Cash is king in COIN

TERRORISM THREAT: "Al-Qaeda exploits failures of weak state: Political, social and economic reform is vital in the fight to halt militants," by Andrew England, Financial Times, 4 January 2010.

The word on how AQ moves in on failed-state localities:

They come with bags of cash for the tribes and we have heard they come with teachers for schools, so they understand the importance of the economy. They are not promising jihad; they are promising economic assistance.

Granted, it's designed to be a bait-and-switch ultimately, but it just goes to show that we only symmetricize when we "attack" the situation similarly.

A border clash I can live with

WORLD NEWS: "China's progress provokes border envy in India: Delhi minister fears north-east's neglect; Beijing steps us territorial claims," by James Lamont, Financial Times, 4 January 2010.

Poor people seemingly trapped on the Indian side of the border see neighbors suddenly being treated to all sorts of infrastructure improvement on the Chinese side ("What is the mistake we made by being Indians [rather than Chinese]?")

You mean you can just choose?

A great-power competition I can live with, as China has now played this sort of green-eyed role for India for roughly three decades.

More than four-fold increase: pirate attacks on oil tankers

WORLD NEWS: "Pirate Attacks Raise Risks for Oil Tankers," by Spencer Swartz, Wall Street Journal, 2-3 January 2010.

Chart says 9 attacks in 2006, 25 in 2007, 30 in 2008 and 42 in 2009. Most occur at the starting point around the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea and--obviously--off the coast of Somalia.

Did the attacks have any impact on oil prices?

Not really. I mean, nothing in comparison to the global economic downswing.

Christians can now claim Allah as their own in Malaysia

WORLD NEWS: "'Allah' Ruling May Challenge Malaysia," by James Hookway and Celine Fernandez, Wall Street Journal, 2-3 January 2010.

ARTICLE: Churches Attacked Amid Furor in Malaysia, By SETH MYDANS, New York Times, January 10, 2010

ARTICLE: Malaysia: Attacks in 'Allah' Dispute, AP, January 8, 2010

Malaysian High Court ruling says Roman Catholics there can use the word Allah to describe God in the local languages and pubs (i.e., Bibles). The ruling overturned a recent government ban.

A small step toward a freer and more openly competitive religious landscape in Asia, with--as I've noted for years--Malaysia playing a decided "lead goose" role.

Yes, the scary prosecutions will pop up here and there (like a woman getting caned for ordering a beer in a hotel bar), but this is a good sign of progress.

Clearly, the ruling won't be the last word in this highly contentious subject.

Tom around the web

+ Tom Engelhardt linked Is Obama's Afghanistan Strategy Ripping Off America? in a piece on Atlantic Free Press that got picked up by a lot of liberal news sites. The short version: America is in decline and China will kick our butts.

+ HG's WORLD linked The Naughties Were Plenty Nice.
+ So did zenpundit.

+ The Future of Integral recommended PNM, BFA, GP, the NDU on CSPAN video and the Middlebury Brief.

+ conneally tweeted the TED video
+ So did diffeomacx.
+ Guesswork Theory linked it.
+ So did Kevin K.

+ artlung tweeted How a childish nation reacts in times of stress.
+ 50kft_K tweeted Stunningly excellent piece of analysis on Iran sanctions.
+ A Postmodern Orthodoxy wrote a lot about PNM.
+ Enter Stage Right listed GP as one of their best books of 2009.
+ Judah Grunstein referred to Tom re: China.
+ Live active cultures linked Imagine that: home-grown mass murders in America!

'Lesser-included' no more

ARTICLE: Slow Start for Military Corps in Afghanistan, By ERIC SCHMITT, New York Times, January 5, 2010

The gist of the challenge:

But General McChrystal said through a spokesman that the effort had been "understaffed," and that he had also asked the branches of the military for their top performers. "We have to be willing to break traditional career models; we've literally got to break systems to do this," General McChrystal said.

Push now coming to shove for the SysAdmin effort in Afghanistan and the military's overall evolution in this direction. Inevitably, sufficient levels of political pain force the issue.

If we want to integrate Afghanistan, we should look to India

ARTICLE: With thumbs-up from Afghans, India explores more areas of aid, By Shubhajit Roy, Indian Express, Jan 05, 2010

The first half:

Buoyed by results of two independent surveys in Afghanistan voting India as the preferred country, ahead of even multilateral agencies like UN and NATO, to carry out reconstruction in the country, India is exploring ways to increase its assistance in various areas to that country.

India, which has a $ 1.3 billion development assistance programme for Afghanistan in place already, may venture into areas of cooperation like agriculture and irrigation apart from existing areas like power, IT, medicine, infrastructure and human resource development.

In a recent Gallup poll, when asked about the roles the Afghans thought that various groups or countries were playing in resolving the situation in Afghanistan, 59 per cent favoured India's role. UN and NATO were mentioned by 57 per cent and 51 per cent Afghans respectively.

In another public opinion survey conducted by the International Republican Institute (IRI), India topped the list of the countries seen as having "good relations with Afghanistan" -- with 24 per cent of respondents naming India, followed by the US (19 per cent), Iran (17 per cent) and Tajikistan (12 per cent). Pakistan, interestingly, was mentioned by only 5 per cent Afghans covered in the IRI survey. In the Gallup poll, about 33 per cent of Afghans surveyed saw Pakistan as supporting the Taliban leadership.

It's interesting, but you never hear anything about India in any American nation-building plan (which is all NATO, NATO, NATO), and yet, by most accounts on the ground, your average Afghan looks to India as the land of opportunity. So if you're going to connect Afghanis to the larger world, why wouldn't any and all cooperation with India on economic development be front and center?

India is the giant force pulling southern Asia into the global economy, not the U.S..

Old story of mine: our natural allies in frontier integration are New Core pillars, not Old Core allies.

Bombing Iranian nuke program won't work

ARTICLE: Iran Shielding Its Nuclear Efforts in Maze of Tunnels, By WILLIAM J. BROAD, New York Times, January 5, 2010

Some details on the long-known Iranian effort to distribute their enrichment/nuclear facilities deep under ground.

The opening:

Last September, when Iran's uranium enrichment plant buried inside a mountain near the holy city of Qum was revealed, the episode cast light on a wider pattern: Over the past decade, Iran has quietly hidden an increasingly large part of its atomic complex in networks of tunnels and bunkers across the country.

In doing so, American government and private experts say, Iran has achieved a double purpose. Not only has it shielded its infrastructure from military attack in warrens of dense rock, but it has further obscured the scale and nature of its notoriously opaque nuclear effort. The discovery of the Qum plant only heightened fears about other undeclared sites.

Now, with the passing of President Obama's year-end deadline for diplomatic progress, that cloak of invisibility has emerged as something of a stealth weapon, complicating the West's military and geopolitical calculus.

Iran's refers to this tactic as a "passive defense." Passive-aggressive would be more apt, but you get the idea.

The complications here are significant and recognized:

Indeed, Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has repeatedly discounted the possibility of a military strike, saying that it would only slow Iran's nuclear ambitions by one to three years while driving the program further underground.

Some analysts say that Israel, which has taken the hardest line on Iran, may be especially hampered, given its less formidable military and intelligence abilities.

Ahmadinejad, by the way, started as a transportation engineer and then founded the Iranian Tunneling Association, so not exactly some fly-by-night effort easily bombed into submission:

There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of big tunnels in Iran, according to American government and private experts, and the lines separating their uses can be fuzzy. Companies owned by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps of Iran, for example, build civilian as well as military tunnels.

As the piece points out, America has been working the technology of a deep tunneling bomb for quite some time. But that's not the issue here. The issue is the vastness of the tunneling effort, and the reality that if we went that route, we'd have to bomb at great length and even then we'd have little sense of what damage we did and what was spared.

More good arguments against bombing Iran

POST: Iran and the Goldilocks Principle: Why Kuperman is Completely Wrong and the Leveretts are Only Partly Right and There are no Tunnel Bombs, By Juan Cole, Informed Comment, January 07, 2010

Very intelligent piece by Cole that's worth reading from top to (way below) bottom. Good points throughout, but I liked this one best:

The logical problem is, how can you both acknowledge the depth and legitimacy of the Green Reform movement and at the same time urge President Obama to pursue engagement with Ahmadinejad's government? Me, I don't see the problem here. We didn't close the Polish embassy during the Solidarity movement. You deal with the government in power on bilateral issues as long as it is there. If it falls, then you deal with the new government. It is not as if we are offering the regime weapons or materiel that could be used against the protesters. We're just jawboning them.

It has such a sensible, duh-like logic to it ("Big deal! So we talk to them!"), and yet Cole is but one voice among so many experts arguing otherwise that it seems remarkable and daring for him to make his case so starkly. There are, of course, others who speak such common sense, eschewing all manner of hyperbole, and they are like strange islands of quietude in this rancorous debate. Hard-liners seem to be saying that any interaction somehow spits in the face of the opposition. I just see such efforts doing much to deny the regime the excuse of the external enemy at a time when it needs it most.

Cole's take on the NYT tunneling piece was different from mine: he worries that a case is being made for strikes with such breathless reporting. Me? I just spot more logic against the notion that bombs will get us some definitive outcome, whether they're actually operating equipment under ground or simply stockpiling them to protect them from airstrikes (Cole's argument).

I am especially glad that Cole found the Kuperman piece as supremely bad as I did. I almost didn't blog it I felt it was such a bad piece of analysis, but then I felt compelled--on that basis--to say something. Cole really nails it nicely.

Damned if you do...

ARTICLE: U.S. was more focused on al-Qaeda's plans abroad than for homeland, report on airline bomb plot finds, By Karen DeYoung and Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post, January 8, 2010

Of course, if the group had actually killed Americans in Yemen, then the report would have condemned the CIA for focusing too much on incredible attempts at bringing terror to the U.S. when the group's history suggests that localized strikes were all it could manage.

But now, of course, we know these clever bastards can give explosive elements to somebody who stuffs them in his underwear and then boards a plane (amazing logistics, yes?). Apparently inconceivable before (at least the Yemen part), we are now deluged with all-or-nothing-calls on Yemen--as in, take down the place or don't bother doing anything at all.

As the analysis grows more pointless, the debate dumbs itself down.

We now officially enter the silly season on this one.

Terrorism mythbuster

OP-ED: 5 myths about keeping America safe from terrorism, By Stephen Flynn, Washington Post, January 3, 2010

The guts:

1. Terrorism is the gravest threat facing the American people.

Americans are at far greater risk of being killed in accidents or by viruses than by acts of terrorism . . .

2. When it comes to preventing terrorism, the only real defense is a good offense.

... Strengthening our national ability to withstand and rapidly recover from terrorism will make the United States a less appealing target. In combating terrorism, as in sports, success requires both a capable offense and a strong defense.

3. Getting better control over America's borders is essential to making us safer.

Our borders will never serve as a meaningful line of defense against terrorism ...

4. Investing in new technology is key to better security.

Not necessarily. Technology can be helpful, but too often it ends up being part of the problem ... and they are no substitute for well-trained professionals who are empowered and rewarded for exercising good judgment.

5. Average citizens aren't an effective bulwark against terrorist attacks.

... This misconception is particularly reckless because it ends up sidelining the greatest asset we have for managing the terrorism threat: the average people who are best positioned to detect and respond to terrorist activities. We have only to look to the attempted Christmas Day attack to validate this truth. Once again it was the government that fell short, not ordinary people.

Myth-busting pieces are a favorite of mine, and Flynn did a very nice job with this one.

Globalization's expansion is best for all of us

ARTICLE: Fruitful Decade for Many in the World, By TYLER COWEN, New York Times, January 2, 2010

Nice piece that fits well with my WPR column last week: the Naughties were very nice to most of the world in terms of economic advance, our financial f---ups notwithstanding.

Opening:

IT may not feel that way right now, but the last 10 years may go down in world history as a big success. That idea may be hard to accept in the United States. After all, it was the decade of 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the financial crisis, all dramatic and painful events. But in economic terms, at least, the decade was a remarkably good one for many people around the globe.

Even better in the next para:

Ideals of prosperity, freedom and the rule of law have probably never been more resonant globally than they've been over the last 10 years, even if practice often falls short. And for all of the anticapitalistic rhetoric that has emerged from the financial crisis, national leaders around the world are embracing the commercialization of their economies.

Some perspective! Which Cowen routinely provides in his typically great pieces.

Nice, near-ending:

TO put it bluntly, if the United States takes one step back and the rest of the world takes two steps forward, even in purely selfish terms we should consider accepting the trade-off, if only for the longer run. Most of us gain from the wealth and creativity of other countries, even if we can't always feel like the top dog.

So yeah, we'll all going to make a lot more money because globalization continues to expand--crisis or no.

Israelification wouldn't be that hard

ARTICLE: The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother, By Cathal Kelly, (Toronto) Star, Dec 30 2009

Fascinating piece that's worth reading. Makes a strong case that Israelification of U.S. airports would not be as hard as many make out--including myself.

I scan corrected.

(Thanks: Hugh Pierson)

Tom's next gig in Las Vegas

"The Next Decade in the Commercial Vehicle Industry," this year's annual Heavy Duty Dialogue '10 on Monday, Jan. 18, at The Mirage, Las Vegas, Nev.

Further details at the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association.

Globalization problems won't go away

ARTICLE: Asia Free-Trade Zone Raises Hopes, and Some Fears About China, By LIZ GOOCH, New York Times, December 31, 2009

Here's my prediction on the ASEAN-China FTA deal: overall a win-win but plenty of bad things will happen.

The larger victory, though, comes in starting the experiment and forcing China to thereupon adapt to the demands unleashed from neighbors.

Like most forms of connectivity, this deal is no panacea. It just forces the next-best set of problems to tackle.

This is Steve DeAngelis' mantra every time Enterra goes through another evolution: "This is our best set of problems yet!"

That is exactly how we need to view globalization's advance--not some magical erasing of problems, but moving on to better problems.

Well-played H1N1 reaction

ARTICLE: U.S. Reaction to Swine Flu: Apt and Lucky, By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., New York Times, January 1, 2010

Both late-term Bush-Cheney and early-term Obama-Biden get credit on this one:

Although it is too early to write the obituary for swine flu, medical experts, already assessing how the first pandemic in 40 years has been handled, have found that while luck played a part, a series of rapid but conservative decisions by federal officials worked out better than many had dared hope.

Like with Y2K, it's always dangerous to say the alarm-sounders were wrong, as the aggressive, comprehensive, pre-emptive response to a possible System Perturbation is almost always justified on the basis of constituting good practice--alone.

Hong Kong as lead goose

ARTICLE: Hong Kong Protesters Seek Democracy, AP, January 1, 2010

This is why this decade will be most interesting on the question of Hong Kong as a lead goose on internal democratization of China:

The Chinese government ruled in 2007 that the territory cannot directly elect its leader until 2017 and its legislature until 2020.

Protesters aim to speed that up, but simply by keeping up the pressure, it makes it that much harder for Beijing to renege on this pledge down the road, and these elections will have a major precedent effect on the transition from 5th to 6th generation leadership set for 2022.

More data to back up the projected Afghan reality

ARTICLE: Can Spheres of Influence Solve Afghanistan?, By Nikolas Gvosdev, World Politics Review, 11 Dec 2009

I like this Gvosdev piece a lot. It echoes a lot of what I've been saying for a while, but does it far better by giving details (e.g., the de facto spheres that are already happening with Indian and Chinese influence).

I will confess to my usual laziness: propose the downstream reality and then let the details come to you from others who know more. Learned that from Cebrowski, as I noted in one of my books.

(Thanks: Jeffrey Itell)

Pressure Iran

ARTICLE: Exiles keep Iran in touch, By Borzou Daragahi, Los Angeles Times, December 10, 2009

Great story on how U.S.-based Iranian exiles are keeping up pressure on the regime back home.

This should naturally be greatly encouraged by any means possible.

(Thanks: robert frommer)

Defense contractors and the SysAdmin

POST: Why Does Lockheed Spend Money on Think Tanks?, By Nathan Hodge, Danger Room, December 4, 2009

Old theme of mine: defense contractors will do fine with the shift to SysAdmin ops/small wars/COIN. Going back to PNM, I argued that the dual-use here is almost universal, meaning anything you create for this market in the military realm will have great public and private-sector use outside of the military realm.

So yes, the Lockheeds will do very well with this shift.

But no, that doesn't make bloggers who argue for this nefarious.

I will tell you flat out: I have made a lot of money giving my brief and this argument to defense contractors. I consider it God's work, and yeah, I don't mind getting paid for being good at what I do.