I’ve only read bit and pieces online & reviews of etc, and also only bits and pieces of his Rise & Decline of the State – so can’t really comment with any great depth – others will probably know more. You don’t have to agree on the diagnosis to note the same symptoms (nor on the prescription and even prognosis).

A “global city” is def. enemy HQ to everyone with a gripe or plan – jihadists, religionists, nationalists, bandits, and spivs and con-men – a long list.

Being an Israeli may have given Van Creveld a heads up in the great game caper.

Here’s two thousand words.
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/1942world1600.jpg
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/images/pentagons_new_map.jpg

Paul – the Durkheimian explanation for the low crime rate in WW2 is similar to the reason for why it was also the nadir for suicide – total war brings about very strong social integration.

It’s a bit of a tangent to this post, and it might be interesting to return to it, but there’s some fascinating research on the changes in the crime rate over time.

“But one of the legacies of the Vietnam War is that the citizen-soldier concept is dead”

Hmmm, would General Vo Nguyen Giap agree?

“Giap mimicked the Chinese by creating different types of units: a regular army, regional forces, and popular or local troops. Each had parallel political organizations on every level of military command and emphasized troop indoctrination or political work in the army by party functionaries.” Michael A. Sheehan, forweord to George Tanham, “Communist Revoltionary Warfare. From the Vietminh to the Viet Cong”, Praeger Security International; 1961, 1968, 2006

You seem keen to paint them as almost Bush’s dupes. I suspect this slur is out of frustration of these men proving you wrong in your gloomy predictions for Iraq and particularly the supposed Tehran takeover of Iraq. Rather than admit you underestimated COIN and these mens expertise you want to ridicule them as unwitting pawns of Bush.

Perhaps it has escaped your attention that all US troops will be out of Iraq by 2011. In the meantime, their activities in Iraq have been severely curtailed.

What is two years when it will be possible for Iran to cement its influence in Iraq at its leisure any time after the departure of US troops? This has proven to be the cheapest victory of all for Iran.

Further still you seem upset the Shiites have poliical control in Iraq? Was it better when the Sunni minority ruled the Shiite? If the Shiite are the majority and the US is intent on introducing majority rule then by default of course they come to power. To suggest the US have been somehow tricked into this is just plain silly conspiracy theory nonsense.

How on earth did you justify that conclusion to yourself before betraying yourself in print?

I have no objection at all to majority rule so long as it does not accompany genocide. Why are you unwilling to acknowledge the tragedy that has befallen Iraqi Sunni, most of whom had no association whatsoever with either Saddam or Sunni jihadists?

Are you saying that the Bush Clique were and continue to be unaware of the plight of the Sunni population of Iraq?

If they wereaware (i.e., not bone ignorant), then they were complicit in the destruction of Sunni Iraq, because the weapons used to destroy the Sunni population were provided by the Bush Clique and paid for by the US taxpayer.

Where did I say what you alleged I said about Sadr?

That said Kilcullen and truth beknown probably even Petraeus (“where does this end?”) were both opposed to the Iraq invasion or at least in the form it was carried out in. You seem keen to paint them as almost Bush’s dupes. I suspect this slur is out of frustration of these men proving you wrong in your gloomy predictions for Iraq and particularly the supposed Tehran takeover of Iraq. Rather than admit you underestimated COIN and these mens expertise you want to ridicule them as unwitting pawns of Bush

In reality they realised regardless of merits of invasion or lack of they had to work towards normalising Iraq. They have essentially achieved this. Its still fragile but its been achieved. Kilcullen particularly was under no obligation to assist. He chose to be involved with the Surge and repeatedly warned as did Petraeus, that it would be hard and not assured of victory. Yes indeed there are still significant Sunni refugees but they are returning and those that have stayed are enjoying a far better way of life than 2 years ago. It also is no worse or better for them because of their religious sect.
Further still you seem upset the Shiites have poliical control in Iraq? Was it better when the Sunni minority ruled the Shiite? If the Shiite are the majority and the US is intent on introducing majority rule then by default of course they come to power. To suggest the US have been somehow tricked into this is just plain silly conspiracy theory nonsense.
Likewise when are we going to truly see some material influence of Tehran over Baghdad as you keep alluding to much like the military genius and imminent success of Al Sadr you bandied about not so long ago? If it turns out the Shia in parliament and other powerful positions do uphold Iraqi soveriegnity you are left with nothing.
I’m afraid this very blinkered “if George Bush was involved it must have been wrong in every single instance” constantly leads you towards quite remarkable positions.