ARTICLE: "No. 042: The Country to Watch," by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Esquire, October 2006, p. 177.The "100" issue is about the one-hundred "things, ideas & people you need to know right now."
Brad Pitt (#15) is on the cover, as am I in a wordage way "Think the Middle East is a Mess Now? Wait til Egypt Blows."
Besides the cover mention and prominent table of contents placement on page 27, I get a nice mention in Editor-in-Chief David Granger's column for my end of June brief at the Hearst building:
This issue is like a couple of weeks of conversations and meetings around the office. Well, a couple really good weeks. Like the weeks when Paul Haggis comes by to talk with Lisa Hintelmann (No. 111) about his new TV show and contributing editor Thomas Barnett stops by on his way home from China to give us a version of his latest brief--the brief he gives to everyone from Chinese government officials to titans of American industry--on the state of the world..As for my piece, it's about 800 words and has it's own page following not far behind the serious spread on Brad (yes, we're on a first-name basis).
I'm pretty happy with the piece. The writing is awfully tight, "without an ounce of fat," as Steve would say.
I bow in the direction of Friedman twice in the piece (Lexus v olive, flat world) simply because his catch-phrases are invaluable in such tight quarters (in addition to being accurate and descriptive). I also get in some good China references, plus preview what I hope will be an upcoming piece on Africa at the end of the page.
So the article has just about everything (something old, something new... something borrowed, something blue...) and the call-out text, which Mark wrote by leveraging my blog, works in both Iran and the recent Lebanon events (important to show I considered those scenarios as alternative draws on the U.S.), so we got just about everything done that we could cram into a single page--to include a cool Egypt graphic from Matt Dennis that is simply brilliant.
Here's the call-out text (not included in the online version):
Bush should have co-opted Ahmadinejad, not cornered him. His proxy war with Israel only strengthens him. Meanwhile, "moderate' Arab dictators like Mubarek see their lives flashing before them."So yeah, nice to be back in the book--as they say.
Better things to come before the end of the year...
BTW, the new 9/11 archives at Esquire feature my two "Mr. President" articles.
| Permalink |
Comments (4)
Tom,
Fantastic esquire piece! Am shooting to all my buddies who work in OSD P and security cooperation within the Middle East and Africa. Spot on article. Keep em' coming
Posted by Matt T | September 15, 2006 2:15 PM
Dr Barnett,
I agree with the general thrust of your latest article in Esquire. Africa is clearly the next battle ground of the Long War and corrupt dictatorships like Egypt are at risk of being overwhelmed by Islamic extremists if they continue neglect their people. However, I have to disagree with your characterization of the Muslim Brotherhood.
“Another political force is connecting to the restive Egyptian people, and it's the Muslim Brotherhood, otherwise known as Al Qaeda 1.0.”
The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt is certainly the source code for radical Islam. The writings of Sayyid Qutb are the ideological foundation for most radical Sunni and even some Shi’a extremists. However, the Muslim Brotherhood no longer advocates the violent overthrow of regimes like Mubarak’s Egypt. They refused to condone the assassination of Sadat (although most members probably approved). This is the reason that Ayman al Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad broke away.
I know this is semantics but I believe a more accurate metaphor for the Brotherhood is that they are the MSDOS to al Qaeda’s Windows XP. One is the antecedent of the other but they are no longer compatible.
This is important because I believe we run the risk of repeating one of the major mistakes of the Cold War in this Long War. In the Cold War we regarded any Populist or advocate of land reform as a Communist. Our antagonism often drove them into the Soviet camp. This oversimplification led to some disastrous decisions (such as the CIA directed coup which toppled Iran’s democratically elected populist government and installed the Shah in 1958).
Just as you so rightly differentiate between authoritarian regimes which can be “killed” with connectivity and totalitarian regimes which simply need to die, I think it is critical that we not paint all Islamists with the same brush. I believe there are “green” Islamists (like the AKP government in Turkey) who desire a society and a government that reflects Muslim values but seek connectivity with the rest of the world (globalization on their terms) and “red” Islamists who seek to cleave the Islamic world from the global community by any means necessary. An MB led Egypt would be initially anti-American and would certainly be anti-Israeli but, like Hamas (which is currently forming a unity government with Abu Mazen who continues to advocate a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli issue), they will still be required to govern and meet the needs of their people. For that, they will continue to need FDI and support from the Core. I do not believe they will openly support al Qaeda but instead seek accommodation.
IMHO the best way to shrink the Gap in the Islamic world is to connect the “green” Islamists (even the anti-American ones) before rage drives them to become “red” Islamists.
Posted by BJ Schaum | September 15, 2006 9:39 PM
Correction: the CIA directed coup against the Mossadeq government of Iran aka "Operation Ajax" was in 1953 not 1958. Apologies for the error.
Posted by BJ Schaum | September 16, 2006 7:59 AM
Is it "possible" for G.W. Bush to co-opt Ahmadinejad in a grand "Nixon going to China" end-run towards the end of Bush's term in Winter or Spring of 2008? Certainly there exists the possibility of a Nixonian 'reproachment' with Cuba, that only a Republican President could carry-of without a loss of face. A portion of Cuba's new oil and gas reserves could be ear-marked for US-property compensation, thus defanging the Helms-Law. But what would be the strategic hook be with Iran? Some Saudi foolishness?
Posted by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) | September 17, 2006 12:01 AM