Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Is this really a fair comparison? Weren't the Serbs isolated (with the ineffective exception of the Russians) whereas Syria, Iran, and AQ have been keeping the pot well stirred in Iraq?

If you believe there is a loose global alliance of Islamists and states that are surreptitiously supporting them, then Iraq is a battlefield, otherwise, it is a strategic error that unleashes Iran.

At any rate, longer term history may puzzle over why we helped what may seems to have an Islamist insurgency in the Balkans.

I agree with everything else, but cannot help wanting to challenge the first paragraph. The same number of locals die?

Tom, I know your blog is your "free space" for streaming thought. And I've only been able to read you occasionally for last few weeks. I hope you'll accept my remarks as sincerely concerned, since I find your work in PNM and BFA seminal for this era. As I now come back to regular access, I seem to see what I take to be not simply a change, but a darkening of your vision re: Iraq. An unfortunate thing, I think, because you sound less analytical and more, uh, hortatory than you used to. This and previous post sound as if you're preparing grist for the anti-Bush mill--such a waste, there are plenty of others around with the unremarkable tools needed for such polemic. Please consider reserving some thinking space to allow you to more cogently comment on what is to happen if the COIN strategy now developing turns out not to be too little, too late. Equate and compare the Balkans, a classic civil war with elements of sectarian score settling, in NATO's porch yard, to Iraq, a classic communal war with elements of civil war, and convoluted by the AQ and Iranian revolutionary aspects, in a region which has been cultural anathema for many of our classic alliance partners since the Crusades went bad? This just reaches far too leftish. Please look beyond the Congressional focus on the Bush target, at the cost of balanced assessment of the real targets. COBRA II, redux, (the "surge") may not be, in fact, both necessary and sufficient to redress the balance; but, I don't believe anyone can do anything but damage its chances by claiming the strategy is doomed to failure. As far as Iran goes, you must know we've been "talking" with them for many years now. That's largely why the Saudis are acting out now. Believe Hilary Clinton has expressed need to keep all options with Iran on the table -- what better endorsement of what the Pres is doing?

Why coalition troops are all important:
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20070329-084334-9363r.htm
Maj.-Gen. (Ret) Scales writes:"If you haven't heard the news, I'm afraid your Army is broken, a victim of too many missions for too few soldiers for too long. Today we have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan all of our fighting brigades, both active and reserve. Every brigade save one in Korea has spent time in combat.
Twenty have two tours there, nine have three and two have four. Some of these brigades' one-year deployments were extended by several months. To demonstrate the gravity of the problem, let's do the math. After the surge the nation will need to keep 33 brigades, each consisting of about 3,000 soldiers, in the field. Past experience tells us that three brigades are needed to keep one continuously in the fight (one recovering and one training up to support each deployed brigade). The Army could in theory maintain itself in combat indefinitely using such a scheme.
From a human perspective, a three-for-one schedule would allow each soldier two years back for every year in combat. That is tough but sustainable. So, that means we need a total of 99 brigades to support 33 in the fight. Sorry to say, we only have about half that number available to the Army and Marine Corps."

I never understood the Balkans/Iraq analogy whether used by the right or left. It's so Apples And Oranges on so many levels, some of which are mentioned by Mike Jacobs in a previous comment.

In our media, the comparisons of Iraq with the Balkans, Vietnam, WWII (take your pick) are usually grasped at when the writer has little comprehension for the strategic picture. One reason I keep coming back to your blog, Tom, is because of your depth of thinking. So let's leave the shallow comparisions to the MSM. No need for you to go there.

It helps Clinton's legacy that Yugoslavia was a Seam State while Iraq is in the Afro-Islamic Gap.

Mike,

My getting darker on Iraq is a function of my fear that Bush will do something very bad and very damaging before he leaves office. I was simply stunned he blew off the ISG when it was so clearly manufactured by the GOP leadership to give him an out. That tells me he just doesn't care, and I worry about a president with no sense for his legacy.

Dan,

Great point, which tells you about choices, does it not? Both were elective wars.

In that regard, I'd say Clinton chose better.

In this regard it seems the comparision seems a bit off. Each situation was/is unique, with a different set of circumstances and environment that IMHO prevents the comparision of the two. What aspects of History, Culture, Society, Regional politics and influences played a role, in the case of Iraq, continues to play a role in the two conflicts?

Tom,

I don't think the choice of Iraq v. Yugoslavia was better or worse, but it certainly was different.

• We processed Serbia as a politically bankrupt state.
• We used Iraq as an opportunity to overload the Sunni Arab Middle East with feedback, causing system perturbations.

(Please click on the second link above when you have time. I would greatly appreciate your opinion on that.)

Bush would have been wiser to leave Iraq quickly, as our big gun doesn't help us much in that knife fight. But for that matter, Clinton could have saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of lives by regime changing in Iraq and North Korea instead of letting sanctions and disconnectedness induce their famines. But for that matter, GWH Bush could have finished the job in Iraq....

No politician is perfect. And Bush's Iraq policy has been weird since 2004, and it's made the situation worse. Like Clinton's North Korea policy.

America is better off for having both Presidents. Both men did really great work, but both made mistakes too.