The back half of regime change: not easy for UN either

ìKosovo Report Criticizes Rights Progress by U.N. and Local Leaders,î by Nicholas Wood, New York Times, 14 July, p. A5.

A report from the Ombudsman Institution in Kosovo, a branch of the UN mission there, says that both NATO and the UN have failed miserably to create a stable and secure situation there. This is the fourth annual report, and it cites the inability of the occupation force (dare I call it that?) to ìachieve even a minimal level of protection of rights and freedoms, in particular for the provinceís Serbian minority.î

Yes, theyíve done many good things, like create a police service, courts, a parliament and local councils, and power has definitely flowed to lower-level politicians in the formerly authoritarian system, but without basic security, none of that matters as much as you might think. When rampaging mobs of ethnic Albanians attack Serbian villages, youíre right back in the 1990s in the Balkans, just with different people suffering this time.

So before either NATO or the UN criticize the U.S.-led coalitionís efforts in Iraq too much, or before Americans get too excited by the notion that the UN will eventually take over certain aspects of the situation there, letís be clear that the ìsecond halfî is a hard game to play anywhere inside the Gap.

Helping a country of AIDS-orientation

ìEarly Tests for U.S. in Its Global Fight on AIDS,î by Deborah Sontag, Sharon Lafraniere and Michael Wines, New York Times, 14 July, p. A1.

This is a good article on a very complex subject, meaning the causality behind this story isnít easy to capture. People like to criticize the Bush Administration roundly on their AIDS policies, and there is plenty to criticize, but the true picture is always a complex one.

Hereís a couple of long excerpts from this great story:

The Bush administration did not consult with Mozambique last year before designating the country as a beneficiary of its emergency AIDS plan. Mozambique was simply informed that it would be one of the 12 African nations, and 15 countries overall, awarded substantial financial assistance.

The pledge of big money was certainly welcome, said Francisco Songane, the Mozambican health minister; AIDS has lowered life expectancy in Mozambique to 38. But the approach, perceived by many Mozambicans as arrogant and neocolonial, was not.

Mozambique, in southeastern Africa, had spent considerable time developing a national strategy to combat its high rate of H.I.V. infection. Other international donors had agreed to pool their contributions and let the Mozambicans control their own health programs. Thus, Mozambican officials recoiled when the Americans said earlier this year, ìWe want to move quickly, and we know that your government doesnít have the capacity,î Mr. Songane said.

The Bush administration wanted the bulk of its funding to go toward more costly brand-name antiretroviral drugs for treatment programs run by nongovernmental organizations. But Mozambique had already decided to treat its people with 3-in-1 generic pills, which were cheaper and simpler to take. Also, Mozambique did not want an American program dependent on costly foreign consultants, NGOís, and the largesse of foreign political leaders, that would run parallel to its own.

There were confrontational meetings in Washington and in Maputo, the capital of Mozambique. And in the end, to the surprise of many, the Bush administration agreed to give Mozambique the kind of help it really wanted, by strengthening its laboratories, blood-transfusion centers and the Health Ministry itselfóalbeit indirectly, through a grant to Columbia University.

ìWhat I witnessed in Mozambique was a disaster averted,î said Dr. Steven Gloyd, an international health specialist at the University of Washington who works with Mozambique. ìSo, for countries like Mozambique, this may turn out to be a positive intervention even though it could be a lot more.î

Seventeen months after President Bush announced his five-year, $15 billion emergency AIDS initiative, the program is belatedly getting under way, and surprising some critics of what is seen as its go-it-alone approach. In some cases, the plan is proving to be more adaptive and collaborative than had been expected, especially when countries are strong enough to stand their ground.

The plan is already directing considerable money into health clinics, laboratories, testing centers and hospices, AIDS treatment, prevention of H.I.V. and care of orphans.

For every Mozambique, however, where Washington has altered its plans to meet local objections, there is a Zambia, where local officials are in the dark.

[break]

After decades when the pandemic in Africa spread unchecked, billions in anti-AIDS money is suddenly pledged to assist the continent, and questions about how to channel that outpouring have taken center stage. The administrationís ADIS effort is under sharp scrutiny because it is so big, so unabashedly Washington-dominated and tinged by the administrationís political ideology.

Many critics see big pharmaceutical companies behind the Bush administrationís preference for costlier brand-name drugs, conservative Christians behind its heavy promotion of abstinence, and hard-line unilateralists behind its decision to bypass the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in creating its own plan.

Not perfect, typically American, but somehow adapting and working when the government involved can stand up for itself. Mozambique was a Soviet client state in the early 1980s, and thus a target of the Reagan Doctrine of supporting anti-communist rebels in Central America, Africa, and Southwest Asia. We never did dislodge the authoritarian regime; it just moderated somewhat on its own, largely in responseóI believeóto the demonstration effect of South Africaís peaceful transition to post-apartheid rule. Now this former ìcountry of socialist orientationî is a country with a major AIDS orientation, and guess whoís there to help? The Americans, who sometimes display their penchant for short memories in the best of ways.

Billionaireís trial: Russia both jittery and settling down

ìBillionaireís trial unsettles Russianís economy: Investors, business leaders have serious case of jitters,î by Bill Nichols, USA, 14 July, p. 10B.

The news from Russia is both bad and good: bad in the short-term but good over the longer haul. Bad news first:

Financial analysts warned after the arrest of oil billionaire Mikhail Khodorkovsky on tax charges last fall that the appearance of a government vendetta against Russiaís richest man could chill foreign investment and choke Russiaís revitalized economy.

As Khodorkovskyís trial resumed this week and his company, Yukos Oil, faces possible bankruptcy, Western business leaders in Moscow say those fears have not yet been realized. But that doesnít mean Russiaís business class doesnít continue to suffer from a persistent case of the jittersóa state of nervousness that has only increased in recent weeks.

ìDay to day, weíre fine. Everyone is happy, and we think itís a relatively stable place to do business,î says Heidi McCormick, general director of General Motors in Russia. ìWeíve never been picked out or picked on Ö. but thereís no doubt that that kind of capricious behavior remains possible.

More potential storm clouds have crept onto the Russian economic horizon in recent weeks, as Yukos has been pressed to pay a $3.4 billion back-tax bill that could force it into bankruptcy. Bailiffs began work last week to freeze Yukos accounts in Siberia after the firm missed a dealine to pay the 2000 tax bill. A claim for $3.3 billion for 2001 has also been made.

The twin spectacles of Khodorkovskyís continuing legal peril and the potential demise of a company that accounts for 20% of Russiaís foreign oil sales and nearly 4% of its gross domestic product may be having an effect on investors.î

Meanwhile, Russiaís overall economic statistics look great. GDP growth was 3.2% in 1999, and itís 7.3% last year. The percentage of the population in poverty was 40% in 1999, but drops to 25% by 2003, which is a huge shift. Inflation was 86% in 1999, but only 12% last year. Unemployment was 12.4% in 1999, but down to 8.4% in 2003. Exports are up by roughly 2/3rds and imports are up by almost double. Finally, the average monthly wage was $62 in 1999, but has roughly tripled to $!80 as of last year.

With that sort of recovery, you can see why business trusts Putin even as this scary trial unfolds: As one Caterpillar exec puts it: ìThings have improved enormously. Putin may not be doing things the way the West wants it done, but heís done a lot to bring the system back in line.î

So we keep some perspective on Russia as this legal drama continues to unfold.

Europe exporting some rule sets of its own?

ìEuropean gay-union trends influence U.S. debate: Lawmakers look to other nations,î by Noelle Knox, USA, 14 July, p. 5A.

One way that new rules begin and then spread throughout our union is that one state invents them, tries them out some, and then copycatting begins by others. Eventually, enough experience is accumulated that more and more states adopt the new rules, and then the courts do the rest, smoothing out the differences, rough spots and the like. Of course, loads of new rules get shot down along the way, either by state courts or federal ones, but some go all the way to the top and gain constitutional protection under one of the existing amendments, like the right to privacy or the pursuit of happiness.

This process has begun with gay marriages in the U.S., but it began much earlier in Europe, another great collection of ìmember statesî with a tendency for copycatting each otherís new rule sets. The fact that Europe has a significant body of experience on gay marriages is having a serious influence over the unfolding of the rule-set clash thatís now becoming a political football during this national election.

For example, the Netherlands and Belgium have recognized gay marriage for a total of 4 years between them. Then thereís a host of others (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Luxembourg, Iceland, Hungary, Spain, France, Germany, Portugal, Switzerland, Finland, Croatia, Poland and Scotland) that have recognized civil unions for a total of 83 country-years among them.

This experience pool is not to be sneezed at, so expect to hear more about it as this debate unfoldsófrom both sides in this debate.

That time of year for the long-term survivor

ìEfforts Mount to Make Cancer Treatment Less Toxic: New Drugs Aim to Reduce Side Effects of Chemotherapy; Protecting a Childís Hearing,î by Amy Dockser Marcus, Wall Street Journal, 14 July, p. D1.

My daughter Emily was diagnosed with cancer ten years ago last weekó8 July 1994 to be exact. Found the strange lump circling her abdomen like a shark fin on 3 July back in Boscobel WI, my home town. Next day flew her back to Washington, saw our pediatrician on the 5th and did the abdominal ultrasound on the morning of the 8th. Got the call than noon and we were rushing to Georgetown University Hospital within minutes. One kidney came out the following morning and the fight was on.

About 500 days later and it was basically over, but then the next phase beganósurvivorship. Emily is now a ten-year survivor post-diagnosis and eight-and-a-half years post treatment. She is what the pediatric oncology field calls a long-term survivor, one of roughly 250,000 in the U.S.

Back in the mid-1990s, we were pioneers of those procedures and treatments that were just coming online at that time, the biggies being new forms to reduce the side-effects of radiation treatments (special fractionated doses that were almost ìbeamedî into the body using lasers targeting off of specially-place tattoos on her body) and the rise of newer nausea-treatments (delivered around the clock in new portable spring pumps), plus the whole idea of doing the vast majority of chemotherapy treatments in the home versus the hospital (we had a homecare nurse that administered roughly 80% of the chemo in our living room, and Vonne and I actually administered the nausea and blood-growth hormone shots ourselvesóalong with performing most of her blood draws via her permanent catheter).

When Em was getting her treatment in those days, we knew that she was receiving far more calibratedómeaning actually smalleródoses of key chemo therapies than those who went before her. The unintended ìover-dosingî of previous generations of peds onc kids were subsequently found to have created lasting ìlate effectsî that led to secondary cancers and other difficulties.

ìLate effectsî is such a great phrase, as if the complication that emerges is sort of apologetic: ìOh, Iím sorry, I would have been here on time but Iím afraid Iím running late. I hope you donít mind if I greatly diminish the quality of your childís life.î

Of course, when chemo really took off in the 1950s, docs were simply happy to be able to kill cancers and keep kids alive. It wasnít until they started to keep great numbers alive and those children grew up that the field began to question the dosage rates, meaning they started experimenting with how little chemo they could get away with and still eradicate the cancer. I mean, hell, a five-year-survival rate doesnít exactly mean a lot when youíre diagnosed at age two, as Emily was.

Well, we knew Em was benefiting from all the kids who ODídóso to speakóbefore her. But we didnít kid ourselves: we knew that years from then we might find out that Em herself had been exposed to certain drugs or certain levels of drugs that later would be found to be excessive. Thatís just the way it is: the docs calibrate and calibrate and analyze and analyze, and it gets better and safer and more successful for each generation of survivors.

Em received adriamycin-D, also known as doxorubicin, along with two other chemo therapies. Adriamycin was the scariest drug she received because it had the biggest capacity to kill her on the spot through an overloading toxic reaction. It also had the biggest chance of rapidly degrading a key organóher heart. It did neither during the chemotherapy protocol of 65 weeks (completed over 67 weeks with two, one-week suspensionsóan amazing record as any peds onc doc will tell you).

And yet, Vonne and I remain haunted by that drug. It has shown the capacity to kill long-term survivors many years later, usually under conditions of great heart strainólike the labor associated with the birth of a child (as nasty as that sounds). So even as 5-year-survivor rates for all cancer patients rises to 64% today from 59% in the early 1990s when Em was diagnosed, none of that really matters to a 12-year-old who wants to live forever. Emily could conceivably hit the century mark as a cancer survivor, and Iíd love to see her do itóin person.

So itís once again that time of year for us: the annual work-up that always reminds us how fateful July once felt to this family. Emís diagnostics this year are significantly dialed down from last yearís version, and this is a huge step for us. But frankly, eventually everyone moves into the territory where you stop having the maximum set of tests every 12 months, because all those tests themselves can be a problem (who exactly wants 100 chest X-rays in their life?).

But letting go of that maximum set of tests isnít easy either. Going through that drill gave us a certain sense of comfort, especially since Em always aced all her exams, so to speak. Plus, itís pretty scary right now because sheís slipping into a period of intense growth associated with puberty and a lot of theoreticals are either going to evaporate and start demonstrating why our fears were legitimate all these years.

Late effects of note are hearing loss, heart damage, infertility, and cognitive loss. Weíve pretty much ruled out hearing problems and cognitive loss for Em, leaving us fretting over hidden heart damage as she grows rapidly in the next few years and we cross our fingers that her heart grows commensurately with her frame.

As for infertility . . . Iíll feel like this beast is finally licked when I hold her first child in my arms.

I just hope that whatever ìunnecessaryî suffering Em went through (e.g., doxorubicin is no longer used for patients like her) makes it all the more better for those who come behind. Iíve always said that Emilyís cure was built on the bones of thousands and thousands of kids who never made it. So we do our best to make sure she pays them all back by living the best life she can.

Esquireís The Sound and the Fury on ìMr. President . . .î

Dateline: SOCOM conference on the GWOT, Wyndham Hotel, Tampa FL, 13 July

The second day of the workshop was a lot more fun. As is typical when you get nine such towering egos around table, the first day was a lot of ìno, no, no, I donít think you understand the problem at all!î And the inevitable, ìIf you had read my book/speech/article, then youíd realize that Iíve already figured this whole thing out.î Plus the always great, ìAs my good friend Lee Kwan Yew told me last week . . .î

Okay, the last one was indeed Peter Schwartz of ìArt of the Long Viewî fame.

So I was reduced to things like, ìAs Phil, the contractor who did my basement once said . . ..î And you know, Phil goes over pretty well actually.

So once we all came to the conclusion that each of us had something important to say but that none of us could explain it all (the Global War on Terrorism), things lightened up and we actually got a lot done today. Tomorrow we brief out to the Deputy Commander of SOCOM, Vice Admiral Eric Olsonóa SEAL who looks every damn inch of it still in his mid-50s.

But enough about those people and their ideas, if blogging is mostly about talking about yourself, then really grand blogging is talking about what other people say about you. So let me run you through the three letters published by Esquire in the August issue, the one with The Donald (Trump) on the cover wearing all the bling-bling. This issue also features an article by the great Tom Junod called, ìThe Case for Bush,î which I may blog tomorrow on the plane home after I read it tonight. But Iíll need a couple of Budweisers to wash that one downóeven as good as Tom is.

But enough about that Tom and his article, on to the letters about my piece in the June issue of Esquire (August, p. 24):

The Sound and the Fury

WITH HELP FROM a mischievous canine, the beautiful Carmen Electra welcomed readers to our June issue, packed with all things summer, from great food roads (ìDrivní & Eatiníî) to fishing advice (ìThe Skills of Summerî). Inside, contributing editor Charles P. Pierce sized up the Democratic presidential hopeful (ìThe Misunderestimation of John Kerryî), and Naval War College professor Thomas P.M. Barnett concluded that for the sake of the world security, the boys will never be coming home (ìMr. President, Hereís How to Make Sense of Our Iraq Strategyî).

I must congratulate Barnett on writing what could be the best piece of advice to the president of the United States in many years. Barnett clearly spells out an appropriate course of action that would support the U.S.ís desires for security and attract the support of the rest of the modern world. I can only hope Kerry follows it.

ALEXANDER MAIR
TORONTO, ONT.

Barnettís article gave me a momentís pause. Here at last, I thought, is someone making an arguably coherent case for the broader strategic underpinnings of George Bushís inarguably incoherent war in Iraq. To those who ask, ìWhatís it got to do with the war on terror?î Barnett answers: Itís the opening salvo in the greater war between the Core and the Gap, the Connected and the Disconnectors.

But after the pause, I got my head back on straight. Barnettís vision suffers from the wrongheaded assumption that those connected to globalization (the Core) and those disconnected from it (the Gap) are entire nations, together with their whole populations en masse, rather than heterogeneous population groups within those nations. In other words, if thereís a Gap, itís the gulf between those who reap the wealth of globalization (whom I call the Rich) and those who are exploited, impoverished, or simply bypassed by it (the Poor). That Gap is the true threat, and itís getting worse.

In shaping a new paradigm for identifying our enemies, Barnett does not consider that the true meaning of the post-cold-war era is that perhaps itís finally time to tackle the common enemies of humanityóhunger, disease, corruption, social and economic injustive, and, yes, war.

Like the president, Barnett would rather see enemies than make friends, pursue war when we can have peace, and secure unilateral U.S. dominance at a time when the needs of humanity cry out for interdependent and multilateral solutions. I reject his call to arms.

In saying so, I am not so naÔve as to believe there are not real enemies out there plotting dire harm against this country, its allies, and their innocents. Rather, I am saying that the alternative to Barnettís bellicose, neo-conservative vision is a world peacefully united around a common agenda of social, political, environmental, and economic justice.

Weíve tried it Barnettís way. Itís called Iraq, and itís a train wreck. If we follow his map, the road ahead will lead us to a thousand burning Fallujahs. There is another path. Itís called peace.

PAUL ROSSMAN

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF.

Why is Barnett writing articles for magazines when he should be helping Rumsfeld pull his head out of his ass? Great article. Barnett should be in a double-top-secret talking to bigwigs about all this, not in a naval classroom and on the phone with editors during office hours. Then again, maybe he is in a secret room. Iíve never met anyone whoís taken his ìclass.î Hmm.

BILL ARGERSINGER

PORTLAND, OREG.

COMMENTARY: In order of appearance:

MAIR: Gotta love that one, since it comes off so bipartisan: great advice to POTUS and he hopes Kerry puts it to good use. I gotta admit, despite Putnam sending a slew of copies to the campaign and Teresa Heinz herself, we have not heard a peep out of that crowd. Now, they certainly are some busy beavers over there, what with running for president and all, but I am curious. Bottom line on this one is: Iím happy the piece can be interpreted as being easily accessible to Kerryís potential administrationóand from Canada no less!

ROSSMAN: Ooow! The old bait-and-switch! Thought I had him there, but when I got to the end and heard he was from San Francisco, all the peace-love-and-understanding stuff (I know, I know, Iím legitimately viewed only as a philosopher of war) seemed less surprising. The thing that bugs me, of course, is that if this guy read the book, I truly believe heíd be hard-pressed to say I donít advocate all those things in spades. But as the only negative one of the trio, I have to admit, this one went down pretty easy.

ARGERSINGER: This one is the letter I referred to yesterday in my blog. Funny to me because the guy who gave me the Xerox of the letters page was none other than the Combatant Commander of Special Operations Command himself! Yeah, the guy actually running the Global War on Terrorism for the uniformed military! Only shame was, I wasnít in a ìdouble-top-secret room,î but merely a nice conference room at the Tampa Wyndham hotel just off the bay. But damned if the room wasnít full of Special Operations Command senior officers writing down damn near every word I said. So hey, Iím strategizing here! Iím straaaategizing here! But no, I have no plans to pull Don Rumsfeldís head out of anything, much less his ass. Beyond my pay gradeópure and simple.

And yes, if Bill of Portland really wants to know, I can give him the names of 14 people who have taken my class at the college. Strangely enough though, theyíve all disappeared from Newport in the months sinceónever to be heard from again (okay, a couple of e-mails here and there).

I have to say that overall, getting two very nice and only one sort of rough one seemed like I got off easy. I guess it really pays to have the Executive Editor of Esquire with a financial stake in your book. Some might call it conflict of interest, Mark Warren calls it . . . whatís that word again? Oh yeahósynergy!

Hmmm. Donít go there. . ..

Todayís catch:

Terrorism does postpone an election . . . in Afghanistan

ìTaliban, Militias Stand in the Way Of Afghan Ballot: Parliament Election Delayed Amid Security Concerns; Mr. Razekís Difficult Sell; ëInfidel Working for Infidels,íî by Yaroslav Trofimov, Wall Street Journal, 13 July, p A1.

ìJalal Jousts Karzai, Status Quo: Afghan Woman Campaigns to Lead Country Past Taliban Legacy,î by Yaroslav Trofimov, WSJ, 13 July, p. A12.

ëFahrenheití does not cross divide, but merely reflects it

ìTwo Americas of ëFahrenheití and ëPassioní: Urban Moviegoers for Anti-Bush Documentary, Suburban Audience for Religious Epic,î by Sharon Waxman, New York Times, 13 July, p. B1.

Brain drain may leave Gap brain dead on AIDS

ìLack of AIDS Doctors in Poor Countries Stalls Treatment,î by Marilyn Chase and Amir Efrati, WSJ, 13 July, p. B1.

ìRights Group Seeks to Halt Africaís Losses In Health Care,î by Celia Dugger, NYT, 13 July, p. A7.

Chinaís treasure fleet plies the waves yet again!

ìThe Ultimate Luxury Item Is Now Made in China,î by Keith Bradsher, NYT, 13 July, p. A1.

Terrorism does postpone an election . . . in Afghanistan

ìTaliban, Militias Stand in the Way Of Afghan Ballot: Parliament Election Delayed Amid Security Concerns; Mr. Razekís Difficult Sell; ëInfidel Working for Infidels,íî by Yaroslav Trofimov, Wall Street Journal, 13 July, p A1.

ìJalal Jousts Karzai, Status Quo: Afghan Woman Campaigns to Lead Country Past Taliban Legacy,î by Yaroslav Trofimov, WSJ, 13 July, p. A12.

The countryside of Afghanistan is still so under the control of the Taliban that there are significant swaths where no one has yet dared register for the upcoming national electionsópeople are simply scared to death. You carry a voter-registration card in these parts and the Taliban catch you, itís an instant death sentence.

When I read about stuff like that, the first words that come into my mind are, ìYea though I walk through the valley of death, I will fear no evil: for Thou art with me; Thy rod and Thy staff they comfort me."

Why? Because whenever I imagine that sort of ending, I know those are the words Iíd reach for.

Whoís sporting the rod and staff on this one? That would be U.S. Army helicopters that subsequently ìlobbed missiles into a mountainsideî where, just a few days earlier, the Taliban executed 16 Afghanis whose only crime was that they registered to vote. Call them martyrs for democracy.

The Taliban and their bloody terror still rule much of the countryside in Afghanistan, and they base their violence on the myth that theyíre resisting a U.S.-led ìcrusadeî to dominate the Islamic world. Yeah, and the price of submission is the promise to take your life in your hands by registering to vote.

Some f--kiní empire.

Last week, the joint U.N.-Afghan body running the elections announced that because of security problems voting for parliament, planned for September, will be postponed until next April or May. Voting for president, initially planned for June, will take place on Oct. 9. The U.S.-based incumbent, Hamid Karzai, is expected to win, but itís unclear whether enough people will vote to provide him with democratic legitimacy.

The October vote is considered a harbinger of what may come in Americaís highest-stakes experiment in transplanting Western democracy: Iraq, an even more violence-plagued national where elections are expected early next year.î

With ìnight lettersî being slipped under doors threatening electoral workers with death, itís no surprise that voter-registration teams have penetrated only 18 of south Afghanistanís 50 administrative districts. International observers are expected to be housed in a ìhandful of safe zones on election day.î

You can call it crazy or naÔve, but I really believe this is Godís workówhatever you want to call him. If wanting to simply vote is enough to get you killed, then there can be no doubt that weíre on the right side of whatever clash of civilizations you want to call this. Donít give a ratís ass who they vote for, just that they actually get the chance to vote.

Meanwhile, a lone woman is running a Quixotic campaign against Karzai:

Mr. Karzai, who has secured the support of Afghanistanís most powerful warlords as well as American backing, looks unlikely to lose at the polls. Yet, in her relentless campaigning, Ms. Jalal, a 41-year-old pediatrician, already has become an idol for many urbane young Afghans who are unhappy both with the status quo and the misogynist Taliban theocracy that preceded Mr. Karzaiís regime.

ìReform has not taken place. We see no safety or security. The life of the ordinary people has not changed much because all that money was not spent on them,î Ms. Jalal says in her bare apartment in a Soviet-built housing block here, as dozens of starry-eyed university students eager to help wait for an audience. For Ms. Jalal, who wears a veil and conservative dressóbut not the all-covering burka that was once mandatoryóit isnít her first time running against Mr. Karzai. In June 2002, she was his primary challenger at the loya jirga, the traditional Afghan grand council that elected the transitional government.

Back then, she received 12% of the loya jirga votes after refusing to withdraw her candidacy in exchange for a senior government position. The most prominent warlord, Tajik Northern Alliance commander Marshall Mohammed Fahimówho is now Afghanistanís vice president and minister of defenseówas so angry that he publicly upbraided Ms. Jalalís husband for allowing what he considered extreme impudence.

Ms. Jalal, whose popularity stems from years of helping victims of conflicts between warlords, such as Mr. Fahim, wasnít intimidated. These days, she is focusing her campaign on tapping ordinary Afghansí resentment with the warlordsí continuing power. Her harshest criticism of Mr. Karzai zeroes in on his alleged deal with the leading warlords this spring. In that meeting, the commanders of Afghanistanís biggest militias told Mr. Karzai that they wonít field rival presidential candidates, and in exchange asked for senior positions in Afghanistanís future governmentóa rerun of the deal-making at the 2002 loya jirga.

ìHeís the candidate of warlords. This is a big disgrace,î Ms. Jalal charges, dismissing Mr. Karzaiís insistence that he had made no formal trade-off for the militiasí support.

Unlike Mr. Karzai, who belongs to the Pashtun ethnic group, the biggest and traditionally dominant in Afghanistan, Ms. Jalal hails from the more cosmopolitan and less tribal Tajik communityóa fact that is likely to make her chances slim outside northern Afghanistan and Kabul. Unlike the Pashtuns, whose traditional code of honor holds that women should never leave their husbandís house, Afghan Tajiks are more open to the idea of womenís rights.î

That, my friends, is some real courage.

ëFahrenheití does not cross divide, but merely reflects it

ìTwo Americas of ëFahrenheití and ëPassioní: Urban Moviegoers for Anti-Bush Documentary, Suburban Audience for Religious Epic,î by Sharon Waxman, New York Times, 13 July, p. B1.

Seems like Michael Mooreís movie really is doing well only in the so-called blue states, despite his claim that it was a ìred-state movie,î

The top theaters for ìFahrenheitî have been in urban, traditionally Democratic strongholds, including Manhattan, Los Angeles, San Francisco and the Bay Area, Chicago and Boston.

The highest grossing theaters for ìPassionî were typically more suburban and far more widely dispersed, from Texas and New Mexico to Ohio, Florida and Orange County, Calif.

For the ìPassion,î the ranking reflects the filmís full run. For ìFahrenheit,î the data include only the first two weeks of ticket receipts. Nielsen experts said that there was little difference in the theater rankings for ìPassionî between the first two weeks of release and the full run.

Naturally, fitting my status as a Democrat willing to work for both sides, I saw both films. I saw ìFahrenheitî in Washington DC, bastion of the Democrats, and I saw ìPassion of the Christî in suburban Northern Virginia, a Republic stronghold full of military families.

I really loved the ìPassion,î and thought ìFahrenheitî was brilliant but dishonest in its skewed perspectiveóprimarily because itís being touted as a :îdocumentaryî when itís basically a political commercial for defeating Bush.

So I guess ìFahrenheitísî big numbers show that the blue states really hate Bush all the more after four years, but that it hardly serves as harbinger for Bushís landslide loss in November.

Brain drain may leave Gap brain dead on AIDS

ìLack of AIDS Doctors in Poor Countries Stalls Treatment,î by Marilyn Chase and Amir Efrati, Wall Street Journal, 13 July, p. B1.

ìRights Group Seeks to Halt Africaís Losses In Health Care,î by Celia Dugger, New York Times, 13 July, p. A7.

Two more scary articles about how the brain drain of docs and nurses from Gap countries suffering high rates of AIDS infections puts those populations at even higher risk of segueing into outright humanitarian disasters that may someday attract humanitarian interventions from the U.S. militaryóbelieve it.

The shortage of health-care professional in developing countries has deep roots. Huge portions of the population are illiterate or badly educated, making these countries unable to produce a large pool of potential doctors. Poverty and famine make many people more concerned with putting food on the table than higher education career development.

Those who do study medicine tend to leave rural areas in favor of practicing in more cosmopolitan cities. Among HIV-trained doctors in developing countries, thereís a steady exodus to more prosperous places like Great Britain, New Zealand and Australia. Doctors in some parts of South Africa are ìHIV doctors by default, which is a specialty . . . in death. Itís extremely depressing,î says Krista Dong, a 42-year-old infectious-disease fellow at Massachusetts General Hospital., Harvard Universityís main teaching hospital, in Boston. Ms. Dong returned last week from three and a half years of treating patients near Durban, South Africa.

Global health officials say that despite many efforts to get HIV-trained doctors like Dr. Dong into developing countries, there is still a serious lack of coordinationóand funding.

One global nonprofit, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Physicians for Human Rights, proposes an array of measures to ìslow the migration of health professionals to rich countries, bolster staffing in African hospitals and clinics and avert what it calls ëthis deepening disaster.íî

Simply put, this is one flow of people from the Gap to the Core that we need to slow down as much as possible. The solution seems simple enough: aid that pays docs and nurses far larger salaries to stay where they are.

Chinaís treasure fleet plies the waves yet again!

ìThe Ultimate Luxury Item Is Now Made in China,î by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, 13 July, p. A1.

Chinaís latest export story is luxury yachts. Yes, I said luxury yachts.

In 1405, the 300-ship fleet of Admiral Zhang, a Muslim eunuch who was easily Chinaís most adventurous explorer, left the shores of the Middle Kingdom, launching that civilization into its temporary status as a 15th-century superpower.

When Zhangís ìtreasure fleetî retired from its tribute-collecting travels roughly three decades later, Chinaís strategic attention subsequently turned inward for a period of isolation from the outside world that last more than half a millennium.

Now, as China once again opens up to the outside world, regaining its status as a superpoweróalbeit one primarily defined by its manufacturing industrial baseóits 21st-century version of a tribute-collecting force is once again accurately described as a ìtreasure fleet.î

Half a millennium later and they still basically just want our money.

No borders . . . no boundaries . . . in a GWOT

Dateline: Strategistsí workshop, SOCOM, Wyndham Hotel, Tampa FLA, 12 July

No borders, no boundariesóthe motto of SOCOM in the GWOT.

An interesting morning of receiving command briefs from the seniors at SOCOM, plus getting several hours with the Combatant Commander himself, one very impressive Army 4-star by the rather bland name of Doug Brown. I was also fortunate to spend a lot of off-line time with the deputy 3-star commander, Vice Admiral Eric Olsonóanother very impressive individual.

The first day of discussions were typically very high altitude, what with all these great minds and egos around the table. I got mine stroked by the famous futurist Peter Schwartz (he of advising-Steven-Spielberg-on-Minority-Report fameóamong many other things, I just think thatís one of the coolest), who was nice enough to say he had read PNM and really enjoyed itóespecially the splitting of the force stuff.

Other than that nice stroke, though, pretty much a day of mega-egos telling one another how they really didnít understand the true nature of whatever problem we were discussing that moment. As someone who spends a lot of time doing facilitation at events like this, I was less than happy with the laid-back attitude of our West Point-provided discussion herder, but the problem was a good one: having the 4-star in the room meant everyone spent their time speaking as much as possible to him. Makes sense, but 9 people all trying to impress the hell out of one principal gets a bit grubby for my tastesólike a bad reality show where all the prospective spouses are trying to land the attention of Joe Zillionaire.

Still, despite the inefficiency, a pretty good interaction, and a real privilege to spend that many hours with the Combatant Commander of the Global War on Terrorismótalk about a guy with the weight of the world on his shoulders! But Brown is one of those guys whom you meet and then you walk away feeling pretty darn good that someone that impressive is in such a difficult jobóditto with the deputy Olson. This military produces great leader after great leader like no other public institution on the planet.

Plus I got my second command medallion from the head of SOCOM. Got my first from Peter Schoomaker in 1999 (heís now the Chief of Staff, Army), so proving my utility to such an important player yet again feels like getting back to the Super Bowl--hell, youíre just proud to be asked.

Vice Admiral Olson was kind enough to bring me a copy of the letters-to-the-editor page from his own subscription copy of Esquire (August edition). I hadnít seen them yet, and was dreading them, knowing how much Mark Warren delights in putting the nastiest ones down in print. Well, thereís one letter in there thatís pretty darn hilarious, given where I am right now and what I did today, but Iíll leave the blogging on that one for later. 12-hour day is at an end. Gotta be bright-eyed for the next one tomorrow.

Hereís todayís catch:

Pre-emptive is not the problem, but post-emptive is the solution

ìBushís Pre-emptive Strategy Meets Some Untidy Reality: After Iraq, the standard of proof gets higher,î by David E. Sanger, New York Times, 12 July, p. A6.

ìAfghan President Describes Militia As The Top Threat: Worse Than the Taliban; Karzai Says ëthe Stick Has to Be Used,í but Offers No Details on Plans,î by Carlotta Gall and David Rohde, NYT, 12 July, p. A1.

The biggest question is, Who will vote that otherwise might not?

ìKerry TV ads outpace Bushís: Gap upsets political expertsí predictions,î by Mark Memmott, USA Today, 12 July, p. A1.

ìGay issues on ballots add twist to election: Marriage ban initiatives could draw GOP voters,î by Kathy Kiely, USA, 12 July, p. A1.

ìUrged by Right, Bush Takes On Gay Marriages,î by Adam Nagourney and David D. Kirkpatrick, NYT, 12 July p. A1.

ìíFahrenheit 9/11í Has Recruited Unlikely Audience: U.S. Soldiers,î by Shailagh Murray, Wall Street Journal, 12 July, p. A4.

U.S. Dollar, the $800-pound gorilla in the global economy

ìAs Fear of Deficits Falls, Some See a Larger Threat: Though Worries of 1980s Never Materialized, Budget Faces New Stresses Today,î by Greg Ip, WSJ, 12 July, p. A1.

ìDollar Could Buy Trouble: If Currency Weakens, Asian Central Banks Risk Sparking Inflation,î by Phillip Day, WSJ, 12 July, p. A15.

ìChina Trades Its Way to Power,î by Jason T. Shaplen and James Laney, NYT, 12 July, p. A23.

Just in time: a remake of Manchurian Candidate

ìU.S. Tries to Divine al Qaedaís Next Move: As Concern Mounts Over Election-Disrupting Plots, Officials Look Back to Predict the Future,î by Robert Block and Glenn R. Simpson, WSJ, 12 July, p. A4.

AIDS: India needs its Ryan White, Africa needs its nurses

ìIn India, Stigma Of AIDS Curbs Control of HIV,î by Joanna Slater, WSJ, 12 July, p. B1.

ìAn Exodus of African Nurses Puts Infants and the Ill in Peril,î by Celia W. Dugger, New York Times, 12 July, p. A1.

Pre-emptive is not the problem, but post-emptive is the solution

ìBushís Pre-emptive Strategy Meets Some Untidy Reality: After Iraq, the standard of proof gets higher,î by David E. Sanger, New York Times, 12 July, p. A6.

ìAfghan President Describes Militia As The Top Threat: Worse Than the Taliban; Karzai Says ëthe Stick Has to Be Used,í but Offers No Details on Plans,î by Carlotta Gall and David Rohde, NYT, 12 July, p. A1.

Here the debate still doesnít work, meaning weíre still not discussing the real problem in Iraq: not the war but the occupation. Bushís pre-emptive war isnít the problem, but the ad hoc-ery of the follow-on occupation. Weíre not contemplating pre-emptions against anyone who isnít a bad regime on many levels, so the notion that their leadership has to park a nuclear missile with rockets flaring on the front lawn of the ruling palace, otherwise there are no circumstances under which weíll act, is really ridiculous. Now, all of a sudden we have this rigid definition of acceptable proof, as if weíre ever going to get it, when what the world and our publicóI believeówould really rather see us develop and prove a capability for the second-half effort that would lessen the fears about the going-in decision. If we had nailed the occupation, no one would care about the WMD issue, because weíd all simply be happy to have rid the world of a such a murderous tyrant (just wait for the trial) while liberating that grateful (remember all the way back to May 2003?) population. What really pisses off people, not to mention many troops on the ground in Iraq, is the notion that weíre suffering our way through this hellish occupation AND there wasnít any WMD. Remove that flaming irritant (the sense of quagmire) and the sense of injustice disappears, because removing Saddam was a very good thing.

Karzaiís diagnosis on Afghanistan points out the fundamental insecurity that still dominates the political, social and economic scenes thereósignaling that we havenít really finished off the task in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Thatís 2-0 in pre-emptive wars and 0-2 in post-emptive rehab jobs.

In the end, just about everyone in the Core wants certain Gap regimes gone. If it can be done well and at low risk of post-conflict quagmire, then the system for processing these corrupt and politically-bankrupt regimes will not only emerge, but when applied selectively, this collective powerís demonstration effect will invariably ìscare straightî many marginally bad dictators.

Weíre not talking about wasting great numbers of lives nor spending vast sums of money, but about improving the security situations that keep hundreds of millions of people at a disadvantaged position development-wiseóin effect on the outside of the global economy, noses pressed to the glass.

The biggest question is, Who will vote that otherwise might not?

ìKerry TV ads outpace Bushís: Gap upsets political expertsí predictions,î by Mark Memmott, USA Today, 12 July, p. A1.

ìGay issues on ballots add twist to election: Marriage ban initiatives could draw GOP voters,î by Kathy Kiely, USA, 12 July, p. A1.

ìUrged by Right, Bush Takes On Gay Marriages,î by Adam Nagourney and David D. Kirkpatrick, NYT, 12 July p. A1.

ìíFahrenheit 9/11í Has Recruited Unlikely Audience: U.S. Soldiers,î by Shailagh Murray, Wall Street Journal, 12 July, p. A4.

I gotta tell you, I am surprised to see Kerryís fundraising and now ads outpace that of Bushís. People vote once officially in early November, but vote many times prior in terms of contributions which rebound back at all of us in terms of ads.

But there are so many new features to this campaign in terms of issues: foreign policy for the first time in a long time, issues of war and peace, relationships with allies and the world at large. Then thereís the usual on the economy and budget deficits.

But in such a tight race, I really feel that social issues still have the potential to be the big swing influence, even more than Iraq. Here, gay marriages loom large.

People tend to underestimate the willingness of the military to take in critical reviews and still keep the faith, but likewise also underestimate what a stoking sort of issue anything having to do with definitions of family, marriage, and sexual relations can beómeaning something that really drives people to vote. [Hell, it drives people to violence in the Middle East, youíd think itíd drive some lazy citizens here to at least vote!]

Michael Moore likes to talk about America as a 50/50/50 nation: 50 percent left and 50 percent right and 50 percent who donít vote. That which drives those non-voters to the polls this time, in whatever amount they actually muster, may well end up being more about gay marriages than an Iraq occupation that could easily settle down dramatically by the start of November.

U.S. Dollar, the $800-pound gorilla in the global economy

ìAs Fear of Deficits Falls, Some See a Larger Threat: Though Worries of 1980s Never Materialized, Budget Faces New Stresses Today,î by Greg Ip, Wall Street Journal, 12 July, p. A1.

ìDollar Could Buy Trouble: If Currency Weakens, Asian Central Banks Risk Sparking Inflation,î by Phillip Day, WSJ, 12 July, p. A15.

ìChina Trades Its Way to Power,î by Jason T. Shaplen and James Laney, New York Times, 12 July, p. A23.

A couple of interesting articles from the Journal on the growing connectivity between the U.S. economy and the rest of the world.

In the first, weíre told that the federal budget deficit of today presents a very different potential for ìcalamityî than the one generated by Reaganís administrations in the 1980s. Back then, the fear was that all that federal borrowing would consume too much scarce savings and thus crowd out necessary investments in infrastructure, new factories and R&D. By most accounts, that danger never materialized.

Today, it is being increasingly argued, a new danger emerges. Because so much more of our T-bills are being bought by foreigners, there is the growing fear that at some point they ìwill question our ability to repay them, and balk at lending moreótriggering a big drop in the dollar and much higher interest rates.î

In PNM, I described this potential as the way the rest of the Core could effectively limit and ultimately counteract our alleged ìunilateralî capacity to wage war across the Gap. In effect, our exporting of security to the Gap is financed by the rest of the Core, meaning it is effectively a service that we provide them. This transaction, I maintain, is real, whether or not it is an explicit act or even one engaged in by our partners willinglyómeaning they have a choice and arenít simply following economic logic. If these countries feel trapped by economic circumstances, then the connectivity is that much more profound, because sharing fates by choice is one thing, while the no-choice of sharing of fates is . . . .well . . . marriage is a good example (at least for someone for whom divorce is not an option).

Iím not being facetious here, because the sort of co-dependent relationships one finds in a marriage are a good approximation of that sort of deep, long-term economic dependencyóthe sort we have with Europe or with a Japan. Yeah, we might bitch a lot, but divorce is really out of the question. How we get China, India or Russia to that point is obviously a whole lot more complicated than just jacking up trade levels, signing a few deals, and investing heavily in each other. Itís a pretty profound coming together of nations into a relationship of shared vulnerabilities.

The second article suggests that Japan and China, for example, have little choice but to buy dollars and our public debt in order to prevent their own currencies from appreciating against a falling dollar. If either countryís currency were to ìstrengthenî too much against the dollar, their ability to export goods would suffer, as would, say, Chinaís ability to control inflation in their super-heated economy.

So the U.S. goes on a public spending binge after 9/11, with defense leading the way, and the Chinese and South Koreans and Japanese may feel, given their levels of interdependency with the U.S. economy, that they have no choice but to buy up dollars to keep the cost of their exports reasonable. You can call that no choice, but I call it effectively buying a couple of warsóthe price of doing business in the Core when the Leviathan decides that thereís work to be done in the Gap.

Over time, China, Japan and South Korea better not start feeling like thatís a bum deal, because as the Euro rises in stature as a reserve currency and Chinaís domestic market itself begins to reorient South Korea and Japan back toward Asia in terms of exports, there will less and less capacity afforded by the system for such ìshotgun warsîómeaning ones we can impose on our allies financially, seemingly against their better judgment.

But if we play our cards right, that day never really comes, because the service we provide the rest of the Core, along with all the other perks of being such a huge consumer market and such an efficient financial marketplace, will remain enough of a good deal in the eyes of our creditors that everyone will feel they get what they need from the sum of the transactions.

Just in time: a remake of Manchurian Candidate

ìU.S. Tries to Divine al Qaedaís Next Move: As Concern Mounts Over Election-Disrupting Plots, Officials Look Back to Predict the Future,î by Robert Block and Glenn R. Simpson, Wall Street Journal, 12 July, p. A4.

The FBI and everyone else connected with Homeland Security are racking their minds and pouring over old reports of previous al Qaeda attacks to guesstimate where the next strike will come. After the Madrid bombings of 3/11, there are huge fears that terrorists will seek to disrupt the U.S. election process, with the favorite bets beingóno surpriseóthe conventions themselves.

I have no idea of how the new Denzel Washington version of Manchurian Candidate was updated, but I gotta believe it could poseóif itís the scenario I imagine it should beóas incendiary as the original one was (that one with Frank Sinatra in the lead was quietly shelved due to JFKís assassination and not resurrected until more than two decades lateróitís his best role ever, sad to say).

Hmm, another JFK running for the Democrats . . . Hmm, another Massachusetts senator . . . Good God! Now my mind is racing!

Suffice it to say, several fans of my book have already sent me numerous documents detailing their own personal theories as to how these ìinevitable strikesî will inevitably go down.

All I can say is, people are working the problem. Doesnít mean weíll stop everything dead in its tracks (a purposeful phrase), but it does mean it wonít take anyone by surprise if such a thing were actually attempted.

We are learning. Remember the bomber and missile ìgapsî from early in the Cold War? Well, weíre slowly but surely moving beyond the equivalent of those days in this GWOT. Itíll take some time, but weíre getting there.

AIDS: India needs its Ryan White, Africa needs its nurses

ìIn India, Stigma Of AIDS Curbs Control of HIV,î by Joanna Slater, Wall Street Journal, 12 July, p. B1.

ìAn Exodus of African Nurses Puts Infants and the Ill in Peril,î by Celia W. Dugger, New York Times, 12 July, p. A1.

In my yet-unpublished diary of my daughter Emilyís struggle with cancer back in 1994-96, I wrote about how, whenever we were at a playground and her covering hat would fall off, revealing her bald pate covered by only a few strands of hair, whatever crowd of kids and parents had been there up to that moment would almost immediately disappear. In short, Emily would clear the room just by revealing her illness. If we wanted to be alone, all I needed to do was knock off her hat and voila! We had the place to ourselves.

Why did we get that sort of response? I mean, anyone with half a brain knows cancer isnít contagious. But that was it. People saw Emilyís translucent skin and bald head and thought they were looking at an AIDS patient. Back then, you have to remember, that AIDS awareness was still breaking into the mainstream, meaning beyond gays and into the general population. A huge factor in that broadening of understanding across society was the role played by the kid AIDS patient Ryan White, who demonstrated to America that you didnít need to be a gay man in San Francisco to contract and die from the disease. What I learned with those episodes with Emily on the playground was that the social stigma connected with disease is almost harder to handle the actual disease itself. The disease disconnects you from normal life, but the stigma can disconnect you from so much moreóalmost your sense of identity. Parents of kidsóespecially small kidsólive through their progeny: accept them and you accept me, so reject them and you reject me. So, in effect, I experienced the stigma by proxy, and frankly, when youíre talking a two-year-old, it sure as hell hurts you more than the kid, who simply doesnít know any better.

Right now, India is desperately in need of a Ryan White, or someone whose essential nobility in the face of this deadly disease creates a prism of understanding and acceptance for the society as a whole. Tall order, yes, and God knows Ryan White didnít change everyoneís opinion overnight, but he did start the process in a big way, like Ronald Reagan put Alzheimerís in a new light, or Bette Ford did for rehab, etc.

In India right now, the stigma of AIDS is so bad, that when a family loses someone to it, theyíll go to great lengths to hide it, saying it was TB or something like that. I mean, weíre talking mid-1980s America where Roy Cohn sure as hell didnít die from any gay manís disease, but from ìliver cancer.î There is death, and there is dishonor, and until AIDS loses the stigma, lives will be needlessly cut short because people wonít seek treatment and prevention methods wonít find the same purchase in society.

This article talks about little kids in India who were kicked out of schools just because their dad died of AIDS, which is stigma-plus (or guilt by associationósort of contagious stigma). But that gives you a sense of how far India has to travel.

Meanwhile in Africa, the situation has gotten so bad that weíre to the point where nurses are simply abandoning their posts out of desperation for the low pay and excruciating work conditions. Where are those nurses going? Theyíre coming to the Core, because there weíre talking about pay scales in the $35-50k range, so guess how hard that choice is for some below-minimum wage nurse in central Africa trying to care for 50 AIDS terminal patients all by her lonesome.

People talk about a brain drain from Gap to Core, but this is a heart-and-soul drain. You want to shrink the Gap? You better plan on paying a whole lot more to deal with AIDS there.

A Chinese translation of PNMóauthor and vision

Dateline: SWA flight from Providence to Tampa, FLA, 11 July 2004

Flying down on a Sunday afternoon to Special Operations Command in Tampa to participate in a multiday workshop on the future of the global war on terrorism. No, Iím not being asked for my opinion on how best to kill terrorists, or anything operational for that matter, because thatís not what I know. Iím an expert on the ìeverything else,î or how that activity relates to the world at large in terms of diplomacy, politics, economics, social change, etc.ówhich isnít where ìthe rubber meets the roadî but instead asks the biggest questions of ìwhere does this road lead to?î

Should be an interesting time, not the least of which will involve meeting the other experts assembled, to include Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network (the one person here I have metóduring Y2K at a Highland Forum), sci-fi writer Orson Scott Card, Caleb Carr (author of ìThe Alienistî), and several other notables from a weird variety of disciplines.

I last interacted at this level with SOCOM when I briefed all the senior leadership there (and around the world via video teleconferencing) in 1999 regarding the upcoming Millennial Date Change Event, otherwise known by the acronym Y2K.

That brief was very funny (Y2K naturally lent itself to humor), and what I remember is that whenever I glanced at the view screens that showed VTC audiences, I could see them shaking now and then. At first, I though there was something wrong with the picture, but then I noted that everyone in the room with me was also shaking on and offójust enough so I could barely perceive it unless I actively stared at them. I finally realized these guys had perfected the art of the silent-but-jiggling guffawóchief among them then-CINCSOC (Commander in Chief, Special Operations Command) Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the guy pulled out of retirement by Rumsfeld to serve now as Chief of Staff for the Army. The general almost looked like he was going to fall off his chair at one point, he was shaking so muchóbut never the slightest sound emerged. Other than my voice and the sound effects, you could have heard a pin drop.

Yes, yes, the silent service they. As I will be on the content of the next three days (pretty sure).

So the meat of todayís blog will be an abstract of the quasi-review article that appeared about a month ago in the big Chinese newspaper ìNanfang Daily.î ìAbstractî here simply means that my new friend at Beijing University, Professor Niu Ke, was kind enough to have someone generate this rough summary of what was said in the piece, as opposed to a word-for-word translation.

I edited the following for spelling and grammar in order to make the meaning clear. I also put the items into bullets rather than running them altogether in thick paragraphs broken up by semi-colons. I donít know what the actual title of the article was, but Iím assuming it was the title of my book. The authorís name was Xue Yong. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in history at Yale. Hereís the abstract as rendered by Prof. Niu:

Editorís Note:

∑ The plight in Iraq forces U.S. military to reflect on its war ideas/strategy since the Gulf War

∑ Thomas Barnett becomes a dramatic figure in this process

∑ Will his new ideas become the framework for future US global security strategy?

Foreword:

∑ Heated debates have arisen regarding Barnett and his newly published book, The Pentagonís New Map

∑ If lucky enough, Barnettís ideas will probably not only become a blueprint for future U.S. global security strategy, but also reshape the relationships of the United States and the rest of the world
∑ What attracts Chinese attention most will be his strong arguments in favor of a Sino-U.S. alliance in the 21st century.

The Conceiver of Future U.S. Armed Forces (secondary title)

∑ Barnett has worked for a military transformation office led by Vice Admiral Arthur Cebrowski

∑ Barnettís brief resume

∑ Barnett successfully foretells the booming of terrorism

∑ Brief comparison with Andrew Marshall

∑ Barnett becomes more and more influential in national security community, giving lectures and briefings at the Pentagon

∑ Hot debate about him

∑ Rumsfield reportedly shows interest

∑ It is said that Barnett is a most influential figure in military reshaping.

Two roles for U.S. Army (secondary title):

∑ Two types of countries in world: ìgapî and ìcoreî

∑ Two branches of military force: Leviathan and the System Administrator Force, with fairly detailed description of both

∑ Lessons from Iraq experiences

∑ Barnett briefs at Joint Staff: ìYou can manage to win two or three Iraq-type wars easily, but you are not able to operate an occupationî

∑ Barnettís critical views on Bush Administration and the ìneoconsî

∑ Barnettís viewpoints on war on terrorism, and his criticism of Bush strategy: too much armed force, not enough diplomacy.

Worldís New Core:

∑ A beyond-the-military view of war

∑ Barnettís positive views on Chinaís role, as well as it leadership

∑ Also included are India, Russia, Europe, NATO allies

∑ Authorís remarks: Barnett is open-minded compared to Andrew Marshall

o Desires less secrecy and more transparency

o Transcending the narrow military perspectives and Realpolitik of great powers

o Sees overlapping interests among great powers

o Seeks to educate citizens on how to understand the world after 9/11.

Concluding Remarks:

∑ Barnettís ideas have been on a journey from periphery to mainstream, facing strong opposition from the military but supporters are growing (example of Republican House member Mac Thornberryís remarks: Barnettís vision is helpful in building bipartisan consensus

∑ Barnett also deliberately tries to reduce any perception of his political bias, criticizing both G.W. Bush and John F. Kerry

∑ Barnett voted for Gore in 2000

∑ A Democratic administration is expected to be even more receptive to Barnettís ideas

∑ Authorís personal suggestions:

o Most importantly, Barnettís multilateral strategy needs more international responses in order to gain more legitimacy inside the U.S.

o Chinaís ìPeaceful Risingî theory should be weaved with Barnettís ideas, in order to build a more solid basis for Sino-U.S. relations in 21st century

o As for Iraq, China should take the role of ìa friend of the U.S. who gives forthright admonitions,î promoting the UN to internationalize the Iraqi situation while continuing to press the U.S. to cease its unilateralism

o Military cooperation with the U.S. in Iraq is necessary and reasonable, so China should considering deploying troops to Iraq.

COMMENTARY: The article strikes me as sort of a review of the book and sort of a recap of Greg Jaffeís Wall Street Journal profile, meaning the author is leveraging Jaffeís analysis regarding the visionís growing acceptance within the U.S. military community. I will confess that I changed the line ìIt is said that Tom is the most influential figure in military reshapingî to ìIt is said that Tom is a most influential figure in military reshaping,î because I honestly believe that my natural humility was being lost in translation (which, of course, is why I draw attention to it here).

Clearly, the analyst likes me and the book because I see an overlap of strategic interests between China and the U.S. (isnít it weird to read about a ìSino-U.S. allianceî as opposed to a ìU.S.-Sino allianceî?). What really struck meónot to mention made me feel goodówas the authorís suggestions at the end regarding China stepping up to a more responsible worldwide partnering relationship with the U.S.: not just some silent junior partner, mind you, but a ìfriendî who isnít afraid to speak harsh truths.

You know, I walked through the Providence airportís main bookstore on my way to the plane this afternoon, as always looking to see if my book was still there on display. It was, in what looks to be a brand new section against one wall labeled simply ìWAR.î

I was a little taken aback by the designation, since most stores will stick me under ìMilitary Affairs.î Throughout my entire career I have always been known as the guy who argued far more for peace than for war, so the notion that I am a ìphilosopher of warî like a Mahan or Clausewitz is something I simply recoil from. To me, such strategists were all about war and very littleóif at allóabout peace. Deep down I consider myself a peace strategist, which is why I donít consider my lack of military experience to be a detriment to my legitimacy.

Because I work for the military, and because I speak forcefully and at length about the certain types of wars as a way to achieve lasting peace, I am necessarily labeled a ìwar strategist.î Go figure! I work in the Warfare Analysis and Research Department at the Center for Naval Warfare Studies at the Naval War College.

But remember this (he says confidently, especially since the subtitle was completely Neil Nyrenís idea): the PNM is about war and peace in the 21st century. The key concept of the book is the need to think about and conduct war within the context of everything else. Thatís why the book and the vision attracts such attention both here and in China: it puts this global war on terrorism into a larger context, something everyone desperately wants.

That is why Iím flying on a plane this afternoon down to Special Operations Command. There is nothing in my experience that allows me to tell the Combatant Commander there how he should lead this Global War on Terrorism.

No, Iíve been brought down to explain the everything elseóyou know, the happy ending. That happy ending has little to do with victory in the classic sense (order) but everything to do with a truly durable peace (justice).

And so I will represent that which I both know and believe over the next few days . . ..

Todayís catch:

You want a fair fight? Then do it yourself!

ìPanel Describes Long Weakening of Hussein Army: White House Saw Threat; Senate Cites C.I.A.ís Data That Found More Risk in Erratic Regime,î by John H. Cushman, Jr., New York Times, 11 July, p. A1.

ìBad Iraq Intelligence Cost Lives, Democrats Say,î by Adam Nagourney and Jodi Wilgoren, NYT, 11 July, p. A1.

The coming reform of intell: everybody hold your breath!

ìDespite Terror Risk, Washington Is Unlikely to Press Reform of C.I.A. This Year: Congressional reports see a need to alter a culture and a ëgroup thinkí dynamic,î by David E. Singer, NYT, 11 July, p. A10.

Iraqis: it takes one to control one

ìIraqís Rebellion Develops Signs Of Internal Rift: Tactics and Goals Split Iraqis and Foreigners,î by Ian Fisher and Edward Wong, NYT, 11 July, p. A1.

ìA Tough Guy Tries to Tame Iraq,î by Dexter Filkins, NYT, 11 July, p. WK1.

Saddamís trial: exhibit A in the case of the missing A-to-Z global rule set

ìWho V. Saddam? The U.S. has spend years preparing for Saddam Husseinís trial. But it is not all that certain who will try him or whenóor whose ends that trial will ultimately serve,î by Peter Landesman, New York Times Magazine, 11 July, p. 34.

You want a fair fight? Then do it yourself!

As one Marine colonel once told me: F--k fair fights!

ìPanel Describes Long Weakening of Hussein Army: White House Saw Threat; Senate Cites C.I.A.ís Data That Found More Risk in Erratic Regime,î by John H. Cushman, Jr., New York Times, 11 July, p. A1.

ìBad Iraq Intelligence Cost Lives, Democrats Say,î by Adam Nagourney and Jodi Wilgoren, NYT, 11 July, p. A1.

The latest story on the ìstunningî Senate report! It seems that Saddamís army was actually getting weaker across the 1990s from all that enforced isolation and daily bombings from U.S. aircraft operating the northern and southern no-fly-zones. Imagine that? Twelve years of constant bombing actually softened them up quite a bit!

Good God! Was even the Senate that dimly aware of what was going on since the end of Desert Storm?

And yet, this judgment discredits yet another huge contention of the Bush White House regarding the Saddam takedown: his military still posed a regional security threat.

Not true! We now know.

So I guess we simply waltzed into that country and took down his military in what can only be described as a completely unfair contest.

You know, I had a Marine colonel pull me aside one day when both of us were participating in the ìbest and brightestî effort that eventually wrote the historic post-Cold War Department of Navy white paper entitled ìÖFrom the Sea.î It was during a rather heated debate about under what conditions America should be willing to go to war in the future (this was 1992), and he complained that it sometimes seemed that if some people had their way, weíd only send in the military under the most dire circumstances, meaning when the enemyís threat capacity was at its highest. ìItís almost as if they want to level the playing fieldóyou know, make it a fair fight or something. Well, let me tell you something: I say f--k fair fights! You want a fair fight? Then do it yourself!î

Of course, Saddamís military was weakened by all those years of ìkeeping him in the box.î But itís equally true that Saddam would have certainly gone back to doing more massively bad things to his own people (say, the Kurds in the north), and threatening his neighbors, and seeking WMD, and supporting transnational terrorismóif not for the U.S. military pressure constantly employed across all those years.

The fact that it took us 12 years and one war to get him to that weakened condition was why we could win the war so easily, but it also meant what weíd find there once we got in was going to end up being a whole lot worse than we imagined (remember what my civil affairs officer friends told me in NC last month).

My point is this: the Senate report is rehashing the wrong arguments and focusing on the wrong stuff. Everyone wanted Saddam gone. Rehashing the intell on our decision to go in is an exercise in pointlessness. If we had achieved the great occupation/settling down of Iraq within a year as planned, none of that decision making would be questioned now, because weíd probably still be way under 500 combat deaths and it wouldnít appear to anyone like a Vietnam redux.

What prewar intell we should be looking into is our huge misjudgments on how to organize and carry out an effective occupation/nation-building exercise. So it wasnít a fair fight in the war! It wasnít supposed to be! But we should have had a much more reasonable chance of success in the occupation than we ended up having, and intell and planning failures played THE HUGE ROLE in that strategic snafu. Thatís where Congressí investigatory focus should be.

The Senate report will go down as most Senate reports go down: as a huge exercise in navel gazing.

Focusing on the planning failure that was the occupation is what Kerry and Edwards should be harping about, not insinuating that lives were wasted in this war. We lost around 150 in the war, and none of those lives were wasted. Weíve lost more than four times that amount in this occupation (and counting) and many of those lives were wasted.

Neither Congress nor the Democrats should focus on the pre-war intell failure, but rather the pre-occupation intell failure. Give credit where credit is due: this military won a fantastic war. But also give blame where blame is due: this Pentagon planned a very poor occupation.

As for Kerry and Edwards peddling that ìthe war makes domestic terrorist attacks even more likely,î they shouldnít be. The Middle East is a hornetís nest of bad regimes, failed regimes, rigid regimes. By taking down Saddam we set some nasty stuff in motion, but that nasty stuff will be overwhelmingly over there. Yes, we will inevitably suffer another domestic terrorist strike, but it wonít be because of what we do or did over there. Itíll be because globalization is creeping into the traditional cultures of the Middle East and ìtheyî want it out and believe that attacking the U.S. is the best way to do that.

Simply put, we do absolutely nothing and weíll still raise the likelihood of a domestic terrorist attack. Globalization isnít ours to control, but to manage. It doesnít come with a ruler, but with rules.

The coming reform of intell: everybody hold your breath!

ìDespite Terror Risk, Washington Is Unlikely to Press Reform of C.I.A. This Year: Congressional reports see a need to alter a culture and a ëgroup thinkí dynamic,î by David E. Singer, NYT, 11 July, p. A10.

Letís see: canít do anything this year because itís a political year. So wait until deep into 2005 and . . . finally create that intell czar everyone has been dreaming of.

Yes, yes, that will kill the intelligence communityís tendency for group think: an all-powerful and all-singular czar up on top. Yep, thatíll do it.

Groupthink is caused primarily by secrecy and distance from the real world. Bring the CIA out of its classified cocoon and youíll end the groupthink. Iím not talking the clandestine agents, but the analysts. Thatís the problem-set weíre really talking about here.

But donít hold your breath on that one. All good intell weanies know that itís the secrecy that keeps us safeólike it did in the months leading up to 9/11.

Iraqis: it takes one to control one

ìIraqís Rebellion Develops Signs Of Internal Rift: Tactics and Goals Split Iraqis and Foreigners,î by Ian Fisher and Edward Wong, New York Times, 11 July, p. A1.

ìA Tough Guy Tries to Tame Iraq,î by Dexter Filkins, NYT, 11 July, p. WK1.

The front-page article is a longer bit of analysis on the notion that Iraqi insurgents are starting to turn on the foreign fighters with whom up to now theyíve enjoyed common cause, but not common methods (the large-scale killing of civilians by Zarqawi and company being the crucial tipping pointóit seems). The big question, as one U of Baghdad professor points out [Whoa! Isnít it amazing to even see a Baghdad prof being quoted on the front page of the Times!], is whether the split is real or just a period ofóas he believesóìreconstruction and reevaluation in order to push the operations out of the citiesî so as ìnot to have innocent people killed.î

Allawi is openly pursuing a divide-and-conquer strategy:

ìTo that end, Mr. Allawi and other government officials say, he has been meeting with former Baath Party members in the resistance and tribal leaders to convince them that their interests and those of foreign fighters are not the same.

ëWeíre negotiating with what I call the noncriminals, those who never really were the hard core like Zarqawi and his aides and the Al-Qaeda-style people,í Mr. Allawi said in an interview. ëAnd on the other hand, be very firm with the criminals and the assassins and the killers and the terrorists.î

Will the Sunnis ultimately channel their resistance into political action in a state whereóspeaking of voting blocsóthey íll be a smallish minority? Prime Minister Allawi, the former tough-guy Baathist, will win some over, but the Sunni president Sheik Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar, according to U.S. military officials, may play an even more important role. In the end, the Sunnisí position in a democratic Iraq seems as vulnerable as that of the Kurds, which of course makes Shiite Iran to the East look like a looming kingpin . . ..

Probably a good thing that Allawi is shaping up to be the truly tough guy (from the second article):

ìMr. Allawi is known for his decade of work in trying to topple Mr. Hussein, but he is a former Baathist himself, with suggestion among those who regard him with suspicion that he once engaged in thuggish work on the partyís behalf. That tough-guy past, even his former association with the Central Intelligence Agency, seems to warm the hearts of many Iraqis who miss Mr. Husseinís iron-fisted ways.

ëThat Allawi worked for the C.I.A. may be a problem for Americans,í an Iraqi journalist said in conversation recently, ëbut it is not a problem for Iraqis.íî

What does that tell you about what the C.I.A. is really good for? Not the analysis but the rough stuff, which is why the analysts should be liberated from Langley and returned to the land of the living.

Allawi doesnít just know how to walk the walk, he knows how to talk the talk. Listen to him describe his meetings with insurgent leaders:

ìíI spoke to some of them myself,í Mr. Allawi continued. ëI told them: What are you trying to achieve? Let us know. Do you want to bring Saddam back to rule Iraq? Do you want to bring bin Laden to rule Iraq? We will fight you. You canít do this.í

ëYou want to be part of the political process?í he said, posing the crucial question. ëYou are welcome to be part of the political process, provided that you sever your relations to the hard-core criminals and the terrorists.íî

Anyone miss Paul Bremer right now?

Better yet, anyone want to see the U.S. State Department trying to run anything in Iraq right now?

We are lucky we ended up with Allawi. Count your stars.