Dissing Arms Control

More Signs That Arms Control is Dead and Buried

Wall Street Journal article entitled, "An Atomic Bargain Hampers the Hunt For Illicit Weapons: Top Watchdog Agency Has Strictly Limited PowersóAnd Conflicting Missions," by Carla Anne Robbins, 8 Apr, p. A1.

All you need to know from this article is stated in the first paragraph (as it is in most WSJ articles, which are the best written in the business):

"The International Atomic Energy Agency is the world's nuclear watchdog, charged with stopping the spread of nuclear weaponry. But it's a watchdog with a split personality: The IAEA is also charged with promoting the benefits of peaceful nuclear energy."

The IAEA's rule set on this is clear: if you foreswear nuclear weapons, it will help you build nuclear power plants. Sound a bit crazy? It's not. It just shows the incredible dis-utility of trying to control the spread of technology from the Core to the Gap. I, myself, don't want to see that technology spread controlled, but turned wide open, because I think that flow is important for shrinking the Gap, and because I believe such flows are virtually impossible to control.

The answer is not stopping the technology, but replacing the leadership of any country that uses it for the generation of WMD. Yes, this is a matter of telling them to "do as we say and not as we do," just like when parents tell kids that even though they "experimented" with drugs way back then, it's a bad idea for their kids to do the same today. If we can't get any smarter as we get older, then it is hopeless.

The same is true for countries. America is "old" when it comes to nukes, and frankly, it knows better, otherwise we would have used them again and again after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So we are empowered to enforce this rule set, because it's good for everyone and not just ourselves. Sometimes Dad just has to be the dad.

And when non-state actors make any motion toward acquiring such technology, there should be no preliminaries whatsoever. Those people you take down without even asking them to surrender, because you know they will be up to no good.

Bottom line: the Core never does any good trying to control the flow of dangerous technologies to the Gap. We should abandon these efforts and focus on the bad guys there who will do harm the first chance they get. Since they're devoted to breaking the rules, they will always find ways around the sanctions, decrees, etc. that we throw at them. Moreover, these sanctions always end up hurting the masses while making the corrupt elites rich inside the Gap. They are a complete waste of timeóa choice barely above complete inaction.

Marines: Cop on the beat

Same As It Ever WasóThe Marines and Small Wars

Here's a great article by favorite of mine, Greg Jaffe of Wall Street Journal entitled, "For Guidance in Iraq, Marines Rediscover A 1940s Manual: Small-War Secrets Include: Tips on Nation-Building, The Care of Pack Mules," 8 April, p. A1.

Why is this book so hot right now inside the Pentagon? We've simply forgotten how to do these thingsólike wage the peace after we've won the war. The Marines have been doing this for their entire existenceóthe small stuff, the details, the Military Operations Other Than War. I know, I know, "them's fighting words" to some Marines who see the Corps as the preeminent warfighting force. But that's the truth: the Marines were built exactly for things "other than war." They're the preeminent 9-1-1 emergency response force. The first-in and last-out and left-behind-on-their-own guys. That's why they have to be so G.D. tough and self-reliant.

Rediscovering their past is how the Marines, and the rest of DoD, is going to deal with the future task of shrinking the Gapóone hellhole at a time. As I say in the book, dealing with the Gap mostly requires that we remember who we are and how we got here. The Gap is stuck in the past, so old solutions repackaged in new practices will be the order of the day in many instances. These small things will form the essential workload of the Sys Admin force I envisionóthe cop walking the beat across the Gap.

And yes, much of the time that cop will be a Marine.

Heading home ...

Dateline: United commuter jet from DC Dulles to Providence, 7 April, afternoon

Very glad to be finally heading home for a stretch. It was three days in NYC week before last on Putnam media tour, then Saturday home, then three days in Phoenix, then four days in Wisconsin and a Sunday home, and now just finishing three days in DC. I havenít traveled like this is a long time, and look forward to my own bed.

With any luck, I will hold hard copy of galleys from Esquire in my hands tomorrow, which should be as exciting as the first time. Mark Warren at Esquire (editor of my book) is reorganizing the piece with my blessing, showing his usual flair for step-functioning the argument much better than I do.

A collection of articles today from Wall Street Journal (getting to be my favorite) and NY Times:

ìMadrid Bombing Suspect Is Key al Qaeda Liaison,î by Keith Johnson and David Crawford, Wall Street Journal, 7 April, A17.

ìAs NATO Grows, So Do Russiaís Worries,î by Sergei Ivanov, Russian Foreign Minister, New York Times, 7 Apr, p. A21

ìSince í94 Horror, Rwandans Turn Toward Islam,î by Marc Lacy, New York Times, 7 Apr, p. A1.

ìDemocrats Are in an Odd Position on Iraq: Kerry, Critical of the War, Has Done Little To Differentiate His Approach From Bushís,î by Christopher Cooper and Greg Hitt, Wall Street Journal, 7 April, p. A4

Key node in the network

ìMadrid Bombing Suspect Is Key al Qaeda Liaisonî

by Keith Johnson and David Crawford, Wall Street Journal, 7 April, A17.

This one follows up my previous post about how hard it can seem to label the Madrid bombers (Tunisian group, Moroccan group, al Qaeda, or al Qaeda franchise? -- see The Branding of a Networked Opponent)

Iíll give you the first couple of paragraphs:

ìThe suspected mastermind in the March 11 train bombings in Madrid has connections to several major al Qaeda attacks in recent years, including the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., suggesting that the Madrid bombings were more centrally organized than previously thought.

The career of Amer el Azizi sheds light on how al Qaeda is bringing jihad, or holy war, to Europe. According to investigators, he is the liaison between the raw and fanatical North African recruits who served as foot soldiers in the Madrid bombings and battle-hardened al Qaeda troops like himself.î

Nice accompanying chart details his linkages to 9/11, 3/11, Iraq insurgency, terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and Casablanca bombings.

This guy is a ìconnector,î to use Malcolm Gladwellís phrase, or a key node in the network.

Follow-up: Russia-NATO

ìAs NATO Grows, So Do Russiaís Worriesî

by Sergei Ivanov, Russian Foreign Minister, New York Times, 7 Apr, p. A21.

Referencing TM Lutasí commentary on a previous post regarding the Belgian F-16s put into the Baltics, I really commend the tone of this piece.

First, note this one: ìIraq is now occupied by the United States and its allies, including some of the countries now joining NATO.î He says ìitsî allies. What that line tells me is that we have missed the boat in attracting Russia to that coalition, which is a shame, because they have real worries about Muslim terror groups and have a historical fear of the ìthreat from the South.î

But he goes on to say: ìRussiaís position is not that of a malicious onlooker, gloating over Americaís and NATOís failures. On the contrary, despite the differences that still exist between Russia and NATO, we want to cooperate with the alliance to ensure global security.î

Man, can someone get this guy a seat at the table?

Even China doesnít have one, and thatís a country that answered the call ìCheck please!î when the U.S. floated all those T-bills in early 2003 to pay for the war, so I guess weíre just not thinking far ahead enough.

Maybe if we had a Russian specialist as NSC boss . . ..

Islamic Balm

A Glimpse of the Future Clash of Civilizations

ìSince í94 Horror, Rwandans Turn Toward Islam,î by Marc Lacy, New York Times, 7 Apr, p. A1.

Here are the key exerpts:

ìWhen 800,000 of their countrymen were killed in massacres that began 10 years ago this week, many Rwandans lost faith not only in their government but in their religion as well. Today, in what is still a predominantly Catholic country, Islam is the fastest growing religion.

. . .

Although no accurate census has been done, Muslim leaders in Rwanda estimate they have about a million followers, or about 15 percent of the population. That, too, would represent a doubling of their numbers in the last 10 years.

Muslim leaders credit the gains to their ability during the 1994 massacres to shield most Muslims, and many other Rwandans, from certain death.î

Islam spreads in the Gap because Islam is a great survivalist religion, meaning it works well in terms of getting you through hard times. If we transform the Middle East and drive radical Islam out of there in coming years, then we will find ourselves having to do the same in sub-Saharan Africa as well.

Remember, though, Islam is not the problem, as I say in my book. It is a solution for hard times in the Gap, and a way to create personal connectivity in the midst of profound economic, political and security disconnectedness. We solve the disconnectedness, and Islam can serve more naturally as a religion and as a guide to lifeóand less as a desperate life-preserver or rationale for senseless violence.

What Kerry Needs to Say on Iraq

Reference is great WSJ article entitled,

ìDemocrats Are in an Odd Position on Iraq: Kerry, Critical of the War, Has Done Little To Differentiate His Approach From Bushísî

by Christopher Cooper (good guy I know) and Greg Hitt, 7 April, p. A4.

As my inspiration here, I will cite TM Lutasís comments on a previous post I made, where he asked what questions we as citizens should be asking candidates.

My comment on his comment is something I want to repeat and expand upon here.

Basically, I started by saying that this is how I would answer (if I were Kerry) the charge about voting for the war in Iraq but then voting against the $87B aid/military package that followed:

ìYes, I voted for the war because Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator who brutalized his own people, both threatened and engaged his neighbors with war, and becauseóover the course of his cruel reignóhe did seek (and use) WMD, plus support terrorism where he could. He didnít need to be committing those actual crimes against humanity the very second we took him down. He had multiple outstanding warrants and we rightfully toppled him at a time of our choosingóin order to suffer the minimal loss of life among our soldiers.

Why I voted against the $87B aid/military follow-on package is because I didnít see a strategic vision attached to this request that told me the White House or the Pentagon had a clear sense of what they were getting into, much less a coherent long-term plan to win the peace while more fully involving key allies. Thatís my job as Senator: to look hard at the rationales offered by the Executive Branch regarding funding requests. It is the essential power of the purse string and I used itówith no apologies.

We are in a serious mess now in Iraq. Our allies are under attackóin their homelands. Our troops are under attack. And our morale is being sapped by an administration that refuses to spell out sufficiently where weíre going both in this occupation but likewise in this global war on terrorism. We need more strategic vision than just a transfer date conveniently placed well-before our national election. Our attention span needs to be longer in something so critical as this effort to reconnect Iraqi society to the world outside.

We need answers from this administration, and we need them now. We donít know President Bushís because he hasnít supplied them, but here are mine . . ..

First off, let me promise you that as president I will put before Congress a National Security Act of 2005 that seriously revamps the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to meet the threats we face today. Neither institution as currently configured is a good match for the global war on terrorism, as both were constructed decades ago to fight a Cold War against an enemy that no longer exists. I wonít speculate too much right now on the details, because many good minds need to come together over this effort, but let me tell you this: we will have a military that can wage both war and peace.

Will that effort answer the mail today in Iraq? Not nearly fast enough, so let me make this my second solemn promise regarding national security in my administration: I will seek out the international communityófocusing especially on the emerging powers in this ever expanding global economyóto make the deals necessary to get them on board with us in Iraq. And by that I mean boots on the ground. America cannot integrate Iraq with the outside world all by itself, only the world can do that. But the world wonít do that until Iraq is secure and in that crucial effort, we need help.

The Bush Administration waged war quite skillfully in Iraq, but has waged the peace with mistake after mistake. I will make good on George Bushís campaign 2000 promise to direct a more ìhumbleî American foreign policy. There will be no putting our tail between our legs and no pull-out from Iraq, because weíre not leaving the Middle East until the Middle East joins the world. We just have to get allies around this worldóboth old and newóto believe in that future worth creating and to support this great nation in that task. Our servicemen and women currently standing watch in Iraq today deserve nothing less.

"Next question?î

More Favorable Mention

Dateline: above the garage on Windstone Drive in Portsmouth, 7 Apr

Checked my War College email once I got home from airport and found that Stan Crock of Business Week Online mentioned the book in his column yesterday distributed by MSNBC. Mr. Crock is one of the journalists I met during the Putnam Pre-meditated Media Tour in DC. We are hoping for a review from him.

Here's his entire article, which is worth reading for the sentiment as well as the plug:

Toward a Safer World

The strength to turn a cheek

I saw ìThe Passion of the Christî today when work day ended. It is an amazing film, which moved this Catholic greatly.

I must say I am quite baffled now by most of the stinging criticism I heard before, and am seriously considering taking my two oldest kids to see itóI think itís that good and that important a message.

IMHO, the movie is the story of Christís suffering, crucifixion and death quite faithfully rendered, at least as far as I can tell after a lifetime of teaching and going to church. But in all my years of Catholic education, I never heard a word about who was ìguiltyî of Christís death other than me, myself and everyone around me. So when I looked into the faces of hatred and violence in this film, I recognized only my own failings as a human and Christian, not somebody elseís.

But one thing I did think of during the film disturbed me greatly. Seeing Christís suffering at the hands of mobs in several scenes made me think of those three Delta and one Ranger (all formers) who died in Iraq recently, only to have their bodies dismembered and put on display in front of cheering crowds. That thought didnít make me want to hate Iraqis or Muslims, but it did make me think these four were somebodyís begotten sons, and that their deaths better have more meaning than who wins this national election, or who can be fingered for this or that failure on the Hill.

American troops consistently display a level of care for ordinary Iraqis that is living proof that this nation can love its enemies more than itself. When I speak of shrinking the Gap, I do not mean out of fear, but frankly out of love for our fellow humans that they may be allowed to enjoy the same sort of social peace within which we have for so long prospered. I believe the fundamental individual connectivity offered by globalizationís advance is a key to that peace, because where I see that connectivity denied, I locate all the mass violence in the systemóand the sort of hatred that brings crowds to dismember bodies and cheer at their public display.

I fear we will be turning many cheeks in the coming years in this global war, but I see no other way to defeat terrorism than through connectivity extended. Firewalls wonít do it. Border security wonít do it. Smoking holes wonít do it. But connectivity will.

DoD Bifurcation: "Front-half", "Back-half"

A System That Needs to Be Administered

Dateline: Arlington VA, the Crowne Plaza, 6 April.

Nice long chat with my buddy Mark Warren of Esquire last night: he is close to being done editing my article for him for the June issue (appearing in early May) thatóin effectórevisits the Pentagonís New Map a year later from the perspective of how things are going in Iraq. To my surprise but immediate approval, he titles it ìThe Leviathan.î An illustration will accompany the article. Now I just have to make sure he mentions the book title somewhere prominent Ö.

In DC area today between talks, yesterday being first-ever short-course on Network-Centric Operations to a slew of NATO defense planners and tomorrow being a conference of Association For Electronic Integration (defense contractors). So I do breakfast with mentor and fellow-futurist John Petersen of The Arlington Institute (a rare positive thinker about the future) and lunch with mentor and former boss at Center for Naval Analyses, Hank Gaffney, skeptic among skeptics.

What struck me most about briefing all those Europeans yesterday is how they naturally grabbed onto my notion that the Defense Department is bifurcating and will continue to bifurcate into what we had pre-WWII: a Department of War and a Department of Everything Else. The first is how you wage wars (what I call the Leviathan force) and the second is how you wage peace (what I call the System Admin force). I have an entire section of Chapter Six in the book that explores this ìback to the futureî outcome (remember, pre-WWII we had a Department of War and a Department of Navy).

Anyway, what attracted the Europeans most to this notion was that most of their ability to conduct military operations exists in that Sys Admin mode, or what the Pentagon derisively calls Military Operations Other Than War. Where the huge gap exists between their forces and ours is in their ability to wage high-end war, so simply hearing someone from DoD speak about the possibility of allies being able to offer specialized niche capabilities to either or both forces struck many of these officials as a serious breakthrough in mental models regarding the future of war. I canít believe Iím the only way in DoD talking this stuff, yet somehow this message resonates better than others, I think, because it is systematic in its approach to linking security and economics.

I have heard this notion of ìBoy, are we glad to finally hear the U.S. say something like this!î from a number of foreign military establishments in the past, in response to other things Iíve published, but these forces tended to be New Core powers like Australia or Brazil, who are eager and willing to see globalization as a system that needs to be administered toósecurity-wiseóin order to thrive. Thus they are moving toward national security paradigms that say, ìWhat threatens our country in terms of security is that which threatens our national economyís ability to maintain its connectivity to the global economy.î Nice, huh?

What amazed me about this interaction yesterday with the NATO people was how open the Europeans were to marrying up their capabilities for what I call the ìback-halfî force, or the one that would have/could have/should have done a better job of planning for and executing the occupation of Iraqóa situation that seems to grow worse with each day this week. That tells me that there are plenty of European officialsóat least in the security realmóthat understand the need for a new sort of military superpower, or the collective Sys Admin force that will only come about if the Pentagon begins seeding it today within its own ranks and creating the critical mass that tells potential allies: ìThis will be a winning hand if you join us.î

Now before the ìblack helicopter/one world governmentî crowd starts sending me emails again, let me remind you that if such a global force for peace emerges, it will still be the back-half in many crucial instances to the Leviathan force thatófranklyóonly America can and will maintain. So letís not surrender to the ìall-powerful UN just yetîódespite all those lovely references in the ìLeft Behindî apocalyptic religious thrillers series.

Besides telling me my book should appeal to European audiences, I came away from the workshop yesterday with an even stronger sense that if the U.S. would open itself up to new definitions of allies and coalitions (not just ìcome as you areî to war but ìcome when you canî to peacekeeping), we wouldnít find ourselves in the sort of mess we and a few of our closest military allies currently suffer in Iraq. Again, like the point I make in the Sunday Outlook piece for the Post (now firmly scheduled to appear, according to my editor there), there is no reason why we couldnít have internationalized the occupation effort from the start, if only we had more flexible definitions of coalitions (i.e., difference mixes needed for front-half [war waging] and back-half [peace making] portions), and less vindictiveness on the part of the Bush White House regarding who did or did not support us in the run-up to the war.

Since I am in DC today, I read the Post real-time, versus the week-late version I get mailed to me up in Newport, so todayís grab of news stories comes from yesterdayís and todayís Washington Post:

ìTransition Date Still Firm, President Says: Bush Is Calm in Reaction to Violenceî

by Dana Milbank and Mike Allen

ìProtests Unleashed by Cleric Mark a New Front in Warî

by Anthony Shadid and Sewell Chan

ì1,500-Mile Oil Pipeline Fading Fast For China: Japan Offers Russia An Alternative Routeî

by Peter S. Goodman

ìLuxury Electronics Power Japanís Recovery: New Factories Reflect High-End Focusî

by Anthony Faiola

ìFor Some Immigrants, a Balancing Act: Funds Sent to Needy Families Back Home Exact a Priceî

by Michelle Garcia

ìRussian Researcher Convicted of Spying: Defense Says Information Was Publicî

by Peter Baker

Force, but what else?

ìTransition Date Still Firm, President Says: Bush Is Calm in Reaction to Violence,î by Dana Milbank and Mike Allen, Washington Post, 6 April, p. A13.

The Bush Administration is correct to paint the cleric Moqtada Sadr as the ìone person who is deciding that rather than allow democracy to flourish, he going to exercise force,î but clearly our answer has to be more than simply responding with force.

Right now, by standing firm on the transition date, weíre suggesting a policy of limited regret that sends signals to leaders like Sadr that their desired outcome is still quite possible: we pull out and abandon Iraq to those who will enforce a new, probably religious-inspired authoritarianism that keeps society there largely isolated from the outside world.

Moqtada Sadr, the disconnector

ìProtests Unleashed by Cleric Mark a New Front in War,î by Anthony Shadid and Sewell Chan, Washington Post, 5 April, p. A1.

What this article tells me about Moqtada Sadr and his designs on superceding Ayatollah Sistani as THE religious leader of Iraqís Shiites is that, in our meandering effort to settle down Iraq during this occupation and demonstrate clearly to the populace that we can move the society not only towards greater connectivity with the outside world (which is happening in leaps and bounds) but can help put in place a reasonably fair and stable system of governance, we may have lost the golden moment before in-fighting and power struggles erupted from within. Sadr clearly sees his chance to grab the brass ring, and now he can paint Sistani as the old man who hasnít demanded enough from the Americans so that his call for intifada is the only pathway that makes sense.

Sadrís militia and associated movement want an Iraq where the clergy play a far greater role in politics and social affairs, whereas Sistani wants a more moderate role for religious authoritiesóeffectively ceding political affairs to secular authorities. Guess which vision speaks to an Iraq whichóten years from nowóis more connected to the outside world?

China: "Let's make a deal!"

ì1,500-Mile Oil Pipeline Fading Fast For China: Japan Offers Russia An Alternative Route,î by Peter S. Goodman, Washington Post, 5 April, p. A1.

The great auction between Japan and China to see who would get the first pipeline built out of Siberia seems to be going to the Japanese, who frankly are willing to pay more money to sweeten the deal.

As the article states, the proposed China-Russia pipeline deal of last May ìwas key to Chinaís increasingly desperate need for energy to fuel its torrid industrial expansion. It underscored how the Communist Party government, once isolated and obsessed with self-sufficiency, is now increasingly engaged with the outside world, refashioning relations with previously bitter enemies in pursuit of its economic needs.î

So Japan wins this round, which only forces China to be more aggressive in its efforts elsewhere, like Central Asia or even sub-Saharan Africa.

Now many in the Pentagon will read this sort of stuff and see future conflict brewing between a China and the West over access to raw materials, when what they should really see is a China deeply incentivized to deal. What I see in Beijing is a strategic partner in the making: someone greatly interested in making sure energy flows from the Gap to the Coreójust as we are.

So where are those security deals in the making? Beats me. Instead we plan a missile defense shield in Asia to protect Taiwan from China, which assumes, I guess, that China will continue to buy our sovereign debt to pay for our ballooning federal deficit.

Perhaps if I were a true ìrealist,î I wouldnít persist in bringing up all these pesky economic connections. Then I could see power for what it really isópure megalomania inside the Beltway.

Japan: the global center of cool

ìLuxury Electronics Power Japanís Recovery: New Factories Reflect High-End Focus,î by Anthony Faiola, Washington Post, 6 April, p. A1.

Surprise, surprise. Japan finally comes out of the doldrums that were its 1990s by realizing that, having scaled the mountain that was cheap consumer electronics in the 1980s, they needed to scale some new peak if they were ever going to regain their footing. In short, having exported away that manufacturing base to others (especially China), they needed to move up the product chain.

I am just old enough to remember when the label ìMade in Japanî was a serious put-down, reflecting cheap crap, much like ìMade in Chinaî struck many peopleóuntil recently. Now, Made in Japan is the height of high class, and scaling that new height in design, style, and high-end taste has remade Japan what it is today: the global center of cool.

Too bad they still feature such a clan mentality toward outsiders in their ranks. If they ever gave it up, they could rule this world in more ways than one.

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.