Andrew Jackson's "external improvements"

Jackson's two administrations (1829-1837) saw a huge spike in infrastructure development. Befitting his focus on promoting cotton exports, the vast bulk was spent to connect America to the outside world--hence his "internal improvements" were really external improvements!

Everything I needed to know about globalization I learned in American history.

That's why I was fascinated with Fallon's focus on cross-border infrastructural connectivity in Central Asia--the bridge (I wrote that bit with my "non-poison" pen!).

It's that sort of understanding that makes it harder to want to isolate Iran in the region, because the Iranians, whether we like it or not, are natural infrastructure providers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Stans in general. Ditto for the Turks and Chinese.

Get used to these postwar partners. They are not going away.

International standards with no international = bupkes

Development-in-a-Box™ pushes international standards, but likewise seeks to create basic international connectivity.

If you create capacity with people in disconnected places, you generate nothing but a brain drain, so says Paul Collier (brilliant former WB economist). You train them to international standards and they'll just leave--duh!

That's why DiB pushes both rules and connectivity in a combined package. We bake in the rules with the connectivity. That's the simplest explanation of Development-in-a-Box™: connectivity with the rules baked in.

Here's a Philadelphia Inquirer article about Enterra and our DiB work in Iraq.. Some nice pix of Steve (quoted many times) and a quote from me included.

A reasonable take on the Fallon piece by--of all people--Gareth Porter

Find it here.

Porter has done some very aggressive reporting on Fallon in the past (the Petraeus encounters as some alleged they occurred). Here, he does a very balanced job of putting my piece in a larger context, especially citing Mullen (Chairman JCS) saying--in effect--last fall that starting a third war in that region would be a mistake.

This was how I originally looked at the issue:

-->1951 Truman fires MacArthur because the general wants to take the South Korea-North Korea conflict all the way to China (the third country). Truman says, too far, and ends the debate.

-->Today our Trumans (Bush/Cheney) are the ones pushing for/contemplating the third country war (after neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan (partial) and this time it's the MacArthur(s) who argues caution (along with Mullen as Chairman and Gates as SECDEF--the two guys who arrange Fallon's hire for this purpose, as I note in the article).

In that context and with a White House that routinely raises big war imagery (Hitler, WWIII), which, in the past, has most definitely presaged war, there's natural tension between the Trumans and MacArthurs here, and that tension carries some interesting implications about the nature of civil-military relations after 7-plus years of this administration (Arkin's point in his WAPO blog). I especially find this interesting for having worked in the Pentagon under Cebrowski under Rumsfeld, and having written about Rumsfeld in Esquire and his team's desire coming into power in 2000 to re-establish more civilian control over a military they felt had gotten to big for its britches under a weak Clinton oversight (something, quite frankly, I agreed with). Isn't it supremely ironic (or dangerous, as Arkin argues for any Dem that might take the White House next) that the Bush-Cheney years end up actually making the military more independent of civilian control than less?

Back to the piece: writing about Fallon allows the more reasoned "inverted MacArthur" position to be explained in a way that no one else has done in any other article (yes, there have been articles on the Iran debate, but none which put it in the deep context of a military leader on the spot), which he did across almost 1,300 words of quotes. Writing a piece that pretended there was no tension, when it exists in spades, would have been dishonest. Not preparing the American public for the possibility that Fallon's stance may cost him much like it did MacArthur would also have been poor journalism, which is supposed to inform, provide context, and provide a capacity to judge current and future events as they unfold. Finally, it would have been wholly irresponsible from the view of my status as an expert in the field of national security, independent of the journalism function, to not raise the issue that what Fallon's doing here is exactly what so many young officers in the military now say wasn't done before Iraq: providing strategic context to the debate about whether or not this country goes to war again (the true money quote in the piece).

Does shining a light on that tension exacerbate it? Only to the extent that the tension is real and/or growing. I completely understand the admiral's desire to distance himself from the piece by "killing the messenger," although his impugning of my character ("poison pen") is ironic given I spent seven thousand words defining and defending his. For an administration that says it follows the advice of its military leaders in the field on Iraq, spotlighting Fallon's clear stance on Iran (nothing new, as he's said it in the press for months now) and contextualizing it within a larger and--I would argue--impressive strategic vision, is definitely going to cause some backpressure, but no more than what's been there all along. As Fallon demonstrates in the piece, he knows how to present his arguments logically and he's not shy about doing so. That makes him an effective and responsible military leader in my opinion, something I make clear in the article.

But let me be clear here regarding any impression garnered from the admiral's "rejection" of the piece: I approached the admiral expressly on the issue of his ongoing stance on Iran, informing him that Esquire was interested in exploring the man and the vision attached to this stance. The subject constituted a major portion of my first interview with him and later ones following the trip. Unsurprisingly, it leads the piece but comes nowhere near constituting its bulk (otherwise, how could I provide context for his strategic thinking on Iran?), which covers his strategic views on China, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf and Central Asia in addition.

As my wife Vonne, who has a degree in journalism and worked for a few years as a journalist and newspaper editor, says, "You didn't go to journalism school. You don't have enough training to be unethical."

Anybody who's ever read me or seen me talk knows I am about as transparent as they come. I am routinely criticized by the Left for not using my profiles of leaders (Rumsfeld, Petraeus, Mattis, Fallon) or U.S. commands (CJTF-HOA) as platforms to critique the underlying context of "American empire" and the like. What a surprise from the guy who wrote "The Pentagon's New Map"! I consider my approach to begin with certain undeniable truths. Others don't see the same truths and hence consider me biased. Fine and dandy. I have a body of work that displays all the complexity required. I don't pretend to tee it all up for every single article or column. I lack the ego or ideological rigidity for that. My views evolve over time, as anyone who reads my stuff can readily attest.

When I was with the government I, like the admiral, had a recurring problem of speaking my version of the truth too readily to the press or--worse--in the press under my own name, and I got in trouble for it many times. One early time I felt a profile on me unfairly made me look too arrogant (which it did), and my first instinct was to blame the journalist. Many of my mentors reminded me of advice I'd been given many times: journalists can't do anything to you that you don't do to yourself. They can only use the words you provide, placing them in context. If you don't like the context, don't provide the words. If you do, don't operate under any illusions that it's the journalist's job only to make you look good. Their job is to provide the context and respectfully inform the reader on that basis, letting the reader decide how well you're doing your job.

The Fallon article accomplishes that fundamental goal quite nicely.

AFRICOM promotes 'active security'

TRANSCRIPT: Ward Outlines AFRICOM Vision - 'Active Security' and Partnerships to Prevent Conflict, U.S. Africa Command PAO, February 18, 2008

News lead:

The work of United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) will be based on programs and international partnerships aimed at helping African nations and regional organizations prevent future conflict, General William "Kip" Ward, AFRICOM commander, said February 18 at a London defense conference, where he outlined his vision for the command and a concept he calls "active security."

Africa Command, he stressed, will not take the place of civilian and nongovernmental programs on the continent but will seek to collaborate with others. Ward delivered the keynote address at a U.S.-Africa relations conference hosted by the Royal United Services Institute.

"AFRICOM recognizes the essential interrelationship between security, stability, economic development, political advancement, things that address the basic needs of the peoples of a region," Ward said.

"Active security," he explained, means "activities that we do on a sustained basis that help lead to stability in a country, in a region. ... We want to improve our ability to provide what we're asked to do in support of our friends, and in so doing help build their security capacity."

U.S. Africa Command is being created in Stuttgart, Germany, and will have a staff of approximately 1,300 personnel, including 665 civilian personnel and 639 military personnel, Ward said. The staff is currently about 400 personnel.

'Active security' sounds like Tom's 'preemptive nation-building'. Read the whole transcript at the link above.

Putin will fade

ARTICLE: 'A Dead End? Russian defense sales to the PRC,' by Reuben F. Johnson, The Weekly Standard, 02/05/2008

Signs already that Medvedev is maneuvering. In ten years, it will be interesting to measure how far Putin has faded. It will be slow and subtle, but it will happen, I believe.

(Thanks: Michael Griffin)

What is the middle class ideology of globalization?

EDITORIAL: "Can the World Afford a Middle Class? Yes, but it will be awfully expensive," by Moises Naim, Foreign Policy, March/April 2008, p. 96.

Interesting piece.

First lines lay down the challenge:

The middle class in poor countries is the fastest-growing segment of the world's population. While the total population of the planet will increase by about 1 billion people in the next 12 years, the ranks of the middle class will swell by as many as 1.8 billion. Of these new members of the middle class, 600 million will be in China.

By 2025, Naim points out, China's middle class will be the biggest in the world, which means the middle-class ideology, sentiment, worldview of the Chinese will be an important input to global consciousness. Shaping that, I would think, and as oddly as this sounds, would be of huge interest to the Chinese Communist Party.

Naim runs with the food price rise issue, which he points out is not about less food but more people affording more and better (meaning intensive in creation) food.

The food price index compiled by the Economist, we are told, is higher than it's been since 1845, soaring 30 percent last year alone.

Before I rush to the revolutionary tones of 1848, that 30% rise tells me the global ag market is being caught unawares on some level. You'll see a response to this.

But the underlying general resource draw from Asia is undeniable. As Naim points out, China adds more electricity generation in 2005 than Britain uses in a year.

Malthus is raised at the end, but Naim is smart to avoid indulging there, because the record sucks on that model, but only after your society gets seriously turned on to the potential of markets and its culture embraces that sort of ideology that says: getting ahead is the way to go.

That's a serious middle class ideology in and of itself, so again, with the big growth happening in China, it'll be interesting to see how that version of the ideology unfolds and does it shape similar gains elsewhere around the planet? Pitched just so, it could either help or hinder the world's overall adjustment to all this extra wealth, making the environmental aspect, for example, a whole lot easier or a whole lot harder.

My mistake on offering criticism of COIN piece

Here's my original comment on the COIN article.

Here's one of the author's replies:

Actually, in our article, we specifically indicate it is NOT the military that should be the lead component in defeating this Global Insurgency. We emphasize time and again USAID, State, a renewed USIA, the CIA, Law Enforcement mechanisms and the Dept of Justice to strengthened rule of law mechanisms around the world. I'm sorry you read into this that "inside the USG the Pentagon is the most competent, therefore the U.S. military can spearhead a global counter-insurgency strategy". Moreover, we wrote the pre-cursor to this article in January 2006 which was published in the Boston Globe around then, so this really reflects nothing of your dismissive "premature excitement over aspects of the surge's success in Iraq".

Jonathan Morgenstein

Definitely my bad. I've been reading a lot of expansive stuff lately on global COIN being the answer and I skimmed this piece too quickly and let 'er rip in the post. This is a mistake I am vulnerable to when I scan too much on my phone and after I spot a pattern in a bunch of stuff people send me, I light into one to make my point.

Here, I just picked the wrong one to light into, and I apologize for the mistake.

Once I started the book I decided I'd still try a certain amount of processing emails from people, and this is a reminder not to go so damn fast!

I stand by the concerns I express in the post. I just targeted the wrong piece.

Think Progress on the Fallon piece

Think Progress was one of the first websites to link to the new article:

Bush May Fire CentCom Chief Adm. Fallon, Replace With Commander More ‘Pliable’ To War With Iran

Now, of course, it's trumped up a little bit, and the difference in opinion with President Bush is what everyone's highlighting, but that's the nature of the beast. You know what Oscar Wilde said ;-)

Two best things about this post:

1. embedded flash video of the mention yesterday in the White House press conference

2. this highlight:

According to Barnett’s piece, Fallon also denied ever calling Petraeus an “ass-kissing little chickenshit.” He called the allegations “[a]bsolute bullshit.”

The “ass-kissing little chickenshit” part was alleged by Gareth Porter back in September.

The key quote in the Adm. Fallon piece

Comes at the bottom of the first section regarding Iran:

And if it comes to war?

"Get serious," the admiral says. "These guys are ants. When the time comes, you crush them.'"

Ask yourself what I'm peddling with that quote.

The article is about 7,000 words long. Ask anybody who does profiles. I've had a bunch done on me over the years. You never get more than a couple two-three hundred words to explain yourself. Most times it's a whopping 50 or so.

Adm. Fallon is quoted a stunning amount--almost 1,300 words. That's bigger than the vast majority of newspaper articles and virtually all op-eds.

The piece speaks for itself, as does the Admiral.

This is the first piece that gives Fallon more than the usual 50 words to explain himself, and it provided magnificent context to judge his strategic thinking . . . at least for those readers--and especially commentators--who can manage their way past the first dozen paragraphs.

For those who can't read that far, they're free to peddle what they must ...

Ricks' attempted 'takedown' of Esquire piece

Tom Ricks from the Washington Post got Admiral Fallon to 'reject' Tom's article. The pertinent quote from Ricks:

Asked about the article yesterday, Fallon called it "poison pen stuff" that is "really disrespectful and ugly." He did not cite specific objections.

I wonder: did Fallon have a chance to read the whole piece, or did Ricks read him the part about being at odds with Bush/Cheney, like maybe this one:

Well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.

Because, here's the question: why 'reject' a piece that is so laudatory, quotes Fallon himself extensively in a positive light, and was reported on a trip where a lot of access was given?

Hopefully we'll have a more extensive reaction from Admiral Fallon in the near future. It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.

Tom's latest article for Esquire

If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it'll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it'll come down to the same man. He is that rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance. His name is William Fallon, although all of his friends call him "Fox," which was his fighter-pilot call sign decades ago. Forty years into a military career that has seen this admiral rule over America's two most important combatant commands, Pacific Command and now United States Central Command, it's impossible to make this guy--as he likes to say--"nervous in the service." Past American governments have used saber rattling as a useful tactic to get some bad actor on the world stage to fall in line. This government hasn't mastered that kind of subtlety. When Dick Cheney has rattled his saber, it has generally meant that he intends to use it. And in spite of recent war spasms aimed at Iran from this sclerotic administration, Fallon is in no hurry to pick up any campaign medals for Iran. And therein lies the rub for the hard-liners led by Cheney. Army General David Petraeus, commanding America's forces in Iraq, may say, "You cannot win in Iraq solely in Iraq," but Fox Fallon is Petraeus's boss, and he is the commander of United States Central Command, and Fallon doesn't extend Petraeus's logic to mean war against Iran.

Read on: The Man Between War and Peace

Tom's article mentioned at the White House yesterday

PRESS BRIEFING: Dana Petrino, March 5, 2008

That's right: Tom's latest Esquire article has started speculation about the future of Fox Fallon. here's the exchange:

Q Dana, there -- I know you haven't read this, but if you'll trust me to quote from -- there is an article in Esquire Magazine about Admiral William Fallon. It says this: "Because of Fallon's caution on Iran, Fallon may soon be unemployed because he is doing what a generation of young officers in the U.S. military are now openly complaining that their leadership didn't do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq. He's standing up to the Commander-in-Chief, who he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war." Is that an accurate portrayal of the relationship?

MS. PERINO: You're right, before I came here I told you I haven't seen the article. I don't know who wrote it. I've never heard anything of that sort, except for in rumor mills that don't turn out to be true. So I'll check it out, but I don't think there's anything to it.

Q Do they have opposing views on Iran?

MS. PERINO: I don't know. Well, I mean, the President --

Q Fallon is also quoted as saying that he's been in hot water with the White House because -- even meeting with Mubarak.

MS. PERINO: President Bush's position on Iran is very clear. That doesn't mean that other people can't have other thoughts or positions, but I'm not going to characterize Admiral Fallon. And let me take a look at the article and then we'll try to get back to you.

PNM mentioned in the HASC

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING: House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities Hold a Joint Hearing on Irregular Warfare and Stability Operations, CONGRESSIONAL TRANSCRIPTS, Feb. 26, 2008

Ambassador Herbst couldn't remember Tom's name, but, hey: one out of two isn't bad ;-)

HERBST:
There was testimony given a few weeks ago by among others Carlos Pasqual and Michelle Flournoy about developing a civilian responsible capability, which I would recommend.
If you talk about something a little bit broader focused, I forget the author's name, but the book, The Pentagon's New Map, is very, very interesting and worthwhile reading.

(Thanks: Erik Heftye)

The ultimate legacy of Bush's "big bang" strategy

OP-ED: Why I Have New Hope for The Mideast, By Robin Wright, Washington Post, March 2, 2008; Page B01

The ultimate legacy of Bush's "big bang" strategy, a decision I supported then and have always supported (even when I, at times, disagree vehemently with how the White House had played many of the resulting scenarios--specifically Iran), is that it did change everything in the region. We do a great job on postwar Iraq and we change everything. We do a bad job on postwar Iraq and we change everything. Either way, we change everything.

Yes, there is plenty of anti-Americanism in the Middle East, and especially anti-Bush sentiment. But here's the deal, there's no pre-Bush thinking left there. Everyone's been forced to move on in some sense.

That's Bush's real legacy and its huge. I didn't say positive or negative, but huge. Anything that big will be debated forever.

But I'll say again what I've said many times: yes, I would do it all over again knowing what we now know. I say this for two reasons: you don't go to the Middle East and occupy a large nation to impose your identity, but you sure can find one there. The Army and Marines are finding one. The Navy and Air Force lag but not that badly. The Middle East is finding a plethora of new identities. No one's been left unchanged--not even this White House. The next one will be significantly impacted too.

Again, it's a huge legacy.

(Thanks: historyguy99)

Yet another important voice speaks to the Nixon-goes-to-Tehran concept

OP-ED: Mr. President, Don't Forget Iran, By CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS, Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2008; Page A19

(Thanks: Patrick O'Connor)

This sort of ambition shouldn't scare us

POST: The Chinese Government's Plans for Nanotechnology, By Alexis Madrigal, Wired Science, February 17, 2008

China needs to move up the chain before its population moves too far up in age. They will aim high and hit lower, but be better for the effort.

(Thanks: Robert Bosnjak)

Enterra strikes again

Enterra's latest announcement:

Enterra Solutions Business Operations in Iraq Names New Director

RESTON, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 4, 2008--Enterra Solutions, LLC announced today the former Regional Team Leader for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Local Governance Program in Iraq (LGP), Anthony D. Sinnott, has been named the company's Director of Operations for the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. In this position, Mr. Sinnott is responsible for overseeing all company activities and contracts in Iraq, including its Business-to-Business (B2B) and Business-to-Consumer Trading Exchanges, multilingual Call Center, and Kurdistan Business Center.

"Enterra Solutions is fortunate to have Tony Sinnott and the unique blend of experience and expertise he adds to our team," said Stephen DeAngelis, Enterra Solutions President and Chief Executive Officer. "Tony's proven leadership in the military and as the head of USAID's Local Governance Program in northern Iraq will make him instrumental in rolling-out our Development-in-a-Box(TM) solution in Iraq." Mr. Sinnott will be based at Enterra Solutions' office in Erbil.

Mr. Sinnott joins Enterra Solutions with over two decades of experience in the private, public and military sectors. As senior manager for the USAID Local Governance Program in the five northern provinces of Iraq, he led RTI International's implementation of a portfolio of projects that enhanced the technical proficiency, efficiency, effectiveness, and responsiveness of representative government in Iraq. Prior to joining USAID/RTI, Mr. Sinnott served five years in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom in successive tours of duty as a field grade officer of the United States Marine Corps (USMC). General Tommy Franks decorated him as the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) Reserve Officer of the Year in 2002.

Mr. Sinnott also has experience in Iraq as the Deputy Chief of Strategic Analyses for the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office (IRMO). He assisted senior decision makers in administering $26.3 billion in U.S. reconstruction funding by producing alternative courses of action in order to re-establish Iraqi security institutions. He also served in the field as an IRMO Regional Reconstruction Officer in successive assignments to Samarra, Fallujah, Diwaniyah, and Kut, Iraq where he was the primary link for U.S. reconstruction efforts with European contingent Coalition military commanders, and Iraqi provincial officials.

"I am delighted that I can continue my work in the Middle East as part of the dynamic Enterra Solutions team," Mr. Sinnott stated. "The opportunities are as great as the challenges, and Enterra Solutions has put together a structure for partnerships and alliances that should help surmount those challenges and make the most of the opportunities. I am excited to work with Steve DeAngelis to help demonstrate in Iraq what Enterra Solutions' Development-in-a-Box(TM) solution can do for the reconstruction of post-conflict and post-failed states and for the development of emerging national economies. I believe that Enterra Solutions' development work in Iraq will showcase a new, repeatable model for sustainable economic development, and I am eager to get to work making that a reality."

Between active duty tours, Mr. Sinnott worked with the Lincoln Group as their Director of Middle East Private Sector Development, primarily based in Sulymaniyah, Iraq.

Mr. Sinnott also has significant experience from earlier stabilization operations. As a Marine Corps Major, he served on the headquarters staff of the U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Europe (MARFOREUR), as an action officer developing long-range plans for U.S. military engagement in the Balkan Peninsula. He also served in the headquarters of the NATO Peace Stabilization Force (SFOR) in Sarajevo, Bosnia-Hercegovina, during Operations Joint Forge and Allied Force as Director of the Civil-Military Cooperation (CIMIC) Information Center and of Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) Support.

Mr. Sinnott's previous private sector experience includes working as a Policy Analyst and Project Officer with the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies; a senior consultant with KPMG Peat Marwick LLP; a consultant with J.F. Corporation, a small venture capital firm; a quality assurance manager with Coca-Cola Enterprises; and a manufacturing and distribution manager for Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company.

Mr. Sinnott holds an MBA from the University of Texas at Austin, a BS from Murray State University, and he is a graduate of the U.S. Marine Corps Command & Staff College.

Tom says:

Another serious catch for Enterra to upgrade the Iraq presence.

Oh crappy day

We had to put down our oldest of three cats today. Her decline over the past six months was kind of stunning and sad. But she was 8-going-on-9 and lived a good life. I had expected this sort of decline in 2-3 years, but as we know, not everybody gets the long life package.

Sophia had been paired with our Westy Boswell for almost four years. After Boswell went to live with my Mom following my Dad's death, she was alone and unhappy about it for about two years. She spent the last two-plus years with Sascha, another Siberian, but she started withdrawing from play about a year ago. We decided to get a kitten to keep Sascha happy, and that's worked well, but it did not perk up Sophia at all. About four months ago I noticed she stopped grooming, always a sign of a cat suddenly aged, and then in the last few weeks she lost control of her body functions and became a pretty unhappy camper. While you want to accommodate that sort of decline as much as possible, you also have to think about the kids running in and out of your house and the dangers associated with an aged cat's tendency for belligerence--a trait Sophia unfortunately displayed earlier in life (gave Vonne Mei a distinctive pirate scar on her right cheek that took two years to fade). So when I saw that aspect of her personality re-emerging, I made the call with Vonne.

Then I realized I had bad pink eye in both eyes and I think somebody's trying to make me feel guilty over the call. Then again, it was probably handling all of Sophia's recent accidents that actually did the trick, signaling what a sanitary danger she was becoming (don't ask).

Still, you feel bad and the kids feel bad. But we could see this coming and that's why we got Lyra and spent all that money to get her through that early broken leg. So it's not like we don't spend money on animals, it's more that I think it unfair to drag things out when an animal starts shutting down. Far more than just my summers working on a farm, Vonne grew up on one, so we're that strange mix of sentimentality and blunt realism when it comes to pets.

Still, that, the heavy rains, the dark skies, my pink eyes. I'm in a good mood to write a 12-step recovery plan.

Sophia is immortalized on the sidewalk running around the back of the house. As an original plankholder of our then-new house, we carved her name into a sidewalk block, like everybody else.

Q&A: Obama

Tyler Durden wrote in with this question:

I'm finishing up a trip to Ghana ... . I have just caught up on news and it looks like there is a good shot at a Obama vs McCain Election. I find Obama's charisma refreshing, and I think he could be what the world needs from America right now. However, his "troops will be home my first year" pledge has me worried. I think he'll be shown through various Pentagon briefings that his pledges are not viable, but that may make him look foolish for promising it in the first place. Do you see him A) winning and B) carrying out his Troops pledge?

Tom writes:

I believe Obama may well win the Dem nod. It's getting harder by the day to see Hillary stopping him, because where she wins, it's tight and where Obama wins, he wins big.

I think Obama's contrast with McCain will wear well (old v new on complex world, plus fatigue with GOP arrogance after 8 years (somewhat inevitable in our system--to the good of all)). Plus, Obama puts south in play and west trending Dem.

Once in, or hopefully long before, someone close to him gets him off that nonsense of troop withdrawals. Simply can't happen without sabotaging a new administration--thus the profound strategic overhang for any next prez.

Bets down

ARTICLE: Independence Is Proclaimed By Kosovo, By Peter Finn, Washington Post, February 18, 2008; Page A01

Last story of the break-up of the former Yugoslav federation is playing out--finally. Serbia's being squeezed by its Russian patron that harkens to its past and its European solicitor that harkens to its future. I'm betting the EU wins.