Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Tom,
What was the real purpose of Cheney's one day trip to the Saudi kingdom?

"Seriously, how could a Kerry Administration possibly have done a worse job over the past two years?" Um, by listening to the nutroots(netroots) and ultra-left wing of the Dem party which would've been the difference in the election (and ergo beholden to) maybe? By listening to Rep Murtha and thinking that they could re-deploy to Okinawa and still have the ability to affect anyting in Iraq and the region as well?

Simply put Boss, Kerry very well might have left in '05 and that would be a whole other kind of mangling of the war which we might never have recovered from (just like the Bush team handling may be a mangling we may never recover from.). Grass is always greener and all that.

"Seriously, how could a Kerry Administration possibly have done a worse job over the past two years?"

I see President Kerry as about as bad but with a somewhat different set of problems. No imagination in that camp either.

The intellectual exhaustion of the foreign policy elite is as bipartisan as it is complete. We need to build a new class of geopolitical thinkers from the ground up who aren't cognitively locked into refighting the Vietnam or Cold Wars.

Dr. Barnett: I agree 100% with your strategic vision and I hope you would serve in some foreign policy capacity in some future administration, and the sooner the better because I believe the country needs the clear "out of the box" thinking you and the others at Enterra bring to the table. But I believe you have a tin ear when it comes to domestic politics.

1. Bite my tongue, but its doubtful that the US would have been better off if Kerry was elected President in 2004. Its safe to say that what Kerry would have done is uncertain, as he is never entirely consistent in his views. This is because Kerry may not be his own master. Kerry is first and foremost a Bonesman. These guys meet annually under the tightest security in Deer Island. Their agenda is not known but it may simply be mutual economic and political assistance. Kerry’s troops comment just prior to the election may have been some sub rosa assistance to his fellow Bonesman, Bush 43. In short, Kerry could only be trusted to advance the agenda of Skull and Bones. Whether this agenda would have been or bad for the American people is pure speculation.

2. I did not find the Ahmadinejad letter irrational .The text is; http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/international/29letter.1.pdf.

The Times reporter who reviewed the letter concluded his article by saying:

“Mr. Ahmadinejad offered a litany of sharp attacks on American policy — calling, for example, for withdrawal from Iraq. And he once again highlighted a central demand of Tehran: that it be treated as an equal by Washington.
But Professor Beeman (a linguistic anthropologist at Brown University who specializes in Persian. JC) also said that Americans should recognize that the letter did represent an overture. “Iran is saying, ‘We want to have a dialogue with you,’ ” he said.”

We have to take Ahmadinejad seriously or there is little chance for Middle East stability. The alternative, the status quo in Iraq means only that a certain few will continue to rake in the dollars from war profiteering. If a few Bonesman are getting richer via this route, it would not be a surprise to me.

I've almost finished BFA, and I'd like to e-mail my thoughts after I finish, but what strikes me is that our foreign policy is so messed up right now, that we may already be too late to "lock in" a security arrangement with China at "today's prices." The Chinese aren't fools and they have to see the U.S. today as about as attractive as a sack of rotting vegetables that has been left sitting around in the sun too long. My concern is that "today's prices" may have already become "tomorrow's prices."

It seems like the current crop of politicians either know how to govern, or how to campaign, but not both.

How could Kerry have been any worse? It's possible--just possible-- that wafflemeister Jacques could not have been any worse. And so? The recent Congressional election was summed up at gringovision in a way--with the wonders of hindsight---that might be somewhat relevant to 2004 Kerry vs. Bush too.

The US electorate can choose between Republican incompetence in achieving victory and Democratic competence in achieving defeat.

And if you think this is a bit unfair to Dhimmicrats who would not have stormed Baghdad in 2003, tell me what Jacques would have done to (1) stop Saddam's nuclear ambitions and (2)keep Tehran's mullah dudes nuclear free.

Stuart: yes, 'today's price' becomes 'tomorrow's price' with every passing day. and BFA is over a year old. and Tom's been calling for that deal for even longer...

Saddam's nuclear ambitions in 2003?

Lol.

I suspect that if Kerry won in 05 he would have pursued a Middle eastern OSCE. If countries didn't participate or thwarted the dialogue there would have been a more compelling reason for allies to participate in peace keeping and rebuilding.
Under Kerry the progress may have been bland and incremental but less inflamatory.

IMHO, the difference between Bush and the Dems is little more than choosing to direct your bravado at different subject matter. Sometimes it feels like the difference is between choosing which group of people you'd rather oppose, brown people (GOP) or yellow people (Dems) -- on far different grounds, of course. The endless appeals to xenophobia are more injurious than our strategic missteps in Iraq, IMHO.

The lack of imagination is endemic to the current political structure on both sides of the aisle. Thankfully, things are taking a centrist turn these days, so there's hope for a solid crop of 2008 prez candidates, if the parties can get out of their own way.

I'm hoping for McCain or Giuliani vs. Obama.

Did anyone even know what the Kerry administration was going to do?

Canepa, you are close, but it's actually all about the FREEMASONS. They are THE one$ profiting FROM thi$ war, them and bushitler. AAAAHHHHH!:(!

Could Kerry have done worse? Absolutely. The guy is an empty suit with no vision. GWB, for all his administration's foul-ups, at least understands where he's going (even if it appears unclear how he's going to get there).

This is a new world we live in. In the broader picture, the USA is still feeling around trying to get a handle on it all.

Mike,

You can trivialize Skull & Bones, but in 2004 that 800 or so person organization included the President. The President’s father, the Democrat presidential opponent, the number two man in the Department of Justice, the White House reporter for the Washington Post, the Chairmen of the SEC and the president of FEDEX. What the other Bonesmen were doing is not known.

Bonesman Bush 41 may have a share of the Carlyle Group, which in all probability, profits heavily, albeit indirectly by owning firms that profit from Iraq contracts in Iraq. There is little disclosure about Carlyle, which is a private partnership.

Freemason membership is in the millions. Past members may have included George Washington and Douglas MacArthur, so I would not worry about whatever the Freemason are doing now

Saddam's nuclear ambitions in 2003?

Lol.

Posted by: sonofsamphm1c | November 30, 2006 2:36 PM

Ah, yes, it's so unfashionable right now, what with Bush's incompetent boldness (or was it bold incompetence?)even to ponder the fact that Saddam Hussein was damn serious about going nuclear. Was he any closer in 2003 than his detested neighbors in Tehran were? Arguably not? And where would he be now with a Jacques Kerry White House,"monitoring the situation," he and Saddam smiling on the fabulous UN Oil-For-Fookers bonanza? So you really think that by 2007 there would not be an ominous Iran AND Iraq race to get the big one?

Anyway, here's a site that gives oodles and oodles of articles on Saddam and The Bomb. Can they all be off target?

http://www.nci.org/sadb.htm

I think Tom's right to ask the question. I think if nothing else, having a new President in 05 would have done two things: One, it would have signaled to the world that we were ready to change the current mentality that the "War on Terror" is a military operation and not an intelligence and law enforcement one. And two, it would have allowed for a whole new viewpoint on where to go in Iraq. Our current leader is unable or unwilling to change for fear of looking weak. We have no strategy in Iraq right now, no leaders to inact new ideas, and no fresh horses for the men.

It's time to take GWB's and Dick's head off, put them on pikes in front of the white house, and let someone - anyone (let's have a lottery) get in there and get something done that helps us rather than hurts us.

BTW, my vote would be that Tom be allowed to take a crack at this. :-)

"Can they all be be off target?"

They are all off target,

He had no nuclear ambitions in 2003, and there were people saying that in 2003.

People like you have no business having people in charge who agree with you, but we did, so here we are. The biggest F'n mess I've ever seen.

And now Iran can proceed with no fear 'cause your side drowned the powder in the Euphrates while defeating an already defeated myth.

Iran is actually going to have nukes. Nobody is going to lift a finger to stop them.

I just can’t let this pass without comment. Skull and Bones? Freemason? Conspiracy theories are fun and stupid because you can’t disprove them. I work for the biggest government agency of all, the DOD. I common recurring joke is we can’t get the pay of the CSA correct, can’t get ammunition to a range on time, but there is supposedly an all Seeing Eye controlling things in the background?

Grow up.

Paul takes the prize: more incremental and blander but fewer deaths and more stability.

What people have hard time imagining is all the talent Kerry brings with him. You judge the possibility solely on him, and any admin is the sum of its parts.

Bush's parts look awfully pathetic right now, so bad his own party elite's seeking to undermine his presidency with Dad's OK.

Think about that...

re: what Kerry would have done vis a vis Iran & Nukes

See presidential debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html

KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing.

Given that there are only 11 embedded reporters in Iraq at the current moment and almost half of them work for Stars and Stripes and given the Los Angeles Times report from one of their stringers that 15 buildings in Ramadi were "pulverized" by air strikes on a day when there were no air strikes in Iraq and given that the AP defends itself from charges that there is no police captain going by the name of their source for the story about the six Sunnis burned to death by asking the same stringer who reported the story to confirm it (he did), I think that it is difficult to know what is going on in Iraq and that reading the New York Times is not going to make you any better informed on the subject.

What possible actions would John Kerry have taken if he had been elected? Given his history, probably all of them at one time or other.

He{Saddam] had no nuclear ambitions in 2003, and there were people saying that in 2003.

People like you have no business having people in charge who agree with you, but we did, so here we are. The biggest F'n mess I've ever seen.

And now Iran can proceed with no fear 'cause your side drowned the powder in the Euphrates while defeating an already defeated myth.

Iran is actually going to have nukes. Nobody is going to lift a finger to stop them.

Posted by: sonofsamphm1c | December 1,:13 AM

Your (implied) syllogism: We dummies toppled Saddam who was not a nuclear threat. Iran is or will be an N-threat. Saddam would not have become one, despite his mortal enemy becoming one. Why? Oh, Saddam wasn't cunning like mullahs. He would live with their nuking up. And we were too dumb to see that, so we went and toppled poor ole Saddam.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

Thanks for clearing this up.

ok, i'm shutting down this thread.

sam and gringo, i posted your comments, but please be more civil in the future.