It was just a matter of time

ARTICLE: U.S. Troops in Iraq Face A Powerful New Weapon, By Ernesto Londoño, Washington Post, July 10, 2008; Page A01

I was wondering when Iran would start passing rockets to Iraqi Shia militias, given the long flow to Hamas and Hezbollah.

You gotta' make sure your connected

POST: "The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism: Part 1 - Defining Democracy in Russia," By Kevin Cyron, Russia Blog, July 10, 2008

A couple of days ago I posted an email exchange between Tom and Kevin Cyron about Kevin's thesis: Mentoring via books and email. Russia Blog has decided to publish the whole thing in installments. Excellent for all concerned.

There's obviously lots of noise on the web, but connections like this among like-minded, thoughtful people are invaluable.

Let me say it right now on Favre

If he wants to play, the Pack MUST bring him back and make him the starter again, shelving Rodgers for another year. We have a SB-caliber team and if one of the biggest stars in NFL history wants to be our QB, I say he's earned the right to reverse himself and be welcomed back with open arms.

Any BS about "needing to move on" will haunt the Packers for decades if Favre calls their bluff and ends us somewhere else.

For $12.5M, one more year is cheap.

You mark my word: the Packers do ANYTHING ELSE and they will never live it down.

Negotiations begin at the scary part

ARTICLE: "Iran's Conflicting Signals to the West: Some Observers Suggest That Missile Tests Show a Readiness to Bargain," by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 11 July 2008, p. A10.

Remember: peace can only "break out" when war is ongoing or threatening, so no assumptions on the feasibility here just because Israel and Iran go through their exercises.

But I do think we're seeing posturing by Iran largely for the next president. I think Tehran is laying the groundwork for a Bush-to-Obama switch much like it did for Carter-to-Reagan: what is inconceivable with one becomes far more conceivable with the next.

Could Bush take advantage in the time left? Possibly, but not at an acceptable price, I suspect. The latest group-of-six offer spoke of "territorial integrity" and the possibility of "direct contact and dialogue," but--of course--Tehran wants regime integrity--not exactly the same thing but basically what Nixon and Kissinger gave to both Moscow and Beijing in their detente/opening efforts.

So, outside the war posturing/counterposturing, I expect Iranian signals to remain "oblique," as the administration currently describes them: suggesting the possibility but not really stepping into the actualization of any break-through.

And I really worry that such a slipping-into-the-Obama-administration track just isn't good enough for Israel.

Rooftop DC party

Connected

Tom got this email:

Dr. Barnett,

I'm from Evanston, IL. This fall I will begin my first year as a student of the University of XXXXXXXXX and a cadet of Army ROTC. I finished your A Future Worth Creating less than 30 minutes ago (so please excuse my very unrefined reactions) and wanted to thank you for writing it. My lack of exposure to macroeconomics at this point in my education was somewhat limiting, but I ultimately found the book very accessible. Given my strong yet underdeveloped ambitions (military intelligence to CIA to politics to academia, or really any combination of those), your projections will be my life's work. I found the section on hereos yet to be discovered especially applicable, as my fellow Echo-Boomers and I will fill those roles.

Unfortunately, I have no contstructive criticism to offer. Time, however, is the only obstacle between myself andmore profound understanding and it (time) is one that I defeat daily. Your work really helped me solidify my budding knowledge of the world that I am inheriting, as well as offered golden tangents of study. Thank you very much for your analysis. I'll let you know how much of it was accurate in a generation or so.

Very Respectfully,

Tom writes:

This is the connection the grand strategist is looking for.

Still think Iran can never connect?

POST: Iran: Foreign Firms Will Be Able To Own State Companies, Stratfor

This, to me, is very interesting as a sign of economic distress in Iran leading to new thinking on economic connectivity with the global economy.

(Thanks: Dan Hare)

Match and close

ARTICLE: The State Department Confronts the Synergy Crisis, by Austin Bay, Strategy Page, June 24, 2008

Good and interesting sign. The program is basically what Enterra does in Kurdish Iraq, except we go way beyond matchmaking to actual deal closing with our investment centers.

But the underlying logic in each is the same: jobs are the only exit strategy and jobs are a private-sector function.

(Thanks: Jim Jeansonne)

Familiar concepts from Leavenworth

POST: Why stability operations matter to Gen. Caldwell, Nukes & Spooks, June 24, 2008

One selection:

I assumed that [Lt. Gen. William Caldwell's] drive was shaped by Iraq or his colleagues’ experiences in Afghanistan. But as it turns out, it is based on his tours in Panama and Haiti and the first Gulf War, examples where he says the military figured out how to win the war, but not the peace.

(Thanks: Hans Suter)

All systems "go" for war

ARTICLE: "Iran Launches Nine Test Missiles, Says More Are Ready: U.S. Plays Down Military Showdown," by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, 10 July 2008, p. A1.

How scary is this development?

Iran had to counter Israel's semi-impressive military exercise of last month. Despite some hyping of Iran's threat, its conventional forces impress nobody I know, least of all Israel's military. So they're not going to show a symmetrical response here, but rather go with what got them to the dance in the first place: the implied mating of rockets and the enrichment program. So popping off rockets is their most impressive option, saying in effect, "You may kick our asses with a conventional bombing campaign, but this is how we'll attempt to counter.

Some real bravado? Sure. But again, more signaling than anything else.

Problem right now is how many sides would welcome war. "U.S. Plays Down Military Showdown" is a couple of quotes from Gates and an Undersecretary of State, meaning two counties heard from but hardly the "U.S." that matters right now on this subject (Bush-Cheney). Both, in my mind, have no problem with an Israeli strike on their watch that could easily suck us into combat. Time is short.

McCain's presidential bid, as Charlie Black notes openly, benefits from scenarios of terror or conflict, so cue up the Beach Boys.

Obama would not be helped.

On the Israeli side, better to get it done before Obama takes the oath. Ditto for Ahmadinejad, strangely enough. No point in having your best enemy denied to you when you need him for your own re-election.

Europe and China see nothing good in this, although Beijing is always happy to have the spotlight off it when it comes to international security responsibilities.

For India, pretty much a bad. For Moscow, good stuff all around.

Add it all up, as I do in this week's column, and you're looking at a lot of the system providing weak obstacles and more than a little sub rosa push toward war.

Stupid? Yes.

But that's irrelevant to the analysis.

We made our choice on Iraq, now we get Iran and N Korea

ARTICLE: 'Colin Powell talks Iraq in Aspen: Reduction of troops inevitable, says former chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff," By Scott Condon, Vail Daily, July 4, 2008

Now there's God's honest truth.

We did not run out of gear nor money in Iraq. We ran out of quality people, whom we burned out. I hear this all the time from commanders.

The Surge was hugely costly in this regard. Was it worth it? Petraeus may have just pulled it off, despite the lack of any accompanying diplomatic surge.

But it does leave us--just as inevitably--with a nuclear Iran as a byproduct (my argument since the fall of 04).

Would it have been nice not to have burned out the force so?

Sure, but you live with your choices (Iraq instead of Iran or North Korea) and your mistakes (Iraq postwar until 2007).

This is the essence of the Bush-Cheney legacy: By screwing up Iraq for so long, we're left with nuclear Iran (still disputed) and North Korea (basically sanctified now by Bush)..

Wishing Mugabe ill

ARTICLE: Inside Mugabe's Violent Crackdown, By Craig Timberg, Washington Post, July 5, 2008; Page A01

Mugabe engineers his re-election, as I expected, dashing yet again any outside hopes for internally-led change. Outside-led change seems very unlikely in the near term: South Africa lacks both skill and will, China isn't incentivized, the EU and UN simply will talk and sanction along with us.

Overall, a completely underwhelming response awaiting some new impulse by an Africa-focused new president--meaning Obama.

But you can always hope ...

A glimpse of what lies ahead--inevitably

SPOTLIGHT EUROPE: Hello Neighbour! A new EU policy from Morrocco to Azerbaijan (pdf), Bertelsmann Foundation, June 2008 ( 413 Kb)

Uncalled for and unwise

OP-ED: True or False: We Need a Wartime President, By Fareed Zacharia, Newsweek, July 7-14, 2008 issue

Agree wholeheartedly. For years now I've said that if we (national security community) do our jobs right, there is no need for war footing. Letting terrorists run our national security or our lives is going symmetrical with an asymmetrical threat. Uncalled for and unwise.

(Thanks: JFRiley)

Tom in the NY Review of Books

ARTICLE: Iran: The Threat, By Thomas Powers, New York Review of Books, Volume 55, Number 12, July 17, 2008

Here's the part about Tom:

Until his resignation in March, Fallon often contradicted and undermined the tough talk of the administration, speaking dismissively about the prospects of war with Iran. "Another war is just not where we want to go," he told the Financial Times. "This constant drumbeat of conflict...is not helpful and not useful," he said to al-Jazeera television. In recent months Fallon also traveled in Afghanistan and spoke at candid length with the military writer Thomas Barnett, who was working on an article for Esquire. When the article was ready to go to the printer Fallon invited an Esquire photographer to Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, to take his picture. War with Iran, yes or no, Barnett wrote, would "all come down to one man"—Fallon. The White House was not happy with Fallon's interference, Barnett reported. Washington rumor said Fallon's time was short. His removal, Barnett predicted, "may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year...." A week after Barnett's piece appeared in Esquire, Gates announced that Fallon was retiring at his own request. The Esquire article had been the talk of the Pentagon nonstop; leaked stories were coming from all directions. Fallon wasn't just on his way out; Gates said he would be gone by the end of the month.

Tom says:

Excellent piece that puts my Esquire profile of Fallon in real perspective.

The toughest stories age best.

Mentoring via books and email

Kevin Cyron wrote Tom:

Dr. Barnett,
How are you? I just wanted to let you know that I successfully defended my thesis, “The Misconception of Russian Authoritarianism” in St. Petersburg. I also wanted to thank you for the inspiration that came out of the Pentagons New Map, a book which truly knocked my on my ass and showed me a better way to look at the world. It helped me put together a lot of ideas and showed a new direction for this work.

Attached is a copy of the paper. Should you ever get time or interest I would love to hear your thoughts on this work that in anyway could make it better. It has been criticized for not being scientific enough and being too broad. The paper is designed to be a certain way. It's divided into two main parts. Problem and Solution. Each Part has three sections that correlate with each other. Definitions of Democracy is offset by historical democratic developments in Russian History, Media Bias is offset by the failure to report the success through the Maslow theory, and the social construction is offset by the influence of globalization. Topped off by an introduction and conclusion on both ends. I start off with a great quote, I end with a great quote. Its almost like a big poem, there are repeated themes through out and each part matches. I will go back to it after sometime and rewrites and attempt to publish. Any advice you could give on this road would be greatly appreciated. I look forward to your new book.
Again thank you for your time,
All the best
Kevin

Tom replied:

That's a criticism I've received my entire career. If it's what you do well, then it's all about getting somebody to appreciate that skill set rather than trying to tame it. It a networked world, horizontal thinking can be huge and rare enough.

As for publishing, there are low-end academic publishers that do it for nil. You have to type-set yourself, but that's gotta be one helluva easier than when I did it in the early 90s on my little Mac tower! So don't be fussy and publish largely as is. It's a good experience and looks good on the CV.

Serious attempts to sell books can come later.

I did mine with Praeger. You propose, attach a sample chapter, and see who's interested. You have a good topic.

If you take the plunge and read Kevin's paper, feel free to email him directly.

Ma is good on his promises

POST: Taiwan: Ban On Chinese Investment To Be Lifted, Stratfor

Say goodbye to the Taiwan scenario.

(Thanks: Dan Hare)

When binary is stupid

Why Selective Engagement? Iranian and Western Interests Are Closer Than You Think, By Riccardo Redaelli, The Stanley Foundation, June 2008

Worth reading. Very sensible, especially getting out of the escalate-versus-capitulate framework, which is binary (and thus stupid) beyond words.

Tom in AFJ

ARTICLE: The counterterrorism paradox, BY BRIAN BURTON, Armed Forces Journal, June 2008

Here's the main part that references Tom:

The strategic objective of these campaigns has been akin to Thomas P.M. Barnett’s recommendation in “The Pentagon’s New Map” that the U.S. can best defend itself from international terrorism by shrinking the world’s “Non-Integrating Gap” — the countries of the world that are cut off from globalization’s benefits of good governance and high standards of living and, thus, are apt to become breeding grounds for terrorists. Through military intervention in “Gap” countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, Barnett’s strategy assumes, the U.S. can help reintegrate them into the prosperous modern world order and thereby prevent them from producing or harboring terrorists.

(Thanks: Matthew Valkovic)

Exactly what the doctor ordered

ARTICLE: China’s Presence Increasingly Important in Cooling the World’s Hot Spots, by Matthias Giessler, China Digital Times, June 21, 2008

(Thanks: Steve Epstein)