Yet another definition of mutually-assured destruction in financial matters

ARTICLE: “Currency Reserves Held by Beijing Continue to Soar,” by Andrew Browne, Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2006, p. A3.

Remember when we assumed that all those dollars held by the Japanese gave them incredible power over the U.S. economy? Well, the Chinese are on the verge of surpassing the Japanese in reserve holdings of U.S. dollars. China currently holds about $820b, and the Japanese hold almost $850b. China is expected to soon become the first nation to hold $1trillion in U.S. dollars in its reserve coffers.

China has announced a desire to diversify its reserves with more euros and yen, but no one expects a dumping of the dollar by Beijing any time soon. With that level of holdings, any such sale would hurt China far more than the U.S. by rapidly depleting the value of its remaining holdings. When you hold a trillion dollars, it gets pretty hard to find anyone to buy them rapidly, yes?

This is the essence of mutually-assured destruction in the age of globalization.

The re-education of China continues internally

ARTICLE: “In China, Feng Shui Helps Businesspeople Arrange a New Name: Ancient Art Used to Clear Modern Path to Profit; Mr. Chen’s Big Comeback,” by Li Yuan, Wall Street Journal, 17 January 2006, p. A1.

ARTICLE: “The long march to privacy: Gradually, China’s people are acquiring the right to be left alone—as long as they keep quiet about politics, of course,” The Economist, 14 January 2006, p. 45.

Don’t laugh on the feng shui bit. You spend on hour with Joel Osteen, the “smiling pastor” working his Houston audience, and you’ll hear a similarly ancient art being put to use for very similar, self-empowering and self-realizing goal achievement.

And there’s nothing wrong with that either. All such ancient arts are survival mechanisms for society. It’s just that our definition of “survival” changes as we move up Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, or move from Gap to Core.

What feng shui is being used for in China is the same thing that branding and PR is used for here in the U.S.—it’s just capitalism according to Chinese characteristics. People are looking for new definitions of achievement and success and coping mechanisms that get them there. So you get a “stage name,” so to speak. You pick the right company name. You debut on “lucky days” (the Chinese love #4, for example, and are indifferent about #7—go figure!).

But the most important coping mechanism of all is the rising expectation of privacy to accompany that success. I provide for the common good by growing this economy, and I get some personal privacy and freedom on that basis. Beijing’s authorities are more than willing to shepherd that process, so long as it does not spill over into the political realm for now. This is not some communist plot, but rather a fairly calculated attempt to follow in the footsteps of Lee Kuan Yew’s rule in Singapore, a guy whose influence over the region’s socio-economic-political development is vastly underestimated.

Yes, yes, I know. Many observers see an Orwellian watchdog society resulting from this pathway, but that ignores history. Watch the countries that are furthest along in the pathway, like South Korea and Japan, which remain lead geese, historically speaking. Orwell is not alive and well in either country.

Geopol update

Tom posted last week about attending:

Geopol, a local virtual think tank of young professionals, scholars and students who get together and discuss geopolitics. There we got an excellent presentation on possible military strike options against Iran and debated the utility and feasibility of such approaches.

Upon further interaction, one of the participants sent Tom the link to their presentation. Check it out.

I must say ...

I am already so much happier with the iBook G4 than I was with the Powerbook G4.

Size matters not, sayeth Yoda, and I agree. Twelve inches suits me just fine (what man could complain).

And I can tell already I won't suffer the dents that aluminum body did.

But the huge plus-up to me is this: the keyboard is so much more slick.

Typing on the Powerbook felt like those electric pianos with no-resistance touch: unreal and thus harder to play. The iBook keys feels naturally resistant is a very familiar manner. Already I am typing about twice as fast--as twice as accurate--on this machine than the old Powerbook.

I am thoroughly delighted as a result.

Man's gotta feel comfortable with his instrument if he wishes to be master of his domain.

The fight we cannot win, but hopefully one we won't lose quickly

ARTICLE: "With Threat of Sanctions, Iran Protects Some Assets," by Nazila Fathi and Andrew F. Kramer, New York Times, 21 January 2006, p. A5.

ARTICLE: "Oil Markets Are Jittery Over Possibility of Sanctions Against Iran," by Jad Mouawad, New York Times, 20 January 2006, p. C1.

ARTICLE: "Chirac Hints at Nuclear Reply To State-Supported Terrorism: Putting would-be attackers on notice that they could face dire consequences," by Ariane Bernard, New York Times, 20 January 2006, p. A8.

ARTICLE: "U.S. Aims to Avoid Angering Iran's Public," by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 20 January 2006, p. A8.

ARTICLE: "U.S. Envoy Attempts to Hold Sway in Iraq: Shiite Muscle Flexing May Erode Khalilzad's Influence as White House Crafts Exit Plan," Wall Street Journal, 19 January 2006, p. A4.

ARTICLE: "Pakistan's Push in Border Areas Is Said to Falter," by Carlotta Gall and Mohammad Khan, New York Times, 22 January 2006, pulled from web.

ARTICLE: "In Afghanistan, Heroin Trade Soars Despite U.S. Aid: A Threat to Fragile Democracy, The Drug Spreads Death On its Route to Europe; Just Three Euros for a Shot," by Philip Shishkin and David Crawford, Wall Street Journal, 18 January 2006, p. A1.

OP-ED: "Baluchistan," by Frederic Grare and Georges Perkovich, Wall Street Journal16 January 2006, p. A15.

ARTICLE: "Bin Laden Issues New Threat of Attack Against U.S.: Officials Wonder if al Qaeda Is Able to Follow Through Laying Out Terms of a Truce," by Jay Solomon and Neil King Jr., Wall Street Journal, 20 January 2006, p. A1.

OP-ED: "The west has picked a fight with Iran that it cannot win: Washington's kneejerk belligerence ignores Tehran's influence and the need for suble engagement," Guardian, 20 January 2006, pulled from web.

OP-ED: "The Iran Charade, Part II," by Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, 18 January 2006, pulled from web.

OP-ED: "We Should Strike Iran, but Not With Bombs," by Ivo Daalder and Philip Gordon, Washington Post, 22 January 2006, pulled from web.

Iran's clearly hunkering down, hoping to weather any sanctions by surviving on its soaring oil revenue (it's 40-50 billion dollars a year surfeit is like a magnificent, China-sized FDI flow, except it creates almost nothing in its wake). And yes, such disconnecting does signal danger, all right.

Markets are a bit jittery. I got that question from Kudlow last week and I pooh-poohed it without enough thought. The markets respond to current events--six months in advance. So when markets get jittery over Iran, they are expressing uncertainty over how to discount where this whole showdown is going. Over time, my response was right (rising demand in the East drives prices far more), but I should have listened to Kudlow's question better and offered a more pertinent answer, which is, markets need to be informed as to the likely pace of our response.

The Rice State Department is doing that quite nicely, thank you, showing a serious desire to use so-called "smart sanctions" that don't just punish the average citizen while enriching the elites. But we all know that even the smartest sanctions (meaning, most discretely targeted) tend to fail unless the whole world is watching--and complying. And that is unlikely here. Still, it's great to see State exerting a calming influence over this drive to sanction, which is already drawing in presidential candidates like Evan Bayh.

But smart money sees a lot of trouble with this approach, and with good reason.

First, there's my oft-stated concern (yes, I consider myself, "smart money"!) that we're focusing in the wrong direction by picking Iran's fight over the far more logical one with North Korea, where the dangers of screwing globalization by alienating serious big money like China, South Korea and Japan, far outweigh the potential loss of 4b barrels a day with Iran in a global oil market of 80-plus b barrels a day production. Kim's just far worse, far more unstable, and has the potential to do so much more damage where it counts--the Core. Iran's shenangigans, by comparison, are the same old, same old in a Gap region where we've come to expect failure.

But that is why a lot of smart money is distressed over this new focus on Iran--that sense that we're screwing the pooch in a region where so much change seemed and still seems possible thanks to the Big Bang we laid on it by toppling Saddam's regime. So that by rushing into this fight with Iran (Notice all the similarities with Iraq, right down to the ex-pat group seemingly to supply all our intel? You just wait until this process wakes up the sleeping giant called the Iranian ex-pat population centered in electoral vote-rich California!), we’re wasting time and energy on a player who’s going to play us far more than we can manipulate “him,” given the current correlation of forces (Iran’s oil money, strong and growing economic connectivity with India, Russia, China).

There is keeping the ball rolling and there is pissing in the wind. If you don’t care about getting your socks wet, then you try to do both, but there comes a time for a better sense of sequencing.

Our leverage in Iraq is experiencing a rapid half-life, the further we move in this constitutional process.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is not doing well, and a shared border with Iran on the subject of Baluchistan reminds us that destabilizing Iran may create more harm than good for other regional players we are desperately trying to work right now (Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan). Afghanistan is also slipping backwards. You can get all myopic on the bomb all you want, but remember this: the Salafi jihadist movement is exclusively Sunni, so Iran is far more the detour than Iraq could ever be construed to be.

Yes, Osama is sounding more desperate. I spoke about this yo-yo-ing in BFA: he will alternate fantastic threats with calls for détente. Cheney is right: no compromises whatsoever with the radical Salafi jihadists. They have no place in our shared future. But he’s wrong on Iran. It is a country that will not go away or junk its role as leader of the Shiites in the region, but that doesn’t put it in the same category as al Qaeda and it never will.

We are told we can’t trust Iran because it’s not a status quo power, but I ask you, Where are the successes of exporting Shiite revolution over the past 25 years? Not a single one. That dream is far more bankrupt now than the Soviet dream of socialist revolution was when we made peace with that “devil” in the early 1970s, setting in motion the connectivity process that eventually killed that regime from within (not Star Wars, but the “hard” dollars that infected that fake economic system and created a two-tiered economy that progressively starved the command economy of capital and talent; Nixon killed the USSR, not Reagan—if you ever remember anything from my blog, remember that!).

We killed the socialist revolution when we got the global HQ of that movement to sign a deal with its worst enemy, and we do the same with Iran. The “carrots” we’ve offered Iran up to now aren’t nearly enough (some opening of economic ties and diplomatic recognition), because Tehran doesn’t reach for the bomb to acquire those but to get a sense of safety from U.S. invasion, which we cannot successfully pull off. And I say that from participating in several such wargames over the years. Yes, we can physically destroy the place, but we are years and years from the force that will effectively generate lasting regime change there—to include our ability to tap a sufficient quorum of Core powers to participate.

People and experts are blithely arguing the military capacity angle and they’re speaking only the language of Leviathan. The Leviathan’s tasks in Iran aren’t really that much worse than they were in Iraq. It’s the SysAdmin’s likely task list that’s astronomical in comparison, and that’s where the current tie-down of assets in Iraq and Afghanistan is a killer.

And no, letting Israel half-ass it on our behalf isn’t the answer either, because we get suboptimal Leviathan performance and still no SysAdmin follow-up worth discussing.

That has always been my point on Iran: we made our choices in the region with Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq. Seeing the reality of those choices in how we proceed with Iran is the missing link right now—on both right and left. There are simply operational realities going on right now with our ground forces that make most of the discussion of the pre-emption option with Iran rather fantastic—as in, a lot of “experts” are blowing smoke out their asses and seem so confident doing so because they have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to such operational realities.

Ahmadinejad knows just enough, which is why we’ve picked a fight we cannot win—for years. Our choices are this: 1) the ineffective and potentially disastrous use of force that may easily set back everything we’ve sought to accomplished to date in the region (wasting all that sacrifice) and 2) the slow strangle that gets us an isolated Iran that owns the bomb and has three key friends in its corner whom we cannot ignore: India, Russia, China.

As Jenkins says, “Iran is a serious country, not another two-bit post-imperial rogue waiting to be slapped about the head by a white man.”

Iran is close to 80 million people, putting it several folds above Iraq the postwar management problem.

With Iraq, you basically dealt with Saddam, but with Iran, we face a divided leadership of the government, parliament, the mullahs, and the expediency council (the mediator) and “experts” group that selects the ayatollah (which will go through an election of sorts relatively soon). The parliament goes up for a vote in 2008 and Ahmadinejad will be up for re-election in 2009, and those dates give me some pause.

Why? I am growing more partial to the notion that the slow strangle with “smart” (which mean, quite frankly, limited and especially ineffectual here) sanctions isn’t so bad. Everyone on our side can act “tough” and the decision-making locus remains with Rice, not Rumsfeld, who’s got more important things to lock in during his remaining years. Meanwhile, as my mentor Hank Gaffney argues, we slowly but surely work the issue with India, Russia, and China. We won’t move them much at all, but the practice of getting them to think and act responsibly in the Middle East is worth the price of this admission, much like we use the 6-party talks on North Korea to slowly build the notion of the utility of an East Asian NATO down the road.

I am not backing off my arguments on Iran whatsoever. I’m just trying to be patient, which is the sine qua non of being a good grand strategist. You can have the answer, but you need to have the players who are ready for this answer to make sense, and we don’t have those players right now, either on our side or theirs. By the end of this decade there is an entirely new crew all around, with the 4th generation of leaders in China working the hand-off to the 5th. We’re post-Bush, post-Chirac, post-Ahmadinejad (I fully expect), and we’ve now got years of Old Core-New Core dialogue on what the Persian Gulf should look like. That is a lot of positive diplomatic capital to build in the meantime, and that’s the best pathway for now given the intransigence this situation faces from Iran, the U.S., Russia et al.

Remember, my calls on Iran have always encompassed a time frame of about 5 years (by 2010), so resolution here is not the ball-busting showstopper some want to make it out to be.

Because, again, my preference is to deal North Korea in the meantime, not Iran. I think we need to raise the confidence and trust level with New Core powers there first before we can hope to get the cooperation we need from them in the Middle East.

Daalder and Gordon are essentially right: we need the process of sanctions to slowly but surely help Tehran’s many elements see the wisdom of rapprochment on this issue, not confrontation. But more important, in my mind, is teaching both the New Core pillars and ourselves—the Old Core West—that Core-wide cooperation on severe security issues in the Gap is not only possible under the best of circumstances, but something worth building in a systematic manner across all such cases and potential scenarios.

I believe in my vision completely, but I remain realistic enough to know—again—that having the answer is one thing, and having it at the right time is another (something I wrote early in PNM). When the time is not right, you make the time right, you don’t just force the answer despite the poorly receptive environment.

And you do so patiently.

In this regard, I grow more optimistic over time with Rice’s leadership. She has the chance, in these three years, to make up for a lot of mistakes she allowed to happen on her watch as National Security Adviser.

I wasn’t kidding during Katrina when I said the Bush post-presidency has already begun. The question right now with this administration is not what it will accomplish between now and the end of its term, but what it will lock in and what it will set up for the next one. The lock-ins, as I have argued in Esquire in the Rumsfeld piece and will argue in “The Monks of War” piece upcoming, are mostly internal. The set ups are mostly external, and they mostly involve bringing the New Core up to speed on what needs to be done in coming years, because any attempt on our part to proceed without them will fail, causing more harm than good.

Iran ends up being, along with North Korea, the strategic issues where both Old Core and New Core will learn the wisdom of needing each other more than needing quick solutions to the problems that bedevil us both.

South America goes left? Yes, inside the Gap

ARTICLE: "Peru May Join Latin America's Swing to the Left: Free-Trade Opponent's Lead In Polls Poses New Challenge To Market Reforms in Region," by David Luhnow and Robert Kozak, Wall Street Journal, 16 January 2006, p. A1.

We see countries turn to the left in Latin America (serious "caboose braking" in my the-train-can-travel-no-faster-than-the-caboose vernacular) as the rural poor vote for candidates who seem more focused on their needs/fears/dangers in a globalized world.

And it's hard not to worry about the future of free trade in the region.

But then we read the fine print: Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru--all Andean states, all members of the Gap.

When the "leftward" turn of Core states (e.g., Brazil, Chile, Uruguay) is examined, though, we see that leftists that assume power in those countries naturally "governed from the center, keeping government spending in check and continuing to integrate their economies to the outside world."

And yet the WSJ frets over the rise of what it calls the "Andean troika," using that Russian word with purpose, especially since it sees the three falling under the mentorishp of that loser Castro who's accomplished so much in the way of Cuban economic development over the decades. Thus fears are expressed about Argentina and Mexico.

But my guess is that, just like in Chile, Uruguay and Brazil, any leftward turns in those two states would be more based in appearance than reality--the essense of Clintonism as we lived it in the United States in the 1990s

Anyway, interesting how the breakdown so clearly follows the map, huh?

Bangladesh on connectivity v. content (promote former, control latter)

ARTICLE: "Bangladesh has told phone companies to stop offering free late-night mobile phone calls, arguing that they corrupt the country's youth," Reuters, at cnet news.com, news.com.com/2102-1039_3-6027427.html.

Bangladesh, as the story says, is a "deeply conservative country, where dating is discouraged." So imagine when the mobile phone companies started giving away free late-night calling.

Where there is will, my friends, and connectivity ...

The car really started the sexual revolution in the U.S., so why not cell phones in the Gap?

So, many parents complain and authorities stop the practice, pissing off youth the country over.

The network types will snort over the silliness of it all, like pissing in the wind. The "clash" types will say, "I told ya so!"

But in the end, this is all natural yin and yang with globalization: two steps forward, one step back, more connectivity creating more desire to control content.

Me? I say never bet long term against people's natural desire to connect. "Life finds a way," Michael Crichton wrote in Jurassic Park, speaking in the voice of his maverick mathematician. I bet on connectivity because I know why mankind rules this planet--and how I got four kids.

Got this one from a reader. Can't remember which between my laptop, Treo and desk top, but he knows who he is.

British Egypt and PNM Theory

From ZenPundit:

Chirol of Coming Anarchy is looking at Victorian imperialism in Egypt through the lens of Dr. Barnett's PNM Theory; a nice interdisciplinary mix of political science and history.

You may want to check it out.

British Egypt and PNM Theory Parts I, II, and III

Tom says "Chirol intrigues constantly".

The latest (and greatest) on comments

[Moving down from latest and greatest to oldest and least ;-)]

You, the reader, can greatly improve the usefulness of this site. Please do contribute your pertinent comments and links. There will be spam and impertinence, but I'll zap those (as quickly as I can).

Please comment and argue civilly.

Everyone is welcome to comment. However, the comment must be pertinent to the thread. And, while you are free to disagree with Tom, if every comment you write is in fundamental disagreement with Tom, there are other websites where your time would be better spent.

Before asking or (worse!) demanding an answer from Tom, please at least search the voluminous website for an answer/direction, ask a frequent commenter, or read one/both of the books. There's a search box in the sidebar on the home page and an Advanced search page.

No lecturing Tom. He has described this weblog as his 'virtual living room'. Don't taunt Tom (or anyone else!). I want our conversations here to be great.

Comments should be reasonably brief. There are many fine, free weblog services where your long writings can be posted. Self-linking/manual trackbacks for pertinent posts are encouraged. Lay translation: if you have a long comment, post it on your weblog, then put a link in the comments. If you'd like us to read an article, link it (don't copy it in).

If/when you have problems or questions, please email me at webmaster@thomaspmbarnett.com.

If you're willing to register with TypeKey and login with them, your comments will post immediately without approval (though they will still be subject to moderation - deletion or banning, should that be necessary). If you don't wish to register with TypeKey, your comments will have to wait for approval. I will approve such (legitimate) comments as fast as I can, but my ability to approve them will be severely limited while I'm working my day job, approximately 0700-1330 EST during the week.

Archive
After having comments on for a little less than 24 hours, I'm ready for version 0.2. I've got the TypeKey registration function working now (I was missing a '/').

As the title of this post expansively alludes to, I'm going to keep updates on the status of comments in this thread (and point to it from the comments template).

And, since this is now the comprehensive comments thread, let me include two items from yesterday:

1/23/6 update:

I've noticed 2 glitches for registered commenters (so far just me and Bill):

1. You have to reload the page after commenting to see your new comment.
2. The weblog doesn't recognize you as registered until you go to preview. You can go straight to preview without typing anything and it will recognize you. I will get this fixed as soon as i can.

I think I finally got TypeKey working right in the comments. If you plan on commenting with any regularity, I sure would appreciate you registering (unless you object conscientiously ;-).

My interview with Bloggasm (and yeah, it was good for me)

Was asked by Simon Owens and replied as posted. A quick four questions and a bit longer four answers.

Interview with Thomas P.M. Barnett

Bloggasm is a website whose mission statement reads:

Bloggasm seeks to interview and promote a variety of blogs from different cultural realms. We sometimes post several interviews a day. We also bring you a multitude of posts on blogs, culture, and weird news we find on our daily web wanderings.

So let it be written, so let it be URLed.

UPDATE: link to Bloggasm updated

Good to be here and comments on

As Tom wrote, I'm delighted to be on board with you as the new webmaster. Please don't hesitate to contact me with comments about or problems with the website at webmaster@thomaspmbarnett.com

Without further ado, let me announce that we've turned comments back on. They've been off for over a year. We're going to try them again for a number of reasons.

One reason is that Tom has made a (what I think is good) decision to end the newsletter. We are hoping to replace some of the value of the newsletter with comments.

Another reason we're turning comments back on is because so many of you have a lot to offer. Please do contribute your pertinent comments and links. There will be spam and impertinence, but I'll zap those (and as quickly as I can, too). Not sure yet what the final configuration will be. I've got all the safeties on for now (comment moderation, etc.). We'll release this baby into the wild and tweak it on the fly.

It should go without saying that you are free to disagree with Tom and one another. Please comment and argue civilly. Thank you.

My new webmaster Sean Meade

Sean Meade has been with me virtually for many months now, for a long time offering his free proofreading services on my blog.

Now, in a move that delights us both, I've taken him aboard as my webmaster on the site.

Be patient as he works the site and gets familiar with everything.

Good Ricks' piece on Leavenworth and Army learning lessons

ARTICLE: "Lessons Learned in Iraq Show Up in Army Classes: Culture Shifts to Counterinsurgency," by Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post 21 January 2006; A01.

Yet another good piece that signals a growing media awareness of this under-covered story. Ricks spoke with a lot of the same guys I spoke with, but an amazingly smalll overlap with my upcoming Esquire piece. And yes, I look for my "crown jewels" when I see a piece like this and I'm not seeing them, so certain sigh of relief.

In the end, I'm actually glad to see a lot of these bits and pieces articles appearing; it says the market is really ready for the ambitious, overarching sort of stuff I always shoot for. I think our timing couldn't be better in this regard, especially since our piece narrativizes this whole change in a way that newspaper articles just can't capture because they're not working with 6,000 words.

Also makes me realize that here it is the 21st, and subscribers will be getting the mag in less than two weeks!

Here's the full article, which is worth reading: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/AR2006012001906.html.

William Lind’s bizarrely fraudulent review of PNM and BFA

Found here: http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_1_20_06.htm.

Actually, it’s not a review of my books whatsoever, but a pathetic cribbing of Joe Nye’s Washington Post review of BFA. Lind gives the impression of having read both my books, but then, in a display of almost Frey-nian hubris, he gives numerous clues to the fact that he never read either volume.

Where I come from, they call this lying. I will call it intellectually dishonest and leave it at that.

In the end, it just saddened me that Lind is so fucking lazy, and it maddened me that in his profound arrogance, he doesn’t seem to think it matters or that he’ll get caught. From now on, whenever people write that I have a big ego, I will remember Lind’s diatribe not because it’ll make me feel better, but because it’ll put the fear of God in me. If I ever get this analytically fraudulent, I hope somebody whom I respect will pull me aside and tell me to quit embarrassing myself. Better to go out as Lou Gehrig than Barry Bonds.

And no, I won’t end it here. Because although I first received many reviews of Mr. Lind’s nasty attack, instead of simply cribbing those emails, I actually took the effort to sort through his bile, and frankly, I was shocked at how goofily off-base it is. The man clearly doesn’t anticipate being caught—just like our deer-in-the-headlights Mr. Frey.

Clue #1 that suggests Lind read neither book: there is nothing in his review that isn’t pulled or obviously extrapolated from Nye’s two paragraphs on PNM and BFA—not a goddamn thing.

Clue #2 that suggests Lind read neither book: he doesn’t mention the dominant military concept from PNM, or the splitting of the U.S. military into Leviathan and SysAdmin functions. Virtually no one who’s reviewed PNM has skipped that point, and given Lind’s approach, it absolutely stunning that he ignores it completely. Most 4GWers go apoplectic on this point, but apparently it meant nothing to Lind? Try to make that one go away, Mr. Frey—I mean, Lind!

Clue #3 that suggests Lind read neither book: he ignores my treatment of Fourth Generation Warfare in BFA (in which I mention Lind favorably and with real respect, no less), and my arguments suggesting its complimentarity with Network Centric Warfare. How in God’s name the great man of 4GW bypasses that challenge is just beyond me—unless he has no fucking idea it’s even in there!

Clue #4 that suggests Lind read neither book: the comparison of my future worth creating to Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World wouldn’t be so comical if I didn’t attack that book for its dark view of history—in BFA no less! Quite the boner, that one. But let me double up here: the subsequent labeling as “soft totalitarianism” is equally queer but far more laughable. Mr. Lind has clearly never enjoyed writing a NYT bestseller (he complains that my books are “just the sort of patent medicine that sells”) if he thinks mistakes like that one can slip by, because people ACTUALLY READ MY BOOK!

Clue #5 that suggests Lind read neither book: his casual but uncertain lumping of me in with neocons. His cute little “(other?) neo-cons” reference is about the only honest sentiment he expresses in the “review”; I mean, at least here he’s expressing some doubt. If he had actually read either book, he’d been in no doubt of my opinion of the neocons, but I guess expecting Mr. Lind to rise above the level of your average Amazon.com blowhard was just too much.

Clue #6 that suggests Lind read neither book: his presumption that I see only states reigning in the current age of warfare. That boner only would have required him to make it aaaaaaaaaall the way up to chapter two (The Rise of the Lesser Includeds) in PNM. Christ, man! My ten-year-old son made it til the end! Doesn't the man have a staffer, like he once was on the Hill? I mean, some minion that makes sure he doesn't embarrass himself in public?

Clue #7 that suggests Lind read neither book: his two big criticisms (America will be exhausted and the result will be a socio-economic “hell on earth”) of my vision are ones I deal with explicity in chapter 5 of BFA. How about just a sentence suggesting he’s read anything of the sort? This one I give the old Hill staffer a pass on because it would have required he read a good 700 pages.

Clue #8 that suggests Lind read neither book: his contention that I think “restoring the state in places where it has failed will be easy.” His proof of this accusation? Oh, he quotes Joe Nye’s encapsulated presentation of my A-to-Z rule set on processing politically bankrupt states. That’s it. I know, I know. Why should I expect him to read a fairly substantial section of chapter 1 in BFA when there’s a wonderful one-sentence version that lands on his doorstep on Sunday morning? Cause if he had, he would have come across all those paragraphs where I say America can't go it alone, and that would have given him plenty to criticize, like my call for alliance with Russia and China (another 'outrage' to the Right that he lets pass by thanks to his dutiful ignorance regarding my ACTUAL text).

Clue #9 that suggests Lind read neither book: his assertion that I argue for regime change in Iran. I mean, come on! Can’t you even leaf through an Esquire now and then? They come to your mail box, for crying out loud! And the covers have been known to spruce up your average 58-year-old's day.

Clue #10 that suggests Lind read neither book: Lind has apparently never written about me or anything I’ve ever done up until now (some web crawler, please correct me if I’m wrong), and yet he magically comes up with a sweeping condemnation of both of my substantial and large books that is completely traceable to a Washington Post review that appeared only days earlier.

Gosh, do ya think?

William Lind is the Director (director, mind you!) of the Center for Cultural Conservatism for the Free Congress Foundation.

Lind has never served in or worked directly for the military (not that there's anything wrong with that ...), as far as I can tell, although he was famously an acolyte of Col. John Boyd, much in the same way I was identified with Adm. Art Cebrowski. Two years out of Dartmouth and Princeton (he finishes his masters in 1971 ... ), he seems to go directly to the U.S. Senate as a staffer for 13 years (1973-1986 for Taft and Hart) and then he went directly to the conservative Free Congress Foundation, where he's been for the last 19 years.

How's that for living in the real world? All Ivy League and then 32 years straight inside the Beltway. I feel like an outsider in comparison. No wonder he distrusts my capitalist instincts.

Lind's main claim to fame is that he co-authored, with a slew of active-duty and reserve officers, a seminal article on 4GW back in 1989. He published one military strategy book on his own prior to that (1985), co-wrote an attack on the U.S. military with Gary Hart, and now seems content to churn out his critiques of operations and strategy (unlike me, Lind-the-non-operator has no fear of critiquing operations or even tactics), and the occasional right-wing diatribe on "cultural conservatism," which his site defines as "the belief that there is a necessary, unbreakable, and causal relationship between traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values, definitions of right and wrong, ways of thinking and ways of living -- the parameters of Western culture -- and the secular success of Western societies: their prosperity, their liberties, and the opportunities they offer their citizens to lead fulfilling rewarding lives. If the former are abandoned, the latter will be lost."

Yes, yes, the barbarians are at the gate all right, and I'm the "soft totalitarian" ... How quaint.

Don’t get the impression I’m mad, because I’m not. Lind writes a lot of good stuff on 4GW, most of which--ironically enough--actually fits my view of how to shrink the Gap quite nicely.

Anyway, it’s actually fun when someone that pompous pulls their pants down, bends over, and dares you to put your size 13 up their big lily-white Beltway ass.

Thank you sir! May I have another?

A good move by Rice with State

ARTICLE: "Diplomats Will Be Shifted to Hot Spots: Rice Also Plans to Elevate USAID Chief," by Glenn Kessler and Bradley Graham, Washington Post, 19 January 2006, p. A1.

Hundreds of diplomats shifted from Europe and DC to the Middle East, Asia, and Gap locations galore, as Rice goes for her own brand of "transformation," picking up that word just as the term falls out of favor (OBE) in the Pentagon. You want different leaders, you make them climb different ladders, which now seem to run through the Gap more and more for foreign service officials.

"The greatest threats now emerge more within states than between them," she says.

Hmmm, a familiar line.

"The fundamental character of regimes now matters more than the international distribution of power."

Now THAT is a bold and original statement! One that separates Rice from the neocon structuralist view of the world.

"As part of the change in priorities, Rice announced that diplomats will not be promoted into the senior ranks unless they accept assignments in dangerous posts"--read, the GAP!

So the State Department, which has as many diplomats in smaller core states like Germany as it does in huge New Core states like India, is shifting jobs.

Rice also elevates the new USAID boss to the equivalent of deputy secretary of state, which is a number 2 rank--another bold step.

The talk of "rock star" is cool, but pointless. The photo ops and oohing and aaahing by the press abroad is cute, but pointless.

These changes have a point, and Rice is to be congratulated on that.

« Changes afoot ...

Changes afoot ...

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 19 January 2006

Had a fun night last night with World Affairs Council of Indianapolis, which hosted me for brief at Butler University in northern Indianapolis. Brought daughter Emily along for cocktail hour, then dinner, then my brief with Q&A, then signing some books. After all that we go to local bar where we participate in meeting of Geopol, a local virtual think tank of young professionals, scholars and students who get together and discuss geopolitics. There we got an excellent presentation on possible military strike options against Iran and debated the utility and feasibility of such approaches. Really quite cool.

My performance was pretty good. It was an older audience, so I went at a reasonable speed, explaining a lot of stuff I wouldn't with a professional military audience. As such, I only got through the A-to-Z rule set on processing politically-bankrupt states.

Still, overall a very nice night. I did this talk for free to sort of announce myself in the area (many seemed stunned I moved to Indy). Not sure how many more will follow over time, but doing it the night after my first remote (Kudlow and Company), it made the week feel like my coming-out party.

Today was lost to hospital time with son who faces some unusual surgery this summer, so lots of F2F with docs. Nothing too tense, just one of those things you end up enduring (this process will unfold over years) as a parent.

Now for the changes ...

My former partner in the New Rule Sets Project, Steffany Hedenkamp, gave a go at being my combined personal assistant and webmaster, doing a great job throughout her first six weeks (especially in navigating my site to a new host provider), but we decided to mutually end the relationship because of the workload involved for her, given all her competing interests. I'm very grateful to Steff for helping through the last couple of months and I'm sorry it didn't work out, but the experience taught me a lot, helping me move toward a bunch of decisions that hopefully will create a better work environment for me as I continue to get more deeply involved at Enterra Solutions while maintaining the blog, writing for Esquire, supporting the books and someday writing another, and continuing in my role as a public speaker with my agency.

To that end, a few changes are in store.

The big change is that I've given up on the notion of trying to find one person to be both personal assistant and webmaster. In reality, I've got plenty of admin support from Enterra, so it's really only my speaking engagements where I need the help, primarily in setting up travel and then following through with vouchers. To that end, I've finally taken up the very kind offer of my speaking agent, Jennifer Posda, to make those services part of the Leigh Bureau's service to my as my booking agency. This works for me because it comes under their percentage fee, and it works for Jenn because it frankly simplifies her planning and support to me by giving her complete control over the process from A to Z. Jenn had been offering this kind of help for a while, and I guess it just took some time and enough circumstances for me to realize what a great offer it was. Jennifer has been a huge boon to my work life in general in recent months (she took over for me during 2004 after I lost the original manager I had at LB and have been temped for a while by another senior manager). When Jenn and I were finally paired, it took a while for us to get to know each other well enough to be more forthcoming in advice and sharing of information with one another. But now I consider her such a big part of my worklife, I'm really thrilled to have this function handled by her, making me that much more grateful to be with Leigh Bureau.

So that problem (the personal assistant) is basically solved, leaving me with the issue of webmaster, which I intend to solve ASAP.

Two other changes of note: First, I intend to end production of the newsletters, which, by my way of reasoning, are simply too much work to have piled on top of the weblog. The journal-cum-newsletter concept grew out of my original partnership with Steff, Critt and Bob Jacobson in the New Rule Sets Project. It was envisioned as a vehicle for promoting dialogue in which my partners could participate and through which we could promote the vision, the firm, my books, the whole enchilada. But with NRSP dead and gone, and now those three partners all moved on to other ventures, it just seems like drudgery to me. Don't get me wrong, the essays were great (from others, I mean), and I enjoyed having the AskTom letters being shared with a wider audience, but again, it was just too much work for the gain, and I'd rather have this site and my creative endeavors center around the blog exclusively. It's why I started the site, and it's what keeps me (and virtually everybody else, judging by our stats) coming to the site. So it's a matter of sticking with what you love and trimming as necessary to protect that kernel.

One of the main reasons I considered keeping the newsletter was to allow for the reprinting of the AskTom emails and my responses, which grew out of the decision, way back when, to stop the comments function on the blog. I made that decision way back then because I used to read the comments obsessively and try to comment back on all of them, which tired me out and made me tense. But I feel like that's not going to be an issue for me at this point, because I now barely have enough time to write the blog, much less review it or scan the comments. I think what I'll do this time around is have my new webmaster moderate the comments (yanking the jerks/spam/sellers) and edit them at will, using his best judgment. And if that doesn't work, I'll simply kill the function again (with the shame being on me this second time).

That's the sum of it: Steff departs, a new webmaster comes in, the newsletter dies, and the comments come back. I'll keep the AskTom function for now, because some prefer that route (actually, a large number of my readers do, for various reasons), but I also want to create--within reason--a space for people to discuss the posts.

I'll try to post something later tonight. Got my new Mac (went for iMac this time, in 12 inches, hoping the white plastic Mac turns out to be tougher than the aluminum G4 that I beat the crap out of in just one short year of travel--okay, I travel a lot, but really, that thing dented like no laptop I ever used before), and I'm hoping to break it in a little bit tonight.

My prediction on Africa Command coming true a bit faster than I expected

But the Rumsfeld crowd continues to amaze me with its flexibility in thinking.

This is what I said in Blueprint for Action:

[page 82: Chapter Two: Winning the War Through Connectedness]

Ultimately, you're faced with the larger, inescapable requirements of having to connect Africa to the Core to run this problem to ground, otherwise today's problem for CENTCOM simply becomes tomorrow's distant problem for EUCOM. When you make that leap of logic, the next decision gets a whole lot easier: America needs to stand up an African Command. Now, I know that sounds like a huge expansion of our strategic "requirements," but when you consider the boundary conditions in this way, the discussion shifts from if to when.

[page 338: Conclusion: Heroes Yet Discovered]

The first U.S. military commander of African Command: The United States will be forced by circumstances in the global war on terrorism to refocus more of its military attention on sub-Saharan Africa over time, eventually recasting its Unified Command Plan to create a specifc African Command. This will represent a huge commitment on the part of the Pentagon, which historically has shied away from any major efforts on the continent. At first, African Command will be a lot like Southern Command, which covers Latin America: lots of geographic responsibility but little in the way of troops and resources. But as the Middle East settles down and NATO builds up its capacity for extrareginal operations, Africa will become the main focus of the Core's SysAdmin force.

Those were the predictions, the following is the unfolding reality reported in Army Times:

Army Times

January 23, 2006

Pg. 23

Officials Look To Put Africa Under One Watchful Eye: Continent now split between two commands

By Gordon Lubold, Times staff writer



As Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld considers how to reorganize the military to address global threats in coming years, defense officials are exploring the possibility of putting Africa, long split between the U.S. European Command and U.S. Central Command, under one unified command.

Such a move has been discussed for years, but as U.S. operations evolve in the Horn of Africa, officials say the time has arrived to do something.

Theresa Whelan, deputy assistant secretary of defense for African affairs, said the area of responsibility for the Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, created after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, could be expanded to include all of Africa ...

Whelan, respected in and outside the Pentagon for her experience of more than a dozen years working African issues, said the joint task force in the Horn of Africa has evolved many times since it was created and, given the situation on the ground in the region, it may be time for it to evolve some more.

Africa, an operational backwater for the U.S. since the botched operation in Somalia in 1993, is becoming increasingly relevant in the war on terrorism, officials say. Experts say that terrorist groups, squeezed out of places like Iraq and Afghanistan are moving to areas in North and West Africa and elsewhere. Many nations cannot effectively govern themselves, leaving a welcome mat for terrorist groups.

The Pentagon has begun to pay more attention to the region, sending small units of special operations forces and Marines to conduct training and other missions. But the department’s efforts are hamstrung somewhat by the fact that two commands have responsibility for Africa ...

A Central Command official confirmed that discussions are taking place on the task force in the Horn of Africa and what it should look like in the future. The official could not confirm if its area of responsibility would be expanded but said officials believe its role may be changing ...

“It should push to be more representative of the other elements of national power besides the military,” said the official, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of the conversations. “The military should be just one component" ...

Sounds like African Command and the SysAdmin function, yes?

This was sent to me by a Naval War College prof off Early Bird. I'd give the URL for full story, but EBird not available to non-gov, and I'm rushing out door...

Did okay on Kudlow; good to get back in the mix

Been soooooooo long since I've done any public speaking--weeks, really. I was a bit spooked about going on this afternoon. A rough day of working with the painting lady on colors throughout the house (tense, in a guy way). Plus I found out today that my Sprite spill in the Mac laptop months ago finally caught up with the machine, to the tune of almost $1,500 in non-covered damages.

So I was a bit tense, let's say.

Rushed back from house and picking up kids, did quick pre-interview with Kudlow's producer, showered, got dressed and caught the limo from our apartment to the remote facility in Indy.

Guys there were very nice, but the lighting in the room was not to my liking. Instead of multiple lights from angles, just one big-ass bright light right on my noggin (hence the weird blinking while I waited to speak, which--thankfully--went away when I did talk).

Did okay on the content, but nothing special. Big accomplishment for me was not talking toooooo fast. Left a lot of good lines on the table, but felt the need to try and address Kudlow's questions as directly as possible, since he's a fan of my writing and I really appreciate that.

Disappointed he wasn't wearing a nice french cuff, though. The man's my inspiration for moving in this direction sartorially!

My big goal here tonight was not to embarrass myself given the lay-off and to make Kudlow glad to have me on (Iran expert guys is Iran expert guy, but I can come back on a host of issues). This goal wasn't hard to achieve because Kudlow so gracious in his intros, questions and follow-ups.

Big pluses tonight? Mentioned the blog. Mentioned and showed cover of book. Mentioned and showed Enterra Solutions + my title there.

Not bad!

Now, to find a new Mac laptop. Will probably get same Powerbook in 12 inches this time (15 too bulky for this road warrior--actually one of the causes of the spill in the first place, as it was too big on planes). I know, I know. I could wait a month for Intel-chip Mac that's so much faster, but frankly, speed was never an issue for me. Plus, I'll work this bubba til the fall, give it to my daughter for high school, and then buy the better Mac laptop to go with a nice high-end Mac desktop for my new office when we move in (assuming I come up with that downpayment . . .)

Ah, but first to get the educational discount . . . must call the Baker Center at U of Tennessee!

Appearing on "Kudlow and Co." on CNBC 5pm EST hour

Heading off to Indy studio now. Exact time will be in the range of 5:00-5:20.