RoR: Forum

A very interesting review, Kurt. It has made me decide to read the book.

Barbara

Post 1

Thursday, February 17, 2005 - 9:00pm

Thanks! and of course let us know what you think, I always find your comments valuable. One correction I want to make is that in the review I attribute the "Leviathan" concept to Barnett, but it was Hobbes who used it first. I also think I used "quotes" too often! I also shuddered when the Core was referred to as being a place of "Kantian Peace" - I think we should change that to a "Randian Peace" instead, but that will take longer.

Post 2

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 9:57pm

A stimulating book.

Provided clarity to the way that I thought the world has been changing since the Cold War ended but I could not put my finger on it.

I particularly enjoyed one of his statements:

...the fundemental measure of effectiveness of any U.S. military intervention inside the Gap must be: Did we end up improving global security sufficiently to trigger and influx of global connectivity? Not whether we created an instant democracy or a loyal military ally--or even defeated an enemy in record time. Increasingly, our military interventions will be judged by the connectivity they leave behind, not by the smoking holes.

Post 3

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 9:13am

Yes - and I think the answer in Iraq is that it looks like it is doing just that, especially based upon a lot of the recent positives. I don't think it matters if there is some Islam in their new government or if it is not perfect, how could we expect it to be? It will, however, be a dramatic improvement, and 10 years from now that will be so obvious no one will even speak of it any more. I also agree with his idea that we do need to be more explicit about why we intervene, and more forgiving on who, with what and when we accept help too. We can win the wars fast enough - we now need forces to win the peace too.

Post 4

Wednesday, March 2, 2005 - 7:46pm

Exactly.

I also appreciated his candid criticism of the Bush administration's "style" in these matters. The struggle to wrest a new mission of security away from the old cold warrior or "near peer" issue. I liked the idea that war/security now requires thinking in the same context as the present global economy and not in a seperate context of itself. New rule sets.

All in all a fresh and sensical, in my mind, way of viewing the present state of the world.

Post 5

Wednesday, July 6, 2005 - 7:46pm