College Doctrine and the Bible
To Honor Jesus Christ, Glorify
God, Encourage Believers, & Warn All
information is offered with the hope that YOU can come to KNOW the Lord
From the following website (the official Naval War College website):
IT EXPLAINS WHY WE’RE GOING TO WAR,
AND WHY WE’LL KEEP GOING TO WAR.
THOMAS P.M. BARNETT, U.S. NAVAL WAR COLLEGE
[The website makes reference to an upcoming book The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century is to be published by G.P. Putnam's Sons on 26 April 2004 (448 pages). This book was written by Dr Barnett, an instructor at the Naval War College. (This webpage is a description of the March 2003 issue of Esquire Magazine 's coverage of one of the nations' Best and Brightest, Dr Barnett.)]
Quoting from the webpage:
Dr. Barnett has published a number of articles explaining these strategic concepts, which he presents comprehensively in a briefing entitled, "A Future Worth Creating: Defense Transformation in the New Security Environment." As of December 2003, Prof. Barnett has delivered this brief over 125 times to a cumulative audience of approximately 4,000 government officials, military officers, industry and think tank representatives, and opinion leaders. The most complete descriptions of the brief yet to appear in print is titled, "The Pentagon's New Map" ( Esquire, March 2003) and "Global Transaction Strategy," with Dr Henry H. Gaffney, Jr (Military Officer, May 2003).. Dr. Barnett was interviewed by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer regarding this article on CNN Showdown Iraq, and for several weeks it was listed as a "must read" on the Council of Foreign Relations website (in both the "Globalization" and "National Security" lists).
At the Naval War College, Dr. Barnett serves as Director of the NewRuleSets.Project, an ambitious effort to draw new "maps" of power and influence in the world economy so as to expand the U.S. Military's--and specifically, the U.S. Navy's--vision of where and how it can wield maximum influence across the international security environment of the Era of Globalization.
...The second phase of the project (November 2001-June 2003) consisted of Dr. Barnett's follow-on work with the Office of Force Transformation [the target being the entire Department of Defense] Following an upcoming teaching assignment, Phase III of the project will begin in late 2003.
See also: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/thomas_barnett.htm
According to the webpage, the world is divided into two groups (the Functioning Core of globalization, the good guys, and the Non-Integrating Gap , the bad guys.)
Show me where globalization is thick with network connectivity, financial transactions, liberal media flows, and collective security, and I will show you regions featuring stable governments, rising standards of living, and more deaths by suicide than murder. These parts of the world I call the Functioning Core, or Core . But show me where globalization is thinning or just plain absent, and I will show you regions plagued by politically repressive regimes, widespread poverty and disease, routine mass murder, and—most important—the chronic conflicts that incubate the next generation of global terrorists. These parts of the world I call the Non-Integrating Gap, or Gap.
Dr Barnett's justification for invading Iraq is-
The real reason I support a war like this is that the resulting long-term military commitment will finally force America to deal with the entire Gap as a strategic threat environment.
This translates into a doctrine of more necessary wars to force "globalization":
So where do we schedule the U.S. military’s next round of away games? The pattern that has emerged since the end of the cold war suggests a simple answer: in the Gap.
In the opinion of this author, referring to the next war as the US military's next round of away games, is distasteful to say the least One wonders when the home games will begin..
Just where does the Gap exist?
Quoting from the webpage:
If we map out U.S. military responses since the end of the cold war, (see below), we find an overwhelming concentration of activity in the regions of the world that are excluded from globalization’s growing Core—namely the Caribbean Rim, virtually all of Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and much of Southeast Asia. That is roughly the remaining two billion of the world’s population. Most have demographics skewed very young, and most are labeled, “low income” or “low middle income” by the World Bank (i.e., less than $3,000 annual per capita).
In many ways, the September 11 attacks did the U.S. national-security establishment a huge favor by pulling us back from the abstract planning of future high-tech wars against “near peers” into the here-and-now threats to global order. By doing so, the dividing lines between Core and Gap were highlighted, and more important, the nature of the threat environment was thrown into stark relief.
Think about it: Bin Laden and Al Qaeda are pure products of the Gap—in effect, its most violent feedback to the Core. They tell us how we are doing in exporting security to these lawless areas (not very well) and which states they would like to take “off line” from globalization and return to some seventh-century definition of the good life ( any Gap state with a sizable Muslim population , especially Saudi Arabia).
Implicit in Dr Barnett's statement "any Gap state with a sizable Muslim population" is the well known Clash of Civilizations .
Now what does Dr Barnett propose to do with the Gap?
IF WE STEP BACK for a minute and consider the broader implications of this new global map, then U.S. national-security strategy would seem to be: 1) Increase the Core’s immune system capabilities for responding to September 11-like system perturbations; 2) Work the seam states to firewall the Core from the Gap’s worst exports, such as terror, drugs, and pandemics; and, most important, 3) Shrink the Gap. Notice I did not just say Mind the Gap .
Dr Barnett is proposing that the United States military be used to forcably SHRINK THE GAP.
Biblically significant are Dr Barnett's next comments:
The Middle East is the perfect place to start. Diplomacy cannot work in a region where the biggest sources of insecurity lie not between states but within them. What is most wrong about the Middle East is the lack of personal freedom and how that translates into dead-end lives for most of the population—especially for the young. Some states like Qatar and Jordan are ripe for perestroika-like leaps into better political futures, thanks to younger leaders who see the inevitability of such change. Iran is likewise waiting for the right Gorbachev to come along—if he has not already.
What stands in the path of this change? Fear. Fear of tradition unraveling. Fear of the mullah’s disapproval. Fear of being labeled a “bad” or “traitorous” Muslim state. Fear of becoming a target of radical groups and terrorist networks. But most of all, fear of being attacked from all sides for being different—the fear of becoming Israel.
The Middle East has long been a neighborhood of bullies eager to pick on the weak. Israel is still around because it has become—sadly—one of the toughest bullies on the block. The only thing that will change that nasty environment and open the floodgates for change is if some external power steps in and plays Leviathan full-time . Taking down Saddam, the region’s bully-in-chief, will force the U.S. into playing that role far more fully than it has over the past several decades, primarily because Iraq is the Yugoslavia of the Middle East—a crossroads of civilizations that has historically required a dictatorship to keep the peace. As baby-sitting jobs go, this one will be a doozy, making our lengthy efforts in postwar Germany and Japan look simple in retrospect.
But it is the right thing to do, and now is the right time to do it, and we are the only country that can. Freedom cannot blossom in the Middle East without security, and security is this country’s most influential public-sector export. By that I do not mean arms exports, but basically the attention paid by our military forces to any region’s potential for mass violence. We are the only nation on earth capable of exporting security in a sustained fashion, and we have a very good track record of doing it.
Show me a part of the world that is secure in its peace and I will show you a strong or growing ties between local militaries and the U.S. military. Show me regions where major war is inconceivable and I will show you permanent U.S. military bases and long-term security alliances. Show me the strongest investment relationships in the global economy and I will show you two postwar military occupations that remade Europe and Japan following World War II.
.... I know most Americans do not want to hear this, but the real battlegrounds in the global war on terrorism are still over there.
If gated communities and rent-a-cops were enough, September 11 never would have happened.
History is full of turning points like that terrible day, but no turning-back-points. We ignore the Gap’s existence at our own peril, because it will not go away until we as a nation respond to the challenge of making globalization truly global.
In case you missed it, this is calling for global military enforcement of a standard called at present "globalization." If you want to call it martial law, go ahead. That is what exists in Iraq today.
The following trouble spots are listed and the reasoning behind Dr Barnett's views are cited. In my opinion, the tone of Dr Barnett's descriptions of these sovereign nations is condescending and contemptuous. This is the kind of attitude (if carried to the fullest extent) that leads to the warlike conditions and global police states of the Book of Revelations.
I am glad the Lord is returning, but, the sobering reality of what is to unfold in the implementation of these ideas, is a difficult thing to about which to think. I am glad I will not be here .
The Bible says that the heart of the King is in the hands of the Lord and He turns it in whatever direction He wants. This would include the president of the United States. The purpose of this is not to approve or to criticize any government policy. The purpose of this is to report what is happening in the light of Bible prophecy. The main point of the remainder of this discussion is to show that the majority of these GAP nations are DIRECTLY mentioned in Bible prophecy as part of the coming campaign of Armageddon.
The countries mentioned are:
8) ISRAEL-PALESTINE Terror will not abate—there is no next generation in the West Bank that wants anything but more violence. • Wall going up right now will be the Berlin Wall of twenty-first century. Eventually, outside powers will end up providing security to keep the two sides apart (this divorce is going to be very painful). • There is always the chance of somebody (Saddam in desperation?) trying to light up Israel with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and triggering the counterpunch we all fear Israel is capable of.
9) SAUDI ARABIA The let-them-eat-cake mentality of royal mafia will eventually trigger violent instability from within. • Paying terrorists protection money to stay away will likewise eventually fail, so danger will come from outside, too. • Huge young population with little prospects for future, and a ruling elite whose main source of income is a declining long-term asset. And yet the oil will matter to enough of the world far enough into the future that the United States will never let this place really tank, no matter what it takes.
10) IRAQ Question of when and how, not if. • Then there's the huge rehab job. We will have to build a security regime for the whole region.
(This theme of SECURITY REGIME is echoed by the Jordanian leadership over and over ).
12) IRAN [specifically mentioned in Ezekiel 38-39 as Persia ] Counterrevolution has already begun: This time the students want to throw the mullahs out. • Iran wants to be friends with U.S., but resurgence of fundamentalists may be the price we pay to invade Iraq. • The mullahs support terror, and their push for WMD is real: Does this make them inevitable target once Iraq and North Korea are settled?
"Kings of the East" is the term used for these nations who invade the Mideast -
13) AFGHANISTAN Lawless, violent place even before the Taliban stepped onstage and started pulling it back toward seventh century (short trip) • Government sold to Al Qaeda for pennies on the dollar. • Big source of narcotics (heroin). • Now U.S. stuck there for long haul, rooting out hardcore terrorists/rebels who've chosen to stay.
14) PAKISTAN There is always the real danger of their having the bomb and using it out of weakness in conflict with India (very close call with December 13, 2001, New Delhi bombing). • Out of fear that Pakistan may fall to radical Muslims, we end up backing hard-line military types we don't really trust. • Clearly infested with Al Qaeda. • Was on its way to being declared a rogue state by U.S. until September 11 forced us to cooperate again. Simply put, Pakistan doesn't seem to control much of its own territory.
15) NORTH KOREA Marching toward WMD. • Bizarre recent behavior of Pyongyang (admitting kidnappings, breaking promises on nukes, shipping weapons to places we disapprove of and getting caught, signing agreements with Japan that seem to signal new era, talking up new economic zone next to China) suggests it is intent (like some mental patient) on provoking crises. • We live in fear of Kim's Götterdämmerung scenario (he is nuts). • Population deteriorating—how much more can they stand? • After Iraq, may be next.
16) INDONESIA Usual fears about breakup and "world's largest Muslim population." • Casualty of Asian economic crisis (really got wiped out). • Hot spot for terror networks, as we have discovered.New/integrating members of Core I worry may belost in coming year:
17) CHINA Running lots of races against itself in terms of reducing the unprofitable state-run enterprises while not triggering too much unemployment, plus dealing with all that growth in energy demand and accompanying pollution, plus coming pension crisis as population ages. • New generation of leaders looks suspiciously like unimaginative technocrats—big question if they are up to task. • If none of those macro pressures trigger internal instability, there is always the fear that the Communist party won't go quietly into the night in terms of allowing more political freedoms and that at some point, economic freedom won't be enough for the masses. Right now the CCP is very corrupt and mostly a parasite on the country, but it still calls the big shots in Beijing. • Army seems to be getting more disassociated from society and reality, focusing ever more myopically on countering U.S. threat to their ability to threaten Taiwan, which remains the one flash point that could matter. • And then there's AIDS.
Gog and Magog are the terms used to described this group who eventually invade the Mideast-
18) RUSSIA Putin has long way to go in his dictatorship of the law; the mafia and robber barons still have too much power. • Chechnya and the near-abroad in general will drag Moscow into violence, but it will be kept within the federation by and large. • U.S. moving into Central Asia is a testy thing—a relationship that can sour if not handled just right. • Russia has so many internal problems (financial weakness, environmental damage, et cetera) and depends too much on energy exports to feel safe (does bringing Iraq back online after invasion kill their golden goose?). • And then there's AIDS.
In a "summarization" we read-
On page 174, Barnett has annotated the world. More specifically, the world's hot spots and the likelihood of war in each of those places. For the first time, someone with a position in the government explains what we're really undertaking when we go to war in Iraq. It's not just about disarmament. Rather, the United States is redrawing the map of the region , we are shrinking the Gap (to use Barnett's term), we are changing the course of history by adopting a good-offense-is-the-best-defense strategy
The redrawing of the map in the region leads to what? The external power [that] steps in and plays Leviathan full-time
[to quote Dr Barnett] does so in the location none other than the Biblical Assyria , the place of the Biblical antichrist. Later on, and apparently not in the distant, but near future, the leviathan will be the antichrist himself.
What we have shown here is that an official at the Naval War College (as part of the Force Transformation of the United States military) is advocating policies (military operations, not rent-a-cops he said) in the geographical areas described in the Bible as the endtime participants in the CAMPAIGN known as ARMAGEDDON.
Are YOU ready for the coming of the Lord? The Bible says that we are to fall on to the rock Jesus Christ in dependence on Him or He will fall on us and grind us to powder. We all have our destiny with the rock. What is yours?
Mr Barnett has a new book Blueprint for Action and he recently made a trip to China to adopt a beautiful baby girl. While he was there he was asked to speak to various intellectuals. One of the things he said to the Chinese intellectuals was-
I pushed the notion that China needed to keep up its relatively swift pace of economic, social and political reforms because if it did not, then gaps would open up between the rest of the Core and China regarding security issues such as Taiwan, North Korea and the Middle East in general. Specifically on those three issues, I said that nothing that Taiwan could do or say would really change the reality of its progressive economic (and ultimately political) integration with the mainland, so China needed to find its confidence level on that one and not let the talk out of Taipei rattle it so. On North Korea, I pushed the notion that an Asian NATO should logically arise out of the "victory" that should soon end the horrific regime that is Kim Jong Il's leadership of that nation. So China needs to define what is a win-win for everyone on that score, and begin that dialogue with the U.S. as soon as possible, because it's eventually going to happen and it should happen on our preferred timetable rather than on Kim's crazy one. On the Middle East, I repeated my usual notion that China was inevitably coming militarily to the region over the next couple of decades, either because the U.S. does a good job of exporting security to the region and China wants to help, or because the U.S. does such a bad job of it that China comes out of fear. Either way, China needs to get its security head straight regarding this inevitable long-term reality, so again, thinking beyond the myopic focus on Taiwan is crucial.
One of the things that Mr Barnett is preaching (along with other Force Transformation analysts and leaders in the Pentagon) is "SysAdmin", an expanded role of the military. He received a report from a West point graduate serving in Kosovo who said-
One of the biggest things saving us right now in Iraq is the institutional level of “Sys Admin” skills developed accidentally as a result of mission creep in the Balkans . (so, if you are looking how world police forces will gradually come into play, perhaps this is how.)
To the benefit of all, the Army took a broader view of our mission and applied our surplus organizational skills and manpower to ensuring the success of many of the NGOs. We were not trained for such tasks but Americans see a need and pitch in. That experience is paying off in Iraq, where there are no NGO's and the Army is going it alone.
The Sys Admin half needs to be run by the State Department or some future successor to it. It needs some MP-type foot soldiers and a lot of military advisors and trainers, but most of all it needs expertise in the systems and functions of government to train and develop indigenous populations. It needs cultural and language experts; electrical, civil, and agricultural engineers; natural resource developers; communications experts … basically, everything we lack right now in Iraq. Much of this can not be contracted as we learned in Iraq.
The necessary split in the force will not be easy to accomplish. Your idea of first making all flag officers Joint will go a long way toward eliminating resistance to such a change. I would then take it a step farther and eliminate the separation of the services and make it one DOD. Same uniforms, weapons, vehicles, radios, networks, information systems, shared databases, personnel systems, promotion systems, everything. Tradition is great but not when it affects our ability to talk to each other and work together for what should be the same national security goals. Eliminating redundancy and waste would cut huge pieces out of the budget for other more necessary things.End 11-27-2005
How Is A Man Saved?
Please e-mail us with questions or comments today. If you need someone to lead a Bible study, let us know.