A look at the interview between Hugh Hewitt and Thomas P.M. Barnett

I have previously reviewed the concepts Mr. Barnett has outlined in his interviews with Mr. Hewitt in previous posts: Grand strategy and force structure, Why the US does not have constabulary forces, Some thoughts on another interview, and some final thoughts on another interview. In overview I find Mr. Barnett's views of a tripartite world not descriptive of the modern world and not addressing the problems of it. In extreme particular he has been unwilling to address non-Nation State actors and our inability to address them through traditional means of diplomacy, Nation State activities as practiced in the post-WWII era, or via the form of 'realist' diplomacy that has encouraged the growth and legitimacy of such groups. This is not just terrorism, although it is a main problem, but also the host of Non-Governmental Organizations that have their own agendas that are tied to no Nation State, and yet they fund their ideologies and beliefs of various sorts by donations and even get hearings in Nation to Nation endeavors. Thus I come to his most recent interview with Mr. Hewitt in which he puts forth that leaving Iraq and causing bloodshed now is preferable to leaving it later.

Of the things he puts forth is that Iraq is heading to a 'soft partition' and a Free Kurdistan that will be weakly, if at all, tied to Iraq. This is the previous 'partition of Iraq' concept pushed by many that has neglected to examine if Iraqis do, indeed, wish to be 'partitioned' in any form. By putting forth that the Kurds, who had been protected for over a decade by the US from Saddam is due to be independent from it is something of a strange surprise. Kurds, contrary to belief, have been full participants in the Iraqi Army and Police and in helping their neighbors stand up capability over time. They have that capability via two main routes: culturally, Kurds are extremely competent in the martial realm and have a strong ethnic affiliation, and, secondly they had over a decade to stand up decent capability with US help. Mind you that was only for something like 5-6 million people over 12 years to get them to that point before the start of OIF, a mere nothing in this realm of tripartite world views. That Iraq, with wider religious and ethnic diversity, and having the remainder 18 million or so Iraqis would be able to do similar, given the extent of the size of Iraq as compared to the Kurdish regions is difficult to understand for the time frame involved.

Now, just as a side-light, when Mr. Barnett brings up the division of Kurdistan at the behest of Ataturk, at that the US will 'have to do something similar', there is one element of that equation that he has forgotten: the Kurds. The Kurdish view towards that division by Ataturk and with the agreement of the European powers is one that lasts to this day, and strongly so. Promised a homeland that would be free by the victorious powers, within a few short years that was sub-divided by Turkey and the Europeans, and that is considered to be betrayal by the Kurds. The US, not having done much of anything against the Ottomans and having no real ability to stand against that, is seen as being relatively neutral. Under President Wilson the US had 'talked a good game' but did not 'put its money where its mouth was', and so the grandiose ideas of President Wilson had no chance to come close to reality as he had not paid the price of admission in the Med. And the Kurds also remember *that*, too, and only more than a decade of direct help and support has helped to erase some of that neutrality and turn it into friendship. I can give a good guess as to how the Kurds would feel about writing off their brothers a *second time* with the boot of the US there to do so. But that is looking at the Kurds as a People who have a history and don't really see themselves in a first or third world or a gap between them, but as a proud and distinguished People who have long, long memories of the things done to them. Now if Mr. Barnett had said that the US was going to *liberate* all the Kurds from surrounding Nations, he might have something, but writing them off AGAIN?

Perhaps the goal is to be hated by all the peoples of the Middle East? That would be a grand start! The Kurds feel they have given 'a half-loaf' so often that they are down to only what they can survive on, and they happen to recognize that as a land-locked Nation with no easy access to the sea for trade, that they are at the mercy of their neighbors. Turkey has been none-too-willing to recognize Kurdish culture, ethnicity or even its language, and that enmity pre-dates the PKK. Going back on our word to the Kurds NOW will change their attitude from friendliness, and the 'Ameriki' tribe, to one of bitterness and disgust with us. They *still* feel that way towards the Turks, France and Britain.

After the partition concept Mr. Barnett then looks at the war against al Qaeda. He does point to the success of the surge and the part of the tribes. The tribes that *support* the government now after hard diplomatic and military work was done to win them over. One of the less reported things on the Arab Sunni side of things is the state of places like Fallujah and other areas that, while being pro-Saddam, they were not of his tribal area nor exact ethnicity. In point of fact that area was ungovernable all during Saddam's reign, although he was able to *rule* by the gun, bloodshed and causing factional fights. Even further, there are accounts dating back to the 1930's that Fallujah and environs was lawless. The deep shock was that the people there now trusted the Iraqi Army more than their regional neighbors. Their society had been so beaten down that the first thing the folks wanted rebuilt was not: schools, roads, bridges, sewage plants, electrical sub-stations.... No, the very first thing to be rebuilt was the fortified family compounds around their homes. That is a mosaic view of Iraq that is hard for a tripartite view of the world to actually come to terms with. Iraq was a heavily factionalized Nation, just like its Arab neighbors, and ruled over by Empires and dictators for so long that having a quiet, civil life was impossible. To get such people to actually trust any level of government is damned amazing. To do that in four years is a miracle.

Another vector from Anbar that Mr. Barnett doesn't address flows directly from the above: the political side. Bill Roggio has done wonderful work following the movement of the Anbar tribes from loose association to strong affiliation to political movement that is now called: "Iraq Awakening". Even more fascinating is the form of it, which is localized in concept, but learning to work outwards and upwards for building coalitions and driving the killers out. While the Sunni Arabs have always talked about their societal superiority to the Shia Arabs, the US has basically done one thing to them and asked them to prove it: be better than anyone else in Iraq.

While never stated as such, the harsh view that the Iraqi Army being predominantly Shia, being capable enough to help Sunni Arabs get on their feet has been a tremendous cultural shock to them. Here are people that they have disdained for centuries suddenly proving themselves to be competent, capable and reaching out to help them. "Iraq Awakening" is a reflection of this and it has taken a position of non-sectarian politics with a strong bent towards technocrats. People willing to get things *done* and build society. "Iraq Awakening" now stretches out all the way to the Kurdish provinces, and northwards, and is also moving into the Baghdad region. Localized governmental control with a hard view on getting things running, having an open hand to those willing to help and giving no room for those seeking to kill. That doesn't sound too much like a partitional group to me...

From there Mr. Barnett turns to the Sunni/Shia violence that is still going on due to the British mismanagement of standing up local government, and the entrenchment of some al Qaeda groups in and around Baghdad. Here he compares the problem to a reverse of Bosnia and that the two sides are nowhere near at the end of their cycle of killing. And as that is the sole basis on which the US will be judged, we will be forced to pull back to the Kurds and Kuwait and to leave the Sunni population to drift in the wind after telling them we would help them integrate with the rest of Iraq to help end the cycle of violence. This cycle has been largely fueled by outside cash, arms and personnel: al Qaeda first from Saudi Arabia, but now receiving some logistic aid via Syria, and the Iranians who have backed Sadr and the 'Special Groups' who were once the 'Badr Brigades'. That flow of arms and personnel has been through the highly corrupt government that the British have let grow up there since the invasion. Mind you the British were *applauded* by many foreign policy experts as this was 'the way to do it'. We now see what this lovely way to do things gets you: fanatical outsiders flowing in with deadly arms to try and start up a civil war and overthrow that Nation.

And if we leave that is exactly and precisely what will happen, save that al Qaeda will return, again, with lots more money, claim victory against the 'weak Americans' and the Iranians will also claim victory against 'the Great Satan' and the Kurds will detest us for going back on our word to them. Well, we will have Kuwait for a bit, until Iran can surround it completely and start waves of terror attacks there... then, of course, Kuwait will be the 'next quagmire' and best to run from that... and we can't really keep the Kurds supplied and the Turks can pressure them via the only half-way decent supply route once Iran and Syria cement an overland link to really get their nuclear capabilities going. Don't mind the few million dead in the few years after that, the fall of Kuwait, Jordan, and then al Qaeda really feeling its oats and going after the Saudis directly. And Iran supplying more arms to Afghani rebels and rebels in the lower 'stans. Because their main money sink has been: Hezbollah and fighting the US in Iraq. Give them control of the lower oil fields and pipelines and the money they will have to spend will double if not triple within months. They might even start ramping up the money going to Bosnia and their organization in the Tri-Border Area of S. America could use some beefing up... not to speak of what al Qaeda will do. And don't mind the Iranians having involvement in Turkish politics and their ability to greatly increase *that* as well.

I thought this was going to work out so well!

You see Iran is not what we would like to think of as a 'normal Nation State'. It is a 'rogue regime' that has a fanatical basis and doesn't pay much attention to economics, as seen by their inability to keep their petro system going and now not even being able to pay their public service folks for six months. If the US withdraws *that* disappears, they will be seen as *winners* and will then push to expand the fight. That is what revolutionary regimes do when they confront an opponent that backs down to them. Hell, even simple dictators DO THAT. Osama bin Laden did and will use any pull out and descent in to chaos as the 'virtuous jihadis driving the crusading infidels out', or similar words from whoever the leader of aQ is these days. And you know something: they will be *right*.

Throughout Mr. Barnett's view of the world, playing Iran against Saudi Arabia and thinking that there will be some 'accommodation' there, and that the US can just leave after what we have done, through all of that there are three words missing from his vocabulary and his ability to describe things the US would want to see happen in the Middle East. Very simple words that do not often appear from the foreign policy 'greats' and those 'geostrategic thinkers' of the 'realist' school of thought. Those folks talk a lot about economic security and peace as a way to get that, but that sort of peace can be the 'peace of the bribed' or 'peace of the coerced' or 'peace of the dead'. No these three words guide the US and really should be foundational to our view of the world, and how we approach rebuilding Nations after war and confronting tyrants and dictators of all stripes.

I can find only one mentioned and it is in the defensive analysis, not the offensive, and that tells me that Mr. Barnett has given up on them completely.

The words?

Anyone reading here for a bit will know them well:

Liberty.

Freedom.

Democracy.

These are not the words of DIME, but then that does not pay the toll now, does it?

Apparently Mr. Barnett prefers not fighting for human liberty, freedom and getting folks to interact so as to have a say in their own affairs. Far better for these funny folks in a far off land to just kill each other in their millions and not interrupt the nap of the US while we ponder 'gaps' and 'how to bridge them'.

While our enemies ask: How can we make the world OURS?

When fighting to remove a tyrant the responsibility is to help those that have suffered under such despotic rule to stand up on their own, work out their differences, defend themselves and find a way to government that will not easily repress them again. A government accountable to other Nations and to its people. To run from that to 'get the killing over with' will mean we will have run from those ideals and tyranny will prosper in our absence because we are unwilling to support it. And once that happens abroad, it will come here because we have proven incapable of sustaining the gift handed to us and understanding its importance.

The killing will stop.

Once tyranny wins.

This is not a fight of statistics, death tolls or economic capacity. It is a contest of wills. Leave now and there will be no turning back to Iraq again, because the war will spread and that era before Westphalia will return in all its horror. And that will not be quick at all as those wars were measured in decades. And all that it takes is a commitment to three ideals and nourishing the great tree of liberty with blood of tyrants and patriots.

That is the cost we now teach Iraqis, and they are paying it. They need our help to finally end the reign of killers.

Do we mean what we say as a Nation and culture about our fine ideals?

Or are they to be bartered away because our fight is just too much for us? After America paid with 10% of its population dead after the Revolution... run now and we do not deserve to *be* free, because we have lost the meaning of freedom to a weak stomach and will have given up on those things Americans have died for in plenitude. In the millions. Quite a down payment to walk out on.

Honor
Do as you say.
Say what you mean.
Mean what you do.