More or less the same political faction is now busily inflating the threat of Islamic radicalism, tiny by comparison with the past threat of communism, which itself turned out to be a massive, self-destroying dud.

Radical Islam is not only smaller, narrower and weaker than communism, it’s also far less broadly appealing and far more literally suicidal. The damage being done by Islamic extremists is real and needs to be taken seriously, but American history shows indisputably that ideological radicalism is no match for liberalism and freedom.

Supporting freedom and the institutions that nurture it is really all that is necessary. Radical ideologies such as Bin Ladenism destroy themselves more quickly when left alone to follow their own prescriptions.

I dont remember very many specifics from Barnett’s radio shows but I just recall a lot of thinking to be sorta pointless. That is because I think the future will be consumed fighting Islamic forces.. and they dont give a hoot about our technology, culture, society that might make them want to compromise.

What do you mean by First Generation Warfare? As I understand the concept…I have no idea what good that would be. The US military is primarily a 2GW/3GW hybrid force with some (hopefully growing) 4GW capabilities. I am guessing you are using some other definition of 1GW (not this –> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_generation_warfare )

Is there anything in particular by the Pentagon’s New Map Guy (aka Thomas Barnett http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/) that you don’t like? His ideas are attempting to be an alternative to having to drop nuclear bombs on the Muslims (well the “Gap”).

Unless we’re going to be dropping nuclear bombs , our mechanized weapons are not going to count for squat in urban warfare, especially against Muslims who have no qualms with using innocent human shields.

Hugh Hewitt had a months-long series by the guy who wrote Pentagon’s New Map. I had the hardest time taking any of it seriously.