Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 10:35AM The Stupidest Man on Earth (not my call, but his handle) writes about the golden age" of Afghanistan--i.e., 2003-05.
Very nicely delivered post.
Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 2:56AM ARTICLE: China breaks its silence on Afghanistan, By M K Bhadrakumar, Asia Times, Feb 25, 2009
I like the baseline reporting in this piece, specifically the analysis of the People's Daily editorial. The rest is the usual Indian strategic paranoia.
What I see here: China sees the logic of settling with the Taliban re: some carved out entity that traverses the Durand Line that artificially cuts the Pashtun area that straddles Afghanistan and Pakistan. Such an outcome is impossible given Pakistan's obsession with "strategic depth" vis-a-vis India, thus the need to treat Kashmir as part and parcel of the overall solution. Beijing is thus signaling its willingness to see Holbrooke and the Americans broker a larger deal. Implicitly then, India's strategic needs must be met somehow and Pakistan's territorial integrity somehow diminished. On the SCO meet, Beijing is basically saying, Russia is on its own in the gamesmanship.
Overall, a nice tone from Beijing: sees the larger issues and says it will do nothing to sabotage any settlement of such larger issues.
As for what they will do to help vice just avoiding obstructionism?
Yet to be seen.
(Thanks: Louis Heberlein)
Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 2:51AM ARTICLE: Return of the War Party, By Patrick J. Buchanan, The American Conservative, February 27, 2009
Lotsa people sending me Buchanan stuff where he's worrying still about rush-to-war effort within GOP on Iran.
This one is pretty good.
I do agree that this will be a big GOP attack on Obama re: 2012.
And yeah, it'll be nutty given Israel's mature, 200-warhead capacity and the fact that Iran is a long ways away from anything close to be equivalent.
This war will be, as I have often noted, merely about protecting Israel's monopoly on WMD in the region. That is truly a fool's errand for 2 reasons: it cannot be preserved and Israel has achieved nothing with it in terms of a stable peace.
All that proves is that one-sided nuclear equations have yet to work in human history while 2-sided ones have yet to fail.
(Thanks: joe)
Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 1:59AM ARTICLE: Gaming In The Russian Cosmos, Part 1, by Jim Rossignol, Rock, Paper, Shotgun on January 5, 2009
First comes the hacking, then comes the spamming, then comes the phishing, and . . . then comes some sense that maybe protecting IP in its one's own interest.
(Thanks: James Dongweck)
Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 1:04AM FRONT PAGE: "In Bolivia, Untapped Bounty Meets Nationalism," by Simon Romero, New York Times, 3 February 2009.
All those batteries for hybrids and electric cars: half of the world's lithium resides in Bolivia.
Watch this bounty tear Bolivia apart.
Saturday, February 28, 2009 at 1:02AM FRONT PAGE: "U.S. Aided a Failed Plan to Rout Ugandan Rebels," by Jeffrey Gettleman and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, 7 February 2009.
Africom advisers work with the Ugandan military, helping them plan an operation designed to see its forces swoop down in the remote area of a huge Congolese national park where the Ugandan rebel group, the Lord's Resistance Army, is hiding out.
Short story: fog delays entry into the park and by the time the Ugandans hit the camp, the LRA is long gone. To return the favor, the LGA go on a--usual, for them--spree of murdering, raping and pillaging local unprotected villages, carting off numbers of kids as forced conscripts into their army.
Naturally, human rights groups condemn the action . . . of the Ugandan military, saying in effect, "you stirred up this hornet's nest and weren't prepared for the consequences."
Fair enough criticism, but the whole story gives you a sense of the frontier unlawfulness that chunks of disconnected Africa must endure.
Friday, February 27, 2009 at 2:22AM OP-ED: "Paging Uncle Sam: From Seoul, a feel for how the world is watching Washington," by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 25 February 2009.
Nice piece by Friedman. Couldn't agree more.
This is basically the same answer I've given numerous times now in interviews about Great Powers: there are plenty of number 2s, 3s, etc., out there, but no other putative #1--plain and simple.
A South Korean official:
No other country can substitute for the U.S., The U.S. is still No. 1 in military, No. 1 in economy, No. 1 in promoting human rights and No. 1 in idealism. Only the U.S. can lead the world. No other country can. China can't. The E.U. is too divided, and Europe is militarily far behind the U.S. So it is only the United States . . . We have never had a more unipolar world than we have today.
Okay, a bit much. We need China to make that $600B stimulus package work and to help us finance our own one of almost $800 billion. We need it to remain confident about markets and capitalism in general. We need it to remain aggressively pro-globalization, and remain stable at home. And we need its help across a host of troubled nation situations.
And China just stands at the top of a significant list of rising great powers whose help we can greatly use right now.
But the main point is correct: the world still expects us to lead, but not to command.
Friday, February 27, 2009 at 2:18AM OPINON: "Obamas Intelligence Choice," by Gabriel Schoenfeld, Wall Street Journal, 25 February 2009.
Schoenfeld can always be counted upon to bash anyone who does not meet the 100% support mark for Israel, and he predictably bashes Chas Freeman (he, originally famous for being Nixon and Kissinger's interpreter on the historic Beijing trip; since then, a China and Middle Eastern hand). Freeman is interpreted by Schoenfeld as an "Israel basher" on the basis of criticizing Israel's "brutal oppression of the Palestinians" (Freeman's words) and allegedly approving Beijing's actions on the Tiananmen Square 89 demonstrations/massacre (Schoenfeld quotes a confidential posting from some site that he lifts with the help of an unnamed accomplice).
So we are informed that Freeman is more forgiving about China's various sins and less so about Israel's, therefore his judgment is called into question. Of course, if the situation was reversed and Freeman's judgment matched Schoenfeld's biases, then Freeman would be entirely suitable to serve as NIC chairman, his "objectivity" clearly intact.
I spent a week with Mr. Freeman down at Tampa with SOCOM's leadership a few years back and I found him acerbic, a bit arrogant (but with the experience to back it up), and pretty darn reasonable in his judgments across the board. I would even call him wise.
Yeah, the guy has some biases. Everybody does. But pre-accusing him of undue bias in this job is unwarranted. Freeman is a serious professional, who's been doing all sorts of jobs for the government for many years now. He may not match Schoenfeld's strong views, but it's a fairly narrow crowd that can.
I certainly wouldn't want to see Schoenfeld as head of the NIC (he's smart but has nowhere near the experience required), but say he got selected, I wouldn't go out of my way to demonize him for his own "outlandish perspectives and prejudices" (his closing words on Freeman, which I would readily apply to him). I would expect him to step into the job and do his objective best, and I would assume he should be given the chance if he's the guy a Republican administration wanted in that spot.
So, yeah, I'm okay with Freeman. He's got the experience and sharp mind to do the job right, all smearing aside.
Friday, February 27, 2009 at 2:14AM WORLD NEWS: "North Korea Resumes Role of Provocateur: Pyongyang's Decision to Launch Multistate Rocket Revives Cycle of Brinkmanship and Bargaining," by Evan Ramstad, Wall Street Journal, 25 February 2009.
Right on cue for the new administration, the clearly hurting, feeling-abandoned-by-the-world regime of Kim Jong Il demands renewed attention and bribes to prop up his regime, which struggles from the twin problems of less material support from Beijing and a cut-off of aid from the South.
So now, in a blatant attempt to regain Washington's attention and scare South Korea back into granting unconditional aid, it launches another "experimental" comms satellite.
Honestly, I think we should ignore the whole thing. Bribing gets us nowhere and the regime will never give up the nukes. This is all about stalling for time and blackmailing in the meantime.
This regime is slated for the dustbin of history. Our only conversations with Beijing and Seoul and Tokyo should be about that and that alone.
Friday, February 27, 2009 at 1:35AM ARTICLE: China to Ask for U.S. Treasury Guarantees, By Tyler Durden, Seeking Alpha, February 11, 2009
As Steve Epstein (who sent this in) says, this does feel like the 3 a.m. call alright.
Friday, February 27, 2009 at 1:32AM ARTICLE: China to stick with US bonds,
By Henny Sender, Financial Times, February 11 2009
Sounds like a vote of confidence for President Obama--for now.
(Thanks: Dan Hare)
Friday, February 27, 2009 at 1:29AM ARTICLE: What Alabamians and Iranians Have in Common, by Steve Crabtree and Brett Pelham, Gallup, February 9, 2009
Interesting delineation of religiosity. Bottom line: Old Core less religious than New Core and most religious found in Gap.
(Thanks: Doron Ben Avraham)
Friday, February 27, 2009 at 1:25AM ARTICLE: Crunch Time in Afghanistan-Pakistan, by Dave Kilcullen, Small Wars Journal, February 9, 2009
Good, intelligent piece by Kilkullen. I think he is right on the Option A timeline. To be honest, this is why I make the argument in Great Powers that going to Iraq was right. There we've dealt with a state located in the center of al Qaeda's strategic ambitions. In Afghanistan, to do it right (meaning, to include Pakistan's FATA), it will stretch across presidencies. We will expend lotsa blood and treasure and--at the end of any day we choose to leave--it's likely to return right back to what it's always been. Al Qaeda's ambition is not Afghanistan or even Pakistan (the latter being unallowable by India and the US--at least--and probably more). The longer it's trapped there, the more it will lose its strategic ambitions and thus the more we'll spend significant blood and treasure on something that--in the grand scheme of things--will not matter much at all.
I know we have to do something here, but there is no strategic value to this place--that is the truth of it. And we will eventually tire. Al Qaeda will have a sanctuary/off-grid location somewhere for the foreseeable future. Any place we chase them out of (cause celebre today) will segue into their next place (cause celebre tomorrow). So think carefully, America, about how much you'll really be in for.
Because if we want this thing fixed permanently, a bunch more Americans won't be enough. We are from a galaxy far, far away. If we don't make this settlement a cause celebre--at least among national security elites--for Turkey and Iran and Russia and India and China, then it won't matter how clever we are, what new tactics we develop, or what victory we declare before moving on. [And yeah, we're nearing that realistic endgame in Iraq too, where gains can be reversed as desired by local power players as soon as we drawdown enough, so don't kid yourself on the permanency of anything unless the ownership is both regionalized and socialized to include all relevant great powers in either place.]
So let's be realistic as we plunge in, and keep Kilkullen's wise counsel in mind.
Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 11:22AM Got this email from Matthew, one of Tom's contact at Putnam:
We heard from Newsweek today that the piece is now going to run in next week's issue.
We also confirmed a review in the Outlook section of this Sunday's Washington Post.
Along with the Tavis Smiley interview in early March, this should all help to keep the book visible in the major national media, and hopefully will result in more coverage.
I'll be linking as I can, of course. Keep your eyes peeled.
Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 2:21AM CAPITAL JOURNAL: "Slumping Oil Prices Provide an Opening on Iran," by Gerald F. Seib, Wall Street Journal, 20 February 2009.
Seib is consistently good in that he never really says anything dumb and he's very reasonable, and frankly, when it comes to political commentary in the WSJ, that's outstanding, because I can't stand the obvious biases of the regular columnists. Seib, however, doesn't seem to have any axe to grind. He just spots good points and makes them with a clear writing style.
What I like here beside the clear rundown of issues and trends is that he admits rather openly that Israel realizes Iran's nuclear program can't really be stopped--just slowed down, and that what they fear about the Obama overture re: talks is that any reduction in pressure will only speed up the process. He also says it seems like the Obama team itself has little sense it can stop the program, but that it hopes to merely curb it (not sure what that means).
Upshot? No interest from anybody to get tough with Iran before the elections, the hope being that the economic problems pile up enough and Iranians forget Gaza enough by then (June). After that, if Ahmadinejad wins, I would expect Israel to strike to achieve some premeditated setback of timelines.
Then we proceed from there.
Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 2:19AM WORLD NEWS: "China, Russia Strike $25 Billion Oil Pact: In Third Deal in a Week, Beijing Moves to Lock Up Natural Resources at Bargain Prices to Fuel Its Growth," by David Winning, Shai Oster, and Alex Wilson, Wall Street Journal, 18 February 2009.
WORLD NEWS: "Beijing Reserves Could Fuel Natural-Resources Deals," by Andrew Batson, Alex Wilson and Rick Carew, Wall Street Journal, 19 February 2009.
Today we see the global economy in the dumps, but it won't last for too long, not with that rising global middle class still wanting its stuff on some reasonable schedule.
Along those lines, China is playing for the future by taking its current reserves and using them to lock in long-term access to resources while the buying is cheap.
Might this thwart the dreams of Pentagon planners who foresee "resource wars" with China? Mebbe.
Yergin's take: "In our view, if China is going to be a big consumer, it's better that China be investing in adding new capacity to world oil supplies."
Oh, the hell with that! That's entirely too sensible!
You want recovery and China to grow up as a demand center separate from America, then this is smart stuff--buying low while it can.
Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 2:18AM U.S. NEWS: "U.S. to Enlist Iran in Combating Afghan Drug Trade," by Jay Solomon and Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, 9 February 2009.
Back when I started the Fallon piece, I interviewed the top civilian intel guy at CENTCOM down in Tampa, and he said there were plenty of things we could pursue--mostly low-level but tangible--with the Iranians, with counter-drug ops being #1.
So good to see some movement on this.
Holbrooke, who's working Afghanistan and Pakistan while Dennis Ross works Iran, recently hired Vali Nasr, my favorite scholar on Iran--a very good sign. I don't know anybody more sensible on Iran than Nasr.
Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 2:15AM FRONT PAGE: "Pakistan Makes a Taliban Truce, Creating a Haven: Imposing Islamic Law; Pact Is Rebuff to Calls by U.S. for Stronger Military Action," by Jane Perlez and Ismail Khan, New York Times, 17 February 2009.
Pakistan admits it doesn't run the Swat Valley, and so it does the quasi-COIN approach of paying off the locals to run themselves and washes its hands of another tribal area it's never truly controlled.
Government officials say the truce has no effect on the constitutional integrity of Pakistan.
Hard not to laugh out loud on that one. The Swat isn't large (about the size of Delaware), and the numbers of people are not great. The problem here, though, is not about granting autonomy or Sharia but about admitting that Islamabad cannot police its own mini-Taliban-states-within-its-state.
In effect, we see the parents declaring themselves unable to police their own unruly children, but likewise still claiming parenting rights--a package that does not work in a post-9/11 world. This is top-down splittism out of sheer desperation.
I mean, Islamabad has long basically admitted a two-state solution--as in, there is the state called Pakistan and there is the non-state called the Federally Administered Tribal Areas that are not controlled by Islamabad, which nonetheless claims territorial integrity whenever outside great powers are forced to intervene militarily into the FATA because of the bad things that come out of there. Now, Islamabad declares an additional mini-state solution, admitting that it's control over the Swat is also non-existent.
If Pakistan insists on birthing micro-states, then it has to stand back and allow the global community to step in and deal with the resulting situations. It cannot have it both ways. The deal on autonomy has to include the locals giving up their bad guys, for they too can't have it both ways.
Thursday, February 26, 2009 at 1:54AM WORLD NEWS: "Spain's Jobs Crisis Leaves Immigrants Out of Work: With Prospects Worse Elsewhere, Few Takers for Government Campaign Offering to Pay legal Foreigners Who Return Home," by Thomas Catan, Wall Street Journal, 24-25 January 2009.
In Great Powers, I praise how Spain has made itself very open to foreign workers from North Africa.
The downside of this openness, of course, is the necessary reduction forced by an economic downturn. But here again, Spain bears watching with its campaign to offer legal foreigners financial inducements to return home.
The rest of the EU may complain about their Mediterranean members who go down this path, and yet, it's hard to imagine the EU thriving unless such demographic flexibility becomes commonplace.
