Tom got this email:
Dr. Barnett:I thoroughly enjoyed your series of interviews on the Hugh Hewitt show. Thank you.
In Iraq, we are engaged in asymmetric warfare. Why are we so quick to accept the premise that we must be engaged in this type of battle? Either Max Boot or Colonel Peters recently wrote about fighting on an equal footing with insurgents in Iraq as an ill-conceived strategy. But, they never explained why we are so quick to adopt it. Is it due to our aversion to any civilian casualties? We certainly did not fight WWI or WWII in this fashion....we firebombed Tokyo, Dresden, Berlin....why the change in military doctrine? Why now?
The 2001 Bush doctrine stated that we could preemtively strike any country that supported terrorists and exported terrorism. After Sadaam fell, what changed?
Sam Grier, CFA
Tom's answer:
We fight for very different goals. That's why.To win, we need to leave the environment more connected than we found it--our opponents, the opposite. So we can't escalate on them, just deny them their resources: disaffected, disconnected foot soldiers. The classic insurgent is not the classic terrorist (middle-class, educated) who comes to play on our connected turf. That at-risk pool we shrink by extending economic connectivity (our biggest challenge right now in Iraq is unemployment).
When jobs are your exit strategy, you cannot bomb your way to victory.
| Permalink |
Comments (3)
Considering that the insurgency only operates within 15% of the population -- the Iraqi Sunni Arabs -- why have we made the lives of the other 85% of Iraqis miserable in order to appease these thugs?
Certainly, an Iraq that's 85% connected is a big improvement over either today or before the war.
Posted by dan tdaxp![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 3, 2007 6:00 AM
WWII was a simple situation. Destroy their countries physically as well as economically. It's far easier to build a new structure (economic or physical) on cleared ground, and this was pretty much the picture of both Western Europe and Japan in 1945.
Iraq, on the other hand, is difficult for a number of reasons, and of course, the first is the secular friction. For that, the U.S. has no solution, only the Iraqi Politicians and Imams can solve that . . The al Quaeda sponsored insurgency will take strong military action by both the U.S. and the Iraq military and police . . and we cannot expect any help from either Syria, or Iran. Both of those countries stand to benefit as long as theres insurgency and unrest in Iraq . . It tends to keep the U.S. occupied with something other than them . .
According to people I correspond with in Iraq, the last two months has shown a certain decline in secular terror in about all locales except Baghdad and the Sunni areas West of Baghdad . . So in spite of the large metro area surrounding the capital, the rest of the country is seeming to be getting back to more or less normal economic footing, although technical jobs are still short . .
Posted by large | March 3, 2007 10:23 AM
Joe Stalin had a crude answer: "No people, no problem".
Question for you: Why are there no US military deaths on a Saturday? -- And how can we achieve this good outcome during the rest of the week?
Posted by Ian | March 3, 2007 2:04 PM