... by the same guy that wrote The Pentagon's New Map.  A very interesting book:  I guarantee there will be something in it to piss off every person posting to the board.  Among his ideas:

-- the dept of homeland security should be abolished,
-- we will never go to war with China,
-- Iran WILL get Nukes.  Long term, this will be a good thing.
-- Iran is the most important country in the Middle East.  
-- Palestine / Israel are not very important.
-- Bush was right going into Iraq.  
-- The problems we are faced with because of Iraq are stupid
    blunders.

   ..................

He makes a good case for all these things.

Discuss

Harry

'Barnett says the U.S. military has a massive doctrinal flaw. It has an unrivalled power to win wars. But it has little ability to win the peace. Witness Iraq, where virtually no thought was given to postwar stabilization and reconstruction. Etc'

Question, what is the role of the military?   Should it be both a coercive force AND a civil action force?   Doesn't that have some pretty serious implications for the way we approach democracy?   Is it possible, that a global SWAT team is able to impose a particular civil culture?     Those of us who lived thru Vietnam sometimes doubt the ability to force a person to adopt a foreign culture.   That seems a job for salesmen, and the military are not salesmen, and I think it's a good thing for our democracy that they are not.

Bush was right to go into Iraq because he can get a good result there?  Or, Bush was right to disregard American opinion and process in going into Iraq?   Pardon us, but we are much less concerned about Iraq and its fate, than we are about America and its fate; and we do not think any President has any business misleading his country about what he wants to do, or why, or what the price is likely to be.

Of course there was no forethought going into Iraq.   ANY moron could see that rebuilding was the problem, and would take a generation AT LEAST, while we were standing in the cross-fire of competing regional interests, and that is exactly the way it has played out.  

Bush was too anxious, and obviously had ulterior motives.  The military has been cast into a role that it is not prepared for, and it's doubtful that it should even have.

Even if Bush can get a good result in Iraq - if the price can ever be calculated - he has still done indeterminable damage to American democracy, by disregarding American opinion and process, and taking us into an indefinite war on false pretenses.

I was listening to the radio a few weeks back and heard an interview with Jeffrey D. Sachs's that I found rather interesting and thought I’d share it.  With some of the recent debates on the political boards about immigration, economics, corporatism and our national safety ...  

Jeffrey D. Sachs has a rather intriguing approach to dealing with many of these issue simultaneously all the while attacking what he feels is at the heart of much of the problem "poverty" across the globe . . .  He lays claim that he's discussed the topic with many military leaders that claim it's fruitless to continue a military approach to safety that simply cannot be provided in areas of the globe where people are hungry and fighting for simple survival of life . . .  it's an interesting concept, that tree hugging liberals will embrace and strong military conservatives may take exception with, but give it a chance and take a minute to read the website, and maybe read the book, and review his theories that maybe we can achieve ... "world-wide economic success — a goal, he argues, we can reach in a mere twenty years."  I'm going to look for it and pick up a copy.

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/endofpoverty

http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2005/story03-01-05e.html



-- Modified on 6/1/2006 4:43:32 PM

Here's an interesting take on why George W. and Tony Blair really invaded Iraq by Robert Newman, an English comic - sort of a more intelligent Bill Maher.

The entire piece is called "The History of Oil" (see 2nd URL) that runs ~45 min, while the first piece (1st URL) is an extract which delves into why Tony Blair went walk-about:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1647806175311116320&q=robert+newman


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7374585792978336967&q=robert+newman

doesn't it occur to you that poverty or not, is relative?   That the lowest percentage who are dissatisfied, or those who think they should be dissatisfied, will always be poor?

Haven't you met people who couldn't get their act together if you gave them a million bucks and followed them around wiping their ass?  and conversely, people who manage to cope, both economically and mentally, in almost any situation?   I see them all the time.

The message was...
The plan was...

We just need to try harder.

**sigh**