Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Could it be that the doofus as many perceive the prez, honestly believes that America needs to get rid of Bin Laden, damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead, a pyrrhic victory, if need be ?

Both already go out of their way to say Iraq will be passed on to their successors. Pass the debt. Pass the war. Pass another one while you're at it. Just start 'em and don't worry about the outcomes or aftermaths. What, me worry? I'm outta here in 23 months... Call it a preemptive handcuffing of their successors."

Do you view the National Security Act of 1947 the same way?

With the United Nations irrelevant at achieving or maintaining peace, the default alternative appears to be the United States.

Reading "Dangerous Nation" by Robert Kagan and that book seems to document that inconsistent foreign policy is in fact consistent U.S. foreign policy. Just exactly how different is Iran from the threat posed by Sunni/Wahabi/other Islamic terrorists? Is it different? If so how? And who is qualified to make that analysis. Let's face the destruction of the civil service has now left us with no State, CIA, DNI, DIA or other organization that really can understand the Islamic world but has to rely on secondary sources and people who speak English. Luckily the war against Germany twice was fought with many Americans speaking German and understanding German culture. This is going to take some time but the main thing is US posturing and preening in public and private is killing our credibility. Remember speak softly but carry a big stick. We don't have a credible policy vis-a-vis Iran or militant Islam. And apparently we don't really want one. That is the bi-partisan problem. How about analyzing the 2008 from who believes in the NEW MAP and the Blueprint and who doesn't. It looks to me like the American lemmings want to run over the cliff. Hope not but let's see.

William:
Are you sugegsting if we only had a bigger CIA and State department, we would be all set? It was exactly that community that can't get outside of its Ooda loop. Our policy hitherto is a function of the very communities you suggest are the solution. To suggest there is a credible alternative to eradicating militant islam is to misunderstand the problem. The only credible alternative for them is to slit your throat and as many infadels as they can get their hands on. Fact. If iraq is the test case of whether a middle exists, it is not reassuring. I suggest buckling the seatbelt, we are in for a long bumpy ride. We seem to have a plethora of Chinease and Russian speakers and that hasn't retarded the obstructionism we confront at every step in the region and beyond. Not an encouraging proxy.

Arabs and Persians are oil and water rather than peaches and cream.The Sunni- Shia split is just a reflection of that rather than of some particularly theological doctrinaire impasse.The Gulf states have supported the Taleban and continue to donate as individuals on a substantial scale to Al'Qaida types.Iran, a victim of both the Taleban and Al'Qaida has been ready for years to bury the hatchet with the US.The feelers sent out by the Iranians
a few years back acceding to all the demands of the US vis-a-vis Hezbollah , nuclear ambtions and co-operation in Iraq and its subsequent rejection by Cheney is mind boggling.So many basic errors, for instance, could any democratic Arabian nation, willingly vote to keep US bases on its soil . A truly ludicrous conception considering the anger at the Israeli-US alliance, yet , here we are , the americans seriously planning to have long term bases in Iraq and imagining that a democratically 'armed' populace would acquiese.
Bombing Iran into 'natural ally' status is another gem.The Islamic revolution is only decades old and crumbling, why not give it a leg up and bomb Iran.

Typically smaller and more agile and more competent is the goal for bureacracy. Perhaps if we really are the target then one course of action might be dictated. If it is our allies another! If our interests another! And on and on until it all gets quite vague. The bottom line is not to sink into a cafe society that counts on others to do the hard work. Isn't that the temptation here. Be an ostrich and stick our head in the sand. Where is the calm, clear, rationale analysis of where other countries interests lie vis-a-vis Iran and the Islamic world. Does capitalism promote secularism or religion or both or neither? Is our foreign policy promoting our financial interests or something else? My guess is that the 2008 election is going to turn on foreign policy and personally I don't think 5 and 1/2 years in a POW camp makes you a leader on that issue. Bravery yes, but knowledge of foreign affairs no. Being a Department of Justice appartichik [sic] does not either. Nor does being a Senator. Nor an author. Let's see each of the candidates start out with positions and arguments. My guess is that Iraq/Iran/North Korea will be the axis of evil by the fall of 2008 at least for the candidates. The whole world is posturing for 2008 and we still let foreign nationals serve on Congressional staffs. Who has the interest of the people of the US (including all those worthy illegal immigrants) at heart? This is going to be a very painful election for the American people because informing them that American luck and skill have run out is going to make for an angry electorate even if the truth. By the way let's get each candidate to tell us if they read the Pentagon's New Map and Blueprint! Events are in the saddle on this one. First candidate to announce a program to have 50,000 Americans learn Farsi, Arabic, Urdu, etc, wins for me.

Dan,

Big difference between loading up and building capacity. You want to leave your successor with the most room for action possible. Bush is doing the opposite. Truman did much better.