Fearing the Big Bang
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 08:20 PM
¦"Unexpected Whiff of Freedom Proves Bracing for the Mideast: Political and Social Shifts Evoke Hope and Fear," by Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A1.
¦"What's in It for America? In the Middle East, democracy takes on its biggest task: killing a radical ideology," by Roger Cohen, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. W1.
The NYT continues to go out of its way to deny the Bush administration any credit for what's happening in the Middle East. We are told it all comes from a variety of pressures, like globalization's technological networks creeping into the region (cell phones, satellite TV, internet) and the growing dissatisfaction of the young with the status quo. Oh, and "another factor, pressure from the Bush administration, has emboldened demonstrators, who believe that their governments will be more hesitant to act against them with Washington linking its security to greater freedom after the Sept. 11 attacks."
You know, it's like saying there's a whole bunch of dry wood, and that it was going to light up on its own absent some spark, when in reality, no spark, no fire.
Actually, the Big Bang take-down of Saddam was more like a lightning strike, scaring more than emboldening. These conditions have existed in the Middle East for some time, but now both authoritarian regimes and potential reformists/demonstrators feel some impetus to do something, lest their country become another Iraq. How else do you explain this unprecedented mix: "This is something unknown for the Arab world-it is pacifist, it is democratic and it is spontaneous," says one student.
Arabs differ in their opinions as to how much America has helped this process, we are told. Wow! Can you believe that? We're not going to get any credit from the locals! But how about the NYT? How about a little credit there for something the Bush White House predicted way back when, and then-as the insurgency arose in Iraq-was roundly condemned for by the NYT's many "expert" journalists and op-ed columnists. No, no, we were told, there would be no spontaneous uprising of the people against their governments. And yet, this is what we're seeing, at a pace that's both welcome and reasonable in terms of not unleashing social violence.
And what drives this process? The fear of becoming another Iraq. That's it. The demonstration effect is that powerful. No invasion, no effect, no fear, no movement.
Yes, yes, this is all so "unexpected" for the expert NYT, which always knew better than Bush.
No credit, and still no hope from the NYT. This is described as the "biggest task" for democracy in history, as if conquering the Soviet bloc was peanuts in comparison (not really a radical ideology, was it?). We are asked, "What's in it for America?" Yes, when's our payoff coming? Shouldn't we be safer right now? It's been almost two years since we invaded Iraq. Isn't the entire transformation of the Middle East (which we, the "experts" long declared would take decades!) done yet? Ooh! This is going to be scarier for the U.S.! Yes, watching street demonstrations in the Middle East is certainly scarier than 9/11? Michael Moore, are you filming any of this?
My, oh my. We are told that terrorism won't "crumble" like fascism or communism, because . . . uh . . . it's a tactic and not a political order?
Hmmm. Yes, that is scary. I guess if we get democracy in the Middle East, there could still be terorrism! That sounds like failure to me, how about you?
We are told democratic regimes in the Middle East could be harder for the U.S. to handle, what with all that popular sentiment at work. Hmmm. Yes, better to keep the dictators.
We are told that the Afghan model of fundamentalist Islamic society is rejected by the young of the Middle East, as is the tired authoritarianism of Iran. Oh, and "the invasion of Iraq has brought into the Arab heartland a model-still fragile and bitterly contested [Oh my! Imagine that?]-of a liberal and democratic society."
Hmmm. It's almost as if Iraq is . . . a model of sorts. Where have I heard this before?
We are told that containment of terrorism in the Middle East has been tried-and it failed. So now the U.S. has become more aggressive. Never the "Bush administration," but the U.S.! Whereas I praised specifically and condemned generally in PNM, the NYT does the opposite. Whenever anything goes well in the Middle East, the "U.S." is credited, but whenever there are bad things, it's all due to the idiocy of the Bush administration.
Hmmmm. This is all so radical and strange, this new world of the Middle East. Who could have foreseen such change coming on so rapidly? Could it be, as the NYT asks, that perhaps "the Middle East is not some strange exception, but will, as Europe and the Americas have, find in democracy a cause for peace."[?]
Okay, the NYT didn't ask that. I added the question mark.
It just amazes me how the Big Bang theory was so ridiculed for so long, and my defense of it in PNM made the lynchpin of so many negative reviews of my book, but now these same great thinkers who got it so wrong can't admit anything of the sort.
No, I suppose this was all just going to happen on its own, right? I mean, show me all the articles and op-eds predicting that prior to March 2003. Go on, I dare you! Find me even one article that predicted any of this.
I have a slide in my brief on the Big Bang, where I posit positive change accruing from the takedown of Iraq in such states as Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Okay, so I was too optimistic on Iran and I neglected to cite Egypt.
Oh, and I was so naïve to think that the U.S. military could ever do any good in the world.
Yes, yes, war is never the answer.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 08:18 PM
Syria sets up for a showdown
¦"Syria Offers Gradual Pullback of Its Troops from Lebanon," by Hassan M. Fattah and David E. Sanger, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A1o.
¦"U.S. Rejects Syria's Withdrawal Plan for Lebanon: Citing U.N. Resolution, Washington Says Troop Pullout Must Be Quick," by Robin Wright, Washington Post, 6 March 2005, p. A24.
¦"Hezbollah Backs Syria, Challenging Lebanese Opposition: A militant leader chafes at calls for a quick Syrian pullout," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. A3.
Assad says Syria will get around to pulling out its troops. It's just not saying when.
And the Bush administration says that's not good enough.
And the White House is right to push hard on this, because you need a Lebanon preoccupied with itself for peace to work in Palestine and Israel, not one that serves as staging ground for terrorist attacks. If Hezbollah is serious about being a party that serves the people, then it should get busy on that.
With Syria gone from Lebanon, then the real patron of Hezbollah will be the only local regime with serious influence over events there. That would be Iran. Can we scare Iran off like we seem to be scaring Syria off? If we can't, we might find ourselves stymied on both Israel-Palestine and Iraq, where Iran holds the only real vetoes now that we seemed to have lined up all the major Arab regimes and scared off Syria. In short, we seem to winning the Sunnis and setting ourselves up for a showdown with the Shiites, with nuclear Iran as their gunslinger.
But remember who stands behind that gunslinger: New Core states like India and China, who've cut huge oil and gas deals with the regime. Is this connectivity to be advantaged? Or do we intend to isolate these rising powers as well?
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 08:17 PM
Dealing with Iran
¦"Taking on Tehran," by Kenneth Pollack and Roy Takeyh, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2005, pulled off the web at foreignaffairs.org.
¦"Iran Says It Won't Give Up Program to Enrich Uranium: U.S. suggests it will help Europe find incentives for Tehran," by Nazila Fathi, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A13.
Iran keeps sending signals that it won't be denied as a nuclear power, no matter what the economic carrots we offer. No, Tehran seems to be angling for something larger that just trade and investment. It wants to be recognized as THE security pillar in the region now that Saddam is gone and Israel seems ready to make peace.
Why no one sees this reality is beyond me. We keep thinking that we're going to give them some economic carrots that Iranians will munch on, and voila! All their security desires for acquiring the bomb will disappear. This only works when regimes don't want the bomb and simply want to get credit for walking away from that decision, but when they do want the bomb (either for security or prestige or diplomatic bargaining) these carrots are simply accepted and the quest continues. Meanwhile, we get played like dummies and the other side simply plays for time. In the end, they get the bomb and we get bupkis in the process.
And this is considered "realism" . . ..
Here's the summary on the FA piece by Pollack and Takeyh:
If Washington wants to derail Iran's nuclear program, it must take advantage of a split in Tehran between hard-liners, who care mostly about security, and pragmatists, who want to fix Iran's ailing economy. By promising strong rewards for compliance and severe penalties for defiance, Washington can strengthen the pragmatists' case that Tehran should choose butter over bombs.
Does that seem realistic to you? The hard-liners give up their guns because the pragmatists win more butter from a regime that's just demolished regimes to the country's east and west? "Oh well! If you give us some investment, then I guess we won't have to worry about huge numbers of your combat troops on both sides of our borders!"
What we have with Iran right now is a failure to communicate: the mullahs fear for their security and we keep acting like economic reform is the answer. We need to answer the security issues with security answers, and THEN we'll kill the mullahocracy with economic connectivity-not before.
Can we live with a nuclear Iran?
Hmmm. Even war-mongering Pollack (he of "let's-invade-Iraq-now-before-it-gets-the-bomb" CNN fame) seems to be wondering if this might not be the worst outcome:
It is an open question whether the United States could learn to coexist with a nuclear Iran. Since the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989, Tehran's behavior has conveyed some very mixed messages to Washington. The mullahs have continued to define their foreign policy in opposition to the United States and have often resorted to belligerent methods to achieve their aims. They have tried to undermine the governments of Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the Middle East; they have waged a relentless terrorist campaign against the U.S.-brokered Israeli-Palestinian peace process; and they have even sponsored at least one direct attack against the United States, bombing the Khobar Towers--a housing complex filled with U.S. troops--in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Although Tehran has been aggressive, anti-American, and murderous, its behavior has been neither irrational nor reckless. It has calibrated its actions carefully, showed restraint when the risks were high, and pulled back when threatened with painful consequences. Such calculations suggest that the United States could probably deter Iran even after it crossed the nuclear threshold. There is no question, however, that the United States, the Middle East, and probably the rest of the world would be better off if they did not have to deal with a nuclear Iran. The hard part, of course, is making sure that Tehran never gets to that point.
Hmmmm, an "open question" according to the hardest of the hard-core Gulf experts.
But rather than explore that concept, the rest of the article is just so much blah-blah-blah on economic carrots and diplomatic sticks.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 08:17 PM
Islam's softer side
¦"Big Step for a Bank, and Saudi Women," by Eric Pfanner, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. C5.
¦"Britain's Mainstream Muslims Find Voice: The Iraq war has emboldened some Islamic moderates to make demands," by Lizette Alvarez, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A4.
Banking in Saudi Arabia is a sex-segregated affair, just like religion, and just as in the mosque, the ladies' version is very low-key and kept hidden from view. So it's pretty amazing to see the local Leo Burnett ad agency doing TV spots and print ads promoting "ladies banking":
You have your dreams. You have your ambitions. You are not alone. With you is Banque Saudi Fransi.
In the campaign, women are shown with other women in business meetings, sitting at a computer, enjoying their own weddings. Can't show them driving a car, because that's not allowed, so I guess that rules out car loans. But hey, it's a nice start!
Also nice is watching the emergence of a politicized Islam in Europe that's all about normal political stuff: getting your voice heard, getting economic gains for your people, complaining about injustices and whatnot. Not issuing death threats, no calling for violence, but working within the system.
Could the Big Bang have reached as far as the UK?:
If the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks plunged the Islamic population in Britain and elsewhere iinto a state of alarm and dread, then the Iraq war and its aftermath have had an unforeseen consequence here: they have helped galvanize and embolden a core group of mainstream British Muslims to find its voice and make demands.
Do these mainstream Muslims oppose the war? Sure. But here's the trick: just opposing something isn't a political stand. You have to be FOR something to have a real voice, and that's what Iraq has forced upon European Muslims: it's forced them to think about what they're for and not just against:
"Before there was a sense of keeping our heads down," Mr. Bunglawala [mainstream political activist] said. "If there were radical elements, the police dealt with them. After 9/11, that began to change. We had to put clear blue water between us and the radicals."
And the war has accelerated that process dramatically by forcing everyone to choose.
Underlying the push is the growing economic and political success of Muslims in Britain. In short, they're feeling a whole lot more connected to their new home, and that means everything.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 08:16 PM
The all mighty dollar
¦"China Says It Won't Sell Dollars," by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. C4.
¦"The Overstretch Myth," by David H. Levey and Stuart S. Brown, Foreign "Affairs, March/April 2005, pulled off web at foreignaffairs.org.
Doesn't it feel weird when America breathes a sigh of relief upon hearing that China won't sell off all its dollars quickly and force a scary drop in its value? I mean, our communist "rising threat" and all? With just under two-thirds of trillion in US dollars, China is now second only to Japan in dollar reserves. What would this seem to tell you about the long-term prospects for military clashes between us and the Chinese?
Why does China keep buying dollars? As one senior finance official recently put it:
"If we do sell U.S. dollars now when it is tumbling, it means we lose money. If we do sell them, we have to buy other currencies such as the euro. But what if the euro drops?"
Yes, yes, what if the euro drops?
The Chinese leadership also likes to point out that while reserve holdings have tripled since 2001 (amazing, given all our war-mongering, yes?), the price of oil has doubled, and China is importing oil in unprecedented amounts.
Hmmmm. Security, money, energy. Sounds like a complex relationship.
The FA article makes the boldest case for America's long-term economic stability, arguing that it's that long-term growth potential-not Europe's or Japan's-that keeps the Asian exporters putting their trade winnings back into dollar markets:
Despite the persistence and pervasiveness of this doomsday prophecy, U.S. hegemony is in reality solidly grounded: it rests on an economy that is continually extending its lead in the innovation and application of new technology, ensuring its continued appeal for foreign central banks and private investors. The dollar's role as the global monetary standard is not threatened, and the risk to U.S. financial stability posed by large foreign liabilities has been exaggerated. To be sure, the economy will at some point have to adjust to a decline in the dollar and a rise in interest rates. But these trends will at worst slow the growth of U.S. consumers' standard of living, not undermine the United States' role as global pacesetter. If anything, the world's appetite for U.S. assets bolsters U.S. predominance rather than undermines it.
So it seems as though China can keep selling stuff to us like crazy, we can keep buying it like crazy, China can in turn keep buying dollars like crazy, and this whole merry-go-round keeps spinning.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 08:16 PM
2 + 2 = 4 on China
¦"Chinese Premier Pledges to Hold On to Taiwan: Anti-Secession Bill Mandates Attack if Independence Is Declared," by Philip P. Pan, Washington Post, 6 March 2005, p. A20.
¦"China Questions U.S. Data on North Korea: Beijing may be softer on North Korea in public than in private," by Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. A5.
China is offering the usual yin-and-yang on Taiwan. Premier Wen Jiabao follows President Hu Jintao at the big annual People's Congress, and while Hu was all conciliatory and relaxed on Taiwan, Wen plays hard cop with tougher talk. Meanwhile, China continues to modernize its military in such a way as to make it difficult for the U.S. to counter any moves it might take militarily against the island.
In a phrase, the same-old, same-old.
On North Korea, China talks tougher in private than in public, but doesn't seem interested in sticking its neck out to help the Americans on Kim's quest for WMD (already achieved). Seems they like it being our problem more than theirs, preferring to focus on keeping the peninsula free of war but really being far more afraid that Kim's bombs will force both South Korea and Japan down the same pathway, something that would frighten them far more.
In a phrase, the same-old, same-old.
Meanwhile, the U.S. shows almost no imagination in linking these two problem sets together, as I did recently in Esquire. We want China's help on North Korea, and China seems obsessed on Taiwan, where we provide a defense guarantee. We're their key on Taiwan, and they're our key on North Korea. You'd think someday someone in the Bush administration would think to get a little chocolate on their peanut butter or vice versa. But no, both sides remain stuck right where they are, and no one gets what they want as a result.
But this, my friends, is considered "realism," and better to be "realistic" than naïve . . ..
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 08:15 PM
Leviathan rules, SysAdmin rules
¦"Rule Change Lets C.I.A. Freely Send Suspects Abroad: Interrogation At Issue; Official Defends Program as Being Helpful in Effort on Terror," by Douglas Jehl and David Johnston, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A1.
¦"U.S. Adopts Preemptive Counterintelligence Strategy," by David Morgan (Reuters), Washington Post, 6 March 2005, p. A7.
¦"Many Actions Tied to Delay In Armor for Troops in Iraq: Army Was Forced to Scramble as Reality of Insurgents' Effectiveness Set In," by Michael Moss, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. A1.
¦"U.S. Checkpoints A Deadly Gantlet: Iraqis Killed or Injured in Troops' Security Effort," by John F. Burns, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. A1.
¦"How to Shake Hands Or Share a Meal With an Iraqi," by Peter Edidin, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. WK1.
It was kind of funny watching Michael Schuerer, he of Anonymous fame as a critique of the Bush administration, bragging about how he set up the "rendition" program whereby the U.S. routinely hands over terror suspects to Gap states we know will torture them at will. He said he has no problem with what the terrorists get at the hands of their torturers, and he said with a smile.
Yes, Michael Schuerer, the man you want running your Global War on Terrorism. I mean, look at the bang-up job he did on Al Qaeda all those years, just like Richard Clarke, another security genius who deserves his fame as critique of the Bush White House.
Of course, Clarke and Schuerer were always "thwarted" when they tried to do good and necessary things . . . uh . . . including the rendition program, right?
No, when I call for a Core rule set on the Global War on Terrorism in Wired, I get labeled a racist and torture-monger for calling for a World Counter-Terrorism Organization to regularize the treatment and processing of prisoners. But Schuerer, he of rendition program-fame, he is to be lionized for his great contribution to national security! Must be cool to be on "60 Minutes" chuckling to yourself about helping terrorists get what they deserve . . .
So now the U.S. is going to have a preemptive counter-intelligence strategy where we go after other countries' intell services aggressively, lest they continue to spy on us. Who are the targets? We are told it is China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Libya. The last four I get, but are you telling me we shouldn't be seeking cooperation from China and Russia instead of engaging in spy wars? So we turn over terror suspects to authoritarian regimes in the Middle East we don't trust and then seek to turn China and Russia into enemies on intelligence? Tell me where we're going on that one? Does it seem like we're working at cross-purposes with ourselves?
On the SysAdmin side, sad stories told about the many snafus in obtaining body armor for our troops. Seems we got them only for the "front lines" of the Leviathan force, not the rank-and-file of the SysAdmin force. So we had enough for the warfighting, but not enough to keep the peace, which in its backtracking got us plenty of more warfighting.
Also, we see yet another snafu at a checkpoint, where apparently we go straight from handwaving to shooting, with basically nothing in between. This one boggles my mind, having worked on look-ahead technologies studies examining the many uses of non-lethal weapons and systems designed to trap both people and vehicles without killing anyone. So because we go cheap on all those programs over the past 15 years, our troops at the checkpoints are forced into bad decisions that cause serious fissures with long-term allies. Talk about a self-inflicted wound.
We know what needs to be done, and almost none of it's secret or necessarily kinetic. This is basic security generation and police work in many instances. You have to know how to walk the beat. You have to be able to take down potential suspects without deadly force-or you're off the force. None of this is new, and none of this is particularly expensive (although the labor costs do rise dramatically). It's all about deciding which wars and which enemies we don't need to fight anymore and moving those freed-up resources to the ones we do need to fight-and the peace we need to wage.
Not easy, but not complex.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 08:14 PM |
