Can we think our way out of Iraq?

David Ignatius still thinks it's possible, but that it would require a revolutionary shift in how we frame our foreign policy goals. He's been reading "The Pentagon's New Map" by Thomas Barnett, which isn't going to be on the New York Times best seller list, but is apparently on the required reading list for all incoming one star admirals and generals these days.

Barnett tries to define two classes of countries in the world - one that is connected to the global powerhouse of progress and one which is isolated and disconnected. His claim is that we are fighting the wrong enemy, and I think he makes some sense.

Barnett's central thesis is that today's world is divided into two categories: the "Functioning Core" of nations connected to the global economy and prospering as never before, and the "Non-Integrating Gap" of nations disconnected from the matrix of wealth and progress and therefore spinning toward chaos. Most of America's military interventions in recent years have been in the Gap, notes Barnett, but we have failed to understand that we face a common enemy there.

The enemy "is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (the Middle East), but a condition -- disconnectedness," writes Barnett. "If disconnectedness is the real enemy, then the combatants we target in this war are those who promote it, enforce it and terrorize those who seek to overcome it by reaching out to the larger world." It's hard to think of a better definition of the cleavages that underlie the war in Iraq or the battle against al Qaeda.

Will that sort of approach add up to a "success" in Iraq? Barnett thinks not, but he proposes the most revolutionary idea I've heard to date. In effect, we let the Iranians take care of Iraq, and work on building a bridge to get them more "connected" and in tune with global concerns.

So what does Barnett's strategy imply for the vexing problems of today, such as Iraq and Iran? Barnett argued in his book that linking Iraq to the Core is job No. 1. "Show me an Iraq that is as globally connected as an Israel in 10 years and I will show you a Middle East that can never go back to what it has been these past two decades -- overwhelmingly disconnected, populated with dispirited youth, and enraged beyond our capacity for understanding." Barnett would still like to see such an Iraq emerge as a stabilizing local pillar, but he told me this week that the U.S. occupation there has been so "totally snafu-ed" that Iraq may not be able to play that role.

Barnett sees Iran as the potential bridge between Core and Gap in the Middle East. He will argue in an article in the next issue of Esquire that the United States should try to make Iran its local security partner in the region, accepting its hegemony over a future Shiite-led Iraq and the Persian Gulf. The alternative is a new Yalta-style fault line between East and West -- one that could divide the West from emerging Core countries such as India and China.

Visiting Iraq, as I did this month, you can see that the United States has gotten itself into a heck of a mess in that part of the world. Reading Barnett's book gave me a rare moment of hope that perhaps we can still think ourselves out of these problems, rather than just shoot our way out.

This column, and possibly even this book, might be worth a long, hard look. It would be a lot easier to sell the idea of getting the hell out of Iraq right now if we were handing it over to somebody who is better able to manage it. Iran could certainly fill the bill, and while movements towards modernization in that country have been stymied by their powerful clergy, it still looks as if reform is on the way. I'd rather bomb Iran with televisions, Tivo boxes, and satellite capable PC's than cruise missles any day. For that matter, it would be a lot cheaper. We could probably wire up every building, including dog houses, in Iran with a high speed internet connection for less than the cost of four Tomahawks.