Robb's weak day
Friday, May 19, 2006 at 4:31AM A reader writes in to ask Tom about about John Robb's latest post: JOURNAL: Primary Loyalties in Basra, where he critiques Tom. Tom replies:
Robb straw-mans opposing views too often, reducing them to absurdity. I write disconnectedness defines danger. I don't pretend there's some grossly simplistic causality traceable through all human interaction. Robb's being silly and mechanistic to argue like this, like I should see a 10 percent drop in conflict with a 10 percent rise in connectedness.Iraq was a disconnected country suffering dictatorship before we invaded. Then we screwed the postwar and now there is a load of civil strife that keeps any meaningful economic connectedness from emerging. What does this prove on some grand scale? It proves we screwed up the postwar.
Robb is being rhetorically obtuse, a common sin among bloggers, because it's just so damn convenient in this sloppy, free-for-all environment (sorry, but I bow not to the blogosphere in all its self-delusional glory). Today Robb prefers to fight straw-men. It's a free net--but a serious competition of ideas. Everyone approaches that promise and peril differently, and does better on some days than others.
This is very weak Robb today. He usually performs better.
I find a lot of it has to do with your daily confidence level.
Reader Comments (6)
"I write disconnectedness defines danger.
...
Iraq was a disconnected country suffering dictatorship before we invaded."
In hindsight, is it fair to say that while being disconnected Iraq was not a danger? I would be interested in more concrete data, but Iraq seems much more connected, and dangerous, now than prewar.
September 2005: "Mr. Alhuseini added that initial estimates indicate that the expected [Saudi] investments in Iraq will exceed US$44 billion during the next few years, especially in the fields of infrastructure, oil and IT projects."
Department of State lists UPS and Procter and Gamble investment success stories.
"With the lifting of UN sanctions after the Ba’ath regime was removed in 2003, Iraq is gradually resuming trade relations with the international community, including with the U.S. The U.S. designated Iraq as a beneficiary developing country under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program in September 2004. Iraq was granted observer status at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in February 2004, and began its WTO accession process in December 2004."
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/6804.htm
Robb's constantly magnifying the negative and minimizing the positive. That's an integral part of his schtick. It was inevitable that he'd strike out at Tom Barnett and quite likely that he'll repeat the strike over and over again at every opportunity. A future worth creating is not one where global guerillas have a prominent role to play. As long as he remains wedded to his vision of a future GG plagued dystopia, there will be conflict.
"Then we screwed the postwar and now there is a load of civil strife that keeps any meaningful economic connectedness from emerging. What does this prove on some grand scale? It proves we screwed up the postwar."
We may have screwed up the postwar, but how about this article from Amir Taheri where he staes:
"Spending time in the United States after a tour of Iraq can be a disorienting experience these days. Within hours of arriving here, as I can attest from a recent visit, one is confronted with an image of Iraq that is unrecognizable. It is created in several overlapping ways: through television footage showing the charred remains of vehicles used in suicide attacks, surrounded by wailing women in black and grim-looking men carrying coffins; by armchair strategists and political gurus predicting further doom or pontificating about how the war should have been fought in the first place; by authors of instant-history books making their rounds to dissect the various fundamental mistakes committed by the Bush administration; and by reporters, cocooned in hotels in Baghdad, explaining the carnage and chaos in the streets as signs of the countrys impending or undeclared civil war. Add to all this the days alleged scandal or revelationan outed CIA operative, a reportedly doctored intelligence report, a leaked pessimistic assessmentand it is no wonder the American public registers disillusion with Iraq and everyone who embroiled the U.S. in its troubles.
It would be hard indeed for the average interested citizen to find out on his own just how grossly this image distorts the realities of present-day Iraq. Part of the problem, faced by even the most well-meaning news organizations, is the difficulty of covering so large and complex a subject; naturally, in such circumstances, sensational items rise to the top. But even ostensibly more objective efforts, like the Brookings Institutions much-cited Iraq Index with its constantly updated array of security, economic, and public-opinion indicators, tell us little about the actual feel of the country on the ground.
To make matters worse, many of the newsmen, pundits, and commentators on whom American viewers and readers rely to describe the situation have been contaminated by the increasing bitterness of American politics. Clearly there are those in the media and the think tanks who wish the Iraq enterprise to end in tragedy, as a just comeuppance for George W. Bush. Others, prompted by noble sentiment, so abhor the idea of war that they would banish it from human discourse before admitting that, in some circumstances, military power can be used in support of a good cause. But whatever the reason, the half-truths and outright misinformation that now function as conventional wisdom have gravely disserved the American people."
I don't know if he's right, but his words, coupled with information I glean from blogs in Iraq and miltary blogs, make me think there might be some light at the end of the tunnel. (Or an oncoming train?) If they do manage to get the government up and running with sufficient security forces to provide the necessary security, I beleieve we will be able to say thet we didn't do the postwar as well as we wanted to, but we did get 'er done.
Jim Glendenning - I think that we can still lose this but we're doing much, much better than the conventional wisdom says. If we turn out to either win to the surprise of most, will we do enough lessons learned to not repeat the errors of analysis next time?
Bit of a disappointing response this. Tom could have had an interesting discussion about the details of "connectedness" : which sort of links we want, and which we don't want. Which ones are being created. Which ones we need to stimulate. Etc.
I'm an unashamed Robbista rather than Barnettite here. At least John seems to understand that there are different kinds of connectivity making different kinds of network; some benign, some not so benign. The feeling I get from Barnett is that he only thinks of "connectedness" as "being part of the capitalist market". He doesn't pause to think about the connectedness within the network that circulates cassette speeches by popular imams. Or connectedness within the black market for guns etc.
Phil: Tom understands bad connectivity. he says that we have to firewall the Core off from the Gaps worst exports. true, he usually talks about connectivity as being a good thing. and, probably, it's shorthand for 'good connectivity'. Tom understands that there is bad connectivity. he just doesn't make a worldview out of it.