Defense strategist and author Thomas P.M. Barnett has a plan that he says will abolish global terrorism and lead the way to Middle East peace. It starts with becoming allies with Iran and making China and India happy. But we're getting ahead of ourselves.

Barnett has spent much of his career as a strategic planner dealing with national security issues. He has served as a strategic researcher and professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and as an adviser to military and civilian leaders in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Central Command, among other agencies. He also is a consultant as well as a best-selling author and popular public speaker.

Barnett moved to Central Indiana in 2005 and last month spoke with the Indiana Council on World Affairs at Butler University. He expounded on the arguments he made in two books -- "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century," published in 2004, and its sequel, "Blueprint for Action," released last year.

Barnett's plan for world peace and prosperity begins with separating nations into two groups -- the Functioning Core and the Non-Integrated Gap -- based on where U.S. military forces have been deployed since 1990. Most of the countries in the Non-Integrated Gap have required military intervention and are generally impoverished and politically and economically disconnected from stable nations. They lie mainly in Africa, northern South America and the Caribbean, the Caucasus and central and southern Asia. The countries in the Core, however, have been peaceful as well as economically and politically linked to other peaceful nations. They are generally found in North America and most of Europe and northern Asia, including China.

Because of their instability and "export" of such menaces as drugs, disease and terror, countries in the Gap pose a threat to the Core. Barnett says the Core must do all it can to shrink the Gap, either by sending in troops or providing economic or development assistance. Supplying military might is not the difficult part -- the U.S. already has all it needs to rout any "bad actors" in the world, such as Saddam Hussein, Barnett says. But where our country falls short is in the peacekeeping and nation-building that must follow.

Barnett would create an international body that could not only maintain the peace in countries where the evil forces have been vanquished, courtesy of the United States, but also lead in the inevitable rebuilding of governments and infrastructure afterward. Populous nations, such as China and India, will play a huge role in this reconstruction effort because they have the manpower that these projects often require.

The time is right to put this plan into action, Barnett says, starting with bringing Iran into the Core. Iran is a stable country in a turbulent region and would be a huge asset to the Core. Barnett acknowledges that many people do not share his high opinion of Iran, such as President Bush, who has named it part of the Axis of Evil. But Barnett says the world will benefit if the United States and Iran can make amends. Just as important, that would please China and India, who are making their own overtures to Iran and its oil reserves. And pleasing China and India will help ensure their contribution to the Core's future nation-rebuilding.

Several Y-Press members heard Barnett speak. After having some time to digest his "Blueprint," they have a few questions and concerns of their own.

*****

By Rachel Troy

I think Thomas Barnett's vision of an interconnected world is overly hopeful.

In his foreign policy proposal, Barnett advocates a three-pronged approach in dealing with unstable nations: political, military and humanitarian aid. I agree that stronger nations do have a certain responsibility to help nations devastated by war or disaster. This is not a new idea.

In 1947, U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall formulated a plan to aid European nations decimated by World War II. Marshall proposed that the United States offer $20 billion in relief if the countries could present a united and rational plan for the use of the money. This not only benefited Europe but the United States as well, as all needed goods would be purchased and shipped from the United States. It also endeared the Europeans to the U.S. and steered them away from communism, which the U.S. feared was encroaching from the U.S.S.R.

In a way, Barnett's proposal is similar to the Marshall Plan, but on a worldwide scale. In Barnett's view, the United States would use its military power to defeat a troublesome nation and then pull out. Reconstruction could then take place led by educated professionals (preferably with substantial experience) from an international rebuilding agency. Barnett believes that citizens of a defeated nation will be more likely to accept humanitarian efforts led by a multilateral body than by U.S. officials.

I believe this assumption is unrealistic. Defeated people often do not appreciate help from those better off than themselves. Take myself, for example. In school, there are certain subjects in which I have trouble, such as chemistry. When I have been offered a tutor, I strongly decline, though the tutoring may significantly help my understanding of the subject. Maybe I'm too proud, or maybe I'm too independent. But I'd rather just figure it out myself.

The recently defeated nations of American military campaigns may feel the same. If I were a citizen of a fallen nation, I would be unlikely to accept help from the country that just destroyed mine, even though it would inhibit any real progress. Likewise, these rebel nations are going to be aggravated by the "Core" siccing the United States on them.

It's a good idea, Mr. Barnett, but it goes against human nature.

*****

By Robin Wetherill

"How dangerous is Iran?" This question was splashed across the cover of the Feb. 13 issue of Newsweek. Mullah-controlled Iran has been on America's "terror radar" for more than two decades, most recently when it was included in President Bush's "axis of evil" in 2002.

Thomas Barnett, however, disagrees that Iran is among the greatest modern threats to U.S. national security. Instead, he proposes an alliance between the U.S. and Iran.

Barnett supports this suggestion by citing that whatever their leaders' anti-American sentiments, the Iranian people are widely pro-American, which sets them apart from most populations in the Middle East. As evidence, Barnett points to the rampant use of satellite TV dishes in Iran, though they are illegal. According to Barnett, this widespread disobedience can be partially attributed to the overwhelmingly young Iranian populace and the fading influence of the mullahs, who came to power during the country's Islamic Revolution of the late '70s.

In addition, the former Naval War College professor said Iran's "massive black market" also indicates the people's rebellion against the Mullahs. Indeed, he compared contemporary Iran to the Soviet Union of the 1970s, which had a similarly youthful populace with a huge demand for illegal goods. And just as those young Soviets were inclined toward democracy, so are the Iranians, he said.

There are other reasons to cut a deal with Iran, Barnett said. He cites Iran's power to "veto" any U.S. attempts at peace in other areas of the Middle East, such as in Iraq. Conversely, the Iranians have the power to strengthen any such effort, which would be vital to American interests, he said.

Therefore, Barnett recommends that the U.S. resume trade and diplomatic relations with Iran and allow it to keep its nuclear program, in exchange for Iran recognizing Israel's right to exist, ending its support of Iraqi insurgents and anti-Israeli terrorists, and backing several U.S. endeavors in the region.

To charges that the nuclear empowerment of Iran is a grave threat to peace in the Middle East, Barnett says it will actually stabilize the region because it will counterbalance Israel's nuclear capabilities, and "mutually assured destruction" is a powerful deterrent -- just look what it did for the Soviets and Americans during the Cold War, he said.

I commend Barnett's fact-based approach to foreign policy. All too often it seems as though those responsible for American actions abroad speak only in terms of the military, and it is refreshing to hear a speaker propose that the easiest and most profitable solution to current tensions with Iran should have nothing to do with weaponry, armor, troops on the ground or, most importantly, casualties.

For the sake of our troops and our country in general, I hope someone with more authority than me is listening to Thomas Barnett. Diplomacy, too long ignored, must return to the forefront in our dealings with Iran, its neighbors and the world.

*****

By Izaak Hayes

Thomas Barnett has a vision for the future. However, in order for his ideas to become actions, the world would have to work as he sees it. One of the problems I feel that he does not take into consideration is the vast differences, culturally and socially, between the United States and some countries both in and out of the "Functioning Core," which could get in the way of global networking.

For example, I'm not sure that I view China quite as benevolently as Barnett does. He sees China as one of the major rebuilders of "Gap" countries once they have been made peaceful by U.S. forces. My concern is that China may be more interested in what these poor nations can do for it than what it can do for them.

Take, for example, its action in Africa. While primarily composed of poorer nations, Africa still has quite a bit to offer in the way of natural resources, especially oil and mineral rights. By putting large investments into African governments for use on public infrastructure and development, China is gaining a foothold in the continent. Of course, all this has the added bonus of making China look like a saint and gaining it much credit in the world community.

China and the U.S. are very connected, too, as far as trade goes, although their systems of government are vastly different. The problem is that the free-trade system going on with China is very one-sided in China's favor, with the U.S. importing vastly more Chinese goods than China imports of U.S. goods. This has caused the U.S. to become in debt to China, and if China were to want all of its debts repaid immediately, massive problems for American consumers would follow.

China already is a powerful nation, with its huge work force and land mass. I believe it would be dangerous to allow China to take too much responsibility for building up African nations. This would allow them possible limitless access to the materials and resources Africa has to offer, some of which we could also use. Furthermore, they might take the opportunity to sell such materials back to us at much higher prices, further increasing our debt to them.

But how can we trust a nation that employs 30,000 people each year to monitor its own citizens' Internet searches 24/7?

If I were Thomas Barnett, I would be skeptical of entrusting our economic and trade future to a country that does not trust its own people.

*****

By Zoe Hayes

Last year, I saw Zana Briski's film "Born Into Brothels" about the children of prostitutes in Calcutta. I knew that India was a very crowded country, but before the movie I had no real picture of the situation. While the India in "Born Into Brothels" is by no means representative of the entire country, it does at least give the impression of a country stretched to its limits caring for its vast population.

So when Thomas Barnett began discussing India in his speech, I pricked up my ears. In his view, India would provide much of the manpower needed to rebuild "Gap" countries that have been "stabilized" by military means. It would be part of a new international agency that would rebuild the country's infrastructure, manage the economy, install a government, and do the other sundry long-term tasks that the "old-school" military is not really suited for (as illustrated by the U.S. operations in Iraq).

I find it highly doubtful that India would, in fact, be willing to make such a massive contribution, particular after the recent attack on Pakistan. But more than that, the main flaw I see in this equation is the attempt to bring an overcrowded, still-impoverished nation into the "inner sanctum" so quickly.

I have a great deal of respect for India economically. It is a rapidly growing, motivated nation. While its natural resources may not be the most plentiful or valuable, especially when compared to North or South America, it has rapidly growing human services and technology sectors, and it has a great deal of raw manpower. I do not, however, think that it can or should shoulder too much global responsibility too soon. A country's first priority should be to improve its own infrastructure, then focus on other nations.

The India in "Born Into Brothels" needs a better infrastructure itself. It is very overcrowded and does not have clean water or sanitation. Drug addicts lie in the streets. Children see dropping out of school as a matter of course. While poverty does exist in the United States, overall our infrastructure is not too bad -- even homeless people have access to clean water and food.

India does not have the luxury of working both at home and abroad. Build up India's economy, improve its job market, and give more of its children a solid future; then we'll talk.

Who we are

Y-Press is a nonprofit news organization with offices in The Indianapolis Star building. Stories are researched, reported and written by teams of young people ages 10 to 18. For more information, call (317) 444-2010 or send an e-mail to ypress@in.net.

For new members

Students interested in joining Y-Press are invited to a two-part free training session next month. The seminars will be from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. March 4 and 9 a.m. to noon March 11 at The Star, 307 N. Pennsylvania St.

For more information, call (317) 444-2010, send an e-mail to ypress@in.net or visit www.ypress.org.