Connect to win

ARTICLE: Mobile Phones Combat Taliban's Afghan 'Information Wastelands', By Indira A.R. Lakshmanan, Bloomberg, March 22, 2010

The gist:

One morning last summer, U.S. officials meeting in Afghanistan on the rooftop terrace of Ambassador Karl Eikenberry's Kabul residence had an "aha" moment.

Rear Admiral Greg Smith spread out two maps. One highlighted pockets of insurgent control; the other marked mobile-phone towers. Where the Taliban's presence was strongest, phone coverage was weakest, crippled by Taliban sabotage of the towers, recalled Smith and U.S. special envoy Richard Holbrooke in separate interviews about the July 27 meeting.

"We found that Afghans in the most-troubled, insurgent-held areas lived in information wastelands dominated by militant propaganda," Holbrooke said March 17. "We are fighting back with a revamped strategy that puts the people and their ability to communicate at the forefront of our effort."

An enduring argument of mine: this is a war of the connectors versus the disconnectors.

SysAdmin dynamics in Afghanistan

ARTICLE: U.S. fights trainer shortage, illiteracy in Afghanistan, By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, March 17, 2010

Old rule of mine reflecting the new reality: inevitably the SysAdmin effort ends up being as much or more civilian than uniform.

(Thanks: Our man in Kabul)

State's not the place for entrepreneurs

ARTICLE: The Reconstruction Blame Game, By Daniel Schulman, Mother Jones, Mar. 4, 2010

With all due respect to Herbst's office in State, even if it were full-up on bodies, I don't see that office building anywhere near the capacity for coordinating all reconstruction. At best, the office is designed to crank out the rank-and-file bodies to populate such institutional capacity, meaning it's a feeder function more than a command function.

Hence, Inspector General Stuart Bowen's call for a Department-of-Everything-Else-like entity.

To truly get a command function, you'd need a wholly different mindset from that you could generate in either State or USAID--neither of which draws the entrepreneurial spirits.

(Thanks: Our man in Kabul)

How do you treat women?

OP-ED: Divorced Before Puberty, By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF, New York Times, March 3, 2010

Fascinating piece by Kristof. Definitely worth reading in full.

Key logic:

There are a couple of reasons countries that marginalize women often end up unstable.

First, those countries usually have very high birth rates, and that means a youth bulge in the population. One of the factors that most correlates to social conflict is the proportion of young men ages 15 to 24.

Second, those countries also tend to practice polygamy and have higher death rates for girls. That means fewer marriageable women -- and more frustrated bachelors to be recruited by extremists.

From Blueprint: everything you need to know about a country, you can tell by how it treats its women.

There is simply no serious economic growth without empowering females, and the simplest rule for starting development is, educate young girls for as long as possible.

(Thanks: Jack Ryan)

Improvement and promise in Africa

ARTICLE: African poverty is falling, by Tyler Cowen, Marginal Revolution, March 1, 2010

Good news on Africa, checking the recent growth data, two academics show that:

We show that: (1) African poverty is falling and is falling rapidly; (2) if present trends continue, the poverty Millennium Development Goal of halving the proportion of people with incomes less than one dollar a day will be achieved on time; (3) the growth spurt that began in 1995 decreased African income inequality instead of increasing it; (4) African poverty reduction is remarkably general: it cannot be explained by a large country, or even by a single set of countries possessing some beneficial geographical or historical characteristic.

The one great regret I have on Pentagon's New Map was my pessimism on Africa as a target for integration by globalization. I bet against my usual optimism on these things, and I was completely wrong to do so.

The best part: globalization does not increase income inequality, something that Martin Wolf has long argued (i.e., that it lifts all boats, so to speak, better than most people realize in their instinctive anti-globalization sentiment).

If I'm China, I scan the world for the right set of cheap labor to slot in behind me as I move up the ladder, and when forced to choose between Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, and Sub-Saharan Africa, I take the last of that trio in clear preference. These are problems I am comfortable correcting, because Africa today looks plenty like China 30 years ago.

Thus I think there is a growing body of evidence that says Africa, on the heels of South Asia (led by India), is the next big scene of integration into the global economy.

As for the alleged de-globalization? Dream on.

(Thanks: Vadim Frenkel)

Siphoning off supply chain slack

ARTICLE: Wal-Mart Tightens Slack on Supply Chain, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, February 16, 2010

This will most definitely tighten up supply chains. Some incentive! 3% of value deducted if the delivery window not met.

Tom speaking this Friday at Peoria Area World Affairs Council's 40th annual World Affairs Conference

Title of the conference is, "The World Economy: To the Brink and Back."

I appear on Friday night:

FRIDAY, MARCH 26

5:00 p.m. Open Registration and Reception
5:30 p.m. Student Briefing
6:30 p.m. Banquet
7:30 p.m. Opening Keynote Address

"The Pentagon's New Map: US Foreign Policy
and the World Economy"
Dr. Thomas Barnett, Senior Managing
Director, Enterra Solutions; author of The
Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century,Washington, DC
8:15 p.m. Question and Answer Session
9:00 p.m. Recesss

Get tickets here. You can buy for the whole 2-day event or just that night. If a non-member, the whole two days is $125, and the Friday night w banquet is $80. Just coming to the Friday program and no banquet is $40.

The event is held at the Par-a-dice Hotel, East Peoria, IL, and I will be signing books.

The WSJ's retail effort to force an Obama bombing of Iran proceeds apace

OPINION: "The Netanyahu Diaries," by Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, 23 March 2010.

OPINION: "Obama's Legacy and the Iranian Bomb," by Alan M. Dershowitz, Wall Street Journal, 23 March 2010.

All subtly is now lost: Stephens suggests we accept a Netanyahu trade on new settlements being stopped for a promise to bomb Iran; Dershowitz, never a timid type, trots out the tired Chamberlain bit, which works because Nazi Germany was approaching the bomb while Czechoslovakia already had 2-300 warheads and was therefore completely vulnerable to Nazi pressure (seriously, the analogy fits like a glove).

I just wish Israel would get it over with and bomb Iran so we could all see what a "huge" setback it would be.

Ah, but that would ruin the Chamberlain analogy.

The Obama accomplishment on healthcare

FRONT PAGE: "Obama celebrates as historic victory sets battle lines for mid-term polls," by Tom Braithwaite and Daneil Dombey, Financial Times, 23 March 2010.

OBAMA'S COMEBACK: "Shares rise after health vote ends uncertainty: Demand likely to offset price controls; Markets factor in impact on profits," by Andrew Jack, Financial Times< 23 March 2010.

EDITORIAL: "Obama secures his place in history: Against the odds, he has won badly needed health reform," Financial Times< 23 March 2010.

COMMENT: "Obama's victory changes the world," by Gideon Rachman, Financial Times, 23 March 2010.

Better to go with the less partisan foreign coverage on this one.

Well, if Obama had to blow off Australia and Indonesia, at least it was for something big.

Naturally, both Dems and the GOP are energized by the totally partisan votes. The markets, meanwhile, don't seem to believe that the healthcare companies will suffer. The public option was shelved, and "universal" care was not achieved.

But, as the editorial argues, "They have passed a healthcare reform that guarantees health insurance for almost all Americans and ensures that bankruptcy will no longer be a consequence of serious illness . . . better late than never."

Unfinished and flawed, and definitely unpopular in the short run. As for the long run? "Unlikely," says the FT.

Whatever problems and complications intervene, the entitlements enshrined in this legislation are so basic that they will come to be seen as inalienable--just as Social Security and Medicare, the country's other landmark social-welfare provisions, now are. Come what may, the principals will look back on this as their proudest moment in politics.

Who to blame for the lack of national consensus? Both sides obviously, but more the GOP, which has grown as monstrously dysfunctional on domestic issues as the Dems have become on international security.

Does Obama's "weakness" image fade? Domestically, yes, but it was small there. Globally? Not yet, because it is substantial there.

So I say Rachman's title is simply not deliverable.

And yet . . .

By committing his nation to providing healthcare for nearly everyone, Mr Obama will undermine the Michael Moore vision of America as a country where big business ruthlessly exploits the downtrodden poor. This is a cartoon version of the US that is wildly popular in Europe and around the world. It will be harder to propagate in the wake of healthcare reforms.

That idea I like a lot.

The (latent) kinetic balancing of our Israeli-Arab interests

WORLD NEWS: "US struggles to agree Gulf arms sales policy: Washington stalls on UAE fighters; Arab states uneasy at lack of clarity," by Daniel Dombey and Jeremy Lemer, Financial Times, 22 March 2010.

Another reason why Israel wants us to bomb Iran pronto: the fear that the more sensible route of deterrence and containment will mean an equally sensible balancing of our mil-mil relationships in the region--to the relative favor of Arab regimes.

But this is a good thing.

Obama's healthcare win . . .

Is a big win for my family in that my eldest, the sixteen-year cancer survivor, can now stay on my health insurance until she turns 26.

I will take that change with undisguised glee.

On domestic issues, I am most definitely a Democrat because I believe health care coverage is a fundamental right.

What's Obama's Af-Pak goal?

ARTICLE: Pak to raise India's presence in Afghanistan: report, Press Trust Of India, March 22, 2010

This will be THE key test of Obama's Af-Pak strategy, for it will tell us whether or not he's serious about a long-term stabilizing outcome or if he's just seeking an easy exit.

Hint: the long-term stability means making India happier than Pakistan, because the latter needs a disconnected Afghanistan to feel secure, while the former needs the exact opposite.

And we have to side with the Connectors.

(Thanks: Our man in Kabul))

Same old Pakistani strategy

ARTICLE: Army Chief Driving Pakistan's Agenda for Talks,
By JANE PERLEZ, New York Times, March 21, 2010

Hard to see how this is a good sign. Seems the "strategic depth" logic will remain the sum of Pakistan's fears.

Let's deal on the poppy crop

ARTICLE: In Marja, a Vice President Speaks With Warmth, but Reaps Cool, By ALISSA J. RUBIN, New York Times, March 1, 2010

The argument from David makes a lot of sense: if we are indeed deep into the crop cycle, then better to buy that harvest (and perhaps the next one or two, I say), and in the meantime pursue the minimal infrastructure necessary for a crop switch. Pissing off so many farmers amidst this big push seems like something to be avoided.

(Thanks: Sgt David Brooks)

Chineses telecom in Taiwan

POST: China Mobile given OK to set up shop in Taiwan, By Chris Ziegler, Engadget, Mar 5th 2010

Yet another sign of the underlying economic integration that continues apace:

It's not every day that a Chinese company gets regulatory approval to invest in Taiwan. Actually, a Chinese company has never before been given permission to invest in Taiwan's communications infrastructure, so it's pretty big news here that the world's largest carrier by subscribers -- China Mobile -- has just been greenlighted to set up a subsidiary there.

Telecoms, unsurprisingly, lead the way.

(Thanks: Brad Barbaza )

The Islamic reformation will be led by women

POST: Let These Women Pray!, by Asra Q. Nomani, Blogs and Stories, February 27, 2010

An old argument of mine regarding a religious reformation led by women within Islam within the Core. Haven't used the slide in a long time, but it was a favorite of mine. Covered the subject in Blueprint.

Slow but steady is the pace, and as Andrew argues, you see the copying of old civil rights protests, which, of course, MLK specifically borrowed from Gandhi.

Good stuff and worth tracking.

(Thanks: Andrew Stewart)

The evolution of Hollywood.global

FRONT PAGE: "New Global Recipe: America's next big hit pic could be French," by John Hopewell and Ali Jaafar, Variety< 8-14 February 2010.

Concise capture of evolutionary waves:

Step 1 was Hollywood's realization that its films could earn more money overseas than domestically.

Step 2 was Hollywood's jump into local-language production, forming co-productions with overseas companies or cementing right deals with various territories (as New Line did with "Lord of the Rings").

Now it's the international companies, not Hollywood, that are opening the door to Step 3: making audience-friendly, English-language films with stars (a la "Taken") and American-based producers like [Joel] Silver, Neal Moritz and Gary Barber.

The model for this 21st-century global studio is StudioCanal, which is doing multi-territory distribution, has a massive library rich with remake potential, an international sales arm, inhouse pay TV deals through Canal Plus, and production relationships with Hollywood producers.

Fascinating stuff. Hollywood's evolutions have always said a lot about globalization's evolution, thus my penchant for tracking.

StudioCanal would be described by IBM's Sam Palmisano as a "globally-integrated enterprise."

Thanks for the pain

ADVERTISEMENT: "Six-week preparation, eight-week shoot in Jordan: 9 Academy Award Nominations! The Royal Film Commission Jordan congratulates the cast & crew of THE HURT LOCKER," Variety< 8-14 February 2010.

For those wondering where the filming occurred.

Ad includes favorable blurb from Bigelow saying, "I highly recommend shooting there."

Obama continues Bush-Cheney in Iraq

ARTICLE: Followers of Sadr Emerge Stronger After Iraq Elections,
By ANTHONY SHADID, New York Times, March 16, 2010

ARTICLE: Tehran aiding al Qaeda links, Petraeus says, By Bill Gertz, Washington Times, March 17, 2010

After the successful putsch back home, Tehran feels more than comfortable enough to pursue its anti-American meddling full-time in Iraq (where it's clients did fine in the election), Afghanistan and the larger region. The more we're tied down as we seek to exit, the less likely our military will be to agree to anything launched against Iran, meaning it's an intelligent asymmetrical defense by Iran that's designed to keep us on the defensive on our way out the door.

Obama seems to have walked into this dynamic with no more intelligence than Bush-Cheney. Everybody, it seems, needs to prove their cojones with Iran on the nuke issue ("We will not tolerate!"), sacrificing larger, more important efforts in the meantime. The sad part remains the reality that our "toleration" isn't required, so the only people we're kidding is ourselves.

I see a clever exiting push by Obama but no real effort to improve the situations regionally. It's the same brain-dead we-take-on-all-comers bullshit. I see nothing inside the military in terms of leadership that's trying much to improve that performance, just the usual braking on stuff they see as stupid diversions (e.g., attacking Iran). Obama is simply riding the Bush-Cheney drawdown trajectory, replicating it in Afghanistan.

(Via WPR's Media Roundup)

The too-smart, too-controlled presidency

OPINION: "Obama's Foreign Policy Paradox," by Matthew Kaminski, Wall Street Journal, 12 March 2010.

OPINION: "Road to the Nut House," by Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, 13-14 March 2010.

WORLD NEWS: "Israel-US spat adds to rising view of Obama as pushover: The White House effort to get peace talks going again is floundering," by Edward Luce and Daniel Dombey, Financial Times, 13-14 March 2010.

Kaminski's argument: the oddity that Obama is doing well on the wars (Iraq & Afghanistan--although calling the former a "war" gets awfully old and inaccurate) but doing poorly everywhere else. The latter situation feeds the perception of weakness, which contradicts what should be a perception of war-leader strength.

So the jury is out on the "paradoxical" Obama. Will he go down as a kowtower to dictatorships or the job-finisher in Iraq and Afghanistan?

My sense of the linkage between the two: Obama is surprisingly go-it-alone in both realms. America is forging its withdrawal in Iraq on its own, and largely fighting its way to hoped-for success in Afghanistan on its own. Yes, in both instances there are allies galore standing nearby, but the show remains ours--as do all the key decisions. Ditto for the reach-outs to various regimes. Other than the elevation of the G-20, these efforts all strike me as rather tightly held enterprises.

All this fits the image of a tightly self-controlled White House manned by Obama and his four top lieutenants (Jarrett, Gibbs, Emmanuel and Axelrod). It also fits the my-way-or-the-highway omnibus method of domestic legislation.

In short, despite all the great rhetoric about a multi-partner world, there is a strong bilateralist tone to this administration--right down to the special ambassadors, with multilateralism seeming to be America working everybody to get what it wants and those "wants" constituting our multilateral vision--sort of slapped-together omnibus feel there too. It's simply the headlines I'm reading.

And then you read Noonan's take on the "Game Change" election history book and you get this disturbing take that seems to feed the controlling impression:

Barack Obama, who interestingly gets the best treatment in the book--protect those sources!--is not immune [to criticism]. He is smart, "and he not only knew it but wanted to make sure everyone else knew it." In meetings with aides, he controlled the conversation by interrupting whoever was talking. He is boastful, gaudily confident. Before his 2004 convention speech, a reporter asked him if he was nervous: "I'm LeBron, baby," he answers. "I got some game."

I wince at that description, especially the interrupting part. That is ego unbridled, in my experience. True leaders, I find, are more quiet during presentations and debates and then weigh in decisively at the end; the weaker the decision-maker, the more frequently he interrupts. Just something that jumped out at me, in part because I had the same impression from his townhall meeting with legislators on healthcare that was broadcast--long before I read Noonan's take on the book. He seemed to have a pathological need to dominate the dialogue--beyond the presidential prerogative, like dominating the process equaled dominating the outcome.

The Luce and Dombey bit about "who's in charge?" misleads, in my mind. I fear that Obama is far too in charge and that what we suffer is underempowered subordinates, the result being a profound lack of strategic imagination. Where are the bright lights of this administration on foreign policy? I mean, we've got names and reputations, but other than the apology tour, the flow of big ideas internationally is non-existent. It seems they're all used up domestically and we're seeing a commensurate neediness on the foreign policy side that everyone--friend and foe alike--are picking up.

Obama did a great job of darn near instantly recalibrating our relationship with the world, and I can understand the tight control on that process, but now's the time to turn the assembled talent loose, and so far this does not seem to be the case.

I sense a flood of bitter memoirs coming in 2013, and that most will be painfully on-target.