link

From Critt, an interview with an influential military theorist who thinks danger is defined by disconnectedness.

As an advisor to the Secretary of Defense for 20 months following the September 11 attacks, Naval War College professor Thomas Barnett helped draw up our government's plans for prosecuting the War on Terror.

His primary insight was to divide the present nations of the world into two categories: a "Functioning Core" that exchanges ideas and goods globally, and a "Non-integrating" group who are isolated from other countries both economically and in the realm of ideas.

Noteworthy:

TAE: What are Iraq's prospects for economic development and integration into the global economy? Is getting its oil industry operational sufficient to achieve that?

BARNETT: No. Historically, countries develop the slowest when they rely on export of raw materials. and over-reliance on one resource makes a country more susceptible to the rise of elites who control the masses by controlling these resources. The Middle East is a place where there is a lot of wealth, but not much development, because the resource wealth is controlled by elites. And these rich elites produce kids with an expectation of hereditary rule who behave badly. That's Osama bin Laden in a nutshell.

This guy is brilliant. Is this long-term, globewide policy really what put us in Iraq? If so, can we handle that challenge? Was Bush hoping that these goals would become so clear and compelling that his initial lies would be seen as a crafty sell rather than as grossly misleading claptrap with no motive more evident than Halliburton profiteering?

Unfortunately I am not terribly optimistic that Bush feels this. And if he does I doubt he can effectively communicate it to the World which hangs on his every word. I'd love to hear what Wes Clark has to say about this…