Islamic banking continues to ramp up

MONEY & BUSINESS: "Capitalism That Crosses Cultures: Will U.S. Firms embrace Islamic investment rules?" by Kit R. Roane, U.S. News & World Report, 8 January 2007, p. 48.

I wrote about Islamic banking in Pentagon's New Map (or maybe it was BFA), citing it as a good and obvious beginning of economic connectivity between Islamic countries (specifically, Indonesia).

It has always amazed me that Arab oil money really doesn't connect well with the rest of the world, as historically speaking they've kept their investments pretty liquid (not engaging much or accepting much foreign direct investment, for example).

But all this oil money--this time--seems different. As Yusuf Talal DeLorenzo, the new "chief sharia officer" for a Connecticut money fund, is quoted in this piece:

Companies that do business in the Middle East are realizing that Islamic finance is not just a flash in the pan but is a regional and generational development.

Yes, getting Islamic financing is still harder than it should be, but wait until the next global credit crunch comes, and we'll see this connectivity take off.

Gone for now, but eventually to return to Somalia

ARTICLE: "Somalia's Islamists, Cornered, Vow Never to Surrender," by Jeffrey Gettleman, New York Times, 31 December 2006, p. 4.

Now the Islamic Court jihadists in Somalia have declared their holy war on Christian Ethiopia, in hapless (for now) retaliation for Addis Ababa sending its troops to help Somalia's transitional (is there any other kind in Somalia?) government regain control over most of the nation, driving the jihadists from the capital--again, for now.

The "cockroach" problem (you spray one apartment and they just go to the next apartment over) is being played out here again with the jihadists: you drive them out and they just run away--just far enough--so you stop pursuing (a bit cavalry v. Indians, yes?), things quiet down for a bit, and then the raids begin again...

Jerry's brief interruption...

Last night, when I was sort of losing my train of thought on the Soviets "sizing" our forces, and my sentence hiccuped a bit, it was because Jerry came through the glass doors on my home office and was just opening his mouth to ask me where his Star Wars toys were.

I waved him off with a very vigorous arm wave (which, frankly, he just understands in a cave man sort of way), and that's why I wandered a bit on that sentence.

Jerry has an almost perfect record of showing up in my home office for every radio appearance. We make these extensive preparations every time, like rounding up all the wireless phones so no one will pick up, and every time Jerry eludes our defenses and somehow shows up in my office, usually looking for some lost toy (and rather indignantly at that).

I'm going to start paying older brother Kevin to guard the door.

Melting pot? Yes. It just takes a while to melt the big chunks.

ARTICLE: "For Moviegoers in North Bergen, N.J., It's 'Hooray for Bollywood': Indians gather at a multiplex to see films in their native languages," by Kareem Fahim, New York Times, 3 January 2006, p. A20.

Interesting piece on how half a suburban multiplex is reserved for Indian-language films (meaning, in Hindi).

Bollywood (meaning, made in Mumbai) films scored 8 out of the top-15 spots for foreign language films in the U.S. last year, reflecting the growing role of NRIs (as India likes to call them, non-resident Indians) in American society.

Many Americans are aware of Indians primarily as docs, but last year Indian-led firms accounted for something like half the technology start-ups in this country, so they create a lot of jobs in addition to saving lives.

Like many immigrant groups, Indians are concentrated geographically and job-wise, but like every other wave before them, they'll increasingly spread out across both measures, and what is today just a few pioneering cinemas will--sooner than you think--be a major influence on how films are made and marketed here in the U.S.

A good example of this process, a bit farther down the road, is the rising role of Hispanic media and artists.

Fascinating process to watch unfold, but a good example of where, if you think systematically about the future, you can place everything in context. History constantly repeats itself--just never in the same way.

Me? I love Bollywood films, especially the staple movie musical where daughter of traditional father falls in love with modern man (whom traditional father naturally hates). Seven songs, two fights and one kiss later, guess which way the story turns out? You bet! Headstrong daughter always picks modern man. That's why Bollywood musicals are so popular in Asia and the Middle East: it's highly reflective of where those societies are right now in confronting the promise and perils of globalization.

America's pretty much forgotten those days, except in the occasional Western or similar period piece. The whole marrying-beneath-yourself or marrying-outside-your-tribe thing is awfully muted nowadays in our culture, played primarily for laughs (like "My Big Fat Greek Wedding," where traditional dad's big hangup is his belief that Windex cures everything that ails you).

Two Pakistans

KARACHI JOURNAL: "When She Speaks, He's Breaking All of Islam's Taboos," by Salman Masood, New York Times, 3 January 2007, p. A4.

This story is too weird to believe: a cross-dressing man pretends to be a widow who interviews celebrities and politicians on her TV show, which he/she actually does quite well, leading to very high ratings in Pakistan.

Talk about crossing line possible in a nation with raging Islamic jihadism.

How can this be?

It is true that Pakistan is, in a sense, two countries. There is urban, and urbane, Pakistan, where Western mores are more accepted, although nudity would never be seen on television or scantily clad women on billboards [Not a bad thing, say I.] And then there is rural Pakistan, where Islam is generally practiced with more fervor.

Can anyone say "Blue states versus red states?"

Honestly, I think that's why our Red States tend to want to fight jihadists head on and call it a day--you know, listening to the Old Testament child within each of us. Meanwhile, the Blue States tend to want to fight the jihadists more indirectly, albeit often too Oprah-like in our attempts to "educate" them as to the error of their ways.

Me? Again, you put out fires as they appear, but you work to make your environment more fire-safe over time by spreading the good rules and the resilient nets. Within that connectivity and those networks, you have to expect people to chose as they please, growing up at a reasonable pace.

But you don't win by telling people what you think is wrong. You win by showing them what you know is right.

Modeled behavior wins most battles. That's why my new strategy trinity is connectivity, reciprocity, democracy: connect economically for opportunity, focus on freedom of faith, and then focus on the fine-tuning that is democracy.

I know many would place religious freedom first, but I see religion becoming a rigid survival mechanism during hard economic times, pre-empting either freedom of belief or any lasting movement toward political pluralism. You gotta give people some confidence in their future--real world future--before you can expect them to do unto others as they'd like done unto themselves. It's economic plenty that drives religion inward, and once that happens, serious political pluralism is possible.

So back to our cross-dresser: progress in Pakistan? Not really. Just indicative of a quasi-ally we can live with (urban Pakistan) and a danger-zone we need somebody to integrate (rural Pakistan), before events pull us in at a time of our enemies' choosing (the point of my column at Xmas).

Silent soldiers in the demographic wars of the 21st century

ARTICLE: "For Children of Ill Parents, IVs Are Part of the Routine: Young Caregivers Juggle School, Feeding Tubes," by Clare Ansberry, Wall Street Journal, 5 January 2007, p. A1.

Vonne and I went through this for a year-and-a-half with Emily and her cancer treatments in the mid-1990s, and it was amazing how it took over our lives: like running a hospital room in your house.

We felt like we were at war with an intruder who had breached our walls, one who spent every day trying every trick in its arsenal to kill our first-born. Between all the daily care routines (cleaning sites, changing and maintaining IVs, prepping meds, blood draws, giving meds through the IVs and with real needles) and the occasional nerve-tingling car race to the ER with a child fading into you-don't-want-to-find-out, I found myself really burned out two years after diagnosis.

Military friends warned me that I was exhibiting all the characteristics of post-trauma stress, that I was becoming addicted to the excitement and losing my ability to chill and lead a normal life. They told me that if I didn't get a grip on it and learn to readjust my personality and thinking, I'd end up a drunk or an addict or mentally ill. That I'd lose my wife and family and probably go bankrupt.

Those predictions, on the far side of the experience of Em's cancer, exactly mirrored those of the docs and social workers upon diagnosis. In the end, everyone was saying the same thing: the cancer can only kill Emily, but how you handle it can kill your entire family.

That's where the "war within the context of everything else" concept began for me: that simple life lesson.

So when I read this article, I feel more committed than ever to the idea that we need a return of a "fox" (who knows many things) to the White House in 2008, replacing the "hedgehog" (tell me Bush's entire presidency isn't Iraq right now). I care about that more than whether he or she is Republican or Democrat. We can't let the Long War become everything and the rest become all "lesser includeds." What's happening inside American families right now on the issue of elder care and healthcare in general is simply too profound to ignore.

There are simply too many casualties we're not counting.

Why I focus on economics...

Follow-up questioner on Hugh's show (regular visitor here) said his problem with me was my focus on economics and not enough on the ideology of jihad.

I've gotten this criticism for a long time: Barnett can't account for the irrationals.

This is what I wrote in Blueprint for Action(p. 281):

As we seek to shrink what remains of the Gap over the next several decades, we will rarely find societies adequately prepared--either intellectually or emotionally--for the travails that lie ahead. Instead, the elements most prepared will be those most willing to wage bloody resistance against this process: educated, worldly young men who are familiar with the future we offer and have already decided that is is corrupting beyond all reason. These revolutionaries and terrorists will wage wars of extreme perversity against both us and their own peoples, convinced as they are of their moral superiority in rooting out hypocrisy and heresy.

We will see, time and time again, atrocities committed by these actors that recall the chillingly murderous logic of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, as they too seek to remake their own corners of humanity overnight so as to keep them safe and thoroughly disconnected from the evil of the outside world. These perverse acts of violence will be designed to shock us as much as their own people, in the typical "bloody nose" strategy that outsiders have attempted against "weak" and "amoral" Americans going decades back in our history--at times successfully (e.g., Pearl Harbor [not], Tet Offensive [yes], 9/11 [yet to be seen]. As such, their strategy of resistance will specifically target--in the manner of Fourth-Generation Warfare--our morale and perseverance rather than our material strength.

This "silver bomb" strategy is not unlike the "silver bullet" thinking that has long impaired much of America's own military logic. While we constantly search fro the "killer application," or decisive technology that will bring us instant victory, our enemies search for the "killer strike," or the symbolic targets whose destruction brings us to our knees and convinces us of the futility of fighting on. In this way, our current main enemies, the Salafi jihadits, are, in the words of that hardened revolutionary strategist, Vladimir Lenin, almost "childlike" in their assumption that the right bomb in the right place at the right time will bring about worldwide revolution.

But their destruction is preordained by history, in a form of natural selection by which those who cannot ground themselves in anything but totalitarian schemes of power and domination over others must inevitably be weeded out so that others far more talented and imaginative can truly reap the benefits of a world without walls, without disconnectedness, and without war.

So yes, I do account for nonrational actors in my worldview. And when they threaten violence against global order, I say: Kill them.

So no, I don't believe in the war of ideas or in propaganda. I say, kill the bad guys to keep us safe now, but deny the bad guys new recruits by providing economic alternatives to the sort of dead-end lives that make them vulnerable to recruitment as foot soldiers in the Gap wars ahead. I'm interested in shutting down the flow over the long term, because to me, that's the only win worth pursuing. We're never going to stop the committed terrorists willing to come here to wage their wars, because they tend to be highly-educated and resistant to that play on our part. Those individuals we hunt down and kill. But to marginalize their movements, we have to cap the anger at the source, and economics is huge in this effort, while politics and ideology tend only to be reflective of underlying economic realities.

So I'm admittedly a realist in short-term fighting and an economic determinist in long-term fighting, but that's how I think the Long War will be won.

The CFL: needing all our support!

ARTICLE: "Wal-Mart Puts Some Muscle Behind Power-Sipping Bulbs," by Michael Barbaro, New York Times, 2 January 2007, p. A1.

No, not the Canadian Football League, but compact fluorescent bulb.

While I had a lot of problems with Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," it did push me on a subject I really believe in: swapping out incandescent bulbs for fluorescent ones.

The key reason: so much less energy used. A comparable 60watt CFL actually uses only 13 watts.

The next great follow-on reason: a CFL 60 watt-equivalent saves about 100 pounds of carbon emissions in a year, because of all the savings in electricity generation.

An unnoticed reason: CFLs are amazingly cooler (heat-wise), meaning fewer fires caused from wires heated to the point of brittleness (a real danger) and less wasted energy to be compensated for during warmer seasons by AC (ever notice how hot lights get with incandescents?).

A real homeowner reason: CFLs go about 5 to 10 times longer than regular bulbs. If you have a decent-sized house like I do, that's reason enough. I'm so tired of replacing bulbs every time I come back from the road.

So great to see Wal-Mart get behind this. The challenge: sell these CFLs and you'll sell fewer bulbs. But since they cost so much more (you won't save money in bulbs, but in electricity), if Wal-Mart gets people hot on these, they'll be selling far fewer bulbs over time. So G.E.'s basically telling Wal-Mart to slow down otherwise it'll put people out of work at factories that produce regular bulbs. Seems to me that G.E., which does pretty well by the American public, could think a bit more long term for our environment.

So a tip of my hat to Wal-Mart on this one.

This week's column

Enough of the hedgehog

The ancient Greek poet Archilochus opined, "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." Let me submit that we're living through the final months of the decidedly hedgehog presidency of George W. Bush, whose strategic failures logically can be remedied by the election of a fox in 2008.

Americans generally prefer leaders to be steadfast and armed with a readily identifiable worldview. To have a mind subject to periodic change is considered weak and irresolute. We often label these individuals "flip-floppers," "liars" and - worst of all - "politicians," when "life-long learners" and "deal-makers" are equally applicable.

Read on at KnoxNews
Read on at Scripps Howard

PNM paperback boosted on Amazon

For some reason, hardcover Pentagon's New Map is not available on Amazon, but neat to see the bargain paperback jump into the 500s because of Hugh's show last night.

Also nice to see a five-checks-out-of-five vote on Hewitt's site.

Listening to Hewitt's opening comments on the GOP candidates and find myself surprisingly in agreement with him on McCain's weakness and Romney's strengths. I think 2008 is going to be a very surprising race.

Monks of War available

I was looking in the wrong place. A big thanks to Prasenjeet for pointing out the current availability.

The Monks of War
The Monks of War (printer-friendly version)

Plunging back in...

This Xmas vacation has wreaked havoc on my schedule, but as the kids return to school (I have four: high school, middle school, grade school, preschool), things settle down more and more with each day.

Meanwhile, I grow increasingly happy with our big Xmas gift to ourselves (the parents): our Precore elliptical trainer. Between that and the Bowflex (which we use religiously), I now feel confident I have all the tools to head into middle age fearing primarily the growing, Al Gore-like bald spot on the back of my head.

The notion of the Hewitt extravaganza stretching over the next two months definitely picked me up, giving me a nice sense of optimism for the new year (not that Enterra's continuing trajectory can't manage that feat on its own). It's been long clear that most readers are still getting their heads around The Pentagon's New Map, while Blueprint for Action, its sequel, remains unknown to many (victim of perhaps too rapid a follow-up, then a fall release, the competition of I-was-there soldier books that hit that fall [shifting the discussion from grand strategy to individual plights--only natural], and frankly Putnam had too full a slate of big-name celebrity books right then so I didn't get the PR push I got the first time with PNM). I go to a lot of places where I give speeches and find that many PNM fans still hunger for a follow-up book, not realizing that BFA is even out there!

But can I be disappointed that Hewitt's focus is PNM and not BFA? (note: Hewitt seemed unaware of BFA, so we're sending him a copy--only proving my point).

Hardly, especially given his commitment to making this a long, slow, explanatory venue. I really believe the whole "surge" question and rising issues with Syria and Iran and Israel-Palestine (all reemphasized by the ISG report) will bring grand strategy back in vogue in 2007, only to be further boosted by the prez campaign season as we head in 2008.

Naturally, I think of Vol. III for sometime in 2008, and expect to gin up a proposal within the next three months, but I'm not worried about getting ahead of the audience. I'm ecstatic that I got out BFA in 2005, because I think it was crucial to get down on paper all that I did, not just to further expand PNM's arguments, but because I think the track record of BFA will turn out to be better and better with time. Thus, any PR that pushes Pentagon's New Map will eventually lead ready-willing-and-able readers to Blueprint for Action. As I wrote in PNM, it's one thing to have the answer, but it's another thing to have the right audience and the right time.

But I won't hold up the third book (focused on individual-led change as its minor theme and "releasing the grand strategist in you!" as its major theme) because I feel like it's essential at this point in pivotal history (and early in this Long War) that someone write the grand strategy primer (a "how to," not a "what is," because I offered the former in PNM and BFA) to help raise a next generation of strategists for the decades ahead.

Frankly, when I was in college in the 1980s (and I mean the entire 1980s to get a BA, MA and PHD), I would have killed for this kind of book: something that gave me a deep and systematic look at the career path I was contemplating. Yes, I will be limited to my own experience to a certain extent, but it's been a good pathway and a fairly broad one, and I think it's worth sharing, because--as I said on Hugh's show last night--we in the national security community can't keep defaulting to the journalists and columnists for grand strategy. That dialogue needs to be driven by practitioners, not commentators.

And Vol. III will aim to do that, maintaining the manifesto tone of PNM and BFA, but bringing it down to the level of the individual with the expressed purpose of replicating the vision in a small army of like-minded thinkers. Indoctrination? Not really. I'm far more interested in passing on form rather than content, and I fully expect to be a "bad" or "weak" follower of my own vision before I pass from the scene (I am already routinely accused of "breaking" from my vision's logic by readers and fellow bloggers and I'm more than cool with that, because as I wrote in BFA, the grand strategist can launch such visions but he or she cannot own them once they take flight: you're just connecting people to what they want to know, or--in many cases--already intrinsically know deep in their hearts and, once accomplished, frankly you're not really needed anymore on that subject so you better move on). Thus, Vol. III for me, is the moving-on part: the systematic training of the next generation.

Apologies for the inner dialogue, but hey! That's what the blog is for: the daily glimpse into the mindset and how it interprets current events. Never pretty, because I tend to be as sloppy as the next guy on a daily basis. My strength has never been the drill down on any one topic, but the synthesizing across time--or what I call the horizontal thinking.

To that end, let me catch up on a pile of papers...

Tom on Petraeus

In the wake of Petraeus' promotion, Esquire is featuring part of Tom's article for them, Monks of War, calling it Can David Petraeus Rebuild a Nation?. Unfortunately, Monks of War is still behind the pay wall.

Matthew Stannard's article on Petraeus, which quotes Tom and which Tom posted about yesterday, is up. Tom's part:

"This is the guy who came into Iraq during his first tour and seemed to get the nation-building stuff better than anybody. But he also was sharp in terms of doing the necessary killing," said Thomas Barnett, who profiled Petraeus for Esquire magazine in March. "He brings a lot of native skills to the entire process."

More from Hugh's show

The transcript and audio from Tom's appearance last night are both up. Check them out.

If you just want to only listen to Tom's part, listen from 9:00 to 18:40.

Further, the plan, as Hugh articulated it, is to take eight shows to cover each chapter in PNM. Hugh is shooting for eight consecutive Tuesdays, starting this Tuesday the 9th, 6 EST (2nd hour of the program). Again, to find a local station that carries Hugh's show, click here. Just like this post, I'll plan on linking transcripts and audio as soon as Hugh's site has them up.

Interviewed on Petraeus

Spoke with Matt seconds after Hewitt's show (about Petraeus and Fallon, naturally), expanding the logic from this morn's post. Really glad to hear Matt say that Tom Hammes was psyched by the pick. I know Nagl will be extremely pleased. Hell, he probably pushed hard from his perch in OSD (mil asst to DEPSECDEF). That "perfumed prince" tag on Petraeus has always struck me as BS. People who reallly know, know better.

The hearings on these two should be fascinating.

Sorry for shorthand. Racing to movies with kids.

Welcome visitors from Hugh Hewitt!

Tom is very excited about the unique situation we find ourselves in. To recap, Tom will be going on Hugh's show approximately eight more times in the next couple of months to cover a chapter per appearance of Tom's first major book, The Pentagon's New Map.

With that in mind, let me point you to some resources.

(By the way, I'm Tom's webmaster.)

First of all, you should buy the book. See that Amazon box over there in the sidebar? Click on it ;-) (Or click here.)

Tom's home page contains links to lots of his material.

Since Tom and Hugh will be talking about the The Pentagon's New Map, let me point you to the index page for that book. There's tons of material there, including the 'Expanded DVD/Director's Commentary'.

If you don't already know, PNM (that's how we abbreviate the first book) came out of Tom's PowerPoint Brief which he has given thousands of times. Many older slides from the Brief are available in the Director's Commentary section. You can especially find them in the Storyboard section.

But there's nothing like hearing or, better, seeing and hearing the Brief. We have a separate Brief page that has many links to AV presentations of the Brief. The highest quality versions are probably the DVDs that you can buy from C-SPAN, but there are many no cost options as well.

Finally, Tom has over 4000 posts on his weblog. Why not click here, search for your favorite topic (type it in the Google search box after the 'site:thomaspmbarnett.com'), and see what comes up?

If you have any questions, leave them in the comments on this thread.

We're excited you're here and look forward to a fun couple of months!

Whew! with Hugh

Man, that was fast! But 10-minute spots fly by like you wouldn't believe.

Hugh was very generous, both in description and in time to answer questions. I did my best to go high-bit rate by rarely taking a full breath. I had just scanned the Preface of PNM to remind myself what it covered. Hugh's questions lined up nicely, so my boning up on my bon mots worked out.

It was hard to gear up because I've done no public speaking in roughly a month, which is a frickin' eternity! But having Hewitt intro the segment with the promise of 8 more shows got my pulse up plenty and I was off to the races, giving probably the best 60-second summary of my career I've ever done.

I know Hewitt's pretty conservative, but--quite frankly--it's been the right and the right-of-center that's given me the openings time and time again, so I'm grateful for the exposure and psyched for the exchange. I had read Hugh's interview with Rago and Sullivan and while he's tough, he does not trick or lure. Any graves you dig with your tongue are your own to wallow in, so I had no trepidation heading in. The guy's amazingly committed to making this a serious teach-in, so to speak, and I don't know any author who doesn't welcome that sort of serious attention.

This should be a lot of fun.

Editor's notes:

The transcript isn't up yet, but watch this post on Hugh's weblog for it. I will post it as soon as I see it.

And Hugh's co-weblogger, Dean Barnett (no relation) has a really nice post about Tom's appearance and thinking.

Petraeus and Fallon are good choices

ARTICLE: Bush Making Changes in His Iraq Team: As He Reviews War Policy, Deep Divisions Remain, By Robin Wright and Michael Abramowitz, Washington Post, January 5, 2007; Page A01

Picking Dave Petraeus to replace Casey is a solid choice. Petraeus doesn't shy from the nation-building role and since building Iraq from the army outward is the most feasible pathway of success, putting him in charge makes a lot of sense; he's got the most experience and has done the most thinking and revamping of doctrine on the more general topic of counter-insurgency. Plus, Dave's just a really good guy.

I had the real honor of spending time with him in Leavenworth in December of 2005: addressing his students, interviewing him at length for the "Monks of War" piece, and holding an informal roundtable with him and the famed "Jedi knights" of his schoolhouse there in Kansas. It was a most memorable time, because it's rare enough to meet someone of that talent and drive.

Tough for him to pick up and leave again (he missed his son's entire high school experience, for example, with previous tours), so we thank his family for the intense sacrifice as well.

I worry a lot, as do many family members, that one or more of my nephews will be pulled back to Iraq before this ends, so knowing Petraeus will be there helps somewhat with those fears. Smart choice by Bush, but one likely set in motion by Rummy a while back, I suspect. Say what you like about Rumsfeld (and much should be said), he picked his flag officer slots well, and as I noted in my profile of him in Esquire, he put in an unusually large amount of effort in those choices.

Picking Fallon may seem a stretch, given the regional shift from Pac to Cent, plus he's an admiral (many thought another "monk of war" would be named, as in Mattis), but I like the choice a lot and here's why: Fallon's a bit of a maverick who's confident in his diplomatic skills, as witnessed by his hard and sustained push to improve mil-mil ties with China, despite opposition from many in the Pentagon, and especially the neocons. So I admire his capacity to take heat and persevere in a tricky effort such as that. I think it may serve him well in Centcom, where I think his biggest challenges will be dealing with Iran, Syria and others (Saudi Arabia, Israel) who all have their own agendas and can be counted upon to pursue them no matter what the cost to America. We need a serious diplomat in that job, and I believe Fallon was probably the best available guy for the billet right now.

Two years in a row

Once again, BFA has been named a Book of the Year by Enter Stage Right. If you haven't read Steve's review, The optimistic warrior, you should. Tom says:

BFA came out late in 2005, but frankly, it read decidedly better as 2006 unfolded (the paperback came out late in 2006), so more fitting to be selected for 06 than 05.

My thanks to Steve Martinovich for this honor.

Sometimes it feels like my whole career has come down to about two dozen people: they choose me, so I get chosen. I take that recognition very seriously, and do best to forge a career that justifies it.

I know Steve weighs his choices carefully as well, so again, my thanks to him and Enter Stage Right.

Want to hear Tom in Hawaii?

In other speaking news, Tom may be available for talks on Sunday the 8th of April and Monday the 9th. He is scheduled to talk at a Special Ops event on the 10th. If you are interested in having Tom speak, please email Jen Posada.