Playing The Board

 

"You can tell everything you need to know about a state by how it treats its women" and "We need to stop calling Iraq a war; that was over a long time ago" are powerful statements. Thomas Barnett does not stop there, but makes his case for his future vision of US foreign policy and the dual role military intervention will have to face so as to tackle three incredibly tough ironies:

1. The shorter the war, the bigger the peace effort
2. The smaller the war force, the larger the peace force
3. The easier the war, the tougher the peace

Iraq is an ongoing testimony to this new paradigm. And al-Qaeda certainly sticks to the game-plan: encourage insurgency, engender chaos and wait for withdrawal.

The biggest mistake is to believe, that the U.S. can do or say anything to pacify the Islamofascists. It's not personal, as Barnett highlights, it's not who we are, but what we represent, namely globalization. The Islamic fundamentalists want to disconnect the Islamic world from globalization's 'creeping embrace' and to reconnect it to an idealized past, they believe it offers a better alternative.

In other words, a change in American foreign policy won't make things better.

Instead, argues Barnett, we need to appreciate, that most of Islam is not at war with globalization, but much more in conflict with itself over how best to join the globalized economy.

Which brings us to Iran as the key to the Middle East. Barnett believes, that we are "looking at the equivalent of late-Brezhnevian USSR, a tired, authoritarian regime we killed with connectivity." And that we can do the same again with the Mullahcracy.

And that is where the trouble starts. Barnett has no hesitation to go after terrorists with a new set of rules, meaning essentially, men with no names (special operations forces) go after men with no states (terrorists). But what if a country is ruled by a group of terrorists, as is the case with the Mullahs's grip on power in Iran since 1979 and in Gaza since Hamas won the elections earlier this year, and Hezbollah since we discovered they rule Lebanon?

Making Iran an ally seems impossible given the deeply embedded Mullahcracy and its terror network throughout the world. And allowing Iran to go nuclear is a risk only possible to contemplate after a regime change is not only successfully completed but has also stood the test of time. One thing is for certain, our Thug-In-Chief and his fellow murdering goons are not leaving without a mighty fight. So, even if a moderate regime should establish itself, daily violence would mar Tehran in much the same way as we are witnessing today in Baghdad.

TO WATCH THE VIDEO CLICK ON THE SCREEN-SHOT. IT'S FASCINATING DON'T MISS IT.

For me, it is the beginning of a fascinating journey and has certainly helped me to fully appreciate Friday's comment from my reader John Sarich, who has been solely responsible for a sleepless but incredible night of acquainting myself with everything 'Barnett'.

Actually, Alexandra, your headline [Wal-Mart Can Stop A Nuclear Iran] isn't that far off. I don't know if you ever read Thomas P.M. Barnett but he has made that position for quite some time. Professor Barnett is a defense guru having had a career in the DoD as well in the private sector. He is very much in demand at the Pentagon and the various military acadamies and schools. What the good professor says is that the whole of the middle east and much of the Asia Pacific region are struggling with how to get connected to the "core" - North America, Europe, Oceana and Japan and Korea. China is almost a core country as well.

If you take Friedman's book (The World is Flat) and put it alongside Barnett's thesis then you get the idea that the war with Iran, should be fought largely with economics, technology, and political measures. We need to get better at "playing the board" as he puts it. We should understand the self interests of Russia, China, Europe (old and new), and India and work to find the incentives that will enable each to get what they want. His concept is that shooting part of wars is necessary but should be limited. The major part of war fighting is the System Administration that must come in to create the political landscape and social infrastructure. His idea is that the future military actions from the US should be more like the way the army dealt with our own wild west 150 years ago, and less like WW2.

So, the Walmartization of the middle east isn't that far fetched. The problems today with Islam have a lot to do with globalization and the resistance within Islam to modernize and become part of the global community.

Also, don't miss reading Thomas Barnett's blog, especially the latest post 'Jaffe profiles Abizaid and his definition of SysAdmin as the tool to win the Long War'. Thank you to Brian for the links.

Comments

[Jonathon]

I agree with the tenor of the above who have discerned the unrealism that is in this approach by Mr Barnett. In fact I found it tedious. It was tailor-made for Rummy, but it was not realism and we need realism desperately. Human nature is fallen, not quantifiable for his future prognostications. And conceit? There is more conceit there than you can possibly imagine, who spent his time on much technical information, but little wisdom. "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting!" Rather than promoting Walmart, we should be promoting our own spiritual metanoia of the enlightened sort.

[londexch3m]

This is an interesting idea for those, key people, who wishes stability in every part of their life's and life's of their family members.
Let me introduce HY-Invest Program -- FinancialInvestmentsActive

In case You are interested in the investment program. please use this link for registering
-- http://fiactive.com/?ref=londexch
-----------------------------------------
I wish you luck and lots of $ :) Have a nice day!

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

GD,

The "Brown Bess" was the standard issue British infantry muzzle-loader at Waterloo. A less effective weapon than the English Longbow, or the Mongol bow. But it made a nice noise, and you could stick a bayonet on the end of it!

Which of the 32-odd definitions of chaos are you using? Sharkovsky? Self-similarity?

Chaos is not even properly-defined, but perhaps the MSM will gravtitate to something they like, and we can all finally decide what it actually is.

The most common seems to be the "orbits of all integer periods greater than (or equal to?) 3".

[igout]

GD:

Brown Bess was the nickname of the musket used in the Revolutionary War. Wrongly I thought it referred to the Kentucky Long Rifle, which hung on the mantlepiece of every pioneer home. My mistake. Anyway, my point was that before this is over we may all have to acquire that kind of home furnishing. It's our right and, more than ever, our duty.

[Patrick]

Liquid,

Thank you for the kind words. As Ghost pointed out so clearly, Rule number 1: In any equation, you NEVER have all the factors, especially where "Human" is the described condtion. Ghost Dansing

I keep dwelling on what personal issues I have with what he says. He really does have a very good theory and a self-consistent way to attempt to deal with the situation. I do not mean to convey that I do not agree with much he says (i like the two different forces: Leviathan (DoD) and Peace Force, of which I would have the State department run latter since after the war, the Ambassador should have top position), etc. Much of what he says does make a large amount of sense. Unfortunately like all true believers he thinks he has found the panacea. I could very well be wrong, but I distrust panaceas... They never work and they cost a whole lotta money. Then again, a 70% solution executed now is much better than a 100% solution started 1 minute too late.

A few other points I would like to make:

The connectivity does allow those who want globalization to readily embrace it. But, as igout pointed out...that connectivity works in many directions. What local society could identify and stamp out as abherrent behavior now finds multitudes of fellow believers throughout the world. I can't remember which comedian it was, but they said, "The internet makes everyone normal. If you want to join a group that has sex with goats while they are on fire, you won't be able to join the group until you specify which color of goat" The power really goes to the people, for good or ill. Old safeguards have been broken and we will have to build new ones for our society.

I think my problem with Barnett is that he espouses a truly American view of optimism and capitalism. Namely, there is no such thing a problem that cannot be solved by throwing enough money at it. That is probably correct 99.9% of the time if there are no other constraints. If you start introducing things like: I can't hire someone to kill him, or destroy him once he has rejected all of the pretty trinkets...we start running into problems.

To his credit, there are very few problems that the shrewd application of money and time cannot solve. Unfortunately, I think this is one of them. In this case, the strength of money is also it's weakness. It gives a valuation to our nation's will. A problem from the early days of Bosnia-Kosovo IFOR/KFOR/SFOR...and related areas where the military forces rotated every 180 days was whether we would really walk the walk. Those civilians who survived the troubled times understood our good intentions, but the bad guys are there for the long haul. The Americans rotate out about the time they figure out who can be worked with, and who needs to go. Our "competitors" for control stay there day in and day out. Everyone knows the Americans will leave in weeks or months...our competitors only rotate out in body bags... How wed are we to improving those regions?

Barnett has a great point about the evangelicals and the missions. You have people of faith setup and run free clinics while living with the normal people, making themselves easy targets. I have great respect for those who drill wells, build schools, etc... even if they do not like me being there and quite often act against my interests. They wear no body armor. They have no access to phenomonal weapons of destruction at a few minutes notice. They better represent the commitment, man-to-man of our good intentions. They can more easily build the person to person bridge of different societies.

No one really trusts the guard dog, even though they are very happy he is there when the wolves are prowling. Most people will not be comfortable until we are taken off the street and put into the pen.

Back to money... In those parts of the world (the gap), America just throwing money at the problem means very little. They believe we have much more than we actually do and can just throw truckloads at any problem if we really wished to. If we don't use the gold plated helicopter to build a robust infra-structure overnight, it is because we really don't want to. The whisperers who stay in the area year after year convince the good citizens that we are not actually being nice, but are stealing from them...with holding their birth right. Money can actually exacerbate the problem from a long term perspective. Should we give them the fish, or teach them to fish?

These are some of my opinions. Just another point of view.

[Liquid]

Patrick---"This is where I agree with him and the many who have said it before him: look how a society treats the women. If they do not pass this litmus test, they need some education"
---------

Patrick, I chose this part of your post because I think that's one of the points that Alexandra agreed with too, so much so that she even chose her pic for the thread on that theme to introduce Barnett to us that didn't know who he was or what his suggested blueprinting was about. I don't think her introduction was laid out for us to agree with everything he has to offer in his ideas, and I have to say, that I enjoyed reading your contribution here, because you, unlike me, are aware of his ideas and even attended one of his presentations, so I you are passionate about your response to the things he has to offer. I appreciate anything that stood out as agreeable or disagreeable. It's like reading reviews while waiting on his books.

I think your posts made me want to read his stuff even more now, not that I will agree with all of his ideas, but what amazes me is how although you disagree with much of it, that you shared with us that you agree with some of his concepts. Those are the ones I want to pay attention to. Maybe our government or companies out there might benefit some from those. That's where I am hopeful. I was thinking how much influence this man's thoughts in the future will or are having an effect over our political decisions or policy, if they are or not, but I am also reminded that it must be very hard today in the public rhelm to choose the political correct words to get across what one really means, you know what I mean, so many will reject your words unless you are a scholar on Islam or if you haven't attended one of their schools of thought! Especially in these transitional "highly sensitive" times where groups jump on anything that gets 'close to the real enemy" in identity. How many different words has the president alone chosen?

I don't know if I am making sense, since this weekend I had a little accident and are a bit fogged in my thinking, laying here in bed, but like I said, I haven't read Barnett's books as of yet, but Patrick, I have always read your comments here on ATB, with much enjoyment and respect since you always enlighten us with military insight and terms, and like Kenny, I pay close attention to what you've got to say, so I want to ask you, if the enemy's ideology had a name where we could actually include the source of it's birth--the Islamic Koran's commands and demands via 'their religion' not just 'Islamist' or 'Islamofascist' in terms of people but the actual source of the ideas--and were able to call it what it is being used for today by our enemy; a political movement disguised under 'a religion' to undermine us, and how that is protecting them to continue in our midst, via as protected under 'religious rights' and 'political correctness' and 'western tolerance'. Would that grant some of these great thinkers, that are reaching for some solutions, more freedom to express their ideas and perhaps not appear so optimistic or naive in their strategies? Do you feel they walk around it's name and the source of it's doctorine and go the long way around to avoid addressing it?

For future thought, I don't see how Islam is going to 'pass the litmus test' here in the west, if it is allowed to continue with those that are bringing their cultural traditions with them that break our laws (example: honour killings and multiple marriage) especially those coming over here to the west with an agenda to hurt us or for that matter those second or third generations born here that are going through an identity crisis and choosing in their growth to adhere to Allah's commands via the Koran and go all radical and choose to wage holy jihad on us nonbelievers!

When you said, "This is religous to them and they see capitalism as our religion (which must be stopped at all costs)"
I totally agree with that and it's not only our actions of capitalism but the elephant is that it's because we are not believers of Allah, because take a look at Dubai and despite the Islamic banking issues of no interest, it flourishes under Allah, so until anyone's words are allowed to address that you can survive if you believe in Allah and you will not if you don't issue via the Koran, without being attacked as a bigot or nazi or racist, it will continue to be the big elephant in the room or perhaps the shadow of that elephant of not dealing with 'their religion and how under their religion we are getting undermined' will continue to darken all solution presentations. How can we address the real issue if we are not allowed to speak of it?

It's as if anyone that wants to reason with this ideology or talk in logic around it is doomed, because there is no reasoning on it's part-- because Allah commands that all will bow down to him! Until that sinks in, I suppose anyone's offered solutions that tip toe around the obvious will have end results that appear to have a missing piece.

P.S. Forgive me for any typos...I wouldn't be me without a few!

[Ghost Dansing]

"Maybe the Prof and his "I want to buy the world a Starbucks" vision will come true, but I'm not turning in my brown bess yet."

What's a "brown bess"?

You're right, igout...there are a lot of "down sides" to globalization. The Wal-Mart phenomenon of cheaper prices from overseas is the result of laissez faire economics running ahead of other Liberal ideas at the global level, like State regulations supporting labor and environmental concerns...all of that of course having to do with human rights, quality of life, and government that has something to do with achieving the "common good".

In many cases, Countries like China and Mexico provide the service of cheap labor by simply throwing their people to the wolves, and as long as those countries are willing to do that, increasing profits by exploiting labor and lax environmental controls, will continue to be a "strategy" for Corporate "bottom line" improvements.

And if you think there are any special considerations for the American People in those "bottom line" considerations, you are probably wrong... In modern American Corporate thinking, Americans losing their jobs is simply punishment for having a robust middle class with a decent quality of life. They can squeeze additional profits by reducing the size of the middle class, and its standard of living.

After all, who cares if the working-shmuck can afford medical insurance? Why should that be an entitlement? Why should the mighty Corporations... the "ownership" part of the society pay for Social Security or any social safety nets? They are, after all, the "gods" that deliver all good to the American People, and if they can't deliver it, it doesn't need to happen.

The other Liberal ideas will follow globalization... maybe even the idea of Liberal Democracy with a government intended to protect the people and ensure fair trade (as opposed to "free trade"), rather than some form of kleptocracy assuring the enrichment of the few at the expense of many. We have to make sure that we don't undermine our own progress here in America.

"I'm not so sure about globalism as some universal democratical elixer..."

Oh, it's not...it is just a thing that's happening that pushes other things to happen... it's probably more like Chaos Theory than a linear trajectory.

"... Never mind what the islamiks think of it; outside of capitalist-wonk elites, we the people don't like it much either. Oh yeah, we love getting a $5 wristwatch at Walmart, but at the same time there's a lot of unspoken unease out here. Don't you feel it too?

Oh yes...sure do. Have a nice day igout. 8^$

But it all brings to mind one of Alexandra's comments about the non-linearity of it all.

In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos. Among the characteristics of chaotic systems, described below, is sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economics, and population growth.

Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder.

As well as being orderly in the sense of being deterministic, chaotic systems usually have well defined statistics. For example, the Lorentz system pictured is chaotic, but has a clearly defined structure. Weather is chaotic, but its statistics - climate - is not.

Now, of course, that is Physics and Mathematics. The Human Sciences present an entirely new array of considerations.

http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/Chaos/Chaos.html

Rule number 1: In any equation, you NEVER have all the factors, especially where "Human" is the described condtion. Ghost Dansing

[igout]

One of the few things that have stuck in my head from college is a remark in a history class that every few centuries Islam goes beserk. To date the Rx has been to clobber 'em good til they go quiet again. So here we go again. My how time flew! (BTW: is it true that on Sept 11 1689, King Sobiesky smashed the islamic turk army outside Vienna?)
I'm not so sure about globalism as some universal democratical elixer, either. Never mind what the islamiks think of it; outside of capitalist-wonk elites, we the people don't like it much either. Oh yeah, we love getting a $5 wristwatch at Walmart, but at the same time there's a lot of unspoken unease out here. Don't you feel it too?
Lastly as somebody pointed out above, there is plenty of person to person connectivity already: in London, Paris, Canada, the US. So far the fruits of which are the London bombings, the Paris riots, the beheading plot in Canada, 9/11. It's worth adding the perps are in most cases 2nd generation, hardly ingorant camel drivers gnashing their teeth at the sight of an electric socket.
Maybe the Prof and his "I want to buy the world a Starbucks" vision will come true, but I'm not turning in my brown bess yet.

[FrauBudgie]

You don't need to use a term like reaction to globalization to explain the rise of Islamist extremism.

All you need to understand is the term "conquest."

And the mullahs will stop "hating" the US the minute we're out of their way.

[Patrick]

I do see that my post was mainly negative. There are several good things about his approach. Unfortunately for me, they fall into the incorrect, but still useful category.

1) It helps understanding where we will have to focus our nations efforts.
2) It does give a viable (mostly) framework for how to manage these conflicts.
3) It splits the world into good guy and bad guy sections.

Why do I think this is still inadequate? To understand the threat's actions, you need to understand his reasoning (even if it is wrong or even insane...everyone makes decisions based upon their own set of rules). To the extent that he says they fight change because they are afraid of it, I have to strongly disagree. This is religous to them and they see capitalism as our religion (which must be stopped at all costs).

There is also the false dilemma of US actors. We are either global citizens or we are isolationists. There are all types of shading between the two.

Maybe we could revisit the neighborhood example on an earlier post. Think of the globalization followers (from his false dilemma) as the really pushy neighborhood association. You cannot park in your driveway-only in the garage; trashcans outside not earlier than 9pm and put back from view by 5:30pm; you must have very green grass and it must not be taller than 3 inches; choose one of two types of privacy fence for the backyard-no fence for the front; no flags or political signs visible from the street; only these six colors and these four materials can be used within the community. Parties cannot have more than so many cars in the neighborhood and must be over by 11pm. I hate living in those communities. There is too much sameness, and no character. By this example we only have to worry about the neighborhood rebellious teens that will always be doing some vandalism, but we can live with it. There will be no criminal activity because we will all have the same happy life. I am sorry, but sometimes criminals (warring states) do it for reasons other than just money. Can you say Power? Intimidation? Personality-Disorders? Worldwide wealth might limit some of the causes of "crime", but create whole new types.

He then says that we can also have isolationist who don't care what the neighbors down the street do. Cars parked on the front lawn, yard has never been watered, kids running around in the front yard digging for bugs to eat (North Korea)-not my problem. I only worry if my next door neighbor doesn't mow his yard or paint his house.

Many people would like the first association because the property continues to increase in value; however, many will find the rules of the community too restrictive. The picture perfect world is too perfect and prevents the joy in just living and being different (having some historical re-enactors have a party; having a natural no water garden up front which is much easier to maintain and is better for the environment; putting in a greenhouse so they can have fresh tomatoes year round; etc.) If we get rid of all the differences, we will squash innovation.

I agree that there needs to be some level of "acceptable behavior" throughout the neighboorhood, but having the Neighborhood Association dictate everthing about your family's live is not what living is about. This optimistic view of the effects of globilization is quite incomplete. The more connected we are, the more we irritate each other. The easier it is to inflict harm upon one another. We need to stop at the happy medium so that we can live in peace, no one beats or neglects their family, and the world is maintained. Everything else just leads to conflict.

Too many people want to regulate other people's lives. If your family is breaking into other homes, destroying other people's property, threating other citizens, we need to clean up their act. If they just like to live differently than we do, we should respect their wishes; as long as they are not abusive. By abusive, I do not require all families to have a 60 in plasma TV and 3 SUVs in the driveway. If they want to live simply and respectful of other's choices, more power to them. If they want to get rid of everyone elses cars and TVs, we have a problem. This is where I agree with him and the many who have said it before him: look how a society treats the women. If they do not pass this litmus test, they need some education.

We should never enforce worldwide equality of rewards when different people believe in different work ethics. If you want to work 100 hours a week for the 3 SUVs and the Plasma, more power to you. If you want to work 20 hours a week and spend the rest of your time in your organic garden, I respect that too. The guy with the SUV does not need to tell the organic farmer how to live his life or vice versa. The neighborhood association should not be complaining about the children of the organic farmer not having access to 50,000 cable channels if the family has access to a library and education.

I'll get off my soapbox. I have turned negative again.

[Ghost Dansing]

"...last comments were about Burnett's willingness for the US to abandon Taiwan for assurances of Chinese goodwill. I can't believe the good interviewer did not call him on the recent Chinese proclamation that allows action to prevent the independence of Taiwan...

We haven't even begun to get a clear-headed Foreign Policy regarding China... I wouldn't recommend abandoning Taiwan... on the other hand, just as with all reflections on things martial, how well can we trully back-up our ally militarily?

Like I mentioned before, captitalism is capable of being the limbs grafted on many chimeras.

Perhaps that is the greatest error in neoconservative thinking about Globalization... that the spread of capitalism through a globalized, free market economy, will necessarily, or even rapidly achieve transformations of repressive regimes into Liberal Democracies. Globalization may precipitate all kinds of things over time, however Liberal Democracies are not guaranteed.

Another incorrect idea is that Globalization is something that we "do, or don't do", and that we have something approaching control over its effects. While I hesitate to use the metaphors of physical science for the effects of human endeavors and processes, I don't believe we can say "...ok everybody, let's stop globalization NOW..." and make it happen. Globalization may have reflect some aspects of human experimentation, but a "controlled experiment" it is not, and the outcomes are far from predictable in any absolute sense.

Globalization will happen...it has arguably been happening since Humans struck the first dirt path through the jungle, or wherever they struck the first path.

High tech Communications and Transporation are making the world smaller and more accessible... these are the enablers for the phenmonenon of Globalization being discussed by modern authors.

However, Globalization, is all that, but is also the reactions caused by the secular, tolerant, Liberal world that has already dealt with the care and feeding of heterogenous peoples of various religions, ethnic backgrounds and political pursuasions, as it now penetrates the insular.

Results will range, as they always have over time, along a spectrum including degrees of resistance and assimilation.

But all kinds of artifacts and stuff wash onto the beach as Globalization caresses the shorelines, and crashes into the cliffs.

[Patrick]

Please forgive the typos and realize the last comments were about Burnett's willingness for the US to abandon Taiwan for assurances of Chinese goodwill. I can't believe the good interviewer did not call him on the recent Chinese proclamation that allows action to prevent the independence of Taiwan. For a couple of different interpretations:

http://independent-bangladesh.com/news/mar/15/15032005ap.htm#A9

http://securitydilemmas.blogspot.com/2006/03/more-on-taiwan.html

[Patrick]

Sorry I have been quiet so much lately, but I have quite a bit on my plate. Let me apologize for the quick and dirty response in advance...simulations await!

Thomas Burnett is an interesting character. I have had the privilege of being in one of his live presentations about a year and a half ago. Before I point out where I disagree with him, I do want to say that I think he is right much more than I think him wrong (from a statistical point of view and certain concepts that have come before).

I agree with many here that think him overconfident in the power of connectivity and the pleasures of globalization. Many who live within the realm of the Islamo-Fascists would refuse all of the benefits of connectivity and wealth that come with it. Like the Luddites, they want nothing to do with these changes. What was good enough for the Prophet is good enough for them. It is wrong to try to get more than that. And if you do not agree with them, they will introduce you to their good buddy “long knife”.

If you take a look at the ringleaders. They are well educated and have tasted the possibilities of connectivity and rejected hem. Think of them as a militant pastoral movement. They want to get rid of the “complexity” of society and turn back the clock to some idealized pastoral existence that never really existed. The problems of the pastoral life may be different and easier to comprehend, but they are far more brutal. But that is their desired goal… All of us sheep submitting to the odious rule of Islam.

No amount of connectivitiy and rewards of the West will ever make them want to turn from the ecstasy of Islamo-Fascism. Besides, we forbid what is their “right” and “duty” according to their book. Not everyone wants to be part of the globalization. In the west, you would be thrown in jail for keeping you female children from an education, preventing them from having a say in whom they marry (which they can’t do until after they become an adult), killing them if they harm your honor by spending time with a male they aren’t related to, imprisoning and beating your servants (wait, in the west you actually have to pay them? they are not really human), or any other multitude of restrictions on what the prophet said is right and just.

Many more than what Barnett believes reject globalization. Unfortunately, this sounds like that old British colonial adage that the only reason they wouldn’t want to be British is that they just haven’t been educated enough. I have to say that this is just a racist perspective. They want to wipe out all that is not Islam much more than our devout celebrities want to stop global warming in their 60,000 sq ft homes.

As to the bifurcated military. The “Peace Force” has been a long term debate going on within the military. As with any job, specific tools are much better than general purpose tools. The do the job much better, are more efficient, and more expensive. While it is possible to do most of the maintenance on your house with only a Leatherman multi-tool, it wouldn’t be a good idea.

Say we were to divorce all politics from what types of units are in the Army, the Army Reserve, and the National Guard. Let us just use new/old terms. We would have the Leviathan and the Peace Force. The Leviathan fulfills the age-old role of being the best force around so that none wish to contest its superiority. To get that good at killing people and breaking things, you have a certain type of reflexes. For anyone who has trained in martial arts before, you know how hard it is to use different techniques in regulation bouts. After doing Tae Kwon Do for several years and then learning boxing, I have to tell you that many times I was fighting myself in the ring. I was spending more time fighting the urge to finish off my opponent with a roundhouse kick, than using the legal haymaker. Yes, I was a head-hunter in boxing. My jabs were fast, and I know the score counted, but they never seemed effective to me after taking down opponents with backfists or kicks. This is why there are completely different reflexes for the different competitions and the forces that take part in them. Can one force be a champion in several different disciplines? Yes, but it would take an EXCEPTIONAL person at the right time in his life to do it. He could not sustain it over time.

While teaching some National Guard brethren urban warfare tactics and considerations, I routinely pointed out why they would be better at stability operations than active forces (times have changed and all are experts). Our National Guard is filled with first responders. There are phenomenal amounts of police officers, fire-fighters, and EMTs. These skills are excellent, but the mindset is what is most important. Police officers can “smell” a domestic dispute. Active forces are prima donnas and believe everything is about us. We hear a shot fired, a commotions and see insurgents attacks and treat all parties that way. SGT Joe Everyman from Anytown, USA had seen so many fights between the Green family and the Pink family that he can spot trouble makers, that are just thugs and not insurgent cells. By treating the thugs as insurgents (for all the right reasons to a member of the Leviathan) they become insurgents. Over time this changes as the Leviathan morphs into the Peace Force, but unfortunately you can loose your Leviathan by doing this.

We are losing part of the Leviathan to generate the Peace Force. GEN Shinseki tried hardest to create this Peace Force and was forced back into the glass box. If you look at the spectrum of military operations and the time the US has spent in the various parts of the spectrum, we have spent more time doing the Peace Force mission, but we can only afford to build and maintain one force (the Leviathan). It is the age old problem with camping. I only brought my knife and I need to open the can of beans. You use what you have, not what you wish you had.

As an aside...Some have pointed out that what is needed most in natural disasters is exactly what the Peace Force needs. When hurricanes come in, wouldn’t it be great if the state’s governor had a force with lots of trucks, people who can protect and rebuild infrastructure, fix power and communications? (BTW, when the NG are activated, they are usually the people the locals can do without the least: police, firefighters, EMTs,...) Why is our National Guard not that force? That is not how we as a nation want to be organized. We cannot divorce ourselves from our heritage of the Minuteman who sets aside his job with his ties to the community and can use our latest weapons to protect our nation (Leviathan). SOme of those old capabilities have fallen along the way. We cannot afford to keep our Prime Power engineer units. We have no railroad units anymore. Right after the crossing of the Sava, we disbanded that last bridging unit with that capability. Enough of missed opportunities for a "Peace Force". We did have a "Constabulary Force" that did all of these functions after WWII. SO it is not really like it is a new idea, just too expensive to implement. That is unless there will be a G20 income tax to pay for it. I won't hold my breath.

I will not touch some of the most optimistic parts of his pipe dreams, other than to identify them. We can only use the US military outside our borders if the G20 gives us the OK??? Please. WHo pays for and mans it? BTW, I am sure no member of the G20 would ever be corrupted by oil for food kickbacks? International Criminal Court?? If you think the Republicans and Democrats are partisan forces that will use whatever procedural tricks they can to get their way over the other, wait until you see someone with no power get a chance to inflict pain on the most powerful nation on earth. End of War as we know it?? That has come to pass (right).

Department of Global Security in charge of OOTW (Operations Other Than War)? The military have long known and prepared for those type of operations to the best of its ability. I would love for someone else to do it. The problem comes back to who will pay for it.

China not wanting a “Blue water” capability. Just like we use to only have a counter-sniper program. Semantics. The tool is there, the will to employ it can change very quickly.

What if he is wrong? You only gamble with money you can lose. As many examples in history go… will the new ally trust someone that has just betrayed an old ally? In modern "I need to be happy" terms: If they would cheat on their spouse with you, do you really think they won’t cheat on you later?

I might be too much of a pessimist, but there are certain risks you just don’t take. That would be the ones you can’t recover from. :-)

[Javaid]

Islam never replaced the true religion of the 20th century which was nationalism .
Saudi conservatism in the approach to religion has been exported vigourously to shore up the insecurities of a few camel herders sitting on mountain of oil.Add to that the colonisation of Palestinian lands by fellow Arab and European Jewry and we have , seemingly a powder keg , that seems to want to blow up in our faces every six months.
But get real, terrorism kills fewer people than car crashes every year.Africa is dying and Muslims and westerners can only think about the struggle they have with each other ( dressing it up and getting 'high' on the existential threat to each other.. Armagedden wet dreams alround).
The medicine to cure this disease is more dangerous than the problem itself.Witness the help the bumbling US has given in liberating Iraqis.
A West that supports dictators and then ignores democracy whenever it suits them...is also a important part of this intial ugly puzzle.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

The real globalisation success story? How an obscure band of Afghan-War bandits succeeded in exporting an obscure, tribal brand of Islam to the most powerful cities in the West.

If you're a jihadi, globalisation (plus multiculturalism) is the best darned thing that's ever happened to Wahabbism! Talk about blowback!

[Huan]

What I find interesting in all this is that one of the main criticism of the West and a (the?) primary reason the Islamofascists want to attack the West is because of its secular nature. For the secular west not to recognize that this very aspect that makes them targets is fascinatingly blind. And if I were an Islamofascist it would only enrage me more when secular westerners seek to acknowledge my “rights and religious freedom” (i.e. appeasement) and yet remain secular instead of converting to Islam.

And yet, in fighting Islamofascist there seem two apparent options to fight. One of which is to crush them with the sword in a holy war, so that they come to understand that God favors another and not them (I don't think they would accept a lost at the hands of secularists). Alternatively, would be to militarily, politically and economically hold them at bay while you subvert their culture into a secular one. Amusing thoughts for the latter. Too bad so many secular westerners choose appeasement instead. I think it makes it worse.

[mac Brachman]

Huan and Liquid: I agree; this is an adversary of a different type. Even the most extreme Marxists/Stalinists believed in a future here on Planet Earth and did not propound their "revolution" with disregard for the notionof the continuity of human civilization. They simply claimed (depending on which Marxists you read at what time in what place regarding which conflict with the non-Communist world) that their economic/political system was either (by the process of historical inevitably, supposedly discerned scientifically by Marx through the method of "dialectical and historical materialism") the inevitable end-point of human history or morally superior to capitalism, or both. The modern-day Jihadis care nothing for human civilization, or, quite obviously, life itself, and, while they claim equal certainty about the inevitability of the outcome, they believe in the prophecy of one Islamic world (though who are the rightful heirs to Muhammad is the major point of contention between the Sunnis and the Shi'a) and that, to bring this about, there is no immoral act by a "good" Muslim, including and especially killing dhimmis (non-Muslims), describing (and then behaving as if) the parts of the world not dominated by Islam are the "land of War" (dar al Harb, as opposed to the "land of Islam," dar al Islam) and that any and all compromises with it are temporary stopgaps on the road to the inundation and destruction of the non-Muslim world. One could argue that medieval Christianity, or much of it, lived by a similar bellicose, cruelly certain, and imperialistic ideology (I haven't studied the Crusades closely enough), but it certainly is not what most of us think of as religion. I say that because, in most modern thought, whether you are an atheist, a moderate secularist, an agnostic, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Christian, a Sikh, a Hindu, or almost anything except a Muslim you define religion not by the number of lands or countries you hold or how much real estate you possess but how well it addresses basic SPIRITUAL issues. In this sense I break with (the minority of) Jews who insist that the core of the religion can't be practiced fully unless Jews are in physical/geographical possession of Jerusalem. Note that this does not mean I am against Israel holding Jerusalem; given Israel's strategic peril (and the historic misbehavior of the Arab regimes and of the Palestinian authorities, and "misbehavior" is a gross understatement) it has the right to it and must hold it. But SPIRITUALLY Jerusalem for an observant Jew should exist anywhere, whether in the actual Jerusalem or in a '50s-built four-bedroom ranchhouse in North Dallas like the one I grew up in or in a rent-controlled classic 6 facing Central Park on the Upper West Side of Manhattan or in a rundown slum in Brooklyn, with Jews living side-by-side with poor non-Jews. And I think similar concepts govern modern-day Hinduism, Buddhism, and most branches of Christianity. One of my definitions of a true "moderate" Islam would be for it to give up its real estate=spirituality=basic ethic of the religion. Truly moderate Muslims would define dar al Harb and dar al Islam not as literal concepts of geography and real estate, with the notion that Islam cannot succeed until certain lands (or all lands) fall under Islamic (or Islamist) political dominion, but would be a metaphor for spirituality. And thus the claim that Israel and/or the occupied (post-'67) territories would not be "Muslim" lands but ones won and lost in secular disputes. Saudi Arabia would not ban the practice of non-Muslim religions as a "threat" to Islam. One of my major challenges to those who call themselves "moderate" Muslims would be: OK, you say you are a "religion of peace"; learn to live in diverse lands without imposing your religion and way of life on others. Stop calling Jews "pigs and dogs." Stop equating (especially dictatorial) political power with spiritual munificence. Recognize that your religion is one among many, and let people come to it (or refuse it) voluntarily. Let Muslims who find another way and convert away from Islam be welcomed, and not condemned to death as apostates. Otherwise your "religion" looks nothing like a religion and only like a cult of power and self-aggrandizement rationalizing itself as a religion. Recognize that the core of religion is spiritual feeling, ethical behavior toward others (Muslim or non-Muslim) and above all a good dose of humility. I could go on, but I've ranted long enough. Shalom, Mac Brachman

[Liquid]

Huan--"We were able to win an economic war against the soviet-communism because we both fought in the same theatre ... the material world. This is not the case with islamofascism because knowing they cannot win in the material theatre, they have eschewed it for a spiritual war instead. The islamofascists are marshalling their forces through spiritual appeals, not material-physical promises. To them, death brings them closer to spiritual victory. There are only so much effective actions with an economic war"
--------------

This is so true Huan, and it seems that those that are the most clueless to this fact are those that don't even realise that our enemies have chosen us as their opponents and are already on the frontline of this spiritual battlefield . Spiritually, they bodly feel armed and ready and seem to enjoy the chaos of watching us while we are stumbling looking for our armour! Some say this isn't so, but in the minds of these terrorist...the battle has already begun!

What I find interesting are the athiest that truly believe that by not having any spiritual tools or by not claiming any belief in God, makes them just safe spectators in this confrontation--but in the end they will be used and abused as collateral damage and labelled an 'infidel' just the same.

I think it's important for us to keep encouraging one another. I really do. Reading Barnett and Alexandra's post here today has encouraged me. I am not naive at all, but just happy to see that ideas are being thought up and some are out there working towards solutions. We must keep enlarging our vision. As for being optimistic and hopeful, well I would rather that we err on the side of hope, and try to gain as much as we can from fresh ideas that could possibly take shape into tackling this enemy on any level because if any new ideas can provide some solutions while we overcome all this political correctness that duct tapes our hands and mouths, then it would be a good thing. The day that we can call the enemy what it is and give it a name will be the real day we plant our feet on the 'now unseen field' and start to fight the terror that is based on the ideology that wants us to submit or else!

I can't help but think of Job when it comes to staying hopeful and positive in all things...

JOB 8:5-22
But if you will look to God and plead with the Almighty, if you are pure and upright, even now he will rouse himself on your behalf and restore you to your rightful place. Your beginnings will seem humble, so prosperous will your future be. "Ask the former generations and find out what their fathers learned, for we were born only yesterday and know nothing,and our days on earth are but a shadow. Will they not instruct you and tell you? Will they not bring forth words from their understanding? Can papyrus grow tall where there is no marsh? Can reeds thrive without water? While still growing and uncut,they wither more quickly than grass.Such is the destiny of all who forget God;so perishes the hope of the godless. What he trusts in is fragile what he relies on is a spider's web.He leans on his web, but it gives way;he clings to it, but it does not hold. He is like a well-watered plant in the sunshine,spreading its shoots over the garden;it entwines its roots around a pile of rocks and looks for a place among the stones. But when it is torn from its spot, that place disowns it and says, 'I never saw you.' Surely its life withers away, and from the soil other plants grow. "Surely God does not reject a blameless man or strengthen the hands of evildoers. He will yet fill your mouth with laughter and your lips with shouts of joy. Your enemies will be clothed in shame, and the tents of the wicked will be no more."

[DiscerningTexan]

Alexandra: I read Barnett's book from cover to cover--and found it to be an eye-opening and thought-roviking point of view to be sure, but I feel there are some problems with certain assumptions he's made, as with any "broad bush" solution to a global crisis. Ceratinly his approach is "out of the box", and I do think it has a lot of strategic merit--that is for all those societies where standard of living and freedom is truly paramount. With that said Fundamentalist "literalist" theology, especially that of the completely closed mind of the Islamo-Fascist zealot, the conflict with the west really isn't about "connectivity vs. disconnectivity"; it is basically a convert them to Sharia law, enslave them, or kill them. This is not an economic isssue nor it is an issue of Internet connectivity. It is about a world chock-full of moral relativists vs. a world of absolute black and white. These men have lived among the so-called "connected" societies for years (see: the Canadian-born and UK-born "home grown" jihadists). All the connectivity and freedom in the world is not going to pry these zealots away from this mentality. Therefore it can be dangerous for America to fall into the illusion that this "all or nothing" approach for globalization will work with this mindset. Sadly I fear that the only thing that will work is either utter marginilization within their own faith (highly doubtful); or else the death and/or arrest of a great majority of the zealots for whom death or converstion are the only two options on the table.

[Ghost Dansing]

I don't think there is a more odius cultural example of what we are fighting in the war on terror than the Taliban. The Taliban ran Afghanistan and harbored Al Qaeda for years before September 11, 2001.

They are the highest example of anti-Liberal, anti-Western troglodytes...sexist, backwards and veiled in the fascist acrimony of Islamic extremism.

All could see this...all knew... Nations were outraged at their prohibition against sending girls to school, and publically winced at their intolerance when they demolished ancient buddist statues within Afghanistan.

But the days were long past when Jimmy Carter was pilloried for including Human Rights as a legitimate factor in American Foreign Policy... America under Republican domination no longer had any of these weak, pathetic Liberal notions...they were hard-minded...tough guys... they were business minded CEO's that were going to usher in a new American Century through economic domination...and only Oil and Money mattered.

It was May, 2001 when we found the Los Angeles Times writing the following:

Bush's Faustian Deal With the Taliban
By Robert Scheer
Published May 22, 2001 in the Los Angeles Times
http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm

"Enslave your girls and women, harbor anti-U.S. terrorists, destroy every vestige of civilization in your homeland, and the Bush administration will embrace you. All that matters is that you line up as an ally in the drug war, the only international cause that this nation still takes seriously.

That's the message sent with the recent gift of $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the most virulent anti-American violators of human rights in the world today. The gift, announced last Thursday by Secretary of State Colin Powell, in addition to other recent aid, makes the U.S. the main sponsor of the Taliban and rewards that "rogue regime" for declaring that opium growing is against the will of God. So, too, by the Taliban's estimation, are most human activities, but it's the ban on drugs that catches this administration's attention.

Never mind that Osama bin Laden still operates the leading anti-American terror operation from his base in Afghanistan, from which, among other crimes, he launched two bloody attacks on American embassies in Africa in 1998.

Sadly, the Bush administration is cozying up to the Taliban regime at a time when the United Nations, at U.S. insistence, imposes sanctions on Afghanistan because the Kabul government will not turn over Bin Laden...

At no point in modern history have women and girls been more systematically abused than in Afghanistan where, in the name of madness masquerading as Islam, the government in Kabul obliterates their fundamental human rights. Women may not appear in public without being covered from head to toe with the oppressive shroud called the burkha , and they may not leave the house without being accompanied by a male family member. They've not been permitted to attend school or be treated by male doctors, yet women have been banned from practicing medicine or any profession for that matter.

The lot of males is better if they blindly accept the laws of an extreme religious theocracy that prescribes strict rules governing all behavior, from a ban on shaving to what crops may be grown. It is this last power that has captured the enthusiasm of the Bush White House.

The Taliban fanatics, economically and diplomatically isolated, are at the breaking point, and so, in return for a pittance of legitimacy and cash from the Bush administration, they have been willing to appear to reverse themselves on the growing of opium. That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising. But it is grotesque for a U.S. official, James P. Callahan, director of the State Department's Asian anti-drug program, to describe the Taliban's special methods in the language of representative democracy: "The Taliban used a system of consensus-building," Callahan said after a visit with the Taliban, adding that the Taliban justified the ban on drugs "in very religious terms...

The Taliban may suddenly be the dream regime of our own war drug war zealots, but in the end this alliance will prove a costly failure. Our long sad history of signing up dictators in the war on drugs demonstrates the futility of building a foreign policy on a domestic obsession."

The Oilmen from the Bush administration was also dealing with the Taliban in an effort to build an oil pipeline in those heady days.

Perhaps we need to use a different litmus to identify our adversaries... maybe it is, afterall, the anti-Liberal troglodytes, the backward regimes stoking religious fanaticism and flogging human rights and dignity that trully deserve our attention.

Maybe we just had it all wrong. It is interesting now that this Republican administration is trying to label all who challenge their competence as "appeasers" similar to Neville Chamberlain before WW II, while pictures of Rumsfeld shaking hands with an Iraqi Baathist dictator (Saddam) during the Iran, Iraq war, and this Republican administration tripping-over itself to coddle the Taliban before 9/11, and after the USS Cole incident are enshrined in history.

Appeasers indeed. Weak on Human Rights...Weak on Terrorists and Terrorism.

[Huan]

We were able to win an economic war against the soviet-communism because we both fought in the same theatre ... the material world. This is not the case with islamofascism because knowing they cannot win in the material theatre, they have eschewed it for a spiritual war instead. The islamofascists are marshalling their forces through spiritual appeals, not material-physical promises. To them, death brings them closer to spiritual victory. There are only so much effective actions with an economic war.

[olivia clemens]

I tend to agree with the comments of Francis W. Porretto who refuses to be sanguine about a terrifying situation.

I have read Professor Barnett's 'Pentagon's New Map' and I have read Tony Blankley's recent text as well since I have an avid interest in understanding the current world sitation. I agree that Barnett's view is indispensable as is Freidman's, in order to understand more fully the international forces at work during the process of globalization.

However, both are also realist-optimists as opposed to realist-pessimists like Blankley and Steyn. Having read them and a variety of authors who express views in-between, and being exposed to news on a daily basis that speaks to the validity of each of these authors' theses, I must say that the realist-pessimist view is more valid and the optimist view is increasingly being challenged by unfolding events. Barnett's view had great cache 2-3 years ago perhaps, but events have outpaced his thesis and they align more with a pessimistic prognosis of world affairs.

Barnett is obviously a reader of Thomas Kuhn, though I don't recall him citing Kuhn's work. Barnett's idea of a civilized core and a chaotic periphery is akin to Kuhn's notions of a positive and negative heuristic in theory advancement - i.e., his philosophy of how science proceeds. Like Barnett, Kuhn posited that there are centrifugal and centripital forces at work.

Kuhn's notion was that each theory, which perhaps we can liken to the values and beliefs of a civilization (for civilization expresses core beliefs - a theory of how to live and what is the good life, borrowing from ancient Greek philosophers), that struggles through the efforts of its champions to strengthen and expand its ability to explain phenomena; much like a civilization becomes more powerful as its values apply to defining more of 'the way to live' or conduct one's self in this world. This is known as the positive heuristic - Kuhn's idea that a theory and its champions try to provide a more expansive and convincing account of the theory's validity.

So, like a theory might explain more phenomena and become more robust, so too does a civilization's values and beliefs pertain to more ways of living (and dying). The West is often criticized for its secular emphasis on the here and now and this is said to be a weakness of western civilization. Perhaps so, but it also has enjoyed a very strong positive hueristic in the last 500 years so that the values and Western 'ways' have been the dominant global cultural force, often disrutping customary ways of life - which is what Barnett is aluding to when he refers to the 'core' expanding through globalization.

However, this positive hueristic of Western civilization is now waning in portions of the world. Perhaps this is because of the challenge of Islamic civilization and its appeal to those estranged by and peripheral to globalization or as some may argue, because the West jettisoned its theory of the afterlife and is soulless and mute on the issue of eternal life. In any event and whatever the causes (and they are important to know), the West must now rely on its negative heuristic to protect its core and that negative heuristic is under assault, often aided by skeptics in and the ambivalence, if not anti-Western credo of the mass media.

On the other hand, the positive heuristic of the radical (rabid, fascist, fundamental) Islam has gained strength through the encounter with Barnett's 'core' and we are witnessing a violent backlash that has even stoked the Islamic postive heuristic and gained new recruits willing to die for the promised afterlife of a Shahed. We haven't come up with an answer to this yet but I am not sure that the West's positive heuristic is able to gain new recruits at the pace that alienation and reactive response has and I am also worried for the negative heuristic's ability to protect our own core.

So count me a skeptic of Freidman and Barnett's utopian visions. While they are astute accounts, they remain too optimistic in light of recent events that disconfirm their own predictions.

[Ghost Dansing]

"You can tell everything you need to know about a state by how it treats its women"... indeed...

"From 1998 through 2004, Prof. Barnett was a Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department, Center for Naval Warfare Studies, U.S. Naval War College, Newport RI, where he taught and served--in a senior advisory role--with military and civilian leaders in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Central Command, Special Operations Command, and Joint Forces Command."

Hmmm...a Navy guy...and a non-politicized contemporary military theorist that doesn't have his head up his fourth point of contact!

Nice balance Alexandra.

"Because globalization can be a wrenching process. When globalization rolls into traditional societies -- and those are the only societies left outside the Core -- it has certain profound effects. Globalization is Borg-like in its integration abilities: it remakes you more than you can ever remake it. When it comes into traditional societies, which are pretty much defined by male control over females, it suddenly alters the character of some of our most important relationships and decisions: marriage, sex, births, family economics, the whole shebang. And globalization has proven itself time and time again to empower women disproportionately over men. That is a direct threat to the nature of traditional societies." Thomas P.M. Barnett

The ideas of Liberalism washes in with the tide of Globalization.

The Naval War College has a nice resource library listing for the INTERNET:

http://www.nwc.navy.mil/library/4Resources/internetresourcesdefault.htm

TURNING OF THE TIDE; Richard Thompson, Amnesia

How many boys, one night stands,
How many lips, how many hands, have held you
Like I'm holding you tonight
Too many nights, staying up late,
Too much powder and too much paint
No you can't hide from the turning of the tide

Did they run their fingers up and down your shabby dress
Did they find some tender moment there in your caress

The boys all say "You look so fine"
They don't come back for a second time
Oh you can't hide from the turning of the tide

Poor little sailor boy, never set eyes on a woman before
Did he tell you that he'd love you, darling, for evermore?

Pretty little shoes, cheap perfume,
Creaking bed in a hotel room
Oh you can't hide from the turning of the tide

Did they run their fingers up and down your shabby dress
Did they find some tender moment there in your caress

The boys all say "You look so fine",
They don't come back for a second time
Oh you can't hide from the turning of the tide...

[john clements]

Back again. Just thought people would appreciate the efforts of Senator Allen on Khatamis getting a visa from the State Dept. Got this from the "One Jerusalem" blog site. OneJerusal Print this page | Close this window

Press Office
Press Releases

Allen Calls on State Department to Revoke Visa for Former Iranian President
Sends letter to Secretary Rice expressing his objections

August 31, 2006

WASHINGTON, DC – In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today, Senator George Allen (R-VA) expressed his objections to the State Department’s decision to grant a visa for former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to travel to the United States. In his letter Senator Allen questioned the State Department’s decision citing the fact that Khatami has lead a regime that is a leading sponsor of terrorism, permitted human rights abuses, and presided over Iran’s secret nuclear program. In addition, the Senator asked that the State Department press for the strongest possible sanctions at the U.N. Security Council in response to Iran’s continued refusal to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s investigation of its clandestine nuclear program including travel bans on Iranian leaders.

See a complete copy of the letter Senator Allen has sent to Secretary Rice below:

August 31, 2006


The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Secretary Rice:

I write to express my objections to the State Department’s decision to grant a visa for former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami to travel in the United States. According to press accounts, there will be no restrictions on President Khatami’s travel and he will be permitted to give public speeches in Washington, DC, and Chicago and may include a speech at the University of Virginia and a visit to Thomas Jefferson’s home at Monticello.

While I appreciate that we are an open society that is tolerant of diverse viewpoints, I question the benefit of permitting a person who headed a regime that is a leading sponsor of terrorism, permitted human rights abuses, including repression of women and religious minorities, and presided over Iran’s secret nuclear program, which is now the focus of possible UN action, to travel without restriction in the United States. The actions of the Iranian government under President Khatami include the expenditure of billions of dollars on nuclear reactors and sophisticated weapons and the failure to implement reforms that are necessary for Iran to abide by its treaty obligations. Granting this travel visa gives support to the current Iranian strategy of stalling action while it builds its nuclear capabilities and dividing the tentative coalition of states opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Additionally, as you may know, I have been a longtime advocate for allowing victims of Iranian sponsored terrorism to seek rightful compensation for their suffering. Allowing a leader of Iran to enter the United States and travel freely is an affront to these Americans, many of whom live in Virginia, and sends the wrong message to State sponsors of terrorism and victims alike. Furthermore, I understand President Khatami’s visa was granted three days after his application when ordinary Iranians are required to wait months for their visas to be approved and when Iranians who have been granted visas have reportedly been detained upon their arrival in the United States and forced to leave our country.

Instead of permitting President Khatami to travel without restriction in the United States, I urge you to press for the strongest possible sanctions at the U.N. Security Council in response to Iran’s continued refusal to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s investigation of its clandestine nuclear program. While these sanctions should be targeted at the current regime and spare the Iranian people as much as possible, I believe the array of sanctions should include travel bans on Iranian leaders, a ban on sales of nuclear equipment and dual-use technology that could be useful to Iran’s nuclear program, a ban on extending credits or loans to Iran, and a freeze on overseas assets of Iranian officials, government agencies, and corporate entities that facilitate the importation of equipment and materials for the nuclear program.

The Iranian challenge is a difficult one and I applaud your efforts, and those of President Bush, in taking the lead to raise the diplomatic, economic, political, and possible military costs to the Ahmadinejad regime of its prohibited nuclear activities. However, I believe granting this visa is a step in the wrong direction.

With warm regards, I remain

Sincerely,



George Allen

Print this page | Close this window

em.com

[Michael van der Galien]

NN -> LOL... well.. glad you enjoyed it ;)
also, will check out his blog now.
Liquid ->

But one good thing about that is, surely everyone can comprehend that level, so I shouldn't be too misunderstood! *wink wink*

LOL that is true. I should use that in my defense next time I mess up...

There is one problem I still have with his view, though, and that is that he doesn't seem to understand, or accept the quite simple relation between Islam and terrorism / violence.
Violence, for instance, wasn't an intregal part of communism. That's a major difference.

Also... communism isn't a religion. Well, that's not news for anyone, of course (except perhaps for Ghost Dancing... just kidding Ghost), but that fact results in extremely important and different results as well.

As one of my co-blogger once said, communism is material. Islamism, or even the Koran, isn't. They are not so much fighting a material battle (as the communists were). It's spiritual to them (as Liquid pointed out wonderfully).

[john clements]

Don't think globalization is the reason why they hate us. I believe the problem stems from the religion of Islam itself. The average Muslim views the world in two ways. The house of Islam vs. the house of war. Because the Western world is mainly Judeo-Christian , and not subjected to the rule of Islam, we are the infidels. That is why they make jihad war on us. Another note, the wealthy rich American business people and the politicians eating out of their hands told us that "most favored nation" status for China , and special economic deals for them, would lead to China opening up more to Democracy, and less abusive of their own people [ the persecuted Christians]. That has not happened. Instead of special economic policys leading to more freedom for their people, the Communist, atheist govt., has been made richer and more powerful. Just look at how their standing in our way over the "Iran sanctions". President Regan was greatly criticized for his use of the term , "evil empire". I hope President Bush will stand his ground and not be intimadated by "C.A.I.R." and others for his use of the term, islamofascists. On a side note, I hope all of you who read this will call the Washington Ntional Cathedral in D.C., and let them know what an outrage it is for them to have Khatami of Iran speak there! Thanks.

[Alexandra]

Jeremiah - it's "the people, material and infrastructure necessary to secure and rebuild after a war".

Barnett's main point is to complement the military's function, which is in essence to wield the biggest gun (hence the reference to the lethal monster 'Leviathan') with the role of the, what he calls, System Administrators' force (SysAdmin). "The US has an unrivaled military force to handle hostilities but is now in need of a force of broader skills to build stability."

Compare the Leviathan Forces with a new System Administrators force:

The Leviathan force is well prepared for deploying rapidly; it takes care of the problem and goes home and only deploys occasionally

The SysAdmin force does not come home, but builds up the country during stability

Leviathan force can be made up of 19-year-olds

SysAdmin force may require 40-year-olds with city cop backgrounds; many won’t even carry weapons

Leviathan force can’t be stopped but is not brought out until US is committed; it must be prepared for and committed to the follow-on peace effort - don’t want "drive-by regime change"

[Liquid]

Michael van der Galien: "More patience before responding... I know"
---------------------

Oh Michael, I get the award here for being the impatient typo Queen! It's a shame we can't edit our own responses here without having to toss the workload over to Alexandra, (bless her heart for being so patient and kind to us all) and I have been so guilty of not slowing down and pre-reading, from misplacing html code to misspelling over half my comments! I won't go into the details, but trust me on this one, its a wonder I even manage to click properly on the post button sometimes! I should truly use the spell check more often, since I have been accused of having eighth grade grammar skills as it is! Ha Ha- But one good thing about that is, surely everyone can comprehend that level, so I shouldn't be too misunderstood! *wink wink*

Alexandra, I absolutely love the photo you chose today. It's gorgeous! I enjoy your pictures here so much, so as I scroll on down to dive into the good stuff you shared with us here today, I do want to thank you for turning me on to Barnett! Very interesting!!!

We need guys like this, that are trying to come up with blueprints and ideas that could help us and I am not claiming that any one person has all the answers, but what is hopeful here is that there are people out there exercising their brains and attempting to come up with some solutions that might help on some degree! It's a positive goal to come up with ideas. We need all the ideas we can get. Even if we only utilize a few of them or if they open doors to other ideas that might work in the long run.

I also agree with others here that it is going to take alot of things coming together to get us in the right direction, as it's becoming more and more difficult to overcome all the new challenges, since Israel and the West are always held accountable by a different set of rules than the Islamic countries, and no matter what we choose to do, we have to always remember that 'they' (the countries that practice Islam) are going to always judge us socially by the Koran! Our standards are not thiers. We have to get more clever on every venue that we interact with those that want to destroy us, because taking them at face value and trusting in their words, while the world scrutinizes us to do the tolerant kind thing all the time, is a big mistake, since what they say and promise with treaties and then what they actually do in their actions are usually two different things! So all these treaties are good ideas but they mean nothing if they are not inforced! It's like in all the conflicts we are defining and redfining the difference between us and them. It's not only how we treat our women or how we treat our enemies, but its a reminder all the time that we are war with principals. We must buckle up and realise that when we are going to go on attack we have to be able to defend ourselves with as much gusto, because the enemy is going to take advantage of every vulnerable part of us that they see as weak! So our honesty and our faith on freedoms will always be used against us, just as our hospitality and constitution is being used against us today to undermine our values. In other words, our strongest strength is what they use as their strongest weapon against us! It's as if we are being forced indirectly to discover how much our freedoms mean to us and forced to decide if it's all worth fighting for!

It's harder and harder to pounce on the enemy today because it's just like Satan; in that it changes form to decieve. For example, we can look around the world today and see pretty much the same ideology under many different names and locations. How good are we at overcoming being decieved? When will we stop calling good things evil and evil things good? Until we stop doing that, we will continue to be bruised and taken advantage of at every turn! So I welcome any new ideas that help us to re-evaluate the situation because it gives us hope. Our enemy is working against us in academic circles and in economical ways all the time, so we have to fight back on the same path to hold our own. We need to use every tool we have economically to help us fight back! I think the walmart idea is a good one to tackle. Who knows what we could accomplish. Maybe not everything we had hoped for but even if we accomplished something there it might lead to another revelation that opened another door.

As for the spiritual battle in front of us, we have to look at how many of us are even strong in the ideas and hope of an afterlife, because for some of us, eternity is a part of our future, so we have to rememeber that the enemy which we are up against, although their hearts are decieved about a true path, still are devoted to attaining their hope of giving this life up for not only a paradise later but also rewarded with virgins! That's another strength of theirs because they will sacrifice everything for that hope of a ticket to an afterlife. When we look at ourselves, can we admit to having such a force behind our hearts? Not the virgin thingy of how heaven would be, but a ture honest desire to have a life after this one? Is there an embedded desire to be with our God after this life? Our enemy uses their book the Koran to justify their motives-- when will we, on a personal level, look to our holy scriptures for our spiritual force to victory?

Eph. 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

[North by Northwest]

Michael,

I enjoyed witnessing your process of discovery ;)

Just begun myself exploring Barnett's website and repository of interviews and presentations - lot's of interesting stuff.

[Jeremayakovka]

I like women's status as civilizatioal standard.
Iraq never was a war, however, it was (is) a front in the larger war.
I like the phrase "new paradigm." Did you coin it?

I don't understand #2 about war force/peace force: Is the latter those "peace" (antiwar, surrender, cut-and-run) elements? Or the people, materiel and infrastructure necessary to secure and rebuild after a war (front).

Thanks for the new reading.

[Michael van der Galien]

Last comment, sorry Alexandra, ... make that 30 minutes in 20 minutes...

More patience before responding... I know.

[Michael van der Galien]

It must be an effort in a whole range of different areas.

Okay, well this is freaking great. This seems to be his point as well. I couldn't watch the movie, because i didn't have the file on this new computer it needed.
After I downloaded it... and listening to him 30 minutes long... I realize that my first summary of his views was a little but... oversimplified.

Okay well.. good he and I agree on that. Now I hope that the US will have the intelligence to call for a combined effort and to start a new Marshall plan.

[Michael van der Galien]

So, to clearify: it will - with other tools as well, because only helping the economy won't do much - help fight the problem, it will make the problem smaller, it will decrease popular support for violence / terrorism, but extremism an sich will not completely disappear, the impact they have can only be made smaller. -> Which is of course our goal, but to act as if 'economic help' an sich will wipe out the problem, is a myth.

All of that being said, I agree that economic, especially local help, political, national security wise, knowledge, etc. help must be brought into the Mideast. Since not too long ago I have been calling for a new Marshall plan. One that's aimed at both helping central governments, but also, even especially, specific, local areas.
It will mean that the West must unite, at least some Western countries, since the US carrying this burdon alone, will be quite problematic.

Furthermore, extremist leaders must be replaced, wherever they are. Kill / capture extremist leaders, secure areas, develop countries / local areas in all possible manners and work with the locals.

[Michael van der Galien]

What I mean to say was... global economy doesn't have anything to do with their ideology. If we all acted like good little Jihadis and only sold what they liked, they would not have a problem with it. So... a world coming closer to eachother, the integrating of economies, does not matter one bit to those people.

It does make it easier, in theory at least, to combat extremist organizations when the local economy is much better, but it will not wipe out the extremist problem (which we will never do), since the problem isn't rooted on economy, but on the Koran.

[Francis W. Porretto]

I think Barnett is unjustifiably optimistic about the ability of economics etc. to cope with Islam.

Islam's vanguard is composed of persons so ardent to subjugate the rest of us that they'd accept their own deaths, and the destruction of all that they love, as the price of the opportunity. Attachment to Islam always carries that risk, and apparently, the more passionate the attachment, the greater the risk.

It would be very nice if Barnett were absolutely correct, but I fear the historical evidence is against him. The Islamic world, in proximity to the advancing European civilizations of the Middle Ages, resolutely refused to advance along with them. It did not trade; it did not progress technologically; it did not counterpoise its philosophies against those of Europe in the hope that the test might purify and strengthen both. It kept to the abaya, the burq'a, the chador, and the sword.

It's not pleasant to advocate an absolute, prison-like enclosure of Islam, but I believe it to be the only safe path remaining to the West. I could be wrong, and would greet evidence to that effect joyfully...but I don't think I am.

[Michael van der Galien]

It's not personal, as Barnett highlights, it's not who we are, but what we represent, namely globalization.

I always have some difficulty with a statement like that. They're only opposed to globalization, in my opinion, because the rest of the world isn't Muslim.