Tom around the web

Multiple links per weblog edition

+ ZenPundit linked Vol III subtitle.
+ And linked Searching for the Secretary of Everything Else.

+ MountainRunner linked CA is even more maritime in the Gap.
+ And linked Best take on U.S. tariffs against China saying 'Barnett is a great filter for stories on China from the financial press'.
+ And referred to the SysAdmin in his review of Hard Power.

+ A Most Serene Republic talked about Tom's hope after watching the video from Johns Hopkins.
+ And picked up BFA.
+ And talked about Tom as cartographer and his use of 'Non-Integrating Gap'.

+ Phil Windley linked Those who protest Nixon's trip to China..., Plant the flag and give 'em the vector, and Economic freedom trumps political freedom.

Single links soon...

Tom's column this week

Nixon and Deng: two architects of our globalized world

Pope John Paul II hurtles toward sainthood in the Catholic Church, while Ronald Reagan achieved that ideological status long ago in the hearts of American conservatives. Both are judged by many historians as decisive figures in the West's Cold War victory over the socialist bloc.

While not denigrating the contributions of these two great men, let me submit that two other figures loom far larger as architects of the socialist bloc's transformation from vaunted global menace to valued global market: Richard Nixon and Deng Xiaoping. Yes, I know I'm talking about Watergate's "criminal-in-chief" and the real "butcher of Tiananmen," but neither leader's political sins compare to their absolutely pivotal roles in history.

Read on at KnoxNews.
Read on at Scripps Howard.

What combo gets Petraeus what he needs?

LETTER: General Petraeus' Letter to Soldiers (14 Apr 07) (pdf)

Clearly, Petraeus is really unhappy about the leak, and that's pretty reasonable.

The General knows he's asking a lot--and getting a lot--from his troops.

I think it's more than fair to cite the progress, especially given the costs, but we're haunted by Dave's famous question, "Tell me how this ends."

I know Petraeus has a path in mind. The question is, What combo of Bush's stubbornness and the Dems' pushback gets us--and Petraeus--the window of opportunity we need for what must come next in Iraq's evolution from unitary dictatorship to federated something-else?

Remember, most federations don't stand up with all their members on board at the start.

The Big Bang is match play

ARTICLE: Sunni Factions Split With Al-Qaeda Group: Rift Further Blurs Battle Lines in Iraq, By Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post, April 14, 2007; Page A01

This story seems to confirm the growing sense that Sunni insurgency groups are distancing themselves from al Qaeda. Like in the NW tribal areas of Pakistan, AQI uses a lot of extreme violence to try and establish itself as THE going concern, but because they're all for going after Shiia and because they're not interested in some negotiated withdrawal of American combat troops from this particular field of battle (no Americans, no jihad), the Sunni insurgents finally begin to realize how their how-does-this-end?-interests clearly diverge.

But yeah, comprehensive solutions become exponentially harder to achieve.

AQI wants Sunniland to remain in flames, because that gets jihad right next door to the House of Saud--the true target.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind that short-term outcome for Sunniland, because it forces a fish-or-cut-bait reality upon the Saudis.

Me? Again, I would pull back most of my combat troops to Kurdistan, leave sufficient trainers and SOF to keep up the train-up of Iraqi central gov forces and the kill/capture of AQI, and I'd provide all logical logistics and C2 and air power assets to the same.

I'd work to grow grass in Kurdistan and Shiia Iraq and I'd keep up the weed control effort in Sunniland, and I'd take 2 outta 3 for now and narrow the discussion from "Iraq" to the Sunni areas and Baghdad.

The maximal, get-it-all-stable-right-now-definition just isn't going to happen. That part of the postwar we just plain lost, so now comes the time for partial victories, because the Big Bang is logically match play, so we have to learn to collect our holes as we win them--just like in the former Yugoslavia.

Will be on NPR's Weekend Morning Edition Sunday, 15 April 2007

Taped about 20-25 minutes (not sure how much they use) with Liane Hansen today at 3pm at local WFYI public TV station in Indy. Kevin listened in on a second pair of headphones. He's still digging his Rudy G. autograph addressed to him by name.

Here's the site for the show.

It'll air at 8-10 EST and we'll link to the online archive later in the day.

Yes, I was seriously impressed by Hizzoner

Met Rudy Giuliani yesterday in NYC. I and two other experts brought in by campaign to discuss issues of importance for two hours.

It was a serious privilege for me, and I was seriously impressed by the Mayor.

I signed his pretty beat-up paperback copy of PNM (the guy marks up a book just this side of Brian Lamb) and asked if I could send a copy of BFA.

Too late, I'm told.

That man is a serious reader, and I'm happy to be included in what I'm sure is a very large mix.

Got nice autograph for budding prosecutor son Kevin.

The China threat I always worry about

ARTICLE: "A Growing Mystery as China Amasses Foreign Currency," by Andrew Batson, Washington Post, 13 April 2007, p. D8.

China reports a massive and somewhat hard-to-explain boost in its US currency holdings: all of a sudden at $1.2 trillion.

Best guess? China did a swap of a very large sum sometime in 2006 and just now brought the money home.

In a swap you simply trade currencies with some other money's holder, promising each other to return the money at some time in future. It's used to hedge against sudden shifts in valuation (like swapping your money for gold if you fear something spooky up ahead).

If just a swap, that tells us nothing. If that much extra money came in (like $50B that's hard to explain), then that is truly unsettling.

Bigger point: the lack of transparency overall on Chinese monetary regulation and general reporting. China's getting too big to be that opaque. Bad for us, bad for them, bad for business.

A good example of reality that's China freedom deficit is less dangerous to us than its rules deficit. Too many rules on politics, not enough sensible ones on markets.

Watching McCain's Ahab-ian meltdown on Iraq ...

ARTICLE: "McCain Calls War 'Necessary and Just,'," by Michael D. Shear, Washington Post, 12 April 2007, p. A1.

Is just plain sad.

It's like the guy is working out some demons from another life.

I think the war was "necessary and just."

I also think the way we've screwed up the peace is unnecessary and unjust--to both our troops and Iraq.

We're locking ourselves into self-destructively small boxes with this language.

We won the war.

We've struggled to segue that clear victory (Saddam's regime is gone) into a stable peace that makes our pull-back from combat serve as something other than the expected trigger for further--and perhaps expanded--mass violence.

We have that definition in Kurdistan. Our combat troops should increasingly pull back to that venue.

We are close enough on the Shiite south, and no, Iran's not gonna to run the place any more or less depending on what we do now. Iran will have influence there, but Iraq's Shiites didn't wait so long for this moment of autonomy to hand it over to the Iranians. In the end, a relatively free and functioning Shiite Iraq will "ruin" Iran more than vice versa.

The Sunni-based insurgency, plus al Qaeda Iraq remain as serious-but-getting-somewhat-better-with-the-surge problems in Sunni Iraq and around Baghdad. These sources of instability both regularly cross swords with Shiite militias, which we're also working in the surge.

Those problems, no matter how the surge goes, I just don't see America owning forever, because I don't see trying to do so as being a particularly realistic or winning strategy. So long as we're there, we remain everyone's target, and that just delays the fight (Sunni v. Shiia, both straight-up and as proxies for regional wannabees Saudi Arabia and Iran) that needs to happen and ultimately will happen anyway, largely because Iraq the central government can't/won't control it and because we can't stop it with the troops we are willing to commit.

Can we quiet Iraq with the surge? Somewhat. Can we make it last? Doubtful.

If Bush hadn't done so poorly in attracting allies--both old and new--for the postwar, we might have been able to obviate that fight, but this administration did do poorly there, creating the inescapable dynamic we now need to rethink.

I mean, what's the finishing line we're defining now?

Strategically speaking, we truly don't have a dog in that Sunni-Shiia fight, as we proved for years during the Iran-Iraq war (we supported Saddam, but--quite frankly--we were cool with both sides losing as they did). I mean, it doesn't really benefit us particularly to choose sides. Frankly, if forced to choose I go with the Shiia, partly out of guilt (from post-Desert Storm) and partly out of revulsion that I'd otherwise be choosing to align myself with al Qaeda (Sy Hersh's point).

But McCain seems to have lost all such perspective and I'm not sure anymore what "war" he sees us winning or losing.

Extended interventions are bad for force structure spending

ARTICLE: High Costs Lead Navy to Cancel Lockheed Coastal Vessel, By Renae Merle, Washington Post, April 13, 2007; Page D04

Excerpt:

The contract cancellation also reflects an environment of budget
tightening as the cost of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continues to
rise, industry analysts said. Over the last few years, "it's been such a
permissive budget environment, programs got away with failures for
longer than they should have," said Brett Lambert, a defense industry
consultant. "That is changing. The realities are coming home."

More proof that extended interventions are bad for force structure spending--an inescapable reality.

Thanks to Peter Johnson for sending this.

The best analysis on Imus

OP-ED: "Why Imus Had to Go," by Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, 13 April 2007, p. A17.

First off, excluding Dionne's confusing piece, I've now cited 4 of the WAPO's 5 op-eds from today. Very solid.

I like Robinson a lot and have for a while. He is very incisive in this piece:

For young black hip-hop artists to use such language to demean black women is similarly deplorable--and, I would argue, even more damaging. But come on, people, don't deceive yourselves that it's precisely the same thing. Don't pretend that 388 years of history--since the first shackled African slaves arrived at Jamestown--never happened. The First Amendment notwithstanding, it has always been the case that some speech has been off-limits to some people. I remember a time when black people couldn't say, "I'd like to vote, please." Now, white people can't say "nappy-headed hos." You'll survive.

If Robinson was trying to stab me right in my logic center, all I can say is, "Bullseye!"

I never got Imus' appeal myself. He averaged about 60 words an hour, after all the commercials and music and side-kick banter and his slow drawl were added in, and those words always struck me as pretty boring.

But I know a ton of people who totally grooved on him, and now we'll all just move on--just like history did on Imus a while ago, thank God.

The Bush presidency, trapped in a corner, hoping to pull out some definition of victory the world can welcome

OP-ED: "A Power Outage At the White House," by David Ignatius, Washington Post, 13 April 2007, p. A17.

OP-ED: "The Surge: First Fruits," by Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, 13 April 2007, p. A17.

Bush reminds me less and less of Reagan and more and more of Carter, meaning no matter who wins in Nov. 08, we're in for a serious regime change in Jan. 09 and simultaneous morale upgrade of huge proportions.

I can't wait for it to be morning in America again.

But as I write in the May Esquire, if Bush can declare some semblance of victory--however finessed--in Iraq (and Krauthammer's piece is a nice half-glass-full rendition of acceptable-"victory"-in-the-making), anyone who wins the White House will be greatly in his debt--or, perhaps better to say, in Dave Petraeus' debt.

Even a partial win earns Petraeus serious consideration as Chairman, and when that happens, the world will instantly be a better place..

No question, as the Ignatius and Mallaby pieces make clear, that the world wants us back come '09, so if Bush's Carter-like myopia gets us something we can call "a job salvaged" on 20 Jan 2009, then let the Nixonian rehabilitation begin!

The World Bank adrift

OP-ED: "The World Bank, Stuck in the Mud," by Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post, 13 April 2007, p. A17.

Great piece.

Begins by noting how Bush has wasted a lot of great opportunity:

After Sept. 11, the world launched the Doha round of trade talks, which was supposed to help developing countries; now Doha has fizzled. After Sept. 11, there was hope for more humanitarian interventions; now the Iraq syndrome undermines the Western will to intervene, even in the extreme case of Darfur. The most lasting impact of Sept. 11 on the West's attitude toward development is perhaps a negative one. Opponents of immigration have been handed a convenient argument, with the result that workers from poor countries may have fewer legal opportunities to earn paychecks in rich countries and send money home.

Then there is the aid story [goes on to talk about how the G-8 promises at Gleneagles haven't been met].

The West's financial retreat is a policy retreat, too, because an alternative patron of poor nations is emerging in the form of China ... [and] China cares little for controlling corruption.

Indeed.

So Wolfowitz is mired in personal scandal and the WB is thus sidelined.

Terrible timing for the Gap, more evidence of Bush's early post-presidency--by extension.

An America that cares in pol-mil terms, combined with a China willing to invest, and you almost have a full-service, principled superpower for the Gap.

But when we opt out or let ourselves get bogged down in Iraq in our go-it-our-own-way-ism, it's just China's mercantilism and the West's moral outrage.

My, what a useless combination.

Biden's right - now

ARTICLE: The Kosovo Conundrum, By Peter Beinart, Time, Apr. 12, 2007

Nice piece by Beinart. Reminds us that we've done this regime-toppling better in the past.

It also reminds us that expecting fake states to survive such an intervention is a bit unrealistic.

So yeah, Joe Biden's largely right--right now.

Thanks to Kilngoddess for sending this.

Beware hypocrisy on Darfur, China

ARTICLE: Darfur Collides With Olympics, and China Yields, By HELENE COOPER, New York Times, April 13, 2007

Anonymous reader sends with gentle--and fair-reminder that I slammed the hypocrisy of Hollywood (though I did not cite, I was thinking of Mia Farrow's "genocide Olympics" WSJ op-ed) in declaring China the big hold-up on Darfur, when I believe less in sanctions or denying connectivity and investments to promote change and more in direct action by capable players to stop such genocide.

Why? Sanctions have the nasty historical habit of enriching elites, killing the poor, and leading to no positive change.

Disconnectivity is just the flip side of sanctions: we make a disconnected country more disconnected and wonder why violence continues.

In my original post, I didn't say it was bad or wrong to pressure China, or that it wouldn't work. My real charge in the post was our hypocrisy in somehow making China the external villain of note when everyone knows that if America organized a mulitinational military presence (hell, just our air cover like with the Iraq no-fly zones), the killing could definitely be stopped (or severely reduced) now and not at some distant future when Sudan's exacerbated disconnectedness would only ensure its further suffering. Whereas if America chooses not to participate and leaves it to the vaunted UN, you can just plain forget about any serious remedy.

Making China enemy #1 on Darfur on the basis of its interactions with Sudan is a cop-out--intellectually and morally. Truth is, China limits our liability there by keeping the rest of Sudan doing better economically and by giving ourselves a convenient punching bag for our own inaction (Hollywood has--go figure--no desire to advocate a U.S. military intervention in this current "anti-war" environment).

Having said all that, to whatever extent Ms. Farrow, in her continuing fine work for the UN, helped motivate China, however weakly, to push Sudan a bit rhetorically, I think that's great. The more China connects to the world, the more it should be held accountable for whom it associates with.

We just have to guard against the hypocrisy of pretending that America itself can somehow shame other states out of their inaction or indirect enabling of such mass violence when we ourselves seem unwilling to discuss our own, more muscular approaches (to include the provocative idea of using Blackwater or other security corps to achieve a better situation in Darfur).

Yes, feel free to shame all involved, but when you shame others from your own glass house, watch the verbal bricks.

We have to be realistic about what it will take to stop Darfur. It'll take outsiders, with lotsa guns, to stop that.

And to keep it stopped, we'll have to connect Sudan to something besides China on oil, because disconnecting Sudan from China on oil won't stop the killing. Indeed, absent some larger military response that we inevitably participate in (notice how, when we don't show up, hardly anyone else shows up, or must we rerun the tape on the Balkans, Congo, Rwanda again?), disconnecting Sudan further is likely to increase the mass violence. Indeed, this small diplomatic victory proves my point: China's connectivity is the very reason Ms. Farrow's perceived achievement could be achieved (and yes, I think reporter Cooper is somewhat reductionistic here, because there's a lot of other things going on recently in both East Africa and between the U.S. and China, and they all count): no China investment, no leverage. So pressure Beijing to engage yes, but not to disconnect. Pressure them to be constructive, but please avoid the self-righteous hypocrisy (Did I miss the "genocide Oscars" this year--or any previous--with all the blood diamonds worn by more actresses than I can name, or does that get a bit reductionistic? How about the "Abu Ghraib World Series"? Or the "Iraq Mess Super Bowl"?).

Still, hats off to HR activists everywhere for wanting to do something or anything on Darfur. Just check your conscience at the door if the discussion can never broach U.S. military action.

Hell, check your Africom at the door.

But yes, I do admire Ms. Farrow for her work and her passion.

India plans on enjoying membership in the big boys' club

ARTICLE: "India's list of demands may scuttle nuclear deal: U.S. had hoped to rein in nation's atomic program," by Barbara Slavin, USA Today, 12 April 2007, p. 11A.

ARTICLE: "Inspectors may return to N. Korea: Richardson: Pyongyang wants its frozen funds," from wire reports, USA Today, 11 April 2007, p. 11A.

India's now demanding to be allowed to continue testing nuclear weapons and the Americans (those gun control nuts--on the international level, that is) say that threatens the Bush administration's deal to recognize the reality that India's a nuclear power (33 years after the fact--whoo hoo!) and allow India to buy American civilian nuclear technology (boy, that's gotta worry the Russians ...).

Sokolski from MIT, one of the dying breed of old Cold War types who still believes in global gun control, says India's being "greedy."

Bullshit.

India's being Indian. What else do you expect? Three decades after the fact, they don't care for Washington telling them what they can and cannot do with their nuclear force.

I mean, we tell everyone to screw off every time they ask for us to stick to ABM or cut a deal on space and basically anything else we want to do with our nukes and missiles, so why do we expect anybody else to do differently?

Good God man! That's the whole point of getting nukes in the first place!

Since promising this much derided deal a while back (derided by the true believers, not anyone truly in touch with reality), India's displayed the temerity of actually taking steps to improve its nuclear force (we never do that, rest assured) and getting friendlier with Iran (with India's energy reqirements doubling in a generation, whattaya think that's all about?).

I told the State 2025 people yesterday that if State is still working nuclear proliferation then, it'll only confirm my sense that State remains a perfect bureaucratic entity to conduct US foreign policy in the 20th century.

Meanwhile, North Korea's delaying already on the first, most meaningless goal of the freeze deal. Big surprise.

Pyongyang wants its bribe up front, says Richardson.

Wow, we really needed his diplomatic savoir faire on that one.

America's monomaniacal focus on means over motivations continues apace. So exciting to have the realists back running things!

Shrinking the Gap at home

More email. This one said:

Here's an article from Reason about how a lot of economic activity in low-income America is not connected to the larger economy. Made me realize we have to develop new rule sets to bring disconnected communities into the American economy.

Tom says:

Caboose-braking is basically when politicians/leaders realize and fear/anticipate/respond to unrest from disconnected populations.

Email praise and question

Tom got a nice email today.

I'm finishing up your book, the PNM, and I have to say that you've made a huge fan out of me. Tremendous book. You've really opened my eyes in a number of areas. It's the only book that I've read on national current events that really is a roadmap to a better future. It's very logical and very defining.

Then the author asks, in short, 'How do you get average Americans to care about integrating the Gap?'

Tom says:

The prototypical person who will care deeply on Gap will be those who see the direct market/sales opportunities. Some found in Old Core, bulk found in New Core.

That bulk cares primarily out of greed, not compassion. I trust that greed, and discount our compassion.

What Europe did to us in 1800s is what we did/do to Asia since WWII and it's what the New Core will end up doing to the Gap (biq question is whom China focuses on, because demographically, they're furthest up curve).

Vision is about connecting the equities, not the empathy.

My latest non-appearance

Got a call today from the PR firm that Esquire uses. I interact with them only when I publish something.

It was an 1130 call saying CNN wanted 15 minutes in studio to comment on the "war czar" thing, but I had to do it by 1530 to generate a soundbite--yes, that hated word--that would run several times tonight.

It wasn't possible for me here in DC. Morning at Pentagon interviewing somebody for next Esquire piece and then afternoon at State Department being interviewed for a "State 2025" project Secy Rice is pursuing. The blue-ribbon group includes Gingrich (he's everywhere!), Pickering, etc. The staff has interviewed Scowcroft and others of his level, now me (admittedly flattering).

Why I got asked by State matters to me: on the basis of my writings and briefs (my elderly handler said a retired general friend of his sent him a CSPAN DVD).

How I get the offer from CNN (from a very nice guy there who's been good to me in the past) intrigues me less: the PR company just pushed me. They don't push last week, no invite. They push this week, invites comes. My comments are important this week because CNN reminded that I exist (no issue with CNN, as they're all like this--save Kudlow, who really does read the blog). The PR guys push this week only because Esquire asks.

I'm not being asked to express my thinking, but to comment on current events. The article's content is meaningless, just its timing. I am to take such opportunities to make myself a go-to media guy. Good for career and all.

Except, whenever I go on TV just to comment instead of to unveil, it feels pointless.

I don't want to be famous, I want to be influential. Influence comes with ideas, not appearances. Appearances are the little-mind killer: you tend to get stupider with each one. Visions and grand strategy don't parse out in soundbites.

Yes, I want to make Esquire happy, but I also want to give it the best consistent product over time.

And I do that by remaining true to the visionary's track.

Visionaries don't comment and grand strategists don't opine. They reveal. They construct. They inspire. They shape.

Talking heads fill time.

I don't want to fill time.

Call it right-sizing my career for maximum trajectory and distance, not height.

I'm also feeling lazy, I guess. Too little sleep last night cause of early flight, plus Vonne and I caught "Grindhouse" last night. Unlike critics, we liked Rodriguez's "Terror Planet" even more than Quentin's "Death Proof" (also great).

Good excuse, though. Flat Daddy only goes so far with the kids (Flat Daddy no pitch with Son #2, nor train for the mile with Son #1).

Flat Hubby is a complete non-starter.

Though a Fathead of Favre in the garage would be cool.

Dancing with wolves in Afghanistan

ARTICLE: "To Woo Afghan Locals, U.S. Troops Settle In: Tactic Wins Friends, Isolates Insurgents, But Boost Casualties," by Michael M. Phillips, Wall Street Journal, 9 April 2007, p. A1.

The long lonely grind of counter-insurgency is pure SysAdmin.

How so?

You can't call this small-unit embedding with locals particularly Leviathan.

No, this building of virtual forts among settlers who've lived there for centuries is manpower-intensive and technology/firepower-light: "an intimate style of warfare."

The military rejoins society because society is what we're fighting over, not territory: the inevitability of the Leviathan's crushing firepower is replaced by the SysAdmin's persistence of will.

The Yanks aren't just coming over there. The Yanks are never leaving. We stay until you join the world.

It is lonely, dangerous duty, dancing with wolves. It does take you back ...

"Persistent presence," not "persistent raiding," says the profiled colonel. Our troops in these isolated, mini-forts never do anything "without asking the elders first," says a local cop, obviously impressed.

The SysAdmin's most important tactic is simply modeled behavior.

The hidden hand on Mugabe

OP-ED: "Showing Mugabe the Door," by Peter Godwin, New York Times, 3 April 2007, p. A23.

The question, as the author argues, is not how to talk Mugabe out of power, but how to talk New Core South Africa into forcing Mugabe out.

Standing behind both of them, of course, is China.

So how do we get both players happy with a Mugabe-gone outcome? How do we incentivize that structure: the post-Mugabe southern Africa?

You can push or you can pull.

We all know which way requires more effort.