Term Paper on "Tom Barnett's Book the Pentagon's New Map"

Quoted Instructions for "Tom Barnett's Book the Pentagon's New Map" Assignment:

Request a critical book review NOT a book report. The latter summarizes the content of the book. A good critical book review does the following:

1. Identifies the author’s theme or thesis, that is, the proposition that he argued in the book. Why did he write the book, what is he trying to prove? It is inadequate to identify the subject; you must tell what the author says about it.

2. Identifies the scope of the work, e.g., what era does it cover, what subtopics?

3. Explains how the author supports his thesis and assesses his success in proving it. Address any flaws or faults in the argument, such as obvious contrary arguments.

4. Analyze the author’s thesis against the test of time. Given current technology, weapons, politics, etc., is the author’s thesis relevant.

5. If it is not obvious from the title, explain the general nature of the book. Does it deal mostly with the operational, strategic, diplomatic, economic, or psychological aspect?

6. If the author brings any special experience or training to the work, identify and explain this. Also identify any prejudices or bias the author has relative to the subject.

7. Provide some analysis/synthesis of the book. Do not be afraid to use words or phrases such as I think, believe, conclude, deduce, surmise, find, my opinion, assume, assess, infer, or even guess.

QUESTIONS THAT PROMPT CRITICAL THINKING

The following questions can serve as a guide to ensure critical thinking.

1. What is the author’s thesis or central argument?

2. How does his thesis or argument depart from or support conventional thinking or official policy, as evidenced in the current body of literature on the subject or in policy statements?

3. Does the author adequately and logically support his line of thought?

4. Is he familiar with the current literature and does he reference the key classic and contemporary sources?

5. Has the author ignored contrary evidence that would contradict his thesis, in part or in whole? Has he “stacked the deck” or posed artificial “strawmen”?

6. Does the author’s nationality, race, gender, kind of education, service loyalty, employment record, or other demographic fact perhaps “color” the author’s judgment, approach, or findings? Is there reason to believe the author has not been impartial in his research or “played fast and loose” with the evidence?

7. Are interpretations, opinions, and unusual kinds of evidence properly footnoted or referenced with complete citations?

8. Has the author persuaded the reader of his thesis or argument? What are the “clinchers” that convinced you?

9. If the thesis or argument has validity, what are some of the implications of the conclusions drawn? Who or what benefits, with what costs?

10. Do the findings suggest further research questions to be addressed?

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1. Review clearly identifies the author’s thesis or purpose and relates its significance to senior leaders.

2. Review ties into strategy, doctrine, airpower, operational art, warfighting concepts

3. Review provides a critical analysis of the book’s strengths and weaknesses.

4. Value of the book or its insights for military professionals and senior leaders discussed.

5. Review should provide overall linkage to concepts: Global War on Terrorism, Warfighting, Deliberate & Adaptive planning, Future threats, strategy to match emerging technology.

6. Review should be written clearly and concisely?

Challenge is getting all of this succinctly into no more than three pages. Paper should be structured with short intro, key discussion points, then conclusion. Target audience is senior military leader faculty….should be Masters-PhD-Professional level.