New Pentagon map: why the United States is doomed to constantly fight in the XXI century

New Pentagon map: why the United States is doomed to constantly fight in the XXI centuryAmerican analyst Thomas Barnett explains why the US has unleashed, unleashed and will unleash a war. This article, written in 2003, formed the basis of the book of the same name. Abstracts, deployed by Barnett almost a decade ago, today are finding more and more new evidence.


Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has been trying to develop a valid theory of world order, an integral element of which is military strategy. Currently, such a theory has appeared. It involves the identification of problems in different parts of the world and their active solution. After 11 September 2001, the author, a professor of military analytics, provided advisory services to the Department of Defense Secretariat and constantly instructed the Pentagon and the intelligence services. Now he will share information with you.

Let me tell you why a military operation against the regime of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but also favorable.

When the United States finally unleashes the Gulf War again, this will not be settling down old accounts or simply forcing the demilitarization of illegal weapons, or diverting attention to the war on terrorism. Our next Gulf War will become historical the turning point - the moment when Washington will become the real leader of strategic security in the era of globalization.

That is why the public debate about this war was so important: they forced the Americans to realize what, in my opinion, is the new security paradigm arising in this era, namely, “Disunity is a danger”. Saddam Hussein’s criminal regime is dangerously isolated from the globalizing world, from its set of rules, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together with mutually guaranteed trust.

The problem with most discussions about globalization is that many experts view it as a binary result: either the Earth is a large and fast-moving planet, or there is a horrible and weak humanity everywhere. No point of view actually works, because globalization as a historical process is simply too big and too complex for such simplified reasoning. Instead, the new world should be determined by where globalization really took root, and where not.

Show me where globalization has manifested itself in full - with network connectivity, financial transactions, free flow of information, collective security, and I will show you regions that have stable governments, rising standards of living and more suicide deaths than murders. I call these corners of the world the “Functioning Core”, or Core. But show me where globalization is weakly showing, or is completely absent, and I will show you regions suffering from repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, widespread massacres and, most importantly, chronic conflicts that give rise to the next generation of global terrorists. I call these corners of the world the “Unintegrated Breach”, or Breach.

The “ozone hole” of globalization could be out of sight, and was forgotten before 11 in September of 2001, but after it was difficult not to notice. And measuring the size of globalization is not a learning task for an 18-year-old marine who is trying to set up a tent. So where will the next round of military operations of the United States military take place? The model that emerged after the end of the Cold War offers a simple answer: in Gaps.

The reason why I support the outbreak of war in Iraq is not only because Saddam is a ruthless Stalinist, ready to kill everyone in order to remain in power, and not only because the regime clearly supports terrorist groups for many years . The real reason I support the war is that a successful, long-lasting military operation will finally force America to view the whole Breach as a strategic, threatening environment.

For MOST COUNTRIES, adapting to the emerging global set of rules for democracy, transparency, and free trade is an extraordinary achievement that is hard to understand for most Americans. We tend to forget how difficult it has been to maintain the integrity of the United States all these years, to be aware of its affiliation, rival internal modes throughout its history - through the Civil War, the Great Depression and the long struggle for racial and gender equality, which continue to this day. As for the majority of states, we are absolutely unrealistic, expecting that they themselves must quickly adapt to globalization according to American rules.

But at the same time, you must be careful with Darwinian pessimism, because of apologizing for globalization — like-coercion — towards Americanization to suggestion (on a racial or civilizational basis) that “these people will never become like us,” short jump Only ten years ago, most experts were ready to write off poor Russia by declaring that the Slavs are in fact genetically unsuitable for democracy and capitalism. Similar arguments were heard in most attacks on China in the 1990-s, and you hear them today in the debate about the possibility of establishing democracy in Iraq after Saddam - in arguments like the Muslims of Mars.

So how do we distinguish who actually constitutes the core of globalization, and who remains trapped in the Gap? And how constant is this dividing line?

Realizing that the line between the Core and the Glitch is constantly shifting, let me assume that the direction of change is more important than the degree of change. So yes, Beijing is still under the leadership of the Communist Party, whose ideological doctrine consists of 30 percent Marxist-Leninists and 70 percent of the Soprano clan, but China has just joined the World Trade Organization, and in the long run it is very important to provide the country with the permanent status of the Core. Why? Because it forces China to harmonize its internal set of rules with globalization - banking operations, tariffs, copyright protection, environmental standards. Of course, the work of harmonizing its internal sets of rules to the norms of globalization does not guarantee success. As Argentina and Brazil have recently found out, compliance with these rules (in the case of Argentina in part) does not mean that they are evidence of panic, or proof of a bubble, or even proof of a recession. Attempting to adapt to globalization does not mean that nothing bad will ever happen to you. It also does not mean that all the poor will immediately become a stable middle class. It only means that your level of life will increase over time.

In general, there is always the opportunity to get out of this mass movement, called globalization. But when you do, bloodshed will follow. If you are lucky, it will be American troops.

So, what parts of the world can be viewed as a functioning part of the Core right now? North America, much of South America, the European Union, Putin’s Russia, Japan, the developing economies of Asia (primarily China and India), Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, which account for about four billion of the world's total population of six billion .

Who remains in the Gaps? It would be easiest to say “everyone else”, but I want to give you more convincing evidence than this, and thus argue why I think that the Breach is a long-term threat not only for your finances or consciousness.

If we plan a response by the United States military after the end of the Cold War (see next pages), we will see an overwhelming concentration of military operations in those regions of the world that are excluded from the growing core of globalization - namely, the Caribbean, almost all of Africa, the Balkans , The Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East and South-West Asia, as well as most of Southeast Asia. This is approximately the remaining two billion world population. Most of them have a demographic bias towards youth, and the World Bank defines them as “low-income” or “lower-middle income” countries (ie, less than $ 3,000 per year per capita).

If most of these military operations are outlined, we will basically outline the “Non-Integrated Gap”. It is clear that there are regions isolated geographically from this simple approach, such as Israel (which is separate from Brescia), South Korea (drifting inside the Core) or the Philippines (widely scattered). However, looking at the data, it is difficult to deny the obvious image logic: if a country either cannot globalize or rejects most of the existing areas needed to move forward, there is a high probability that the United States will send its troops there to one degree or another . And vice versa, if a country largely functions within the framework of globalization, we are not trying to send troops there to restore order or eliminate threats.

Now, which may seem like a repetition, in fact, a region that has not experienced military intervention by the United States over the past decade is a region that “operates in the globalization space” (and vice versa). But let's think about it more broadly: since the end of World War II, this country realized that real threats to its security arose in countries of about the same size, development and well-being - in other words, in the same great powers. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was such another great power. When the big Red car disappeared in the beginning of 1990, we were concerned about the problems of a united Europe, the growing power of Japan, and - most recently - of developing China.

What was interesting in all these scenarios is the assumption that only a developed state can actually be a threat to us. And the rest of the world? These underdeveloped parts of the world have long been referred to in the military plans as “Small Included”, which means that if we created troops capable of defending a great power against the military threat, it will always be sufficient for any less serious scenarios, we will be able to conduct military operations in a less developed world.

This assumption was destroyed on September 11. Yet we were not attacked by the people or even by the army, but by a group, as defined by Thomas Friedman, “super-authorized individuals” who were ready to die for their cause. 11 September caused a shock to the system, which continues to change our management structure (new Department of Internal Security), our economy (in fact, we all pay a security tax) and even our society (sea of ​​cameras!). Moreover, the fight against terrorism has begun - this is a prism through which our government is now considering any bilateral relations in the field of security around the world.

In many ways, the September 11 attacks have done a great deal to reform the national security of the United States, switching us from abstract planning for future high-tech wars against peers to today's threats to the global order. As a result, the dividing lines between the Core and the Gaps were identified and, more importantly, the nature of the threat to the environment was clearly and distinctly indicated.

Think about it: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are a pure product of the Gap - in fact, their cruelty is directed at the Core. They tell us how we act by exporting security to lawless regimes (not very well) and whose states they want to take “beyond” globalization and return to the outdated (sometimes at the 7 century level) definition of a good life (any state of Gap with the predominant Muslim population, especially Saudi Arabia).

If you take this message from Osama and combine it with a report on military interventions over the past decade, a simple set of safety rules emerges: the country's potential for a United States military response is inversely proportional to the degree of involvement in globalization. This is a good reason why al Qaeda was founded initially in Sudan and then later in Afghanistan: both states are the most isolated countries in the world. We will look at other places of military special operations of the United States, conducted recently: northwestern Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen. We are talking about the degree of globalization in remote corners of the earth.

But it is also important to “get them where they live” and stop the access of this terrorist network to the Core through the “border states” that lie along the bloody borders of the Gap. It is in this frontier that the Core seeks to suppress the negative that comes out of the Gap. What are some of these classic border states? Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia immediately come to mind. But the United States is not the only State of the Nucleus that deals with this issue. For example, Russia is waging its own war on terrorism in the Caucasus, China is strengthening its power on the western border, and Australia has recently actively responded (or was it scared?) To an explosion in Bali.

If we digress for a moment and consider the broader implications of this global map, the national security strategy of the United States might look like this: 1) Increasing the capabilities of the Core's immune system to respond to shocks like September 11; 2) cooperating with border states to protect the Core from the worst properties of Gaps, such as terror, drugs, pandemics; and, most importantly, the 3) reduction Gaps. Notice, I did not say about the intellectual potential of the Gap. The spontaneous reaction of many Americans to the events of September 11 was to say: "Let's get rid of our dependence on foreign oil, and then we will not have to deal with these people." The most naive is the assumption that a significant reduction in ties with Greshy will make it less dangerous for the Core for a long time. Switching attention from the Middle East to Central Africa will not provide an opportunity to build a better world for my children. We can not just ignore these people.

The Middle East is the perfect place to start. Diplomacy cannot work in a region where the greatest sources of danger are concentrated not so much between states, but within them. The worst in the Middle East is the lack of personal freedom, which leads to the futility of life for the majority of the population, especially for the young. Some states, such as Qatar or Jordan, are ripe for restructuring, that is, to a leap for a better political future, thanks to young leaders who are aware of the inevitability of such a change. Iran is also waiting for the arrival of his Gorbachev, if he has not already appeared.

What stands in the way of this change? Fear. Fear of the destruction of tradition. Fear of condemnation by the mullahs. Fear of being marked as a “bad or“ treacherous ”Muslim state. Fear of being targeted by radical groups and terrorist networks. But most of all - the fear of being attacked from all sides for what has become different - the fear of becoming Israel.

For a long time, the Middle East has threatening neighbors, eager to attack the weaker ones. Israel is still alone because it has become - sadly - one of the worst hooligans in the region. The only thing that can change is a hostile environment and the opening of gateways for change, provided that some external authority takes a step and plays the role of Leviathan in full. By eliminating Saddam, the region’s chief hooligan, the United States will be able to play such a role much more fully than it has been during the past few decades, primarily because Iraq is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East - an intersection of civilizations that historically demanded dictatorship to maintain peace. Like the babysitter, the United States can settle conflicts, especially given their experience in resolving the situation in post-war Germany and Japan.

This is exactly what needs to be done, and now is the right time to do this, and we are the only country that can do this. Without security, freedom in the Middle East cannot be established, and security is the export to the country's most influential public sector. By this I do not mean export weapons, but mainly the attention paid by our military forces to any region potentially subject to massive violence. We are the only nation on earth capable of continuously exporting security, and we have a very good track record in achieving this.

Show me a part of the world that is safe, and I will show you the close and strengthening ties between the local military and the military of the United States. Show me regions where a large-scale war is impossible and I will show you permanent US military bases and long-lasting security alliances. Show me the two most powerful investors in the global economy, and I will show you two post-war military occupations that remade Europe and Japan after World War II.

Since the second half of the twentieth century, our country has successfully exported security to the globalized Old Core (Western Europe, Northeast Asia), and throughout 25 years after our defeat in Vietnam, to the emerging New Core (developing Asia). But our achievements in the Middle East were insignificant, and in Africa there are almost none. Until we begin a systematic, long-term export of security to the Breach, it will increasingly export its problems to the Core in the form of terrorism or other negative consequences.

Naturally, this will take much more effort than US security exports to reduce the Gaps. Africa, for example, needs incomparably more assistance than the Core has provided it in the past, and the integration of the Gap will ultimately depend much more on private investment than any public sector of the Core can provide. But all of this must begin with security, because free markets and democracy cannot flourish amid chronic conflict.

Making this effort means transforming our armed forces in accordance with the challenge we face. Think about it. World War is not far off, first of all, because our vast stocks of nuclear weapons represent such a war unimaginable - for anyone. At the same time, the classic state wars against the state are becoming quite rare. So if the United States is in the process of “transforming” its armed forces to meet the threats of tomorrow, what should they look like in the end? In my opinion, we will knock out the wedge. If we live in a world increasingly populated by “super-authorized individuals”, we will respond with an “super-authorized individuals” army.

This may be perceived as an additional responsibility on the already overloaded military, but this is a wrong view; What we are talking about is the task of success, not failure. It is the continuation of America’s success in containing world war and a vanishing state-state war, which allows us to intervene in most complex subnational conflicts and isolate the dangerous transnational leaders they engender. I know that most Americans do not want to hear this, but the real battlegrounds in the world war on terrorism still remain here. If open communities and police actions were enough, September 11 would never have happened.

There are many turning points in history, like that terrible day, but it never turns back. We ignore the existence of the Gap at our own risk, since it will not go away until we, as a nation, respond to the challenge of making globalization truly global.

WEST

MAP OF WAR AMERICA WITH TERRORISM: A NEW ADHESIVE STRATEGY


The maps on these pages show all the military responses of the United States to world crises from 1990 to 2002. Pay attention to the pattern. Every time when American troops appear, whether it is a battle, a landing of a battle group on the coast or a peacekeeping mission, this indicates that the landing site is relatively separate from the world where globalization has not taken root due to the repressive regime and extreme poverty. or lack of a reliable legal system. It is in these regions that world terrorism is emerging. Draw a loop around these military operations, and you will get what I call the “Non-Integrated Gap.” All the rest is “Functioning core”. The goal of this new strategy is simple: reduce the gap. Not to restrain it, but to cut it.

HAMMER

My list of real problems for the world in 1990's, today and tomorrow, starting with the backyard:

1) HAITI. Attempts to create a nation in 1990-th years were unsuccessful. We have penetrated Haiti over the course of a century, and we will definitely return when the “boatmen” begin to plunge into the next crisis.

2) COLUMBIA. The country is controlled by several criminal groups: with private armies, insurgents, drug barons, and the legitimate government does not control the situation. Drugs abound. Over the past decade, close ties have been established between drug cartels and insurgents, and now we also know about ties with international terrorists. We intervened, promised a lot, but did not achieve anything. A gradual, phased approach is obviously not working here.

3) BRAZIL AND ARGENTINA. Both countries are in the gap between Gresh and the Functioning core. Both in 90-ies played a game with globalization and both today are going through hard times. For them, the danger of falling out of world processes and the danger of self-destruction under the leadership of the extreme left or the extreme right are very real. This is not about military threats, except for the threat to their democracies (return of the generals). The South American Union Mercosur, while Washington is pushing through the North American Free Trade Agreement, is trying to build its own economic space. We may have to enter into agreements with Chile or involve only Chile in expanding NAFTA. Will it make Brazil and Argentina join the union, or push them away? Amazon is a large unmanaged area for Brazil, which also continues to cause environmental damage. Does the world care enough about this?

4) FORMER YUGOSLAVIA. For most of the past decade, it has been evidence of Europe’s inability to unite, even in its backyard. The West will need babysitting services for a long time.

5) CONGO AND RWANDA / BURUNDI. Over the decade, between two and three million people died in battles in central Africa. How much more should the situation get worse for us to start at least doing something? More than three million dead? Congo is a decaying state: not alive, and not dead, and everyone lives in this decay. In these countries, AIDS is also everywhere.

6) ANGOLA. Nobody really tried to end the ongoing civil war (1,5 million killed in the last quarter of a century). In essence, the internal conflict began in the middle of the 70s, when the Portuguese "empire" fell. Currently, life expectancy in this country does not exceed forty years!

7) SOUTH AFRICA. The only country of the Functioning Core is in Africa, but it is also deceptive. Many people believe that South Africa is the gateway to terrorist networks that are trying to enter the Core through the back door. The current crime rate is the biggest security threat. And here AIDS is also common.

8) ISRAEL PALESTINE. Terrorism will not abate here, as the next generations in the West Bank seek even more violence. The wall that is currently being erected between them will be the Berlin wall of the 21 century. In the end, security between the two banks will have to be ensured by external states (this gap will be very painful). There is always a chance that anyone (desperate Saddam?) Will try to set fire to Israel with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and provoke a counter-attack, which, as we all fear, Israel is capable of.

9) SAUDI ARABIA. The mentality of the royal mafia (“let-it-is-cake”) will eventually cause instability from the inside. Money that is paid to terrorists to keep away, after all, also does not guarantee security, and besides, threats can come from outside. A large number of young people have no future prospects, and the ruling elite, in whose hands are concentrated a source of income, reduce long-term investments. Nevertheless, the question of oil will continue to remain a sufficient reason for the United States, regardless of anything, to never lose sight of this area.

10) IRAQ. The question is not if, but when and how. Then restoration work is needed. We have to set the security mode in the whole region.

11) SOMAL. Chronic lack of power. Chronic nutritional problems. Chronic penetration of the terrorist network. We entered there with marines and special forces and were disappointed - this is Vietnam's poor 1990's. It will be difficult not to return there.

12) IRAN. The counter-revolution has already begun: this time the students want to drive out the mullahs. Iran wants to be a friend of the United States, but the price we can pay for invading Iraq can be a revival of fundamentalism. The mullahs support terrorism, in fact pushing for the use of WMD: will they become the next target after the fight against Iraq and North Korea?

13) AFGHANISTAN. Lawlessness, violence prevailed before the arrival of the Taliban, who began to pull the country back to the seventh century (erroneously). The government sold al-Qaeda for a pittance. Great source of drugs (heroin). Now the US is stuck there for a long time, uprooting the main core of the terrorists / insurgents who are there.

14) PAKISTAN. There has always been a real danger of creating a bomb and using it in solving the conflict with India (to which 13 came very close to December 2001 of the year when there were explosions in Delhi). Fearing that radical Muslims may come to power in Pakistan, we will return to the hard line of military intervention; we really don’t trust them (Pakistanis - comment "Khvili"). Obviously, collaborates with al-Qaeda. The United States declared Pakistan an extremist state until the events of September 11 forced the resumption of cooperation. Simply put, Pakistan does not seem to control much of its own territory.

15) NORTH KOREA. Directed to the creation of WMD. Pyongyang’s strange recent behavior (allowing child abduction, breaking promises to use nuclear weapons, delivering weapons to places we don’t approve, signing agreements with Japan, which is a signal of a new era, talks about a new economic zone next to China) speaks about the intention ( as in a mentally ill person) to provoke crisis situations. We live in fear of Kim’s “doomsday” scenarios (which he comes up with). The population is degrading - how much more should the situation get worse? After Iraq, North Korea may be next.

16) INDONESIA. The usual concerns about the collapse and "the most numerous Muslim population in the world." The victim of the Asian economic crisis (in fact completely destroyed). As it turned out, the “hot spot” for terrorist networks.

New / integrated members of the Kernel, which, I fear, may be lost in the coming years:

17) CHINA. He competes in speed with himself to reduce unprofitable state enterprises, which does not cause too much unemployment. This leads to an increase in energy demand and is accompanied by environmental pollution, as well as the approach of the pension crisis against the background of an aging population. The new generation of leaders looks like technocrats devoid of imagination - big problems require big challenges. If macroeconomic pressure does not cause internal instability, there is always the fear that the Communist Party will not want to quietly go into the shadows and will not allow greater political freedoms, and at some stage economic freedoms will also cease to satisfy the masses. At present, the Chinese Communist Party is very corrupt and mostly parasitic on the country, but it is still influential in Beijing. The army seems to be moving further and further away from society and the real situation, short-sightedly focusing on countering the US ability to invade Taiwan, which remains one of the problematic “powder kegs”. Here is also AIDS.

18) RUSSIA. Putin has come a long way to establish the dictatorship of the law; the mafia and drug lords still have a lot of power. Chechnya and neighboring countries, in general, will drag Moscow into violence, which will spread mainly within the federation. The US move to Central Asia is a nuisance in relations that can deteriorate if not properly directed. Russia has a lot of internal problems (financial weakness, damage to the environment, etc.) and it depends too much on energy exports in order to feel safe. And here is also AIDS.

19) INDIA. First, there is always the danger of a nuclear conflict with Pakistan. So, Kashmir is pushing for a conflict with Pakistan, and now the United States is going to start a fight against terrorism here, which has never been done before. India is a microcosm of globalization: high technology, pervasive poverty, islands of development, tensions between cultures / civilizations / religions, etc. It is too big to succeed, and too big to fail. It seeks to become the leading responsible military player in the region, seeks to become a true friend of the United States, and also seeks to catch up with China in terms of development (making great efforts to achieve success). And here is also AIDS.
Originator:
http://www.hvylya.org
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

31 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Vadivak 20 October 2011 14: 01 New
    • 13
    • 0
    +13
    Americans consider themselves to be peaceful people, but this does not prevent them from fighting, invading foreign countries in order to impose their democratic values, especially if the country has oil or other natural resources.

    If you have oil but no worthy army, this is a mistake for which you need to be punished

    In this case, the United States does not just invade the territory of a foreign state, but begins a war with a screech around the world about the need to protect the people of this state and establish democracy, which the United States understands as the complete submission of the future government. What methods are used in war? Yes, anyone uses the corrupt opposition, created for this purpose, bombing civilians, killing all unwanted people.

    T. Roosevelt said: “A justified war in the long term is much more beneficial for the human soul than the most prosperous world.” All subsequent presidents with enviable consistency confirm this statement of Roosevelt.

    Why the USA can and is constantly waging war:

    * The main reason the US continues this policy is a powerful army and military-industrial complex, the latest developments in the military field.
    * The United States does not have a serious adversary capable of withstanding their military might, the situation has become even worse after the collapse of the USSR and, as a result, there have been constant wars over the past two decades.
    * The US Army is mercenary, that is, if there was an urgent service, then the Americans would be against the death of their sons in the wars unleashed by the United States, and with a mercenary army they kill mercenaries, and it makes no difference to the Americans.
    * The US leadership, both conservatives, declaring the need for forcible export of democratic values, and liberals, concocting all sorts of tales to cover the war, support the war.
    * In fact, since the Second World War, the decision to start hostilities has been made by the president, not Congress.

    It turns out that the decision to start a war in the USA is made by the president with a small group of advisers who do not give a damn about public opinion, including the Americans themselves. First of all, the interests of large monopolies, traders in oil and raw materials, banks, in general, the interests of a large oligarchy. To stop US aggression, as I have already pointed out to no one at the moment, and therefore military conflicts will erupt in different parts of the world no matter what.
  2. Colonel 20 October 2011 14: 08 New
    • 6
    • 0
    +6
    “As for most states, we are completely unrealistic, expecting them to quickly adapt themselves to globalization according to American rules.” - what is there to comment on ???
  3. KILLAvolt 20 October 2011 14: 41 New
    • 7
    • 0
    +7
    A nation of gangsters, convicts and adventurers!
    1. Vadivak 20 October 2011 15: 11 New
      • 10
      • 0
      +10
      I agree, but in my opinion there is little but not a nation but just a rabble from the scum of nations
    2. His
      His 20 October 2011 18: 20 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      it was created by runaway criminals from Europe and Asia
      1. dna
        dna 21 October 2011 05: 07 New
        • -2
        • 0
        -2
        You mixed up the USA with Australia, and even that was a hard labor colony, so the criminals were not runaway. By the way, both of them settled quite normally as a result. Maybe there is something to learn from them?
  4. rnb1983
    rnb1983 20 October 2011 14: 42 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    That's why you need to quickly integrate .... and the leadership, I think, understands this
  5. LESHA pancake
    LESHA pancake 20 October 2011 14: 45 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    IN AS. In other words, NOW I ARE THE MAIN POWDER ON THE PLANET .All the rest will be DOG COWS and the Pahan will milk them.
  6. stalker
    stalker 20 October 2011 17: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Interestingly, but Barnet himself believes in his own? If so, then he has a place in the fool.
  7. Uhalus 20 October 2011 17: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Great article! The logic of the enemy must be known. Here it is: everything that democracy-globalization in American and with America at the head is good. All that is different and does not obey / not let America go is bad, and democracy and globalization must be brought in such a way (well, there is still oil, a strategic point for the base, etc.). On bombs, trunks and betrayal with rebellion and collapse in the end, as in Libya.
    1. zczczc
      zczczc 20 October 2011 20: 49 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Uhalus, the only concern is that the author of the article is the enemy himself. Why should the enemy reveal his plan? On the other hand, everything fits in with life.
      1. dna
        dna 22 October 2011 09: 35 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        There are no strategic secrets. Anyway, Barnett does not agitate for hegemony, but insists that as many countries as possible should be involved in these police actions. Including Russia, by the way.
  8. Kyrgyz 20 October 2011 19: 35 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    20) the United States, their financial system is bursting at its seams, their life and export basis (dollars) are at stake, their diplomacy enjoys less confidence as their standard of living, there is a coming financial and cultural crisis, they can throw out something unpredictable for the sake of trying to restore the melting hegemony. And there, too, this fucking AIDS
    1. UAZ Patriot 20 October 2011 20: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      +1))))) about AIDS is clearly the excess of a maniacal psycho
  9. Maksim
    Maksim 20 October 2011 20: 57 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    so that these amerikosy opupli.
  10. lightforcer
    lightforcer 20 October 2011 21: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And yes, where there are enemies of the United States-there AIDS.
  11. lightforcer
    lightforcer 20 October 2011 21: 26 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    You will still laugh, but there are more AIDS patients in the US than in Russia and China.
    1. dna
      dna 21 October 2011 05: 18 New
      • -4
      • 0
      -4
      Maybe because in the USA people with AIDS live for a long time, but in Russia and China they are dying out? This is a problem of poor Russian health care, and not of rotting American society.
      1. lightforcer
        lightforcer 21 October 2011 11: 26 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        You won’t believe it, but the American healthcare system is worse than the Soviet one. Here, China is another matter, they are dying there.
        1. dna
          dna 21 October 2011 22: 01 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          You are right - I won’t believe it. Perhaps there was a period in which the Soviet system did not greatly leave the American. But that was a very long time ago. Since then, the American has gone ahead, and the former Soviet has rolled back. Yes, the American system has a big problem - 10-15%, by and large, are not covered by the system at all. But in Russia the same problem, only in a more extreme form. 3% is covered at the highest American level, another 27% can still be covered somewhere in the former Soviet, and the rest at the level of African countries. Well maybe India.
          1. lightforcer
            lightforcer 21 October 2011 22: 43 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            And what are you actually measuring? There is no such thing as "The highest American level." It’s time to find out that the American doctor is not a genius and not a superhero, but a businessman. This country in our country is covered with medical care as much as possible, but they have all the private medicine, there are no localities, the ambulance works in a completely different way. And among them scammers began to come across - they diagnose a disease that does not exist, plus additional diagnostics and treatment are prescribed. Everything, of course, is very expensive. Even the Americans themselves consider the disease a tragedy.
            1. dna
              dna 22 October 2011 10: 08 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Do I really need to know - I use the American system myself. And certainly the American doctor is not a genius and not a superhero. The medicine is private, but about 70% is covered by insurance and almost all services - and certainly all the necessary ones - do not cost anything out of pocket. An employer pays for insurance, so it is also not included in the personal budget. For those who are covered this way, providing one of the best in the world. There is of course an exclusivity that is not covered by any insurance, and for which the richest pay from their own budget - luxurious wards, like five-star hotels, doctors who come to you at your convenience, and so on. This is what I called the "highest American level", although this level is available to wealthy people around the world, including thereby 3% in Russia.

              Yes, those who are not covered by insurance are forced to pay big money for services, so in fact they are not available to them. Not in the sense that an ambulance will not be lucky without a credit card number, but in the sense that after they save their lives, they will invoice with a lot of zeros.

              But at the same time, the average level of health care for 70% of those covered and 30% of those uncovered together is much higher than the average level for all nominally covered in Russia. I said about AIDS - I don’t know how much a cocktail of necessary medicines is really available in Russia. It must be taken for the rest of your life, so it can be very expensive. I know that there is an acute shortage of expensive medical equipment (MRI imagers, dialysis, even autoclaves that disinfect everything you need), and the treatment of injuries and complex systemic diseases such as cancer suffers from this. Especially outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg. This is simply a lack of financial resources, not a lack of education for doctors. Just education is still on the level. But the Chelsea football club belongs to the Russian, who did not have a tax. There is something to be proud of!
              1. lightforcer
                lightforcer 22 October 2011 10: 40 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                There is enough medical equipment, and supposedly a lack of autoclaves is generally laughter. Absolutely any healthcare facility has an autoclave. And the fact that the British and French come to our regional hospital is already an indicator. But Putin’s birth certificate is still a good thing, you can give birth and then watch completely free. But of course there are disadvantages - low salaries (and not everywhere), after graduation, few go to the specialty and for some reason the number of beds reduced under Yeltsin, given the current increase in pathologies.

                In general, the only desk I hate is a dental clinic. This is a real money rocking chair.
              2. Magadan 22 October 2011 10: 42 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                dna, my friends tell me that insurance, although it is covered by the employer now. but anyway, somewhere 300 dollars a month have to pay out of pocket! I then do not understand anything, I read the same thing on their forums. And even after paying 300 dollars, insurance covers only 80% of the cost. Please clarify if you are there right now. Very interesting.
                1. dna
                  dna 22 October 2011 11: 13 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  Indeed, over the past few years, many employers have begun to shift part of the cost of insurance to employees covered by this insurance. $ 300 is pretty cool, but it certainly does. Perhaps this is a family of several people? At the same time, many insurance companies rewrite plans so that it is not covered 100% minus the nominal co-pay (such as $ 20 for the first trip on a particular problem), but a lower%, so that the cost of the person being treated increases in proportion to the cost for the insurance company. There is ongoing ongoing political debate about this. The current trajectory is really not supported - I am sure that in the next 5 years the whole system will change.
  12. rumpeljschtizhen 20 October 2011 21: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    I'm also in a ..... ye
  13. datur 21 October 2011 00: 09 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    b ... these are the saviors of the world fucking. am
  14. SVD
    SVD 21 October 2011 07: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The usual propaganda article is for brainwashing others. So that the same 18-year-old Poets (Marine Corps), who puts up a tent and, in the meanwhile, kills civilians, is not tormented by remorse. Although, what a conscience is here, he earns money, nothing personal.
    1. dna
      dna 22 October 2011 10: 30 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Yes, but the Russian soldier who killed the civilian population is tormented by remorse, like Raskolnikov.

      No need to blame the 18-year-old marines for the decisions of their commanders-in-chief, with whom you disagree. They are not free to refuse the order to comply. And they earn "money" in much the same way as officers of the Russian army. You do not think that officers do not need to pay, but they should serve for free, out of love for the fatherland.
      1. Magadan 22 October 2011 10: 48 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        I agree. A soldier must fulfill his duty, no matter what regime he serves. Otherwise, complete crap will work out and everyone will start based on their own opinions to shoot at whom they want. And the soldier is not to blame for the performance of his duty. Unless, of course, he is one of those moral freaks that is now being photographed with a Hollywood smile amid the corpses of the killed Iraqis. Just when we say "fucking Yankee soldiers" - it means a collective image of the enemy, who is now terrorizing the same Libya. Hitler’s separate Hans was also not a bad guy, but you can’t get anywhere - the enemy is the enemy and he has to be hated.
        1. dna
          dna 22 October 2011 11: 36 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          The soldiers from Abu Ghraib, who were photographed, were planted. And several others are now judging on different matters. In my opinion, this should be more actively monitored, but this, again, is a claim to the generals and politicians, and not to the rank and file. As in Russia, when servicemen are tried for attacks committed in the course of execution, this automatically becomes political in nature.

          I think this is a mistake, reflexively considered enemies. And then, in Russia with the states, and the whole developed world, mainly common interests. About this, just Thomas Barnett constantly writes - I regularly read in English. Here the translation is very so-so - like your words, our music. He is far from being so aggressive and not as lenient as he sounds in this translation.
  15. Magadan 21 October 2011 08: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    More and more I begin to believe in the theory of world conspiracy and world backstage. The prediction of John about the coming of the Antichrist into the world is indirectly confirmed - the world behind the scenes is preparing it all. Someone there needs global power, and the United States for them is just a population of nationalist-minded suckers who, because of their brainwashing, will establish this power for them. Such a policy is not beneficial for individual John - personally, the dough will not fall into his pocket from Iraqi / Libyan oil, but from his pocket he will give a bunch of taxes on weapons and the army. Just because he stupidly believes in shit democracy and liberalism all over the world.