The nation within the state flexes its muscle

THE WORLD: "Iraqi Kurds Are Importing Arms: Three planeloads of munitions from Bulgaria worry officials in Baghdad," by Ernesto Londono, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 1-7 December 2008.

The Kurds are importing arms from Bulgaria. Baghdad says it's not legal, but a close reading of the constitution says otherwise--as in, it's not illegal.

The Kurds weren't stupid. They haven't entered into any political arrangements that disallow their effective independence within a presumably federated Iraq. They've got their state militia--the Pesh Merga--and they intend to keep it up to date with arms.

The Kurds have been running their own universe since 1991 and guess what? They don't plan on changing that anytime soon--or actually ever.

Yes, down the road, one can expect a Shiia-dominated center to try to re-establish far more expansive control over the north. The Kurds have been planning for this day since 2003, which is why I've been arguing--for years now--that eventually and inevitably America will end up leaving behind a trip wire military force in the north.

And the Kurds are more than open to this notion, sensing the protection it would offer them:

Central government officials have recently bristled at Barzani's offer to allow U.S. troops to establish bases in the Kurdish autonomous region, saying the regional government has no authority to make such an overture, especially as Iraqi officials are calling for a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops.

If Obama is as smart as many of us think he is, he will see the wisdom of this course: U.S. troops in the south will be provocative, but trip wire troops in the north--as well as the ones we'll keep in Kuwait.

It's what I've called the 2K solution.

Another warning of short-term decline of U.S. ag thanks to global recession

ARTICLE: "Fields of Grain and Losses: For Oklahoma Farmers, The Market for Wheat Falls," by David Streitfeld, New York Times, 21 November 2008.

Real squeeze going on after two years of skyrocketing crop prices: the price paid for them is "dropping much faster than the cost of growing them."

Besides the manic markets, there's the question of bank solvency closer to home and a rising dollar.

OK is especially hard-hit right now because two-thirds of its wheat goes overseas, more than the rest of the country as a whole!

Who'd have guessed the Oklahoma is so dependent on globalization?

What triggered the last two fab years was a cheaper dollar, crop disasters in Australia, and Asia's skyrocketing demand. So farmers in OK responded and "made a killing"--if they cashed in on this year's crop early enough.

Those who waited to sell got burned.

Scanning what's for dinner

ARTICLE: S. Koreans Have New Regard for U.S. Beef, By Blaine Harden, Washington Post, December 10, 2008; Page A20

See, that little tiff over mad-cow disease wasn't so bad. It only took us 5 years to get back into South Korea's markets without a fuss!

This is why I honestly believe the scanning technology is key to economic competitiveness in the future, not just safety.

Connecting Mumbai to globalization--as it should be

OP-ED: "They Hate Us--and India Is Us," by Patrick French, New York Times, 8 December 2008.

OP-ED: "Trouble in the Other Middle East," by Robert D. Kaplan, New York Times, 8 December 2008.

Two great pieces that say this is really all about globalization.

Kaplan on why Hindu-Muslim relations are getting hot again:

The culprit has been globalization. The secular Indian nationalism of Jawaharlal Nehru's Congress Party, built around a rejection of Western colonialism, is more and more a thing of the past. As the dynamic Indian economy merges with that of the wider world, Hindus and Muslims have begun separate searches for roots to anchor them inside a bland global civilization.

This is why I have long argued for a globalization-centric grand strategy for the U.S., or one that puts in focus the real change dynamics of the world today--ones triggered purposefully by our historical trajectory that propels our American System into an international liberal trade order into a West into a globalization.

Kaplan's conclusion echoes my argument that America doesn't "leave" the Middle East until the Middle East joins the world:

The Middle East is back to where it was centuries ago, not because of ancient hatreds but because of globalization. Instead of bold lines on a map we have a child's messy finger painting, as the circumvention of borders and the ease of communications allow the brisk movement of ideas and people and terrorists from one place to another. Our best strategy is, as difficult and trite as it sounds, to be at all places at once. Not with troops, necessarily, but with every bit of energy and constant attention that our entire national security apparatus--and those of our allies--can bring to bear.

I call it the SysAdmin function: more civil than military, more USG than just DoD, more rest of the world than just the U.S., and more private-sector invested than public-sector funded.

Where I differ with Kaplan: my focus on the private sector and my stronger argument that we need to widen our pool of allies beyond the West.

French's argument on Mumbai echoes my own long-standing explanation for 9/11: it's got nothing to do with Kashmir or any other grievance (just like I reject Michael Schuerer's analysis that says, give al Qaeda what it wants and this will all end).

In the end, this remains all about globalization, whether or not our enemies are smart enough to realize it, much less articulate it. The "grievances" cited are just a child's excuse of "he hit me first." Eliminate them and the real problems still remain: these traditional societies simply aren't ready for dealing with globalization's triggered social revolutions.

The real compromises are not about U.S. military withdrawals or acceding to al Qaeda's dreamy demands for civilization apartheid, but more about understanding that, with connectivity must come content control. In short, traditional societies will want "parental controls" on globalization's connectivity.

The road from oligarchic to state-directed ramped up in Russia

KREMLIN RULES: "In Hard Times, Russia Moves In to Reclaim Private Industries," by Clifford J. Levy, New York Times, 8 December 2008.

Recalling the William Baumol et al. book, Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism, you've got--in terms of evolution--oligarchic (elite family-dominated) capitalism, then state-directed capitalism, then big-firm capitalism, and then truly entrepreneurial capitalism. The sweet spot is a combo of the latter two: big firms surrounded by a sea of small start-ups.

The counter-intuitive analysis of Russia right now--meaning mine--says the 1990s Yeltsin firesale that generated an oligarchic-style capitalism is now being subverted/improved by a state-directed form, meaning, oddly enough, that Russia took a step backwards in the 1990s from what it had.

China has purposely sought to cannibalize its state-run enterprises into big firms, encouraging start-ups as new technology/product providers. That was the next best step forward from socialist ownership.

Russia's collapse under Yeltsin was to let the robber barons basically buy up government-owned companies for a song and then get fabulously rich. In a culture not ready for that disjuncture, a huge populist backlash was created (not well reported here) that welcomed the return of the "siloviki" ("power/security agency guys") and the reassertion of state control over the commanding heights of industry.

In short, Putinism was preordained by the way socialism collapsed in the USSR. Gorby chose poorly; Deng chose wisely. Gorby did politics first and Deng focused on economics first. The former yielded Putinism, the latter yielded the far more successful single-party state (please, don't pretend its "communist") called the CCP.

Do I regret the way the Soviet centrally-planned economy collapsed under Yeltsin? No. I was all for Gaidar's strategy of snipping all the vertical lines of authority. Better to have the collapse be severe so as to disallow any rapid recovery.

Do I thus accept the inevitability of a Putinesque phase as a cost? Absolutely. Pennies on the dollar, in grand strategic terms.

Do we now face the requirement of house-breaking Putinism? Yes, but that's the best possible problem we can have right now, given the trajectory. Plus, it's easily accomplished--to wit, the economic penance self-inflicted by Putin's smackdown of Georgia. My God, thanks to Russia's economic connectivity, the behavior mod program operates like a self-licking ice cream cone.

Is today's Russia the preferred Russia? Of course not. But I don't live in an ideal world, just an improving one.

Making it into the Obama book club

Per the previous entry on the "big mouth list": a strong focus here is to get the book in the hands of senior people in the vicinity of the great man himself.

If you know of such people and can provide connections, email directly at tom@thomaspmbarnett.com.

Naturally, we try to get advance copies to anyone we think can help boost sales, but given the nature of the book and the times, this is the key priority.

Also, I'm clearly incentivized to tap all my existing networks. I just post this here additionally because I know the readership is usually connected in this way, so I don't want to miss any opportunities.

We appreciate the many emails so far and a lot of good opportunities have already resulted, so keep 'em coming. Again, I will do my best to see that as many advance copies get into as many appropriate hands as possible, not promising a positive outcome in any one situation--just our best efforts.

This is, of course, an extraordinary time to be publishing a book like this: it's incredibly timely and well-positioned, but it's also a tumultuous time in the publishing/media industry. Magazines are going to drop like a slew of dinosaurs after the big meteor hits (which, for them, equates to ads bought). Already we hear news of major pubs being cut down drastically (like Newsweek). So my ability to get published in places is decidedly crimped right now, which makes efforts at networking like this all the more important.

So, again, all help appreciated.

Interview with Tom in Defense News

'U.S. Analyst: Seek Strategic Alliance With China', By Wendell Minnick, Defense News, 12/08/08

This article is online, but for subscribers only. Mr Minnick was kind enough to permit us to reprint in full here. Tom's comments below.

INDIANAPOLIS -- Thomas P.M. Barnett, who established a reputation for grand strategy with his 2002 book, "The Pentagon's New Map," argues that U.S. history contains lessons about globalization. ‚Ä®

"My first book was a very 'what' book -- diagnostics. The second book ['Blueprint for Action'] was 'how' -- strategic alliance with China, co-opt Iran and liquidate North Korea. Those are the three big messages. I think grand strategists are always supposed to be on the edge of plausible," Barnett said.

"This new book" -- "Great Power: America and the World After Bush," due out in February -- "is really a 'why' book. It gives you the history of America right up to this point. I repackage and update and make more sophisticated the logic and argument of the first two books."

Barnett said one of the themes of Great Power is that "everything you needed to know about globalization you learned from American history. We've done it all."

The United States invented globalization, as an alternative to colonialism, fascism and socialism, he said. "It imposed across its own continental landscape a model of states uniting, economies integrating, collective security, high transaction rates and transparency. We are the model, the source code or DNA." Now globalism has spread to perhaps five-sixths of the world. ‚Ä®

"Our resistance is down to the bottom of the barrel. We are fighting the least impressive version of resistance historically. They don't even try to promise an alternative economic order. They basically promise a pre-economic order," Barnett said. ‚Ä®

China to the Rescue? ‚Ä®

But Barnett argues that the U.S. strength has reached its limits and cannot integrate the few countries that remain outside the "international liberal trade order."

"We can't borrow anymore and our military is completely tapped now. Now we have to bring Asia online big time," he said. ‚Ä®

China may have to finish the job we started, he argues. Barnett points to Africa, Latin America and Central Asia, where China is building roads, schools and upgrading the infrastructure. ‚Ä®

"China is doing what we should be doing," he said. "This is where most people argue the bulk of the global middle class will emerge."

But China is not providing security. Barnett said China must be co-opted by the United States into becoming a strategic partner providing security in those areas we can no longer go. ‚Ä®

"We've been providing security seemingly free of charge. All you have to do is buy our debt and we'll fight every war required," he said. ‚Ä®

He said the United States has gone from indispensable nation to insolvent leviathan. ‚Ä®

"While we are stuck in the Middle East, China is soft-powering all over Africa, Latin America and central Asia to a tremendous degree. In the realignment, we recognize what they are doing and what we are doing is complementary. So the realignment is a team of rivals."

In the past, globalization has been equated with Westernization and in many cases Americanization. However, Barnett foresees a great shift: Globalization will become "Easternization."

"The problem is, China does not have a political system to transpose to these other environments. They will pay you with big thick red envelopes full of cash and they'll say, 'I don't care what you do to your people, to your environment, I'm just here to make money and then the resources flow.'"

To get back in the game the United States must "get involved in the integration process," he said. ‚Ä®

Barnett dismisses the notion of war between China and the United States. "How do you think we are going to fight a war with China over resources that they are going to sell to us or we are going to sell to them eventually?" ‚Ä®

Disagreement ‚Ä®

But Barnett's view is disputed by, among others, Larry Wortzel, chairman of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. ‚Ä®

"This idea of 'seeking an alliance' with China assumes that our two counties share common values and ideological systems. We do not," Wortzel said. ‚Ä®

The two countries have common interests on the Korean Peninsula, but their objectives are different, Wortzel said. ‚Ä®

"The Chinese seek to ensure the continuation of the Communist regime in the DPRK [North Korea], while, ultimately, we would like to see it end. And it is these deep differences in values that puts the limits on an alliance," he said. ‚Ä®

Nor does Wortzel believe Chinese leaders are seeking an alliance with Washington, "although they would like closer relations and to end the emphasis by the American people on religious freedom, labor rights and other human rights in China."

John Tkacik of the Heritage Foundation takes issue with one of Barnett's historical analogies: that China is following a U.S.-blazed path of globalization; that China's former leader Deng Xiaoping played a similar role as U.S. founding father Alexander Hamilton. ‚Ä®

"Beijing is playing the same role Japan played 100 to 65 years ago, not the role the U.S. played," Tkacik said. During that period, Japan was expanding its territorial claims with invasions and horrific crimes against humanity, which culminated in a devastating world war.

Overall, a nice piece from my perspective. I was a bit choppy in explaining, but--as I said in an earlier post--practice is what I need most right now

An unfortunate choice of words on my part to describe the new book a repackaging the logic of the first two. I was unhappy that, of all the things I said about Great Powers, that one got into the piece, but the fault was mine, not his. I was channeling Zenpundit's comment and wanted to make the point that each new book builds on the previous, but that particular word makes it sound like the book doesn't have new ideas, which it actually suffers a surfeit of (if anything, the book can be criticized for being too ambitious in that regard). I was actually surprised how little I used Core-Gap and Leviathan-SysAdmin. They were helpful summarizing terms (thus the glossary), but they really weren't essential to the book's logic, which expanded greatly from PNM's original focus on military and security matters.

Still, it reminds me how out of practice I am at talking to the press. I gave this interview over coffee at a nearby shop here in Indy a couple of weeks ago, and didn't really have my head in the right space. I will have to consider it a weak practice, in that regard, and get myself more ready for interviews ahead.

As for the counter-views, they struck me as a bit myopic and odd.

Reducing shared strategic interests to just the DPRK is the myopic part (one allies with countries that share your interests, not simply your ideology--please, and what is our base ideology if not capitalism?), and unless I'm missing something going on right now, stating that China is replicating Japan's territorial aggression and war crimes is just plain weird. I suspect neither individual is familiar with my arguments and instead responded solely to Minnick's prompts.

But such is the state of the ideological competition at home.

Americans love to believe themselves both exceptional and unreplicatable in this, our continuing experiment. There is a subtle racism here: only the Anglo-Saxon stock can evolve in this manner. But the truth of the experiment, better traced back--in many ways--to the Dutch than the ultra-class conscious Brits--lies in the rules, not the people. The real accomplishment is accommodating all comers, exploiting talent without regard to background. That is a rule set that is post-cultural, by definition.

Just like we are. Rules can be replicated. Any culture can be shifted into a post-cultural setting. Indeed, it's the essential underlying social revolution of globalization.

I believe I have next week's column...

Ain't no rise without us

ARTICLE: Downturn Choking Global Commerce, By Anthony Faiola and Ariana Eunjung Cha, Washington Post, December 11, 2008; Page A01

ARTICLE: The Bangalore Backlash: Call Centers Return to U.S., By Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, December 11, 2008; Page D01

Two obvious data points that say there is no global economy sans U.S. involvement: 1) exports plummeting in China and India's service sector losing out to reverse-sourcing.

Point being: ain't no such thing as an independent "rise of the rest." They rise within our international liberal trade order, where we--for now--remain the only demand center capable of sustaining globalization's advance.

Obama's promise to Israel

ARTICLE: Obama's atomic umbrella: U.S. nuclear strike if Iran nukes Israel, By Aluf Benn, Haaretz, 11/12/2008

The historically proven answer, based on decades protecting Europe from a far more overwhelming nuke danger.

For now, Israel's nuke advantage is about 200 to zero, but no matter. we know how to deter with the promise of massive retaliation leading to a nation's obliteration.

And it's a believable threat because we've done it (drop the bomb) before.

Plus, we'd get away with liquidating Iran if they tried to torch Israel.

We'd get away with it completely.

Good to see on Obama's part. We are finally getting some realism on this subject.

(Thanks: Lexington Green)

The counter-intuitive on North Korea's latest bluster

MEMO FROM SEOUL: "Latest Threats May Mean North Korea Wants to Talk," by Choe Sang-Hun, New York Times, 20 November 2008.

In the end, North Korea never wants to deal: as a true totalitarian state, it wants to preserve state power and prerogative at all costs. So the usual deal with the DPRK is that it goes nasty on either the local or distant devil (South Korea v. USA) and then goes nice with the other, so it can negotiate the best possible gain from one end while keeping the other in a state of complete anxiety. So when it's being all "sunshiney" with the South, it picks fights with us, or vice versa. The policy is known as "tongmi bonnam," according to the article, but it's basically wedge-driving.

The point of the piece: all the recent nastiness to the South indicates that North Korea is getting ready to restart the dealmaking with the U.S. Obvious timing would be the new president, but then there's the additional overlay of Kim's recent bad health, even as the latter is likely to make Pyongyang more recalcitrant to actually deal in the short term. We can only guess at what the surviving leadership will be ready to deal on once Kim passes and nobody's interested in any of his kids moving up (or if one does, what sort of in-fighting breaks out among that same leadership, resulting in similar dynamics).

Still, every expert makes the same argument: Pyongyang sees the US relationship as paramount over the Seoul one, so when it's ready to truly cut a deal to stave off internal collapse, it'll be with us and not them (Why? They want assurance they won't be dismantled if humanitarian rescue occurs.). Since the US basically wants China to be absent from any collapse intervention (we want promises that no PLA will cross the border), there's little surprise that Beijing isn't interested in getting in line behind our leadership. Indeed, if anything, this whole dynamic encourages Seoul and Beijing to cut a side deal on how this goes down to their particular preferences. At the very least, all indications are that Beijing is playing a game of letting out of the air from the balloon toward the northern border, guaranteeing them some role and thus say when the collapse comes.

In sum, when you're talking a distressed property, everybody's looking for the cheapest deal.

And you thought high oil was bad...

ARTICLE: Kazakhstan's Construction Collapse, By Abdujalil Abdurasulov, BusinessWeek, November 21, 2008

A good example of how this profound System Perturbation works its way down to the bottom of the pyramid.

Quite frankly, we thought we knew how bad it was to have high oil prices, but now we'll see how bad it is to have low oil prices. So yeah, the price drop undercuts the "axis of diesel," but it ends up harming a lot of poor people (I mean, really poor people) around the world while not helping us environmentally whatsoever.

Cheap oil, in my mind, is bad all around. I will suffer the few fools in exchange for the upgrading of our energy profile combined with the transfer of wealth to countries that need to move themselves out of poverty, because we end up paying either way. So why not pay in a way that benefits emerging markets while forcing us toward much-needed change?

The big question with this global slowdown (true recession in West, diminished growth in emerging) will be, Does everything wait on America's de-leveraging or can other sources of demand sustain/re-energize globalization's advance?

All in all, it's been an amazing quarter-century run that no one except the extreme optimists dreamed would continue uninterrupted forever. Eventually, America's implicit Marshall Plan transfer of funds through extreme consumption had to burn itself out, as much as the rest of the world wanted it to continue to their benefit. The problem is, with the rest of the Old Core into recession faster than we are moving, and the New Core not yet big enough in its demand potential to sustain things on its own, we're into chicken-v-egg territory over who restarts demand fastest.

And the answer, quite frankly, is that we don't know for sure. This is simply new territory in terms of the global economy's breadth (never been bigger or more pervasive) and the synchronicity of this shock (we've also never been more interconnected).

What this means is that Obama really is the FDR-like figure of his era--hit or miss. What he chooses to do will have impact far beyond our shores.

(Thanks: Terry Collier)

Reminder: Iraq's a fake state

ARTICLE: Basra autonomy and the question of Iraqi identity, The Daily Clarity, December 10th, 2008

Great exposition of Iraq's fakeness as a nation-state. It is a collection of national identities forced into political marriage by outsiders.

Notice this: wherever the U.S. military intervenes since the end of the Cold War, there exists the high likelihood of newly birthed nations-within-fake-states. Yugoslavia birthed a bunch. Somalia will eventually too.

Iraq is also fracturing, in its own way. The only question is, How many compromises are required to maintain the fiction that is Iraq?

Biden's diagnosis of soft partition still holds. The surge changed nothing about that.

(Thanks: Critt Jarvis)

Gentile doubts SysAdmin

ARTICLE: Let's Build an Army to Win All Wars, By Gian P. Gentile, Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 52, 1st quarter 2009

As you can guess (with a title like that or if you know where he's coming from), Gentile is skeptical of the Army's ability to do SysAdmin, grouping Tom with John Nagl (good company):

Retired Army lieutenant colonel John Nagl, author of Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, is so cocksure of the efficacy of Army combat power that he believes it will have the ability not only to dominate land warfare in general but also to "change entire societies." Reminiscent of Thomas Barnett's Pentagon blueprint argument of building new societies on the Western model where they do not currently exist in the proverbial Third World is Nagl's concept for reorienting the long-term strategic mission of American ground forces.

(Thanks: waveman850)

Mashup: Florida and the Map

POST: The New World Order: Flat, Spiky or Divided?, By David Eaves, November 17th, 2008

Remember when David mashed up Firefox downloads with Tom's Map?

He subsequently did a couple of maps from Richard Florida's 'Who's Your City?' website, adding the Gap. Check 'em out.

Steve in Iraq Oil Report

ARTICLE: Oil hub Kirkuk sees massive bombing during political lunch, Iraq Oil Report, December 11, 2008

Steve DeAngelis and Enterra start registering in reports on Iraq's oil industry.

(Thanks: Critt Jarvis)

Are you a big mouth?

Tom and Putnam are now in the process of getting together the Big Mouth List - people who can spread the word about Great Powers.

Are you someone who can get the word out? You have to have a podium and be willing to use it. Are you networked? Do you know someone who knows Someone?

We're shooting for Congresspeople and the Obama administration in addition to media outlets and whatever other good places you can think of.

Know someone who picks Oprah's books? (OK, probably not, but you get the idea).

We're looking to get some books out there to these kinds of influencers.

(Best submissions include postal addresses to send books to.)

Leave a comment here or email me.

Thanks!

Avast ye pirates, Prince Erik has cast his gaze your way!

WORLD NEWS: "Blackwater Plans Effort Against Piracy," by August Cole, Wall Street Journal, 3 December 2008.

Blackwater Worldwide (it used to be Blackwater USA but got smart about its overseas potential--a lesson to the industry) begins meetings in London with potential clients for its newest venture: antipiracy ops.

Blackwater is simply aggressively marketing as a hedge against a post-Iraq market.

But again, another solid sign of frontier integrating activities drawing interest from private-sector providers--Pinkerton of the high seas!

Obama better be his own lead on China

INTERNATIONAL: "Treasury's Lead Role in China in Flux," by Mark Landler, New York Times, 2 December 2008.

Once Paulson goes, the sense is that Geithner won't have the gravitas to play USG lead to Beijing. If not Geithner, then who? Maybe Summers as NEC chief. Maybe Clinton. Not Gates, as that historical moment has finally passed for SECDEF--thank God.

My sense? Obama himself better appear in control of our all-important relationship with China.

For years now I've been predicting that this is the most important bilateral relationship we'll have in the 21st century. Now, thanks to the crisis, a boatload of smart money-types are jumping on that bandwagon.

Nice Economist report on cars in emerging markets

SPECIAL REPORT: "A global love affair: A special report on cars in emerging markets," by Matthew Symonds, The Economist, 15 November 2008.

Data right out of brief slide I often use: Car saturation rates in U.S. and Europe and Japan are high (roughly 6-800 per 1,000 population) while the same is not true for New Core (Russia about 200, Brazil about 150, and China and India more like 15-25).

Second slide worth noting: "crossover point" for sales of cars (roughly 14m units per year), U.S. versus BRIC, happens this year--2008. From now on more get sold in BRIC than in U.S., meaning we lose our status as demand center.

Post-American to some, very American to others.

Big step for India: policing its own radicals

ARTICLE: "Indian Police Say They Hold 9 in Hindu Terrorist Cell," by Hari Kumar, New York Times, 12 November 2008.

Opening para says it all:

For the first time in this Hindu-majority nation of 1.1 billion people, the police have announced the arrest of people who are accused of being part of a Hindu terrorist cell.

This is a serious step toward India acting like a grown-up great power.