Articles, Blog

Thomas Barnett: Rethinking America’s military strategy

August 13, 2019


I get asked a lot what the difference
between my work is and typical Pentagon
long-range strategic planners. And the answer I like to offer is what they typically do is they think
about the future of wars in the context of war. And what I’ve spent 15 years
doing in this business — and it’s taken me almost
14 to figure it out — is I think about the future of wars
in the context of everything else. So I tend to specialize
on the scene between war and peace. The material I’m going to show
you is one idea from a book with a lot of ideas. It’s the one that takes me
around the world right now interacting with foreign
militaries quite a bit. The material was generated
in two years of work I did for the Secretary of Defense, thinking about a new
national grand strategy for the United States. I’m going to present a problem and try to give you an answer. Here’s my favorite bonehead concept
from the 1990s in the Pentagon: the theory of anti-access,
area-denial asymmetrical strategies. Why do we call it that? Because it’s got all those
A’s lined up I guess. This is gobbledygook for if the United States fights
somebody we’re going to be huge. They’re going to be small. And if they try to fight us
in the traditional, straight-up manner we’re going to kick their ass, which is why people don’t
try to do that any more. I met the last Air Force
General who had actually shot down an enemy plane in combat. He’s now a one star General. That’s how distant
we are from even meeting an air force willing to fly against ours. So that overmatched capability
creates problems — catastrophic successes
the White House calls them. (Laughter) And we’re trying to figure that out, because it is an amazing capability. The question is, what’s the good
you can do with it? OK? The theory of anti-access, area-denial
asymmetrical strategies — gobbledygook that we sell to Congress, because if we just told them
we can kick anybody’s asses they wouldn’t buy us
all the stuff we want. So we say, area-denial, anti-access
asymmetrical strategies and their eyes glaze over. (Laughter) And they say, “Will you
build it in my district?” (Laughter) (Applause) Here’s my parody and it ain’t much of one. Let’s talk about a battle space. I don’t know, Taiwan Straits 2025. Let’s talk about an enemy embedded
within that battle space. I don’t know, the Million Man Swim. (Laughter) The United States has to access
that battle space instantaneously. They throw up anti-access,
area-denial asymmetrical strategies. A banana peel on the tarmac. (Laughter) Trojan horses on our computer networks reveal all our Achilles’ heels instantly. We say, “China, it’s yours.” Prometheus approach, largely
a geographic definition, focuses almost exclusively
on the start of conflict. We field the first-half team in a league that insists on keeping score
until the end of the game. That’s the problem. We can run the score up against anybody, and then get our asses
kicked in the second half — what they call fourth generation warfare. Here’s the way
I like to describe it instead. There is no battle space the U.S.
Military cannot access. They said we couldn’t do Afghanistan.
We did it with ease. They said we couldn’t do Iraq. We did it with 150 combat
casualties in six weeks. We did it so fast we weren’t
prepared for their collapse. There is nobody we can’t take down. The question is, what do
you do with the power? So there’s no trouble
accessing battle spaces. What we have trouble accessing
is the transition space that must naturally follow, and creating the peace space
that allows us to move on. Problem is, the Defense
Department over here beats the hell out of you. The State Department over here says, “Come on boy, I know you can make it.” And that poor country runs off that ledge, does that cartoon thing and then drops. (Laughter) This is not about overwhelming
force, but proportional force. It’s about non-lethal technologies, because if you fire real ammo into a crowd of women and children rioting you’re going to lose friends very quickly. This is not about projecting
power, but about staying power, which is about legitimacy with the locals. Who do you access in this
transition space? You have to create internal partners.
You have to access coalition partners. We asked the Indians
for 17,000 peace keepers. I know their senior leadership,
they wanted to give it to us. But they said to us, “You know what? In that transition space you’re
mostly hat not enough cattle. We don’t think you can pull it off, we’re not going to give you
our 17,000 peace keepers for fodder.” We asked the Russians for 40,000. They said no. I was in China in August, I said, “You should have 50,000
peace keepers in Iraq. It’s your oil, not ours.” Which is the truth. It’s their oil. And the Chinese said to me, “Dr.
Barnett, you’re absolutely right. In a perfect world we’d have 50,000 there. But it’s not a perfect world, and your administration isn’t
getting us any closer.” But we have trouble
accessing our outcomes. We lucked out, frankly, on the selection. We face different opponents
across these three. And it’s time to start admitting you can’t ask the same 19-year-old
to do it all, day in and day out. It’s just too damn hard. We have an unparalleled
capacity to wage war. We don’t do the everything else so well. Frankly, we do it better than anybody
and we still suck at it. We have a brilliant Secretary of War. We don’t have a Secretary
of Everything Else. Because if we did, that guy
would be in front of the Senate, still testifying over Abu Ghraib. The problem is he doesn’t exist. There is no Secretary of Everything Else. I think we have an unparalleled
capacity to wage war. I call that the Leviathan Force. What we need to build is a force
for the Everything Else. I call them the System Administrators. What I think this really represents is lack of an A to Z rule set
for the world as a whole for processing politically
bankrupt states. We have one for processing
economically bankrupt states. It’s the IMF Sovereign
Bankruptcy Plan, OK? We argue about it every time we use it. Argentina just went through it,
broke a lot of rules. They got out on the far end, we said,
“Fine, don’t worry about it.” It’s transparent. A certain
amount of certainty gives the sense of a non-zero outcome. We don’t have one for processing
politically bankrupt states that, frankly, everybody wants gone. Like Saddam, like Mugabe,
like Kim Jong-Il — people who kill in hundreds
of thousands or millions. Like the 250,000 dead so far in Sudan. What would an A to Z system look like? I’m going to distinguish
between what I call front half and back half. And let’s call this red line,
I don’t know, mission accomplished. (Laughter) (Applause) What we have extant right now, at the beginning of this system, is the U.N.
Security Council as a grand jury. What can they do? They can indict your ass. They can debate it. They can
write it on a piece of paper. They can put it in an envelope
and mail it to you, and then say in no uncertain
terms, “Please cut that out.” (Laughter) That gets you about four million dead
in Central Africa over the 1990s. That gets you 250,000 dead
in the Sudan in the last 15 months. Everybody’s got to answer
their grandchildren some day what you did
about the holocaust in Africa, and you better have an answer. We don’t have anything to translate
that will into action. What we do have is the U.S.-enabled
Leviathan Force that says, “You want me to take that guy down?
I’ll take that guy down. I’ll do it on Tuesday. It will cost
you 20 billion dollars.” (Laughter) But here’s the deal. As soon as I can’t find
anybody else to air out, I leave the scene immediately. That’s called the Powell Doctrine. Way downstream we have
the International Criminal Court. They love to put them on trial.
They’ve got Milosević right now. What are we missing? A functioning executive
that will translate will into action, because we don’t have it. Every time we lead one of these efforts we have to whip ourselves
into this imminent threat thing. We haven’t faced an imminent threat since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. But we use this language from a bygone era to scare ourselves into doing something because we’re a democracy
and that’s what it takes. And if that doesn’t work
we scream, “He’s got a gun!” just as we rush in. (Laughter) And then we look over the body and we find an old cigarette
lighter and we say, “Jesus, it was dark.” (Laughter) Do you want to do it, France? France says, “No, but I do
like to criticize you after the fact.” What we need downstream
is a great power enabled — what I call that Sys Admin Force. We should have had 250,000
troops streaming into Iraq on the heels of that Leviathan
sweeping towards Baghdad. What do you get then? No looting, no military disappearing, no arms disappearing,
no ammo disappearing, no Muqtada Al-Sadr — I’m
wrecking his bones — no insurgency. Talk to anybody who was over there
in the first six months. We had six months to feel
the lob, to get the job done, and we dicked around for six months. And then they turned on us. Why? Because they just got fed up. They saw what we did to Saddam. They said, “You’re that powerful,
you can resurrect this country. You’re America.” What we need is an international
reconstruction fund — Sebastian Mallaby,
Washington Post, great idea. Model on the IMF. Instead of passing the hat each time, OK? Where are we going to find this guy?
G20, that’s easy. Check out their agenda since 9/11. All security dominated. They’re going to decide up front
how the money gets spent just like in the IMF. You vote according to how much
money you put in the kitty. Here’s my challenge
to the Defense Department. You’ve got to build this force.
You’ve got to seed this force. You’ve got to track coalition partners.
Create a record of success. You will get this model. You tell me it’s too hard to do. I’ll walk this dog right
through that six part series on the Balkans. We did it just like that. I’m talking about regularizing
it, making it transparent. Would you like Mugabe gone? Would you like Kim Jong-Il,
who’s killed about two million people, would you like him gone? Would you like a better system? This is why it matters to the military. They’ve been experiencing an identity
crisis since the end of the Cold War. I’m not talking about the difference
between reality and desire, which I can do because I’m
not inside the beltway. (Laughter) I’m talking about the 1990s. The Berlin Wall falls. We do Desert Storm. The split starts to emerge
between those in the military who see a future they can live with, and those who see a future
that starts to scare them, like the U.S. submarine community, which watches the Soviet
Navy disappear overnight. Ah! (Laughter) So they start moving
from reality towards desire and they create their own special language to describe their voyage of self-discovery
and self-actualization. (Laughter) The problem is you need a big,
sexy opponent to fight against. And if you can’t find
one you’ve got to make one up. China, all grown up, going to be a looker! (Laughter) The rest of the military got
dragged down into the muck across the 1990s and they developed this very
derisive term to describe it: military operations other than war. I ask you, who joins the military
to do things other than war? Actually, most of them. Jessica Lynch never
planned on shooting back. Most of them don’t pick up a rifle. I maintain this is code
inside the Army for, “We don’t want to do this.” They spent the 1990s
working the messy scene between globalized parts of the world What I call the core and the gap. The Clinton administration wasn’t
interested in running this. For eight years, after screwing
up the relationship on day one — inauguration day with gays
in the military — which was deft. (Laughter) So we were home alone for eight years. And what did we do home alone? We bought one military
and we operated another. It’s like the guy who goes
to the doctor and says, “Doctor, it hurts when I do this.” (Laughter) The doctor says, “Stop
doing that you idiot.” I used to give this brief
inside the Pentagon in the early 1990s. I’d say, “You’re buying one military
and you’re operating another, and eventually it’s going to hurt.
It’s wrong. Bad Pentagon, bad!” (Laughter) And they’d say, “Dr.
Barnett, you are so right. Can you come back next year
and remind us again?” (Laughter) Some people say 9/11 heals the rift — jerks the long-term transformation gurus out of their 30,000 foot view of history, drags them down in to the muck and says,
“You want a networked opponent? I’ve got one, he’s everywhere,
go find him.” It elevates MOOTW —
how we pronounce that acronym — from crap to grand strategy, because that’s how you’re
going to shrink that gap. Some people put these two things together and they call it empire, which I think
is a boneheaded concept. Empire is about the enforcement
of not just minimal rule sets, which you cannot do, but maximum rule sets which you must do. It’s not our system of governance. Never how we’ve sought to interact
with the outside world. I prefer that phrase
System Administration. We enforce the minimal rule sets for maintaining connectivity
to the global economy. Certain bad things you cannot do. How this impacts the way we think
about the future of war. This is a concept which gets me
vilified throughout the Pentagon. It makes me very popular as well. Everybody’s got an opinion. Going back to the beginning
of our country — historically, defenses meant
protection of the homeland. Security has meant everything else. Written into our constitution, two different forces,
two different functions. Raise an army when you need it, and maintain a navy
for day-to-day connectivity. A Department of War,
a Department of Everything Else. A big stick, a baton stick. Can of whup ass, the networking force. In 1947 we merged these
two things together in the Defense Department. Our long-term rationale becomes, we’re involved in a hair trigger
stand off with the Soviets. To attack America is to risk
blowing up the world. We connected national security
to international security with about a seven minute time delay. That’s not our problem now. They can kill
three million in Chicago tomorrow and we don’t go
to the mattresses with nukes. That’s the scary part. The question is how do we reconnect
American national security with global security to make
the world a lot more comfortable, and to embed and contextualize
our employment of force around the planet? What’s happened
since is that bifurcation I described. We talked about this
going all the way back to the end of the Cold War. Let’s have a Department of War,
and a Department of Something Else. Some people say, “Hell,
9/11 did it for you.” Now we’ve got a home
game and an away game. (Laughter) The Department of Homeland Security
is a strategic feel good measure. It’s going to be the Department
of Agriculture for the 21st century. TSA — thousands standing around. (Laughter) I supported the war in Iraq. He was a bad guy with multiple priors. It’s not like we had to find him actually killing somebody
live to arrest him. I knew we’d kick ass in the war
with the Leviathan Force. I knew we’d have a hard
time with what followed. But I know this organization doesn’t
change until it experiences failure. What do I mean by these
two different forces? This is the Hobbesian Force. I love this force. I don’t
want to see it go. That plus nukes rules out great power war. This is the military the rest
of the world wants us to build. It’s why I travel all over the world
talking to foreign militaries. What does this mean? It means you’ve got to stop pretending you can do these two very disparate
skill sets with the same 19-year-old. Switching back, morning,
afternoon, evening, morning, afternoon, evening. Handing out aid, shooting back, handing out aid, shooting back. It’s too much. The 19-year-olds get tired
from the switching, OK? (Laughter) That force on the left, you can
train a 19-year-old to do that. That force on the right is more
like a 40-year-old cop. You need the experience. What does this mean
in terms of operations? The rule is going to be this. That Sys Admin force is the force
that never comes home, does most of your work. You break out that Leviathan
Force only every so often. But here’s the promise you
make to the American public, to your own people, to the world. You break out that Leviathan Force, you promise, you guarantee
that you’re going to mount one hell of a — immediately
— follow-on Sys Admin effort. Don’t plan for the war unless you
plan to win the peace. (Applause) Other differences. Leviathan traditional partners,
they all look like the Brits and their former colonies. (Laughter) Including us, I would remind you. The rest — wider array of partners. International organizations,
non-governmental organizations, private voluntary
organizations, contractors. You’re not going to get away from that. Leviathan Force, it’s all about joint
operations between the military services. We’re done with that. What we need to do
is inter-agency operations, which frankly Condi Rice was in charge of. And I’m amazed nobody asked her
that question when she was confirmed. I call the Leviathan Force
your dad’s military. I like them young, male,
unmarried, slightly pissed off. (Laughter) I call the Sys Admin Force
your mom’s military. It’s everything the man’s military hates. Gender balanced much more, older,
educated, married with children. The force on the left, up or out. The force on the right, in and out. The force on the left respects
Posse Comitatus restrictions on the use of force inside the U.S. The force on the right’s going
to obliterate it. That’s where the National
Guard’s going to be. The force on the left is never
coming under the purview of the International Criminal Court. Sys Admin Force has to. Different definitions
of network centricity. One takes down networks, one puts them up. And you’ve got to wage war here
in such a way to facilitate that. Do we need a bigger budget? Do we need a draft to pull this off? Absolutely not. I’ve been told by the Revolution
of Military Affairs crowd for years, we can do it faster, cheaper,
smaller, just as lethal. I say, “Great, I’m going to take the Sys
Admin budget out of your hide.” Here’s the larger point. You’re going to build the Sys Admin
Force inside the U.S. Military first. But ultimately you’re going
to civilianize it, probably two thirds. Inter agency-ize it, internationalize it. So yes, it begins inside the Pentagon, but over time it’s going
to cross that river. (Laughter) I have been to the mountain top.
I can see the future. I may not live long enough to get you
there, but it’s going to happen. We’re going to have
a Department of Something Else between war and peace. Last slide. Who gets custody of the kids? This is where the Marines
in the audience get kind of tense. (Laughter) And this is when they think
about beating the crap out of me after the talk. (Laughter) Read Max Boon. This is the history of the marines
— small wars, small arms. The Marines are like my West
Highland Terrier. They get up every morning,
they want to dig a hole and they want to kill something. (Laughter) I don’t want my Marines handing out aid. I want them to be Marines. That’s what keeps the Sys Admin
Force from being a pussy force. It keeps it from being the U.N. You shoot at these people the Marines
are going to come over and kill you. (Laughter) (Applause) Department of Navy,
strategic subs go this way, surface combatants are over there, and the news is they may
actually be that small. (Laughter) I call it the Smart Dust Navy. I tell young officers, “You may
command 500 ships in your career. Bad news is they may not
have anybody on them.” Carriers go both ways
because they’re a swing asset. You’ll see the pattern —
airborne, just like carriers. Armor goes this way. Here’s the dirty secret of the Air Force, you can win by bombing. But you need lots of these guys
on the ground to win the peace. Shinseki was right with the argument. Air force, strategic
airlift goes both ways. Bombers, fighters go over here. Special Operations Command down at Tampa. Trigger-pullers go this way. Civil Affairs, that bastard
child, comes over here. Return to the Army. The point about the trigger-pullers
and Special Operations Command. No off season, these
guys are always active. They drop in, do
their business, disappear. See me now. Don’t talk about it later. (Laughter) I was never here. (Laughter) The world is my playground. (Laughter) I want to keep trigger-pullers
trigger-happy. I want the rules to be
as loose as possible. Because when the thing
gets prevented in Chicago with the three million dead that perverts our political
system beyond all recognition, these are the guys who are going
to kill them first. So it’s better off to have them
make some mistakes along the way than to see that. Reserve component — National Guard reserves
overwhelmingly Sys Admin. How are you going to get
them to work for this force? Most firemen in this
country do it for free. This is not about money. This is about being up front
with these guys and gals. Last point, intelligence community — the muscle and the defense
agencies go this way. What should be the CIA, open,
analytical, open source should come over here. The information you need
to do this is not secret. It’s not secret. Read that great piece in the New Yorker about how our echo boomers,
19 to 25, over in Iraq taught each other
how to do Sys Admin work, over the Internet in chat rooms. They said, “Al Qaeda could be listening.” They said, “Well, Jesus,
they already know this stuff.” (Laughter) Take a gift in the left hand. These are the sunglasses that don’t
scare people, simple stuff. Censors and transparency,
the overheads go in both directions. Thanks.

100 Comments

  • Reply DMC12Gauge May 25, 2012 at 5:00 am

    You have no sources, all of your posts are based on an ideological rant centered around a personal view. There is no objective facts there.

    Saddam's ties with the US did not go any further than when we played both sides in the Iran-Iraq war, we did not aid Saddam because he was an ally, but rather it was to draw the conflict to a stalemate so neither side could win. A basic knowledge of Iraq would mitigate ignorance on the subject.

  • Reply DMC12Gauge May 25, 2012 at 5:01 am

    Where are all the bodies for these "2 Million" people? Not even Iraqi morgues agree with you. You have absolutely no knowledge of Iraq.

  • Reply DMC12Gauge May 25, 2012 at 5:02 am

    Yeah, those same chemical facilities you're talking about is what called Gulf War syndrome in the first Gulf War. Come on, you can do better than that.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci May 25, 2012 at 8:53 am

    1 million dead in Iraq, including 500,000 children during pre-war sanctions CONFIRMED by the UN & admitted by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. 1 million dead after invasion, Lancet Journal CONFIRMED. Thomas Barnnet is a scumbag and belongs in a jail cell for conspiracy to commit mass murder – not on a TED stage.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci May 25, 2012 at 8:56 am

    Conspiracy to commit mass murder & perpetuate modern day imperialism, only entertaining to people who have not been in the military or overseas, and seen children split in 2 by 500 lbs US bombs. Stop sucking your thumb and get informed. Stop getting drunk off of imperial arrogance. He's giggling about murdering people for resisting Wall Street-London hegemony. What sort of twit finds that "smart and very entertaining?"

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci May 25, 2012 at 9:00 am

    SoylentgreenB is citing a US Marine Corps command post-action analysis of the Iraq-Iran war – where the Marine Corps openly admits it assisted Iraq in the conflict, and was eager to study the effects of Saddam's employment of chemical weapons. "DarkFilmDirector" don't take your profound, seemingly limitless ignorance out on people who've obviously done their homework.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci May 25, 2012 at 9:04 am

    Barrnett is seeking a way to fight wars of aggression & conquest more efficiently. He's not a realist anymore than Roman megalomaniacs were realists – their thirst for power is the ultimate indulgence of fantasy and it cost them their entire civilization just as Fortune 500 wars of profit are costing the West today our civilization. You are not "hip" just because you think you're making the hard but smart decision. You haven't studied your history on an even elementary level.

  • Reply DMC12Gauge May 25, 2012 at 9:10 am

    It assisted Iraq as much as it assisted Iran. You are only reading half the facts.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci May 25, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Question: This is on the other side of the planet, what business does the US have in getting involved on either side let alone both? Perpetuating a war that cost a million lives sounds like a Nuremberg crime against world peace and contra to the US Constitution and the philosophies of the men who wrote it. And again, I am not reading "half the facts," I am reading official documents produced by the US government, in particular the US Marine Corps (I am a former Marine). Read "War is a Racket."

  • Reply LillianSwampRacing June 7, 2012 at 3:55 am

    You are an idiot, and not even a mildly amusing one.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci June 7, 2012 at 7:29 am

    I'm sorry people who take the time to be properly informed – the responsibility of all free men and women – upsets you so much. If you have an intelligent point to make, resorting to one-liner ad hominem attacks is not the way to do it. I'd spend more time getting informed than seeking "amusement" if I were you.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci July 3, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    Lancet Journal & the US Secretary of State – who admitted the sanctions she supported killed AT LEAST 500,000 children. Where do you get your facts, "man?"

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci July 3, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    All you did was write a bunch of numbers. What is your source? Your "fertile" imagination? My source is the Lancet Journal – most respected/oldest medical journal on earth – that's where I got my numbers. US Secretary of State Madeline Albright admitted before the war even began AT LEAST 500,000 Iraqi children (among 1 million) had been killed as a direct result of US sanctions. Siege warfare is still warfare. I did the research, you are making excuses and stories – citing ZERO sources.

  • Reply 0mikr0n July 15, 2012 at 8:35 am

    Good sir, I believe the point he's making is to spend as little time and money blowing people up as possible.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci July 15, 2012 at 10:52 am

    I believe you missed the whole point of his presentation then – this is not a stand alone talk. It requires a deep knowledge of how US policy is created, and by whom it is created. I would suggest you frequent the websites of America's think-tanks, namely the CFR, Brookings, AEI, and ICG. Check who funds their work – see how these same sponsors are the ones then selling the policy created there to both Congress through lobbying, and the public through the corporate media.

  • Reply hammertapping July 18, 2012 at 12:59 am

    ted is a racist organization that wants imposition of western values and puppets on rest of the world, by force if needs be.
    thereby they hope to continue to loot the resources of rest of the world

    these blood sucking scum among other things it have supported child killing terrorists, like tamil tigers.

    don't support these murderous filth, expose them for what they are .

    down with the these western killers and their paid slaves !

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci July 26, 2012 at 9:33 pm

    You make no sense at all. Insurgents are people who rose up against US occupation – what are you doing occupying another nation in the first place? Before you give me the corporate-media casus belli, open a history book and tell me what the last nation was called that had its military arrayed all over the planet, waging wars big and small. I think you will see that it was Britannia and it was called EMPIRE.

  • Reply ChowMeinChowdown October 1, 2012 at 6:06 pm

    Succumbing of vassal states was due more to their relative primitiveness rather than being "pussies". A case could be made for the pro's of its occurrence, as well for it's lack thereof. Ultimately it's up to them to pick up where they were left off. I'm not sure from where you derive the pride shown in your words..is it senseless nationalism? Was someone somewhere along your lineage involved in the "SysAdmin" work expounded by Barnett? In which case I'm pretty sure he didn't smell manipulation.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci October 20, 2012 at 10:51 am

    From your perspective, and not to be insulting but a perspective that is not fully informed, it seems as if they have "everything." In reality, they see things very differently. Despite having "everything," they see humanity as an ocean of potential usurpers, and there are always additional means to achieve further superiority. 6,000 years of recorded human history prove there is always more beyond what we believe "everything" is.

  • Reply nathenism December 19, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    control is wrong. period. we think we are intellectually, morally and spiritually superior to our designated "bad guys" but we are not.

  • Reply Grey Lives Matter January 21, 2013 at 5:31 pm

    Barnett has always talked a good line, but what he keeps doing wrong is telling people that China and Iran don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and that is wrong. He keeps dragging up mid 1990s numbers when the Chinese military learning how to project force in Africa and did poorly. They are good at it now. The other problem he has a feminist world view and any state with no rights for women is a failure. A look at a map proves that false as well. He's good for a laugh though.

  • Reply Grey Lives Matter January 21, 2013 at 5:33 pm

    Close…TED is a SOCIALIST organization. A lot of NWO money goes into it. It is important to watch the speeches because they do let out plans from time to time.

  • Reply Jose Bracho February 8, 2013 at 9:30 am

    Everything he says rings true , But never mentioned CORPORATIONS like HALLIBURTON, and BLACKWATER that leads me to believe that just like CHENEY he just wants to pave a smooth road to big BUSINESS so they can profit quicker.

  • Reply edstercw March 3, 2013 at 1:14 am

    dammit audience stop laughing! these are serious jokes.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel March 31, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    Less than 200,000 died from the Iraq War and at that rate, those people were killed by the leviathan that this man wants to stop using in Afghanistan and Iraq…

    So you are for keeping the military the way it is and not allowing non-lethals to be used in combat? Drone strikes, civilian collateral damage, all tolerable so long as the U.S. doesn't pay to rebuild a country after decimating it's goverment? Pehaps you belong in jail. (P.S. think tanks often require money, guess who has it!)

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 1, 2013 at 4:57 am

    Clearly you missed the whole point – the US has no business in Iraq or Afghanistan or any other country beyond its borders in the first place. This is 21st century imperialism, unacceptable, intolerable, and all involved are criminals. Think tanks do require money, and they get it from corporations – who are the sole beneficiaries of the endless wars think tanks drum up. Bottom line, the US shouldn't "rebuild" nations, b/c it should have criminally destroyed them in the 1st place.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 1, 2013 at 5:00 am

    On a normal day, TED does have thought-provoking talks. However, by allowing human filth like the above Barnett who giggles at wars that have left millions dead/displaced/maimed, and seeks to wage new ones, TED seriously tarnishes its reputation and invites angry comments like the one you responded to. If you like human happiness and string theory, tell TED to stop inviting corporate-fascist warmongers on stage to giggle about slaughtering and subjugating his fellow man.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 6, 2013 at 8:13 am

    Freedom of speech doesn't cover openly conspiring to commit global, corporate-fascist driven genocide. If Barnett and the people he represents hadn't already mass murdered millions amidst their machinations, and this was all "theoretical," I might understand what you're saying. How would you feel about TED having a Neo-Nazi take the stage and talk about planning the next Holocaust?

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 8, 2013 at 12:57 pm

    Conspiring to kill people is a crime. If you or I did it we could spend the next 20 years to life in prison. Why not so for Mr. Barnett? His people actually have already killed millions, and he is on stage planning the next half century of neo-imperial barbarism. & b/c people like Barnett are entertained and allowed to carry on, the West is bankrupt. People are being turned away from medical care to continue funding his imperial adventures. Real lives are being destroyed – he's a criminal.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 8, 2013 at 5:14 pm

    He's conspiring to use non-lethal weapons in combat… aka avoiding killing as much as possible.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 8, 2013 at 5:20 pm

    Do you object to rape culture in India? If you do, you are imposing your system of morality on others in another country. If you think anything should be done about it, you are imperialist. You can't have it both ways.
    (Jason if you read this, feel free to take the credit for this idea)

    What the hell is the point of arguing against Barnett? It is like arguing against Erin Rommel rather than focusing on Hitler. Rommel was merciful, against holocausts, and wanted peace, like Barnett.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 10, 2013 at 5:28 am

    Imperialism is imperialism, however you attempt to couch it. Rommel still wore the Swastika, and still contributed to genocide and human subjugation – i.e. still a war criminal. But thanks for confirming our suspicions, that Barnett's fans are closet Nazis and corporate fascists.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 10, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    Tautology is tautology, and you didn't answer the question. If Rommel rejected his military position more would have died, many more. It seems clear that you wouldn't switch the tracks if given the trolley problem: would you let 5 innocents die in certain circumstances because you can't kill one? Why does who is responsible matter with moral outcomes? Do you fear responsibility?

    Straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks are fallacious… do you like using terrible logic to sound good?

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 12, 2013 at 4:55 am

    Thanks again for confirming that the deplorable Thomas Barnett is a corporate-fascist warmonger with a gaggle of closet Neo-Nazis for fans. Rommel's choice seems (to you) "noble" but only in absolute retrospect. At the time he was collaborating in something many other Germans knew was wrong and fought, and DIED trying to stop. Therefore there is never anything noble about collaborating with a system you know is wrong.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 18, 2013 at 5:21 pm

    Comparing Rommel to Barnett is laughable – here Barnett is on stage laughing about wars that are killing millions of people, never once put on the uniform to fight in all the adventures he helps engineer, and is sitting there trying to start NEW WARS! These are wars purely for profit, do not need to be fought, and should be opposed by any conscionable human being. He's not trying to rid the West of its atrocious leadership and end wars,he's working on how to more efficiently fight the next ones.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 18, 2013 at 5:48 pm

    If we went with Barnett's strategy earlier there likely wouldn't be a war in Afghanistan, because the hijackers wouldn't have hated America's foreign policy enough, although they still would likely be militant and attacked somewhere. It's also likely the second Iraq War would also have not happened, and neither would Vietnam.

    Stopping the genocide in Rwanda would have been a much easier war than WW2 and would have equivalent moral justifications with one exception: national self interest.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 18, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    Crossing your border and attacking another country is a crime against humanity and is never justifiable. Barnett is a corporate-fascist, working openly for corporate-fascists and couching their self-interests disingenuously behind humanitarian concern – and not even convincingly. He is (and so are you) giving the same tired defense imperialists have used throughout history to justify their atrocities.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 19, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    Therefore, by your logic, we also should not have fought in World War 2, which is quite ironic since that would have left the Nazi's or Communists take over the world.

    Fascism is radical authoritarian nationalism. I oppose each one of these aspects. If a self-critical, democratic, organization decided to intervene in foreign countries with non-lethal force, I would likely support it, if it's goals increase regional freedom and safety. But right now, the U.S. has power, so it should act.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 19, 2013 at 3:51 pm

    Great – instead of Nazis or Communists overrunning the planet and everyone speaking German or Russian, the Wall Street London fascists took over, and now everyone is learning English. "if it's goals increase regional freedom and safety," only quite clearly, such is not the goal. I'm not sure if it's you who is stupid enough to believe this imperialist propaganda, or contempt you have for everyone elses' intelligence.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 19, 2013 at 3:52 pm

    PS America has no power, yet is still trying to act. How reckless, irresponsible, and indicative of just why it should stay home and mind its own business. America is discredited, unwanted, broke financially, politically, and yes, quite clearly, tactically.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    That is a good point… therefore thumbs up!

    I don't think there have been Wall Street induced genocides… aside from the starvation bad economics brings… Screw it, most premature deaths wouldn't happen with a Nordic economy, so the world may have been better off if the Nazi's won, provided that someone like Rommel would have ended their racist non-sense.

    If efforts harmonize and increase the number of human and animal interests satisfied while also increasing education, I support them.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 21, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    Yes – ok finally you fly your true colors – "so the world may have been better off if the Nazi's won." Thomas Barnett is a corporate-fascist, and the very few out there willing to worm deep enough in the gutter to defend him are closet-case Nazis. Peace.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Also, such is not the goal of who? Did I ever say I support the United States military as it is? There is a reason I left it myself: I didn't want to fight in a military that finds Iraq and Afghanistan to be larger moral imperatives than Rwanda and Darfur. The Navy did a lot of good during the South East Asian Tsunami, but our military should be doing those types of acts all the time (if we spend this much money on it) not just when disaster strikes.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    Regardless, what imperialist propaganda am I buying into? Is any war ever morally acceptable to be a part of?

    You seem to buy into Lancet's crappy statistics, keep in mind that just because something is not imperialist does not make it accurate.

    If the Lancet report were accurate, then half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued… Which is not likely.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Enough with the straw-man arguments, they just make you look stupid: I'm continuing to debate under the assumption you are not stupid, further straw-man arguments will prove my assumption false.

    Nazism is terrible because of: nationalism, racism, totalitarianism, and radicalism. With characters like Rommel and democratic axis examples like Finland, these aspects could have been easily overcome: leaving a Nordic style governments like Finland's for the world.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    America has no power? It's military could destroy all human life on earth and it has enough yearly income to prevent all poverty caused deaths on the globe: if the money were put to the later use, rather than the former, it would be a good thing.

    What American's spend on just alcohol is enough to save half those lives, but I suppose you'd rather it remain that way than to have American money saving lives in another country. Is that what you want? If so, you are nationalist…

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 21, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    It is clear America has squandered its potential and the "help" it offers the world is merely what it couches its parasitic corporate-fascist agenda behind. Great nations lead by example – ask yourself, what example is America setting for the world in terms of liberty, health, education, and infrastructure? Matthew, this is an information war, and you are a causality. I've done what I can, I must move on to others who actually have a chance. Good luck brother.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Don't buy into Alex Jones if that was what you were referencing with the phrase "information war." The logic principle of Occam's Razor undermines most of the theories that he put's forward.

    Nordic Countries lead by example, they are happy, intelligent, and helping the rest of the world. The U.S. would save millions if it implemented a similar system, so I would like such to happen. The U.S. sucks now, but if it adopts logic in education, it will be on the way to a better system.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 21, 2013 at 4:38 pm

    I find people that cite "Occam's Razor" are generally weak minded and intellectual cowards. Conspiracies are real, and can be found at every level of society – a surprise birthday party is a conspiracy, so is a bank robbery, – the Gulf of Tonkin is also an admitted conspiracy. Lying about WMD's was a conspiracy – so what did the tiresome, abused "Occam's Razor" tell you about each of these examples before hand, and what does critical thinking tell you about them after?

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 4:48 pm

    Occam's razor would endorse the conspiracy theory for any surprise birthday because such is a more simple explanation than having many individuals happen to by coincidence say "happy birthday" and bring presents to your house at the same time without any planning.

    Occam's Ravor could be used in Gulf of Tonkin to indicate that the U.S. ship was not fired upon at the claimed time due to sonar inadequacies at the time.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 4:54 pm

    WMD was a creative term to use: Saddam did have Chemical Weapons with which he brought genocide upon the Kurds, but there were never nuclear weapons. Given the information they had, Occam's razor would indicate that there were no Nukes, but that there were chemical weapons.

    Governments are stupid so don't forget Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 4:58 pm

    To put it generally: conspiracies are likely, however they are unlikely to be a part of every event on the news or how we imagine them. There were conspiracies with respect to 9/11: by extremists to attack and by others earlier to ignore a credible threat, but I don't think there were any additional explosives or any evidence of such: I'm saying this as a fire protection engineering major.

  • Reply Anthony Cartalucci April 21, 2013 at 4:58 pm

    Actually, it is now admitted that the chemical weapons intel was intentionally fabricated – and before knowing this, Occam's Razor would have pointed to the thousands of years of recorded history of governments, kingdoms, and dynasties fabricating a casus belli to lure their populations into war. Mat, I've got no more time for you.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    The Kurds were killed with Chemical Weapons. What was fabricated?

    Stalin did use an artillery strike on his own men to justify the Winter War. These sorts of conspiracies are likely, but not every occurrence is such a conspiracy.

    I will grant that I have been to complimentary to Barnett, but nevertheless his strategy recommendations are better than the killing our country does now.

  • Reply Matthew Gentzel April 21, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    *too complimentary

  • Reply TruthLiesInShadows June 1, 2013 at 2:12 pm

    You might be interested in knowing this person participated in Cantor Fitzgerald meetings on the top of WTC 1 with members of the NSC before 9/11; he called 9/11 the "first mass snuff film in human history"; he's one of 9 siblings; there's much more free material on the Internet… Oh, they also edited clapping in at 17:50.

  • Reply wotcherfaz June 3, 2013 at 10:28 pm

    Interesting discussion here. Hmm.. Guess who was the first to posit the use of gas against the Kurds ?
    Ans: Winston Churchill. Back around 1920. Just google for Winston Churchill's Secret Poison Gas Memo. Western 'civilisation' has excelled at developing ways of conducting war most cowardly: at a distance where you don't need to look at the faces of those you kill. When the Ottomans were offered guns, they turned them down for this very reason.

  • Reply wotcherfaz June 3, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    4:00 "what do you do with the power" Wrong question. Right question is :- What does the power do to you ? (Hint: It corrupts you, America. Into a big bully.. Just look around the world.)

  • Reply wotcherfaz June 3, 2013 at 10:37 pm

    6:35 IMF as a mechanism for 'processing economically bankrupt states' – Boy are we going to find out how useless the IMF is when it too, comes up against a 'real' challenge (as opposed to some tinpot sovereign state like Argentina or Cyprus). Wait till Italy or France is on the rocks.

  • Reply wotcherfaz June 3, 2013 at 10:39 pm

    Final comment tonight – Free tip @Thomas how to avoid 'politically bankrupt…like saddam'. Very simple, don't install dictators in third world countries in the first place. One fewer problem to 'solve' later. Goodnight.

  • Reply moonturkey June 5, 2013 at 7:50 pm

    Should I feel bad for not understanding a lot of this?

  • Reply jtheyellow July 1, 2013 at 10:19 pm

    So America should just give up the power to … whom, exactly? Power might corrupt, but it also fills vacuums.

  • Reply aon10003 August 13, 2013 at 5:12 pm

    Its callled freedom, you always like iit in theory.

  • Reply AvangionQ October 20, 2013 at 9:08 am

    This is probably my single favorite TED talk. President should elect Tom Barnett to Department of Peace, would make our military one that the world can admire again … admire, not fear.

  • Reply Alan Drobnak November 19, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    Bennet wrote 'The Pentagon's New Map' which after my reading shortly after it came out in 2004 I realized was the 'idiot son' presidents playbook. And this is not a very praising comment.

  • Reply jert opp November 26, 2013 at 5:55 am

    Marines on the right is a bad move. They should put the Army over there because they are more suited for territorial defensive operations. The marines job is to be the first ones in on the ground during the invansion. They leave after major combat operations are done and leave the ocupation to the Army

  • Reply jert opp November 26, 2013 at 5:58 am

    I was a marine and watched other marines interact with the locals of Afghan. A 19 year old male is NOT the best person to be wining their hearts and minds

  • Reply Peter Lustig December 27, 2013 at 8:23 pm

    Dear Thomas, due to your strategies Europe is currently flooded with 3. world immigrants. Whole nations and cultures are vanishing at this point. Civil wars and unrests will ruin our continent soon. My children will not have a peaceful future in Europe because of your sick strategies. As I have read in one of your books your intention is to create a light brown race in Europe that is smart enough to work but too stupid to question the system. Don't believe that this was for free. I hope that the people of Europe will remember your name soon. Who gives you the right to bring misery to my country in the beleive that this will have no consequences for you?

  • Reply marco van heugten December 30, 2013 at 10:33 am

    funny.. war. we are ruled by madmen. & 'a force to wage war, another to wage peace'.. not another you stupid, the same, and with the same imperial academic word-tossing nonsens; and force is something else: this is what we call violence, murder etc., permanent war, too old wine in plastic skins & find a therapist for your breathing-problem

  • Reply Leonardo De Vinci April 28, 2014 at 8:08 pm

    Yep this guy is one Meth

  • Reply Gibson Luong July 11, 2014 at 8:56 am

    Really interested in his job. Are there companies that hire international security strategists or is it a government job? 

  • Reply Elena G November 6, 2014 at 7:57 pm

    Sound analysis of the problem and competent strategic thinking abt how to fix the problem.

    Geo Washington believed that we should NOT be the world's policeman.  I'm not sure that there should be one.  I would prefer being invited in at the conclusion of a conflict to help sort things out and get a democratic government stood up.

  • Reply Daniele Troilo November 11, 2014 at 12:54 pm

    So…basically, the Limitanei and comitatenses re-ediction. 

  • Reply Sommer57 March 9, 2015 at 3:07 am

    I thought we solved this problem in the wake of WWII with the Marshall Plan.

  • Reply RatherGeekyStuff March 16, 2015 at 7:40 pm

    17:49 = Epic cut! lol

  • Reply Captain Kirk WarThunder April 23, 2015 at 2:53 am

    Best TED talk I've ever heard!

  • Reply billville111 July 1, 2015 at 3:12 am

    What do you get when you mix a sociopath with a 170 IQ? You get this guy and his buddies

  • Reply jimbones155 July 1, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    How about no wars you nut bag.

  • Reply Charles Batkin September 5, 2015 at 6:22 am

    Wait but historically and at present the USMC has been expedient invasion force, and the army the current sys admin.

  • Reply Lavalambtron September 6, 2015 at 4:28 am

    This guy is so full of himself but he may witness america and west's power fizzle before his eyes, Europe is now being invaded by an influx of muslims of biblical proportions, after Europe comes the US, and they come to change the West forever, no more security no more fortress Europe or Fortress America.

  • Reply Baal September 16, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    Like Orwell wrote Peace =War  and War = Peace…

  • Reply Baal September 16, 2015 at 10:51 pm

    23:30  Take  a gift in the left Hand ….hahaha

  • Reply JaGo Da September 23, 2015 at 9:51 pm

    Erfischend und aufrichtig? WOW!
    Hier DER NICHT MEHR SO GANZ GEHEIME GLOBALISIERUNGSPLAN DER USA:

  • Reply Felix El Gato September 24, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    He simply sais what everyone knows and thinks. America is like the strongest guy in school, who can beat up anyone, and is stupid enough to do it.

  • Reply still ill December 22, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    Für mich ist er ein ein Wahnsinniger und Verbrecher.
    So jemand sollte nicht frei rumlaufen dürfen und seine gemeingefährlichen Thesen verbreiten. Leider Gottes setzt die usa seine wirren Pläne um!

  • Reply Wolfgang Gruber January 3, 2016 at 8:00 am

    Erfrischend aufrichtig! Aus einem Arsch kommt immer Scheisse. Wundert euch nicht wenn ihr kotzt solltet ihr's gefressen haben…

  • Reply Neptun776 February 27, 2016 at 12:50 am

    Wäre euch eine islamische Superpower lieber?

  • Reply Jürgen Thumm April 11, 2016 at 10:07 am

    We could have the chance to live quite peacefully on this earth. Unfortunately the world hast 50 oder 100 guys like hin.

  • Reply TocTeplv May 24, 2016 at 10:16 am

    Kill in millions? Don;t think there are enough people in those countries to do that. Saddam was bad, but the mess left after americans is just insane.

  • Reply Michael Wollan June 11, 2016 at 8:28 pm

    Well, before one breaks it into two, one needs to combine the four branches into one.  Just sayin'

  • Reply SwissMapper June 23, 2016 at 9:42 pm

    He is an Psychopath.

  • Reply Quuti July 1, 2016 at 12:52 pm

    What he says in short ‚I am a faschist and proud of it’.

  • Reply ledufAkaDemy ledufAkaDemy September 6, 2016 at 8:58 pm

    let the people love each other … mad mind

  • Reply Chuck Dellano February 19, 2017 at 3:27 pm

    Fifth

  • Reply Hollis Muenster March 15, 2017 at 10:25 pm

    I love how all the comments are full of morons calling this guy a sociopath or a war mongerer, yet the likes/dislikes are 9-1.

  • Reply stophypocrisy May 6, 2017 at 12:51 pm

    Thomas P.M. Barnett fails to understand who controls the Pentagon and the real purpose of conquest. The DEEP state or International bankers and their thousands of subsidiaries board members control the Pentagon, not the Congress. Barnett doesn't know over seven TRILLION dollars have been stolen from the Pentagon since 2001 and this looting continues. This was admitted by Donald Rumsfeld, SOD, the day before 9/11, 9/10/2011, where it was instantly forgotten after the demolition of WTC 1,2,7. The Pentagon also loots every country we attack, as these countries fall under the Wests control, that's one of the perks. Who gets that money? Judea Inc and they, of course, pay the conspiring cronies. We never attack countries so they can live in a better world, as they all claim, or that we must kill the leader because he kills his own people. Once the US takes control we install a puppet or corporate stooge that allows us to continue to loot that country. These countries are not better off as Barnett claims. Barnett is completely right but can't seem to understand the Deep State or Judea, Inc owns the West. The Congress is there for little things, meaningless stuff and for a show. Judea, Inc, their banks, and corporations don't care about these people in foreign lands that we rip off and murder with costly weapons systems. They don't care about Americans either but Judea, Inc will lose control of their American military if Americans even found out the truth.
    The US armed forces are the military arm of Judea, Inc. Their long term goal is world domination and only in a fantasy world can you live in this invisible conquest for world domination with a conscience unless you're oblivious on Geopolitics and who believes all these lies on their MSM. Or you could be a complete psychopath who could care less who dies in Judea's quest for world domination, control, and power. Psychopaths only like dead people and killing. The more the better.

  • Reply John Fornaro July 5, 2017 at 4:03 pm

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xlb6_0OEs

    Thomas Barnett: Rethinking America's military strategy

    Accessing the "Transition Space":

    Perhaps if our civilian leaders would work the problems honestly, we could better so manage the T-space. Classic example being the deliberate lie about WMD's, followed by one military mistake after another, perhaps culminating in the decidedly non-Christian activities at Abu Graib.

    The old fashioned strategy has always been clear, hold, and build. We cleared, pretended to hold, and built corruption only.

    The comment about China reminds me how I respect the thinking that can come from China, even as I reject their government's complete abrogation of the liberty of the individual.

    China: "It's not a perfect world, and your administration isn't getting us closer."

    In a perfect world, we would have an "A to Z" list of steps for nation building, and cleaning up. The jihadis, in this analogy, dropped a glass jar of milk in aisle six. Instead of cleaning it up, we end up breaking the rest of the jars of milk. The American mindset of arrogance, portrayed mostly by our captains of the MIC and their secretive overlords, is simply not interestied in cleaning up. That's why we've had nothing but elective war since Vietnam for sure, and maybe since Korea, this latter situation being back on the front burner.

    Consider the "front half" of the "a to z" thing: "You want that guy down? I'll take that guy down". Well no, they won't and don't. Joseph Kony is still out and about. I haven't heard the excuses on that, but there it is. You want that guy, Osama out? Well, yes and no. Bush II saw a squirrel or something, and shifted our attention.

    Moving on to the mention of our Constitution. This is a document which is being ignored by the UniParty, particularly on the matter of national security and its differences and similarities with international security.

    Spot on with the age difference of the nineteen year olds, and forty year olds.

    Like ya say, don't plan for the war unless you've planned for winning the peace. It's about the children.

    I'm your guy for Secretary of Everything Else. I need the work, and the planet needs the solution.

    Oh. And about those 3m dead in Chicago? It's gonna take a while, but we're doing that work domestically: 400-700 per year. Just sayin'.

  • Reply Dan Davis July 12, 2017 at 5:10 am

    This guy and his adoring fans have finally explained to me why people around the world don't like Americans.

  • Reply OEFBugout July 30, 2017 at 8:01 pm

    A number of people here are calling him a number of different pejoratives, mainly "psychopath" and "sociopath". As a student of strategy, I really don't know where you're getting that from.
    His is the only strategy I'm aware of that honestly wants to see wars like what is currently going in in Iraq and Afghanistan become a thing of the past.
    "We have an unparalleled capacity to wage war, we don't do everything else." That's not a quote from a psychopath. That's a quote from a man who barely avoided dying in the 9/11 attacks and wanted to use his knowledge to provide a strategic framework for the world to be a better place.

  • Reply Ralph Stecker August 21, 2017 at 7:49 am

    Soll sich mal in Den Arsch ficken lassen damit deiser Donald Duck ne Stimme krigt.

  • Leave a Reply