool and why it looks so distorted frankly to the normal eye is that it is geographically accurate.  Here is a secret of cartography.  If youíve ever looked at the Defense Department map, youíre misguided.  Greenland is actually much smaller than Africa.  They are not actually the same size.  Here is what my gap looks like on this map.  It is big.  Now one of the first things we notice, since the fall of the Berlin Wall, we close over 150 bases, major bases - a thousand people or more across the core.  Two dozen and counting new ones inside the gap.  So Andy Hoehn, Office of the Secretary of Defense, his big plan for moving bases around the world frankly all it involves is moving them closer to the gap.  Thatís all it involves.  This is your expeditionary theatre for the 21st century.  Itís not going away.  You can vote Bush/Cheney out of office. [20]  It will still be there.  So president after president, administration after administration, Republican and Democrat are going to have to deal with this.  One of the first things we discover in this global war on terrorism - Weíve got a lot of different cooks working on this broth.  Weíve got Southern Command, European command, Central Command, Pacific Command.  Basically Precinct captains in what is logically described and is largely an undercover war [21].   So one of the first things Secretary Rumsfeld did in this global war on terrorism very indicative I would argue, of his approach to transformation instead of going directly at existing institutions and say change. He designates a cannibalizing agent, and says go be more like them.  And that cannibalizing agent where the warfighting ethos of the U.S. Military is going to migrate and has been migrating for quite some time is Special Operations Command.  That's why they were given operational control of the global war on terrorism.  And we are seeing a redefinition of Strategic Command as a global strike force - the beginnings of a matrixed organization .  War fighting is going to migrate in the direction of these two commands previously considered just supporting.  Now leads in their own right in distinct contrast to the so-called proconsuls of combatant commanders role.

 

Some of the implications we draw from this map....First we emphasize the advantages of exterior position.  All of the good stuff is on the outside no matter how you measure it.  Fiber optic cable, money, R&D, population, wealth, trade, itís all better on the outside.  It is a very bondable problem.  We talk about the need for more sensors because we have to reduce ambiguous warning.  Why?  Because we want to be about prevention not just retaliation.  We have not caught up to that yet.  Frankly that is what generated Secretary Rumsfeldís Snowflake they published on the front page of USA Today - asking for metrics.  A very honest question which of course brings upon him immediate ridicule and speculations that he is leaving office because Americans donít like to think strategically.  Already the historians and the grand strategists and the empire thinkers, who if they thought about it for 10 seconds and if they remembered what they wrote prior to the invasion, would understand we werenít going to deal or transform the Middle East in a matter of 12 months.  All these guys are already declaring this an absolute failure after 12 months.  Thatís the level of grand strategy we have in this country.  We have historians declaring the grand march of history over in 12 months.  A premium on forward deterrence and strike.  We have to stay out there.  We have to avoid what weíve been doing for the last 15 years which is sucking the troops back home.  So are the boys coming home?  No.  The boys are never coming home.  No exit.  No exit strategy. 

 

 
  [ Page 1 ]    [ Page 2 ]    [ Page 3 ]    [ Page4 ]    [ Page5 ]    [ Page 6 ]    [ Page 7 ]    [ Page 8 ]    [ Page 9 ]    [ Page 10 ]  
 

[16] can't figure out security

So - security is China allowing a multinational bank to do business in China.  This statement is so disconnected from reality it could have only come from people blinded by gold fever.

[17] War within the context of everything else

Read Barnett's statement again - it's why this presentation was so important.  When people write, they are careful to craft the message.  When presentations are made, the real messages can be extracted for analysis: 

"People say China has the ability to build up its military, I say as long as it gets $50 billion a year in foreign direct investment  from the outside world it does but there is just no such thing as unilateral development anymore - not for the United States, not for anybody.  War within the context of everything else."  

Clearly, the threat is embedded within his message.  If the multinationals are not allowed to invest in the cheapest labor markets, there will be terrorism - and not by Osama Man... but by Wall Street Man as they did on September 11, 2001.   

[18] not global cop, but a policeman

Not much difference is there?  The brilliance of Barnett is that this entire presentation is about globalizing our military for the protection of the multinational corporations and Wall Street.  It is a businessman's version of a dictator's declaration of war for world dominance - "war within the context of everything else".  I guess they learned from WWII that a better way to conquer the world is to use Madison Avenue marketing keeping the Brown Shirts in the background executing terrorist acts to "change rule sets". 

[19] Brentwood that you behave in South Central

This is an offhand way to justify the torture and terrorism they are inflicting on the people in Iraq.

[20] Coup d'etat

This statement alone tells you that the people who are running our government are not our elected officials.  Since the source of everything else that Barnett talks about is Wall Street, then it has to be the people who set us up for the coup d'etat, the same people who are profiting from it.  That would be the Digerati - the people who actually made 9-11 possible by disabling our defense systems. 

"You can vote Bush/Cheney out of office.  It will still be there.  So president after president, administration after administration, Republican and Democrat are going to have to deal with this."

Communications Failure

An interim report from the commission's staff revealed a communication failure between FAA headquarters and the Pentagon's National Military Command Center as the attacks unfolded. Poor communication meant the military mistakenly thought American Airlines Flight 11, which crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center, was headed to Washington, and NMCC was not notified that United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, was hijacked until almost 40 minutes after the FAA confirmed the hijacking, according to a new timeline of the attacks compiled by commission staff.

"The most frustrating after-the-fact scenario for me to understand and to explain is the communication link on that morning between the FAA operations center and the NMCC," said Monte Belger, who was the acting FAA deputy administrator when the attacks occurred. "I know how it's supposed to work, but I have to tell you it's still a little frustrating for me to understand how it actually did work on that day."

Rookie on the Bridge

According to the personal written statement of Navy Captain Charles J. Leidig, Jr., entered into the record during todayís hearings before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Leidig revealed that on September 10 he was asked by Brigadier General Montague Winfield to stand a portion of his duty as Deputy Director for Operations for the National Military Command Center (NMCC), which would require supervision and operation of all necessary communications as watch commander.

Leidig said "On 10 September 2001, Brigadier General Winfield, U.S. Army, asked that I stand a portion of his duty as Deputy Director for Operations, NMCC, on the following day. [September 11] I agreed and relieved Brigadier General Winfield at 0830 on 11 September 2001."

Winfield had requested Leidig to assume his watch at what turned out to be the very outset of the September 11 attacks--but even after American Flight 11 had already been determined to be hijacked just minutes before Winfield handed over his watch to Leidig.

Voice Simulation

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

[21] Undercover War

Under the heading of ĎTransformationí, the transcript and diagrams of a speech given by Admiral E.P. Giambastiani, states that ĎTransformationí is the corporatization of the military. The following is an excerpt from his speech:

http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2004/sp031704.htm

"So how can we better integrate industry and JFCOM? How can you parallel our process and participate with us on these initiatives? Brigadier General Jim Warner will brief our plan tomorrow afternoon. And as a reward for sticking around, we can all go golfing afterwards!" "Joint transformation" is something that is still not well understood within the military-both in the United States and in NATO.

To help tell the story on what we mean by "joint transformation," I've brought just three slides. I should make clear that when I use the term "joint operations," I mean the BIG "J" in joint-which refers to a seamless integration of joint forces, interagency and multinational and coalition partners. "

This is just one example of the "process" end of transformation. On the "product" side, you can see that we have focused our efforts on moving the force to a joint operational training environment-and from a force based on attrition warfare to one that is designed and trained to conduct effect-based operations.

You can see the "way ahead" must be aimed at developing and delivering new 4th Block capabilities. We're very pleased that you are here-and your continued participation and robust exchange of information is something that we will need to successfully move our collective organizations to the right.Ē