• Recent
• About & Contact
• Contributors
• Archive
• Links

• Archives home
• « Previous
• Next »

This guy needs to learn some manners. And coming from me, you know that means he's really, really rude.

So here we see him go into one of his typical moods: "He dares not agree with my theory, THE PENTAGON'S NEW MAP, hook line and sinker! Doesn't he know it's the best thing since George Kennan? The buffoon!" Barnett does some great stuff but he gets East Asia dangerously wrong -- and his biggest advantage in the debate is that if we do what he want us to, it will be too late to reverse course if/when Kaplan and other less optimistic realists are shown to be right.

Where do Kaplan and Barnett stand on the possibility of war between the US and China?

Someone else had general comments on this a few years ago. Per Henry Kissinger in his book 'Diplomacy': "Empires have no interest in operating within an international system; they aspire to *be* the international system. Empires have no need for a balance of power."

However world wars showed the danger of laisser-faire. There was agreement that things had to change. A refereeing system was introduced by the League of Nations and then the UN Charter. K noted the shortcomings of a voluntary system: "But in the vast majority of cases - and in nearly all of the difficult ones - the nations of the world tend to disagree either about the nature of the threat or about the type of sacrifice they are prepared to make to meet it."

"New nations at the world's top table":http://www.cominganarchy.com/2005/05/14/unsc-bid-status-third-status-report/ will surely make decision-making more difficult.

Adding real powers (Japan, India, etc) to the UNSC makes the UN more important, not less. Being a society of the countries that won the Second World War, plus France and China, makes it a debating society of has-beens and never-wases. Knowing that the UNSC votes actually reflect some geopolitical reality makes them more relevant.

I think what a lot of people missed in the Kaplan article, and which is partially his fault as he didn't explain it properly, is that he is longing for a new cold war with China. As he once said, the Cold War is the closest we'll ever get to Utopia. So why not repeat it sans the ideological struggle?

Flame on! I've read Kaplan for a while in The Atlantic, but I'm not really familiar with Barnett. That's alot of namecalling from one professional to another. Here's a quicklist:

"It's enough to make you want to slap some sense into the man."

"Here we go from misinformed to down right dumbass."

"Somebody pass the hash. I'm almost feeling lucid again."

"I don't think I've heard anything more stupid in my entire life."

I commented before that Kaplan was telling us what the Navy had to say; a commander prepares for the worst and that means thinking about some far out scenarios. That's what Kaplan wrote, and I'm certain had set out to do. Whether that's "whoring" depends on how you see the tone of the article. I took it as "hey, some of this sounds ridiculous but I'm glad PACOM seems to be exploring all possibilities rather than assuming everything is peachy keen." Barnett takes it as myopia that the Navy only thinks about the Navy's relationship with China and ignores other relationships. Isn't that what they should do, stick to the war business and not get tangled in economics or diplomacy?

One part of Kaplan's article I definitely had an issue with, however, and so does Barnett, is when he refers to the 2001 surveillance plane incident as a "specific demonstration of China's strength". Barnett is right, that wasn't strength, that was pilot error. Unless there's some indication that the Chinese airforce plans to use kamikaze maneuvers, characterizing a crash as a targeted strike is just bad reporting. I also have to say stoking the fires with the "carrier hit by cruise missile" = 9/11 comparison seemed inappropriate. One a military action between two national armies, the other a bunch of yahoos blowing up alot of civilians. Yes, it would make us very sad and very angry - but the comparison is tenuous.

Still, somebody really should pass Barnett the hash - he needs to mellow out.

It might be difficult to have a Cold War between the US and China. Who would join the posses?

Anyway, the Telegraph has an "article":http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml;sessionid=DLIDIZK5AKKFVQFIQMFCNAGAVCBQYJVC?xml=/global/2005/05/03/off3.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/05/16/ixportal.html about the "connectedness" (copyright Barnett) of China nowadays.

Dave,
Whoa! Unless Bill Clinton was back in charge, a Chinese cruise missile attacking a floating piece of American property would invite a vicious American counterattack, if not a drawn out war. That attack would be a clear act of war, just like the bombing of the USS Cole was in 2000 (which sadly nobody in charge realized).

Praktike offers "his analysis.":http://www.liberalsagainstterrorism.com/drupal/?q=node/1137

JFTR--that's Barnett's, not mine. I think he goes a bit, um, far. Amusing nonetheless.

Thanks for the clarification. I apologize.

Well...that wasn't the most temperate rebuttal I've ever seen from Tom on a subject.

Eddie, I didn't say we wouldn't fight back. I just meant these are two very different events that would evoke different feelings (mourning soldiers, not civilians; a clear state actor to blame; the aircraft carrier would, most likely, be near China and not inside of the United States). If you want a comparison then I would go with Pearl Harbor. I find the 9/11 reference just an emotional ploy rather than an accurate analysis.

War between the US and China? What about an energy war between the European Union and Russia?

The EU is becoming heavily dependent on Russia for its energy supplies. There are "signs":http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/05/15/timoshoil.shtml that the vital supplies could be easily cut off. It is reported that oil deliveries to Ukraine are being stopped, although they have been paid for: "for five days, no oil was pumped at all, even though we have all the necessary agreements."Â?

There is a need for a refereeing system - connectivity has its limits.

Okay, I printed out both and read them side by side. All I can say is _man_ does Barnett get his hate on for Kaplan! I knew he was going to blow with Kaplan writing about two of his pet peeves (war with China, and subs), but I am disappointed that he did so in such an un-mannerly fashion. Curzon is right.

Barnett says:

bq. The saddest thing about this article is that _The Atlantic_ published it. God, if I tried to shove anything this goofy past Mark Warren at _Esquire_, he'd just laugh me off and remove my name from the masthead.

I wish he had run _this_ piece by Mark Warren.

It is unlikely that Barnett wrote the piece so bitterly because he was mad. More likely: he wanted to make a splash. He got it.

Gotta fill those Pentagon New Map board game slots somehow ;)

"Tom Barnett's rebuttal":http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/001811.html:

bq. Yes, I will confess to being rude in the newsletter article on Kaplan. It's a skill set I mastered in DC years ago and I do it well. I try not to engage in such attack writing unless I feel compelled, and I felt compelled with Kaplan's piece on China.

"Read the rest.":http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/001811.html

[...] post More Smackdown Younghusband posted on Kaplan vs Barnett just yesterday. Barnett has responded to the uproar he caus [...]

[...] eye over arms sales and trade, while we’ve never had better relations with Tokyo. A recent commenter asked if other countries will want to jump on b [...]

[...] Related More SmackdownRobert Kaplan learns about Coming Anarchy.com - UPDATEDKaplan vs. BarnettW [...]

Recent Comments

• DPTrombly on Take back “realism”


• M-Bone on Take back “realism”


• Alistair Leadbetter on Take back “realism”


• Alfred Russel Wallace on Reconsidering First Contact


• Alfred Russel Wallace on Reconsidering First Contact


• zenpundit on Reconsidering First Contact


• M-Bone on Reconsidering First Contact


• Recommended Reading (2010-07-25) « Automatic Ballpoint on Book launch: The Handbook of 5GW

Travelogues

• Chirol's Travels to Tunisia
  A short trip through Tunisia
• Curzon's Journey Across the Far East
  Viet Nam, China and Japan
• Chirol's Syria Diary
  Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine
• Curzon's Anatolian Dispatches
  Around Turkey in March 2005
• Younghusband's Iran Diary
  Three weeks in the Islamic Republic
• Chirol's Ottoman Odyssey
  Turkey and Cyprus
• Chirol's Balkan Memories
  Croatia and Bosnia in 2002

Speak Victorian,
Think Pagan

ComingAnarchy.com is the Robert D. Kaplan-inspired site where “Curzon”, “Younghusband”, “Chirol” and “Munro-Ferguson” blog on issues of world affairs and politics. Learn more about the site and its contributors, see the latest discussion to the left, and have feel free to browse through the archives.

Text © ComingAnarchy.com since 2004.

Design based on Make It Worn by Bart-Jan Verhoef, implemented to Wordpress by Szilágyi Péter.

Powered by Wordpress.

Get the RSS