It is easy to misconstrue his position from that article. He is involved in strategic planing for the pentagon, so his views are focused on what the pentagon can do to promote world peace.
Actually, that is one of the problems he claims to have in getting his message heard by pentagon officials. He wants to promote a role for the US military in which war is not limited to war. That is, the reasons and desired outcomes are not merely shooting at bad guys. He is trying to promote the idea that globalization could actually acieve world peace.
The article is much shorter than his book. So, it does not include the necessary verbiage about helping the non integrating gap achieve economic and political membership in the functioning core. That is, the call for a greater role for the State Department and other countries in the functioning core in helping build the economies of countries withing the gap which are having trouble doing so on their own.
Surprisingly, he is not a republican or a neo conservative. He is a democrat, and some of what he writes is quite disturbing to me.
He makes the point repeatedly in his book that this is a real problem. The problem is one of selling the policy of pre-emption. He complains quite a bit that the Bush administration does not discern sufficiently clearly where such policies are to apply. Without doing so, they make long time friends nervous about where such a policy might be used next. His point is that we need to define the problem (not the enemy, but the problem) in such a way that more of the world can become convinced
I agree with this assessment of the world. Eventually we will destroy ourselves, or unite in some sort of world peace agreement which is stable enough to provide security to everyone.
Eventually is a long time, though. “Eventually”, Hitler could have been defeated through peaceful means. This doesn’t mean that the hard work the rest of the world did was wasted. 