Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I suggest you read the ENTIRE book first. We should have a complete understanding before making snap judgements based on one chapter. We are not Republicans.

Aldous.

Aldous, you’re right. And I’m reading as fast as I can. :)

But Barnett uses the first chapter to outline his thesis. I doubt he’s going to change religions halfway through the book.

I blogged it before I finished reading because I’m amazed that a whole bunch of conservatives think this guy is the cat’s pajamas - but still support Bush instead of Kerry.

It’s just freaky that some people would put partisan politics over something as important as national defense.

BTW, I’ve also seen the anti-globalization crowd on the left join the isolationist crowd on the right bashing this guy. If anyone wants to talk about that too, I’d love to hear it.

AP:

You say that Barnett is on the same page as Kerry (I can’t resist commenting that in order to do so, Barnett would have to also know which day of the week it is so as to know which page to turn to—ha ha) in regard to disarming Saddam Hussein.

Bill Clinton was on record as saying Saddam cooperated only in the face of force, and that negotiating with Saddam without the impending threat of force simply did not work. This is why Clinton, after backing off on Operation Desert Fox, decided a few short weeks later to go through with ODF, since Saddam stopped cooperating once the threat appeared to be gone.

I’m curious as to what you see as having been alternatives in regard to disarming Saddam. I think its fair to say that Saddam was never going to leave willingly. He was offered exile, but turned it down. You say there was a right and wrong way to disarm and/or remove Saddam. It would help me understand your point if you would elaborate on what other options, short of force, you see as having been available in removing Saddam. I can see how we might have isolated or sanctioned him without a higher level of force (the no-fly zones were a measure of force), but I dont see removing him without force. Thanks for your elaboration.

Joe,

Saddam WAS dissarmed. He was unable to do much of anything.Please explain why Tommy Franks stated during the invasion that he did not think they would launch a chemical /biological assault as they approached Bahgdad. Franks knew he was nuetralized.

In my opinion, Sadam’s whole idea was to apear as the new Nassar. The second that Sadam appeared weak, he would have been overthrown. His whole game was to rail against the west.

While I’m not sure you could say that Barnett was pro Kerry, you can say he thought Iraq was misguided and antithetical. He stated that in his C-span ( or was it PBS?) presentation. I, in fact, think he stated he wasn’t going to vote for Bush.

First of all, I hope I am dead before this utopian DREAM of a beautiful, peaceful world govt. ever comes to pass. But I do have a legitimate question to ask.

What do we do if “focusing on incentives and the positive aspects of joining the global community” is not enough to persuade those against it?

Probably all dictators and at least half of this country, as proven in the last election, do not wish to be ruled by a world govt.
I got out of the military because I refused to wear a blue helmet and fight for clinton. I can assure you that I am willing to fight to the death to keep this country free.
Saddam has already proven that dictators will not give up without a fight.
How do you deal with those who cannot be bought off?

Should we not take care of our own, before we try to take care of the world? Instead of sending billions of dollars to countries who celebrate the deaths of Americans, should we not instead use that money to help Americans?
This world govt. crap will only come to be through lots and lots of bloodshed. If Bush was wrong to spill blood with a war, instead of pleading and begging with Saddam, then will it also be wrong to spill blood to push this dream to be accepted? Or is it only wrong if a Republican is leading the way?

kctim —

I agree with a lot of what you just said, but I can’t tell from your post whether you’re espousing isolationism or Bush’s plan or what. Definitely we need to look to our own first, which is why Bush’s War is such a sham. We shouldn’t be going after someone who might have done something someday if we closed our eyes and let him do it, we should have been going after the terrorists themselves.

But that point has been made before. What I mean to say is that while I’m not sure myself whether we should be trying to talk peace with the Middle East or agressively pursuing terrorists wherever they are, neither philosophy has anything to do with Bush’s War.

kctim,
Bush wants to lead us away from the UN witj no idea on what to do next. History will show us that if he follows the League of Nations ordeal after that scandal to withdraw, the world will spin into a war.

On the other hand Kerry and Barnett want America to grab a hold of the UN and use it to change the way World Leaders talk business with each other. Like it or not the ponds will not save this country no more. And one day in this century even the planets will not seperate us from the rest of mankind. So we can lead, follow, or seat down and cry, I say we take our role as leader and show the world how to do it right. That’s the real gift of America and the American People.

Dude, where is this “world government” crap coming from? Oh, that’s right… This is the internet.

All Barnett is talking about is the globalization that’s going on right now. The increasingly integrated system of commerce and information that exists today. You know… What sane people mean when they talk about globalization.

Groups like al Qaeda and regimes like North Korea are totally against this integration. In Barnett’s terms, they’re “disconnecting”. In al Qaeda’s case, globalization is an assault on fundamentalist Islamic values. In Kim Jong-Il’s case, it will undermine his regime.

If you want an emerging globalization success story, look at China. Twenty years ago, we viewed China the same way we view North Korea. Now they’re our biggest trading partner.

Here’s a pre-Iraq invasion article by Barnett where he explains his position.

Here’s a an interview from May 2004 where he talks about how Bush screwed everything up.

It would help me understand your point if you would elaborate on what other options, short of force, you see as having been available in removing Saddam.

You know what, joe? That’s a question that never gets asked. Most of the dialogue centers around disarmament.

I guess a more fundamental question is, did Saddam actually need to be removed? President Bush didn’t think so. He said disarming Iraq was just as good as regime change.

I personally think it was necessary, but I’m flexible on the timing - Saddam wasn’t a threat.

In the 80s no one thought sanctions and a decade of negotiations would cause Qaddafi to renounce terrorism and WMD. Could Saddam have eventually been convinced to do what Qaddafi did? We had plenty of time - Saddam was not a threat.

You mention Operation Desert Fox, Gen. Zinni, the CentCom commander, says in his book, “Battle Ready”, that they later found out that a couple more days of bombing would have triggered a coup. I know we were in contact with some of Saddam’s generals before the invasion. Perhaps a coup could have been synchronized with a similar set of strikes. We had plenty of time - Saddam was not a threat.

Or maybe Saddam would have slipped on a banana peel and died. We had plenty of time - Saddam was not a threat.

The point is, Saddam was not a threat. There was plenty of time to work some kind of deal that ousted Saddam and left our alliances intact.

A better question is, why didn’t President Bush think our alliances and international institutions (Barnett’s “Core”), not to mention the credibility of the President of the United States, were important enough to preserve?

If he couldn’t do it, he’s a poor leader and needs to go. If he wouldn’t do it, he’s got poor judgement and needs to go.

> what other options, short of force,

Joe, nobody except the most vehement pacifist has ever been against using “force” against Saddam. Under Clinton and under Bush II, I never once thought that there was anything wrong with using deadly force against Saddam in order to prevent him from becoming a serious threat. Even pre-9/11, even under Clinton, I was totally in favor of bombing the hell out of his military installations if they attacked our planes or seemed to be developing WMDs or otherwise violated the sanctions in a demonstrable and threatening way. I would even have supported an American special-forces assisted coup in order to acheive “regime change”.

It’s Bush’s totally unneccessary “invasion and occupation” plan that I think crossed the line from being wise and productive to being reckless and counterproductive. I never thought that “regime change” as a policy meant “we can do no less than invade Iraq”.

> I can see how we might have isolated or
> sanctioned him without a higher level of
> force (the no-fly zones were a measure of
> force), but I dont see removing him without
> force.

See, the problem is that “removing Saddam” surreptitiously became the goal, even though (a) “removing Saddam” was not necessary to stop him from being a threat, (b) “removing Saddam” was not stated in political speeches as the main reason for going to war so hurriedly, and (c) “removing Saddam” was not mentioned in the Congressional Resolution at all.

I also note with a certain amount of glee that you seem to be admitting that you agree that Saddam could have been kept in check without being removed. Maybe I’m reading too much into your use of the word “isolated”, but it seems to me that you are saying that Saddam could have been prevented from being a threat through aggressive military attacks (“force”) that didn’t quite rise to the level of invasion. If this is what you are saying, then you should vote for John Kerry because that is precisely his opinion as well.

-Cf

And BTW joe, removing Saddam the right way needn’t have been “short of using force” I would have been all for using force - as long as it preserved “the Core”.

There were plenty of levers Bush could have used to encourage our UN partners to remove Saddam. He chose not to do so, the same way he chose to exclude the UN and NATO from a meaningful role in Iraq.

> What do we do if “focusing on incentives and
> the positive aspects of joining the global
> community” is not enough to persuade those
> against it?

It really depends on who they are, but the short answer is simply to “contain” them. We isolate them politically, diplomatically, economically, we hit them with force when they get out of line, we support movements in their country that are more democratic. We monitor them closely for dangerous trends, such as the development of nuclear weapons, and we use our military might when possible to control those dangerous trends. If possible, we engage them at one level or another, using a combination of carrot and stick, for example in the way western corporations are engaging in economic investment and cooperation with China. Isolation can take a long time: North Korea and Cuba are in it for the long haul. The goal is to, over the long term, bring these nations to realize that the only way forward is to join the world in a cooperative way, and to play the game by the rules of the civilized and democratic people that make up the most prosperous and safe nations of the world.

All-out invasion and possible occupation should only become necessary in the case of genocide (Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan), civilians caught in military crossfire (Sierra Leone), obvious terrorist cooperation - which is the equivalent of war (Afghanistan), and of course, acts of war against the US or our allies (Iraq 1991). Not that these examples all automatically compel us to go to war, but they do serve as a thumbnail sketch of when war is justifyable.

-Cf

AP:

Lets be realistic here. The UN would NEVER EVER have removed Saddam, nor would our “allies”. You can expound in any number of hypothetical ways about what inducements could have been offered etc, but Saddam played the UN for 12 years, breaking resolution after resolution, with virtually no response from the UN. Ooops, forgive me, the UN did in fact respond: they wrote new and harsher resolutions (to be read while imitating Yosemite Sam….”OOOOhhhhh, We are REALLY mad now!!)

You say that Saddam was not a threat, yet you also stated that removing him was necessary. If he was not a threat, then why remove him? That doesnt make much sense to me—perhaps you have a reason behind that.

Chris:

You read far too much into my statement. Saddam was somewhat isolated, but even during that isolation, he managed to produce and weaponize VX gas. We know this because the UN inspectors found it in the mid 90’s, though Saddam continually lied about it. I simply pointed out that he could be isolated to an extent through sanctions etc, but the threat was still there, as evidenced by the VX gas production, among other things.

It’s become in fashion now to say that we should have done other things to disarm Saddam, but no one seems able to come up with what those “things” could have been. We hear only vague soliliuoys about using “levers” with our allies, or negotiating further etc. These things were tried over a 12 year period, and every one of them failed. That is why even Clinton admitted that Saddam would never change without being militarily forced. Clinton knew this, and people generally accepted what Clinton had to say——except when it goes against the arguments they have been trying to create lately.

You say that Saddam was not a threat, yet you also stated that removing him was necessary. If he was not a threat, then why remove him?

He was an impediment to stability in the region.

The UN would NEVER EVER have removed Saddam, nor would our “allies”.

I’m not sure how you know this. The UN Security Council backed Bush fully by voting unanimously on 1441, knowing full-well that it most likely meant war. No one thought Saddam should stay in power.

Here’s a really good analysis of pre-war diplomacy. The book, “Allies at War” is another. And Hans Blix’s book, “Disarming Iraq” is yet another.

I also think you have a flawed understanding of how the UN works. The UN has no troops of its own. It requests troops from its member nations. At any time between 1991 and 2003, the United States could have pushed, cajoled, and led an UN action to disarm Iraq (again, actually removing Saddam was a different issue - there was never a UN resolution for that). Blame it on Clinton if you want, but you can’t blame it on the UN. The UN has no “executive” power.

In any case, Saddam was not a threat. There was plenty of time to cut a deal with the Atlantic Alliance for Saddam’s removal. Bush could not or would not do so. Either way, that’s bad.

jbod —

Seems like this argument has gone round and round a few times and it may be unresolvable, but if we had allowed the UN inspectors to determine their were no arms to disarm we would not have had to disarm Saddam by force or any other means. It seems to me the argument that we went to war to punish Saddam for playing games with us sets a very scary precedent. Personally — and I know this will be a very popular sentiment — I could have lived with Saddam still being in control of Iraq if it meant we weren’t involved in a war right now. No one has convinced me that he’s any more of a threat than any other third-world dictator, nor that he was any more horrible to his subjects than, say, China, which has killed millions of its own people.

Just as you say the Left can use hindsight to justify its argument, it seems to me that the Right keeps finding new justification for its actions each time one is debunked.

Who’s right? Who knows. At least we’re all exercising our critical brains.

Absolutely the threat of force was necessary. That is why John Kerry voted to give the President authority to use force. The perfect scenario would have been George Bush telling Saddam, “Disarm NOW or we will invade and occupy your country, and also throw you in jail,” then giving the inspectors the opportunity to see if he had disarmed. If he didn’t disarm after that flat ultimatum, then force would obviously be justified.
This is vastly different from saying, “Too late, we’re going to invade no matter what.”

Alejo and Henry
I am totally against this war. I am sure my reasons are different than yours also, no big deal. I am not trying to justify what has happened either. I was just asking “what right do we have to force our form of govt. onto another while we still have our own people to help?”
The UN is a failed and corrupt organization that has no business in our internal affairs. It should not be used for anything other than a meeting forum for all the nations.

AP
Forcing other country’s through sanctions, bribes or war, so that they will accept democracy is ok? What if they do not wish to accept this so-called great integrated system of commerce and information that exists today? What right do we have to force it upon them? Why is it our responsibilty to do so?
Of course, these are probably crazy questions that could only come from an insane person such as myself.

And how about China? The greatest threat to our form of govt. today. They are crippling our job sector with their slave labor and continue to bully all its neighbors. It is a communist country and its people will never be free.
What a great success they turned out to be.

Cf
Thanks for taking the time to post a serious and well thought out reply. While I do not agree will trying to force other nations to join in our way of thinking, you have given me a few more points to look into. Again, thanks.

Hi all, I’m new here, but I’ve been reading for awhile… Let me start by saying all this reference to Saddam as a “threat” is just a smokescreen. The only threat he had was his “ownership” of a substantial supply of oil! That alone gave him more power than WMD! Everyone keeps saying that it was necessary to remove him. Why? Was he arming/accomodating terrorists? NO. (Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan have a pretty good corner on that market.) Was he threatening us militarily? NO. So why was it necessary to remove him? And what business was it of ours? There are plenty of regimes that have active weapons programs that could possibly accelerate into threats. But do we have a right to preemptively strike them and without world opinion supporting us? The reason Europe was against our war is that they knew it was nothing more than a power grab by the neocons running this administration. Saddam was just the patsy. Those who see it differently are blind…

this is random, but did anyone see the bulge in the president’s back during the first debate. it looked suspiciously like a wire, and you could even see the outline of a wire going up to his ear.

isbushwired.com

I can’t believe we read the same book. On page 155 Barnett says “Of course, there are plenty of people…eager to debate…whether…Sadam…had
WMD’s…but for me that was never the point. Taking down Sadam forced the U.S. to take responsibility for the security…in the Gap and
that’s why I supported the war. By reconnecting
Iraq to the world…we are stepping up the role of Gap Leviathan in a way no other nation in the Core could….”

joebagodonuts wrote:
> but the threat was still there, as evidenced by the VX gas production

You really think that his VX gas was a “threat”? Gimme a break. Also, please note that the inspectors thwarted that plan and it was not revived in the ensuing years.

> It’s become in fashion now to say that we should have
> done other things to disarm Saddam, but no one seems
> able to come up with what those “things” could have
> been.

First of all he was disarmed! You keep conveniently forgetting that!

Second of all, I listed a ton of different methods to contain Saddam in my last post, most of which were being used successfully by the Clinton Administration. Those methods worked! Saddam was disarmed!

> That is why even Clinton admitted that Saddam would
> never change without being militarily forced. Clinton
> knew this, and people generally accepted what Clinton
> had to say——except when it goes against the arguments
> they have been trying to create lately.

Clinton was 100% right, I’ve agreed with him all along. Clinton used military force regularly and, along with the sanctions and “leverage” from our accursed allies he succeeded in making Saddam not a threat. Of course, in late 2002 Clinton, like most Americans including John Kerry, wasn’t sure that Saddam was disarmed, so he advoctated military pressure to get Saddam to assure the world he was disarmed. In late 2002 and early 2003, Saddam did begin to show the world he was disarmed. Thanks to the military pressure which Bush initiated and which Clinton and Kerry supported. Where is the hypocrisy you seem to detect? Our problem is only with the unnnecessary invasion.

American Pundit wrote:
> I’m not sure how you know this. The UN Security Council
> backed Bush fully by voting unanimously on 1441, knowing
> full-well that it most likely meant war. No one thought
> Saddam should stay in power.

AP, I think we disagree on this issue. I also think your position is different from Kerry’s, am I wrong? Are you saying that even though Saddam was not a threat, that we could and should still have formed an alliance to overthrow him? I don’t think that’s likely. As each day went by where the weapons inspectors were finding zilch, the possibility of a worldwide consensus to overthrow Saddam faded away. That’s why Bush attacked when he did - any further delay, and Britain would probably have left the alliance as well.

I could have lived with Saddam still being in control of Iraq if it meant we weren’t involved in a war right now.

If you add that the inspectors remained in Iraq at the levels they were at in early 2003, then I would definitely prefer that situation right now, too.

Josh Eklund wrote:
> The perfect scenario would have been George Bush telling
> Saddam, “Disarm NOW or we will invade and occupy your
> country, and also throw you in jail,” then giving the
> inspectors the opportunity to see if he had disarmed. If
> he didn’t disarm after that flat ultimatum, then force
> would obviously be justified.

Josh, I agree with your statement completely. Bush had things right where they should have been, and he just threw it away.

-Cf

To clarify who said what in my last post:

Alejo wrote:
> I could have lived with Saddam still being in
> control of Iraq if it meant we weren’t involved
> in a war right now.

If you add that the inspectors remained in Iraq at the levels they were at in early 2003, then I would definitely prefer that situation right now, too.

-Cf

AP,
I read the Barnett book after seeing the C-Span lecture, and for me the book was fascinating. A few observations:
Barnett is a ‘big-picture’ guy. I’d take what he says about Iraq with a grain of salt; it’s too close in, and there are too many conflicts of interest there. He is a Democrat, and the first class he taught was on Marxism. He is also under contract to the Naval War College as a lecturer. As a result, I think he’s a bit of a warmongerer when it comes to Iraq, but that’s where his bread is buttered- doubt they’d pay him to lecture on the Buddhist doctrine of non-violence, Ahimsa. But the ‘big picture’ gets very fuzzy when viewed too close, and I think as much as we’re interested, that applies to Iraq.
So! For me, his most interesting observations were on China, and the ‘big picture.’ His point is that The world can be broadly divided into legal/political, economic, and military influences. The wealthy part of the world is interconnected because these influences; interconnection makes a future that is more likely to be peaceful, and worth creating; and China has become part of that world- not politically, but economically. China is NOT the enemy. Whether the US likes it or not, and whether China likes it or not, we have become inextricably entwined, or connected, by our economies. In addition, US military superiority has surpassed China by orders of magnitude. I think Barnett’s right; we are that far ahead of China.
Bringing globalization to the Third World… is a process that is being resisted by fundamentalist Islamicists, just as fundamentalist Christians resist its cultural effects in this country…
I have to get going, but anyway, take a gander if you’d like an outstanding read by a futurist who seems like he’s right on.

I agree Don that China is not a threat in the forseeable future. I do however have a little difficulty in the interconnected thingy with China.

His analysis assumes rational and self interested actions on the part of everyone, but sometimes humans are funny and just don’t behhave that way. Sometimes, even connected countries become devisive and cult-like and do really stupid things.

I agree in principle just not a strong believer that anyone has all the answers or has all the angles analyzed. Sometimes he comes across as little too self assured. Maybe it’s the military thing.

No one has yet explained to me why Tommy Franks said he was not worried about a bio/chem attack as the troops approached Baghdad.

Joe-
Your quote indicates that he didn’t report certain stocks, not that he produced new stocks I mean, you can’t even keep the facts in Duelfer’s report anymore, much less our motivations to go into Iraq.

The whole point of Kerry’s test, as laid out in the first debate, is that we will never, under his watch, go into war without a true, clear idea of what we’re doing there.

We can’t even agree amongst ourselves what the reason is. Hell, the Bush Administration- strike that, Bush himself can’t agree with his previous statements of why we’re going to war.

How the hell do you expect the vast majority of Americans to support a war when we can’t even figure out what the objectives in toppling Saddam in the first place.

We can’t even be sure of the standards for going to war anymore. Dide go to war unprovoked, just to remake the world? Dide go to war to kick a bad man out of power? Or, did we go to war to pre-empt the threat of terrorists sponsored, equipped, and harbored by Saddam Hussein?

It is inherently dangerous for our government’s military policy and actions to to be so hideously opaque to simple analysis.

Me? I supported this war on the condition that the threat Bush told us about would turn out to be real. That simple. Otherwise I just didn’t think removing Saddam right then was a high enough priority to merit an invasion. I was willing to give this war the benefit of the doubt, but the evidence fell apart so profoundly that I could barely believe it. This is what we went to war for? This is what we rushed into Baghdad to stop? The Phantom Menace?

I can’t forgive Bush for that. I am a firm believer that if you are diligent enough in your efforts, you can get a good if not perfect understanding of a situation. Bush, in his arrogance, in his stubborn refusal to let go of his assumptions about foreign and domestic policy,has crippled this government’s response to terrorism and other problems we face today.

Military action, while more politically glamorous than other means of dealing with the dangers that face us, is not and should not be our first option, unless the situation actually calls for it. We can speak of the right and wrong of removing Saddam, but that’s abstract. the reality is, once removed, we had to take on all the responsibilities his government once did. There were more evils to defeat in Bush’s invasion than simply Saddam and his soldiers. We didn’t defeat the anarchy that came when Saddam’s regime collapsed. We didn’t neutralize the remnants of Saddam’s army. We didn’t defeat the bad expectations that years of propaganda had planted in these people’s hearts.

In short, Bush won the battle to take Iraq, but has never won the battle to keep or change it for the better, the war that, regardless of your point of view, should have mattered the most.

In January, when and if Iraqis vote, they will not do so in a vacuum. If we have not sufficiently improved conditions by that point, The vote probably won’t have the desired effect. Fact is, whatever the outcome, Bush has gambled the future of both our countries on this election. He has left too much to chance already. If this vote doesn’t go off right, it might just become the flashpoint for worse hostilities. And what then? What will Bush be prepared to do, to make sure we stay the course?

I just can’t respect this president at all. I expect more foresight, more wisdom, and more humility out of my leaders.

Greg,
I thought of that too, how Barnett assumes very powerful economic interests will rule. Is the power of money enough to keep everyone apart across the Taiwan staight? Probably, but given the stakes, being prepared for the worst would seem prudent.
Barnett analyzes the Iraqi situation as being one where the US military structure is simply unprepared for 21st century conflicts. We’re ready to fight against other nations in pitched battle, but unprepared for the more likely scenarios, which involve peacekeeping, and conflicts with organizations such as Al Qaida.

Are you saying that even though Saddam was not a threat, that we could and should still have formed an alliance to overthrow him?

I don’t think we necessarily needed to overthrow him, or even that he needed to be overthrown, just that he needed to be removed - somehow, at some point - from the equation. Kerry never ruled out the use of force - as long as it kept our alliances and our international institutions strong.

I don’t think that’s likely.

Not if you do it the wrong way. :)

In making the WMD threat case, the Bush administration had to ignore a lot of evidence to the contrary even before the inspectors went back in. By Feb-March 2003 when it was pretty obvious there was no WMD, there was no way anyone at the UN was going to back the invasion for that reason. That would be stupid, right?

Because Saddam was not a threat, we had a lot of options for how to get rid of him - providing he didn’t just slip on a banana peel and die in the meantime. You even start wondering if Saddam could have been indicted and snatched by the ICC and US Special Forces…

Don, those are great observations. I’m not sure why I should take what Barnett says about Iraq “with a grain of salt.” Maybe I haven’t gotten to the part you’re talking about, but so far he seems to share my viewpoint that Saddam needed to disappear somehow, but not in a way that shatters the alliances - the Core - that we’re supposed to be strengthening and growing.

I also have to agree that China is probably not a military threat. Especially now that Jiang’s gone.

China is definitely an economic threat, and President Bush handed them the bullets by putting our country so deep in their debt.

China and Japan are the two biggest loan sharks that are covering Bush’s record-setting runaway deficit spending. “There’s nothing more important in the face of war than tax-cuts-for-the-rich!” A rallying cry that will be ring through history, I’m sure.

Like Kerry said, it’s hard to get tough with China when you’re dependent on them to buy your debt.

Agreed, Don

I probably shouldn’t judge Barnett just based on the presentation I saw. I haven’t read his book. I do like his thinking about reorganizing the military and focusing on peace keeping.

Thanks AP for the great post (as usual)

AP,

I blogged it before I finished reading because I’m amazed that a whole bunch of conservatives think this guy is the cat’s pajamas - but still support Bush instead of Kerry.

It’s just freaky that some people would put partisan politics over something as important as national defense.

Yeah freaky. Now you know how I feel about the entire left.

I’m on page 267, and if it weren’t for the parental torture that is Disneyland, (sleep deprivation, forced marches, a constant barrage of loud, repetitive noises, bright lights shone in your aging eyes, the constant sound of children alternately begging, crying, whining, or laughing), I’d surely be almost done by now.

I’ll tell you what I like about Barnett’s ideas. He largely enunciates my reasons and defence for supporting going into Iraq in a post-9/11 world. On pg 124:

If we as a nation accept the logic of globalization’s advance, our definitions of us must include all of them who now feel left out of globalization’s benefits, as well as the them who would employ all manner of violence to deny it’s advance. This historical process is neither forced assimiliation nor the extension of empire, but the expansion of freedom first and foremost.

I don’t know about you but thinking about them as us kind of puts a different moral picture on the way we were keeping ‘Saddam’ contained. What kind of moral stand is it to say sanctions were working? Isolating Saddam also kept him in power. It’s also why free trade is not only right and a win win but is the only moral trade policy.

I suspect that a lot of what might seem contradictory in Barnett’s presentation of his thesis is actually intentional. He intended to sell his ideas to both the left and the right. Hence a robust critique of the President while also largely giving an argument that lends credence to the invasion of Iraq. I’m sure that’s his view. I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says, but much of his critique of Bush is in the failure to explain and persuade what Bush has done and why it needs to be done. In Bush’s defence, if Bush says something is blue, the left will say Bush lied. That’s just the way it is. …and the present leadership of Europe is left. I think that argues for (peaceful/democratic) regime change in France myself. But that’s another subject altogether.

You don’t know how much I would give for a Democratic party made up of Joe Leiberman’s or Thomas Barnett’s. Kerry, like Dean, is just the wrong guy. If he had stuck with his initial vote and played to the right instead of the left, Kerry would probably beat Bush hands down. Instead he played to the anti-war base. I’d be much less hesitant to fear a candidate that agreed with Barnett’s thesis. I don’t think Kerry’s positions reflect that.

Skip forward to page 167… Barnett criticizes Bush for doing precisely what he says Clinton did, reacting. Then says this:

It is neither a Republican nor a Democrat approach when America strikes back at the Gap, because when the Gap strikes out at America, it has little to do with the policies of one administration or another. It has to do with America being intimately identified with a historical process that some within the Gap fear will destroy the world they know and love—and they are right to fear it. Globalization will eventually remake the entire Gap into an image we in the Core recognize far more than those currently trapped there .

Then there’s this point on page 169:

I have a little trick I like to use when I give my grand-strategy brief on the future of globalization:…

I will ask the audience to yell out their worst fears about the Bush Administration’s foreign policy so far. Someone yells out, “We’re a global cop!” And I reply, “…in the Gap!” Another blurts, “We’re always unilateral!” And I retort, “…in the Gap!” A third offers grimly, “We start wars preemptively!” I follow with, “…in the Gap!” I know it sounds like an infomercial, but frankly, it works.

Thanks, Greg. :)

OK, I think I’ve batted this one around enough to state what will be dogma for me (until some unforeseen circumstance forces me to rethink it).

And this is about regime change, remember, not disarmament:

I believe Saddam needed to disappear somehow, at some point.

Since Saddam was already disarmed, time was definitely on our side, which yields an amazing array of options, from hoping he slips on a banana peel to removing him by force as part of a UN or NATO operation.

My two major constraints on regime change are,

• It shall not distract us from destroying al Qaeda
• It shall not seriously impact funding or implementing homeland security
• It shall not fracture - indeed it must strengthen - our alliance structure.

Thank you. :)

Remember, though, that’s only if the goal is regime change. Thanks for framing the question that way, jbod.

If the goal is merely disarmament, then we should never have invaded. He was already disarmed, and the inspections were making that clear.

I don’t know about you but thinking about them as us kind of puts a different moral picture on the way we were keeping ‘Saddam’ contained. What kind of moral stand is it to say sanctions were working?

Except that after more than a decade of sanctions and talks, Qaddafi and Libya are now crossing over. China is crossing over. Vietnam crossed over.

Here’s the difference, Eric. I don’t believe people can be forced to accept globalization. They must want it. To say “globalize or die” does not seem moral either.

And you can’t say there’s no way the Iraqis could have risen up. If EU membership looks good enough to Turkey’s military to warrent the occasional coup, it should look that good to the Republican Guard. If it doesn’t, that’s our fault because we failed to find, or even look for, the right leverage.

And I think you’re just seeing what you want to see if you think Barnett’s not serious about spanking Bush. Bush broke Barnett’s prime directive. Instead of strengthening the Core and the institutions that set the rules, Bush fractured the Core and weakened the rules.

Barnett himself openly says Kerry has the better grasp on “The Pentagon’s New Map”. He says on his blog, “now we need a Clinton-like dealmaker on security for the next four years. I frankly believe Kerry is closer to the mark than Bush on that.”

AP & Eric,
In case you have not heard the names of the American oil companys and indivuals making money from the Iraq oil foe food progran has been released to the White House, Congress, and the New York Times. It seems that Bush is about to find out that Oscar Wyatt donated illegal money to his campiagn.

Bush is about to find out that Oscar Wyatt donated illegal money to his campiagn.

Thanks Henry. That’s not surprising. I was going to try to find him among Bush’s rangers and pioneers, but never got around to it.

Let’s all try to spot the Saddam/Halliburton/Cheney connection, too. :)

Eric —

“Now you know how I feel about the entire left.” Oh, trust me — we already knew.

“In Bush’s defence, if Bush says something is blue, the left will say Bush lied.” Personally, I will only say Bush lied if I look at what he called blue and it happens to be a Stop sign.

I don’t consider myself to be Left or Right or Blue or Red, but I have to say I find arguments from either side much more convincing when they’re not rejecting EVERYTHING that doesn’t agree with their point of view. I mean, how am I to believe someone who says, “The Right [or Left] is a bunch of freaks?” If you have the same one-track mind you accuse the other side of having, how are you any better? (Not you, personally, Eric. I’m speaking generally.)

Let’s not be like the politicians we all know are trying to pull our strings.

That’s a good point, Alejo. It’s obvious that Eric agrees, at least in part, with Barnett’s grand strategy. Me, too.

I think Barnett has successfully created a bipartisan security rule set. If you believe, on balance, that globalization is a long-term force for prosperity and stability, then it’s hard to disagree with him.

My problem was that you can’t think Barnett is right, and then use his arguments to justify Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

The main focus of Barnett’s strategy is to strengthen and expand the Core set of nations that share our belief in playing by the rules, into the Gap - the regions where they don’t play by the rules.

Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq, shattered the Core and weakened the rules. Barnett himself says,

“The quickest way to secure America absolutely is to run hog-wild with preemptive strikes against the most dangerously disconnected states…”

Which is what Bush did. Barnett calls it the “who’s next?” strategy.

“But a mindless pursuit of America’s short-term security is likely to damage globalization’s capacity for expansion, and therein lies our best hope for increasing our security over the long haul.”

Which is exactly what happened.

“If, in waging war against the forces of ‘disconnectedness’, the United States ends up dividing the West, or the heart of the Core, then our cure ends up being worse than the disease.”

Bush’s foreign policy of knocking down dictators and raising democracies around the world may sound superficially like Barnett’s long-term strategy, but it’s really the neo-conservative “who’s next?”, and “we don’t need no stinkin’ long-term alliances” strategy.

AP,

Here’s the difference, Eric. I don’t believe people can be forced to accept globalization. They must want it. To say “globalize or die” does not seem moral either.

First, that is not even remotely what we have done. In order to say that you have to assume that the regime equals the people. Frankly, that is precisely what has been wrong with the left’s explanation. You believe that removing Saddam was an injury to the Iraqi people? Or that threatening dictators that you will be bringing freedom to their people is bad for the people?

My problem was that you can’t think Barnett is right, and then use his arguments to justify Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Keep reading. If this book converts you I will rejoice. Barnett absolutely confirms the rightness for going into Iraq. That may be a hard pill for you to swallow. He also says the Powell Doctrine is wrong and that we should expect to send more troops to the mideast not less. “The troops are never coming home.”

The main focus of Barnett’s strategy is to strengthen and expand the Core set of nations that share our belief in playing by the rules, into the Gap - the regions where they don’t play by the rules.

True.

Bush’s unilateral invasion of Iraq, shattered the Core and weakened the rules. Barnett himself says,

…Bush’s foreign policy of knocking down dictators and raising democracies around the world may sound superficially like Barnett’s long-term strategy, but it’s really the neo-conservative “who’s next?”, and “we don’t need no stinkin’ long-term alliances” strategy.

Keep reading AP. He doesn’t say Bush ‘shattered’ the core. He says any President would have ended up doing the same thing and that the US must act unilaterally within the Gap and should be expected to.

Besides which, we need to lay at least half the blame on France (especially) and Germany… and the left.

Try not to just read the parts you want to hear. Barnett excoriates Bush, but he does so mainly because he thinks Bush doesn’t understand or can’t articulate why invading Iraq was right ie articulate it like exactly as Barnett does.

I’ve never had any problem understanding why invading Iraq was right.

Eric,
What exactly do you believe was the reason for invading Iraq?

Just a quick question: If Saddam didn’t have WMD’s then what did he do with all the stuff Rumsfeld sold him?
I honestly must have missed this when it came out.

While Barnett’s OPINION is the basis for this thread, it shouldn’t be accepted without question. First off, (forcing) globilization, while an honorable goal, is most likely impossible. We sit here and pontificate how we are to achieve it but we end up with an action such as the one this present administration has taken. Namely killing thousands of innocent Iraqi’s AND Americans to rid the world of this “MENACE”. Meanwhile another armchair quarterback will write a book telling us what needs to be done to secure the world. There are far too many variables to predict the outcome of any one strategy. I’m sure the outcome of this admin’s strategy is far different from the one they predicted which is why we need world opinion to influence our actions. Now we can sit here and exercise our linquistic skills on the various points and counterpoints and feel we have accomplished something or we can stop the BS and address the real issues. Bottomline: The neocons have taken a track that is dangerously reckless and deceptive. Not unlike those of Nazi Germany.

My opinion for what its worth is if you want to stabilize the middle east, you have to minimalize dependence on their oil. If we would have spent the $200 billion on energy alternatives, conservation and infrastructure here in the US, we could (eventually) tell them to drink their damn oil. Then Europe and Russia could fight over it.

The middle east has not had to DEVELOP to modern world standards because they have this FREE resource and all they have to do is pump it out of the ground. While the rest of the world has market/sociological forces that lead to compromise and representative governments, the middle east is stuck in th dark ages of dictatorship.

kctim,
Web search the words “Iraq WMD’s Program 91-98” to read about how inspections dismantled Rumsfeld’s weapons.

Gene,
You might find that Barnett book interesting. Yes, he’s an armchair quarterback, and a very good one indeed. In general, he’s a futurist, and more specifically, a consultant for the Naval War College. What makes him interesting is his ability to integrate a futuristic military perspecitive into an economic and political/legal one.
Globalization is a process, not a goal. Globalization is occurring, and it overwhelmingly favors the US economy. You may prefer to think of it as globaloney, or oppose it as an immoral exploitation of the proletariat, veiled colonialism, imperialism, or the bane of US workers through outsourcing, whatever, but there it is.
Barnett might argue it’s precisely the lack of investment in the Middle East, the concentration upon oil at the expense of everything else, that cripples the region. He might also argue that the lack of investment creates danger for the US, and that we need to increase our connections there, rather than cut off oil importation.
Personally, I’d like to see both! But I’m trying to present Barnett’s view. Israel makes the matter even more complicated…

Hi. Barnett’s ad hoc webmaster here… I’m putting together a post that aggregates Tom’s writings about Bush and Kerry and will post it tomorrow.

In the meantime, you might try furthering your understanding of his work at his blog:
www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog. Like today’s piece, for instance: “Kerry versus Bush: If substance is the same…”

The doctrine of preemption is in doubt, we are now told. What does that mean? It means that we need to call it something other than preemption. We need to call it something far more descriptive, like rule enforcement, as in, if you do a lot of bad things to your own people and threaten your neighbors and the UN sanctions your ass for years on end, the Core powers should be able to come together and agree in advance, under an explicit shared rule set, to take down your regime at a time and method of their choosing. Why? Because your crappy regime doesn’t deserve any “sovereignty.”

If the Core comes up with the A-to-Z rule set on how to process politically bankrupt states, then we don’t have to resort to things like screaming, “He’s got a gun!” as we rush into his criminal lair to handcuff him and haul his ass off to the International Criminal Court.

Good, reasonable discussion here. Wish more voters were doing this.

Thanks.

~Critt

I haven’t read Barnett’s book and didn’t mean to imply any negative review of it. But I find it somewhat disconcerting to sit here in our comfortable armchairs and discuss the fate of sovereign countries as if we were GOD. We sit here all confident in that our way of life is the pinnacle of human achievement. Yet there are those who despise what we are and represent. No amount of “shoving down their throats” will overcome that. Our country is the most polarized it has been since the Civil War and we want to POLICE the world? I can appreciate the thread from the perspective originally set out i.e. that Barnett would seem more in line with Kerry’s position on foreign policy. But I find it strange bedfellows in deed. (And I’m basing that upon the “synopsis” presented in this thread…)

The world needs our capitalistic consumption… becoming more self sufficient is better strategy than taking over the world.

If the Core comes up with the A-to-Z rule set on how to process politically bankrupt states, then we don’t have to resort to things like screaming, “He’s got a gun!” as we rush into his criminal lair to handcuff him and haul his ass off to the International Criminal Court.

That is EXACTLY what I’m talking about. That’s the “global test”. It should be fairly obvious to everyone that action needed to be taken. If you can’t get most of the world to agree, “Oh, yeah. He had it comin’.” Then there’s a problem.

Thanks Critt.

And did I mention that Saddam had no WMD, no WMD programs, and no meaningful connections to al Qaeda? That’s not hindsight. That was pretty clear by Feb-March 2003.

Gene, I agree that we shouldn’t be shoving anything down anyone’s throat. Globalization, and the prosperity, stability, and freedom that seems to follow it appears to be pretty attractive to most developing nations.

I don’t think it was shoved down the throats of China, Malaysia, India, or Indonesia. Prosperity, stability, and freedom seem to be fairly universal.

I don’t think it needs to be forced down anyone’s throat. It just seems to happen.

I find it somewhat disconcerting to sit here in our comfortable armchairs and discuss the fate of sovereign countries as if we were GOD.

The likelyhood that any one of us is going to be the arm of fate is pretty small, Gene. On the other hand, we vote for people who set policy. I think it’s a good idea to find out what you stand for, then vote for representatives who share your stance.

My opinion for what its worth is if you want to stabilize the middle east, you have to minimalize dependence on their oil.

I don’t think that’s going to stabilize the Middle East. But I do believe that’s one of our most important strategic goals. And it will keep us above the fray in any future conflict in the region. We’ll have more options.

Here’s a working link to Barnett’s blog article, “Kerry versus Bush: if substance is the same, then I’ll take the promise of better style”

Thanks again, Critt.

Thanks for the info Henry.

Gene,
Understand your comments about the US playing God in Iraq. I’m VERY upset about the way almost daily bombings of ‘Zarqawi safe houses’ are occurring in Iraq. But I’ll save that for another thread.

AP

If by globalization you mean sharing resources with the rest of the world, then our system of Democracy should be optional (and probably inevitable). If you mean American Corporate interests invading 3rd world countries to exploit their natural resources then resistance will be inevitable. The Muslims DO feel like we’re shoving our belief system down their throats and though they may have judged us wrongly, they nonetheless resist us. If they weren’t sitting on a bunch of oil, we could let them live in their own misery, kinda like we do with the rest of the world’s non-oil-bearing countries.

In my mind, when you mention China, Malaysia, India, or Indonesia, I don’t credit globalization as much as pure old capitalism.

I realize my quick statement on stabilizing the middle east was pretty open ended. In a nutshell, I just feel that sociological forces would have a greater impact on bringing the middle east into the 21st century if they had to WORK for their prosperity. Sort of like the rich kid who never matures because he doesn’t have to “work” for anything.

Gene, I agree with your assessment of the Middle East. There was an interesting article about Iraq’s oil economy in a recent Foreign Affairs magazine, “Saving Iraq From Its Oil”

I don’t think we can spread democracy - or whatever liberal means of government (Singapore has a pretty liberal one-party system) that works for the people of a particular country - at gunpoint.

In my mind, when you mention China, Malaysia, India, or Indonesia, I don’t credit globalization as much as pure old capitalism.

Isn’t that what globalization is? A worldwide network of financial and trading agreements?