[...] 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 [...]

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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 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.

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 ;)