Sanctions of mass destruction v. admitting our choice on the Iranian bomb

ARTICLE: “Behind the Urgent Nuclear Diplomacy: A Sense That Iranians Will Get the Bomb; ‘Sooner or later, it’s going to happen,’ says one senior American official,” by David E. Sanger, New York Times, 6 February 2006, p. A10.

ARTICLE: “Invoking Islam’s Heritage, Iranians Chafe at ‘Oppression’ by the West: From cartoons to the nuclear impasse, a sense of victimization,” by Michael Slackman, New York Times, 6 February 2006, p. A10.

ARTICLE: “Iran Keeps Door Open to Talks, Oversight of Its Nuclear Program,” by David Crawford, Wall Street Journal, 6 February 2006, p. A4.

OP-ED: “3 Myths About the Iran Conflict,” by Mel Levine, Alex Turkeltaub and Alex Gorbansky, Washington Post, 7 February 2006, p. A21.

OP-ED: “The Promise of Liberty: The ballot is not infallible, but it has broken the Arab pact with tyranny,” by Fouad Ajami, Wall Street Journal, 7 February 2006, p. A26.

ARTICLE: “U.S. Firms See Nuclear Pact as Door to India: Critics Fear Easing Rules Would Weaken Nonproliferation Agreement,” by Neil King Jr., Wall Street Journal, 7 February 2006, p. A4.

In my Feb 2005 Esquire piece, I basically said that Iran was getting the bomb no matter what, so the real question was, What are we going to get in return?

To many, that came off as “giving Iran the bomb!” Yes, as if we can decide such things at will. Did we “give” Pakistan, or India, or Israel, or North Korea the bomb? Or did they all just make the decision and we had to live with the consequences because we weren’t willing or able to stop that movement?

Same thing is happening with Iran, and the Bush Administration is coming to that realization. As one official put it, “Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got there, and they didn’t have Iran’s money or the engineering expertise. Sooner or later, it’s going to happen. Our job is to make sure it’s later.”

That’s it? That’s our job? That’s our strategy? Our vision?

Here’s the key point: “Iran’s leaders have already noted that four other countries that the United States said should never become nuclear powers—Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea—have all made the leap and are now, with the exception of North Korea, largely accepted as members of the nuclear club.”

So the real issue remains: How to make Iran an acceptable member of the club?

Of course, not everyone sees it that way. John McCain seems ready to bomb today, which pretty much cancels him out in my mind as the next president of the United States because it reminds me, yet again, that his specialty is letting his anger rule his judgment, a skill set he puts on display with dubious regularity.

Meanwhile, Iran keeps almost shutting the door but then always leaving just open enough to signal that it’s looking not so much for a way out, but a way in. Iran wants its security guaranteed, in much the same way Pakistan’s is guaranteed, despite being the home for Osama bin Laden. Unbelievable? Letting some government that obviously allows terrorism and terrorists to flourish within its borders have nukes? Even after it’s sold them recklessly? How can America abide by this? Where are John McCain’s bombs for Pakistan?

Hmm. Probably shouldn’t get him started.

Nixon will go to Tehran, because when he does, we’ll get what we want.

Sanctions are not the answer and never will be. All they do is deprive the weak and marginal in the targeted society while further empowering the entrenched elite and often enriching them beyond all reason. Think of all the success we had with sanctions in Iraq, and then wonder why we’d ever go down that pathway again.

Ah, but what mess do we get ourselves into when we encourage democracy in the region?

Here I turn to the always intelligent Ajami:

It was not historical naivete that had given birth to the Bush administration’s campaign for democracy in Arab lands. In truth, it was cruel necessity, for the campaign was born of the terrors of 9/11. America had made a bargain with Arab autocracies, and the bargain had failed. It was young men reared in schools and prisons in the very shadow of these Arab autocracies who came America’s way on 9/11. We had been told that it was either the autocracies or the furies of terror. We were awakened to the terrible recognition that the autocracies and the terror were twins, that the rulers in Arab lands were sly men who disguised the furies of their people onto foreign lands and peoples.

This had been the truth that President Bush underscored in his landmark speech to the National Endowment for Democracy on Nov. 6, 2003, proclaiming this prudent Wilsonianism in Arab lands: “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place for stagnation, resentment and violence for export.” Nothing in Palestine, nothing that has thus far played out in Iraq, and scant little of what happened in other Arab lands, negates the truth at the heart of this push for democratic reform. The “realists” tell us that this is all doomed, that the laws of gravity in the region will prevail, that autocracy, deeply ingrained in the Arab-Muslim lands, is sure to carry the day. Modern liberalism has joined this smug realism, and driven by an animus toward the American leader waging this campaign for liberty, now assert the built-in authoritarianism of Arab society.

My only addition to this brilliant analysis is to say that Bush’s definitions of freedom and liberty need to be based first and foremost in economics. Yes to all progress in politics, but democracy without development is a recipe for long-term failure.

But points taken: this Big Banger’s faith is somewhat restored by the growing realization within the Bush administration that the military option is simply not there on Iran.

Two good rejoinders to my post on the Danish cartoons on Muhammad

OP-ED: “Prophetic Provocation,” by Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, 7 February 2006, p. A21.

OP-ED: “Tolerance Toward Intolerance,” by Thomas Kleine-Brockoff, Washington Post, 7 February 2006, p. A21.

Got several emails pointing out how Christianity is regularly abused in the media and protests remain peaceful. Got several emails pointing out many Muslims the world over routinely sit on their hands when their own co-religionists commit some of the most heinous acts of terrorism, only to go postal (oops, another population slandered!) over a few cartoons in the Jylands Posten (same paper that profiled my talk in Copenhagen last year).

And these are all good arguments, as are the ones offered in these two op-eds, both of which are very intelligently written.

Robinson’s main point: the cartoons were purposefully inflammatory, but the response was purposefully over-the-top, and both actions indicate populations that feel quite pissed off and provoked beyond reason. And frankly, both sides are valid in feeling that, so fine, let’s talk it out.

And that’s Kleine-Brockoff’s point, he an employee of Die Zeit (where the original PNM article was reprinted): no sense in hiding the image that’s become an excuse for violence. Better to get it out in the open. I mean, it was gross and sick to see pictures of all those bodies and jumpers on 9/11, but what is the choice? To hide this reality so as to avoid talking about it? After all, if it’s okay and good to publish the Abu Ghraib pictures ad nauseum then it must be good to re-publish the cartoons, right?

Yes, by publishing such cartoons, European newspapers offended Muslims who’ve chosen to live in their lands. But when you choose to live in a secular democracy, do you not choose to abide by its dominant rule set? Should the goal of Europeans be to carve out a space for Muslims to be Muslims living as though they had never left the Middle East?

Upshot for me? I guess I care less about the provocation of the act than I do what comes next. Forcing debate, to me, is always good. Getting it out in the open, to me, is always good. But the key here is, what comes next?

There’s no question that Europeans need to find a social, economic and political space for Muslims in their societies. They either do this or decline mightily in coming decades. This is the kind of problem that you either rush toward its solution or scarier scenarios tend to rush toward you.

In the end, the cartoons end up being a very good thing, depending on what comes next.

Follow the money in India

ARTICLE: “Middle Class Drives India: Local-Level Bureaucrats Help Steer Country’s Economic Growth,” by John Larkin, Wall Street Journal, 7 February 2006, p. A6.

The rise of middle classes in both India and China is changing world history, by creating fewer babies, by the accompanying urbanization, by the demands created for domestic service and consumer economies-within-economies, and most of all by the general sense of social entitlements that comes with earning a good living, paying taxes, and expecting something in return. This sense of entitlement is suitably selfish. It gets expressed in the following way: “I work hard. I produce value and wealth. I pay my way. And I expect certain problems to simply be taken care of.”

These demanding middle class types want governments, and by that I mean local governments, to provide certain things, like infrastructure, transportation, networks, public safety, etc. They have stuff to protect and they want it protected. They work hard and they want that effort, and the time it represents, respected. They have created efficiency and order and they expect nothing less from their local governments.

Middle class types are unreasonable compared to the poor, because they expect so much , and because they can’t buy their way out of collective problems on an individual basis—like the rich. They need decent and honest local governments, and they’re willing to not just pay for them, but agitate for them, not in the streets but in meeting rooms and conference rooms and hearing rooms.

This story is a simple one, but a profound one: about local Indian bureaucrats who dramatically upgraded local bus networks because the growing middle class simply demanded such improvements. This is serious “freedom from …” kind of stuff, and the same thing is happening in China.

And it’s changing world history.

One for the thumb, only seven more to go for Steelers

TABLE: “Composite Super Bowl Records,” USA Today, 6 February 2006, p. 5C.

The Steelers get their long-awaited “one for the thumb,” and when Paul Tagliabue, commissioner of the NFL, gives the Vince Lombardi Trophy to the owner Dan Rooney, he congratulates the franchise on joining the Cowboys and 49ers as being the only NFL teams to win five Super Bowls.

Yes, yes, NFL history begins in January 1967, and nothing before that matters in terms of NFL championships.

Green Bay is 12-2 in NFL championships, and that’s all the Super Bowl is, despite all the hype. In the end, it’s just the NFL championship.

The Chicago Bears have 10 NFL championships, but are just 1-0 in Super Bowls. San Francisco never appeared in an NFL championship game prior to its Super Bowl appearances. Pittsburgh and Dallas never won any NFL championships prior to the Super Bowls. Green Bay won nine of them BEFORE the Super Bowls, and three Super Bowls since they began. Hell, Green Bay won six in the 1960s alone and six before Lombardi even showed up.

This is all NFL history, which began in 1920, with two teams surviving continuously since then: the Bears and the Giants. The Packers are the only team that has continuously survived since 1921. The Steelers, the 49ers, and the Cowboys all showed up several decades later, and they’ve all done well in recent decades, but they do not collectively define the NFL’s history.

Here endeth the lesson.

'The Monks of War' now available

Blueprint for Action is "Foreign Affairs" bestseller for 4th month in a row

There have been 23 months of "Foreign Affairs" bestseller lists, and my two books have appeared on 15 of them (11 for PNM and now 4 for BFA). No single author (as opposed to the 9/11 Commission authors, who sit atop the list at 17 appearances when both editions are counted) has appeared more than I have over that almost two-year time period. The only double-digit authors are Diamond (13), Fishman (12) and Friedman (10). Clearly, any of those books can easily catch me when BFA fades, and clearly, it's a bit unfair to count my two books against their singles, but I guess I won't be too ashamed about being so prolific!

Of course, none of this success should indicate that "Foreign Affairs" should ever dare to review either book. The Establishment knows best, I am sure.

I drop two spots this month, from 8th to 10th, but with four big new books breaking in ahead of me, that still feels pretty good.

Here's the list for February 2006:

The top-selling hardcover books on American foreign policy and international affairs. Rankings are based on national sales at Barnes & Noble stores and Barnes & Noble.com.

POSTED FEBRUARY 1, 2006

1) The World Is Flat by Thomas L. Friedman (1st last month, 10 months on list)

2) State of War by James Risen (new/1)

3) The Assassins' Gate by George Packer (3rd/4)

4) My Year in Iraq by L. Paul Bremer (new/1)

5) The Cold War by John Lewis Gaddis (new/1)

6) The Osama Bin Laden I Know by Peter L. Bergen (new/1)

7) Postwar by Tony Judt (4th/4)

8) Imperial Grunts by Robert D. Kaplan (6th/5)

9) China, Inc. by Ted C. Fishman (7th/12)

10) Blueprint for Action by Thomas P. M. Barnett (8th/4)

11) Collapse by Jared Diamond (2nd/13)

12) The Great War for Civilisation by Robert Fisk (5th/3)

13) 9/11 Commission Report by National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (9th/17)

14) The Case for Goliath by Michael Mandelbaum (new/1)

15) Future Jihad by Walid Phares (12th/3).

The bestseller list is published monthly by Foreign Affairs magazine. Rankings are based on national sales at Barnes & Noble stores and Barnes & Noble.com in January 2006.

Slow Pentagon for a long war

ARTICLE: “Rumsfeld Offers Strategies for Current War: Pentagon to Release 20-Year Plan Today,” by Josh White and Scott Tyson, Washington Post, 3 February 2006, p. A8.

ARTICLE: “$120 Billion More Is Sought For Military in War Zones,” by David S. Cloud, New York Times, 3 February 2006, p. A12.

ARTICLE: “Another $120B sought for wars: Rebuilding is extra; more requests likely,” by Richard Wolf, USA Today, 3 February 2006, p. 1A.

ARTICLE: “Army Pledges No Cutbacks in National Guard: Recruiting Shortfalls Led To Proposed Reductions,” Washington Post, 3 February 2006, p. A8.

ARTICLE: “Abizaid Credited With Popularizing the Term ‘Long War,’” by Bradley Graham and Josh White, Washington Post, 3 February 2006, p. A8.

My opinion of the QDR is that, like all before it, it’s a snapshot in time of the correlation of forces within the Defense Department. I see a Big Peace force on the rise in the Army and Marines, who seem themselves in a Long War where they’ll be forced to win most of the time “non-kinetically.” I see a Big War force that’s holding on in the Navy and Air Force solely because, unless forced to, Cold Warrior Don Rumsfeld will both “transform” in the right direction but still try to love all his children equally.

Rumsfeld’s strategy works only in a world where the White House says anything goes budget-wise because we’re “in a war.” But that won’t last, so the Big War force will lose ground to the Ground Pounders come the next administration, no matter who wins. You can’t blow off such massive debt for the long haul, because the rest of the world (especially the Chinese) won’t pay for it forever.

The rest of the world wants a Long Peace and wants that Big Peace force funded.

So, for now, “A’s” all around with a huge “F” for sustainability. It is unsustainable to buy a Big War force in a Small War world. It is unsustainable to expect the Chinese to pay for a Big War force directed primarily against them. It is unsustainable to deny ourselves the aid of major allies, to include China most of all (that body shop of a military). It is unsustainable not to do a better job gaining acceptance of our new security rule sets in this Long War because we’re so highhanded and arrogant in our application.

Bush sets the right course. He just does it a way that’s completely unsustainable, and to me, in the end, that’s bad grand strategy. Bush begins the Long War but he and his crew need to exit stage right before we can get seriously prepared to win it.

The Army is serious about moving in this direction, as is Special Operations Command and the Marines. For now, because the White House indulges them, neither the Air Force or the Navy has gotten with the program. When the Navy brags how its huge destroyers are justified because they can also insert SEALs, you know strategic logic has left the building.

So while Rumsfeld may choose to love all his children (i.e., the services) equally, given the complete lack of fiscal responsibility from above (still want to have a “CEO government”?), the having-it-all approach of this QDR is exactly NOT what the strategic doctor ordered, because it is so incredibly unsustainable. Amazingly, the QDR fails most profoundly in that which it was exactly designed to achieve: the art of the long view.

My prediction?

Army and Marines will continue to lead, providing the best generals, the best strategists, the best trainers and doctrinal entrepreneurs. These two services, along with SOCOM, will produce the bulk of the best and brightest in coming years. These generals will become the great movers and shakers.

Much of this moving and shaking will center first and foremost on training and doctrine, and over time this operational accumulation of reality will overshadow the dreams of the Air Force and Navy for a future force that’s only useful in futures worth avoiding. Acquisition will change most slowly, but over time those expensive and poorly justified programs of record will have fewer and fewer operational experiences, field manuals, scenarios, etc. to point at, connect with, or generally engage.

So celebrate while you can, Big War crowd, because this was your last great gasp. Too many Marines and soldiers will die in the meantime, but that’s what happens when you choose machines over men, Big War over the Big Peace, Leviathan over SysAdmin, and “communist” China over China our inevitable strategic partner.

You can’t deal with the future unless you let go of the past. We have three more years of this mindset, but then it’s gone.

In the Big Banged Middle East, radical is as radical does

OP-ED: “Muslim Radicals In Power,” by David Ignatius, Washington Post, 3 February 2006, p. A18.

ARTICLE: “Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood May Be Model for Islam’s Political Adaptation,” by Daniel Williams, Washington Post, 3 February 2006, p. A14.

Very interesting piece by the routinely impressive Ignatius, who has mastered that careful style of floating the provocative without seeming preachy. Here he challenges us to consider exactly what it means to see radical Muslims reach power by citing the adaptations of Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon. Not pretty, and sure as hell not always to our liking, but clearly an adaptation. As one Lebanese Shiite leader of Hezbollah points out, the great reason why so many radical Muslims have hated America over the years has been our support for dictatorships in the region, so Bush’s push for democratization can bring about serious change in that situation, but only if we’re willing to accept what that democratization yields, which will be Islamist states.

As I wrote in BFA, expecting anything other than Islamists states in the region is simply silly, so if Bush’s push for democratization softens Muslim anger and gets rids of dictators over time, that’s a doubleplusgood worth fighting and dying for.

Remember: a lot of people fighting for their rights are “terrorists” right up until they assume power. Is the key for us always saying no to SoAndSo? Or is it getting rid of transnational terrorism?

A lot of experts inside the Beltway expect Egypt to undergo significant unrest in coming years, with the Muslim Brotherhood as the rising democratic challenge to Mubarek’s long dictatorship. Amazing, but check out how the Brotherhood is winning hearts and minds, and ask yourself: Will their inevitable rise to power do more to connect average Egyptians to the world at large than has been achieved by decades of “emergency rule” by Mubarek?

I know “Bush lied, thousands died” is the current judgment of many Americans, but I really believe that history will look very kindly upon Bush for this bold stroke. A lot of presidents before him promised movement in the region and accomplished nothing, but Bush may well go down in history as the guy who changed it all.

Crying ‘Muhammad’ in crowded theater

ARTICLE: “Temperatures Rise Over Cartoons Mocking Muhammad: European publishers seem stuck in a valley of culture difference,” by Craig S. Smith and Ian Fisher, New York Times 3 February 2006, p. A3.

The Danes did something stupid when they published cartoons depicting Muhammad, because they knew full well that any such depictions are inherently offensive to Muslims. Claiming equal treatment with other religions is nonsense. It’s a different line in Islam than it is in Christianity. The line for Christians would be more like depicting Jesus Christ as Mary Magdalene’s lover (a favorite over the years): artistic freedom to some, but patently offensive to others.

Reprinting the cartoons as some sort of solidarity statement was equally goofy, because it just pours gasoline on a fire.

Coming after the French riots and the European governments’ growing awareness of the rising alienation among ghettoized Muslim populations across the continent, this is just rubbing salt in wounds. “Fuck ‘em if they can’t take a joke” is an excellent bar room rejoinder, but it’s no way to encourage assimilation and the toleration of diversity in a civilization that’s frankly dying within because it does both so poorly.

I mean, you see the Europeans shooting themselves in the feet on this one and you just have to laugh out loud at this slew of books over the past year predicting how Europe is going to lead the world as the next great superpower. Good God! Could reality and rhetoric be more separated?

All the Europeans do by this sort of insensitivity is simply raise the price they will ultimately pay in making their countries open and welcoming to Muslims.

And if you’re going to tell me that Europe won’t need those Muslims, don’t bother. Europe either makes this happen or recedes into the backseat of history, where, quite frankly, that sort of boneheadedness belongs.

Get smart on the Mexican election

OP-ED: “Old or New Mexico--Voters Will Choose in July,” by Mary Anastasia O’Grady, Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2006, p. A13.

Nothing to add on this one except that I found it an nifty piece of self-education. Mary Anastasia O’Grady can grate now and then, but she is consistently strong and provocative.

Why big mouths don’t translate into big actions on Iran

ARTICLE: “Why U.S. Wages Diplomacy With Defiant Iran: Strike on Nuclear Sites Could Derail Reformers, Trigger Broad Retaliation,” by Carla Anne Robbins and Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2006, p. A4.

ARTICLE: “Hurdles Await U.S. Bid for Sanctions Against Iran: Compromise, Interpretations Cloud Agreement for Reports On Tehran’s Nuclear Efforts,” by Marc Champion, Neil King Jr., and David Crawford, Wall Street Journal, 1 February 2006, p. A6.

EDITORIAL: “An ‘Intolerable’ Threat: What a world with an Iranian nuclear weapon would look like,” Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2006, p. A12.

ARTICLE: “Senators grill intelligence chief about surveillance: Negroponte says it’s ‘probably true’ that N. Korea has nukes,” by John Diamond, USA Today, 3 February 2006, p. 4A.

Greg Jaffe’s piece with Carla Robbins is a tremendous explanation of the reasons why the Bush Administration, while talking plenty tough, has actually taken a fairly reasoned and low-key approach to Iran.

They argue that it would be easy to lay facilities to rubble, but that Iran’s distribution strategy means that impact would be minimal in terms of actually setting back their efforts (hence the argument of some that the only quick successful strike would necessarily be a nuclear one).

But the main reason why the administration wisely lays off is the fear of blowback from a population (Shiite) that frankly hasn’t been the bulk of our problem yet in the region, so why add them to the battle against the exclusively Sunni-based Salafi jihadist movement?

That’s the fear, but the hope is not small either. State and the White House are smart enough to know that there are substantial reformist elements and a rather restive, largely pro-American population that’s not worth losing.

Clearly, our inability to master the second-halves in both Afghanistan (where we do better than people realize) and Iraq (pretty tough slog still) is the underlying cause of our inability to threaten Iran with much beyond the lightning strikes. So if we’re going to keep the Big Bang rolling in the time remaining in this administration, we’ll have to do it by coopting Iran, not invading it.

So radical when I wrote it a year ago, but looking more and more like the only logical play for us. It’s so logical, in fact, that Bush is willing to suffer the criticism from all sides that he’s not being “tough enough.”

Fortunately, or unfortunately, our sanctions, however arranged, won’t have much impact, so the long-term squeeze on Iran yields us only one significant positive: a longer conversation with Europe, Russia, China and (hopefully) India on what we collectively want the Middle East to look like in coming years and decades.

“Intolerable” to the WSJ, but the board is blowing smoke on this one, because they’re ignoring the sheer realities of how tied down our ground forces are right now.

Actually, the WSJ editorial shoots itself in the foot, by quoting Simon Jenkins, editor of the Times of London: “I would sleep happier if there were no Iranian bomb. But a swamp of hypocrisy separates me from overly protesting it. Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its West… How can we say such a country has ‘no right’ to nuclear defense?”

Ouch!

But clearly, a country that supports terrorism outside its borders can’t be trusted with the bomb?

Double ouch, as only India might be easily excluded from that list.

Meanwhile, new Director of National Intelligence says North Korea probably already has the nukes.

I mean, Iran will always dream of one thing first: Iran’s continued survival in a world where it has existed for thousands of years.

But North Korea? You know Kim fears the inevitable: his country will disappear. It will disappear like South Vietnam, the lesser Yemen (can’t remember), and East Germany. It will not survive because it is a relic that’s lived beyond its time.

That regime and that leader truly has nothing to lose by going out with a bang.

And that’s why Kim needs to go.

DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE: We are NOT funding both sides in the War on Terrorism

ARTICLE: "Bush's Latest Energy Solution, Like its Forebearers, Faces Hurdles," by John J. Fialka and Jeffrey Ball, Wall Street Journal, 2 February 2006, p. A1.

It's Tom Friedman's latest sound-bite ploy, and it's totally nonsense. But someone with his media power says it, it can have a lot of impact.

Friedman says that when Americans use oil, we really fund global terrorism, in addition to funding the war to stop it.

He's wrong on both counts.

The reality is, if America can't float it's sovereign debt, then we can't fund the Defense Department in this war at a level that keeps us active overseas. Who buys that debt? It gets bought by old security allies (like the Europeans) and heavy trade partners (like Japan and China, both of whom now hold close to $1 trillion in U.S. debt, making them the leaders by far). These countries fund our Global War on Terrorism because they have neither the will nor the wallet to make it happen on their own, so they outsource this essential global function to the Americans. This is why it's important that we make them happy with how we conduct it. No happy, no funding.

Americans also do not fund the terrorist side in this war by using oil. Let's remember some key facts here.

First, oil is about 40 percent of our energy consumption.

Of that 40%, we import about 60%, meaning imported oil accounts for about 25 percent of our total energy use.

How much of that imported oil supports terrorism?

The vast bulk of our imports come from the following countries: Canada (#1), UK (#10), Russia (9), Mexico (2), Venezuela (4), Nigeria (5), and Angola (8). These countries, none of which can be described as funders of radical Salafi jihadists, account for 37% of our oil consumption. Three Muslim countries (Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Algeria) collectively now account for 12% of our oil consumption. That's a whopping 5% of our total energy consumption. Let's posit, just for the sake of argument, that 5% of that money is spent on promoting radical Islamic ideals harmful to global stability, and that 5% of that 5% might actually make it in the hands of terrorists who would use it to harm Americans and their interests in this world. Now we're down to 1/100th of one percent of U.S. energy spending somehow being used against us, and even that figure probably overstates reality several fold.

Then realize that energy spending is only a fraction of the U.S. economy.

Then compare that calculation to the amount of economic connectivity America had with other enemies in other wars throughout history and tell me that somehow this situation is profound or ironic or sad or hypocritical.

And then tell me that our only reasonable answer is to launch some "man to the moon" like effort to recast our energy profile.

Our economic and political-military interaction with the outside world is a profoundly complex thing, deserving of seriously ambitious attempts at explanation, visioneering, and grand strategizing.

And guess what? Journalists aren't the answer, though they provide a lot of good questions. Outsourcing strategy to people whose main skills come in describing current affairs and critiquing current responses is a mistake, because what you will get, time and time again, are simplistic answers like this.

Plenty of op-ed columnists do this well, taking their analysis right up to the point of advocacy but not pretending that they're offering comprehensive grand strategy upon which major policy turns should be based, much less major government interventions into the private sector (how come we so often advocate huge socialist answers to the problems we encounter because our form of capitalism is being so damn successfull in spreading itself around the planet?).

My advice: you want to be a strategic thinker, then lay off the junk food. Friedman's a brilliant describer of our complex world, and when he sticks to that amazing skill he's a huge help in promoting understanding, probably doing more to educate Americans about globalization than any other thinker in this age. But please, no swallowing this Kool-Aid.

Russia hasn’t dropped out of the Core yet

ARTICLE: “Goldman Sachs Rediscovers Russia: A Race for Underwriting Business,” by Heather Timmons, New York Times, 3 February 2006, p. C3.

Last Economist listed Russia as experiencing the greatest percentage uptick in foreign direct investment right now among top emerging markets.

And as this article points out, Russia is not only aggressively courting foreign investments, Russian companies, “buoyed by high oil and gas prices, are expected to engage in acquisitions this year and will be looking for help from big Western banks.”

I know, I know. The “loss” of a democracy that was never there, and some serious grabbing for power by the state in the natural resources sector, but so long as Russia remains open for money, connectivity with the outside world improves. That, coupled with a lot of social connectivity (Russians come and go as they please and they excel in many global sectors, especially sports), means Russia stays in the Core for now.

Ah, but they have seemingly so many conditions for their partnership on security issues. Yes they do, but the synching up of those requirements with those of the Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Europeans, Americans, Brazilians, etc. is the process of building the next generation of security regimes for the Core as a whole. It’s happening, slowly but surely, over Iran and North Korea. Won’t end up looking like our preferred vision across the dial, but if done well, the threat of major wars recedes into history—gone for good.

Remember that when you want to get all jacked up about this “increasingly dangerous world” that strikes so many as more dangerous than the Cold War. If you can’t get past that myth then you can’t see the world for what it is today, and what it will become tomorrow.

The Echo Boomers/Millenials wave moves into adult magazines

ARTICLE: “Two Women’s Magazines Shift Focus to ‘Millennials’: The search is on for serious-minded female readers in their 20’s,” by Julie Bosman, New York Times, 3 February 2006, p. C3.

I just like to note signs that generational waves are breaking into new demographic territory, like spotting all the Spanish programming for the 0-5 age group. Here we’re talking about the Echo Boomers (my preferred phrase, since Millennials is a bit too Y2K/kookish for me) catching the attention of the women’s mags that target the twentysomethings.

As always, we are told that the Echo Boomers are dramatically different from the slackers of Gen X. Instead of not caring much, this generation is described as serious and caring a whole lot about the larger world outside the U.S. As the head of Marie Claire(!) put it: “I think what we strive to do every month editorially is address the needs of affluent urban women who do not want to live their lives with a blind eye to the world.”

Hmmm. Sounds good. Every little bit helps.

State of the weblog

I've been your webmaster for two weeks now and I thought I'd give y'all a little report from my standpoint.

Comments

Comments are going very well. We reached 150 (published) comments last night. The person with the most comments is... myself. But that doesn't really count since it's literally my job, so the honor should really go to TM Lutas. Thanks, TM for all of your thoughtful comments and content. (Not to mention the fact that his comments add much more to the conversation than my more 'social' comments.)

When I originally opened comments up, Bill L asked me to report in a couple of weeks on how many commenters I've had to ban. The answer is: no one who's not a spam-bot. So thanks, everyone for playing nice. We've had some disagreements, but that's obviously part of worthwhile dialogue. In fact, we could stand to have more civil disagreements.

Amazon Connect

Tom's Plog launched at Amazon Connect this week. The way I understand it, if you've purchased PNM or BFA from Amazon, you'll get Tom's Plog posts on your Amazon home page by default. Otherwise you have to change your settings to get them automatically. Beyond that, you have to view Tom's books or profile to find his Plog. I've been crossposting one post per day over there with links back here. 106 people have taken the trouble to vote on whether or not they like the post. That's more interaction with the material (albeit on a low level), than I figured we'd get.

Statistics

We average more than 6300 sessions per day with an average of over 9 minutes. That's pretty sticky, from what I've seen in the weblogging world.

Blitzkrieg

DATELINE: In the Shire, Indy, 4 February 2004

This week went by in a blur. I mean it. I'm having trouble piecing together all the places Steve DeAngelis and I rushed to, all the people we met in those places, all the possibilities revealed and the opportunities posed. How Steve keeps it all straight in his head is simply amazing. I'm so here and now, but Steve's got like this unreal filing cabinet in his brain where he's always got reminders going off, saying we need to get back to this subject, this person, this company, this something. He is the perfect match for my career right now, because the parade is nonstop and I simply need somebody to see all the connections and business opportunities, which Steve manages on top of his own stunning agenda of non-stop activity.

I feel like I left on Tuesday. I had one night in Yardley, then a blur of a day in the office in Enterra. We do a stop on the ride down to DC, meeting with a manufacturing client in Delaware. Then a great after-dinner meeting with Frank Akers (another blur-meister, I don't think Frank sleeps in the same bed two nights in a row).

Thursday was a morning meeting in Maryland with a big corporation, and then lunch and another meeting with a key player in the intell community, then an intense meeting of the senior players Steve has put together for Enterra Solutions's Washington Operations Center (a frighteningly competent and focused group--excluding my vague, visionary self, of course). Then I bag it for some room service and blogging while Steve heads out for another brain-busting evening strategy meeting with yet another company that wants some relationship with Enterra in the best way. Steve and I got to talk over that latest opportunity during a midnight fire drill at our hotel, which was fun.

Friday we're up, strategizing over breakfast coffee, then I head over to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where I speak to a large audience in their lower-level conference room. It is one of the best briefs I've ever delivered, and probably one of the funniest. Hard to explain, but the audience just brought it out. Too bad C-SPAN passed, cause Evan Bayh's bit was a poor substitute (I caught him on the network that night, taped at CSIS apparently earlier in the day), staring at his text and pretending that calling everyone in sight our enemy/threat constitutes a "tough but smart" national security strategy. Smart, my man, is getting what you want, not simply labeling more countries deserving of our "tough stance." Seriously, I am getting more and more worried about the candidates for president in 2008, on both sides, because it's like some idiotic race--already!--to declare the world to be going to hell in a hand-basket and thereby deserving of all sorts of "tougher" U.S. foreign policy. Outdoing Bush is not improving Bush. Please, let's get that straight.

After the CSIS talk, I went out to lunch with the head of International Resources Group, a very connected, very experienced, and very wise man by the name of Asif Shaikh, who's been a friend and regular mentor for roughly a decade. Asif's a Pakistani by birth, a real citizen of the world, and probably one of the smartest American patriots I've ever known (he likes to remind me he's been an American longer than I have--ha!). He's a serious compass for me and it was great to see him. Asif's talked me into keynoting a foreign aid conference on Valentine's Day. Not just anyone can put me at that much risk with my spouse, but for Asif, I will do it.

Then I take the Metro out the orange line and catch a cab to the National Conference Center (the old Xerox training center). I am whisked into a big auditorium, hook up, and then, after a quick head call, I'm signing books non-stop for 20 minutes for a long line of naval medical officers before giving a 1:40 talk and doing 20 Q&A. Then back for another 20 minutes of rapid-fire signings where my hand gets kind of shaky near the end.

Then I'm in my dorm-like room at the conference center (I swear, they filmed "Andromeda Strain" here) by 2130, which was weird, because my travel nights almost never end with me in a room before 10pm. I'm blitzed, so I check email: a couple of interesting offers to speak in China and perhaps join some new think tank that will bring together Chinese and Western strategists. I speak to Steve about it on the phone before going to bed. We agree it's cool and intriguing, but where would I be going if I'm building those types of global bridges while advising people across the national security community? I mean, the paranoia on China right now is profound, so what are my logical choices?

Fly back today through Dulles, editing my first column for the Knoxville News Sentinel on the flight. Then drive straight to Terre Haute for some kidsitting to let my spouse and older kids see a movie. I end up napping with my two-year-old, which, quite frankly, was damn cool. I'm going to start considering this whole going comatose in the mid-afternoon thing more often, cause it's quite refreshing.

Then we caravan everybody back to Indy, where the Families with Children from China have a Chinese New Year's celebration in the famous Indy Children's Museum. The whole place is rented out for the night, so we have a blast. Still, a weird way to end a day that begins in VA. Felt like I was moving all day, save for the nap, and the all-day snow storm here added to my sense of discombobulation.

I fear this whole year is going to be like this week, but I am ready for it. This is going to be a year of making a lot of things happen--for real.

A few tidbits from Tom-on-Amazon

Because why should e-consumers have all the fun?

Tom's Favorite books (with links over there to the Amazon pages for these books, if you're interested in buying them)

• Best book on globalization: Martin Wolf, Why Globalization Works
• Best book on terror networks: Marc Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks
• Best book on Fourth Generation Warfare: Thomas Hammes, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century
• Best book on ideology: Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit, Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies
• Best book on economic development: Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else
• Best book on the environment: Bjorn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
• Best book on the future: Bjorn Lomborg, editor, Global Crises, Global Solutions

Tom's interests (as posted over there):

Big reader of newspapers and magazines of all sorts, but favorites are New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Esquire, Washington Post, The Economist and Variety.

Listening? Favorites from youth are Talking Heads, Psychedelic Furs, B-52s and Kraftwerk. Currents are Coldplay, Beck, Radiohead and U2 (actually, they hail from my youth too!).

"Watch" includes Family Guy, Simpsons, Sopranos and Sleeper Cell, plus I'm a big movie watcher, with favorite directors Ridley Scott, Michael Mann, Steven Soderberg, Hiyao Miyazaki, Quentin Tarantino and the guy who did "Love Actually."

Hobbies now are all defined by kids, so it's anime, comics, videogames, golf, running, and playgrounds in general. Oh, and anything having to do with Sponge Bob Square Pants (I'm a huge fan of Plankton and his plans to "rule the world").

Sublimating...

Dateline: still in that nice hotel, Washington DC, 2 February 2006

Whirlwind days of meetings at Steve DeAngelis' side. If I can't rule the world through my vision, I'm making a decent run at conquering it at the big man's side. Enterra Solutions is so hot right now, our biggest problem is figuring out how to grow fast enough--whether it's in the commercial sector or the federal one. And the development-in-the-box concept is generating its own particular buzz with a network of thinkers and do-ers that I'm most excited to be associated with right now--to include Steve especially.

All this and word that Jack McElroy, editor of the Knoxville News Sentinel really liked my first column and will run it Sunday after next, softens the blow that comes with the news that my PR people yet again failed to get C-SPAN excited enough to cover a pair of DC briefs I'll be giving tomorrow (one for CSIS and one for the Navy). Just can't figure it out, but honestly, it was Brian Lamb who made it last time, and I think we just didn't make the connection to him this time, so no amount of jawboning with the C-SPAN execs is going to change that.

Eventually, I think I'll get another brief on TV, but frankly, the possibility of getting the column more widely read is far better. Nothing like building up the built-in audience, and a couple dozen columns each year, plus the usual 2-3 in Esquire and the continued high frequency with the Leigh Bureau's speaking gigs, and I should be in good shape for Vol. III with somebody.

That is, if Enterra doesn't capture all my attention this year with this rocket-ride of a trajectory.

I mean, it's all fun and games to write about globalization and technology, but even cooler to actually pull some of it off.

And if I haven't thanked all those readers enough who sent me all those emails when I was forced out by the Naval War College exactly a year ago this weekend, all those people who said I'd be so much better off and so much happier and more charged and challenged by all the opportunities that awaited me, then let me do so again tonight.

If I'm still at the college, then there's no BFA, no contributing editor at Esquire, no regular newspaper column, no Leigh Bureau, no Steve DeAngelis, no Enterra Solutions and whatever that monster eventually grows into, no Frank Akers and Oak Ridge National Lab gig, no gig at Howard Baker at U. Tenn (go Vols!), no move to Indy, no new house, no crappy apart--damn! Knew I was pushing my luck.

We wanted the ball in play in the Middle East, and now we have it

ARTICLE: “Israeli troops, settlers battle as homes are torn down: Operation to demolish illegal dwellings is part of obligations under U.S.-backed peace plan,” by Matthew Gutman, USA Today, 2 February 2006, p. 6A.

OP-ED: “Squaring Islam With Democracy,” by Jim Hoagland, Washington Post, 2 February 2006, p. A21.

ARTICLE: “Arabs join in pressuring Hamas over Israel,” by Associated Press, International Herald Tribune, 1 February 2006, p. 4.

ARTICLE: “Both Fatah and Hamas Leaders Urge West to Continue Aid to Palestinians,” by Greg Myre, New York Times, 31 January 2006, p. A8.

ARTICLE: “Hamas Faces Crisis if Funding Dries Up,” by Karby Leggett, Wall Street Journal, 31 January 2006, p. A7.

OP-ED: “Declining option on Iran,” by H.D.S. Greenway, International Herald Tribune, 1 February 2006, p. 7.

ARTICLE: “Sanctions Threat Prompts Big Firms To Cut Iran Ties,” by Glenn R. Simpson and John R. Wilke, Wall Street Journal, 31 January 2006, p. A3.

ARTICLE: “A rainbow of revolutions: If outsiders make such a mess of getting rid of despots, why not encourage the locals to have a go? The Economist, 21 January 2006, p. 23.

This has been my complaint with the Bush administration since it toppled Saddam: their goal was to set things in motion in the Middle East, which they did. But then the White House basically has done nothing to keep things rolling or take advantage of new opportunities as they emerged.

Instead, it’s been a rather unimaginative affair after the bold step of toppling Saddam. Much of that was due to the bungling of the occupation period and then the long hard slog out of that valley since the spring of 2004.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s nothing wrong with the push for democracy, but absent a larger effort to push economic connectivity all you end up doing is providing more immediate venues for the anger of the disconnected masses to spring forth.

Is that so bad? Frankly, it beats the alternative of rigid ruling elites keeping a lid on all that so the only way it can escape is through terrorism directed abroad or against foreigners within the region. And letting them gain rule? Again, will Hamas be any more ineffective at leading than Fatah was, and if Hamas persists in its nonsense vis-à-vis Israel, all it will end up achieving is speeding up Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank and securing itself behind that Berlin Wall it’s building. In the end, all that really happens is that we break stalemates and get to the logical ending faster.

And guess what? That was the whole purpose of the Big Bang in the first place.

Hoagland has it right. Now is not the time for timidity. It’s the time to reach out and work the fluid political scenes we’re being confronted with:

Bush should not abandon his push for Middle Eastern democracy because radicals draw temporary advantage from it. But he needs to reexamine where that push is taking him. This means forging a new Western strategy to engage with and support moderate forms of political Islam, rather than assuming that democratic elections and other reforms will automatically separate religion and politics and devalue the former in favor of the latter.

Honestly, I don’t think that’s Bush’s assumption, nor Cheney’s. I think they’re more than comfortable watching the Big Bang continue to stir things up. I just think they need to get into the game, instead of just sitting on the sidelines or repeating the WMD dynamic with Iran like it’s the only pathway we know.

And frankly, dangling that reduction of the “oil addiction,” like the U.S. Government ‘s going to engineer that soon in one of those mythical “Manhattan Projects” that op-ed columnists are always calling for, is just plain pandering to the polls in the short term.

Hamas coming to power doesn’t reduce our options, it increases them. But only if we actually see the fluidity introduced to the strategic environment and don’t just recoil back in horror.

Hamas is being pressured by other Arab regimes over its intransigent stance with Israel. With Fatah in power, we’ve got those same regimes basically sitting on their hands. With Hamas, we’ve got them agitating in the right direction.

Hamas is not stupid. Without Western aid, their vaunted social welfare efforts with the masses evaporate. I mean, as long as that rat bastard thief Arafat was in power, we were simply putting money in his pocket. Now, we actually have some leverage. Question is, will Rice’s State do anything about that, or just stick with their admission that no one saw it coming?

Meanwhile, on Iran, we’ve played out our sanctions threat for the mean time, as we couldn’t get China and Russia to send the issue packing to the UN Security Council.

Rest assured, many pundits and experts will be undeterred, and make all sorts of loose talk about bombing away Iran’s nuclear effort, but the vast majority have no idea what they’re talking about.

Smart money says if we hope to really take out Iran’s capacity, we’ll have to go nuclear or simply satisfy ourselves with conventionals that do damage but don’t finish the job.

As for finishing the job a la Iraq, we simply don’t have the rotational capacity right now, and we won’t for the rest of the Bush administration. That die is cast.

So sure, we can scare off Western firms from any business with Iran, but don’t expect the Chinese and Russians and Indians to leave the scene. There’s simply too much at stake economically for all three.

Disconnecting Iran with this slow strangle might seem to reduce our options, but again, Hoagland’s point applies across the board. I mean, isn’t it amazing that when Iran has a reformist president, we know that’s complete BS because the Ayatollah really runs everything, and yet when the hardliner’s in the presidency, somehow all of a sudden he’s running everything?

If that were so, you’d have to explain why the Ayatollah selected Rafsanjani, the moderate loser in the presidential election, to head the Expediency Council that mediates disputes between the parliament, the mullahs and—now—the government too. You’d have to explain why Ahmadinejad’s first several picks for oil minister were rejected by the parliament. Yes, you’d have to explain away a lot of things like that.

Then again, you’d have to notice them first.

Peaceful revolutions from within are always going to be more frequent than America-led violent overthrows from outside. It’s been true for decades now, and it will be true for decades into the future.

But that only makes our choices for military interventions more important. Pick the right place for the Big Bang, and then follow-up aggressively on the aftermath.

Score one for Bush on Saddam, but score zero ever since.

And to me, that’s what makes the 2k+ dead since “mission accomplished” more than hard to take.

Gotta have those happy endings. Without them, no sacrifices make sense.

How hard is it to stop the killing in Sudan?

OP-ED: “A genocide that America can help to stop: Bolton should schedule a meeting of the Security Council in Darfur,” by Kenneth H. Bacon, International Herald Tribune, 1 February 2006, p. 6.

OP-ED: “A no-flight zone is key,” by Kurt Bassuener, International Herald Tribune, 1 February 2006, p. 6.

Amazing how so many politicians, some with presidential ambitions, seem so bold about bombing Iran, but can we get a couple to talk about dropping a few on Sudan?

The idea of a no-fly-zone is not nutty whatsoever. That’s all we did for the Kurds for 12 years and it turned out to be the most successful U.S. nation-building story since WWII.

We’re sitting on top of the world, so to speak, holding the chair of the UN Security Council for a month. Since the Chinese and Russians won’t let us do anything with Iran in February, how about letting John Bolton, a man who hates tyranny, go all nutty on Khartoum’s war-criminal regime?

The no-fly-zone concept is a reasonable course, one we might actually talk the Chinese into accepting, since it doesn’t topple the regime they’re so cozy with and would actually increase the security of their oil interests there. Meanwhile, we make it that much harder for the janjaweed to do their thing. I mean, hey, it ain’t the Air Force that’s being run ragged in the southwest Asia. Done right, this is a low-to-no casualty affair (Remember how many U.S. servicemen and women died running the no-fly-zones over Iraq all those years? Of course you don’t. That wasn’t an operation where we lost people.).

The African Union has no tactical air power, and never will. The U.S. shows up as hub of that SysAdmin peacekeeping effort or it never happens--never. Want all that blood on your hands, or do we never count sins of omission?

Would you like to be unabashedly proud of American foreign policy again? The SysAdmin is your man.