Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Is this the first column that will be syndicated? I think it's a good introduction for people unfamiliar with Tom's work.

Tom,

The "fly paper" strategy, or let a thousand Dien Bien Phu's bloom all over again.

Because it was too difficult to fight and destroy Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we do a Dien Bien Phu in Iraq hoping to draw "them" into a killing ground where we supposedly can defeat them? The problem is that by doing so we are creating many more of "them" in places where they did not exist before, and we have seriously weakened our fight against Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in the Afghanistan region. Plus we waste military resources in Iraq fighting mainly Baathists, nationalists, and Shia militants, not the Jihadis.

The Jihadi appeal is based on the idea that the U.S. and the West is attacking the Islamic religion and peoples, and occupying Islamic lands. Our invasion in Iraq has reinforced that appeal and has created new terrorists in London and Spain and throughout the world who would not have taken up arms but for that invasion. Those London and Madrid bombers said they were doing so in a direct response to the Iraq invasion.

Was the big bang in Iraq supposed to create a new Arab Israel in Iraq to pressure Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia? In any case it's a DOA scenario, unless we are willing to put in the 300,000 to 500,000 troops that are necessary. Meanwhile we have increased the Jihadi terrorist pool by that invasion, and have motivated them to actually carry out many more attacks.

Woud the pool have increased regardless of whether we invaded Iraq or not. You say yes, and that's certainly a possibility, but this is where we need to see some factual evidence and analysis.

In your presentation, in which you deftly outlined your thesis on the state of the world and the best course of action in the future, you mentioned the one principal destabilizing event of the 20th century. The 1929 US stock market crash and the Great Depression did indeed destabilize the world. Germany and Japan swung to the hard right and Russia to the hard left, making peace near impossible and war evitable

One would have to conclude that another 1929 debacle followed by a massive economic depression is to be avoided. Nobody wins in that scenario. The 1987 and 2000 stock market corrections could have been followed by economic depressions and an unstable world. Bush 41 did many things to avoid this but his trump card was the first Gulf war. The stock market began a long bull run upon the quick US victory in Iraq. Bush 43 took office with the same problem. The 2000 stock market crash could have well caused another depression. Interviening, however, was the 911 attack and the second Gulf war. A 1930’s depression was adverted the continuous and massive stimulus brought on by government deficit spending and a policy the direct opposite if Smoot Haley protectionism: free trade.

The temptation here is to continue the Iraq war indefinitely. US presence in Iraq and in Afghanistan ultimately will enrich the United States as the stakes, 25% or so of the world’s oil and 90% of the world opium, are attractive. The other alternatives are a military victory over the insurgents or a withdrawals. The first is unlikely. There are simply not enough boots-on-the-ground. The 1.4 million people on active duty can put 10% or so of their ranks in the field. The country is not motivated to make a draft politically acceptable. The critical numbers for victory are not there. The other easy way out is to just leave. The caution here is the reverse of the war as an economic downer. The demise of the Soviet Union was in part, a good part, due its defeat in Afghanistan. Secondly, an Iraq withdrawal will tempt others to test the US resolve in other area of the world. Third it would leave Iraq as a determined, motivated US enemy.

The apparent choice is then to continue the war indefinitely. All this is quite logical but fails when one looks at Dr. Barnett’s’ first premise. I propose that the defining event of the 20th century is almost buried in history.

Just before the beginning of the 20th century, the imperial powers in Europe, the United States and Japan combined their military forces to whip China in the Boxer Rebellion. All the victors got their concessions and all were further inclined to exert their will by force. The definitive event followed. In South Africa the British went to war against the European settlers in South Africa. Dubbed the “Boars” and demonized by the British controlled press, the British public backed the adventure and the Brits won decisively.

The rest of the Western world was dismayed. The Brits could and would attack and conquer other Christians. The cousins, Edward of England and Wilhelm of Germany fell out and began an arms race. Fourteen years later, one prominent Englishman said “the lights went out in Europe”, the Pope wept, and the world suffered two world wars, the cold war and this current conflict with elements of the Muslim world.

The key event here is not well known and certainly not well understood. Before sending additional troops to South Africa. the Brits refused to arbitrate the whatever the dispute was with the Boars.

If the dispute was subject to binding arbitration, likely there would have been no distrust and no arms race.

Arbitration worked before about those who write history seemed to have forgotten it. The Treaty of Washington may be the least discussed historical event in the past 200 years. For those who may have missed it, treaty was between the United States and Great Britain. The dispute was British aid to the Confederacy. More specifically GB allowed the Alabama to be built housed and armed in England. That vessel wreck havoc on United States shipping and compensation was demanded. Radical Republicans were suggesting the President Grant that the US invade Canada in relation.

Cooler heads prevailed and the matter was referred to binding international arbitration. There were five arbitrators. Brazil, Switzerland, and Italy appoint three and the GB and US appointed on each. The result, some compensation, made both sides unhappy but war was adverted.

Surely Queen Victoria realized that submitting the dispute to arbitration was in the long-term interest of her country, despite the admission that her soreignty was not absolute. This was a subtlety, which her son Edward missed. No diplomacy for him.

History never quite repeats but the lesson from Edward’s folly was lost on another son, Bush 43.

But it’s not too late. Bush 43, more than any individual on this earth, can stir the world to a lasting peace. Not by force but by coordinated diplomacy. International binding arbitration can solve the vexing Israeli Palestinian dispute. It could also head off the coming China Taiwan dispute. Problems with Cuba and Venezuela can be resolved without war. The Treaty of Washington is the precedent. Iraq can also be resolved diplomatically, but only as a part of a US sponsored plan for world peace and the rule of law.

Joe Canepa
Kitty Hawk, NC

Did that come in under the word limit?

I couldn't find any proof that Scripps offered it anywhere, so not sure if this one kicked me off or not.

Why hasn't the big bang had more impact on the Arab regimes?

An Arabic Scholar wonders also:

"Well, three years after Saddam's ouster, and a year and a half after the "Arab spring", the decaying and corrupt Arab order is very much still with us. The shock did not produce the expected cascade. Breaking the wall of fear wasn't enough, and the expected "tipping mechanism" has notably failed to tip. Why have Arab regimes proven so much more resilient than Kuran and Kefaya expected? "

He doesn't answer the question but worth a read anyway.
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2006/10/kefaya_and_the_.html

"The more you focus on Afghanistan, the more you're sucked into the far bigger problem next door called Pakistan. Tempting, I know. But, if we can't handle 20 million Iraqis, what makes you think we'd do better with 170 million Pakistanis?"

By involving ourselves at all in Afganistan, we were already getting sucked into Pakistan's problems; we needed access to their airspace, they helped create the Taleban in the first place, and they were (and are) sheltering (deliberately or not) many of their allies. Heck, their nuclear weapons alone made involvement inevitable.

On the other hand, this quote does point up the limits of this whole debate; given the administration's problems executing the strategy they picked, is it realistic to expect them to do much better with any other strategy?

I'm sorry but I still don't get it:
I'll stipulate that the invasion of Iraq was moral.
And I'll stipulate that sooner or later we (writ large) would likely have had to do something about Iraq and/or Sadam.

But I still don't see why Iraq (with x US resources) makes a better central front than Afghanistan (with x+y US resources) ESPECIALLY as it wouldn't be the CENTRAL front because we'd only be fighting on TWO fronts not THREE (metaphorically speaking). The cultural shock and economic example would have been the same I'm fairly sure.

So to match Tom's statement that Iraq is a better choice because it's in the Persian Gulf -- multiple choice:
1) Oil
2) Some element of geography that is not oil.
3) The US would be too stupid to do Afghanistan right even without Iraq going on because we're too used to thinking about 1 and 2.
4) all of the above
Those are the only ones I come up with and to be frank I don't buy any of them ... so what am I not seeing? so there either needs to be a good argument for one of the above that I have not heard or there is a
5) something Steve's too dumb to think of ...

So ... I'd be interested to know which it is.

Your Obedient Servant,
SKnott