] Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been
] trying to come up with an operating theory of the
] world—and a military strategy to accompany it. Now
] there’s a leading contender. It involves identifying the
] problem parts of the world and aggressively shrinking
] them. Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor
] of warfare analysis, has been advising the Office of the
] Secretary of Defense and giving this briefing continually
] at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now
] he gives it to you.

] Since the end of the cold war, the United States has been
] trying to come up with an operating theory of the
] world—and a military strategy to accompany it. Now
] there’s a leading contender. It involves identifying the
] problem parts of the world and aggressively shrinking
] them. Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor
] of warfare analysis, has been advising the Office of the
] Secretary of Defense and giving this briefing continually
] at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now
] he gives it to you.

Vewy vewy itewesting.

] A country’s potential to warrant a U.S. military response
] is inversely related to its globalization connectivity.

There are some excellent observations in this article about the way that 911 focused the US military establishment on real problems and the way that military organization is changing. However, I'm not sure if I buy the primary premise, that lack of connectivity produces threats. The guy lists Yemen as an "end of the earth" from a globalisation perspective. I'm not expert on the middle east, but I'm pretty sure that observation is about 180 degress from correct. If I recall correctly, Yemen is one of the most cosmopolitain places in the Middle East, where immigrants outnumber naturalized citizens like 10 to 1. They are really really well connected.

So why are they a threat? Because, and really he does get to this in the essay but I think this point deserves much more emphasis, telecommunications and transportation technology have ended the relationship between ideology and geography. To be sure, if you grow up in a place that is poor, oppressed, and war torn, you are more likely to consider violence as an option then someone who grows up comfortable. However, is it really possible to remove right wing militia or left wing black blocs from the global security equation? Are these people less dangerous then Al'Q?

The lines will be drawn idealogically and not in terms of nationality, whether we like it or not. I think the fact that this guy is still leaning toward drawing lines on a map is evidence that he hasn't fully groked what is going on.

To paraphrase the Matrix, "There is no map."

Since September 11, 2001, the author, a professor of warfare analysis, has been advising the Office of the Secretary of Defense and giving this briefing continually at the Pentagon and in the intelligence community. Now he gives it to you.

Thomas Barnett lays out the case for 'exporting security'.

Whether or not you think he's right, it remains to be seen if they can actually pull it off in Iraq.