where's the link?

It isn't a link. I just underlined the title. Still like $32.00 at Borders or Barnes & Noble. Here's the blog, though.

Thomas P.M. Barnett

thanks for the blog link

Are you saying you don't think we should stay either? sorry, I'm just a little confused. :)

I said back in '03 or '04 around here that the final victory in Iraq would not be ours, but necessarily must be the Iraqis'. What we should do is to set up the conditions for a victory by the globalizer Iraqis, the democratic Iraqis who got themselves a bellyful of undemocracy under Saddam and his ilk and are now ready to try something else, and something better: a more democratic social order. We should set it up so this victory is in the end inevitable -- at least so far as that may be possible. The thing that makes social science so much less than a science, and social engineering so much less than engineering, is that the fundamental unit of social science is not a molecule, but a self-willed organism. Organisms actively seek their own advantage, and this kind of behavior is what fuzzes up the results in social science. It reduces a socalled science to an art, and we're stuck with that.

And back then, I expected that the timing of our eventual and always-expected departure would be controversial: some would argue too late, others would say too early, more work is needed yet, and almost no one would claim in print (at the time) that it was timed about right.

This Barnett guy seems to offer some pretty cagey ideas for how to pursue this kind of strategy not merely in Araby, but globally -- shrinking the Non-Integrating Gap, as he puts it, nation by nation, increment by increment, developmental stage by developmental stage -- these stages being essentially economic ones, the most earthshaking of which is the rise of a numerous middle class, in places that never had them before. Education of women is another essential, and often catalytic to the required social growth. It is also the one thing our antiglobalist foes oppose most bitterly -- and locally and temporarily, with greatest success.

ahhhh, I see. Thanks UG for that explanation. I actually think I agree with you. (quick! call the press!)

The one comment I will make, is there are certain people who will ALWAYS argue it's too soon, more work is needed, even if it's 20 years later.

This moment is like when the 16 year old son borrows the car for the first time.

You've taught him to drive, lectured him on safety, shown him car crashes, taken him to the ICU to talk with the quadraplegics; now, you hear the rumble of the exhaust down the driveway...
Will he drive sensibly and carefully like you told him? Will he turn into a hoon and wreck everything? Will some idiot smash into him despite everything you have done?

My guess is that the next few months - maybe even a year or so - will stay relatively quiet, as more and more foreign troops slowly leave. But I also guess there are trouble makers just biding their time, and when they judge that enough foreign troops have left, they will start to stir up shit. Mosque bombings, street killings, etc.
Whether that remains under control or descends into civil war and ends up like Lebannon is the question. It depends on so many things - almost all of them to do with the Iraqi people and whether they really support their government, enough to serve in its armies; or whether they become disenchanted with the rulers and apathetically allow extremists to screw things up.

I am not very hopeful. Iraq isn't a "natural state" - three big groups with different ethnicities, religions, and languages, and a history of bad behaviour towards each other. And some juicy oil deposits to keep things interesting. Add in meddling neighbours, and I think the odds are moderately against them. On the plus side, they have got a glimpse of life under religious whackos, and they didn't like it. Most of them will surely understand what civil war will mean for them, I hope.

Wait and see.

I think ultimately it might have been better to divide it up into 3 states for the 3 factions.

I have thought of that, but Bagdad is a huge multi-ethinc mix. It wont divide neatly. Splitting the country would almost certainly lead to awful bloodshed in Bagdad. Also, the oil is not distibuted evenly - some groups wont want to split.

It may end up Balkanising, but the process will be very ugly. But, that may in the long run be the only viable stable solution.

:corn:

kinda like Jerusalem...

The obvious solution is a secular dictatorship. No matter how bad Saddam was, Iraq was more or less stable under it, so that has to be remembered. Though, that obviously is not a preferable solution.

Yeah. Goes without saying. Maybe not without linking to here, but without saying...

There were 0 (zero) hostility-related coalition deaths in Iraq during the month of December.

That is incredible! yay US

That is amazing, all things considered. Probably underreported as well, but still awesome.