Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Bone Head simplification is a sickness to both wings of each major party (about 20% on each side). Right now, the "progressive" soft leftists are upset, especially where I live....but they are simply projecting the bonehead "anti-war" message in a response to those "pro-war" Republicans like myself - Mind-numbing dichotomies at their finest. The exception in Jerry McNerney, CA, since he already is aware he represents a split district. I have some schadenfreude for those lefties, because lefties in my experience always claim intellectual prowess while Palin loving Reagan lovers always claim moral superiority.....but then you have the reality of governance.

One good thing I have noticed is that maybe just maybe someone is finally starting to get your concept of a SYSADMIN force with the added emphasis on training etc. Our Australian PM Kevin Rudd has recently increased the numbers of Police and civilian aid workers for training the Afghan forces. (The first step in the right direction?) The shadow of Iran still looms large and I wonder if they are perceiving this as a strategic move in direct retaliation for their support of Shia Muslim Houthi rebels in Yemen. What is your take on the likelihood of attacks on Saudi infrastructure if the Israelis do the sneaky?

Concur. Numbers were about right, wanted about 34K but can work with 30K, but he lost me with the timeline, and you are right about the Chinese border aspect, we need Afghanistan to work to improve our position vis a vi the Chinese.

I agree with you that China should be involved. But I think if Obama had said "I have called upon our friends in China to become part of the Afghan solution" we would have seen some amazingly negative reactions. I don't think the public at large is ready to view China as anything more than a competitor, much less a partner. The media would have a field day. I would hope that Chinese involvement is on the agenda with him; that it is something he has discussed with his advisers and with the Chinese, but the speech serves a different purpose. It cannot be completely transparent. I think we must look toward future actions to see what the real agenda is with both goverments.
BTW, I was surprised to see so many cadets dozing off in the audience during such a high profile televised speech. Is that because they get up so early?

What good is a US president's well articulated strategy with a rigid withdrawal date which most of us strongly feel cannot be met? War plans must be to win and not just to be warnings to our allies to shape up or we're out; or a political CYA for the Commander-in Chief.
I believe American's confidence in our leader declined!

I did notice there was the "dependent of conditions on the ground'" line that may indicate a for now this is what we plan to do however depending on the conditions in 18 months there may be some wiggle room if the interested parties mentioned and those not mentioned step up in some fashion. Have to start shaking off the freeloaders from the coattails at some point.

I of course look forward to your Thursday column. Re timeline: It seems to me (using Barnettian terms) that Obama's speech basically laid out the Leviathan phase of the war, which he said will be over by July 2011. There never really was a Leviathan phase in Afghanistan - we dropped a few bombs, helped the Northern Alliance move into Kabul, and then left the bare minimum NATO troops in place, including a lot of European "peace-keepers" who were described by one commentator as basically "campus cops." The Leviathan was never unleashed in the first place.
True, Obama didn't really say anything last night about the SysAdmin phase, which would be post-July 2011. Did he forget (I doubt it), or is he trying to avoid talking about the hard stuff (possibly). Another possibility is that the diplomatic structure is not in place at this time to truly regionalize the problem, but that he is hoping that we'll get there by 2011, which would give you your SysAdmin force. Was Holbrooke there last night? He's either doing some really potent behind-the-scenes diplomacy or he's got the ultimate no-show job. I hope it's the former.

Am I wrong in thinking that 2-5 years needed to train 30,000 COIN troops?

Also on reflection think the President's comments on Pakistan may indicate several new directions and the centrality of that country to the US interests in S. Asia. Finally, it would be of great interest if we could learn what the Chinese leadership thought of the speech and strategy revealed or not revealed.

Make no mistake ... much of what we heard last night is calculated to eventually result in re-election positives. That aside, however, I am dismayed that on the one hand he understands that the primary reason for our presence in Afghanistan is to eliminate threats against US security interests. In other words, it is primarily OUR business to be there. At the same time, he "warns" the Kabul government that we will begin to pull out in 18 months after which they will be responsible for their own country. Well, if we defeat our enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Kabul will neither need nor want us there. That's why I believe this war is an all-or-nothing proposition, and that any strategy (leviathan) resulting in anything less than absolute victory will leave no chance for a free Afghanistan (sysadmin) no mattere how well trained their security forces may be.

What's the story with Turkey? I could imagine all kinds of diplomatic sensitivities involving China and India that would have made it unlikely that Obama would have brought their names up in a public speech. But Turkey is a member of NATO. There are lots of logical reasons why it should be very involved in Afghanistan, but I haven't heard any mention of it. Is the Turkish government reluctant to get involved because of fear of its own Islamists (that would be inconsistent with the historical posture of Turkey's official secularism) or for some reason is the US reluctant to get Turkey involved, or is something else involved? Or is Turkey in fact very involved and I just haven't heard about it?

This is a "World" problem, with only 3 countries furnishing the "Cannon Fodder" necessary to bring change. The other countries offering UN troops have imposed such conditions on the times and places their troops may be used as to be completely ineffectual even if their number were greater.

Currently, unless I have been greatly misinformed, Canada and Britain are the only Allied or UN forces that are completely involved 24/7 alongside our own troops in Afghanistan . . and operating without covenant . .