First you have to understand Barnett's motivation, and it comes back to his vision of a "Grand Strategy". Barnett seeks the follow on to Kennan's Containment strategy. Barnett's strategy states that we now become involved in wars, with disconnected societies, and non globalized societies. This is where we now spend our time as soldiers. Make war says Barnett, to bring disconnected and non globalized societies in line with our rulesets, and connect them to the globalized and interconnected core that is North America, Europe, Russia (wavering), China and much of South East Asia. May appear patronizing... but perhaps workable.
Among his basic assumptions... China is a friend, they are globalizing, and they are beginning to follow our rulesets. The US needs China's economic dynamism... China needs the West's money for infrastructure development, and needs the West's ability to secure affordable energy. Capital flows, immigration flow and trade is what wiill keep the current globalization phase going. Don't worry about China he says... embrace their progress and do not template them as a near peer military competitor.
Economically bankrupting China now will only serve to destabilize Asia and ultimately the US. The sheer magniture of Asian holdings of US greenbacks (US financial liabilities overseas in stocks, bonds and bank deposits) dictates that when the Chinese economy (and other Asian economies) collapse... so too will the American economy. Going to war with them would be even greater folly.
Barnett's argument is that China is closer to us than they have been in the last 50 years, and growing more so. Keep doing what we are doing, create a strategic alliance now while the west is still in a strong bargaining position.
There is a lot to be said for coming to a rational agreement on the future of Taiwan... latest Foreign Affairs has an article by Kenneth Lieberthal suggesting that the US put significant effort into brokering a peace for a generation.... role play in a sense, where each side agrees to certain bounds in their posturing. You must admit that in make no sense for the US to be at the mercy of the whims of Taiwan and to be ready to go to war with China over a matter of terminology in the name of a state or the wording of a referendum.
Wrt Iran, his sense is that they are ripe for a detente. Despite their leadership, they are a culturally moderate society. Persians are not Arabs, they do not share a common culture. Many would suggest that the Mullahs will be willing to compromise knowing that the public opinion of the younger generations is strongly against their rule. Lastly he believes that MAD, as (perhaps?) proven in the Cold War, will keep Iran and Israel inline.
The Chinese leadership and the Mullahs will not act exactly as we would in the West. However they will act in their national interests and that of their people. Economic well being will have more influence in China and Iran than it will with the North Korean regime.
Barnett is a guy who has come out of the Naval War College, by way of the Office of the Sec Def, in the realm of transformation. The sheer volume of briefings he apparently gives to senior gov't and industry officials, and the success of his current book lend some credence to the influence of his ideas. There are significant similarities in Barnett's vision and the current "Bush Doctrine". Barnett takes some of those ideas farther that any US gov't can in the current international climate.
Barnetts theory is just that... a theory. However he presents a more cogent (and simplistic perhaps) summary of a potential Grand Strategy than most others at this point. He would also argue that the essence of the Grand Strategy should be simplistic, and that the details will be very complex, and will never be the same, from situation to situation, and from year to year. His vision, whether you agree with it or not, is a very good starting point for discussion.
