Barnett - On the question of who serves, I say let 'em all in!
¦"At Ivy League Schools, ROTC, Long Banned, Plots a Comeback: Push Stirs Up Old Passions On Some Campuses; A Beachhead at Harvard," by John Hechinger, Wall Street Journal, 16 December 2004, p. A1.
¦"Ready, Willing, Disqualified: Before sending vets into battle, let gay troops serve," op-ed by Nathaniel Frank, New York Times, 16 December 2004, p. A35.
In light of the email I received yesterday from a Columbia ROTC, it certainly seemed timely to see the front-page piece in the WSJ this morning (although no mention of Ivy Columbia, which is odd for a NY-based paper, but I guess that's because ROTC isn't banned there; still, why not the comparison analysis if that's the case?).
The Ivy Leaguers resistance over the issue of gays in the military seems a bit disingenuous, to say the least. You get the feeling that if that issue didn't survive, opponents would simply come up with some other excuse, and that's too bad, because what I remember of the great chapel at Harvard was the very impressive and solemn memorial hall dedicated to those who served in World Wars I and II. The Ivy League seemed to take real pride in that service back then, so you have to wonder about the profound distance this current standoffishness represents.
And no, don't tell me it's all about gays in the military.
My solution for this issue is a simple one: no gays in the Leviathan but any gay who wants to join the SysAdmin force, either as a civilian or in uniform, would automatically be welcomed no differently than anybody else. I understand the unit cohesion arguments of the old-style military, and frankly, I don't want to disturb that reality with either gays or women.
But my SysAdmin would accommodate both women and gays with ease, along with whatever warfighters would be cool with that complexity on both scores. Since the SysAdmin force would be the face of America 95% of the time, it would present the diversity and tolerance we both preach and usually practice.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 10:19 PM
No U.S. SysAdmin, no Core SysAdmin
¦"Darfur: Where Is Europe?," by Christian W.D. Bock and Leland R. Miller, Washington Post, 9 December 2004, p. A33.
¦"Pentagon To Seek $80 Billion More: Request to Help Finance Iraq, Afghanistan Presence Is Bigger Than Expected," by Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, 14 December 2004, p. A1.
Great op-ed castigating the Europeans for taking a total pass on the Sudan. What are they so scared about, the authors wonder?
Simply stated: if the American military doesn't show up, there is no multinational party. And the American military ain't showing up so long as it remains bogged down in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And it will remain bogged down there until the situation either settles on its own, settles because the U.S. creates some local ownership of the issues, or settles because the U.S. gets some major new help from outside powers. Of those three choices, I'd say local ownership is the most realistic.
So if you want help for Sudan, help this administration figure out how to generate some local ownership on Iraq and soon. Because until that situation settles, there'll be no U.S. military effort in Sudan, and that means no European effort.
Bitching at the Euros in the meantime is good sport, but a complete waste of time.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 10:18 PM
Is Iran ready to deal?
¦"Iran and Europeans Open a New Round of Negotiations," by Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, 14 December 2004, p. A14.
¦"Will Iran Win the Iraq War?," by Reuel Marc Gerecht, Wall Street Journal, 14 December 2004, p. A14.
¦"25 Years Later, a Different Type of Revolution: Western Culture Is Seeping Into Iranian Society, Despite Lingering Restrictions," by Robin Wright, Washington Post, 12 December 2004, p. A20.
¦"Minister Says Iran Is Open To U.S. Talks," by Nazila Fathi, New York Times, 15 December 2004, p. A8.
¦"Palestinian Urges Arabs to End Violence: Prominent Candidate for President Says Intifada Is a Mistake," by Greg Myre, New York Times, 15 December 2004, p. A10.
Iran and Europe prepare for another round of gamesmanship regarding nukes in Gulf. Meanwhile, strategists fret that Iran may be the big winner in the Iraq takedown.
Duh! You can't take down the Taliban and Saddam and not elevate the mullahs by default. Nor can you commit yourself to not allowing the Sunnis to rule over Iraq anymore and not expect the Shiites there to dominate.
I mean, really! How can any of this be a surprise?
Whether we wanted to or not, we just made a huge friend in Tehran by removing two great pains in its side(s): the Taliban (who played Trotsky to the mullah's Stalin) and Saddam (the Hitler role). Now, in what should be a surprise to no one, the mullahs are both more scared and emboldened (very Stalin-like, yes?).
Meanwhile, Iran's revolution is looking awfully sloppy in Tehran, even if the mullahs ride herd far more effectively in the countryside. I lived in the Soviet Union in the period just after Gorbachev took over, and I recognize a society that's totally gone cynical.
So let's deal with the dead elephant in the living room, I say.
Iran's getting the bomb America. What do you want to get in return?
Iran's says it's ready to deal directly with the U.S. So what cards do we have in our hand, and what are willing to put in the pot?
The Palestinians seem ready to strike deals. Sharon says he's committed to the pull-out. Egypt wants to help on Gaza. Syria's looking ready to pull out of Lebanon.
Tell me, who's missing in this equation?
And no, I'm not talking about the Marie Antoinette crowd in Riyadh.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 10:17 PM
To shrink the Gap, let it grow the food
¦"Why Not to Cut Farm Aid: Many Poor Nations Fight Europe's Bid to Lower Barriers," by Scott Miller, Wall Street Journal, 16 December 2004, p. A14.
¦"South America Seeks to Fill the World's Table," by Larry Rohter, New York Times, 12 December 2004, p. A1.
The EU is getting ready to slash farm subsidies to its own farmers, but here's the rub: they've given former colonies in Latin America and Africa preferred access over the years via quotas, and so if a truly level playing field in created, rising agricultural powers like nascent ag superpower Brazil will likely quickly overwhelm the competition.
This problem is much like the one the US generates 1 January when it agrees to end quotas on who sells America textiles. Ending that system was designed to let competition flourish in the developing world, but when the decision was made, it wasn't anticipated that New Core power China would rise up so formidably that virtually every Gap nation now quakes in its dominating market presence that's only likely to grow further once the quotas are off.
Brazil is playing the same behemoth role in agriculture, as part of a surging South American profile in the global trade.
What do these conundrums mean? They mean you can't lump in New Core states like India, Brazil, Russia and China with "emerging markets" or "developing countries" anymore, because it's just not fair. When the Old Core sets a new rule set for the "emerging markets as a whole" and lumps New Core powers in with them, the New Core players clean up rather unfairly.
Conversely, when the Old Core is tasked by the Gap to clean up its pollution like CO2, and the world comes up with a Kyoto Treaty that places all the onus on the Old Core (plus Russia) but ignores surging New Core powers like India and China, that's patently unfair.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 10:17 PM |
