Getting reasonably realistic about the long war

■"Bush Estimates Iraqi Death Toll in War at 30,000," by Peter Baker, Washington Post, 13 December 2005, p. A19.

■"21st-Century Warnings of a Threat Rooted in the 7th," by Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, 12 December 2005, p. A21.

■"Hillary Clinton Crafts Centrist Stance on War," by Dan Balz, Washington Post, 12 December 2005, p. A1.

Bush talks calmly and openly about the realistic figure of Iraqi civilian deaths: something north of 25k and south of 35k. Some crazy (and universally reputed) estimates run as high as 100k, but the consensus figure of many groups is the one Bush cites.

Now, let's put that in perspective: the UN admits we killed about 50k kids under the age of five each year in Iraq with sanctions across the time period between Desert Storm and OIF. That's about 600k dead. We won't hit that annual average total even at the three-year mark on OIF, so why not focus on all the Iraqis not dead, I ask? How about crediting the U.S. military with saving all those lives, sacrificing over 2k of their own in the process?

Doesn't anybody do math like that?

Meanwhile, an ABC poll of Iraqis says 71 percent said "things were going well in their own lives." Hmm. Wonder what percentage we'd get in the States right now?

44 percent felt the same way about their country. Geez, Bush would love those ratings for himself, no?

"Schools, crime, health care, security, water, electricity and jobs were all rated in good condition by more people than in February 2004," which is when the U.S. started to get serious about its nation-building in Iraq. How about crediting the Army and Marines and SOCOM and CENTCOM and the Guard and the Reserves on that score?

While Bush is speaking in Philly, Murtha complains down the road, saying he opposes the U.S. "occupation" first and foremost.

We've got to get real on that term. We stopped occupying Iraq and running an occupational government a long time ago.

A lady asks Bush to explain the 9/11-Iraq link and he simply says 9/11 changed his view of the world. She's not happy with that, complaining that Bush must think people like her are morons. Apparently she only believes in wars of direct retribution.

How about a global community enforcing global norms against a horrid criminal who killed over a million of his own citizens during his long murderous reign? Where's our sense of global outrage on that one?

Or our sense of the stragtegic picture?

Bush, Abizaid, Rumsfeld, and new Under Secretary for Policy Edelman are now talking up the "caliphate" to express the long-term strategic threat posed by radical Salafi jihadists, and they are quite right to do so.

Let's call the enemy for what he is and what he seeks to achieve. Experts say this is a fanciful goal, not unlike . .. I dunno, a "thousand-year reich" or "global socialist revolution"?

So we stood up to those threats in the past as we made them chimeras, condemning them to the dustheap of history. Good for us then, and good for us now.

Abizaid says we had our chance with "Mein Kampf" and ignored Hitler's designs, so why do the same with Osama and AMZ? And this is the regional expert and Arab everyone praises as the perfect choice to lead CENTCOM right now, so why not pay attention to his expert advice?

So we get more and more realistic about the long fight, and that realism spreads to serious Dem candidates for president in 2008, like Hillary. Good for her. Let the left pour scorn on her. She'll remain a credible national leader in the process, instead of some braindead lefty with nothing to offer except their putrid hatred of Bush.

The revolution has begun in China--from below

■"Legal Gadfly Bites Hard, and Beijing Slaps Him," by Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 13 December 2005, p. A1.

■"China detains commander in village shooting: Protesters killed in land dispute as tensions mount in rural areas," by Calum Macleod, USA Today, 12 December 2005, p. 11A.

Great story about a crusading lawyer in China, who "travels the country filing lawsuits over corruption, land seizures, police abuses and religious freedom," always risking career and limb to fight the Communist Party in court!

In my conclusion, "Heroes yet discovered," I write about "China's Erin Brockovitch."

Well, this guy doesn't need a push-up bra, but he was actually born in a cave, so take that Abe Lincoln! We may be looking at a serious father of a new China down the road.

Civil cases in China topped 4 million last year, up 30 percent from 1999. As the article says, "ordinary citizens in fact have embraced the law as eagerly as they have welcomed another Western-inspired import, capitalism."

Good markets leading to good governments.

Want some evidence? "Chinese authorities on Sunday detained the commander of the troops that fired on villagers protesting land seizures in southern China. The assault killed at least three people last Tuesday in Dongzhou village, Guangdong province. "The commander's wrong actions caused deaths and injuries, and Shanwei investigative agencies have taken the step of detaining him according to law Ö" so sayeth the Guandown provincial government.

Why does the Communist Party allow this? Rural peasant revolts are up 50% from 1999.

Getting the picture? Think Beijing is moving fast enough toward political pluralism? Think the process is moving in the right direction?

Think China's embrace of globalization has anything to do with this?

Think I'm hopelessly naÔve about China now?

House of Saud prepares for the end of days

■"Saudi Arabia Looks Past Oil: Enriched by Record Prices, The Nation Seeks to Diversify," by Jad Mouawad, New York Times, 13 December 2005, p. C1.

The government (which gets 90 percent of its revenue from oil) and oil account for roughly two-thirds of Saudi Arabia's GDP.

During past oil booms, the House of Saud promised to get smarter and do more for the private sector, but there's good evidence this time that the new king, who has spoken openly of constitutional monarchy within a generation's time, is serious.

Saudi Arabia's stock market is attracting capital from abroad, and it just joined the WTO after 12 years of negotiations, "a move expected to give a powerful push to the country's private sector."

Good. Over 80 percent of the workers in that private sector are guest workers from abroad, which doesn't exactly jibe with a huge youth bulge that either gets busy with jobs or something worse.

A "structural shift" is occurring, says one Western financial observer.

As the piece notes, "The government has relaxed foreign ownership laws, loosened credit rules, liberalized the telecommunications market, passed a new capital markets law and created regulatory agencies to oversee these changes."

Amazing.

Any regional experts calling this by 2005 prior to our invasion of Iraq?

Think the Big Bang isn't working? Think again.

Malaysia: Islam's leading "lead goose"

■"Our Friend in Malaysia (But Don't Say That Too Loudly Ö)," op-ed by Mary Kissel, Wall Street Journal, 12 December 2005, p. A19.

Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is somebody I write about admiringly in BFA, citing Malaysia's growing role as role model to moderate Islamist states in the Gap, so much so that within a decade, I don't think you'll find any international expert who sees that country or that region belonging to anything but globalization's Functioning Core.

And this guy is a good friend to America, all right.

Think we won't win a Global War on Terrorism? Think again. Guys like Badawi will define the New Core in coming years, and the New Core will set the new rules in the GWOT, teaching us all a thing or two about tolerance, diversity, and just economic development.

He is one to watch.

The revolution has begun in Asia--from above

■"As an Asian Century Is Planned, U.S. Power Stays in the Shadows," by Seth Mydans, New York Times, 13 December 2005, p. A12.

The first East Asia summit that includes every major regional player of note, except the United States, begins now.

ASEAN's crew of little southeast Asian nations has invited Japan and India and China, and let South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, along with Russia, observe. Not exactly Mahathir's dream of a "caucus without Caucasians," now is it?

America, great "container" of China's growing military clout, is not invited.

This is what our "separate lanes" of negotiation with China gets us. Quick, someone pull the State Department's head out of its ass.

We don't need to be lecturing the Chinese or any other state opening itself up to globalization about the need for rapid embrace of democracy. We need to speak softly on that subject, and carry a big trade carrot.

Or we will find ourselves progressively shut out of an Asian Century, fools that we are.

Doha's unlike alliance

■"In Trade Talks, Western Farmers Hold Their Ground: Poor Nations, Multinationals Form Unlikely Alliance; Progress May Be Tough," by Greg Hitt and Scott Miller, Wall Street Journal, 13 December 2005, p. A1.

Poor countries wage diplomatic battle, alongside huge global multinational corporations, against Old Core states holding the line on the arguably immoral and murderous farm subsidies we maintain.

Why do the MNCs make this effort?

Simple. They want access to developing markets for their industrial goods.

That's the essential deal on the table: Core sells Gap industrial goods and the Gap sells the Core food.

Seem fair?

Seems like the fastest way to start shrinking the Gap by helping end the crushing rural poverty there, just like it was in China under Deng 25 years ago.

America's shame is New Core's gain

■"America's Shame in Montreal," editorial, New York Times, 13 December 2005, p. A34.

The NYT condemns the Bush White House for not negotiating on climate change in Montreal. The best it could do was agree on trying to bring India and China into the fold.

What does that tell you?

It tells me that, just like on so many trade and security issues, we're finding we have more in commong with New Core pillars than we do with the Old Core West.

Checking in from Cincy

Sorry again on blog. New personal assistant (and former partner) Steff Hedenkamp is working on a site shift. For now we make do.

Catching up: after Norfolk trip, flew Wed night in blizzard to KC and then driven on to Fort Leavenworth.

Thurs I got the royal treatment at the base, thanks to commanding general LGEN Dave Petraeus. 8 hours of briefs and interviews, then dinner.

Fri was office interview with Petraeus, then brief to about 800 students of Command and General Staff College (along with the "Jedi Knights"). Rocking audience got a rockin' performance. Then another sit-down with Petraeus, then long lunch with him and Jedi, then another interview in MacArthur room. One last brief and then out the door, enjoying dinner with KC-based Steff before late flight home.

Today was just check out house (plastering all done) and then drive with family to Cincy. Most to see "Phantom," while I babysit youngest in nice hotel.

Now to write the Esquire piece before Xmas!

Sorry for the down time

Training up the new webmaster, so appreciate your patience.

Movable Type is not exactly the most transparent to operate, in my humble opinion.

The rules are required because the rules preserve efficiency--and morale

■"Clear Rules Sought for Abuse by Foreign Troops: Military to Retool U.S. Response Policy," by Bradley Graham, Washington Post, 6 December 2005, p. A23.

■"Rice Defends Tactics Used Against Suspects: Europe Aware of Operations, She Implies," by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 6 December 2005, p. A1.

■"CIA Ruse Is Said to Have Damaged Probe in Milan: Italy Allegedly Misled on Cleric's Abduction," by Craig Whitlock, Washington Post, 6 December 2005, p. A1.

I really have to thank Wired magazine for talking me into writing the "Dirty Harry" piece for them last winter. It came just as I was gearing up to write the book, and it forced me to deal with the sorts of questions brought up by this trio of articles. It was a quick, dash off sort of thing, but it forced me to confront the inherent illogic of trying to win by playing dirty against dirty enemies, i.e., we win by extending the Core's rule sets, not by sinking to the level of chaose that we might find in the Gap or that is brought to the Core by transnational terrorists.

The GWOT is just the expression of the Core's combined COIN, or counter-insurgency strategy against the global Salafi jihadist movement: we win by strangling them from above (kill leaders or round them up for prosecution) and from below (drying up their resources and access to recruits). From above it's kinetic (direct ops) and from below it's unconventional warfare (the hearts and minds stuff).

So I worked out a simply formula in BFA: 1) no hunting in other Core states without their cooperation; 2) clear rule set for any Core going into the Gap to hunt bad guys in terms of how we process them once caught.

Break these rules and you get (1) the sad and indefensible spectacle of poor Condi Rice trying to defend torture with the "if-you-only-knew-what-secret-stuff-I-know" defense (the surest sign of bullshit) and (2) pissed off Core allies (we screwed Italy's long-term terror probe by freelancing in their neighborhood and then lying about it to them.

Forget the morality stuff. Forget the torture-doesn't-work-stuff. Kill this whole approach by just asking the question: Is this sustainable for the long fight?

If it's not, then junk it.

And yes, it's that simple.

An eye-opening day at Joint Forces Command

Dateline: United flight from Dulles to Indy, 6 December 2005

Great day today working the whole gamut: visionary stuff gets me access to do the Esquire stuff, which opens up all sorts of interesting potential leads for Enterra down the road.

Yes, I know that the promise of several million readers in an Esquire story opens doors all on its own, but I also know that I get to turn myself into instant journalist in large part because of the reputation created by the articles and books. So the vision takes me into places that are simply hard to access easily as a journalist, unless you put in the time and climb the usual ladders, which I didn't.

Once in, of course, I'm forced to work the story just like anyone else, and I must admit, I learned a ton from the Rumsfeld piece, thanks to Mark Warren. I'm shaping this piece a whole lot more as I interview this time.

But once in, I get interesting access to material and conversations that are delivered and received differently because of who I am and what I know. I've seen a lot of reporters briefed and they don't get the same flow I do. Of course, they're much more experienced and, I would readily admit, better at doing what they do than I am, but I bring a different tool kit to the proceedings, and that tool kit, plus the better bit rate I achieve, gives me a certain edge, so long as I stay big picture where I belong. I mean, I could do this for a long time and I'd never be Greg Jaffe (the man's reputation in the military is both uniform and towering), but since I want to be Tom Barnett instead (it's all I know, so to speak), I'm cool with that.

So a cool day today.

Get started at 0800 and make three interviews happen by 1100 over the phone. I just put my cell on speaker and hold the digital recorder in the same hand.

First a quick 20-min with a CSIS expert. Then about 45-min with a military officer who's an aide to a high-Pentagon official (have to get quote approvals from OSD on that guy, but worth it since he's so articulate and knowledgeable and basically the perfect interview for this piece). Then 30-min with a Army flag just before he goes on stage on a panel (very nice of him to fit me in; this guy arranged my time at TRADOC the day before).

Then I blog a bit and hit the road.

Lunch at Applebee's just outside Suffolk site of JFCOM with public affairs Navy captain (super knowledgeable on CENTCOM and JFCOM) and experienced civilian analyst). Then serious sitdown with J7 (experimentation) 2-star at JFCOM and head of Joint Center for Operational Analysis, with whom I met in Berlin a bit back and who set this all up. Plus another Marine colonel with big-time experience.

We went about 90 in a great discussion that really had me gelling on the storylines. Everyone in the room with Afghan or Iraq time, basically, so the quality of the debates on Leviathan/SysAdmin and first/second half stuff really strong.

Then two demo-focused brief in technology center nearby. Both opened my eyes considerably on how to explain the nature of the change I will capture in this piece. Also saw, as I always do, huge areas where Enterra could lend a serious hand and do a lot of good.

Then two flights home, getting to the apartment well after midnight.

Need to help spouse tomorrow on my day home. Second trip of week awaits.

The China outsourcing phenomenon

■"China Ventures Southward: In Search of Cheaper Labor, Firms Invest in Vietnam," by Peter S. Goodman, Washington Post, 6 December 2005, p. D1.

There's always a bigger fish in the ocean, so goes the saying.

And there's always a cheaper labor market in the global economy, even when we're talking about China.

China, the land of inexhaustible cheap labor, began exporting jobs a while back (at least far enough back for me to get a cite on it into BFA.

Here's another great story on the subject: guy makes plastic bags and decides to move production into northern Vietnam.

Not just the cheaper labor, but easier to start a business there.

In BFA, I call this the "reverse domino" effect: SE Asia turning capitalistic in response to China. The exact opposite of what we feared four decades ago.

Is the military-industrial complex winning?

■"Pentagon May Pare Air Force Ranks, Army Growth: About-Face by Planners Would Help Protect Budget For Big Weapons Programs," by Jonathan Karp, Andy Pasztor and Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, 5 December 2005, p. A1.

■"Free England--II: A story of Senate pork--and payback," editorial, Wall Street Journal, 5 December 2005, p. A20.

■"Democrats Find Iraq Alternative Is Elusive: Party's Elite Differ on How to Shift U.S. Policy," Robin Wright, Washington Post, 5 December 2005, p. A1.

■"Endangering the Marines," op-ed by Robert D. Novak, Washington Post, 5 December 2005, p. A21.

■"U.S. Forces Try New Approach: Raid and Dig In," Krik Semple, New York Times, 5 December 2005, p. A1.

■"Navy Plans to Expand Fleet, with New Enemies in Mind," by David S. Cloud, New York Times, 5 December 2005, p. A15.

Think the China bashing doesn't matter?

Like I said in the November Esquire piece, it's the programmatic hammer used to beat back the surging demands of the Army and Marines for serious support in this global war on terrorism, with the winners being the defense contractors determined to protect their huge weapons systems and platforms. Budget get tight? Slow the Army's manpower growth, but be sure to keep buying the big-ticket, Big War items most obviously attuned to future great power war with China.

And if we lose a thousand ground-pounders a year with this approach (not just skimping them on money and equipment and personnel, but denying them strategic alliance with countries that we must inevitably keep in the realm of quasi-enemies because that's how we justify buying the weaponry), well . . . that's just too damn bad.

Too many profits on the line. Too hard to change our Cold War acquisition programs.

Read the amazing text of this article if you don't believe me:

As the Defense Department scrambles to finalize its budget for the coming fiscal year, the Air Force is looking to secure much of its savings by cutting active and reserve forces, instead of slashing weapons purchases.

The move to sacrifice manpower in order to protect high-tech weaponry is an about-face from signals in recent months that Pentagon leaders and defense-industry executives were girding for deep weapons-program cuts to offset huge bills from both the war in Iraq and the Gulf Coast hurricanes. The Army, meanwhile, already grappling with a recruiting shortfall, is exploring a modest slowdown in troop growth . . .

The personnel moves may be controversial, but they reflect the military's need to replace aging equipment that has been pushed to the limit. Congress just a few months ago blessed a White House request to temporarily boost the Army by as much as 30,000 soldiers, and some powerful lawmakers are convinced the total number of U.S. ground troops should swell even further than that as the insurgency in Iraq rages. Moreover, many lawmakers remain skeptical about the military's ability to effectively manage some of the very aircraft, satellite and other hardware-development programs Pentagon brass most want to save from the budget axe.

Nonetheless the shift is good news for the nation's major defense contractors, which appear to have again dodged major cutbacks in big-ticket weapons purchases.

Stunning, isn't it, the power of the military-industrial complex?

Meanwhile, the Army is considering cutting three National Guard brigades and slowing its reformatting process of divisions into brigade combat teams.

Just like we're seeing the limits of imagination in U.S. foreign policy, we're watching the limits of imagination in U.S. defense planning. Afraid to let go of the past, the Big War crowd continues to win, and the boots on the ground continue to get shafted. A $440 billion budget for the Big War crowd, while the Army and Marines get to live off supplementals from Congress.

This is the very same Office of the Secretary of Defense that says postconflict stabilization ops will receive equal billing as planning for war, and then goes right on pretending that no shift in funds will accompany this historic shift?

This is stuff and nonsense. Of course there will be shifts in funds. Anyone who tells you otherwise is being dishonest or is woefully misinformed. Schoomaker, current Army Chief of Staff, notes that keeping 10,000 soldiers in the force has risen from $1.2 billion annually to $1.5 billion annually during his two years holding that position. If you're going to be serious about a global war on terrorism, you're going to have larger numbers of ground troops, both active and reserve. There is no way to get around that. That will mean less money for acquisitions, not just asking more money from Congress for supplementals for actual operations. The reason why the cost of manpower has gone up so much is that the Defense Department has recently sought to correct a lot of low compensation and quality of life issues for the troops, fearing unacceptable losses in enlistment and reenlistment rates. This is proper and good and shouldn't then be used as an argument against keeping those troops.

The only reason why our force structure ages and gets worn out is that we insist on buying only the highest of high tech, or weapons systems and platforms whose high-end use can only be justified by very high-end warfare against high-end opponents, i.e., the Big War rationale, which isn't just alive and kicking, as this article shows, but remains dominant on the subject of acquisitions.

So, despite all logic in this global war on terror, "plans for victory" and what not, we watch a last-minute reversal on long-anticipated big-ticket force structure cuts, which really has to make you wonder about what kind of DepSecDef Gordon England, former high-ranking defense contractor executive, is turning out to be. For months, he signaled otherwise, and based on his career of antagonizing the Big War Navy crowd during his time as SECNAV, one had reason to hope for the best. In fact, his confirmation has been held up by senators (Snowe, Lott) angry over his past cuts.

Plus, I think with Mullen taking over at Chief of Naval Ops, we're seeing the shift on force structure coming there, and England has to get some credit for that.

I have interacted with England and know him to be a solid guy, worthy of respect, but he needs to bring more to this position than just a sense of how to balance the books. The strategic vision here needs to be on building the SysAdmin function within DoD. Arming up a Leviathan force that we'll be self-deterred from using is not strategically sound. It plays into the hands of asymmetrical opponents. It endangers lives of our ground troops. It will make us less relevant militarily to the global security environment. It is simply bad judgment.

The long-term squeeze on high-tech procurement will never go away, but we'll never retreat from the world in the way that we did following Vietnam, which allowed for the massive hardware build-up begun under Carter and brought to fruition by Reagan. It is simply not in the cards. If this fiscal year budget goes down as this article projects, we're just putting off the inevitable, really endangering our troops in the meantime.

We're not going to fight counter-insurgencies with battleships, so Novak should settle down. Most of the guys leading change in the Army and Marines will tell you it's all about intellectual capital, not physical capital. So even there you'll find officers who'll say we need to recapitalize the force structure even as we move heavily into counter-insurgency capabilities. The underlying argument is: if we go light on the big war, then opponents will move into that realm, just like our having gone light in the postwar capabilities has encouraged the rise of Fourth Generation Warfare opponents.

In short, they will always hit us where we ain't.

I want to agree with both sides of this argument, but I won't. Given the aging of our population and the competitive pressures of Friedman's "flat world," I think we need to make some choices in this Global War on Terrorism. I think that if we're going to shrink the Gap, we'll need a lot of manpower help, so moving toward strategic alliance with China kills two birds with one stone: takes great power war off the table and frees up resources within the Pentagon for more intensive focus on postconflict (which does cost, buddy, no matter what anyone tells you) while giving us historic access to allied troops we'll need for the "long war" effort that will be shrinking the Gap.

But if you believe the Jaffe et. al article (and such articles are always snapshots in time), instead of seeing this shift unfolding we're watching the military-industrial empire strike back. Instead of weapons cuts when no major power in the world is spending anywhere near what we spend on acquisitions each year (#2 China spends less on its entire military than we spend on just acquisitions, blowing about $30k per soldier when we spend in excess of $300k in terms of overall spending), expect cuts in troops to preserve huge Big War weapons and platform systems riddled with poor oversight, wasted spending, and iffy technologies of dubious value to a global war on terrorism. Also watch as "manpower reductions affecting either the Air Force's uniformed or civilian acquisition corps are expected to face particular scrutiny, because the service has gone through years of scandal and morale-sapping controversy over allegations that Boeing received preferential treatment on some big-ticket aircraft and munitions programs."

And then watch Congress, led by the China hawks, swallow this budget whole, happy to see the acquisition money flow to their districts, all the while sanctimoniously decrying, on Sunday morning talk shows, the lack of support for the nation's troops on the ground over there.

Where will the Hill Dems be on this one? Probably chiming in with trade protectionism on China.

This whole thing makes me sick and deeply ashamed to be part of this business. Lives will be needlessly sacrificed in this pathway. It is wrong in the worst way.

I'm beginning to think Ralph Peters has a real point . . .

I'm beginning to think McCain, with his feud with Boeing on such issues, will make a great GOP presidential candidate in 2008.

And I'm wondering where the serious presidential candidates on the Dem side are on this issue . . .

Come to think of it, Wes Clark's answer on Iraq was pretty darn good . . .

Hillary better start speaking up with some intelligence.

The New Core proposes the new rules

■"A Voice for Developing Nations: Indian Diplomat Could Play Pivotal Role in Trade Talks," by Peter Wonacott, Wall Street Journal, 5 December 2005, p. A18.

■"Brazil Outlines Proposal to Pare Industrial Tariffs: Move Is a Bid to Spur EU, U.S. to Reduce Farm Duties Ahead of WTO Meeting," by Scott Miller and Geraldo Samor, Wall Street Journal, 5 December 2005, p. A18.

Good pair of stories that highlights the growing role of New Core countries to serve as diplomatic (see the other post on the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and trade balancers to the Old Core's intransigent ways (e.g., Cold War-like containment strategies for China, trade protectionism on ag).

India's chief trade diplomat (their minister for commerce) is winning friends thoughout the Gap, much as Brazil has in recent months and years by championing their rights in the WTO.

Will Brazil's reasonable-but-not-stunning offer do the trick on Doha? Probably not. Just another in what will be many rounds of offers.

But know this: when you compare the Old Core's negotiating stance on Doha with those of the New Core powers, we look far more intransigent.

U.S. and Iran: Who's isolating whom?

■"U.S. and Britain Seek Aid on Iran Arms: Support is Sought from Russia and China to Curb Weapons; A new effort aims for a declaration from the top nuclear powers," by Steven R. Weisman and David E. Sanger, New York Times, 4 December 2005, p. A9.

■"Russia planning war games with India, China: Military exercises under Shanghai Cooperation Organization framework," by Vladimir Radyuhin, The Hindu, 5 December 2005, provided by Mohamed Ibn Guadi listserv.

■"Young Iranians Follow Dreams to Dubai: All the benefits of the West and only 45 minutes from home," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 4 December 2005, p. A9.

The U.S. is working hard to get a declaration from India, Russia, and China (3 of the top four New Core powers, along with Brazil) on Iran's pursuit of the bomb. The goal? A declaration that Iran is pursuing atomic energy for nefarious means.

Here's why it won't work: Iran is pursuing the bomb to stave off an American military invasion, pure and simple. India, Russia and China are okay with that pursuit. India and China have huge natural gas and oil relationships with Iran, and wouldn't welcome, under any circumstances, another U.S.-engineered regime change + transformation. Russia's interests are more military (the desire to sell stuff), and before you get too jacked on that score, remember who's the world's largest seller of arms.

The underlying reality here is that China, Russia and India have all been subjected, over the years (and India today) to America's desire to divide and conquer them diplomatically. To the extent we pursue all of them now in various ways WRT a global war on terrorism, we nonetheless clearly pursue India and Russia with an eye to containing China and all three of them with an eye to containing Iran.

Not surprisingly, they will get from us what they can in these efforts, while collectively seeking to contain an America that seems, from their point of view, quite reckless and aggressive under the current administration. Thus we see the move to take the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and turn it into a nascent military alliance.

That SCO was formed by Russia, China and a few Central Asian countries (Kazakstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan). India and Pakistan join as observers last July, as did . . . Iran.

Suspicious to some, self-fulfilling to more, and down-right unsurprising to thinking strategists.

I say, not surprisingly, because in each instance, we do not offer any of the three New Core pillars any better options. We should be promoting India as a regional security pillar in the Middle East, but we do not. We should be pushing hard for Russia's fully admittance into NATO and some prioritized pathway into the EU, but we do not. We should be encouraging China's use of the ASEAN group to create the genesis of an Asian Union, with us included in a special status, but we do not. Instead, we promote China's encirclement through military alliances and then express surprise that China seeks to do the same to us.

The dynamics of the 21st century security environment will inevitably push the U.S. to greater reliance upon, and alliance with, Russia, India, China and Brazil. This is simply too big of a change for the current administration, just too far of a conceptual leap. So we end up waiting out the second Bush administration, hoping that we don't fall too far behind, strategically speaking, in this process.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to look ripe for the connecting. When your best and brightest all seek to make a run for greener pastures, like Dubai just across the gulf, then it's clear the current regime is failing. We can either prop it up by obsessing over the WMD issue, repeating the same myopic focus we had with Iraq, or we can judge the case on its merits and kill that tired authoritarian regime with economic and social connectivity.

Listen to one ex-pat Iranian in Dubai: "None of the other countries near Iran have this. You have everything you have in Europe and America, but close to home."

What Dubai's role as release valve (not just people, but investment flows too) for Iran proves is that the role of regional examples of rising connectivity to the globalization process is very powerful. Serious "lead goose" stuff.

China's nearing the next tipping point on marketization: this time, in medical care

■"Chinese Doctors Tell Patients To Pay Upfront, or No Treatment: Parents of Boy With Leukemia Scramble for Cash to Cover New Chemotherapy Round; Threat Seen to Social Security.," by Andrew Browne, Wall Street Journal, 5 December 2005, p. A1.

As recently as the latte 1970s, before Deng started to marketize the economy, there was universal healthcare in China.

Now, about one-third enjoy health insurance, and the rest must pay as they go.

This cannot go on in a country experiencing the huge economic trajectory that China is experiencing now. It's just too inefficient, as their own economic think tanks are beginning to note. And it's just too politically dangerous, as the 4th generation of leaders under Hu and Wen are beginning to admit.

You just end up with too many heart-rendering stories. It's just too damaging to worker productivity.

So the next stage of China's marketization must come: privatizing insurance more and more. It's begun in life insurance and is moving quite rapidly there. Ditto for car insurance. It needs to begin in health insurance.

And therein lies the rub for the authoritarian government: each time it must work to avoid political unrest, the answer seems to be "more marketization," which in turn only decreases centralized control over the economy and thus the society, and thus fuels more bottom-up calls for pluralism to reflect the political realities of all that change.

Timing and sequencing are, of course, everything in this game, but the looming crisis in inescapable. Thus China will be forced to open up even further to attract the wherewithal from abroad to transform their outdated medical system of payments. And, in doing, so watch their government come under the same strains that our own faces on guns v. butter.

Deal reached on Chinese version of PNM

Originally, the Chinese publisher (Beijing U Press) sent me long list of proposed deletions, basically all direct shots at Communist Party, all mentions of the Taiwan issue, and all references to North Korea and Iran. Then there were the cuts every timeI dealt with China as a strong enemy image for the Pentagon.

My offer back was to slice the CCP and Taiwan cuts to the bare word minimum and reject all the rest.

The Chinese counteroffer?

Okay to my offer, with disclaimer in book saying these ideas are my own, and not reflective of the publisher.

A reasonable compromise, I thought.

So the Chinese edition of PNM is a go.

On the road tonight. Spend day at Fort Monroe in Hampton VA, not far from Norfolk, at Training and Doctrine Command of the Army (TRADOC, "Where Tomorrow's Victories Begin"). Good afternoon (3 hours) with the Futures Center guys (2 of four division heads) and then almost an hour with Scotty Wallace, the 4-star who was ground force commander on the sweep up to Baghdad.

Signed one book (PNM) for a senior guy at TRADOC, who pointed out how marked up the copy was. "Shows we use it here," he grinned.

[BTW, when I was at Quantico last week, I got a brief from the Marine future concepts guys and the center of the brief featured a comparison of many conflict/threat/operational databases with the Core-Gap map. Pretty cool to be confronted with while working as magazine writer.]

I was suffering through the day with an onset of a cold. Bought some Alka-Seltzer at BWI, but ended up brain dead at day's end.

Will finish my story blogs in the morning.

Every dollar counts in shrinking the Gap

■"Emerging-market indicators: Remittances," The Economist, 26 November 2005, p. 116.

Great data point from The Economist: Remittances from ex-pat workers back to emerging markets and developing countries totals $167 billion this year. This is the equal of foreign direct investment in these countries (basically Gap + New Core, in their categorization scheme) and twice the value of Official Developmental Aid from the Old Core, or West.

Moreover, it's estimated that maybe this number is low, with 50% more coming in money flowing through informal channels not tracked.

The leaders? India and China and Mexico and Philippines (three New Core and the Seam State with the highest percentage of its labor working abroad)d

Fascinating stuff that shows that individuals matter a lot in shrinking the Gap.

Ripped from the pages of BFA . ..

■"Chemical Disaster In China Fuels Pollution Worries: Environmental Minister Quits After Initial Slow Response; Russia Braces for the Slick," by Rebecca Blumenstein and Jason Dean, Wall Street Journal, 3-4 December 2005, p. A1.

In the Conclusion "Blogging the Future," in the "by 2010" entries:

"China's 'Black Summer' Triggers Unprecedented Social Unrest; Tipping Point Seen"

I spent one long, hot August traveling through China last year, and I can personally vouch for the fact that it suffers the most amazingly high levels of air pollution I have ever endured. Guangzhou, described as China's "Los Angeles," suffers smog that effectively blots out both sky and sun, even on what are theoretically cloudless days! Between the constant headaches, sore throats, and stuffed heads, it is simply hard-physically-to live in Guangzhou. Not surprisingly, nineteen of the twenty-five most polluted cities in the world are located in Asia, with nine in China alone. A tipping point is coming on environmental stress in China, one we've seen before in industrializing countries as the masses simply begin to recognize a clear trade-off between that extra slice of GDP per capita and the instinctive desire to be able to suck in a chestful of air without it burning. The grassroots environmental movement is growing in China, and eventually some horrific example of mass suffering will trigger an explosion in political demands for something better.

Okay, so not as big as I posited, yet the international aspect angle will elevate it dramatically. In terms of political dynamics, this comes off like the SARS outbreak: usual Chinese repression of news, then political leaders get nervous, sack some leaders, and try to come clean PR-wise.

Watch this dynamic happen again and again, especially in the environmental realm, but also watch for a growing series of enviro debacles in China triggering increasingly more open tolerance by the government for grass-roots political activism on this subject.

Yes, it will be ugly, and get uglier over time, but remember, most progress and most pluralism comes through disasters and scandals--just like they did here in the States.

A legal rule set in which Dirty Harry would revel

Kahn is a good reporter on China. Solid piece.

December 3, 2005

Torture Is 'Widespread' in China, U.N. Investigator Says

By JOSEPH KAHN



BEIJING, Dec. 2 - A high-level United Nations investigator condemned the "widespread" use of torture in Chinese law enforcement and said Beijing must overhaul its criminal laws, grant more power to judges and abolish labor camps before it can end such abuses, according to a summary of his findings released Friday.

The investigation, by Manfred Nowak, the special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, noted some progress by Chinese officials in reducing violence against prisoners since the country signed an international covenant banning torture in 1988.

But Mr. Nowak said that "obtaining confessions" and fighting "deviant behavior" continued to be central goals of China's criminal justice system. The police and prison guards are pushed to extract admissions of guilt and are rarely punished for using electric shock, sleep deprivation and submersion in water or sewage, among other techniques the Commission on Human Rights considers torture, to obtain them, he said.

"The use of torture, though on the decline, particularly in urban areas, nevertheless remains widespread in China," Mr. Nowak said at a news briefing in Beijing. "There is a need for much more structural reform to address the problem" . . .

China's legal system reflects its socialist past far too much. Way too titled against the accused, much like the Russian one still. A system Dirty Harry would love, but it has a pre-Miranda feeling to it: busting heads to get confessions is no problem. Add in the political aspect of some prosecutions, and it's a bad mix for business.

No arguments with this piece: it just places China's legal system many decades into our past. The question we need to ask is, "What is the best way to pull China's legal system forward?"

Is it hectoring? Or pushing further economic integration that triggers more social and business demands for legal transparency in the system?

Well, think for a minute . .. how did our system come about?

Go here for the full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/03/international/asia/03china.html

Perhaps the most interesting comparison right now is between how America is choosing to wage the Global War on Terrorism and how China typically works criminality in its system. Scary how similar they are, yes?