Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

"Bosnia can't be a model, we are told, because there is no Shiastan or Sunnistan, and the only way to get one is to allow a lot of bloodshed or to force 20 percent of the population to move as a result of an agreement."

Something I've never understood, is why all the talk about federation or autonomy always assumed 3 states; why not more? Let the areas dominated by a single group do their own thing (in two of the three, that means a lot of infighting). That leave the areas with a mix of two or three groups; subdivide them still further, concentrate efforts at pacifying them, or come up with a new political structure to accomodate everyone. Which is more or less how Yugoslavia's partition was settled; Bosnia was that mixed area.

What follows on if the saudis and iranians (and others) decide to fish?

Bush just compared Iraq to Vietnam. I took it as a strong message to his general officers that he does not want to see helicopters taking people off of rooftops in Baghdad. Not on his watch anyway. Although there are some military similarities the political situation is very different. When the South fell, a new government was immediately put in place. Yes, it was a communist government, but at least it was there and it functioned. Another very significant difference is that America's cars, trucks and SUVs don't run on rice.

"What follows on if the saudis and iranians (and others) decide to fish?"

Well, then to the victors go the spoils. Except maybe for Iran, the political map of the Middle East was pretty much drawn for now-obsolete, short-term reasons by the western powers. The people who actually live the have the right and the responsibility to come some sort of settlement themselves. That may involve war in Mesopotamia and elsewhere, but we have no reason to be a part of it.

As a variant to the Kuwait/Kurdistan pullback, pull the troops to the Syrian and Iranian borders instead to try to stem the flow of arms and material into Iraq. I agree with the premise that, in the words of Clemenceau, war is too important to be left to the generals. I disagree with your noble sentiment, however, of trying to "save our troops' lives." I know of no war or conflict where saving lives of soldiers was imperative. Just the reverse in fact - sacrifice lives, if necessary, to achieve military and political ends - harsh as that sounds, that's the reality. But don't sacrifice in vain.

Huntington, what's the likelihood that the oil infrastructure in the ME would survive a war between Saudi and Iran?

Huntington, what's the likelihood that the oil infrastructure in the ME would survive a war between Saudi and Iran?

Pretty good, considering neither Saudi or Iran would be able to fund a war for long without oil income. The first thing people need to encourage them to stop fighting, is an incentive to stop fighting.

This conventional wisdom bullshit is what got us into trouble in Vietnam. Quit being afraid of the future.

It may well be correct that our best option is to withdraw and let the Sunnis and Shias fight it out. However, I don't think the Shia would be happy with a partition. They want to dominate the Sunnis or drive them out of the country, and from what I understand about a quarter of the Sunni have already fled. The Shia have the power to accomplish their goals. Iran has little motivation to stop them, and Saudi Arabia doesn't want to intervene as that would risk war with Iran.

More importantly, however things finally settle out, I can't see how it will do much to help bring good governance to the region, much less reduce the threat of Islamism and terrorism.

dwchu,

You need to read histories of WWII. Ike's entire operational ethos was limiting unnecessary US casualties, per FDR, to avoid a dramatic pullback following the war.

You blow that, you blow the Cold War completely.

Same logic here. Don't romanticize things with accusations of nobility. Fighting hard and fighting smart are sometimes not the same thing.

As a point of comparison on the matter, read a Soviet history of WWII. You will locate in that delta the difference between democracies and totalitarian states, and it's one worth preserving.

What incentive to stop fighting would you offer someone (the mullahs, ahdmidinejad...) who beleives they can foster the arrival of the the 12th imam if they can only take over the region?

I was hoping tom would answer the question since its his metaphor.

I do not know why do you always think that Bosnia was a success.
From citizen's ( Bosnia and Herzegovian) point of view the peace is there, the state is not. Nothing is solved in over 11 years. The Serbs have their state within the state, the "bosnians" ( muslims) have their half of state, an the Croats are loosers of the game. So now comes the next scene in the film.
US ambasadors are viewed as comic figures with their unrealistic views of the "bosnian" reality, and they do not have power anymore to force their views, Eu is vague as always, and both sides think that money solves everything.
And each time someone says that Bosnia and Herzegovina was success I can point otherwise.

kamen: my uneducated thoughts:

isn't Bosnia better off than it was? and isn't it also better off now that Iraq is? those are my impressions.

Sean Meade: If you only think of death toll as a counter of success then Bosnia and Herzegovina is success.
But if you think in the political solution to the problem, then it is a failure as big as Everest.
The same attitude between nations in BIH is the same as in the war.
You can always state the sentence from Klausewitz that war is the continuation of politics but by other means, and vice versa politics is continuation of war by "non lethal" means.
National policies of all 3 nation are still at the same place and state of "not loving thy neighbor" or at least "not beleiving in thy neighbour good wishes" is still at number 1 position in our heads.
Politicaly combat is still somwhere in the back of our heads as the final solution because politicians have not given any viable solution in 11 years of peace (as non killing)
Billions of dolars and euros have not found its way to the people, you have corruption in every level, and reality is far from cnn's view.
But you can not compare balkan and middle eastern people simply because they have different traditions and history. Most american politicians compare now every modern separation problem in the view of ex Yougoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also most american politician do not know anything about the world outside their constituency.