tdaxp

On Sunday I finished Dr. Barnett's Blueprint for Action.

I'd been following this book for a while, celebrating his return to new blogs in February and congratulating TPMB on the first draft cover in March

While hyper-luminaries like Mark Safranski are able to encapsulate BFA's big ideas into well written posts, I'm not that able.

So instead I will try to write several vignettes or mini-reviews, focusing on distinct aspects of his work. In tone these will be similar to Curzon's critique of Barnett's Taiwan policy, examining the trees and leaving the forest (for now) to the best

Without further ado...

• Barnett wrong in ICC independence from the UN


• Blueprint for Divisiveness


• Tom Barnett Against Connectivity Fundamentalists

Additionally, my series Embracing Defeat examines the themes of Blueprint for Action by using videographs of a recent speech by Dr. Barnett

• Part I, Barnett's Two Strategies describes the Reverse Domino Theory and the A-Z Rule-Set for Processing Politically Bankrupt States


• Part II, Blood and Will discusses the inability of the American people to sustain nationbuilding by themselves


• Part III, The Born Gimp explains why Barnett's A-Z Rule-Set for Processing Politically Bankrupt States hobbles our export of security


• Part IV, Embracing Victory shows how the military-industrial complex can be used to create a better world

"The Review of the Review of the Review," by Curzon, Coming Anarchy, http://www.cominganarchy.com/archives/2005/02/27/the-review-of-the-review-of-the-review, 27 February 2005.

Tom Barnett frequently publishes his “reviews of reviews” on his blog where he comments on media coverage of his book The Pentagon’s New Map. Younghusband reviewed PNM alongside G. Friedman’s America’s Secret War last month and Barnett gave his review of the review here and here.

YH liked the book and, not surprisingly, Barnett liked that (with a few sidenotes):

COMMENTARY: Mr. Coming Anarchy gives me the usual slap-down of those who really like the book but want to offer criticism: too repetitive, too self-congratulatory (America rules!) and too long. Fine. He scores his point. Bigger point is that he gets it for what it really attempts to be: a serious attempt at grand strategy that doesn’t focus on the tactics of today and isn’t just a long bitch-session about what the author can’t stand about the Bush administration’s security and diplomatic policies. He also sees the book as accessible, which is key, and views me as new school (definitely not another Kissinger or Brzezinski). This is all good, so I take the quibbling in stride. Mr. Coming Anarchy, despite the bias of his nom-de-scare, knows his rear-end from his elbow in terms of strategic analysis, and that, my friends, is rare in this world.

Admirable. We’re honored he stops by now and then.

Just one thing Mr. Barnett—the content on Cominganarchy.com is provided by two contributors with different educations, experiences, and nationalities, currently living on opposite sides of the globe. There is no “Mr. Coming Anarchy” (if anyone, that would be the dear Mr. Robert D. Kaplan—not your favorite journalist, I know). And as for us, the proper form of address is Sir Younghusband and Lord Curzon.

And we look forward to the next book.

Good review. Tactfully addresses Tom's naming mistake while giving due credit to Robert Kaplan. Curzon's use of British titles may be inflammatory to Americans who still dream of liberating the Northern Colonies from Windsor tyranny (or would be it be united States under Hannoverish Occupation?)