Barnett - How the election in Iraq seems to change everything ever so slightly
Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 7 February 2005
Quick catching up. Rest of day will be spent planning last full chapter, which I write this week.
Couple of articles with the truly startling (for some) analysis that the Iraq elections didn't trigger a load of violence but instead appear to be moving the masses of Iraqis over the hump of their resentment to the U.S. forces on site. First one ("Suddenly, It's 'America Who?'" by Dexter Filkins, NYT, 6 Feb 05, p. WK1) basically says that after the election there is this growing sense among ordinary Iraqis that the blame from here on out sits with themselves and their own government--now elected:
"We have no electricity here, no water and there's no gasoline in the pumps," said Salim Mohammad Ali, a tire repairman who voted in last Sunday's election. "Who do I blame? The Iraqi government, of course. They can't do anything."
Asked about the American military presence here, Mr. Ali chose his words carefully.
"I think the Americans should stay here until our security forces are able to do the jobs themselves," Mr. Ali said, echoing virtually every senior American officer in Iraq. "We Iraqis have our own government now, and we can invite the Americans to stay."
Just words? How about the second story ("Iraqis Cite Shift in Attitudes Since Vote: Mood Seen Moving Against Insurgency," by Doug Struck, WP, 7 Feb 05, p. A1), where Iraqi government officials say that tips on insurgents from the public are way up since the election?
No one's pretending the violence is going to end any time soon, just that a shift in identification has begun:
"They saw what we did for them in the election by providing safety, and now they understand this is their army and their sons," said Sgt. Haider Abdul Heidi, a National Guardsman wearing a flak jacket at a checkpoint in Baghdad.
Yes, we should expect the Shiites to push to make Islam the fundamental basis of their country ("Top Iraq Shiites Pushing Religion In Constitution: Islam as National Faith," by Edward Wong, NYT, 6 Feb 05, p. A1). There's no surprise in that. The U.S. wasn't exactly shy about such declarations as "In God We Trust" on our money and so on. The Shiites just want to declare their trust in Allah to push certain aspects of Islamic law. Getting into a fight with them over that makes little sense. The Shiites can have a government based in Islam and still not be a scary theocracy like Iran. After all, isn't Israel similarly defined by its religion? We shouldn't worry over this, because it's not our problem to fix ("U.S. Officials Discount Risk of Iran-Style Rule: Cheney, Rumsfeld See Iraqi Shiites as Distinct," by Bradley Graham, WP, 7 Feb 05, p. A18).
The Bush White House is planning a more low-key presence and approach to the region under Rice's tutelage, and that's okay. The issues there are theirs to solve, not ours, but I hope that low key doesn't mean we don't seek something besides stalemate with Iran, because I don't think we can shut them out forever and expect them to stand by while the Big Bang works itself out slowly over time.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett
Quoted in U.S. News & World Report feature on Shiites in Middle East
Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 7 February 2005
Spoke with the report Jay Tolson in early January. Can't remember how or why he got ahold of me, but he did, and we talked, and it resulted in a quote in the piece.
This is how the article starts off:
31 January 2005
Nation & World:
The Shiite factor
Long vilified as extremists, these Muslims may hold the key to a new Middle East
By Jay Tolson
Blunt words are not the usual fare of Washington think-tank gatherings. But American Enterprise Institute fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht served up a few at a recent roundtable discussion. "If Iraq fails," warned the former CIA analyst, "we're toast."
COMMENTARY: No offense to Jay, but Gerecht's words were exactly the usual fare you get at Washington think-tank gatherings, especially if someone from the Agency (current or graduate) is involved. CIA people will always give the most depressing, fear-mongering take on whatever you can name. This is what passes for intelligence in DC: constant worst-casing. Somehow this is seen as "analysis," when it's really just paralysis (in fact, the military loves to call it "paralysis by analysis"). Tell me how opinions like this are useful when they're all that the community offers. The CIA should be all about news you can use, but instead it's mostly about why you should never try anything anywhere. I can't imagine how bad American foreign policy would be if we actually listened to the CIA on a regular basis. In reality, it's mostly ignored. When they offer something close to agreement with what you're proposing, THEN they're cited, otherwise, pretty much ignored.
Here's the last section of the piece where I'm quoted:
Tactics. Almost every supporter of a favorable outcome in Iraq agrees that America must be a careful midwife, exercising tact in diplomacy and greater shrewdness in its strategic thinking. Even being too cozy with Sistani might not be a good thing, particularly if he is perceived to be a U.S. lackey. And Iraq's chances of subduing the insurgency might be greatly helped, says Thomas Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century and a former professor at the U.S. Naval War College, if Washington tries to make Iran a more responsible player in the region. Tact means avoiding inflammatory labels such as "axis of evil" (which only rallies support for the shaky theocracy), and shrewdness means coming up with bargaining chips to draw Tehran away from building the Bomb. As he argues in a current Esquire article, Barnett believes that a more responsible Iran is more likely to change. "They will be influenced by what is happening in Iraq," he says. "Sistani may be their Lech Walesa."
COMMENTARY: I guess if I had said something really depressing and scary, I could have been quoted at the top of the piece. Instead, I said something analytical and got stuck at the end. Sigh.
Go here for the complete article: www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050131/usnews/31shiite.htm |
