And so it begins ...

ARTICLE: Cuba lifts ban on computer and DVD player sales, Reuters, Mar 13, 2008

(Thanks: Dan Hare)

It's a start

OPINION: Advancing Sino-U.S. Energy Cooperation Amid Oil Price Hikes, By Richard Weixing Hu, Brookings, March 22, 2008

It's always fascinating to me how these things typically start with simple cooperation over energy. Read and learn how to speak in inevitabilities instead of mere possibilities.

(Thanks: Steven Saviano)

Springsteen show

Inspiring. Great break from writing that I desperately needed.

This gun's for hire.

Salutations from Australia

Tom got this email:

Tom,

I realise that you must get many emails from people who have admired the work you have done so far, add this to the pile.

After ten years spent wondering the city of Sydney as a very often out of work actor I read The Pentagon's New Map. Fast forward to now I am in the midst of a new degree in Terrorism, counter Terrorism and Security studies and looking at how I can help move the world form where it is now to were it should be. That is thanks largely to you.

I just wanted to say that I have just spent 23 very enjoyable minutes watching the talk you did broadcast on TED. I never realised that you had such fantastic comic timing.

In essence I just wanted to say thanks, for the books, for the work, for the ideas that you planted in me.

Tom's reply:

Thanks so much and good luck with your studies.

Global warming and food

ARTICLE: Solar Energy Firms Leave Waste Behind in China, By Ariana Eunjung Cha, Washington Post, March 9, 2008; Page A01

This is where I find the energy shifts coming down the pike of real interest. Global warming will directly drive this dynamic, as well as one on global food production, and these two dynamics will interact profoundly, making global warming's impact all the more pervasive. In short, we're past the discussion and we're into the change dynamic that will drive a lot of flows in globalization over the next years and decades. It's interesting, and it reminds me that the next Cantor Fitzgerald event we were going to put on in the NewRuleSets.Project was about food and water, how the food-energy tradeoffs have become their own dynamic worthy of discussion. Global warming ends up having its own Y2K-like impact in that it highlights a lot of interdependencies that have been sneaking up on us, the biggie being the growing global middle class and their needs.

Deny them an enemy

Survey Says Iranians Favor Free Election Of Their Top Leader, By Robin Wright, Washington Post, March 9, 2008; Page A17

As I've said for years now: the Iranian public is our one great asset in this struggle with the mullahs, so little desire from me to alienate them on the nuke issue, where we seem to give everyone in the region our okay to pursue nuke energy but not Iran. We know what the fix is on their nukes: transparency in return for guarantees of no hard kill. Our fear is entrenched leaders fearing their own, armed with nukes and a desire to create some splendid little diversion abroad that gets them the continued dynamic of U.S. antagonism, which in turn allows them to keep justifying their repression at home. But we're getting that scenario anyway, without tapping into the one asset we should access: their public. So the key question becomes, How to access this population in a way that it's their demands, not poisoned by association with or support from us, that drive the internal political process. Shortest answer to me? We promote growing connectivity, which will be more eastward than westward in implementation, and we deny them an enemy, pushing their sources of new connectivity (India, China, Russia) to temper their behavior. We can either accept the East's desire to make their money and get their energy from Iran and bring them into the enforcement mix that way, or we can try to keep them out and push them to enforce on the basis of no economic gain. I personally like incentivized partners, and I like to take advantage of stuff like this: "But now, almost nine out of 10 [Iranian] voters surveyed want the top political position [Supreme Leader] to be accountable to voters, the poll found."

Remind you of recent Cuban polls that said 87% want to pick their next leader?

But what this approach takes is a whole different attitude on the part of the U.S. regarding enforcement. Right now we see ourselves as the only sheriff in town, and so everyone plays all angles on us instead of our targets, with the end result being we're the ones largely being contained.

And I find that an annoying end to the Bush administration.

Naval SysAdmin

ARTICLE: Carried Away, BY CMDR. HENRY J. HENDRIX, Armed Forces Journal, March 2008

A serious exploration of how the Navy could change in the direction of covering more of the SysAdmin profile. The guy's putting some big equities on the table and asking the right questions.

Iraq success: happy confluence

POST: Misreading the History of the Iraq War, by Pete Mansoor, SWJ Blog, March 10, 2008

I go all ways on this one. I think/know that the buy-off did precede the surge and COIN, but that the surge and COIN did make a difference. I think we have a happy confluence here, just like when we screw up, it's usually a confluence of bad luck and bad calls. So I don't find adding an additional factor to diminish the COIN/surge story. It's just a complex one. Sometimes success has many fathers because many fathers were involved.

Hmm. Not sure I like that construction . . . .

Anyway, I don't think we have to choose.

Always lovely to see

ARTICLE: Angry Iranian Students Rebel Against Ahmadinejad Appointee, By Ardeshir Arian, Pajama Media, March 5, 2008

(Thanks: Rob Johnson)

Tom around the web: Esquire Fallon article edition

Here's a selection of the sites that mentioned Tom or linked here after the Esquire article came out.

News organizations
+ Financial Times
+ Time
+ The Guardian
+ International Herald Tribune
+ Newsweek
+ Stars and Stripes
+ New York Times
+ Los Angeles Times
+ National Journal
+ Washington Post
+ Slate 2
+ Asia Times
+ Atlanta Journal-Constitution
+ The Australian
+ BBC
+ Dan Froomkin (WaPo)
+ Andre Sullivan
+ NBC

Weblogs
+ Outside the Beltway 2 3
+ The Public Servant
+ Fabius Maximus
+ Information Dissemination 2
+ Joe D
+ Registan.net
+ Soob
+ Librarians, Guns, and Books
+ Brilliant at Breakfast
+ Hidden Unities
+ Naval Open Source Intelligence
+ Kevin Drum
+ zenpundit
+ Allahpundit
+ Blackfive
+ A Second Hand Conjecture
+ The Newshoggers
+ Armchair Generalist
+ Castle Argghhh

Maddening Blackwater article

ARTICLE: Mercenary Impulse, by Michael Walzer, The New Republic, March 12, 2008

Walzer is a maddeningly intelligent guy. I say "maddeningly" because he forces you to think from uncomfortable angles.

Great piece.

Blackwater represents the gap between "say" and "do" right now in U.S. national security policy inside the Gap. Yes, they need to tighten up their act considerably, but they will have a role and it will be sizable, because this gap will not go away any time soon. Indeed, it is likely to grow larger in coming years because the Bush Admin's seven years of high consumption of the U.S. military is likely to trigger an equally long lean period of use.

(Thanks: BWJones)

We all gotta start somewhere

ARTICLE: Trade-Offs: Is China the key to Africa's development?, By Eliza Barclay, Slate, March 6, 2008

As historyguy99 effectively says, a glass-half-full appreciation of China's entry into Tanzania's market. The key thing in the end, however, is not just the spin-off activities from China's penetration but rather China's future efforts to integrate Tanzania into China's global production chains--admittedly at the bottom, but we all gotta start somewhere.

Tom around the web

Ok, since I have about 1000 search results to deal with, I'm going to break this up. This post will be some recent links to Tom that do not address the Esquire article on Admiral Fallon. The next 'Tom around the web post' will be some that did.

+ Metacognition: The root of Innovation
+ Thomas Barnett, the military, and anthropology
+ Justice for International Criminals
+ A Strategy That Fails To Convince
+ The Sin That Will Sink the Strategy
+ A Global, Multi-Civilizational, Multi-Polar Muddle
+ You're Supposed To Read The Tea Leaves
+ State Department Memo on Iraq
+ Hegemony and Iran, Revisited.
+ Can We Really Trust Iran with Nukes?
+ The new old China
+ The Changing Image of Women
+ Nerds get Curves
+ Putinism, Singapore, And China. The Impact Of It All.
+ Beijing's Military Budget Soars
+ FRENOS & CONTRAPESOS. MÁS SOBRE PUTIN COMO FUNDADOR
+ The Fallacy Of The Surge
+ Islamic soccer moms for global change
+ Soft tools of change… Should Bush go to Iran Like Nixon Went to China…
+ Misguided War of Survival
+ Is that a Leviathan force in your pocket?
+ Coups Around the World
+ He Did Change Things
+ Black is the New President...
+ T.P.B. Barnett comments on citizenry’s distrust

Break it down: Map adjunct

SITE: Global Distribution of Poverty

Neo-Traditional Librarian wrote to Tom:

An adjunct to your map, measuring poverty, but breaking it down within countries, so the caboose effect is easier to understand.

Worth reading

POST: AFRICOM: DOA or in Need of Better Marketing? No and Yes, By MountainRunner, February 25, 2008

Mountain Runner's take on Africom following a conference he attends at USC with principals speaking.

This week's column

Losing America's middle ground means losing our way

For a decade now, I've had a high enough profile in national-security issues that I routinely receive e-mails concerning American foreign policy from strangers living all over this country and the world. Because I've always been easy to find on the Web, people reach out to me in the hope that I'm somehow powerful enough -- alas -- to effect the change they seek, unloading their fears and anger in often disturbing ways. Let me explain why that worries me.

Having worked professionally all over the national-security community for the past 18 years, meeting more people than I can remember and going everywhere you might imagine, I know there are wings and factions on every issue, and that, generally speaking, they duke it out under roughly fair conditions in the best interest of the United States.

Read on at Scripps Howard.
Read on at KnoxNews.

Track Tom's Great Powers progress

This is a post to track Tom's entries on writing the new book:

+ The great sorting on the book
+ Still sorting ...
+ I've started writing the book
+ Getting better all the time . . .
+ I'm feeling about as low as one can in this cruel world ...
+ Done for today
+ Back in the saddle ...
+ 4 done, 10 to go
+ Chapter 5 in works
+ Chapter 5 still . . . working
+ Joy and suffering
+ Feeling five-by-five
+ Achieving the near brain-dead experience
+ Still chugging, but oh so close on 5
+ A quick 2k to end the WWI-WWII section
+ My Grendel is dead!
+ The next chapter planned
+ Oops! Day just got tougher!
+ Chapter 6 and Part II are now in the box
+ I stuck in my thumb, and pulled out a short introduction to Part III
+ Deep into Chapter Seven (Economic Realignment)
+ Deeper still into Chapter 7
+ Gave one interview, deeper into Chapter 7
+ Chapter 7 done and in the box
+ Chapter 8 mostly done
+ Chapter 8 finished
+ Chapter 9 started
+ Chapter 9, air conditioned
+ Chapter 9 almost finished
+ Chapter Nine finished
+ Chapter 10 begun
+ A most disciplined day of writing
+ Thickening and thinning
+ Chapter 10 in the box
+ Chapter 11, the last of the realignment chapters, is begun
+ Chapter 11, deeper in
+ Chapter 11, extended as predicted
+ Recasting Chapter 11 somewhat
+ Chapter 11, one more brick in the wall
+ Low wattage
+ Last realignment chapter done but not completely signed off
+ Big decisions on the book
+ The book is done
+ Starting the sell inside Putnam
+ "Great Powers" to be released 2/5/09
+ The editing has begun (for me at least)
+ The current bibliography (books only) of "Great Powers"
+ The editing has begun (for me at least)
+ Cruising
+ Slowly, we approach the Kraken of "Great Powers"
+ A big decision
+ Long day's journey into night
+ Feeling good on the book
+ Saw the cover art for "Great Powers"
+ "Great Powers" cover
+ Pre-order "Great Powers"!
+ 11 hours of footnotes
+ 2 days left
+ "Great Powers" is now truly done
+ The final cut
+ If you're media (any kind), and you think you want to do something on Great Powers at the start of February . . .
+ Thinking PR with Putnam/Penguin
+ Holy M--, M-- of G--! The first galley is being overnighted!
+ My mistake on galleys
+ The usual crush of editing
+ Lost weekend
+ Waiting, waiting ...
+ Great Powers is really done now.
+ The master edit continues ...
+ Great Powers Wordle
+ Uncorrected Proof for Limited Distribution--in hand
+ Great Powers Preface Wordle
+ Getting down to details on the book
+ Corrections to advance copy
+ The temptation on the book . . .
+ The general as intellectual omnivore
+ The "final pass" is delayed
+ Got second pass in hand
+ Mother of God!
+ Book finally, finally, finally done
+ This really is my best book

We've got a lot of nerve

POST: Jeez louise department (China and right-wing bloggers), By James Fallows, 04 Mar 2008

Nice blog post by Fallows, who is drinking deep on all things Chinese with his extensive stay there, so he's rationally articulating an "in their shoes" perspective that's refreshing.

I was offered participation in this bloggers' roundtable but chose to focus on the book. I did see the Pentagon press conference on the study and I found both it and the press coverage of the report to be the same old, same old: China's economy is growing fast and so is its defense budget. This happens everywhere in the universe except for places where America's defeated your regime in the past and helped write your constitution for you--like Germany and Japan. We say, What's up with all this spending? Explain yourself! And China's like, Who TF are you with the request? We don't start wars, you do. We don't run around the planet killing people on foreign soil without telling the locals beforehand, you do. We gotta total hidden budget that doesn't equal your operations, or your R&D, or your acquisition, and you want us to explain our motives?

Okay, so I add a bit to the Chinese voice there, but seriously. There's some real gall to have America release a report each year on somebody else's defense budget and then stand there, waiting for some response like a pissed-off school marm: "Well mister! Do you have anything to say for yourself?"

Do we publish an annual report on anybody else right now? Does anybody else in the world publish such reports on China? On us? On anybody?

There's exceptionalism and there's just plain outrageous--meaning beyond the norm. China's spending hikes aren't beyond the norm. America publishing a report every year about the military of one of our biggest trade partners is beyond the norm. Honestly, it makes us look scared and/or bossy, but it doesn't make us look reasonable or mature or helpful per se. Can such info be collected and dispersed better? You bet. And I realize this is a Congressional mandate so various people can make various points--typically about the program of record that's partially built in their district, but there is a sheer audacity in the way we treat China on this score. I mean, we break the ABM, we don't deign to discuss a treaty on banning space weapons, we do all sorts of stuff and then tell people, "Hey, my call. Doing what's right for America!"

Fine and dandy I say. You get elected, you get to do what you think is right. Don't care for it? Don't elect them.

But everybody else gets to do the same, so these voice-of-God reports from the Pentagon are a bit much when we so transparently buy hardware designed for high-end warfare with China and then act like it's weird when they do the same. What I consider weird is, given the strategic trajectories we're both on, and the world the way it's heading, WTF are either of us wasting bucks (and us, bodies) on this scenario? Cover the capability? Sure. But everybody knows we do more than that, and we don't apologize for it. Expecting China to, or to explain and such. That's just goofy and arrogant on our part. It makes us look weak, actually.

(Thanks: Jarrod Myrick)

Handicapping McCain

Text of McCain's victory speech, AP, 04 Mar 2008

As McCain gets real as the GOP nominee, we watch statements like these with great interest. A positive note, I judge, and since he's a 50-50 chance in my mind to be the next POTUS, I welcome it and take it--and him--more seriously in terms of expressed commitment to these sorts of tasks. In terms of defense reform, he'd definitely be a Nixon-goes-to-China kind of authority.

(Thanks: Lexington Green)

Final reflections on the Fallon article in Esquire

A lot of analysis has been offered from a wide variety of angles, all of it trying to parse out the meaning and impact of the entire sequence of events, and some of it trying to assess responsibility among the various actors involved, including myself.

After giving it a lot of thought, here are my final reflections.

With any project like this, I see four essential components: the article, the reporting, the subject and its behavior and the dynamics that behavior creates, and finally, the response to that subject/behavior/dynamics--both popular and authoritative.

I bear responsibility, along with Esquire, for the first two components.

The article was not the proximate cause for Admiral Fallon's forced resignation, the reporting was the proximate cause. The ultimate cause was clearly the White House's response to his pattern of behavior in the job. For those who agree with that pattern of behavior, as I did, the response seemed disproportional and unwise. For those who disagreed with that pattern of behavior, as the president clearly did, the response was proportional and justified. Each side in this debate can cite plenty of good precedence and logic, and those who will tell you that it was a "clear-cut case of" anything are simply shrouding their interpretation in rhetoric. The job of combatant commander is obviously complex and subject to wide-ranging interpretation. That will only become more true in the future, given the complex nature of the long-term conflict in which we're engaged. That's what makes this story so important and simplistic readings of the rule book so painfully inadequate.

But there is no doubt that the president gets to replace commanders with whom he does not agree. That's the nature of our system. Once elected, it's the president's job to rule as he sees fit and it's the public's job to complain and push back as it sees fit. The press has a crucial role in the latter. Ultimately, the most heated questions arising from this affair involve the way this country is being ruled right now. I don't pretend to have all the answers there. I do know it is a subject of great contention and thus controversy, as it typically is during a time of significant overseas military interventions that generate casualties. That's why Esquire and I wanted to do the piece on Fallon. We felt the American people should know about this man's thinking and behavior, in his official capacity as Central Command commander, on the all-important question of how to approach the possibility of conflict with Iran, and to place that thinking and behavior within the larger context of his regional responsibilities. We felt the American people should be aware of the significant tension within the chain of command that this thinking and behavior generated. The question of whether or not America turns a two-country war into a three-country war is enormous. It was enormous back in 1951 and given the stakes, it's just as big now. Arguing that this debate is somehow privileged information or that the American public shouldn't be bothered with such knowledge is, in my opinion, dangerously wrong, as history has proven time and time again.

Knowing what I know now, I would indeed alter the article somewhat, but this is true of every article I've ever written. You don't have perfect knowledge upon publication. You argue the thing out from every angle you can conceive of and you make your best call on tone and content. I have worked with a number of publications over the years, and nobody takes this aspect of the work more seriously or attacks this responsibility more comprehensively than Esquire. As such, I am immensely proud and grateful to work with the magazine as a contributing editor.

Inevitably, as I would now change some aspects of the article, toning them down somewhat, there are just as many aspects that I would amplify more. Again, that it is the nature of the beast. The end result would not have been to alter the article significantly. It would remain powerfully cast and demanding of the reader's attention. That's Esquire style and it's my style. I seek to learn from every experience in this regard, and this article has provided plenty of learning.

If there is a weakness in the article, it's that we did not know exactly how close to the truth its reporting was. Again, perfect pre-knowledge would be fabulous to achieve, but I don't expect to achieve it next time either, so I try to get smarter through this experience and improve my personal judgment with time.

Several blog readers have noted the inherent tension between the task of being a reporter/journalist in this venue and my role as strategist or adviser in my ongoing interactions with all sorts of players spread throughout the national security community. That tension is real and it's something I seek to address every chance I get, but in general, I don't find it hard keeping the two functions separate. When people are being profiled in Esquire, they know it, as does everyone else involved. When I'm advising, I'm subject to all the same constraints as anybody else in this business. In both venues, I seek to remain as transparent as possible, arguing the truth as I see it and letting matters unfold as they must in response to that truth and its articulation. When that truth is no longer in fashion, neither will I be. That's the nature of the game: it happens to the best, it happens to the rest.

As for the reporting, there I wouldn't and couldn't change a thing. It was accurate and it was truthful. I am not surprised nor bothered by criticism of the article that seeks to divert attention from the underlying reporting. It's a natural response, but it's an ultimately futile one.

The reporting defined this piece. The reporting triggered the authoritative response. But that decision was ultimately about the behavior, and thus the only responsibility that matters in the end lies with those who made this response. Again, this is the nature of our system, in which I believe deeply.

What the reported behavior and the authoritative response say about the current state of civil-military relations in this country is something that will be debated for some time, I imagine. This is inevitable and it is good, because that debate overshadows everything and everyone involved in this affair.