A win-win for foreign aid

ìFor Some Immigrants, a Balancing Act: Funds Sent to Needy Families Back Home Exact a Price,î by Michelle Garcia, Washington Post, 5 April, p. A3.

Title should read for ìmost immigrants.î This story is as old as America, but never more important than it is today. Most Americans donít realize what a huge flow of funds leave this country via the salaries of immigrants. Is this a ìlossî? Hardly.

Frankly it is the biggest form of foreign aid we generate. What Latin America takes in via remittances from emigrants living abroad is several times what the Core offers poor countries there in terms of official developmental aid. This is yet another key example of how immigration in this country is a win-win for both Core and Gap. Any other view is shortsighted in the extreme.

Igor Sutyagin

ìRussian Researcher Convicted of Spying: Defense Says Information Was Public,î by Peter Baker, Washington Post, 6 April, p. A11.

Igor Sutyagin is a Russian Tom Barnett, or basically a defense analyst with an aggressively curious mind and a determined bent. The charges leveled against him by the Russian Government strike most objective observers as ìtrumped up.î

For allegedly engaging in research on Russian nuclear submarines and missiles for a British company that the Russian Government insists was a front for U.S. intelligence, he now faces a 20-year sentence.

Unfortunately for Sutyagin, the Russian legal system has yet to shake out all the tricky nuances regarding what is and is not reasonably considered ìclassifiedî information, as their recent rulings on this subject suggest a very indeterminate rule set.

I am personally sorry to see Igor subjected to this fate, because I consider him a person of great honor. He was my host during a week I spent in Moscow in the summer of 1996, interviewing Russian Navy admirals about the future of U.S.-Russian naval cooperation. He struck me as a typical Russian analyst: personally quite warm and very dedicated to his craft.

I wish him well in this difficult time.

Repeating History, Dangerous Habits

The Depressing News from Iraq

Dateline: choppy United commuter flight from Providence to Washington Dulles, crack of dawn 5 April

Got home with family very late on Saturday from the trip that was my Fatherís funeral in hometown Boscobel WI. Fabulous secretary back at Naval War College looked ahead and realized I was scheduled to fly out of Providence Sunday night to teach at first-ever Office of Force Transformation short-course for foreign military officers on Network-Centric Operations early on Monday in Washington DC. She calls OFT and gets them to switch my talk to 10am, and then books me early flight into Dulles instead of usual BWI, so I get to skip drive around DC beltway. That, my friends, is a secretary you send flowers to.

I am feeling antsy. Clearly the news from Iraq is trying, because it reminds us exactly how hard it will be to connect Iraqi society to the world outside when there are so many within that tripartite nation (Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish) committed to making sure it remains disconnected.

The one group we get along with well (Kurdish) basically wants out, which would open up its own can of worms with key ally Turkey. But they have seen that connectivity with the outside world works to their advantage, and they sure as hell donít want to be shut down again, either by the Sunnis regaining their authoritarian grip or the Shiites pulling them into Iranís orbit.

The Shiites in the south have been quiet up to now, meaning we had two out of three relatively stable, but the violence over the weekend suggests that rising ìstarsî within that community (the young cleric whose call triggered the mini-uprising) will use the unstable situation as any ambitious would-be authoritarian leader might: to retain (was he about to be arrested for complicity in assassinations of rival Muslim leaders?) and expand his power base (he begins to eclipse Ayatollah Sistani, the top religious in southern Iraq).

Meanwhile, the Sunni triangle continues to boil, as areas that had benefited from Saddamís rule know full well they cannot recapture their dominant standing in Iraq unless the Americans leave.

What emboldens everyone is the sense that this is a Vietnam redux: simply wear down the American public with enough deaths of U.S. soldiers and encourage the sense that it is America alone that is left holding the bag in Iraq. In my book, I call this worst-case scenario ìBlack Hawk Down: The Series.î It is a combination of two negative outcomes. The first question to generate the scenario is: Does the make-over of Iraq succeed or do we get stuck with Americaís West Bank? The second question is: Does the Saddam take-down become the ìchosen traumaî of the Muslim world or does it trigger a Big Bang of change in the region? So the worst case scenario is a combination of Americaís West Bank and ìchosen trauma,î meaning the occupation becomes the mother of all Intifadas.

One of the most disturbing notions I have heard from the Bush campaign is that any and all news from Iraq is good for his re-election. If itís bad news, that emphasizes the ìwar presidentî image (he needs to get even tougher), and if itís good news, that also emphasizes the ìwar presidentî image (his toughness has prevailed). Clearly, this is a short-sighted definition of a global war on terrorism, and it scares me to think that such political opportunism will blind this administration to what needs to happen in coming months: we need to internationalize this occupation to demonstrate that the world will not let Iraq slip back into disconnectedness, no matter how much violence some are willing to generate.

But instead of focusing on the players we need to bring into this future worth creating, or those most incentivized to see a properly executed GWOT both shrink the Gap andóby doing soóextend globalizationís advance, most of the calls you hear from experts about how we need to internationalize this occupation focus on NATO and the UN. This is the point of my piece that should appear in the Washington Postís Outlook section this Sunday (delayed a week): we need to bring into this coalition the rising pillars of the East, such as China, India and Russia.

Why the reticence? As the profile of Condi Rice in todayís New York Times indicates once again, the Bush Administration came into office with a strong sense of urgency not toward dealing with terrorism, but for dealing with Russia and China (and frankly, India too, although this was pushed more by DoD than the White House). Why this focus? Itís simply what this crowd knew best: great power politics. That bias is what holds up our grand strategy today: we constantly seek to address the past (Whoís responsible for 9/11? How can we please our old allies in Europe?) than deal with the future (Why are we planning missile defense against the largest source of our trade deficitóChina? Why canít we get Indian peacekeepers in Iraq and instead declare old puppet Pakistan a ìmajor, non-NATO allyî?). The Cold War habits of this administration die very hard.

New Definitions of Connectivity in Globalization

4 Stories

(1) The Branding of a Networked Opponent

The first story is about Spainís investigation into 3/11. It appears in 5 April Wall Street Journal (ìSpain Refocuses Terrorism Probe Following Arrests,î Keith Johnson and David Crawford, p. A17).

Here is the key quote, and then Iíll explain my conundrum:

ìSome of the main suspects behind the March 11 attack were third-tier figures on the fringes of a Madrid al Qaeda cell that was arrested in late 2001 for providing logistical help to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers. Some of those suspectsí own contacts were sifted-over footnotes in other European probes.

Hereís the rub: you can say al Qaeda pulled off Madridís 3/11, or you can say, ìNo, it wasnít al Qaeda, it was this obscure North Africa Islamic terrorist group.î Either way, you can be correct, depending on how you want to define a terrorist group vice a loose network of terrorist groups.

Al Qaeda, as we know, means ìthe base.î In effect, al Qaeda itself is not designed to be THE terrorist group, but the foundation of a large, transnational network of loosely affiliated Islamic groups all united by similar long-term aims, even if their individual short-term goals may be quite different and unique to their local conditions. So if a group of North Africans pull off 3/11 and in doing so, received little or no immediate help from al Qaeda, how can so many in the press and my business refer to it as an ìal Qaeda attackî?

The answer is, it fits the al Qaeda model to a ìT.î

A good analogy might be the brand name versus the individual franchises. McDonaldís is the brand, but that corporation doesnít own the individual business we associate with that name, as those are operated by franchise owners. But that brand concept is so strong, almost nobody thinks of individual franchises in that way, instead we see only the brand. Al Qaeda aspires to be that brand name of Islamic transnational terrorist that works to drive the West out of the Middle East, andóby doing soódrive the Middle East out of the world.

So the first line of my draft piece for the Post on Sunday (Outlook) begins with a line that goes something like ìAl Qaeda buys a national election in Spain for the price of 10 backpack bombsÖî When I read about Spanish officials now linking the bombing most directly to this relatively obscure North Africa terrorist group, I feel like I should use that specific ìfranchiseî name and then explain all the nuances I just enunciated here.

Except, of course, thatís not the point of the piece and it would take up too much time and effort to do that, which would possibly result in the piece losing its focus. So my instinct is simply to let it pass, because the linkages between this group and al Qaeda are enough to say, ìThis attack carries all the hallmarks of the al Qaeda brand,î if I were to write such a boilerplate sentence.

All I am trying to say here is this: the Pentagon has finally found a truly networked opponent to wage network-centric war againstóglobalization-fueled connectivity that has bred contempt. So I guess itís a case of ìbe careful what you wish for. . ..î

(2) So goes China, so goes . . .

The second story is also in WSJ, same day, page A2, entitled, ìChinaís Boom Has Flip Side for Suppliers,î by Patrick Barta. Gist of story is that China is fast becoming THE market for much of its fellow Asian statesí exports. This is the true dominating factor of China that is emerging: not its military might (which is a far cry from ours) but its economic might (or sheer weight). This economic might will make Chinaís fate the fate of basically every other economy in Asia: as falls or rises China, so too falls or rises everyone else.

This is a connectivity that the U.S. tends to fear, although it is very similarly to our own Goliath-like impact on Latin American economies, not to mention on those of our NAFTA partnersóCanada and Mexico.

My point is this: Chinaís emergence embeds it ever more within the larger web that is Asia. They all share the same fate now in a way they never did before. So if the U.S. and China go head-to-head in some future security scenario, we may find ourselves deeply surprised by which countries in Asia naturally gravitate to Chinaís side versus our own.

(3) Mutually-assured Dependence as a strategic deterence?

The third story appears side by side with Spain story mentioned earlier (WSJ, p. A17) and itís entitled, ìSingapore Leads India Charge: Southeast Asian Nations Hope to Avert Overreliance on China,î by Phillip Day.

This story simply details the natural desire of many Asian economies to balance their growing reliance on Chinaís market with that of emerging India. But like the previous story, what this one tells me is that in 5 to 10 years, if we enter some Asian security situation involving China and/or India, the economic connectivity that we bump into will be very complex and far more developed than we might assume from todayís perspective.

The sort of mutually-assured dependence that marks globalizationís Functioning Core is extending itself nicely throughout this region, with these two New Core emerging economies (China, India) serving as twin pillars. All well and good, but suggesting that any conflicts we access in this region will not be some isolated affair, easily divorced from the ìeverything elseî that is globalizationís progressive advance.

(4) This one's a doozy

Reason, the monthly libertarian magazine will put out a June issue in which each of its 40,000 subscribers will receive a customized cover that reads ìJoe Blow [substitute any name] . . . They Know Where You Are!î The picture on each cover will be a satellite photo detailing the neighborhood of the subscriber in question, with his or her house circled!

The article describing this is found in todayís (5 April) New York Times, on p. C8: ìPutting 40,000 Readers, One by One, on a Cover,î by David Carr.

Itís all designed to scare and provoke your thinking about ìThe unsung benefits of a database nation.î

That is connectivity in the most quintessential Core society: the United States.

Meanwhile, in Pakistan, one of the most disconnected societies in the world, an entire national army, aided by the best foreign special ops guys you can name, cannot track down Osama bin Ladenóeven after months and months of trying.

That is the vast gulf between what it means to belong to the Core and what it means to be stuck in the Gap.

Amazing when you think about it. Reminds you of those 1960sí laments, ìIf they can put a man on the moon, they why canít they . . ..

Threats to Core unity

Three Ways to Break Up Globalizationís Functioning Core

Dateline: Southwest flight from Chicago to Providence with my family, 3 April.

Three stories in todayís New York Times trouble me. All speak to what I fear are serious missteps by the Bush Administration in national security strategy, ones that may end up dividing the Core rather than strengthening it. I consider each a serious threat to our winning the Global War on Terror.

First up is story on page 1 entitled, ìJapan Joining U.S. In Missile Shield: A Role for TaiwanóNew Network Angers China,î by Norimitsu Onishi.

This one scares me the most, because missile shields in general strike me as 21st century Maginot Linesóincredibly expensive and divisive to build and easily circumvented by those really desiring to do us harm. Plus such firewalls also speak to the mind-set that says, ìLetís stop them at the border,î versus ìLetís figure out how to eliminate the hostility in the first place."

In short, what I dislike about missile defense in general is that it puts so many of our eggs into the basket called ìthe absolute failure of our national security strategy.î Plus, I just donít believe they work, and Iím certain they siphon off loads of resources and brain power put to better use elsewhere.

The danger of approach in Asia is this: we enlist India, Taiwan, and Japan in this ìshieldî that we say is mostly about North Korea but frankly is easily interpreted by Beijing as mostly being about them over the long haul (unless you think North Korea has a long and bright future ahead).

Ask yourself, do we want to be selling or sharing missile defense technology with Taiwan? Is that where we want to go in our relationship with that state and China? Making Taiwan feel more confident that it can pursue ìindependenceî (whatever that means in this obviously symbiotic economic relationship with the mainland) when we know that will piss Beijing off and increase their wariness toward our military in general? Is that really where we want to go with China at this point in history? This country with whom we conduct so much trade and financial flows (we send in foreign direct investment and they buy our Treasury bills like crazy)?

If the real fear is all about North Korea, then letís include China in the scheme, to allay any fears of encirclement or any impression that weíre going an extra step on Taiwanís security (like we should get millions of Chinese on both sides killed over this issue). We already have enough conventional deterrence assets in the region to make China think twice about invading Taiwan, something no serious security analyst thinks they could pull off anytime soonóand weíre talking years upon years.

But hell, letís skip this whole boondoggle completely and simply deal with the real issue at hand: we need to get rid of Kim Jong Il. We should be talking to China and Japan and South Korea about how to make that happen, not plotting some Asian star wars shield that makes Beijing fear us all the more. Simply put, this is the Pentagon doing what it always does: ignoring the present (GWOT and rogues like Kim who should go down sooner as opposed to later) and focusing on a future it prefers (big war with a big enemyóChina). Iím not talking about the regional commanders in the field, or even OSD per se when I say this, but the Pentagon itself, which really does nothing all day but plot future wars they believe are worth fighting, and then developing and buying the force structure mix (aircraft, ships, armor) it thinks will win that fabulous war in some distant future.

Thatís the system, stupid! And nothing really changes across DoD and the U.S. military until that systemóthat definition of war solely within the context of war and not within the context of anything elseóis dismantled and rebuilt for the task at hand: winning the GWOT by shrinking the Gap.

Second story is also on page 1 of New York Times. It is entitled, ìU.S. to Mandate Fingerprinting And Photos of More Foreigners,î by Rachel L. Swarns.

The U.S. had started this sort of stuff with developing countries in the aftermath of 9/11, and now theyíre expanding this very contentious practice (it sure has pissed off the Brazilians, for example) with 27 industrialized states, all of whom are reasonably considered our allies.

Why the push? The reasonable fear is that terrorists will exploit the more lax security systems of allies to gain entry into the U.S.óin effect exploiting a ìseamî in our defenses. So, in an effort to export new security rule sets, we force these additional security burdens on close allies, hoping it will push them to raise the security practices within their own states.

Would it be better to gain a Core-wide consensus on such improved security measures, using this multilateral discussion to further bring such New Core powers as India, China, and Russia into our preferred mix? Yes, but the question is asked quite logically, ìDo we try for that or simply establish the new rule set on our own and demand our fellow Core states implement something similar?î So itís sort of a chicken-or-egg question of how to get the ball rolling in a reasonable time frame.

Naturally, the U.S. tourism industry is a bit freaked, since the bulk of our tourists come from these industrialized states. So far, the reaction from these states is relatively muted, since most apparently believe theyíll get off our list once they implement new, far more secure, high-tech passport control systems.

Hmmmmm. We shall see.

But for now, this comes off as just another American firewall that may buy us some security in the near term while threatening Core unity over the long run.

Third article is about Russiaís response to all those east central European states joining NATO formally (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia). Written by Steven Lee Myers (a great security reporter), it is entitled, ìAs NATO Finally Arrives on Its Border, Russia Grumblesî (page 3 in print edition).

Trigger for this grumbling is NATO sending a handful of Belgian F-16ís plus their support groups into the Baltic states to fly ìpurely defensiveî sky police-type missions overhead. Against whom? Moscow logically asks. Al Qaedaís secret air force?

With tensions already growing between the Baltic states and Russia over ìborder incursions,î like some Russian jet that recently wandered across, you have to wonder what NATO is looking to achieve now that it can place military assets right on Russiaís border. What are the signals being sent here?

The U.S. and Europe need to ask themselves, ìWhat future role do we hope Russia will play in the Global War on Terrorism?î Understanding NATOís need to make new members feel good about their association with the West, you have to wonder if it really makes sense to piss off a potentially huge ally in the East.

Hold the Presses in Washington!

Dateline: Boscobel WI, 1 April 2004

I got an email from the assistant editor of the Washington Post's Outlook section. My proposed piece for this Sunday's issue is bumped from the line-up due to "crunch of events," a couple of further edits they want me to pursue, and the sense that they're asking too much from me on the day I bury my Dad.

Fair enough, but I'm disappointed with the outcome nonetheless. Could have used the boost on Sunday to see the article in print, plus now I worry that all this does is give the world another week to come up with fantastic stories that only keep me off the page next week as well.

Oh well, I gave the real "performance of a lifetime" today when I delivered the eulogy at my Father's funeral in the same church I grew up in. It was easily the hardest speech I have ever given, but my Mom's hug afterwards told me everything I needed to know about what I hold dear in this world.

It does help to keep things in perspective.

A Eulogy for John E. Barnett

Delivered by Thomas P.M. Barnett

1 April 2004

On behalf of my family, I want to thank you all for joining us here today to celebrate John Barnettís long and amazingly fruitful lifeóa life of love extended, commitments kept, and faith observed.

John Barnett was born in Boscobel, and lived the vast majority of his life in this town. This church is the only church where this ceremony could have been held, and you, his family and friends, are all that he would have asked for today.

John Barnett was a responsible, loving son to his parents, and played a large and loving role in the lives of his Aunt Catherine, his sister Mary and her family, and his sister-in-law Patricia and her family.

Lt. John Barnett, U.S. Navy, served his country overseas in time of war, acting as executive officer of an amphibious ship in the Pacific Campaign of World War II, and in time of peace, helping fellow sailors transition to civilian life during his tour of duty in the Pentagonís Navy Annex following that conflict. As a veteran of foreign wars, he belonged to and actively participated in the American Legion throughout the rest of his days. And he was immensely proud of his three grandsons, one of whom couldnít be here today, who likewise chose to serve this nation through military service.

John Barnett was married to Colleen Clifford for well over half a century. This loving union yielded nine children, two of which did not survive early childhood. These losses were great blows to this young couple, but in acts of deep faith and supreme optimism, they went on to have six more children, raising seven in all to successful adult lives. Those seven, in turn, are responsible for 12 grandchildrenóand at least one granddaughter to be named later.

John Barnett was a lawyer, an attorney-at-law, for well over four decades. He saw his profession as way to help people, as his father had before him.

Our fatherís strength was a quiet one, defined primarily by his unfailing ability to rise above his limitations in a never-ending effort to serve those around him.

Our father suffered from a multitude of small but trying physical ailments, yet somehow always managed to be at the office every dayódecade after decadeóserving for years on end as the sole provider for a family of nine.

Our father was an intensely private man, who nonetheless spent a lifetime actively seeking out and playing roles in this community that forced from him great levels of personal interaction with others: the Kiwanis, the Knights of Columbus, delegate to conventions of the Democratic Party, City Attorney, City Alderman, member of library board, cemetery board, Grant County Bar Association, Empty Stocking Club, fund drives for the hospital and this churchóa man you count on showing up, every time, on time.

Quite shy by nature, John Barnett always made a point of engaging everyone he came across with the best sort of small talkóthe kind that leaves people feeling better about themselves afterwards.

Not an outdoorsman, he nonetheless accompanied his sons on Boy Scout camping trips, and his daughters on canoe expeditions down the Wisconsin River.

Not much of an athlete, he nonetheless taught his children sports, and this son how to catch a football. John Barnett played golf for decades, and imparted his love of that sport to both children and grandchildren.

Not a particularly good driver (frankly, it was always an adventure every time that man put it in reverse), he nonetheless taught his children and my wife how to drive a car.

A man of modest talents, he did not seek to overcome them by pushing his children into activities they did not wish to pursue, and yet he was always there for such events, never missing a chance to see his kids, or his grandchildren, play in the game, appear in the play, be awarded some degree or promotion, orómost important to himóreceive a holy sacrament.

Although not given to public displays of affection, he slowly and with great sincerity became a hugger in later life, welcoming new additions to his extended family over the years: a son-in-law, several daughters-in-law, all those grandchildren, nieces and nephews, and yesóall those dogs.

A child of the Great Depression, John Barnett was a frugal man, but really only with himself. With his wife, his children, and their children, he was unfailingly generous, subsidizing education after education to the point where all of his childrenóand his wifeóhold advanced degrees that owe much to his financial support. Like with many of his most significant gifts to this community, he went out of his way to keep this role as anonymous as possible.

John Barnett lived a life of quiet inspiration. He loved sports, books, music, and theater. He shared these loves with us all, but even more importantly, by setting the example of these great passions, he generated a legacy of talented athletes, gifted scholars, skilled musicians, and insatiable performers.

Look around you, this manís life raised few waves, yet somehow generated an enormous wake.

His was a life worth emulating: a life of great faith and generosity, a life of service to others, a life of simple joys. Our father couldnít walk down a street without whistling, couldnít pass a stranger without saying hello, couldnít see a need without reaching into his pocket.

My Dad will always remain to me the man I hope someday to become.

My wife tells a story about hiding Easter eggs with Dad at some community event many years ago. He followed her around, constantly fussing over every single placement, carefully laying quarters in each. Then, as their task neared completion, he stuffed a host of extra eggs in the pockets of his sweater, telling her that these were for the kids who wouldnít be able to find any on their own.

Thatís the world John Barnett saw.

This was his life.

Exactly the Boost I Needed

Dateline: Boscobel WI, 2 April

The day after we say good-bye to my Dad in a funeral that was tough for us all, I got this bit of happy news from Amazon.com. After hovering at 80,000 "feet" in terms of sales ranking, today I jumped up to 8,062.

Not bad for starting out at just over 2 million about 8 weeks ago. Of course, I might jump right back up to 80,000 tomorrow, but for now, I feel a whole lot better about 27 April, the day the book comes out.

Someone also sent me email today telling me the Washington Times made mention of the book today. Haven't found it yet myself, but here's the nice part: her international committee on future of AV-8B, the tilt-rotor Marine aircraft, is meeting in Newport at the end of the month. Several members are retiring, and this officer wants to give each a signed copy of my book as a going-away present!

On a sunny day when I feel so dead inside, these little gifts make me feel just a little less lonely sitting in this house, where my Dad no longer roams.

The sad thing is: he's the person I'd most want to tell right now.

Postscript

Book shelf



Thomas P.M. Barnett, a nationally recognized professor at the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, R.I., will soon share his strategic vision with the rest of the country.

Putnam later this month is releasing Mr. Barnett's new book, "The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century."

"Like Alvin Toffler's groundbreaking work 'Future Shock,' Barnett's book is about the way the world is changing and the effect of those changes," says a Putnam preview. "His bold new visual depiction of the world's potential trouble spots ó backed up by insightful political, economic and historical analysis ó has, in fact, become the Pentagon's new map for strategic planning and operations. He examines and explains how future threats to national and international security will arise and presents a new national security strategy for meeting those threats ó economically, politically and operationally."

Mr. Barnett was in a good position to see his ideas adopted. Until June last year, he was assistant for strategic futures in the Pentagon's office of force transformation.

~ Washington Times, Inside the Ring, April 2, 2004

http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm

Connectivity: The Measure of Effectiveness

The only MOE for military invasions that matters

Last post for today involves great USA Today story on economic situation in Iraq post-Saddam. Most of the press on the occupation sees only the security angle, committing the sin of viewing war solely within the context of war and not in the context of everything else. The ìeverything elseî in Iraq is going like gang-busters, seeding connectivity that will ultimately link the Iraqi people with the outside world in a way that precludes the return of Saddam II.

That is the only Measure of Effectiveness that matters when we militarily intervene overseas: Did we leave the place more connected with the outside world than we found it?

Story in 29 March issue is on page 1 and is entitled, ìIraq economy shakes off the shackles of Saddam: Money flowing again, but corruption lingers.î

Key quotes from the text:

ìíThe regime is gone,í says Osama al-Quraishi, an Iraqi entrepreneur who retured to Baghdad to search for business opportunities after decades in exile in Europe and the Middle East. ëThere are no restrictions. There are no rules.í He predicts Baghdad will soon replace Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, as the Middle Eastís commercial center.

Ö

ëIt was a lawless economy governed by one principle: Saddam and the Baathist party took whatever they wanted,í says Bill Block, an economist with the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority.

Ö

ëEach day today is worth 10 years under Saddam,í says Abdul Reza Ougla, 48, a truck driver who cruises south Baghdadís Karada commercial district looking for merchants who need him to haul something somewhere.î

The World Bank says Iraqís economy shrank by roughly one-third last year, but that it will grow somewhere around 50% this year (the range is 30 to 70%). What are people buying like crazy? Cell phones and satellite TV dishes, both banned by Saddamís government.

Again, itís all about fostering connectivity. Democracy is not the holy grail, nor is secularism. Connectivity is the only MOE that matters. Everything else that is good starts with that fundamental truth.

Balancing connectivity with safety

Why We Need to Focus on Strategic Partnerships with New CorePowers

This will be the main thrust of my Outlook article for the Washington Post next Sunday. Hereís a group of articles that speaks to how such New Core powers as China, India and Russia are dramatically connecting themselves to the global economyóand each other.

WSJ article of 30 March entitled, ìRussian Oil Exports Are Rising, Setting Counterweight to OPEC.î Russia is going like gang-busters to create new energy linkages with neighbors in every direction. Hereís the key excerpt:

ìThe Russian (oil) industry is hustling to add pipeline capacity and develop alternative delivery systems, from tankers to barges to pricey rail delivery. It looks set to extend its streak of steady export gains for a few more years, according to industry executives and analysts.î

Who is Russia linking up to at top speed? China, of course. See the NYT article from 30 March entitled, ìRussia Catches China Fever: Commerce Thrives in Free Trade Zone in the East.î

Some great quotes:

ìBacks to a biting Siberian wind, Russian welders toiled recently, their bright blue flames securing a new kind of fense on this spare landscape where Russia meets China.

Inside the steel mesh enclosure will be a 75-acre free trade zone, where Russians and Chinese can mingle freely without visas, make purchases at a huge department store, be treated at an ëeastern medicineí clinic, produce duty-free goods in factories and stay at a five-star hotel.

Ö

For decades in Russia, ëon the borderí meant military duty. But now, in the Russian Far East, it means making money. Held back by decades of mistrust, the region is catching up with the rest of Asia. It is catching China fever.

Russian governors are tumbling over themselves to create free trade zones, to improve rail ties, to build highway bridges, and to set up banking services in rubles and yuan. Quietly, without a shot fired in a tariff war, Russiaís eastern third has followed the rest of Asia into Chinaís economic orbit.î

This is connectivity breaking out all over a border that was, for years, one of the most dangerous on the planet. Connectivity creates rules and rules means less conflict. Already, with all these rails lines coming on-line, Russia aspires to become a major transshipping route for Chinese goods, moving all that trade through Russian ports on the the Sea of Japan. This is a future worth creating.

A third article in the same vein appears in the 30 March WSJ entitled, ìIndian Travel Is Set for Takeoff: Asian Tourism Industry Rolls Out Red Carpet to Cash In on Boom.î

Hereís the excerpt:

ìLast year, hotels all over Asia and Australia began hiring Mandarin-speaking staff to better tap the boom in tourists from China. This year, they are adding Hindi television channels and spicy curry to in-room offerings.

The number of Indian tourists heading abroad is expected to jump to six million this year, up 30% from 2003. Outbound Indian tourism will increase at least 15% a year during the next five years as that nationís liberalizing economy expands and incomes rise, according to forecasts by the World Tourism Organization of Madrid. That growth rate could become much higher still, if the Indian government pushes ahead with plans to loosen restrictions on its aviation industry, where limited capacity long has constrained international travel.

Asian tourism boards and hotel chains are stepping up marketing efforts in India to tap the regionís next big travel boom. ëIn the no-too-distant future, India will be as strong as China,í says Patrick Imbardelli, managing director of the Asian-Pacific region for Intercontinental Hotels Group.î

China sent 20 millions tourists abroad last year, but the tourism industry is more excited about the rising tide of Indians, because they shop more and stay longerólike Americans!

Key to me in this article is that connectivity of global air travel, yet another aspect of globalizationís connectivity that terrorism has used against us in the past and will certainly seek to use again. The goal here is the same one I cite repeatedly in my book: we need to balance the connectivity of technology with sufficient security rule sets to keep us all safe.

Disrupting the Flow: jihad and immigration

The Least Covered but Most Crucial Flow: People

Remember that the four flows must be kept in balance, meaning none can be shut off to accommodate the needs of any other:

• Security from Core to Gap


• Energy from Gap to Core


• FDI from Old Core to New Core


• People from Gap to Core

The aspect most vulnerable to disruption of the flow of People in this Global War on Terrorism is clearly immigration, or the human firewall the Core will be sorely tempted to throw up between itself and that ìinsaneî Gap filled with suicide bombers.

Take for example the March 29th Wall Street Journal story entitled, ìNew Breed of Islamic Warrior is Emerging: Evidence in Madrid Attack Points to Takfiris, Who Use Immigration as a Weapon.î

Here are the key excerpts:

ì These Islamist warriorsóschooled in the North African doctrine known as Takfir wal Hijra and trained by Afghan veterans of al Qaedaóthink, recruit and operate differently from traditional Islamist networks. For Europe, that makes the threat particularly acute. The Takfir movement is strongest in Morocco and Algeria, the primary sources of Muslim immigration to Western Europe. Takfiri theorists openly advocate using immigration as a Trojan horse to expand jihad, or holy war.î

Ö

As Osama bin Ladenís control over terror networks has been disrupted, new radicals operate at the fringes of his movement. Many of his core beliefs, especially his anti-American animus, are being superceded by broader interpretations of global jihad. Instead of just apostate Muslim regimes or U.S. interests, jihad is being expanded to include virtually everyone outside the sect.

Ö

Immigration is a key way to extend the radical ideas into Western Europe. One Takfiri scholar, Abu Basir, wrote in 2001 that ëjihad and immigration go together . . . the one cannot be achieved without the other.íí

The global war on terrorism is the truly asymmetrical war, meaning our enemies use our strengthsóour connectivityóas weapons against us. To give up that connectivity is to surrender preemptively, but clearly rule-set resets are in order. Keeping our societies and economies open doesnít mean we have to remain tragically naÔve.

But the challenge will be a tough one: how to make sure the immigration flows that need to occur from Gap to Core actually unfold over the years while simultaneously weeding out those who wish to do us harm andóultimatelyóto divide globalization into a series of isolated civilizations.

Everything is spinning

Dateline: US Airways flight from Pittsburgh to Phoenix, Sunday 28 March

I got home Friday night from my Premeditated Media Tour feeling awfully positive about my life and my future. There was this strong sense of everything falling into place.

But the Irish in me immediately suspected that I would be made to pay for all this good fortune. A call from my Mom confirmed what I had suspected in my brotherís stream of emails over the week: my Dadís condition following his very risky-but-unavoidable heart surgery was coming undone. We needed everything to go right and God had not granted us this wish.

But the following morning a difficult decision had been made and my Dad was goneójust like that. My siblings keeping watch at the hospital packed up the gear and departed, and the inexorable family motion toward a funeral began.

We had won some key battles, mostly through my Dadís indomitable will, but the war had been lost.

Naturally, you are crushed by such moments in life, but you struggle through your day with a sense of duty. Mine was to shepherd four boys plus my son Kevin through his birthday celebration at Providence Place Mall. We did Dave & Busterís arcade, Ben & Jerryís ice cream, and the NASCAR 3-D film at the IMAX. We told Kevin about his Grandfather, following the party.

That night when all the kids were in bed, Vonne opened the FedEx package that came earlier in the day. She knew it cost extra to send a FedEx on Saturday and did not recognize the name of the sender. It turned out to be a bottle of expensive 18-year-old scotch whiskey (Macallan) from Steve Oppenheim and Marilyn Ducksworth of Putnam, the director and executive director, respectively, of PR. It was a thank-you for my effort over the previous three days.

The next morning I work up with a horrible case of vertigo. Knowing I hadnít drunk enough to warrant that outcome, I suspected the onset of tree pollen was working its usual spring magic, yielding inner-ear congestion. But I couldnít help but explore the alternative, metaphysical explanation: my Fatherís death had staggered me, sent my world spinning. In more ways than one, it was hard to get my bearings.

Then I thought of what my Dad did for my family over all those yearsódecades, really. Despite all his allergies, sinus troubles, and other small but debilitating ailments, the man always got out of bed and made whatever needed to happen to make sure his seven kids were clothed, fed, schooled, treated, and so on. He did not make excuses, never offered a word of serious complaint (although he was an inveterate kidder), but simply made it happenówhatever it was, whatever it took, whatever the cost.

I thought of what my Dad would have said to me at this moment and knew immediately the words I would have heard: ìDonít let any of this get you down. Just stay focused on taking care of your family. Thatís the important thing.î

And so, despite my bumping into walls and staggering around like a drunken sailor, I made my way up to the room above the garage, flicked on the PC, and banged out 1,500 words for the 4 April issue of the Washington Postís Outlook section. Then I and my kids cleaned up the house a bit and headed to see ìScooby-Doo 2.î My wife Vonne met us afterwards at McDonaldís (she was out shopping for clothes for the kids to wear at the wake and funeralólikewise doing what needed to get done), where I peeled off and flew to Phoenix, arriving around midnight.

Firing on all pistons

Dateline: the US Airways flight back from Phoenix to Providence, 30 March

Rushing back to make a client meeting in Providence. As soon as I touch down I will rush to the headquarters of the United Way of Rhode Island to lead a workshop of their senior leaders. Barnett Consulting is vetting its final report on the philanthropic communityís response to the Station Nightclub Fire disaster of February 2003. I will brief the group on our findings from a series of lengthy focus groups with key participants over the past several weeks. My partner (sub-contractor Bradd Hayes) and I will likewise lead the group through a series of rank-ordering exercises that explore our recommendations for future actionóor how the United Way helps prepare the philanthropic and service provider communities for the ìnext oneî (whatever that turns out to be).

The effort at doing a ìlessons learnedî has been fascinating, allowing me to resurrect many of the concepts and models we developed for disaster planning regarding Y2K. Everything old is new again.

Other things on my plate:

• Editing the Esquire article with Mark Warren. We are approaching deadline. I gave Mark 4k and he wanted 2.5, so heís slimming it down. Then there is the question of an illustration they want to run with the piece: Thomas Nast-like, Mark assures me. Mark also wants me to write a new intro. One I have is something a lot of people could have written, he says, knowing how that criticism always burns my ass to no end. I will accept this challenge and look forward to Markís edit, which is always brilliant. I may be the only writer in history who loves his editors so.


• Editing the Washington Post Outlook piece with assistant editor Zofia Smardz. She calls yesterday to say she has the piece and thinks itís great. Iím told not to expect too much in changes, and expect little creative struggle with her because she basically ordered up the piece from a list of topics we sent her in advance, and I feel like I basically delivered what she asked for, doing it hopefully in such a way as to both promote my book and my ideas while simultaneously giving the reader something valuable and timely in and of itself.


• Then thereís the most important writing and editing assignment of the week: Iíve been asked by my Mom to deliver the eulogy at my Dadís funeral. In addition to the usual sermon by the priest, she wants me to speak on behalf of our collective family. I am deeply honored by this request, and immediately ping both her and my eldest siblings for lists of what ground I need to cover. To say I am nervous about this ìpresentationî is a gross understatement. It will be one of the hardest speeches I will ever deliver. Five minutes at Immaculate Conception, but a lifetime of love and sacrifice to capture.

Despite all this, I canít help being my Fatherís son and spending most of the flights back reading a slew of newspapers from the past two days (USA Today, NYT, WSJ). Here are the stories I canít help but blog.

"It's simply what he does best."

My Brett Favre Monday Night game

Dateline Scottsdale Arizona, around midnight on Monday 29 March.

Iím bunking at Scottsdaleís very upscale Phoenician resort, a place I could hardly afford but would love to make a habit of. By local accounts, this hotel was to become Charles Keatingsí pyramid to himselfóuntil the S&L scandal hit. It is a beautiful place, and itís where Lockheed Martin is having its annual senior executive conference.

I head into the conference to hear the Chairmanís opening pitch. I know Vance Coffman is stepping down soon, so I had my book sent to both him and his replacement, whoís also here. I wanted to hear Coffmanís take on what LM was looking to get out of the conference so I could do my best to shape my usual brief in such a way as to speak most directly to the future strategic choices LM faces as the Pentagonís largest contractor.

I also scope the room: itís a double-wide ballroom with a very wide stage full of the requisite plants. There are two large screens on either side embedded in a ìwallî made up of flowing curtains. These are for the PowerPoint presentations. Above the stage is another big screen upon which the speakerís image is displayed. There are several hundred execs in the room, all arrayed behind long tables facing the stage.

Having scoped out the room and set-up, I retreat to the speakersí room to put the brief together, selecting the slides I want to use from my array of about 100 in all. Once thatís set I generate a copy and give it to the techies running the show behind the stage as a backup. This takes a while because Iím using floppies (my Sony stick just died), and so I listen to Charles Krauthammer, Gary Hart, and Brent Scowcroft perform on their all-star panel. Meanwhile Secret Service are scoping out the backstage area because the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Defense is speaking right before me following lunch.

I spend lunch setting up my laptop at the podium and testing the sound and picture. Then I do the hob-nob with my immediate host, the head of strategic planning for LM, who introduces me to Coffman and others. While Deputy Secretary Loy gives his speech, I coffee up and locate some Perrier to take with me on stage.

Then the moment comes: Coffman gives his intro and Iím on. Still suffering the vertigo somewhat, Iím likewise feeling a bit blitzed and not just a little bit nervous, which always happens when I havenít given the brief in a while. Itís been several weeks and my pitch is memorized, so either the RAM is working or itís not.

I think of Brett Farveís masterful dismantling of the Oakland Raidersí defense on Monday Night Football the day after his dad died, and immediately realize why his concentration could be so strong at that moment: itís simply what he does best. When you hit such profoundly depressing moments as losing a parent, everything gets stripped away except for that which remains. Brettís core skill set is dismantling defenses, and mine is giving captivating presentations to large audiences.

Once inside the moment (I always start somewhat slow), I enter the usual zone. Sixty minutes later Iím taking questions following a strong round of applause, and two hours later Iím hearing from my hosts that my presentation made the day. ìYou pushed a lot of minds in new directions,î I was told, ìand that is exactly what we brought you here to do.î

As I walk back to my hotel room to change for dinner, I realize my vertigo is gone. Iíve remembered who I am: husband to wife, father to children, provider to family. I donít need any reminders about my Dad. I became him years ago.

The Man I Hope Someday to Be

Dateline Portsmouth RI but really Madison WI,

late in the evening of 26 March

My Dad is going to leave in the next few hours, and I am going to miss him very much.

He raised and supported seven children into adulthood, losing two in their very early years.

He was an enormously patient man, full of humility.

He always went out of his way to help others, and never sought credit for himself.

He was terribly shy in his personality, but somehow endeavored all his years to befriend others and to engage in the sort of small talk that left those around him always feeling better about themselves.

He taught me many things along the way: how to catch a football, how to think ahead, and how to get through difficult moments with faith.

I feel very fortunate to have known this man for 41 years. I would have taken more, but this was more than most receive, and for that I thank both him and God.

He will always remain to me the man I hope someday to be.

Globalization isn't easy

Can I Get a ìDuuuuh!î on Insourcing?

Dateline Southwest Flight 860 from BWI to PVD, 26 March

My head feels immediately better upon lift-off. The capital is awash in blooming trees, which is like garlic to this vampire. Good news is, most of such blooms will be gone upon my return in late April.

Great story from Wednesdayís Wall Street Journal (24 March) entitled, ìEver Heard of Insourcing?î Itís by Walter Wriston, former CEO of Citicorp/Citibank. I have been waiting years to read this article and let me tell you why.

My NewRuleSets.Project work with Cantor Fitzgerald taught me plenty about the investment flows that really involve shifting the means of production/service from one country to another. Itís not commercial bank loans and itís not flows into and out of stock markets per se that really drives this process. Rather, itís foreign direct investment (FDI) that involves equity ownership of real assets, real companies, and real factories. FDI is one of the ìfour flowsî that populate my bookís elegant/reductionist model of how globalization advances.

Quick quiz: who is biggest single source of FDI in the world? Who invests most in other countries economies? That would be the U.S., meaning no one sends as much equity-controlling capital around the world as we do, thus no one exports jobs (a.k.a. outsourcing) as much as we do. We do this to gain access to cheaper inputs (raw materials, people, technology, etc.). If your economy and its companies do not constantly seek such cheaper inputs, the goods and services your economy produces will cost more than those from competing nations, meaning youíll lose markets and ultimately your companies will fail, depriving your workforce of the jobs they generate.

So duh! Outsourcing by sending FDI around the planet in search of better opportunities is good, despite the nonsense you hear from unions whose sole purpose in life seems to be making sure their members never have to switch jobs, towns, or careers in their lifetimesóa pointless and ultimately self-defeating goal.

As for politicians ranting on about ìBenedict Arnold CEOs,î this is economic stupidity personified. The problem is not sending jobs abroad, but retraining workers here at home within an economic and social environment that encourages lifetime learning and constant updating and broadening of skill sets.

Second quiz: whoís the biggest target of FDI from around the world? That would be us again, the United States. No one attracts FDI like we do, meaning no one attracts capital and the means of production/service like we do. When Japan invests in a new Toyota factory in the U.S. or when Novartis moves its central R&D facility from Switzerland to Massachusetts, those countries are outsourcing jobs to the U.S., whichóin effectómeans weíre insourcing those same jobs.

All this succinct op-ed points out is that the U.S. economy consistently insources more jobs each year than we outsource. Take that for a blinding glimpse of the obvious! Of course, that churn on jobs means any individualís dream of a single-career life lived in one spot is most likely a chimera, or completely unattainable without significant opportunity and monetary cost. So yeah, globalization isnít easy.

But over time this flow of jobs into the U.S. provides ever-increasing opportunity to improve ourselves, our skill sets, and our overall economy. According to the Organization for International Investment, the U.S. insourced 4.9 million jobs in 1991, with that figure rising to 6.4 million in 2001. Moreover, roughly one-third of those insourced jobs came in the manufacturing sector. Such foreign investment in our productive capacity currently yields just over 1/5th of this countryís annual exports. If this isnít win-win, as the author claims, then what is?

Dateline, on the road again

Tuesday, 23 March

Turns out the guy who measured me for my tux on Saturday was convinced I was a 46L, which is kinda amazing since all my suits say 42L. I mention this reality to him when I pick up my rental Monday, but he says tuxedos can measure out differently than suits. Hmmm, I reply.

Then he slips the jacket on me and the cuffs come down to the middle knuckle on my thumbs. My Esquirephile fitter assures me it looks quite stylish, but I feel like a 10-year-old wearing his older brother's sports jacket and complain. He disappears in the backroom and comes out with a "fix." It seems roughly the right length and I'm already 45 minutes late for an interview with some British naval officers who are waiting outside my office door back on base, so I stuff the jacket in the bag and run out.

I could almost hear the editors at Esquire clucking their disapproval at my mistake.

Later last night when I try it all on for my wife, Vonne, she suppresses a laugh and I know the jig is up. The tux guy had simply rolled up the sleeves and sewn a quick seam inside the arms. I was still wearing this oversized jacket, like some black-tie version of David Byrne in Stop Making Sense. So today is a bit of a scramble in terms of getting a replacement tux from another shop (where I sold the owner on the book) and a refund from the other dude, before I catch my flight to DC, where Putnam has a car waiting for me and a room in the Renaissance, an establishment I have managed to miss on all my previous government per diem trips to the capital.

Good thing I got a tux that fits, cause I'm moving on up!

So today let me offer one shameless plug for my book by commenting on a very "four flows"-like article in the Wall Street Journal and then tax your patience one last time with the last of my mega-posts in the Back Story of The Pentagon's New Map series (this one dealing with the process of writing the book).

The Military-Market Nexus

The bath water called al Queda

by Thomas "I'm a reductionist, and damn proud of it!" P.M. Barnett

I spend a chapter (#4, The Core and the Gap) in my book presenting what I know is a rather simplistic and clearly reductionist model of globalization as four key flows worth preserving and keeping in balance. My basic notion is that the U.S. and other great powers must do whatever it takes to allow these resources to continue flowing from those regions where they exist in abundance to those regions where they are scarce. My four flows, detailed first in my article with Hank Gaffney entitled "The Global Transaction Strategy" are as follows:

1. People have to flow from the Gap to the Core, as the latter ages demographically.
2. Energy has to flow from the Gap to the New Core especially (specifically, Developing Asia), where energy use will double in the next two decades.
3. Foreign direct investment needs to flow from the Old Core (U.S., Europe, Japan) to the New Core (especially China, Russia, and India) in order to enable their further integration into the Core.
4. Finally, security has to flow from the Old Core (especially from the system Leviathan known as the U.S.) to the Gap, with a special emphasis in the near- and mid-term on the Middle East due to its central role as breeding ground for transnational terrorism and as the major source of energy for Developing Asia.

Those are the four flows: security, money, energy, and people. Keep 'em in balance and globalization will continue to progress. Screw any one of them with this Global War on Terrorism and we can end up killing globalization just like we did back in the 1930s.

Here is the story from the Wall Street Journal (28 March): "Geopolitical Fears Hurt Stocks." It's about stock markets falling over much of the world as a result of recent events.

Here's the quote I like. It's the first paragraph in the article:

"When investors focus more on world instability than on business fundamentals, stocks tend to fall. That is what happened yesterday, as the Dow Jones Industrial Average gave up almost 122 points amid worries about terrorism, Asian stability and the price of oil."

When I go on and on in my book about the need to get off thinking about war solely within the context of war and instead start thinking about war within the context of everything else, this is exactly the sort of every-day linkage I'm talking about. I once described this linkage from A to Z in a Decalogue ("Asia: The Military-Market Link") that I update and expand to describe all of globalization at the start of Chapter 4 in the book.

Here are the "Ten Commandments" as I define them:

1. Look for resources and ye shall find, but Ö

2. No stability, no markets

3. No growth, no stability

4. No resources, no growth

5. No infrastructure, no resources

6. No money, no infrastructure

7. No rules, no money

8. No security, no rules

9. No Leviathan, no security

10. No will, no Leviathan.

That's what I call the Military-Market Nexus.

You get terror in the Middle East, and that spooks the oil markets. The rising oil prices destabilize economic and thus political stability in Asia, so markets respond and investment flows are curtailed. If America pulls out of Iraq, what do you think happens then? Less terror? More stability? Cheaper oil? A faster growing Asia? A better global economy? Globalization's progressive advance to those regions currently on the outside, noses pressed to the glass?

Why does it all matter to the average American? Because most of us have our retirement savings at work on Wall Street, and that money is a crucial fuel to globalization's advance. So, in effect, globalization's success is our collective future either unfolding as planned or disappearing down a rat hole, and the Pentagon and its changing role in national security since 9/11 is part and parcel of this entire process. It's not just something that kicks end when diplomacy fails or when markets are shut down. This is a very iterative and interactive feedback loop, where everything affects everything else.

For example, who do you think buys all that public debt we float to pay for the war in Iraq? That would be our Asian friends primarily, and China and Japan in particular. Guess what happens when they have to pay more for oil, have to hedge more against regional instability, and put up more firewalls due to terrorism fears? They become less willing to pay for our "exporting of security" in this global war on terrorism.

My point: there is no such thing as a "war president" or "unilateral war" or any of that other nonsense about America doing whatever it pleases and to hell with the rest of the world. It all comes back to haunt us on some level, whether we realize it or not. In this war, we fight a networked opponent whose operating domain encompasses all the complexity that is globalization. Either we fight this war with such complexity in mind or we do more damage than good to globalization's future. That's the baby we don't want to throw out with the bath water called al Qaeda.

And yes, you'll feel the pulses of this "distant war" in your market portfolio on a daily basis. That's nothing new. We're just becoming more aware of such connectivity after 9/11.

Dateline, home above the garage

Tuesday, 22 March, late evening

I feel the need to speed ahead and get done my Back Story of The Pentagonís New Map series of posts, because tomorrow night I head down to DC on Putnamís dime to start interfacing with media people who are checking me out in advance of my publisherís serious media tour in late April that coincides with the release of the book. So Iíll call this trip the Pre-Meditated Media Tour (Kirkus was right, I do like capitalizing conceptsóitís so very Pentagon).

But before I push ahead with the third post in that series (about selling the book proposal), I cannot help but offer some commentary on Richard Clarkeís ìstunning revelationsî regarding the Bush Administrationís deaf ear to the intell communityís ìstaunch warningsî on the imminent 9/11 attacks.

Intell 9/11: Good news, bad news

There ainít no such thing as an intell failure on 9/11

Let me be upfront with my conclusion: I knew all along that there was no such thing as an intelligence community failure on 9/11. But I will also say there certainly wasnít any success either. Let me explain what I mean.

First off, you have to understand that the intell communityówhen all the agencies are consideredóis huge. There is basically an intell analyst for every possible threat and/or scenario out there, and these guys areóby and largeótalented and devoted people. They are also quite certain, down to the very last one of them, that the ìthreatî theyíre working on is basically the most important one out thereóand simultaneously the most ignored by higher-ups.

As soon as 9/11 happened, I predicted this ìstunning revelationî: within weeks investigators would uncover several ìsmoking memosî that warned about the very attack that was unleashed on 9/11. In fact, let me go on record as guaranteeing this outcome for every ìunforeseeable attackî this country ever suffers in this global war on terrorism. The real question isnít whether or not some analyst in the vast universe of the intell community saw this one coming, because they always do. Itís what the national security establishment does in terms of prioritizing such analytic flows over time.

The reality of the defense community is that they spent the 1990s basically ignoring the terrorist threat. They did so because they saw nothing in such threat analysis that got it what it really wanted: giant, very expensive and very lethal platforms (ships, aircraft, tanks, etc.) for its preferred mode of war, otherwise known as great power war. Our system of national security planning was set up to counter the Soviet threat, and it has changed very little since that threatís demise. Instead of adapting to the changed strategic security environment, we ginned up a hollow replacementóthe near-peer competitor concept, or the threat to-be-determined.

Now, if you know anything about all the ìsecretî wargames we plan and play, thereís no mystery about who the preferred candidate for the near-peer has long beenóChina. China is basically the Pentagonís desired replacement for the Soviets. So weíve reoriented much of our threat analysis and the intell collection that supports it to that new target. We prefer that new target in the Pentagon because it matches our definition of preferred war: against a large opponent with vast resources and high technology. This is what we know, this is what we want.

The reason why I say there was no intell failure on 9/11 is because we continue to focus our long-range force structure planning and all the threat analysis that goes with it on the fabled near-peer, not on those pesky ìlesser includeds,î a category to which terrorism has long been assignedóand frankly still is. The intell system worked just fine on 9/11 in terms of collection and reporting, by and large. What was wrong was a national security strategy and long-range threat/force planning bias against processing and prioritizing such warnings. Simply put, all the memos and warnings in the world would not have made us ready or able to prevent 9/11. They simply did not compute in our existing strategic mindset.

That mind-set was everyoneís fault in the national security business: the White House (both Clinton and Bush), the Congress, the intell community and the military community. We all asked for and got from the intell community a strategic threat analysis that emphasized what we wanted emphasized: a ìrisingî China. In short, we spent the entire post-Cold War period planning for an enemy who will not rise and a war that no longer exists. To pretend we can point fingers ex post facto on 9/11 is self-serving and meaningless, although it certainly makes Richard Clarke feel better about his career.

The real question is how much our strategic mindset has changed since 9/11.

Out in the field, I would say much change has occurred. And I would say that the Office of Secretary of Defense has definitely undergone a serious transformation, seen in their new thinking on how to wage wars, where weíll wage them, how weíll plan for them, and what forces weíll need for them. Where I do not see the change yet is in the long-range force structure planning, or the system by which we plan and buy the platforms that define our force-in-being over time. There the bias toward the ìfew and the very expensiveî continues to dominate the needed movement toward the ìmany and the cheap.î Greg Jaffeís recent WSJ article on the armored Humvee shortage in Iraq is a good example.

My bottom line is this: until we break up and reconfigure the antiquated, Cold War-style long-range force structure planning system, all our strategic analysis inside the Pentagon will remain a slave to this process, thus preventing any serious reordering of our intelligence structure, its collection methods, and the processing and prioritization of analysis. The end product in this vast Pentagon planning pipeline remains a high-end, great power war-oriented force, and so the system continues to feed a view of the world that fits that desired end product. Check out the current threat analysis that justifies the Pentagonís long range acquisition plans, and you will see China looming behind every ìbig betî analysis. Al Qaeda and the GWOT are really nowhere to be found in this vision of the future, because they do not justify the preferred force structure.

Until the Pentagon and the political administrations that rule over it change our definition of real wars worth waging today as well as potential threats worth hedging against tomorrow, it will not matter one whit how much we reform the intelligence community, for it will continue to speak to an audience predisposed to ignore its analysis.