Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

I'm a little surprised by your take on this. While I agree that GWB has done nothing to improve our stature in the Middle East, I don't think we turn that around by "making nice" with the Gov'ts in the region, including with respect to our so-called "allies". In line with what you've always said, the regimes in the region need to be changed so that they can get plugged into globalization. I see the best way to do that (1) a Nixon-goes-to-China approach to Iran, and (2) start to confront Saudi Arabia to get them into the modern world. I'm intrigued by the idea of a President Obama being the one to do that, but I'm even more in favor of the prospect of watching the Saudis getting lectured about human rights by President Hillary Rodham Clinton, who can remind them that there are 2 genders that make up the human race. Clinton also has the credibility in Israel (2 terms as a Senator from NY virtually guarantees that) to be able to take the bold steps required to do #1.

stuart,

who is talking about making nice and what does that even mean?

it looks like obama-hillary is going to be a blood-bath. i am not sure what to do here. obama will play better to the world so i'm leaning there but modern racism is a tricky subject. can he win pennsylvania?

I see little coverage of Bill Richardson--he's always overshadowed by Obama and Clinton, but the guy has concrete IR experience--he negotiated a peace treaty in Sudan. He also doesn't have any of Clinton's hawkishness. Perhaps he'd do for our charm offensive?

The solution is quite obvious. Talk peace. Talk to any country about peace. Convince the world that you want peace.

Act in a way that promotes peace. Like picking a withdrawal date for the simple reason that the people who are killing themselves and their fellow citizens may not do so if all they have to do is wait until the withdrawal date.

Act to save lives of innocents by going after and removing all those cluster bombs dropped on Lebanon.

Get the greed out of the Iraq war effort. Start by changing the four-tier procurement setup, which looks like a method of raiding the US Treasury. Fire or relieve anyone who is refusing to give the GAO information about existing or past contracts.

Concentrate on disarmament in Iraq. .

Well.. what I wanna see is a candidate who's going to make sense in the long term... My feeling about GBW and friends is that they've been entirely too short sited.. particularly in there public relations strategy.. I mean isn't that a big part of what's creating the current political reality? If someone can go in there and articulate a plan that really makes sense.. you know.. someone who's a real "leader," well I kinda think that might be enough to at least.... well I imagine it would do more then many would suspect. So, from my point of view, the real question is who understands the stuff that needs to be understood.. In that sense I do think you need to be able to hit the ground running..

One name: Bill Richardson

The time to attack Iran, if we choose to do so, would thus be before January 2009. We lose less with a Bush-led attack than an intervention by anyone else.

Do you really believe that having a woman "lecture" the Saudis on Human Rights will make things better? (Especially a woman with the baggage Hillary carries). I believe it will make things worse. At the risk of being labelled sexist, is it a smart move culturally, politically, etc., to send female representatives to a country where it is illegal for women to drive a car? I am not saying it is right or proper, I am asking if it is smart policy? By basically ignoring a big cultural taboo in the Arab world, are we risking having our messages and policies being ignored, diluted or garbled?

How are the principles, which the US has always stood for, enhanced by refusal to even discuss the disbursement of cluster bombs? http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Norway-Cluster-Bombs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

Are we to be viewed as a nation that doesn’t care how many children are killed, due to US supplied weapons? The refusal to talk about a problem is not only misguided, it’s down right adolescent.

What I mean by "making nice" is the view that this is all just a PR problem that can be overcome by trying to "make peace" in the region. While the Bush Administration and the neo-cons are anathema to me, to some extent they are correct in criticizing some people on the far left for ignoring the fact that we do face real dangers in this region. As Barnett has often emphasized, the fact that we are pissing off some people in the Middle East is not necessarily a bad thing. If we are to do what needs to be done - get the Gov'ts of the Middle East to accept the "rule sets" of globalization so that they can participate in the global economy as something other than suppliers of oil and begin to develop 21st Century societies - we are going to piss off some of those people even more. We also have to recognize the realities of American politics. Reaching out to Iran - which must be done - is going to stir up a hornets nest among U.S. supporters of Israel. It therefore can only be done by a President who has solid credentials with the Israelis.

Hmm. Have a good friend of Richardson's who's also a good friend of mine and this guy constantly pushes him on me. I have fantasized an Esquire cover with his face on it that reads, "Eventually, "he" will be president."

You know, just to broach the Hispanic concept.

Part of me says the breakthroughs must always be Veep first. But another part says we're ready for a radical, Jimmy Carter-like break. If so, I just want a dealmaker (Carter really was not) and somebody who signals that break viscerally in speech or appearance. I'm not choosy. I could see Rudy doing it, Hillary, Obama, Romney, Richardson--a number of people.

We just desperately need a clean break from Bush. Guys like Putin are signaling that.

Interesting comments on this post. I love how everyone's leaning toward this person and that person when they don't even know the full spectrum of choices yet.
The U.S.A. could be the most honest broker in the history of civilization and there would still be 88% of friendly Arab states that have unfavorable opinions of the US.

It's easy to be a monday quarterback - and anyone can give their own take on what affect increased diplomacy and cooperation could have. The bottom line is GWB is not trying to win popularity in his actions. He's taking head on an entity that already has an unfavorable opinion of the USA (western civilization) AND challenging the fact that they don't subscribe to the notion of plurality, equality, and freedom of choice.

It's unfortunate when fine, able-minded individuals prioritize international opinion above that of having resolve for the fundamental beliefs for which make this blog possible.
This is why candidates like Hillary scare the hell out of the centrists and right because they flail in the wind. Flailing gives clue that opinion is prioritized much too highly. Where are the rest of the Dem presidential candidates that voted no to invading?
The American MSM is propaganda for defeatism and fatalism - which hugely removes accountability of flail-ers. Aljazeera is propaganda for blind anti-western sentiment. Different means to the same end.

President Wes Clark, VP Obama.
Sec State Tony Zinni, only because he stated he would never run for office.

To Mike Anglin:
That IS the message we need to be sending: in a globalized world, women drive cars, women vote, women hold jobs, women run companies, women run countries. Of course there will be people in Saudi Arabia and in a lot of other places (and not just in Muslim countries) who don't want to hear that message. But those are precisely the people we need to be taking on in this so-called "long war." The more clearly the message is delivered, the better.

To Stuart Abrams:

I agree one hundred percent with the message of what women can do. My point is that I don't think lecturing is a very successful way of promoting that, and I am skeptical that the Saudi (or any other Islamic) dictatorship will be receptive to the message presented the way you proposed.