Corresponding G/gaps

GLOBAL OPINION TRENDS 2002-2007: A RISING TIDE LIFTS MOOD IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
Sharp Decline in Support for Suicide Bombing in Muslim Countries
47-Nation Pew Global Attitudes Survey

Fascinating report that says a lot of positive things about happiness being a function of rising incomes in states that open themselves up to globalization.

Also says some very nice things about a decline in Muslim support for terror tactics and bin Laden in particular, with Palestine being a severe outlier in both regards.

One interesting additional point to me: Look at the map of surveyed countries on page 20. The gaps in coverage tend to correspond nicely to my Gap.

Thanks to LC for sending this.

Why do I waver so?

Bill C. asks what seems to have turned me off on Rudy:

First, I will plead it's too early to get totally sold, so yeah, I'm still shopping.

Second, there are so many people I respect who think Rudy doesn't have a chance as a Repub nominee: he might pull off the nomination, but then he'll get a weak support in the general, paving way for Dems who are outdrawing on money big time (a big sign of Bush's realignment legacy).

The people Rudy picked for his foreign policy (no skin off my nose, as I'm not looking to get sucked into anyone's cauldron since it looks like Putnam and I are one on the subject of the next book) did scare me plenty (as I noted in a previous post), in that, when you add them all up, they'll be set on taking on just about everyone. Unless Rudy's totally committed to the blended force progression, that would get lost in the shuffle with this sort of team leading the way: too much of an everything-gets-funded mix.

Still, Rudy remains--by far, in my mind--most likely to make happen what I want to see achieved in the military. I'm just balancing that goal against the larger realignments I think U.S. foreign policy will have to make in coming years, and there he's more suspect with his re-channeling of Reagan thing (nice for election sales, but era-wise, wholly inappropriate and dangerously antiquated: so we wait to see how serious that commitment is and for now we can only go off his foreign policy team picks).

Right now I operate on the larger assumption that the election is there for the Dems to lose. When 60 percent of all voters say they "expect" Hillary to win the presidency, then my thinking shifts to "what's my best alternative to that?" Not because I reject her, but because I like counter-factual/intuitive/just-plain-cranky thinking. That's how I get comfortable with someone.

The best counter to Hillary right now is Obama. I don't think he has much of a chance for the nomination, all things being equal. I am frustrated with that apparent fait accompli on the Dems side, because I don't think we've been given much of a choice here: Back to the Clinton crowd or nobody.

The Clinton people simply weren't ready to rule in 1990 on foreign policy and especially on defense. It was home alone at the Pentagon for eight years. Now, they're all psyched to come back and I am cynical enough to expect they'll do no better, because--quite frankly--the Boomers are a "knowing" crowd, not a "learning" crowd. They know what they know (and it is basically the same as what they knew back then), and they view Bush's legacy as completely reversible.

I don't think it is, because I don't think that world exists anymore, and so I fear the Clinton foreign policy/defense crowd will be as inappropriate and unprepared as they were last time and all we'll get over 4-8 years is a quiet recovery at the Pentagon that will reset the internal clock but lose time drastically with the global one.

I am willing to expect better from Obama, and so I am more intrigued by him.

So I jump back and forth a bit between pre-Boomer Rudy and post-Boomer Obama, knowing just that I'm sick of the Boomers and feeling like 4-8 more years of them will do more damage than good, especially since I expect many profound realignments globally between 2009 and 2017 (the main subject of Vol. III).

I do see Hillary in the same solutions-oriented light that I view Obama and Rudy. I just fear her administration naturally gets wrapped around the axle on all sorts of political fights. Her many enemies will simply make it so, so I'm naturally attracted to political resets in the form of Rudy or Obama.

So long as we're in the primaries, I'm more interested in Obama's possibilities, speaking as someone who'll vote in that primary. Once we're in the general, I'm open to wider consideration, naturally, but I'm pessimistic about the GOP's likely effort for any candidate (really, any of them) that emerges, so it's more interesting to think about Dems right now, even as I know that--as a rule--all or any of them will indulge in a strong anything-but-Bush positioning that will likely dominate a first term. Again, Obama's more intriguing there because he doesn't have to turn so much on Bush per se as the Boomer politics in general, so I see more freedom with him, plus less likelihood of a concerted Right effort to thwart and demonize him from day one.

I also worry, per the previous post, that Clinton's jumping on Obama over the debate comment signals she's not particularly open to him as a Veep (the fear of the "two firsts"), meaning she's more likely to pick somebody safe and standard to be her defense credentials, and just in the abstract, considering that possibility, I get a bit more depressed. (that "home alone" feeling returns to the Pentagon as we get somebody who's too boring and bland to do anything or somebody who'll be a showy and ineffective dilettante.

Then again, maybe you get a Tony Zinni under her and it all works out. I just think, in my gut, that Obama's more likely to be bold if we're talking a Dems-win scenario.

Wouldn't it be great...

ARTICLE: Obama Debate Comments Set Off Firestorm, By TOM RAUM, AP, Jul 24, 2007

I thought Obama's response was fine in its rhetorical aspirations and hardly "revealing" him as inexperienced: he won't be afraid to talk to anyone because America shouldn't be afraid to be compared--side by side in terms of what it stands for--with any leader.

Yes, I know that's a scary prospect right now but we're talking about the next one.

So Obama won't be trapped by the image-consciousness of the Boomers or the step-by-step incompetency of the State Department--big deal.

The only people afraid to talk are those with things to hide. I prefer not to play that way, especially in this transparent world.

I've also had enough of not talking as a grand strategy, with opinions of the U.S. plummeting planet-wide.

And as for being "used" for propaganda purposes, that's weak. Obama meets Castro: who's gonna look weak in that photo-op? Obama goes to Venezeula, what kind popular reception do you think he'd get? Who wouldn't want to deliver the "tear down that whatever" line in Tehran to all those pissed-off college students?

When did we become so scared? So conservative? So un-self-confident?

I mean, wouldn't it be great to have a president the world respects again? Somebody not afraid to lead instead of being always so staged by his team? Or watching poll numbers? Or afraid of his own military?

Naive? Breath of fresh air.

Turn the page, baby!

Stand Up mp3

Stand Up America sent me the link for the mp3 Tom's appearance yesterday. Enjoy.

Yglesias link

Matthew Yglesias linked The Americans Have Landed but somehow fails to see the strategic importance of the Horn of Africa.

Code compromise, even in Israel

ARTICLE: Letter from Jerusalem: The Apostate, by David Remnick, The New Yorker, July 30, 2007

Excerpt:

[T]hey also wonder how, when both Palestinian and Israeli politics have degenerated, the economy has soared. The Tel Aviv stock-exchange index has gone up two hundred and ten per cent in the past four years. ...

It may turn out that the most important constituency applying pressure to the Israeli government to engage the Palestinians in diplomatic negotiations will be not the activists or the left wing of the Labor Party but, rather, the entrepreneurs and managers who run such successful companies as Teva, Check Point, and Iscar. ...

The business élites know that potential war on any front threatens their interests.

"The continued success of the economy depends on global companies being willing to let Israeli companies into their networks," Avishai told me over lunch in Jerusalem. "If Israel collapses into chaos - if the Lebanon war had been six months instead of one - that could all end."

Highlighted text demonstrates how connectivity forces code/compromises, even in this most "irrational" of strategic environments.

Thanks to Doron Ben Avraham for sending this.

What did I tell you?!

ARTICLE: Ahmadinejobless, By Monica Maggioni, Foreign Policy, July 2007

Good bit on Ahmadinejad. What did I tell you!

Seriously, I think there is a bureaucratic tussle going on right now in the Bush administration: Cheney's camp is pushing war with Iran and the Intell Community is trying to sabotage that by emphasizing AQ's resurgence in NW Pakistan (better and more pertinent argument to everyone in the world except the "zero-deductible" crowd in Israel and their supporters here [actually, far more the latter than former]).

Ahmadinejad is probably "saved" from attack and thus doomed to fall thanks to the cockroaches moving one apartment over.

The coming ruleset reset on public-sector entries into private equity

ARTICLE: "Governments Get Bolder in Buying Equity Stakes," by Jason Singer, Henny Sender, Jason Dean and Marcus Walker, Wall Street Journal, 24 July 2007, p. A1.

There are no clear rules for this. It simply reflects a profound sense of demographic urgency, both in Asia (getting old fast) and the Middle East (processing all that youth into working, non-violent middle age): they refuse to sit on their foreign currency holdings previously amassed to protect against Asian Flu-like outbreaks of FOREX speculation (runs on the national currency).

Of course, getting governments involved in private equity becomes a new form of state-directed capitalism: China wants higher returns but also wants its foreign-held entities to mentor/lead/and-sort-of-get-out-of-the-competitive-way of its own rising firms.

One thing is clear: the political interdependency that's lagged dramatically behind the economic interconnectivity is going to catch up very fast. More and more, for example, China's political stability will depend on America's economic stability--and by extension, vice versa.

It's stuff like this that makes me think Collier overestimates the time involved for Asia's wage advantage to disappear vis-a-vis the bottom billion. He sees decades before a significantly large gap can emerge, and thus be exploited by Africa. Me? I see emerging markets purposefully pricing themselves out of low-end labor-intensive industries precisely because aging demographics push them to income-increasing strategies that are highly aggressive. Again, our "problem" right now is not how slowly globalization is advancing (both geographically and temporally in terms of demographics), but how quickly it's sped up along so many unprecedented pathways, to include this most stunning one.

Globalization is a train that will continue to pick up speed unless or until sufficient protectionism arises to derail it. That's what most scary about this development. Just like "safety" on the supply chain can mask all sorts of protectionist schemes, so too can "sensitive industry" legislation designed to curb this public money entering private equity.

And yet, what to do?

Seeing state-directed capitalism work so well in the past for the Tigers, how can we tell current emerging markets not to emulate? And with their movement into private equity, are they not marketizing further their future pathways? Making them guilty primarily of emulating us too fast and too well?

Still, "sensitive sectors" are certain to be ID'd by the truckload soon by Old Core states fearful of transnational "renationalization" of sectors and firms previously privatized. One thing to do state-directed capitalism at your place, but quite another thing to extend those dynamics to my economy.

But then again, who wants to pick fights with an expansive globalization process that lifts so many so rapidly from poverty, in effect winning all our ideological battles for us in this world, to include the long war (no Virginia, al Qaeda's merely a symptom of our success--not a serious competitor/threat)?

As I like to note: handling failure is easy. Handling success is very hard.

Troubled about the Boomer well

ARTICLE: 'Talkin’ ‘Bout My Generation: Leaving boomer conflicts behind,' By Michael Barone, National Review, July 23, 2007

Good piece that echoes my gut feelings on the subject. As tantalizing as Hillary's presidency is, I feel troubled to go back to the Boomer/Clinton well. It just seems so strange to get limited to this rerun choice long before any votes are cast.

Is this all there is?

Frankly, my gut instinct is to let Barack learn on the job than to endure 4-8 more years of Boomer devisiveness. That zero-sum politics just seems broken as a model.

Thanks to Tim Lundquist for sending this.

What's your foreign policy?

Tom writes about individual foreign policy. What's yours?

It could be international adoption.

My wife and I have contributed to the Nothing But Nets Campaign (anti-malarial bed nets for Africa).

Tom had written about Kiva before. It's a website that matches donors with people in need of microloans. I came across a banner for Kiva today and asked Tom if we could run it on the website and he okayed it.

So here's an example. I'm going to put one in the sidebar, too.

But individual foreign policy is bigger than these three suggestions. There are many ways to engage. What's yours? I'd love to see it in the comments.

One more way to build the future worth creating.

The appearance on "Stand Up America"

After morning in Pentagon, I Metro over to Ballston and start scouting a location from which to do the radio appearance, eventually settling on the 3rd deck of Ballston Metro Mall at the end of one wing just off a quiet furniture store.

I score some noodles and a venti latte with extra espresso and gear up for the appearance, having tested the link with my manager Jenn over my cell.

It seems to go well. Paul Vallely was very complimentary and gave me plenty of time to explain "The Americans Have Landed."

First time I've ever done radio in a mall. Done it in a lot of parking lots and moving cars, but here I had to steer clear of passing people and hope no loud noises interrupted. But it seemed to work.

As it was web-based, I'm hoping for an online archive. Sean will follow up on that.

[Sean: Archive's here. Looks like they're about a week behind.]

Tom's on the radio now!

Extremely late notice, but Tom's going on Stand Up America right now. You appear to be able to listen live. More as I figure it out

"Victory" in Iraq

WEBSITE: Victory Caucus

An interesting attempt to redefine the question of "victory" in Iraq. Worth checking out.

My column next weekend will also explore this notion, from a wider perspective.

An education on Army Reserve issues

Spent 90 minutes over breakfast with LTG Jack Stultz, head of Army Reserves, in his PNT office. Also brought in for breakfast were Michelle Flourney (always smart) and Peter Singer (whose work I respect a lot, but first-time F2F for me).

So real treat and education for me. I had my inputs, but learned more than lectured, because I'm sitting with three serious experts on personnel issues.

Stultz is a hugely impressive guy, so it was a real pleasure to get some face time. He read PNM, and said it helped prepare him some for this first Pentagon tour. His "day job" career has been with Proctor & Gamble, focusing on logistics and OD. I told him that's a way cool background for his current post.

I wish him the best in the job, which is a crucial one. My sense is that he's got a lot of solid ideas and instincts as to where the AR needs to move next.

More on Collier's "bottom billion"

One reader of the blog is also reading and compared notes recently with me: Collier is brilliant at diagnosing but sees only answers in strictly Euro tones and thus he gets depressed about Europe's "been there, done that" mentality WRT to interventions in Africa. Asia is written off (Collier misses the demographic pressures that "Coming Anarchy" has so recently highlighted, and so seems to buy into the "inexhaustible--and forever young--cheap labor argument on China and India) and a solution source, so his package is a NATO rapid response plus the AU (what a sad,under-incentivized and under-resourced package that is), while mine remains the Sino-American alliance.

Of course, working the incentive structure on that one is no mean trick, but nowhere near as hard as many assume, coming at it from a purely pol-mil perspective. In fact, Steve DeAngelis and I spend most of our time--in effect--building that alliance, and when you focus the conversation appropriately on infrastructure and deal-making business connectivity (as Steve is doing so brilliantly in Kurdistan right now), it's fairly easy to turn on American business (to include the traditional defense community) to the longer-term civilian market-making opportunities, which immediately gets them re-evaluating what's possible and desirable with China.

So today I'm in DC to meet with the head of the Army Reserve and a senior private-sector outreach guy in DHS on critical infrastructure protection. Think about that pairing for a second after perusing Dan's stuff on the SysAdmin complex and it's not odd in the least, especially when you read Collier's brilliant diagnoses of why the Gap (his "bottom billion") remains the Gap (hint: landlocked is a key attribute).

Infrastructure, resources, security, investment, rules ... you know the ten-step drill by now ....

Fly, Turkey, fly!

ARTICLE: Turkey's big result, Economist.com, Jul 23rd 2007

For now, this is the best possible--meaning most globally-connective--election outcome. Per my previous post, the more we expect Turkey to emerge and connect, the more we must accommodate their identity-protecting shift toward Islamism. The fiercely secular Turkey has served its historic purpose. We need the appropriate "lead goose" to spread its wings now, for the sake of both the Big Bang in the Middle East and the associated political maturation of the EU.

Great piece. My thanks to my "twin" (doubting disciple - my grandfather J.E. always referred to me as "doubting Thomas").

Turkey's inevitable re-emergence

ARTICLE: "Alliances Shift As Turks Weigh A Political Turn," by Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times, 20 July 2007, p. A1.

Turkey emerged as a modern state from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire four-score and four years ago. It did so with a decidedly secular identity as a way of moving on.

Now, as it seeks a new standing in the global economy/community, it wants to come out of the secular closet--as it were--and admit it is a distinctly religious society. Pretending otherwise, when the Middle East is roiling with identity politics and conflict, as is disapproving Europe to the West, seems passe and oh-so-old-guard.

This should not surprise nor dismay. As I have often written: nothing retraditionalizes like connectivity. Nothing makes you want to hold onto past identifiers more than future expectations of greater connectivity and interaction with others. We are all creatures of habit, and those which detail our sense of self are the most crucial. To expect people to embrace the profound changes associated with globalization without holding firmly onto the past is unrealistic.

Many see this retraditionalization as a failure or defeat of globalization's advance, when it is the exact opposite. They believe the Middle East's tumult will go away if we simply pull back, when of course it is the Middle East's growing embrace of the outside world that drives this process. Left to our own devices, we wouldn't make the effort, but once you add those 3 billion new capitalists-becoming-new-consumers, nobody's left to their own devices anymore, and so Asia's embrace of our markets and economic models triggers Islam's "clash/convergence" with modernity.

Turkey remains a key harbinger of the accommodations ahead: for every economic embrace, expect some political finessing of identity, with more religion and not less being the result.

Japan: The Shape of Things to Age

ARTICLE: "Japan's Elderly Suffer Hardest Shock From Earthquakes," by Martin Fackler, New York Times, 20 July 2007, p. A3.

Not the first time this demographic fault line has been revealed: in disaster after disaster in Japan in recent years, the bulk of casualties and deaths have been over 65 in age. Put people in danger or on the run, and kids and old people always suffer most. Japan has plenty of the latter, if not many children of men.

Watching Japan adjust to this emerging reality is quite interesting, because it previews the planet's coming challenges.

Japan's society is full of places where one-out-of-four people are over 65 (surpassing the "Florida mark" of 20 percent), whereas most of the U.S. sits in the one-out-of-eight range.

You want a lot less immigration, this is what it looks like: I've fallen and I can't get up!

More optimistic news: Hispanics already here will account--by second-generation births--for the bulk of our population growth in coming decades.

So the deed, so to speak, is basically done.

html question

First Matt then New Yorker in DC wrote in to say the border around the main content area of the weblog isn't rendering right in Explorer. Anyone see the problem, and, best of all, how to fix it?

Tom around the web

+ New Yorker in DC linked China, the unprincipled SysAdmin, willing to invest anywhere, actually helps our strategic interests.
+ memeorandum linked Climate and economics.
+ ZenPundit , in covering the Boyd Conference, mentioned Williams Lind's continued visceral dislike of Tom's work.
+ So did Shloky.
+ Mackinlay's (in Spanish) linked the weblog.
+ ShadZee linked Kill weeds or grow lawn?
+ Brilliant Barfly embedded the Brief from YouTube.
+ SoCal-LD.net linked Connecting Africa is about much more than water.
+ MountainRunner says the Core doesn't understand the Gap.
+ Dancing in the Minefield talked about Tom's thinking on Iraq.
+ bicyclerepairman posted the TED video on VideoSift.
+ Then ThrowawayyourTV Blog picked it up.
+ Hogan's Alley linked Bush's Big Bang strategy continues to provide opportunities for radical change.
+ So did Iron Triangle Daily.
+ tadej's tumblelog posted audio of the TED talk (which I hadn't seen yet).
+ Preaching Peace mused about Tom's commentary in 'Suicide bombing is about sex'.
+ Naval Open Source Intelligence linked The Americans Have Landed.
+ Dans Blog reprinted yesterday's column.
+ Politics & Soccer put out an RFI about shrinking the Gap, the SysAdmin and other things.