Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

The United Arab Emirates and Qatar are far richer and more liberal than the rest of the Middle East (sans Israel). Has the USA or Europe engaged these two nations differently and why, and could the success of these two nations be replicated in the rest of the Middle East?

I was hoping that Tom had a response to this article of the obvious. The NYT version was all the rave on this mornings talk shows. Having been to both Iraq and Afghanistan, I have no doubt some young, impressionable, unemployed males are getting a healthy dose of Al Quida and Al jazeera fueled propaganda, and using that as an excuse to blow themselves up for the cause. After watching Syriana, I actually feel bad for some of them in a way. But none of that changes the fact that to abandon the region now dooms generations of people to oppression and worse.

As a side note, I cannot comprehend the hypocrisy of the groups criticizing our lack of action in Rwanda, now DEMANDING action in Sudan, all the while bemoaning out actions in Iraq. I don't get it.

Bravo, Tom !

The question you seem to be avoiding, Tom, is not whether or not terrorists are being pissed off, but whether people who could go either way (either friendly towards--or at least tolerant of--the United States) end up in the arms of Osama's local recruiter based on doomed activities that, in the end, serve no useful purpose.

There is a wide gap between what you're calling "engagement" and what has happened, and could have ever conceivably happened, in Iraq. That gap is as important as any on that Pentagon map, because it's the gap between growing bonds and trying to impose them. The latter, as we've seen, rarely works, and even when it does, the side effects usually outweigh the good.

James: The problem, naturally, is that one doesn't need to propagandize in Iraq to embitter and anger your typical young Iraqi. The term "propaganda", after all, implies there's untruth involved.

to Dr. Barnett,
just like any large corp ( or an oil carrying supertanker ) takes a lot of force to switch direction. The u.s government is the largest corporation on the planet. To make it turn takes a lot of force ( newton's laws I believe ).

It will happen...question is when and under what circumstances. Like Dr. Barnett said, the risk being that the Iraq conflict will turn into a Vietnam style demoralization of the whole thing and the U.S. will withdraw into its own borders and wall off the globalized world. While admirals and air force generals, instead of fusing NCW with 4GW, go away with NCW.

Here's hoping that a generation of leaders from Iraq and Afganistan emerge with a vision of what needs to be done... A fusion of 4GW and NCW..

I still think that another branch of the military should be formed - bring out the u.s. army corps of engineers and make it the U.S. Corps of Engineers with a Joint Chief of Staff - They could be the sys-admins that are needed.

Just a thought

Vinit Joshi

Dr. Barnett,

You're wrong on this one.

The degree of provocation is critical

The concept is easy to understand. Kill 300+ children and you create 300+ potential suicide bombers. With time and the propensity of endless talk within the Middle East, the killings become of a stimulant for revenge and the 300 become 3,000.

Child killing is on the upside of the scale.

The obvious result is endless war. War, which enriches the few. I just saw a comment in the local paper in which a Blackwater employee was quoted as saying everyone is making money in Iraq except our troops. (Presumably Iraqis don’t count within the money making group).

The world reads too, and Jingoism is still identified as Jingoism.

J. Canepa:
You say, "The degree of provocation is critical." Yes, but you are getting confused about what they are provoked by. Death of Muslims even by infidels is not the BIG PROVOCATION. The biggie is globalization. Globalization puts an end to their world and their way of life. THAT is what provokes them. As Tom says, "We're not in control of the force (globalization), we're just walking behind that elephant, sweeping up its leavings."

That is why they tried to blow the WTC in 1993, why they bombed the USS Cole, why they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and why they flew airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon.......all long before we went into Iraq.

The events, which you mentioned, may have indeed been triggered by the perception of massive infant killing. Using Google I just found, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/iraq/effects.shtml Please note the sixth bullet within the source.

I do agree with Dr. Barnett that globalization is both inevitable and a step forward for mankind. But let's not advance the cause with counter productive brutality. The other guy’s children and his religion are off limits. Both incite rather than convince.

We need to do much less saber rattling and do more to encourage a truly global society. Using the truth as the main weapon, can we not convince others that living in Miami is better than living in Havana or living in South Korea is better than in North Korea?

Let's keep in mind that what we are discussing is not a National Inteligence Estimate report but rather the New York Times reporting of a NIE report.

It is quite possible that the New York Times is reporting the contents accurately rather than cherry picking out the bits that they believe will do the most damage to Republicans in the midterm elections a little bit more than a month from now. On the other hand, I have developed a jaundiced view of Walter Duranty's employer in the years since Pinch Sultzberger took over.

J. Canepa,

You have yet to demonstrate a causal link in any of this. Do you have anything to back up your assertions? "Jingoism" the Iraq venture is not--slogging through a grindingly demoralizing nation-building exercise is hardly a chest-thumping assertion of patriotism.

Next, "The other guy’s children and his religion are off limits." I agree, but collateral damage in an urban area, which is regrettable, and the fact that Iraq is part of the overwhelmingly Muslim Middle East does not mean that we are targeting children or picking on Islam.

Finally, you point to a report on the Iraq sanctions from 1991-1998, and posit that the resulting deaths then could be a reason for swelling terrorist ranks now. That just doesn't hold water. If that were true, al Qaeda would be using that as additional grist for the agitprop mill. I think you're really reaching here. Tom reasoned his way to his conclusion--what you're saying look more like unsupported claims to me.

If anybody is interested in evaluating just how honestly the New York Times reported the National Inteligence Estimate that was leaked to them, the summary of the report has been declassified and is now available.

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments_092606.pdf

here's the link

You Said:
You have yet to demonstrate a causal link in any of this. Do you have anything to back up your assertions? "Jingoism" the Iraq venture is not--slogging through a grindingly demoralizing nation-building exercise is hardly a chest-thumping assertion of patriotism.
>>I linked a UN report, which showed
>> “From 1991 to 1998, children under 5 died from malnutrition-related diseases in numbers ranging from a conservative 2,690 a month to a more realistic 5,357 per month”.
>>You can ignore this in favor of “they hate us for our freedom” or they hate the concept of self-government. The only way a rational person would agree with that crap is war fever or Jingoism
>> The slogging that you refer to is killing good men and enriching civilians. (A table napkin calculation gives me a skim of two billion dollars per month in Iraq) In contrast to post war Japan or Germany, the nation in not being rebuilt and the resentment grows stronger.
Next, "The other guy’s children and his religion are off limits." I agree, but collateral damage in an urban area, which is regrettable, and the fact that Iraq is part of the overwhelmingly Muslim Middle East does not mean that we are targeting children or picking on Islam.
>>It is not only regrettable but also unnecessary. My thought here is:
>>Cursed be those who kill children may they live forever in shame.
Finally, you point to a report on the Iraq sanctions from 1991-1998, and posit that the resulting deaths then could be a reason for swelling terrorist ranks now. That just doesn't hold water. If that were true, al Qaeda would be using that as additional grist for the agitprop mill. I think you're really reaching here. Tom reasoned his way to his conclusion--what you're saying look more like unsupported claims to me.
>> Denial of facts leads to wrong conclusions. If a foreign power was perceived to have taken action, which results in 2 to 5 thousand American children dying per month, what would be the probable reaction?

So, since the majority of Iraqis and presumably Iraqi children, being killed now, are being killed by other Iraqis, or external Islamic terrorists, there should be plenty of people signing up to fight against those that causing the violence in Iraq.

Recruitment in the Iraqi security services has been very strong, and continues. Despite the occassional suicide bomber targeting recruitment lines, Iraqis continue to line up to join.

J, you're not listening. The facts are undeniable, but they don't support your conclusion. You said "If a foreign power was perceived to have taken action, which results in 2 to 5 thousand American children dying per month,what would be the probable reaction?" The action (invasion) and the cause of deaths you cite (sanctions) are not linked: the one did not cause the other.

I share your moral outrage over the sanctions regime (I thought it was reprehensible) but it still makes no sense to lump them together. Granted, this is an emotional subject, but I think it cheapens the debate to holler "DEAD BABIES" without even trying for a sense of context. Nobody here wants dead children--we don't disagree on the goal, it's how best to get there. A good way to get nowhere fast is to advocate nothing, and denigrate anyone who attempts to alter the status quo. Lest you forget, a crumbling sanctions regime used to be the status quo. Denial of facts can lead to wrong conclusions, but so can attempting to make the facts fit a conclusion that you've obviously already arrived at.

Brandon.

Many clear thinking American thought in all sincerity that the Iraq population would welcome American soldiers on Iraqi soil. We know now that view was mistaken. The obvious reason was the perception of the sanctions. Iraq did not blame themselves for the sanctions, they blamed us.

The one critical event, which received a minimum of attention here, was a Presidential shrug. I watched President Clinton when asked about the UN report that 500,000 Iraq children died as a result of the sanctions. He merely shrugged and said that it was all Saddam’s fault.

If there was any single incident that incited Muslim to kill themselves by flying into buildings, the shrug might have been it.
You cannot underestimate the impact of child homicide, no matter what the spin makers feed the media or withhold from the media.

Looking away from Iraq to Lebanon. The 300+ children killed there will undoubtedly result in some kind of revenge. I saw the look of pure anger on the face of the Saudi ambassador when he presented his country’s six-point plan to end the hostilities in Lebanon to White House officials. He could not have pleased when the point were summarily dismissed and is probably livid when the media here did even see fit to publish what the six points were.

He said nothing further publicly, but, in case you did not notice, OPEC just said that it would withhold oil production, if the price of crude dipped below $60 per barrel. Pay back?

Lastly, the alleged Armitage comment to bomb our ally, Pakistan back to the stone age, may just indicate to the rest of the world that the US, if provoked, will readily kill more children. Do you think the rest of the world wants to be the next guy knocked off the Dr. Tom's park bench?

Joe

PS This is my last post on the subject as I am probably trying the patience of most readers here.