Last Tuesday morning I woke up early in Virginia Beach to prepare for the first day of Joint Warfighter 2009 conference. It was a perfect morning. Sitting out on the deck in a robe, I observed a LPD-17 class just over the horizon as I drank morning coffee while reading a novel about Teddy Roosevelt. Being down from upstate New York, tired of the spring clouds and wind, is really was a perfect morning.
Shortly after 7:30am I put on a pair of jeans and sweat shirt to sample the hotel breakfast, and as I emerged from the elevator I bumped into Thomas P.M. Barnett. I had previously only met Tom Barnett in person one time, at a Congressional Hearing back in March, although we have traded email and phone calls several times over the last year. I am an admitted fan of Tom Barnett’s work, because I appreciate the way he develops strategy, but also because I like maverick thinkers with provocative opinions who can simultaneously suggest an idea that will piss someone off and make them think critically about an issue. Provoking an emotional response with an idea brings passion to constructive friction of conflicting ideas, and I for one appreciate the debates that get spawned in those discussion environments when they remain absent the personal attacks. Tom and I agreed to do an interview for this blog, and parted ways. While I saw Tom signing books at one point during the conference Tuesday afternoon, I ended up spending the first day of the conference either in a session or on the conference floor browsing the displays. The first day was too busy for an interview.
That night I went to some meet-chat-drink thingy and ended up spending about 30 minutes talking with Tom Barnett over cold beer and that priceless sunset. The conversations spawned from those drinks became my interview. Early in the discussion he made a few jokes about something that makes a lot of sense to me. We were both basically expressing frustration with talking heads like Lou Dobbs, who he finds annoying because of Dobb’s characterizations of China and I find annoying due to Dobb’s characterizations of Mexico. Tom Barnett had recently been to China, and he thinks people who call the Chinese “Communists” really don’t have any idea what they are talking about. I agree, because we both believe the Chinese have a pure Capitalists form of government unlike anything historically associated with Communism.
Communism is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. In my opinion, China does have a class system and has essentially developed their business organization into that class systems. Tom’s point was that the China social system has almost nothing in common with a Marxist philosophy that suggests a social contract exists between the people and the state in anyway similar to how that social contract exists in the west. Tom went on to make an interesting point; given the way the US government is taking over entire industries today, who can intellectually argue that China, the so-called Communists, have a leg up on the United States when it comes to socialism? There is nothing remotely similar to western social contracts in China, certainly nothing that comes even remotely close to the socialism expanding in American and European culture through government today. Do you think there is anything similar to Obama’s universal health care in China?
Uhm, in case you didn’t know, the answer is no. Barnett’s point that China is Marxism-lite compared to us is on target.
In the same conversation, Tom said during his presentation in China he basically told the Chinese they have a long way to go if they want to be a superpower. His argument is interesting, he basically told the Chinese that if they want to be a superpower they need to think about what it means to walk a day in our shoes. Could China invade two 3rd world countries in the Muslim world, disregarding the consequences of world opinion, then rebuild the nations constructively with a COIN strategy while also taking this action despite more than 6 in 10 Chinese citizens unhappy about the war, and perform these actions with a government barely supported by 30% of Chinese citizens, and do all of this without any domestic uprising or domestic security problems?
Then Tom carries it further, suggesting that once China does that, could they then change governments by appointing all of the existing leaderships political rivals into power while simultaneously becoming popular both domestically and globally?
Tom then asks the question, “Can China do that? Because that is what it means to be a superpower today.” His argument is that the one party system in a Capitalist China will create domestic problems long term, and limit China’s growth more than they realize. I did not get the sense that Tom Barnett was advocating for China to convert into a democracy, rather they needed to mature politically if they are going to manage the challenges that come with being a superpower. Due to China’s central role in the current interconnected globalized liberal trade system of today, Tom’s point implied that challenges can be both foreign AND domestic.
He makes the point that if China is going to be a superpower, they need to learn how to act like one. When the US takes military action in foreign countries, or when the US moves into foreign markets, the result is the US creates domestic economic markets which translates into future customers. He lists out Japan, South Korea, Germany, Russia, Italy, Iraq, and Vietnam. When China makes moves into foreign markets, like Africa and South America, all they do is take resources, which leaves resentment without creating future customers. Tom then asks rhetorically how long China can sustain this model?
He later went on to discuss what the fall of North Korea might mean. I suggested he write that topic into an article, and I hope he does. His general point is that the people of the United States need to be prepared for the fall of the North Korean government, because he does not believe western citizens are prepared for the reality of what has happened to 17 million starving, uneducated brainwashed North Koreans. He discusses how defectors from the North come into South Korea nearly 8 inches on average shorter than their South Korean kin, and demonstrating very low IQ in terms of social adjustment to the more modern South. The situation is nothing similar to what happened after the Soviet Union fell. In Tom’s opinion the North Koreans may have to be contained for a generation in order to be effectively reintegrated into the rest of the world. I note the containment approach is very similar to how China sees North Korea.
At around that point in the conversation, the folks who I was riding back to my hotel were leaving. Tom was staying at the same hotel we were, and joined us for a ride back. Being that the folks I was with were all USNI employees, the subject turned into “From the Sea…”, Tom Wilkerson, and the Joint Warfighter 2009 Conference. Based on how I remember the conversation, I think this article published to World Politics Review was spawned in part by that car ride back to the hotel.
Last week I gave a plenary address to the Joint Warfighting Conference 2009 — the annual East Coast naval extravaganza co-sponsored by the U.S. Naval Institute (USNI) and the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association (AFCEA). This mega-conference opened my eyes to just how much things have changed inside our naval forces thanks to the ongoing long war against violent extremism.
To give you an idea of the ground covered, I have to take you back almost 17 years.
That’s when the Department of the Navy came out with its post-Cold War strategic white paper entitled, “. . . From the Sea.” This seminal document argued that the Navy’s undisputed command of the seas compelled it to come closer to shore and influence events there, lest it risk losing its relevance in an emerging era of smaller wars. It was an incredibly bold shift for the country’s naval leadership, signaling the end of the submarine mafia’s firm control of the fleet and the subsequent return of surface commanders and marine flag officers to the forefront of naval leadership.
I helped gin up that white paper. My military mentor in the process was a Marine colonel just selected for his first star, Tom Wilkerson. Like most of those who participated in this “best and brightest” brainstorm, Wilkerson and I walked away hoping we had made a lasting difference.
We were wrong.
That was part of the conversation during the car ride to the hotel. The article goes on to reach an interesting conclusion in context of that conversation and the Joint Warfighter 2009 conference after Tom Barnett’s Wednesday morning presentation.
Which brings me back to the USNI/AFCEA conference just held in Virginia Beach. I’ve attended a few of these in the past, and they’re typically heavily tilted toward navy themes, navy panels and navy presenters.
Not this time.
From its theme (“Building a Balanced Joint Force”) to its star participants (overwhelmingly Green), this conference focused most decisively on the future of small wars — not large ones. Its master of ceremonies was Tom Wilkerson, now retired from the Marines and serving as the U.S. Naval Institute’s CEO, while Gen. James Mattis, commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command, lorded over the proceedings as its frequently acknowledged “intellectual godfather.” The most prominent Navy flag to participate? Adm. Eric Olson, a former SEAL who now heads up Special Operations Command (SOCOM).
Mattis’ keynote warning could not have been more clear: Without the strategic reorientation pushed by Secretary Gates, naval forces “face the prospect of being dominant and irrelevant at the same time.” SOCOM’s Olson was equally direct. “The type of war we wage is not determined by the type of troops we put on the ground,” he said. America’s military has to adjust to this “new normal,” in which “war does not mean what it used to,” or else continue to suffer the consequences of that maladjustment.
I walked out of the conference with a firm sense that, despite all the fierce resistance over the years to the naval strategic vision that Wilkerson and I helped craft in the Cold War’s shadow, our navy has truly — and finally — embraced the fight . . . from the sea.
I came to a similar conclusion regarding the conference, but I am not sure I would have articulated it this way. There was a special atmosphere at the Joint Warfighter 2009 Conference that I also noted in testimonial of many in attendance. One thing that stuck out was the rather visible presence of uniformed personnel present, indeed in my experience attending similar conferences I have never seen so many Soldiers and Sailors in uniform. That was something noted by many working the booths on the conference floor, and other participants as well. While the theme may have been “Joint” the presence of the “Warfighter” was a visible aspect of the atmosphere, and the ideas and collaborative discussions I was involved in reflected that atmosphere. Tom Barnett is right though, the “From the Sea…” reorganization does show up among those in JFCOM, although I think “Hybrid Wars” more so than just “Small Wars” set the tone for me.
Tom Barnett’s presentation on Wednesday became one of the most discussed aspects of the conference, with several people suggesting to me by the end of the day Wednesday his keynote may turn out to be the highlight. Thursday was a great day, so opinions may have changed, but if you have never seen Tom Barnett live it can definitely be described as a thought provoking and entertaining show.
Even though Tom Barnett and I disagree on several things, I count him high on my list of mentors. Tom began his writing career by writing for the US Naval Institute in Proceedings, and while I have Information Dissemination, I am very proud to write for the USNI Blog as it begins the adventure into the continuous public national security debate and dialog emerging in the social media space. Tom Barnett is called many things ranging from provocative to polarizing, brilliant to an ass hole. As I have learned writing strong opinions myself, it is hard to give strong opinions without being labeled something by peers and critics alike. I thought Tom brought a compelling strategic vibe to the Joint Warfighter 2009 Conference that added tremendous value to the dialog and engagements that took place last week. In watching Twitter on Tuesday, I thought this comment by William Johnson nailed it:
Joint WF 2009 (Naval institute) – heard mattis and barnett on consec days – there is intelligent life on earth!
Exactly.
