Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 1:17AM ARTICLE: Move to Arrest Journalist Sparks Backlash in China, By Edward Cody, Washington Post, January 9, 2008; Page A11
Great stuff to see. This is how change comes to China: the more economic empowerment, the less they put up with the arbitrary political bullshit.
(Thanks: Dan Hare)
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 2:19AM ARTICLE: McCain and Clinton Win in N.H. In Major Comebacks, By Chris Cillizza, washingtonpost.com, January 8th, 2008
I will admit I am depressed a bit about Hillary's win in NH. I admire her a lot and think she could be a great president, but here's the speech line that killed any enthusiasm for that scenario (from memory): "It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and it looks like it'll take another Clinton to clean up after the second one.").
That line just drove home the whole dynasty shtick that I've grown so weary of. If it's bad for backward countries to elect spouses and kids of former rulers, then why is it such a good deal here?
I mean, are we that bereft of talent that we must regurgitate entire administrations? Look at what the "steady hands" of Bush 41 (Powell, Rice, Cheney, Wolfowitz) got us with Bush 43.
All this tells me is that politics doesn't matter much today in the everyday lives of Americans. We're just dogs going back to our own vomit. Instead of the Big Man, we submit to the Big Family. Same mediocre deal, because they second-timers rule with a sense of entitlement. We saw it with W.'s supremely arrogant crowd and I suspect we'd see it with all the Clintonites back in power: tons of "we know best."
That's just why I'm so desperate for the Boomers/Vietnam crowd to pass. I want politics to stop being such a "low" profession that only the weirdly driven types enter into it, leading us to rely on dynastic families as political "comfort food."
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 2:13AM ARTICLE: Is Iraqi Kurdistan a Good Ally?, By Michael Rubin, MIDDLE EASTERN OUTLOOK, AEI Online, January 7, 2008
Good rundown by Rubin regarding the current state of corruption in Kurdish Iraq and how the ruling families dominate economic activity.
But he goes too far in dismissing long-term alliance between the U.S. and the KRG.
First off, expecting democracy before development is unrealistic and ahistoric--especially in this region.
Second, transparency and rule of law come when the incentives for each are greater than the existing zero-sum impulses to dominate the local, albeit limited, pie that naturally arises once economic opportunity emerges.
Third, in the short term, those who dominate are the already dominant. Why? Their relatives have the most experience and education (both typically achieved abroad) at first.
Fourth, the local ruling clans will--if successful--soon max out the economic possibilities offered locally and in conjunction with more marginally competitive and somewhat corrupt global players. To move beyond those limitations, the local elites need to access larger financial pools. Those assets come with demands for transparency and certainty (rules are government-dependent, not ruler-dependent).
Fifth, when that expansion of connectivity expands transparency, the economic opportunities expand to a wider array of potential players, over time creating power/influence-demand centers that compete with the ruling elites. If the elites beat back such competition in a manner too off-putting to foreign investors, that money will not flow and those economic limitations will not be superseded.
Interestingly enough, the Kurdish elites clans openly express a strong preference for Western investment, which will come with demands for more transparency. Why would the Barzanis and Talabanis prefer the West to others?
Ah, therein lies our ability to provide security guarantees.
For the same reasons why east-central European states, once freed from the Soviet grip, wanted westward economic and security and political integration, the Kurds want security lock-in ASAP. It's just a logical choice, given their fears.
In turn, our logical choice is to see where such security takes the KRG economically, and how that demonstration effect serves our interests elsewhere in Iraq.
Knowing that, why would America dump the Kurds as strategic allies, despite their less-than-stellar current achievements in democratization? Wouldn't that just replicate the same illusions of the neocons regarding Iraq as a whole?
If we were so narrow-minded and went all tough-love on the Kurds, should we expect a better developmental outcome? A better political outcome? A better security outcome?
Or should we logically expect a fear-threat reaction that totally screws the pooch?
Rubin's thinking here strikes me as awfully shortsighted and surprisingly naive--especially on the economics--for a regional expert.
A disappointing piece from AEI, which is rarely so defeatist or strategically impatient.
As always, the regional experts are most expert at telling you why nothing good will come of any effort you contemplate.
You want to refuse a deal offered? Have your lawyer review it.
You want to kill any long-term alliance? Ask a regional expert to review it.
We need to be more mature in our thinking. Rubin's reporting here aids that effort. His accompanying analysis does not.
(Thanks: Matthew Garcia)
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 2:00AM MAP: A Global Projection of Subjective Well-being, A Global Projection of Subjective Well-being: A Challenge to Positive Psychology? By Adrian G. White, University of Leicester, Psychtalk 56, 17-20
The unremarkable observation: people are--on average--happier in the Core than in the Gap.
Two caveats: oil-rich states inside the Gap tend to be happier; and Russia remains relatively unhappy, despite the boom.
The former is easy to explain: all trust-fund babies are happy---so to speak.
The latter is more the amputating nature of recent history: many in Russia feel oddly cut off from their known past--adrift and disconnected.
(Thanks: Al Anderson)
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 1:57AM ARTICLE: "New Leaders Of Sunnis Make Gains In Influence: U.S.-Backed Fighters Find Empowering Role," by Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post, 8 January 2007, p. A1.
Here lie the seeds of the surge's possible destruction:
The United States is empowering a new group of Sunni leaders, including onetime members of former president Saddan Hussein's Baath Party, intelligence services and army, who are challenging established Sunni politicians for their community's leadership. The phenomenon marks a sharp turnaround in U.S. policy and the fortunes of Iraq's Sunni minority.
The new leaders are decidedly against Iraq's U.S.-backed, Shiite-led government, which is wary of the Awakening movement's growing influence, viewing it as a potential threat when U.S. troops withdraw. The mistrust suggests how easily last year's security improvements could come undone in a still-brittle Iraq.
So long as we dream of anything other than a loosely federated Iraq, where everyone controls their own and everyone else feels free of outside control, this potential security collapse will loom.
And that will be enough to scare away most FDI from all of Iraq--save the Kurdish region.
And that's a problem.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008 at 1:55AM James Mann's "China Fantasy" was as weak as I expected.
James Kynge's "China Shakes the World" was great: solid overarching analysis sprinkled amidst long tracts of personal case histories (less interesting for me).
Best recent is Maurice Baxter's "Henry Clay and the American System": straight history with little overarching analysis, but fascinating nonetheless.
Also fab recently was David McCullough's "Truman," which truly deserved that Pulitzer.
Monday, January 14, 2008 at 11:55AM + PRIMER-Connecticut reprinted ' Top 10 Foreign Policy Wishes for 2008'.
+ N√∏rse Berserker reprinted last week's column.
+ Piedro reprinted yesterday's column.
+ So did Dans Blog.
+ The Korea Times picked it up.
+ Albert links Thomas P.M. Barnett: The Worldchanging Interview.
+ Apriori Concepts called the TED talk 'the best PowerPoint presentation ever'.
+ Michael E. Nolan linked the TED video, too.
+ Greg Laden embedded it.
+ Exurban League says we need a wargame for DoEE and maybe someone can tweak the new open source SimCity.
+ Larry Dunbar linked Need some help.
Monday, January 14, 2008 at 4:26AM Watched the Seahawks game in the home theater, where the HD on a 100-inch screen (ceiling mounted In Focus achieves the size) is just stunning (meaning I could see through the snow just like I was there), and I gotta admit: everything I feared happened at the start. I was worried that our young team had peaked in the first half of the first game with the Bears and never quite again looked that dominate as we did in that amazing first two quarters (ultimately we lost that one because McCarthy got conservative). Worse, I saw a team that hadn't played a meaningful game in roughly a month, whereas the Seahawks were more veteran and playing hard.
Boy were my fears dispelled quickly!
Then to my non-surprise, the Boys lose. Why no surprise? Same basic fear package as with my Pack, especially when you're talking the young, divertable QB Romo, now still without a PO win in his career.
So now it's Eli and not Peyton. That is a huge shame, because I really wanted the rematch with the Pats, who luck out again in their magical season (quick, somebody call a TO on 4th down from the sideline!).
You ask my Enterra colleagues what I predicted earlier this week: not just the usual one divisional home team would lose this year, but definitely two and maybe three. I thought all of them, including my Pack, were more ripe for upsets than realized. It's just that the Pack and Pats played up to potential, despite the poor run-ups, while the declines continued for the Boys and Colts.
But here's the real sign of my growing commitment to the book: my Mom offered me one of her two Super Bowl tickets (she gets if Pack win next weekend). At first I said yes and got my free SWA tix in order. Then, after the talk with Neil about the book sked, I gave up the seat and the airline tix.
Would I change my mind now, as excited as I am?
No. Been to five games this year and I'm a bit burned out on the travel from late last year. I am just enjoying my time at home too much, plus I can't give up an entire 3-day weekend like that. This way I can work the entire weekend on the book and head down to the basement about 5 mins before kickoff--if they win next week.
But I gotta assume they will, unless the Giants have more magic than the Pats this year.
Then, come to think of it, given the Giants' perf against NE, maybe that would be more fair . . .
Nah!
Gotta go with Brett and our trio of wideouts (Jones in my personal fav), plus the emergent Grant. Then there's my man Nick Barnett leading the D.
We are fated to win it all. I can feel it.
Either way though, it's got to be about a five-hour funtime for me and that's it.
I am simply so gearing up for the book right now that any spare time has to go to Enterra, not the Pack.
Then again, as I reflect on it more, I realize that I just want to be home with my wife and kids watching the game with them MORE than being in the stadium on, what will seem to them as, yet another business trip by Dad.
I remember watching the Pack play the Pats in 31 back in 1997, sitting all alone in my hotel room in Panama City, Panama--there on a lengthy intelligence exercise with SOUTHCOM. All I could think was, "What am I doing here all by myself!"
We all watched the Colts game last year in the theater and had a total blast. It was a hugely enjoyable time, a great memory.
I guess I want that possibility more than being there live.
Plus I'm just lost to the book--in a good way.
Plus I'm just so burned out on blitzkrieg travel. I was basically gone all of Nov and Dec last year, and my health went to pot. Couldn't ex, didn't eat well enough, slept badly with all the time changes. I was a mess in WDW, creaking like an old man.
Being back in the house for longer breaks is really rejuvenating me. I work out 2-3 times a day (did Bowflex with Vonne today, read a book while on elliptical, and then ran a mile with youngest son) and eat very sensibly, and that, plus all the book intake, is simply recasting my brain in a very good way.
Seriously, I was about to lose it just before Xmas. Ready to quit everything. Finally realized I was just completely burned out from the nonstop travel and harsh pace, with two Packer games in that mix.
I gotta keep the grip so I can turn that big knob in Feb and March. I will write the first draft by 31 March, so help me God. Roughly 60 days on this one, vice the 40-45 on the first two. I admit to some aging.
Monday, January 14, 2008 at 1:26AM OP-ED: "What's Your Consumption Factor?," by Jared Diamond, New York Times, 2 January 2007, p. A19.
A very Amory Lovins-style piece.
Kenyans consume at 1. Americans consume 32 times that much. China is more like 3 but heading north fast.
Diamond's point: the average globally is around 8, making for the effect that 9 billion in 2050 will feel like 72--unless the more high-consumption come down to some lesser footprint.
A worse lifestyle?
Real sacrifice wouldn't be required, however, because living standards are not tightly coupled to consumption rates. Much American consumption is wasteful and contributes little or nothing to quality of life.
Good example? We waste a lot of oil. Amory says the energy used in a car is split between 97 percent that keeps car running and 3 percent that actually propels it forward. Can that be improved?
Our problem is that we're relatively rich, well-endowed and free of bad pollution, so we're not much incentivized to change, security being a weak connection ("Don't we end up going to the Mideast anyway? Or somewhere else, even if we don't import oil?").
That's why focusing on Asia's rise is crucial. Getting them to top out on footprint at a sustainable level will result in a product line that should be transferable--easily--to our own environment, thus bringing down our consumption factor.
This transfer will depend much on cultural change in the U.S. regarding "cool."
We need the right sort of "Blade Runner" mash-up.
Monday, January 14, 2008 at 1:24AM IN BRIEF: "Chavez Directs Oil Company To Help Ease Food Shortages," Wall Street Journal, 7 January 2008, p. A4.
Wow, that took long.
Chavez has his Houston-based NOC office now using its logistical nets to ship food to Venezuela to ease the shortages his glorious socialist revolution has already created amidst record oil prices.
Big surprise that PDVSA's oil production has already begun declining, as the state-owned company increasingly focuses on providing social services to the population.
I see this working out well for the masses there over the long haul.
It takes a Big Man ....
Monday, January 14, 2008 at 1:19AM ARTICLE: Ayatollah open to U.S.-Iran ties, By Nasser Karimi, Washington Times, January 4, 2008
The Ayatollah is listing his requirements for normalized relations. Doubtful he expects to forego all spying, but clearly he expects some quiet reassurances we won't be actively backing anti-regime groups.
Sunday, January 13, 2008 at 1:33AM The future of oil? America's not in the driver's seat
With oil hovering at the $100-a-barrel mark, we're inundated by calls for a "Manhattan Project" on alternative energy, more regulation of major oil companies and an end to our military presence in the Gulf.
The assumptions are that America's energy demand drives prices, the "majors" determine supply and instability in the Middle East explains recent spikes. So, if this is all our doing, then it can all be our undoing as well.
Would that Washington was so eminently in control of global energy markets.
Read on at KnoxNews.
Read on at Scripps Howard.
Saturday, January 12, 2008 at 3:22AM with Vonne (her second time) and thoroughly enjoyed it. Great all around.
Money quote at end from Wilson: "We changed the world and then we fucked the endgame."
That reality is exactly why I chose to work with Steve in bringing Enterra to where it stands today with our work in resilience and especially Development-in-a-Box‚Ñ¢, which we're making real progress in Kurdish Iraq and are already planning, with very serious corporate partners, to take elsewhere.
Better to wage pre-emptive nation-building than to fuck-up the endgame.
Saturday, January 12, 2008 at 3:16AM ARTICLE: Micro-grants rebuild Iraq, By Bill Hess, Sierra Vista Herald, December 31, 2007
Army gets turned on to microloans. Matters less how many businesses succeed than showing what we're all about.
(Thanks: Ron Fouts)
Friday, January 11, 2008 at 7:41AM Am told current Proceedings works some issues from my angle. Interested in seeing but don't have a subscription anymore. Can anyone scan and send?
Friday, January 11, 2008 at 1:22AM ARTICLE: Palestinians Who Prefer Israel, by Daniel Pipes, Jerusalem Post, January 2, 2008
Interesting article by Daniel, who, despite his fierce reputation, is one of the nicest guys you'd ever care to meet. I got to know him in a couple of wargames I put on at the Naval War College, where he too had previously served as professor.
What do the numbers tell us? The Palestinians run a failed state and the Israelis run one of the best in the world.
But the only way that scenario works is for Jews to ultimately become a minority in Israel, and that's a tricky path, but there's no doubt that Palestinians would be better off living in a larger Israel than a larger Palestine.
Once you get over the identity thing, you go with the better services.
Silly, I know, but for us non-tribalists, it's the only logic worth acknowledging. You move America to Antarctica tomorrow and I'm there.
(Thanks: Dan Hare)
Friday, January 11, 2008 at 1:19AM ARTICLE: Iran's inner and outer circles of influence and power, By Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times, December 31, 2007
In the vein of late-Brezhnevian USSR: mullahs pretend to rule and people pretend to obey.
(Thanks: Ray Kimball)
Friday, January 11, 2008 at 1:14AM ARTICLE: Bhutto's Son Chosen As Eventual Party Chief, By Griff Witte, Washington Post, December 31, 2007; Page A01
A sure sign of how ultimately irrelevant Benazir was: her husband automatically becomes party head and her 19-year-old son is slated as eventual party leader. This is pure symbology, showing there is a dynastic family function that's more important than the actual leaders themselves, which are completely interchangeable, regardless of actual talent.
This is why the Boomers are making us look so sad with son W. and wife Hillary as apparently the best both parties can manage. Yes, they both get elected themselves, but you get the point.
Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 3:21AM Spent yesterday with stellar cast of characters, to include John Robb in our first F2F, at an all-day defense community workshop in Northern VA. That was pretty interesting.
Then an hour in the Pentagon.
Then dinner with an old Navy friend I am trying hard to get to join Enterra.
Then crash.
I am strategized out!
As the book writing nears, I find it harder by the day to stay on-topic.
The great mental retreat begins ....
Thursday, January 10, 2008 at 1:36AM ARTICLE: The great fall of China, By Walter Russell Mead, Los Angeles Times, December 30, 2007
This is interesting stuff for the PPP [purchasing power parity] weenies, but hardly earth-shattering. It is an equivalency statistic, an all-things-being-equal notion.
No one conducts business or cuts contracts in PPP. If you were one of the Fantastics who predicted China's economy would soon surpass America's, then you are shocked--SHOCKED--to discover it won't happen.
Say you come to my neighborhood and I make a lot more money than my neighbor. But say everything in his house costs less, so his money goes a lot further than mine, because stuff costs more in mine. We could develop a calculation to take into account my neighbor's cheaper lifestyle and on that basis, we could equate the purchasing power of his buck versus mine.
Could we then extend that analysis and say his household economy is actually larger (more bang for buck?)?
Yeah, sort of.
But at the end of the day, I still have more income, despite my more expensive lifestyle, so you don't want to take that equivalency argument too far.
If I make 100,000 and my neighbor makes 50,000 but everything he buys costs half as much as my purchases, but they're basically the same goods and services with differences according to our households, then we basically have parity in purchasing power.
But again, that doesn't exactly makes our household incomes equivalent by most people's understanding. It just means we live similar lives in different circumstances.
Again, at the end of the day, the absolute amounts involved are dissimilar. We're just calculating a rough equivalency, as in, this is a middle class life in the States and this is roughly the same lifestyle in China.
So what this new calculation says is that money and income doesn't seem to go as far as we previously thought. Before we had one calculation and now it's 40 percent less. What we had previously was too high and I'll bet we soon decide that this current calculation is somewhat low. The guessing part comes in comparing the goods and services, because expectations differ. The acceptable meal in China differs from the one here, and so on.
But, again, understand this: no one conducts business or investment in PPP calculations. At the end of the day, the money needs to make sense in your own currency, not just his "equivalent" purchasing power.
So while these estimates are interesting to the rank-ologists, and while they give businessmen a sense of what price expectations are in any market (this is what the average Chinese expect to spend on this sort of thing), taking these new figures as somehow indicating China's economy is far smaller is misleading. What the PPP estimates is the power of China's purchasing function in relation to our own ("If China's economy was like America's, it would really be worth this much."). While "students" of global economics love this sort of stuff, actual practitioners are less impressed.
China's economy is the same. What is different is how we construct a sense of equivalency to our own economy. The 1800 or so in real bucks that we know the average Chinese makes doesn't equate to something like $7k in U.S. spending but something more like $4-5k (I do this from memory, so I may be off).
What really matters in China is demand and investment and how both will be met. At the end of the day, we can now say that China's current income travels less far, so we can ditch a lot of the crazy hypology of China's imminent "global domination," but overhyping in the other direction now is equally unwarranted, because most of our assumptions of how China will cost out future challenges will likely be significantly off base.
Mead may think he's uncovered a "shocker," but BusinessWeek and the WSJ already covered this news, and neither lost their grip on reality over it, so neither should we.
(Thanks: Bill Millan)
