O'Hanlon (with Riedel) on not bombing Iran

COMMENT: "Do not even think about bombing Iran," by Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel, Financial Times, 1 March 2010.

Most of the arguments that you've long heard here.

But this I was especially impressed by:

Generally, those who argue against a military strike stop 10 yards short of the finish line. After concluding that a strike would not make sense, they still tend to tolerate leaving it as a last resort. There are dangers to such an approach. Mr. Obama may some day come under pressure to employ it when all else has failed--and we think this would be a mistake, not only for the specific matter of Iran policy but more broadly for his effort to recast the US as a country playing by international legal norms.

In addition, keeping the option of force requires US diplomats and military officials to take preparatory steps that may distract from our current efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and complicate a number of regional bilateral alliances.

The answer? A comprehensive package of sanctions, deterrence and containment--otherwise known as what we did with the Sovs and everybody else who has followed whom we interpreted as a threat against the West. Our record so far? Perfect. So why all of a sudden does the Shiite bomb rule over all others? We have not bombed Pakistan, and on every score and threat scenario--to include the passing to terrorists--Pakistan is arguably the far greater danger. So is NorKo.

Nobody seriously entertains the notion of bombing those states--only Iran.

And yeah, the whole issue does revolve around Israel, which owns a sophisticated and layered missile defense system and more than a couple hundred nuclear warheads--and enjoys the same bilateral backup that Europe once had against the Sovs.

But somehow, none of that is enough, and we MUST strike first, according to the neocons, even as NOBODY believes we'll end the program in this manner--just delay it slightly.

Remembering New Wave

ARTICLE: Doug Fieger Dies at 57, Singer of 'My Sharona', By BEN SISARIO, New York Times, February 15, 2010

New Wave was the music of my youth (HS/college years) and it really did all begin with "My Sharona."

I can even remember what I was looking at, in Madison, from the family car when I first heard it on the radio. With all the crossover stuff and disco going on, it was like a shot across the bow.

The music started before then (the Talking Heads' first album, "1977," came out in . . . uh . . . 1977), but "My Sharona" was when the music became more than a small cult and plenty of us went whole hog in exploring the sound, fashion, the whole shebang. You would say you were a New Waver and dress like you were a band member of The Specials.

Good movie on how the British version of that sound began in Manchester in the late 1970s is "24 Hour Party People." It is my favorite example of a biographic film focused on music. Steve Coogan's best role.

All aboard!

ARTICLE: China Sees Growth Engine in a Web of Fast Trains, By KEITH BRADSHER, New York Times, February 12, 2010

Another example of China "winning the race" for cleaner/more efficient energy!

China and US are running different races

OP-ED: Watching China Run, By BOB HERBERT, New York Times, February 13, 2010

Nothing unusual here: the country on the fastest trajectory through its manufacturing age (i.e., China) is most incentivized to increase energy efficiency and to pursue that manufacturing opportunity as an adjunct (to supply both itself and to take advantage of that scale of economy to sell to others). To the extent that we perceive ourselves "losing" this "race," we seek to keep pace--a fine thing, but our incentive structure will never match China's, so I'm not sure if any such fear-imaging makes sense. We are unlikely to win any such "race," no matter how hard we try.

US-Honduras returning to even keel

ARTICLE: United States to restore aid to Honduras in step toward normalized ties, By Chrissie Long, Christian Science MonitorMarch 5, 2010

Good to see.

Comment upgrade: security in the age of nukes

Tom had a pretty extensive comment on Less hyperbolic talk about the coming "clash" with China and I wanted to make sure everyone saw it:

Nuke proliferation has remained far slower than the experts have predicted for more than half a century now. Ever since I am a kid I have been told we are just years from 20-30 powers, and yet Iran will make only ten. If Turkey and the Saudis followed suit, that would be 12. There is simply no prospect of even two dozen on the horizon.

Among the established nuke powers, there is no sign of irrationality overcoming precedent, so we are left, as always, with newcomers and nonstate actors. Does anybody posit massive nuclear exchanges on this basis? No. Do we wrap our entire grand strategy around the axle around the singular event? Some would have that.

I would not.

Iran and Israel exchange nukes and nothing much would change. Indeed, the rule set would likely be overwhelmingly strengthened.

We cannot stop every act of irrationality on the planet, nor should we fear it. We should simply take it in stride and stick with our own calculations of interest.

As for bringing up 1914, pre-nuclear examples of world war don't work in a post-nuclear world. You can't roll back the clock. You can't get rid of the crystal ball effect provided by nukes. You can't un-invent them.

And it's deeply misleading to cast colonial empires as the equivalent of today's globalization. Comparing the two casually is like comparing apples and handcuffs. The uncompetitive movement of resources from colonies to home countries does not compare to globally integrated production. Enslaved populations do not compare to a global middle class. Telegraphs controlled by governments don't compare to 3-billion and growing cellphones held by individuals.

Colonial empires were zero-sum developments, both in terms of the enslaved and in terms of competing with each other. No surprise the empires eventually turned on each other, and good riddance.

But what should I live in fear over that outcome in today's world?

We just lived through a financial crash very similar to the one that triggered the Great Depression. The difference in global outcomes was profound, was it not?

Keep Karzai?

ARTICLE: Is it time to give up on Hamid Karzai?, By Brian Stewart, CBC, March 10, 2010

A serious exploration of whether or not Karzai is worth keeping. The success of the southern strategy may not diminish such talk but actually increase it.

The article leaves out Karzai's brother, who runs Khandahar, and whom many observers think is the real force running Afghanistan.

(Thanks: Our man in Kabul)

Sensible cyber-strategy

OP-ED: Mike McConnell on how to win the cyber-war we're losing, By Mike McConnell, Washington Post, February 28, 2010

Pretty solid piece from McConnell: an argument that says deterrence, built around increased transparency, when it comes to state-directed threats, and more to the pre-emptive side when you're talking non-state actors.

The capacity we need to build:

We need to develop an early-warning system to monitor cyberspace, identify intrusions and locate the source of attacks with a trail of evidence that can support diplomatic, military and legal options -- and we must be able to do this in milliseconds. More specifically, we need to reengineer the Internet to make attribution, geolocation, intelligence analysis and impact assessment -- who did it, from where, why and what was the result -- more manageable. The technologies are already available from public and private sources and can be further developed if we have the will to build them into our systems and to work with our allies and trading partners so they will do the same.

Gotta like this logic. Very sensible stuff.

Possible Afghan trajectory

ARTICLE: Our Man in Kabul?, By Michael Crowley, The New Republic, March 9, 2010

A nice little breakdown of the situation of insurgency inside Afghanistan:

The United States is not fighting one enemy in Afghanistan. While the media often equate "insurgency" with "Taliban," there are, in fact, three major insurgent groups. The biggest is the Quetta Shura Taliban. Led by the famous one-eyed cleric Mullah Omar, this group is based in the Pakistani city of Quetta and fights mainly in the southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces. Another is the Haqqani network, run by the father-and-son team of Jalaluddin and Sirajuddin Haqqani from Pakistan's northwestern tribal areas. The Haqqanis and their Al Qaeda allies sow chaos in Afghanistan's east and were likely behind the double-agent suicide bomb at a CIA base near Khost this winter.

Then there is Hekmatyar. His beard now half gray, he is again tormenting foreign infidels. His Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin--which translates roughly as "Gulbuddin's Islamic Party," shorthanded as HIG by the U.S. military--may be the smallest of the three insurgent wings, but it is "no less lethal" than the others, as the American commander in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, recently put it.

The rest of the speculative piece explores what may ultimately be the cost of wooing Hekmatyar.

(Thanks: Stuart Abrams)

Chinese political future preview

ARTICLE: Bo Xilai's charm offensive is paying off politically in China, By Ariana Eunjung Cha, Washington Post, March 8, 2010

Arguably the first true politician to emerge in China. Unlikely to dominate the emerging 5th generation of leaders (the clear front-runners for president and premier are unlikely to be dislodged), the guy nonetheless presages the future--meaning his type will be far from unique in the 6th generation (slated to come to power in 2022). In this way, this guy is like a Goldwater to the next generation's Reagans--the preview of coming attractions.

Wal-Mart exports rules to China

ARTICLE: In China, Wal-Mart presses suppliers on labor, environmental standards, By Steven Mufson, Washington Post, February 28, 2010

GREAT piece!

The guts of the logic:

In October 2008, Wal-Mart held a conference in Beijing for a thousand of its biggest suppliers to urge them to pay attention not only to price but also to "sustainability," which has become a touchstone for many companies.

"For those who may still be on the sidelines, I want to be direct," Wal-Mart chief executive Lee Scott said sternly. "Meeting social and environmental standards is not optional. I firmly believe that a company that cheats on overtime and on the age of its labor, that dumps its scraps and its chemicals in our rivers, that does not pay its taxes or honor its contracts will ultimately cheat on the quality of its products. And cheating on the quality of products is the same as cheating on customers. We will not tolerate that at Wal-Mart."

Now new suppliers are screened for environmental practices.

Many China experts say Wal-Mart's guidelines could be more important than the government's.

"They are the rule setters," said Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, a Beijing-based group. "Before Wal-Mart only cared about price and quality, so that encouraged companies to race to the bottom on environmental standards. They could lose contracts because competition was so fierce on price."

Wal-Mart's suppliers have been forced to get serious about pollution, Ma said. "Wal-Mart says if you're over the compliance level, you're out of business. That will send a powerful signal."

Rereading Pentagon's New Map recently, the key attribute of globalization remains the same: as you join it, it will demand more changes from your economy and polity and society than any of those can demand of globalization in return.

It is-by far--the most influential asymmetrical struggle of the age.

But this follows a classic Chinese pattern: letting outside organizations import rules to China that the system, on its own, is unable to generate.

Single-source tanker

ARTICLE: Northrop and EADS to Drop Bid for Tanker, By CHRISTOPHER DREW, New York Times, March 8, 2010

The senators from Boeing win in the end.

But I suspect the taxpayers and military lose.

The difference between Haiti and Chile

ARTICLE: Frantic Rescue Efforts in Chile as Troops Seek to Keep Order, By MARC LACEY, New York Times, February 28, 2010

Huge quake on Saturday in Chile and Monday's NYT was already reporting this:

With frantic rescue efforts under way, a rising death toll and isolated outbreaks of looting, the Chilean president on Sunday issued an order that will send soldiers into the streets in the worst-affected areas to both keep order and speed the distribution of aid.

So the day after the big quake, Chile's government was already getting on top of local security events. That's the essential difference with Haiti, the quintessential Gap state: the place functions well enough on its own to manage its own security portfolio even during extreme crisis. We send aid to both Chile and Haiti, but troops only to Haiti.

'Hurt Locker' win is fine

ARTICLE: 'The Hurt Locker' Wins Big at Oscars, By MICHAEL CIEPLY and BROOKS BARNES, New York Times, March 7, 2010

I was fine with "Hurt Locker" winning, especially since Bigelow won as well. I've always liked her work, and Cameron got all the acclaim he needed this year for "Avatar."

Plus, "Hurt Locker" was the best Iraq war movie to date, and it was nice to see one deservedly get so much industry notice.

What happens to a dream deferred? (post #10,000)

ARTICLE: Frustrated Strivers in Pakistan Turn to Jihad,
By SABRINA TAVERNISE and WAQAR GILLANI, New York Times, February 27, 2010

Pretty simple, straightforward argument: deny people a connection to their desired future and you will make them deeply unhappy. And eventually that unhappiness will be redirected to other means.

Solving this disconnect is primarily done by meeting people's expectations and desires for generational improvement--the essence of the middle-class ideology (e.g., the telephone operator's son not only gets that med degree, but the opportunity to use it).

Pilots or Playstation?

ARTICLE: Combat Generation: Drone operators climb on winds of change in the Air Force, By Greg Jaffe, Washington Post, February 28, 2010

Great Jaffe piece on how drones are remaking the culture of the Air Force, which is faced with an existential crisis as a result of the democratization of air assets.

If you want to birth a nation, have a lot of outside investors ready to cash in

WORLD NEWS: "South Sudan offers oil to ease secession pains for Khartoum," by Barney Jopson, Financial Times, 10 February 2010.

MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA: "South Sudan: Looking for laws; A would-be country drives away foreign investment," The Economist, 6 February 2010.

Sudan votes next year on whether to stay together or break apart into north and south. The South is smart enough to know how the North fears the realized/expected oil revenue from the South, and so it offers a near-term-but-not-permanent sharing agreement. That would continue the sharing deal set up by the 2005 peace accord.

The fear is, naturally, the resumption of a N-S-oriented civil war. The former rebel army that rules the South, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, opposes the notion.

Roughly 75% of Sudan's proven reserves of 6.3b barrels are in the South, but the North controls the pipeline and refineries.

An amazing 98% of southern Sudan's non-aid revenue comes from oil, with the North sporting a figure in the 60s.

Right now the country produces 500,000 barrels a day. The North keeps all its revenue from oil, and the South sends half north, so the South clears $8b and the North $13b.

No wonder the South wants to leave.

But the larger picture remains: the North and South do not fit together.

The South also has teak, sugar and grain, meaning it's a damn near purely commodities-based economy.

But tribal rivalries in the South are souring any investment climate: Nuer versus kingpin--as in, largest--Dinka.

Doing biz in South Sudan is tough: almost all equipment must be imported, and, according to foreign investors, the local work ethic sucks big time.

Still, people say everything is improving. SAB Miller, the South African brewery king, set up a $40m brewery and is apparently doing okay (they like their beer in East Africa, I can attest, and it's, on average, really good stuff.

The mag says the FDI laws exist on paper, just not enforced.

China wants to keep that bubble going

ARTICLE: China's Central Bank Hits Brake on Hot Economy, By KEITH BRADSHER, New York Times, February 12, 2010

Another sign of how seriously the Chinese are taking the danger of an overheated economy leading to a bubble-bursting.

The latest Chinese predictions say 10% growth this year, but Westerners say 12%. Eight percent is considered the Goldilocks rate for China.

Why does China fear inflation? In the past, the "the erosion of the spending power of workers has led to unrest."

Steel price rises will be passed on

MARKETPLACE: "Rising Prices Lift Mining, Steel: Higher Costs for Raw Materials Hit Big Steel Users; Increases Will Likely Be Passed to Consumers," by Robert Guy Matthews, Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2010.

COMPANIES & MARKETS: "Miners target record price for iron ore," by Javier Blas, Financial Times, 12 February 2010.

MARKETS & INVESTING: "Tension builds over annual iron ore talks: A mood of distrust between miners and steelmakers looks set to complicate price negotiations," by Javier Blas, Financial Times, 12 February 2010.

WORLD NEWS: "China Indicts Rio Tinto Workers: Officials Allege Bribery, Offering the Clearest Statements Yet in Case That Has Unnerved Executives," by James T. Areddy, Wall Street Journal, 11 February 2010.

CORPORATE NEWS: "Rio Tinto Seeks Firmer China Ties: Despite Strains Over Price Talks, Indictments, CEO Points to Mutual Interests," by Robert Guy Matthews and Chuin-Wei Yap, Wall Street Journal, 12 February 2010.

BHP Billiton, a top-five mining company, says its earnings more than doubled over the second half of 2009.

You know that's mostly China's big stimulus push.

As a result, the mining industry is proposing new global contract prices 40% higher than last year. A stand-off is expected with China, which, unsurprisingly, wants a discount for volume. The prosecution of the Rio Tinto execs is all part of the negotiation, which the company naturally wants to work around.

More on why Israel should not bomb Iran

ARTICLE: Mutually assured destruction, By Paul McGeough, Sydney Morning Herald, March 6, 2010

Nice summary of past thinking and arguments offered from a variety of sides regarding the possibility of Israel attacking Iran over its nuclear program.