Solution sets on Iraq, Iran and North Korea
Wednesday, October 11, 2006 at 8:13AM DATELINE: Indy, 11 October 2006.
Fighting asymmetrically isn't really that complex. Yes, we dress up with these overarching notions of 4GW and imagine further iterations of similar rising complexity, but by and large, fighting asymetrically often involves simply socializing your problem.
Basically, socializing your problem is about recognizing that the problem you're facing is too large for you to handle, so you blow it up and make it the problem of a whole lot of other people besides yourself.
9/11 is the great example to me, but so is the Big Bang. With 9/11, Osama and al Qaeda socialize their problem to include America proper. Without drawing the Americans in for some real conflict in the Middle East, al Qaeda's chances of effecting fundamentalist revolution there were nil. The "moderate dictators" were simply too good at what they do: buying off as much political support as necessary and sending away as many unredeemables as required (encouraging them to play in some neighbor's yard).
But once Osama gets the Americans in the mix, he's got a board in play--and a chance.
Bush came to the same conclusion after 9/11: I'm going to make this problem the problem of a whole lot of other people besides America. So he issues his axis list, regrettably telegraphing his punches, and makes bold declaration of global war on terrorism. And he decided to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq--the first as pure retribution and the second as the true socialization of the problem (giving Osama right back to the Middle East). Was Bush worried about attracting too much attention? Hell no. "Bring it on," he said.
I think both Osama's and Bush's choices were strong and strategic ones, but I think each set in motion all sorts of other players reaching similar conclusions. When Hezbollah kidnaps that Israeli soldier, the group effectively socialized its problem of being unable to advance its cause within Lebanon. A Lebanon that's progressively connecting to the outside world again and is free of Syrian military occupation is not a Lebanon within which Hezbollah can win rule. But a Lebanon that Israel's decimated? That's a board in play.
Same thing for Iran, waiting on the Bush military strike. Tehran decides to socialize its problem with the asymmetrical attack on Israel. All of a sudden, it's a lot of people's problem--these crazy Americans and their threats.
Same thing for North Korea. If Kim submits to the six-party talks, then he's the problem. But fire off some missiles and test a nuke and all of a sudden it's Condi Rice and America that have explaining to do, declaring we have no attention of invading North Korea. So long as Kim feels like he's being isolated and targeted by the U.S. for regime change, he's got a big problem. But socializing it with the threat of nukes, now the region has a problem.
As I have written many times in the past, we need to help set up regional security schemes (or regimes, to use an International Relations phrase) for both the Middle East and East Asia.
In the latter, I've frequently described using the Kim takedown as a precursor to establishing an East Asia NATO. Why? America can't seriously anticipate a Long War focused on the Gap and all those failed states while holding up the hedge against great power war in East Asia. Simply not enough troops, as we're proving now in Iraq. Also simply not enough friends, which we prove in Africa where the Chinese are everywhere commercially and diplomatically and we're just beginning to set up the embryonic AFRICOM command. By not having an East Asian NATO, we deny ourselves access to our own labor, better put to use elsewhere, and we deny ourselves future logical allies, like body-heavy China.
I know that considering China is a big leap for many long accustomed (and conditioned) to see China only as threat and enemy (apparently, a lot of Glenn Reynolds' readers), but I don't know how you look ahead strategically on either global economics or the Long War and not come to that conclusion. To me, that's just pissing in the wind to imagine we can rely on Europe and Japan--the old West (and the rest of my Old Core), when it's clear that the most incentivized pillars in the Core right now are its newest members (an argument I beat to death in BFA). Our overlap in both strategic interests (we want the same things to happen in the Gap) and capabilities (demographically vibrant, got militaries, and aren't afraid to use them) is stunning in comparison to the lack of the same with Japan and Old Europe (and getting older by the minute, as Steyn constantly reminds).
So when people say, "well, then, how do we move forward?" My reply is simple. We recognize who our new allies are naturally going to be in the future and we begin that co-optation process immediately. We bring them into every situation where we need their help and we insert ourselves--appropriately--into every situation where they need our help. What we don't do is hold onto outdated enemy images or continue adhering to outdated strategic concepts.
In East Asia, would I have a Six-Party forum on North Korea?
No. I'd have an X-party forum on creating an East Asian NATO, within which I'd most deliberately set China up as the mainland mainstay. I'd get them as comfortable as possible strategically, and then I'd talk about North Korea with them within that context.
I wouldn't keep up the Taiwan charade. I wouldn't invite Japan to join my defense guarantee on that.
Frankly, I'd tell the whole region that I'm seeking strategic alliance with Beijing and that I want them in on that most important discussion.
And when Kim got nervous and jumped up and down, I'd look him in the eye and say, "Don't worry, we're going to get around to you soon enough."
And then I'd let Kim's desperation and paranoia set the timetable for the rest of what needed to be done to create an East Asian NATO.
But I would most definitely lock in China at today's prices, and travel through Beijing to get to Pyongyang--at a speed of China's choosing but enabled by my rapid embrace of China as a strategic ally.
Against what?
Against anything we both feel threatens globalization. No need to declare war on everyone and everything in advance. Act first and explain later and stop telegraphing our punches.
In the Middle East, I'd twist as many arms as necessary and make as many promises and compromises as necessary to get some CSCE-like regional security dialogue going, and I'd make sure my entire BRIC quartet was there, plus NATO.
In that dialogue, I'd be forced to make my first compromises with all of Iraq's neighbors, but by giving them what they want in the meantime (regime security), I'd fix the mess I got ourselves into in Iraq first.
The more I'd do this, the more nervous Israel would get, but the more nervous Israel got, the more I'd use that to bring Israel into that mix, socializing the Palestinian problem just like the Iraq one.
I would suffer the slings and arrows of Iran's emergence as the cost for this strategy. But by stabilizing the region on Iraq and Palestine, I make it harder for Tehran to keep the clamps on tight domestically, and that plays into my hands demographically with time.
Then, as I build my tight relationship with China, which I extend to India and Russia, I use that trio to get what I want from Iran over time, making the Iranian problem their problem and solution set.
You can say, "But the Bush administration constantly asks these nations for help on Iran, and we've worked China like crazy on North Korea! And we can't talk with Syria and Iran on Iraq because they're already working directly to sabotage our efforts there!"
As I have said many times with the Bush crew, they lack strategic imagination. They pick up new enemies while not getting rid of outdated ones. They know when to say no but not when to say yes. Worst of all, they want all compromises to be on their terms. They ask for your help when they can't do it alone, but they almost never think they can't do it alone.
"But all of this will take too long. We need answers now."
Sure we do, but messes long-in-the-making require solutions long-in-the-building.
I just don't see us getting what we need in Asia without a regional security scheme that enshrines China as both our strategic ally and main security pillar of the region. Until we give them what they're going to achieve anyway with time, there's no incentive for them to speed up their efforts on our behalf, especially since those efforts would put their trajectory at risk and facilitate our own open attempts to "contain" China's rise.
In short, the Chinese aren't stupid.
Iran's trajectory--believe it or not--is similarly bright and strong in the Middle East. Think of a country that can be both body (resources) and head (that ambitious, young, educated population) in the region better than Iran twenty years from now. We can either be part of making that trajectory happen and work for us, or we can be part of trying to keep it from happening, suffering the regional insecurity that will inevitably result.
Our problem set is no longer containing the Sovs, but we act like we can and should tackle today's problems and the Long War by relying on the same aging cast of allies. North Korea won't be solved by having Japan and South Korea on our side, but by doing whatever it takes to get China to deal with that problem with us and on our behalf. That's the obvious direction our socialization of the problem should go.
Ditto for Iran on Iraq. No one country in the region is going to be able to help us more on settling Iraq than Iran.
Don't want to ally yourself with such a nasty regime? Well, then get the hell out of the Long War, because you're not a realistic strategist who's determined to win but rather a naive tactician who thinks it's cool to take on all-comers at once.
Bush and company are backtracking in both East Asia and the Middle East because they're simply not imaginative enough to see this Long War through in all its strategic implications. Yes, we will make some strange bedfellows in the near term. Such is war. But the real question is whether you want to look good or win.
Me? Like many of my military friends, I don't believe in fair fights. When I enter a fight, I believe in doing whatever it takes to get through it as quickly as possible and as safely as possible. Then I move onto the next challenge.
But this Bush administration has not done that. They came into power all excited to transform the military for future war with China, simply substituting one bogeyman for another. 9/11 pulled this crew into the Long War, but it did not cure them of their Cold War thinking. They added new enemies but no new allies. They got so excited at the prospect of going from A to Z in the Persian Gulf that they forgot all about B through Y as pathways.
Well, now that journey is inescapable.
Want to fix Iraq? Then fix your relationships with Iran and through Iran with Syria.
Want to fix North Korea? Then build strategic alliance with China that can incorporate that solution set.
What we do now with each is boss them around. Hasn't worked up to now and it won't work in the future. Instead, they'll free-ride us to death--quite literally if we let them. And in the end, they'll get what they want regionally at virtually no cost to themselves. Meanwhile, we'll be bankrupted.
Or, we'll get something much smarter on Jan 2009 and let the bidding begin.
And yes, since you ask, I do realize that in penning this post I've basically restated all of my arguments I laid out to the Bush administration at the beginning of their second term (the Esquire Mar 05 piece, called, "Dear Mr. President, Here's How to Make Sense of Your Second Term, Secure Your Legacy, and, oh yeah, Create a Future Worth Living." It was what I believed then and it's still what I believe now. To me, a serious grand strategist isn't somebody with a new answer every week. He gives you the answer you need when you need it. How long you waste before taking his advice is your problem.
And yes, yes, I know how frustrating it can be to read this blog and hear only about the long term, but I will confess, that's my uncorrected vision. In my heart, I'm a grand strategic thinker simply because I have no choice. I am not a political animal. I don't think particularly well on those terms. Because I am such a pure, long-term thinker, I cannot easily divorce my advice from that perspective. When I try, it just seems dishonest and pointless--as in, I really do believe I know better, so why feed you something contradictory for just the short-term when I know it won't get you the long-term you need.
And I know that argument is frustrating for a lot of people right now, because we've got two years left on this administration and it seems more and more--on an almost daily basis--as a continuously unfolding disaster. You can almost feel the price of the inevitable correction go up with each week, making the next president a very important choice.
We're suffering our system right now. If this were a parliamentary system, this government would fall in a few weeks--plain and simple. But that will not happen, and I have zero expectation that Bush will change, or that Rice will suddenly move beyond her talking-point style as SECSTATE. Meanwhile, Rummy's retreated to his office, sending Schoomaker to the Hill, and our Marines and Army are being forced to continue this fight under the worst circumstances.
Truth be told, there's not much use for me in this environment right now. Until Jan 09 this ship is going to be necessarily driven according to very short-term political expediencies (the Rove approach), and that simply will not do. But it's inevitable unless the Dems score such a huge victory and Bush is so thoroughly repudiated that he feels many heads must roll and new strategic approaches employed.
But I am not optimistic the Dems' victory will be big enough to force such change, and I am deeply worried that their leadership isn't up to the challenge of articulating an alternative strategic vision, much less working with the wounded, lame-duck Bush team to make it happen. I fear a muddling-through outcome that will make the next two years awfully unpleasant.
Sad, but a sort of poetic justice WRT to this administration, even as it's supremely unfair to those lives unnecesarily lost in the meantime.
Remember back to 2000, when the word on Bush was "all hat, no cattle." Well, it looks like we should have "blinked" on that one.
Reader Comments (16)
Tom,
Since this is the first time I've read about this strategic vision, let me say its breathtaking and persuasive.
With the strength of the Israel and Taiwan lobbies rapproachment with China and Iran is unfortunately too great a domestic political stretch.
Perhaps if you were more of a short term thinker you might envision an alternative scenario for the next two years. Mid-scandal, would you have thought it possible for Reagan's post Iran-Contra administration to be so productive?
2009 can't come fast enough. Problem is, who is out there that can right the ship? Any suggestions?
chew2,
this is just an amateur's hunch, but I think how strong those lobbies really are will depend to a large extent on whether or not an attractive alternative to the status quo is presented.
Right now, people see only two alternatives: maintain the current relationships, or through Israel and Taiwan to the proverbial wolves. Even people who don't necessarily like those government's policies are going to have a hard time dropping the status quo that way; the Israeli and Taiwanese lobbies have little they need to do to win. Pitch a third option, one that saves their lives and essential freedoms while giving us more flexibility, and they'll have a harder time arguing against that.
One would think, well at least I would, a strategic partnership - Mr. Bush goes to China - on shared East Asian security and maybe the co-controlled development of an alternative energy source on the side would right just about every messed up ship afloat today and tomorrow...
Look, Taiwanese integration into the mainland is a given. It's simply a matter of time. They're rapidly integrating the two economies. Soon Taiwan won't be able to survive without PRC trade(I'm not sure that they could now). That's not throwing them to the wolves. THat's just accepting the trends of things.
The question is into what do they integrate? The system that is producing more and more social unrest every year or something else? It comes down to incentives. Just like what the incentives are for the PRC in reforming NorKor or leaving it be. If they get a better deal out of it they'll do it. If not the status quo works since the DPRK is aimed at someone else. That's the free ride that keeps getting talked about around here.
There are options to be had. Make Taiwan a true autonomous zone (which if it gets the HK treatment can suceed, like Puerto Rico or Texas here in the US) and deep six the TRA in return for the PRC doing the SysAdmin of DPRK after a take down(which lets them keep the buffer state they'll want anyways). This is the culmunating event that's the start of a NATO East Asia. Of course, they'll want someone else to pay for much of it.
ANd don't go insulting the Blue Team. Jeebus. Haters.
Sean:
A little aside: Is it possible for you to post a glossary of all the acronyms that are used in the blog by both Tom and the commentators? I spend a lot of time trying to figure them out and I'm not always sure I'm right.
Best-
Michal
Michal: i wondered who searched the weblog for 'WRT' ;-) (btw (by the way), that one means 'with respect to')
i will consider it. thanks for the suggestion.
in the meantime, Wikipedia has a pretty good global list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acronyms_and_initialisms
Getting the center-right to take a different look at the PRC is as simple as asking "what is China"? China has a multi-thousand year history of breaking up when it takes a sharp turn. That's just what it does and nobody on the center-right is going to argue with you. So if you want to take the PRC into the land of freedom, you're going to have to deal with that history, deal with that reality, deal with the factions *inside* the current PRC that may turn into the warlords of the mini-Chinas of tomorrow when the current godless atheistic regime goes all pear shaped.
And even if you aren't a bush 2nd inaugural loving freedom for everyone conservative, the current regime cannot last. The factions may keep the label like Apple kept its label when it was taken over by NeXT or Disney is keeping its label as the Pixar guppy swallows that whale but Mao's gone, Deng's gone, what's going to follow is going to be different and it's in the interests of the US to encourage and help the proper factions rise to the top of the pile so that they come to a sustainable course that doesn't require war with the US or other external enemy to keep a lid on domestic unrest. We empower the factions that don't want war with the US by giving them the keys to us soothing the PRC's nerves.
It's actually quite easy to make the case for engagement with the PRC from a center-right point of view. You just have to do it on substantially different grounds than you do when you're addressing a lefty audience.
The Bush administration deserves neither uncritical support nor the "just wait 'till 2009" attitude that is so common. They have made serious mistakes during their time. There is significant room for improvement. But at every step, the alternatives on offer were clearly inferior and that's something serious to worry about.
TM, the end of your comment is right on. We are a two party political system and that's not going to change anytime soon. There is no one at the leadership level of the Democratic Party that can touch any of the strategic ideas promoted by TPNM. And the base of the party is too deeply rooted in the 1960's isolationist pacifism to offer any serious response to the what is going on in the world. That leaves us with the Republicans who can at least act civilly while in the same room with military types. I guess that is from where we will have to start.
Ry, I think you may have misunderstood my comments. I wasn't accusing Dr Barnett or anyone else of throwing Taiwan to the wolves. I was pointing out that, in the rhetoric that flies around society when Taiwan or Israel comes up, many people are given the impression that only two options exist. Unconditional support no matter what they do, or no support at all, let them be invaded and destroyed. My point being that, if you present a third option, the people benefiting from the propagation of those two options will suddenly have a harder time making their case. I'm sorry if didn't make myself clear.
Yeah, on the politics.
Much of Dr. Barnett's frustration and commentary seems to be out of a desire to 'qualify' the Republican Admin or Bush's circle...and lacking that qualification the mind seeks alternatives.
Maybe the frustration lets up when you get traction on 'disqualifying' the Democratic alternative, then compare that back to your still-unqualified, but not disqualified Republicans (can we account for the steep AND long learning curve here?).
Disqualifying Democrats at the philosophical (activists), operational (base) or political (named leadership) levels seems easy and suddenly definitive to me.
But, maybe they'll 'grow' (i.e. discard both their core beliefs and the politics that brought them to power) in office?
Brian: Bush has grown in office, right?
but i hate to vote for someone with that hope...
"As I have said many times with the Bush crew, they lack strategic imagination. They pick up new enemies while not getting rid of outdated ones. They know when to say no but not when to say yes. Worst of all, they want all compromises to be on their terms. They ask for your help when they can't do it alone, but they almost never think they can't do it alone."
Unfortunately, this failing is bipartisan. What did we give the Russian government in return for them cutting Milosevic loose during the Kosovo war and bringing political pressure to conclude a war that militarily was going nowhere? Nothing. And to top it off, we now claim that we defeated Yugoslavia militarily in Kosovo. And so we pile insult on top of self-delusion, and then wonder why governments like China or Russia aren't terribly interested in listening to our concerns.
>who is out there that can right the ship?
The current administration has smothered everything they touched with incompetance. Anyone who has aligned themselves with the administration has automatically disqualified themselves from showing any competence, intelligence or credibility.
With a third carrier group arriving in the Persian Gulf region in the next week, I'm betting that the administration will attack Iran to draw attention away from Foley and Iraq just long enough to prevail in the elections that are coming in a couple weeks. KJI took this opportunity to light off a nuke (perhaps a fizzle or perhaps a second generation sub-KT nuke) without interference from the US, because we're going to attack Iran, and I bet you'll hear a line like "President Bush does not want to distract international attention from Iran" in the near term.
The attitude of the folks in the administration is "you don't negotiate with evil" (for various values of evil). Therefore, all diplomatic efforts by this administration are doomed to failure from the start.
When the administration was preparing for invading Iraq, North Korea withdrew from the Agreed Framework, restarted their nuclear power plant, broke the seals on the vaults of spent fuel rods, then drove the rods away for reprocessing. At that time, we could have done something to avoid a nuclear armed North Korea, but instead went for Iraqi oil fields.
>In January [2004], a senior administration official told The New York Times, "President Bush does not want to distract international attention from Iraq."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html
Tangurena,
I think even the Bush administration sees real obstacles for a military attack on Iran. The Bush administration may have been able to "go it alone" on Iraq because Iraq didn't have any serious economic partners. What do think Russia,China, and India might have to say about a US attack on Iran. Can't imagine we wouldn't end up in an worse position in the world's eyes.