The Command Post - Op-Ed - EXCLUSIVE: Tom Barnett on "The Pentagon's Debate Over What Iraq Means"

January 22, 2005

EXCLUSIVE: Tom Barnett on "The Pentagon's Debate Over What Iraq Means"

We've been linking to the work of Tom Barnett for some time, including his two Esquire articles, The Pentagon's New Map and Mr. President, Here's How To Make Sense Of Our Iraq Strategy, and just yesterday, the CSPAN stream of his famous Defense Dept. brief on a grand military strategy for the United States.

He's a heavy hitter: From 1998 through 2004, Tom was a Senior Strategic Researcher and Professor in the Warfare Analysis & Research Department at the Naval War College. He's also served as an advisor to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, Central Command, Special Operations Command, and Joint Forces Command. From November 2001 to June of 2003, he was on temporary assignment as the Assistant for Strategic Futures, Office of Force Transformation (OFT), where he worked on concepts linking change in the international security environment to the imperative of transforming U.S. military.

And here's the really great part: Tom has agreed to author an exclusive perspective piece for the Command Post's Op/Ed page, which you may find below. We're thrilled to have his contribution, and we hope you find the content enjoyable and provacative.

And Tom: Thank you.

~ Alan & Michele

*********

The Pentagon's Debate Over What Iraq Means

By Thomas P.M. Barnett

The Pentagon is primarily in the business of preparing for war, not waging it. War is waged by commanders in the field. What the Pentagon does is think long and hard about what the future of war should be like. It then directs vast R&D and acquisition programs to generate a force capable of waging war successfully in that domain. Its demands for intelligence tend to be future-oriented.

Right now, there is a debate raging within the Pentagon and the military as a whole about what the war in Iraq and the subsequent (and ongoing) occupation tell us about the future of war. This debate pits two fundamental, dominant visions of future war against one another. I consider this juxtaposition to be a false dichotomy, meaning a choice that does not need to be made and, frankly, should not be made.

The two sides in this debate are functionally derived: the “air community” versus the “ground community.” The air community tends to be known as the Network-Centric Operations (NCO) crowd, whereas the ground-pounders fall under the rubric of Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW).

Net-centric operations are a long-term effort by the military to understand how the rise of the information age alters the fundamental nature of war. In the vernacular of NCO advocates, the past force was platform-centric, meaning we organized ourselves around the major "platforms", the machines we created to wage war (aircraft, ships, tanks, etc.). The future, by contrast, is network - centric: platforms are nothing more than nodes in a larger network whose main power isn’t its massed fire, but its ability to wield that force with pinpoint accuracy.

NCO defines the 20th Century's long march toward "winning from above," the notion that you can effectively bomb your way to victory. Going into Iraq, it seemed as though NCO was not only the dominant mode of future-war thinking, it had reached such an apogee that serious thought was given to radically slimming down the ground forces into a future, "transformed" force.

The trajectory of combat across the 1990s hadn't served the Army and Marines well in Pentagon debates. While the Air Force was winning wars "all by itself" in Iraq, the Balkans, and later-Afghanistan, the Army and Marines were left holding the bag in such crappy situations as Somalia and Haiti. Within the Pentagon, Military Operations Other Than War (MOOTW) was strongly perceived—and is still perceived in many quarters today—as a form of war that the American public can't stomach in terms of losses incurred (“body-bag syndrome”), longevity (America's SADD: strategic attention deficit disorder), immoral acts (e.g., atrocities like Abu Ghraib and beheadings of hostages), and demand for resources (Senator So-and-So: "We spend more money in Iraq by breakfast than we've spent all year on [name his or her favorite cause]").

Right through "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq (May 2003), the NCO crowd seemed ascendant. Rumsfeld was right in both Afghanistan and Iraq: the small "footprint" force, armed with high-technology, could network its way to relatively bloodless (for our side) victories. In only a few weeks of major combat operations, neither war cost the U.S. more than 200 dead. That isn't just impressive, that's absolutely amazing.

But in that hubris lie the seeds of NCO's current problems, plus a growing backlash among the Fourth Generation Warfare crowd. The extremely spotty planning by the Pentagon for the occupation and postwar stabilization of Iraq enabled the rise of the disastrously efficient insurgency we face today. Arrogance about what could be achieved by NCO contributed to that bad planning, but frankly, far more of it was a result of the Pentagon's defensive response to the Army’s charges that Secretary Rumsfeld and his lieutenants were willfully disregarding its warnings about necessary troops levels on the ground.

You remember the debate: Rumsfeld versus then-Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki. Rummy said we could "win the war" with a small, highly transformed force, whereas Shinseki argued for massive ground forces (roughly 200,000). In the press and in our own wording of this debate, the argument became known as, "How many troops are required to win the war?" Later accusations revolved around whether or not "Rumsfeld sought to fight this war with too few troops!"

My problem with this description, as I've noted many times in my blog, is that it conflates two concepts: regime takedown and the post-conflict stabilization / nation-building effort. I call the former, the "war," and the latter, the "peace." So, in my more careful lexicon, I say that Rumsfeld was arguing—and arguing correctly—about how to "win the war," while Shinseki was arguing—and arguing correctly—about how to "win the peace."

The current fight between NCO and 4GW, over who "lost" the war in Iraq, is basically a repeat of the Rumsfeld-Shinseki argument. The 4GWers accuse NCOers of blindly stumbling from a 3GW victory over Saddam into a 4GW stalemate with the insurgency. But again, this accusation tends to conflate two very different situations: one the war, the other the subsequently botched peace. But the 4GW crowd’s answer can’t be simply, "Let's get ready for counter-insurgencies because NCO is powerless to deal with them."

4GW is essentially guerrilla war that seeks to defeat an enemy not militarily, but politically, and not on any one battlefield, but over years and even decades of low-intensity conflict. Mao is considered the father of modern 4GW, though it’s obviously been around as long as weak forces have met far superior forces. In his recent book, The Sling and the Stone, Thomas Hammes runs through the history of this modern variant of guerrilla war, from Mao to the Viet Cong to the Sandinistas of Nicaragua to the Intifadas of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. Naturally, al Qaeda is considered very 4GW, coming as it did out of the great victory that was the Islamic insurgency's defeat of the superpower Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

The answer on Iraq (and future situations) needs to be: "Let's get so good at the follow-on System Administration model that when our NCO force defeats a regime, we effectively shut down the possibility of 4GW by flooding the country with peace-maker troops capable of 4GW combat, staffed up big time with support personnel, lots of foreign coalition forces, and plenty of civilians experts all brought together in a larger force that's optimized for stabilization and reconstruction efforts." In other words, the best 4GW strategy is to prevent insurgencies before they start.

In short, our choice isn’t between Network-Centric Operations or Fourth Generation Warfare, it's how we focus each effectively on the logically-defined tasks of effective regime change, a list that covers both war and peace. A Pentagon debate that pits these two visions of war against one another is self-defeating and a waste of time. We must take advantage of the force-structure savings allowed by NCO (e.g., the smaller footprint) to build up our 4GW capabilities and marry those with the larger force requirements entailed in successful SysAdmin work.

In Asia today, there is a huge ongoing battle for "hearts and minds" that has nothing to do with a 4GW enemy. Yet, if this battle is waged well, it will do much to prevent such an enemy's rise in the future and diminish the appeal of enemies who already exist within the region. It is the battle to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake-driven tsunamis, the largest humanitarian assistance / disaster relief operation the world has ever seen. A truly transformed U.S. military, one that covers both the Leviathan and System Administrator functions effectively, will be a military that not only efficiently processes a politically-bankrupt regime like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. It will also be a force ready to deal with once-in-a-lifetime opportunities to preemptively secure "peace victories," in situations like the one we face today in southern and southeast Asia.

For me, that is the force worth building for the future worth creating.

Printed with permission

~ ~ ~

Thomas P.M.Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map, is launching the Rule-Set Reset strategic journal as an e-journal that is distributable by email or download, available to subscribers only. The inaugural edition is free and includes the "The Pentagon's Internal War Over What Iraq Means," an expanded version of "The Pentagon's Debate Over What Iraq Means," published by permission at The Command Post. You can email Tom at tom@thomaspmbarnett.com.

Posted By Alan at January 22, 2005 12:19 PM | TrackBack

Comments

This is an interesting piece. One of the more interesting aspects to me is the apparent perception in the Pentagon that we "lost" the war in Iraq. If I (or anyone on the left) had made such an assertion, the howls from the usual suspects would still be reverberating. To hear those usual suspects tell it, all of the bad news out of Iraq is just a conspiracy of the MSM. That I might have been overly OPTIMISTIC about how things were going over there is not a comforting thought to me. It must make the usual suspects break out in hives.
Still, despite their control of the White House and Congress, I am sure they will find some way to blame the left for the "loss " (as usual).

Posted by: rdelephant at January 22, 2005 04:51 PM

Dear Elephanto, Don't believe for a moment that Barnett thinks we 'lost' this war. Any time you're walking around the enemy's capital 3 weeks after you cross their border (think Spring, Paris, Hitler) most people with positive IQs will say you've won.

What I have heard Barnett refer to is "catastophic victory" which I believe characterizes his belief that we did such a great job early on we never got to meet Saddam's forces head-on (where we could have ground them into dust). The Baathists and their foreign nercenaries melted into the cities and now have to be rooted out in 2s and 3s. Ugly, messy and dangerous - sure it would have been better to kill them all in a short pitched battle, but the steamroller missed them on the first pass, didn't it? This is the distinction he makes between the war and the peace. Can you win one and not the other? Ask the Hanoi Vietnamese.

And I don't think anyone would blame the loss (if it had occurred) on the left. I think the left (along with France, Germany and Russia) have pretty much been non-factors in this affair, regulated to their usual kibitizing 20/20 hindsight role.

The difference between your 'apparent perception' of a 'loss' and Barnett's 'catastrophic victory' is the fact that Barnett knows what he's talking about.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at January 23, 2005 12:09 PM

Maybe you should have read the article more carefully. I quote:

"The current fight between NCO and 4GW, over who "lost" the war in Iraq, is basically a repeat of the Rumsfeld-Shinseki argument. The 4GWers accuse NCOers of blindly stumbling from a 3GW victory over Saddam into a 4GW stalemate with the insurgency. But again, this accusation tends to conflate two very different situations: one the war, the other the subsequently botched peace."

Posted by: rdelephant at January 23, 2005 12:19 PM

Here's the money quote from my viewpoint :

In Asia today, there is a huge ongoing battle for "hearts and minds" that has nothing to do with a 4GW enemy. Yet, if this battle is waged well, it will do much to prevent such an enemy's rise in the future and diminish the appeal of enemies who already exist within the region. It is the battle to deal with the aftermath of the earthquake-driven tsunamis, the largest humanitarian assistance / disaster relief operation the world has ever seen.

The 4GW, and to a lesser extent, NCO facets of a military force are equally appropriate for disaster relief. A key part of 4GO is to have enough international legitimacy via allies/coalitions of the willing.

The same diplomatic network will also be required for dealing with International disasters. The same nation-building physical assets for dealing with Natural diasters, from bulldozers to complete demountable power-plants, will be required to fix the mess that the NCO creates when the regime if forcibly changed - a process which is hard on a nations' industrial infrastructure, and will likely get harder.

As to whether the Iraq war is lost or not, as opposed to "lost" (scare quotes intended) or not - as in the article - that can only be determined after a suitable period of time. If Iraq ends up with the same amount of democracy as, say, Turkey or Israel, then that will be a decisive win.

Finally, a note about force structure: we now have enough NCO assets to deal with regime change in one major conflict, in a relatively "clean" environment (no messy civilian settlements everywhere), vs a not-well-motivated opponent's conventional armed force. There are other likely opponents - from the Mad Mullahs of Iran (who will likely be up against the wall when the Revolution comes any day now) - to the Slaveholding Sudanese, the Nuclear North Koreans, and the relatively professional Syrians - who may be more challenging in NCO (Especially the DPRK). Moreover, although the consequences of any conventional large-scale war would be so detrimental to all participants' economies that to engage in it would be irrational, history is studded with irrationality. We could still stumble into a Chinese-US stoush over Taiwan in the next decade, and beyond that, it's too far to predict. If a coup happens in Russia, or (less likely) Fascists take over France, all bets are off. Stranger things have happened. We're in a good, though not great and possibly not adequate position regarding NCO : let's not blow it.

But in 4GW we're in a less good position. The pips are squeaking as regards reserves in the US. UK forces are beset with internal problems in the UK Labour Party, and with an innefective and impotent opposition. Australia's minor forces are at full stretch dealing with the SW pacific, in PNG, the Solomans, Tomer Leste, and with the disaster at Aceh. Right now, we need more Bulldozers rather than M1 tanks - but we need the M1 tanks too, and more of them. We just need the bulldozers more.

Posted by: aebrain at January 23, 2005 04:44 PM

Elephant,

Barnett put the quotes around the word "lost". That indicates that he doesn't think the campaign is actually lost. In fact our soldiers and Marines have shifted from the NCO to 4GW function though they aren't really organized or trained for it.

Our existing forces are in fact adapting to Barnett's new "rule set" reasonably well in the absence of a Pentagon level "reset."

There are some problems with Barnett's overall proposition, but not insurmountable ones. And he does present a vision and plan for a future worth fighting for.

Ed

Posted by: Right Wing Nutter at January 23, 2005 04:50 PM

One final remark : the relief of Natural Disasters via military forces is being "sold" as being in the nation's best interests in Realpolitik terms, as indeed it is.

So for that matter is the radical long-term campaign for world Democratisation. After 9/11, the world is not big enough for the smelly -isms and Democracy to co-exist. We've tried that, and it didn't work. The consequence of 9/11 has been the liberation of nearly 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq (so far).

But let's give ourselves a little credit. We're doing well (in defence terms) by doing good, but relieving natural disasters and getting rid of tyrannies is worthwhile from a moral standpoint too. We may not always trust our own moral rectitude, and may not even be justified in trusting our own moral rectitude, when it comes to regime change.

But in helping people flooded out in Sri Lanka, I think there we have an unimpeachable case for holding the moral "high ground". Anyone - and there are some who do in all sincerity - who looks upon this as US Imperialism is so anti-US as to be irredeemably prejudiced. Any paleo-cons - and there are some - who believe that the US's national treasure should only be expended when there's a direct defence or commercial reason - they have a better case, but one that I think is provably wrong as well as being morally bankrupt. Because that is the course of action that France has consistently taken post-1945, and look where it's gotten them.

Belief in 'Duty, Honour, Country' doesn't imply Hitlerite Fascism. Belief in good works and a more equitable wealth distribution when the brown smelly stuff hits the fan doesn't imply Stalinist Communism either. We should not be quite so afraid of saying that we believe in these things, despite the monstrous evils that have been done in their name in living memory. With Bush, Blair and Howard, we should come out of the closet about it, and not be quite so afraid. Just don't let it lead to the same sense of total belief in our own moral rectitude that led to the Taliban. The balance at the moment is too far the other way though, and has been for some time.

Posted by: aebrain at January 23, 2005 05:42 PM

Elephanto -

Let's get it right, shall we? We didn't "lose" the war, as your first post states - followed by your attempt ease yourself away from that stand in the 2nd post. (i.e. when you read the post more carefully) We're talking about the number of troops needed to win the war (Rumsfield) vs. the number of troops needed to maintain order in the power vacuum that follows (Shinseki).

Go over to Global Recon, bring up "Strategy - See Tom Barnett's Famous Brief (And PowerPoint) Online" and connect to the C-SPAN briefing. I have no interest in repeating what is already here and I'm not about to be lectured about what I read or didn't read by leftists who skim.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at January 23, 2005 08:12 PM

See this recent post over at Roger L. Simon's which parallels what Mr. Barnet is saying re Norman Podhoretz's new essay, "The War Against World War IV

A War of Ideas, Ideologies, Cultures, Religon, and Good vs. Evil

This war will not be won on the ground. This war will be won when the enemy and its supporters realize this ideology of hate, repression of free will and thought is doomed to failure like its predecessors of Fascisim, Nazism, and Communism.

We will win this war. The free will of men and women will always overcome those who seek to repress it - As Good always triumph over Evil. The sooner we as a people unite both left and right and wipe this Evil from the face of the earth, the fewer lives will be lost in this struggle.

While we are crushing the enemy on the ground, the enemy is winning the propaganda war. To win this war we must "out" the lies that our enemy is using to subjugate the people by fear, repression and torture. We must flood all mediums of communication with the truth. We must nuture the people in forming their own independent forms of news of the day.

For once the truth be known, the power of the "Big Lie" to control quickly fades away and there can be no more "Final Solutions."

Blessed be for the Net and the Blogosphere. The ultimate weapon against this Evil.

[...]

Read More

Posted by: Ron Wrght at January 24, 2005 09:13 AM

..there is still a larger issue..which imo is a lot more devious..envy..even if they know its right they will rebuke the message..you can see it here you can see it world wide..you got it I want it..childish I know..hell even the military quibble over this,air power_ ground power the stupidity of the whole thing you cant have either without the other..for long anyway..I get soo pissed I could freaking scream..we might disagree but we have to work as a team..lofty goals I dont see
happening..because; this one is offering it, and I didn't..idiots freaking idiots..well educated idiots at that..
At least there are people like Tom, trying to form strategies for the future..
...be nice..after 9/11..talks cheap..after NK`s coming clean..China`s shall we say obvious moderation of its forces..and this fanaticism in the name of religion..running and sinking your head up to you arse just aint going to cut it anymore...When "W" made the statement "YOU ARE EITHER WITH US OR YOU ARE WITH THE TERRORIST"still rings true today as it did yesterday..
Debate is a corner stone of this country..but at some point a vote must be had then a direction chosen..all do not have to agree..but never the less at that point all of us must move towards that goal..imhho....

Posted by: Rob_NC at January 24, 2005 11:43 AM

The "peace" in Iraq is going to be won by the Iraqis. In my opinion we have done exactly the right thing. The balance was perfect. We are in a position strategically very similar to the war in Afghanistan. We have given the real enemy a counterbalance. We now depend upon the legitimately constituted Iraqi government to make up the difference. The actual process of fielding that force will, in itself, make Iraq a free and independent nation. It will be the cure for Saddam.

If we had come down hard like Shinseki wanted, then it really would have been like Viet Nam. We would have been condemned to propping up a government that could never learn to stand on its own. As it stands now, everything is up to the Iraqis, which is as it should be.

Posted by: jj at January 24, 2005 12:30 PM

Torpdeo. I am not easing myself away from anything. I initially commented on Barnett's above-quoted comment that has Pentagon insiders debating who "lost" the Iraq war. What caused you to dispute what is plain as the nose on your face is not my concern. Thus, in response I merely quoted what Barnett said verbatim. Now, you claim (out of nowhere) that I "skim." Pretty funny in this context, since you are the one with the obvious reading comprehension problem (ever hear of projection?).

Posted by: rdelephant at January 24, 2005 07:26 PM

Mr Barnett's erudite perspective is to be respected, particularly in his appreciation for the "hearts and minds" issue on Asia. However, I'm seeing things with each passing week which make me believe these Iraq, "war on terror", and "declaring liberty throught the world" are all part of an unseasonable if sincere distraction.

In particular, doesn't it shock anyone that the People's Bank of China holds a full third of the USA's current account deficit? Doesn't it bother anyone that decisions and alliances are increasingly being made without U.S. participation, as disturbingly chronicled today in the Financial Times by Michael Lind? (See http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ba2dc264-6e48-11d9-a60a-00000e2511c8.html) Irrespective of his personal politics, what about his claims and accusations? Isn't a developing EU-China axis a serious strategic threat?

I realize the Pentagon has complained loudly and mightily about the dropping of the arms embargo against China, but, unfortunately, certain U.S. national planners have decided EU good will and economic good is less important than certain other unilateralist goals and have thereby made U.S. persuasion weaker than it might be.

In my view, many of our leaders in the Pentagon and State are still acting as if the defeat of the Soviet Union was yesterday and everyone still remembered that. Indeed, the argument that "we spent the Russians into the ground" might in the light of economics today be seen as "we spent the Russians and ourselves into the ground".

Rhetorically might I ask why should a developing world power worry about having a superior nuclear arsenel when they might bring a future threat to its knees simply through a single economic action, such as dumping the debt they hold or cutting their currency free of the dollar?

Thanks for your comments.

Posted by: Jan Theodore Galkowski at January 24, 2005 08:44 PM

Elephant - I am a slow reader, but my comprehension is usually around 98%. Don't read just my comments, read what everyone else has written, listen to the briefing. Barnett is fairly critical of the Pentagon and its approach to war-fighting, but nowhere in the article or the hour and a half briefing does anyone draw the conclusion that you're drawing.

The only thing obvious here - and I'm sure others will vouch for it - is that arguing a point with you is like watering a dead plant.

Posted by: torpedo_eight at January 24, 2005 08:44 PM

rdelephant,I'm uncertain how you expect the left to be absolved from any of the problems underlying the current problems we're having in Iraq. The left is nothing but a propoganda machine intent on the failure and descension into utter chaos of the campaign in Iraq. I've got news for you. The Guardian, Al-Jazeera, the Gannett Publishing empire, Ted Kennedy, Soros, and the ACLU: you're all on the same team. You whine, and complain, and sue, and protest, and monopolize the media. The left wants to point the finger and say "What a terrible job you're doing with the GWOT, Bush and Rummy. By the way, not a single Democrat, Socialist, or commie should shoulder any of the blame. It's not our policies that have castrated the intelligence apparatuses of this government... we promise (imagine a cute little wink from Gillispie)." The Left expects perfect intelligence gathering, but won't let the interrogators lay a finger on a captured terrorist. The Left refuses to give up even some of its fringe privacy rights (like where you've been surfing on a PUBLICLY OWNED, Libary computer), but completely takes for granted the ability to vote in that Library on Nov. 2nd, without getting blown to pieces by a suicide bomber. The Left wants to blame the Right for not having Sudan on its humanitarian agenda, but watches the blood baths in Rwanda and runs from Somalia. The Left screams bloody murder when a Maverick misfires and takes out the house next to an insurgent stronghold, but doesn't blink an eye when U.S. air power ravages the former Yugoslavia. You know what bothers me about the left? The blatant, putrid, overflowing hypocrisy - that's what bothers me. Don't you worry though, those of us with the power of deductive reasoning (Left speak: stereotyping) have been working overtime the last decade while you were all in the Oval office watching Clinton get a BJ. Here comes the big shock: we're here to stay, and you'd just best get used to the Neo-cons and Republicans doing whatever they friggin want.

Posted by: jackhammer at January 25, 2005 05:53 PM

Torpedo: You say: "Nowhere in the article or the hour and a half briefing does anyone draw the conclusion that you're drawing" What conclusion is that? "The current fight between NCO and 4GW, over who "lost" the war in Iraq . ." This is FROM the article. That fight was the foundation of every point that I made. Your "hole" just gets deeper with every pass. If you don't want to argue with me, then stop.

Posted by: rdelephant at January 25, 2005 06:09 PM

Jan,
Interesting perspective and concern. Just remember, the Yuan is pegged to the U.S. dollar, we're a significant trading partner (for China in particular, and the World in general), and U.S. multinationals are also major investors in China. I'm not really sure how the collapse of the world economy is in China's best interest. A Euro-China trade pact? No economic interest has been hit harder due the decline in the U.S. dollar than the European Union, mainly due to the pegged Yuan. As the Dollar declines, so does the Yuan, and this makes U.S. and Chinese exporters more competive at the expense of Japan and Europe who have to suffer with abnormally expensive currencies. Having a favorable exchange rate is wonderful when you're a tourist in a foreign country, but kills countries like Germany and Italy who get to watch the demise of their manufacturing industries because their foreign markets can't afford their goods. Europe has no love for the Chinese trade juggernaut who stands to even further marginalize Europe as a trade threat. Now a Chinese-U.S. trade pact, that's probably closer to the truth.

Posted by: jackhammer at January 25, 2005 06:25 PM

Jan, dumping debt? China has aready paid for its treasury holdings, If they dumped them - interest rates would rise dramatically in the US, but they would also risk financial loss in the process. however my feeling is there is no way we'll ever pay that debt off so we have the "privilege" of dumping their payments. Yes you heard right --- eventually the US will have to reneg on foreign bond payments and let go of the FX. Isolate. This is because the american consumer's mentality is to spend now and then go begging to politicians for tax-forgiveness; politicians seem all too happy to fill your pipe with delusions.---they are used-dream salesmen.

The default will become more obvious when the private (insurance, health care, banking, etc) and social security ponzi schemes reach a culmination. Europe has entered this stage of isolation already with very low external imbalances but relatively large internal deficits. Old Europe has become an investor culture where monarchical and Rothschild remnants seek to secure their own comfort at the expense of their newly acquired eastern european slaves. Speculation on the euro is another ponzi scheme which will eventually end because levels are hardly warranted by EU productivity and growth. US, having a vastly larger amount of custodial holdings from Asia is slowy becoming the slave-nation of Asia, perhaps even doing the military dirty work of securing the oil infrastructure which will benefit Asia just as much as the US. Of course no one forced you to buy all that plastic garbage at Walmart that will eventually cost more to landfill then you paid for it, deadly stuff in those plastics and especially electronics.

Posted by: hound at January 25, 2005 09:47 PM

The future options of the US military, and the US government as a whole, are necessarily focused on the requirements for addressing our strongest threat. Everything else will just have to go begging. That means Russia and China will determine our priorities. Russia is essentially an unreliable ally at the present time, where relations are likely to keep improving, but we will not be able to stand down our Cold War forces until the dust settles. China, because of the economic growth, is steadily becoming a greater threat and a better business partner. Since we cannot hope to confront the Red Army directly, the preponderance of our efforts will go into high tech approaches.

I suspect that the current decline of the dollar is not uncontrolled, but rather the superficial indication of an economic contest we are silently engaged in with China.

Posted by: jj at January 25, 2005 10:58 PM

And exactly why is Russia not the EU s problem, JJ? Perhaps they can enlist Ukraine and the Turks for "border control". I think MAD stillls rules over any possible conflict between Russia and the US. FUrthermore, the Russians have not displayed the same kind of excellence the Americans have displayed in IRaq. Chechnya was a disaster and threatened Putins power arrangement.
Saddaam was one of the 10 worst dictators of the 20th century and his removal is a blessing for the IRaqis and for Europe. I believe Iraq/ Syria is a fairly unique situation because the vileness of Baath politics is equivalent to Nazism. TOm's article makes me wonder what would have happened if the Nazis in 1944 would have chosen an urban- wolfpack type of strategy. Only problem was, by then the west obviously did not care about bombing German residential cities flat; this no longer seems possible. Might as well reserve the B52s for nuke plants and specialized military targets.

Re: the article, the problem is the rest of the world doesnt care what methods we use, they are all against us. Indonesia has killed over 120 Aceh rebels since the tsunami. Peace there is not an issue, because extremist islam is not predominant.

The 4GW that Tom talked about ( I prefer to use the term metro combat) was not really developed before our troops removal of Saddaam and subsequent occupation. The Somailian debacle highlighted this dramatically. After Iraq, our troops are the ONLY effectiove urban combat force to ever exist, and the use of tanks in cities such as Baghdad has proven effective although not endearing to the residents..

"All battle plans falter when the enemy is encountered" GEneral Shin's plan for twice the troop levels would not be a good idea if Saddaams proposed bio or chem weapons would have been used --- too many eggs in one basket if you will. its hard to verbalize such a concept WHILE you are sending troops into battle.

"A Pentagon debate that pits these two visions of war against one another is self-defeating and a waste of time. "-- well competition among the branches also can be a good thing. And I reallty dont yet understand how the Sysadmin approach is exclusive to "groundpounders". Each tank and humvee has become a node on the SysAdmin network with its own data acquisition capability.
GWB summed up war rationale very well recently saying It is the job of the strong to help the weak. This has always been the case as the US confronted maniacal communist forces entrenched in native lands.

Posted by: hound at January 26, 2005 11:11 AM

Jackhammer. Thank you for proving my point. Never mind that the answer to the question, "Who lost Iraq ?" clearly has a Bush administration address...you blame the media. I can only speak for myself, but I certainly do not hope for bad news from Iraq. Is Barnett part of the "propoganda machine" you decry, when he tells of Pentagon insiders debating who "lost" Iraq ? Oh, and I do hope the neo-cons and Republicans do what they like, as you threaten, it will be that much quicker that the Democrats return to power (where they belong).

Posted by: rdelephant at January 26, 2005 06:46 PM

rdelphant,
Last time I checked the war hasn't ended. For anyone to suggest that someone 'lossed' the war is a moot point.

Frankly, the successes we have had in post removal of Saddam far outweigh the mistakes and set backs. I for one am of the belief that President Bush (did) plan for the peace and I am also of the belief that negative criticism is being overstated while positive news is being ignored or understated.

A fair assessment of a war is an assessment of the progress in reaching your goals. A goal oriented perspective on the war in Iraq is one where anyone would find it difficult to negatively criticize anything that has happened thus far.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at January 26, 2005 07:30 PM

long time no read Jeff --- Dont forget that the dumbocrats lack long-term thinking -- the easy path of victimization and blame is the path they always choose. Thats what defines their party. Consequently it was their party that resisisted Civil Rights, tended to be isolationist even in WW TWO and demilitarized and deintelligentized under Clinton's husband. Their main concern is propping up the fraudulent carpetbaggers they call leaders, eg Shyumer, Hillary, Obama, Kennedy, Boxer, Pelosi etc. Invariably their concern over Iraq is not for the lives of heroes but for the dollars which could be going into the burgeoning self-serving, morally and financially bankrupt government union class and their satanic programs which demean and demoralize individuals. They worship weakness and disease and I suggest they start calling their party for what it really is--- the VIchyists.

Posted by: hound at January 27, 2005 04:02 PM

hound,

I can't help but visualize you foaming at the mouth as you typed your last post. You forgot to add that democrats hate freedom and are all homosexual communists.

Posted by: Vex at January 28, 2005 06:06 PM

Not all --- just the mainstream ones

Posted by: hound at January 28, 2005 10:05 PM

Russia may be the EU's problem, but since they are unwilling to pull their weight, we will do the duty. The same for China. We have learned to take the responsibility for all contingencies, plan for all threats. Honesty requires us accept that these two countries, should they choose to make trouble, could credibly challenge every strand in our defensive web. China, moreover, has the appearance of wishing to do so at some point.

Since this threat is prime, every nickel we spend will be evaluated against it. Other requirements will also be addressed, but only as secondary, even loose nukes and terror operations within the borders. China dictates our priorities, which is why the NCO crowd will prevail.

Posted by: jj at January 31, 2005 10:18 PM