Don't panic

ARTICLE: Let's Put Down the Pitchforks, By Steven Pearlstein, March 20, 2009; Page D01

I like Pearlstein a lot. He is always illuminating, never hyperbolic, and full of common sense.

This is a great piece about tempering our current populist anger, the key point being, the more we let our government indulge our popular rage, the more inconsistent and untrustworthy it's going to seem to the very private sector players it's trying to lure back on the playing field.

I could expand that same argument to the Obama administration and foreign economies: reversing Bush-era free-trade policies and suddenly calling into question long-negotiated free-trade agreements with old friends like South Korea will only make us look scared, desperate, and untrustworthy.

And that will backfire in our faces.

Beginning to see how far we'll end up going on AFPAK

FRONT PAGE: "U.S. Weighs Taliban Strike In Pakistan," by David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, New York Times, 18 March 2009.

Now we're thinking about strikes in Baluchistan, or southern Pakistan, because our success in strikes in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas are pushing Taliban in that direction to a certain extent.

Absent the patent self-destructiveness on trade, I would be far more likely to support this, but the more Obama engages in protectionism while saying otherwise, the more I see the world's other great powers leaving America to hang alone as we accumulate a larger conflict zone in Pakistan.

We may not see the connections, but they will.

Good Obama foreign policy, bad Obama foreign policy

WORLD VIEW: "Why Washington Worries," by Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek, 23 March 2009.

NATIONAL WEEKLY EDITION: "A Tougher Stance: The U.S. is dissatisfied with global markets," by Anthony Faiola, Washington Post, 16-22 March 2009.

Zakaria is right that Obama has done a masterful job of rejiggering a host of relations with the outside world. I too consider these changes necessary and good.

But this emphasis on domestic and social issues WRT trade, right when global trade is experiencing its deepest drop in eight decades, is beyond self-destructive. Ron Kirk, nominee for U.S. Trade Rep, is the new poster boy for this approach. He's blaming foreign competition for our current woes.

If Obama goes far enough down this path, it will not matter one whit how smart he is in other spheres. He will become a Hoover far more than Bush ever was. Nothing else he seeks to improve will survive the process, especially since so much of the world holds us responsible for the financial crisis.

But Kirk is indicating that the administration, while not renegotiating NAFTA openly (don't forget the bad decision on Mexican truckers), won't be following through on Bush-started Free Trade Agreements. Instead, those will be subject to new criteria of "social responsibility."

This alone is enough to make me rethink my vote for Obama. McCain would have done far less damage to our future simply by trying to do less to "fix" trade.

Which would you take?

INTERNATIONAL: "The Myth of Kurdistan," by Lennox Samuels, Newsweek, 23 March 2009.

ARTICLE: New Alliances In Iraq Cross Sectarian Lines,
By Anthony Shadid, Washington Post, March 20, 2009; Page A01

The Kurds increasingly lose their "model" status because their economic stability and development isn't matched by their political pluralism (two parties dominate in their respective geographic spheres). As the south progresses politically, it remains distinctly behind in terms of economic development, but since Americans obsess over politics, the Kurds' reputation suffers as a result.

(Thanks: Dan Hare)

Tom with Dennis Prager will be Wednesday, not Monday

Date got slipped a couple, so Tom will be on Dennis Prager's show Wednesday. You'll have to check your local listings to listen on the radio. Looks like you can listen live on Dennis' home station, 9am - 12pm PT.

Obama's video appeal to Iran

I thought it was good and proper, but I'm not surprised by Iran's response or by those of knowledgeable experts: for now these are good words, but absent some movement off the actual demands/actions of Bush-Cheney, that's all they amount to. Iran isn't going to fall over itself, especially as a presidential election is ramping up, to gush warm in our direction on this basis alone.

Obama signaled acknowledgment of Iran's regime and its revolution, but nothing regarding the pursuit of nuclear capacity, where we still declare our firm resistance and maintain intense sanctions. So long as we're on that path, Iranian leaders and enough of the population will feel a certain insecurity--a certain fear that the war is still coming from either the U.S. or Israel or both.

Obviously, Ahmadinejad and his mouth are a huge sticking point. Absent his pointless and toothless threats, the whole subject would be much smaller and therefore perhaps far more approachable. But the man asks for conflict, with great political purpose, and we provide it, in Pavlovian discipline, and so the stand-off is maintained, despite the change in tone.

Absent Ahmadinejad's defeat in June, I don't see this changing too much. Obama will feel the need to stand firm on terror and nukes, and Iran will feel the same regarding our use of force in other people's countries with impunity (or am I missing the UN approval of our strikes inside Pakistan?) and our continued possession of nukes--ditto on both counts for Israel.

Finally, something other than a frickin' style review of Great Powers! (Asia Times)

Benjamin Shobert is the managing director of Teleos, a consulting firm that seeks to migrate new technologies into U.S. markets. He called me up a while back and we did an interview (lengthy), which appears on the front page of Asia Times online today, along with a very sophisticated book review--without a doubt the most sophisticated review of my intent as a writer that I have ever received.

I have grown so weary of style and personality reviews masquerading as actual content reviews. I know my stuff is very forward-leaning and thus controversial and not conventional and so I must be pigeon-holed by establishment types as "naive." Tellingly, Shobert is a managing director, like myself, so here I get something of a genuine peer review instead of some journalist or thunk tanker.

It is a great review in the sense that he truly explores my thinking and offers a translation that is full of genuine feedback--i.e., this is how I felt reading his stuff (instead of the usual, "this is how he transgresses my field!"). He seems generally favorable to the material, but he doesn't actually declare the book to be this or that in terms of praise. Instead, he says, this is what Barnett is trying to achieve and this is how, you, the reader, may likely interpret that.

Here is what clinched the review for me:

In this regard, his thoughts on China are compelling: if China was going to set aside its communist ways and re-enter the global economy, how else was it going to do so other than by becoming the world's factory? Did we expect it to go from a deeply withdrawn country, lacking industry and technology, with a chronic need to feed itself, to a nation competing on innovation in the space of a decade? Two? Barnett deeply wants Americans reading his book to wrestle with their own history, specifically when the US economy had its own predatory habits. By positioning much of his 12 steps within America's own challenges while it developed, Barnett hopes to introduce some maturity and patience into our expectations for China.

The first line is really fabulous. When I read the post-colon restatement of my thinking, I thought to myself, "Man, that is good! Did I write that?" Then I realized I hadn't and immediately became pissed with myself, wondering why I had missed an opportunity to include a line that good. But then I felt a real joy: here was somebody improving my thinking upon reading it in print. There is no greater feeling as a strategist than to see somebody run with your idea and better it. You made a connection, and it multiplied.

I am not a great review writer, but I think this is a great review, and I plan to use it as an inspiration for writing future ones.

Anyway, a very gratifying treatment. Interestingly enough (and quite telling), Shobert sent me a notice email and, at the end, he said he wanted to have dinner some time if we were still on speaking terms after I read the review. What does that tell me? It tells me that he felt he wrote something very honest and he wasn't sure how I would take it.

Again, that's a model review in my mind: you do an interpretation of material and you wonder if the author will find it on the mark or offensive, but the point is, you actually review the material--not the man, not the career, not the style, etc.

In short, this was a guy who wasn't intimidated by the material and showed it.

Permanent URL for the interview is here.

You can find the book review here.

Shobert also did a very nice job on reducing our long conversation to this short interview capture.

Here's the clincher: Shobert lives about five miles from me.

The military's independence still holds

OP-ED: "How To Surge The Taliban," by Max Boot, Frederick Kagan and Kimberly Kagan, New York Times, 13 March 2009.

Sensible stuff from a trio of respected thinkers.

What I find interesting: the trip to Afghanistan is arranged by Petraeus, meaning he generates his own public policy proponents from outside the government.

That tells you something about how independent our military has become as a result of the Long War: they field their own when it comes to op-ed conflicts.

One of the great ironies of Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld: they came into office convinced that Clinton had let the military get too independent. In the end, they left it more independent than ever.

I mean, it really marks this era's American military as being different from other militaries, as well as different from previous American militaries--with perhaps the odd exception of MacArthur.

Well, that's certainly the start of a different sort of discussion on Iraq

FRONT PAGE: "Iran's Cheap Goods Stifle Iraq Economy," by Gina Chon, Wall Street Journal, 18 March 2009.

Fear that Iran is having the same dampening effect on Iraq's domestic industry that China often has on less developed economies: flooding with cheap goods so that locals can't compete. Upside? Access to cheap goods. But downside grates more and more as time passes.

Talking is good

ARTICLE: U.S. Envoy to Meet Iran Counterpart at Strategic Talks on Afghanistan, By JAY SOLOMON and ALAN CULLISON, Wall Street Journal, MARCH 19, 2009

Great sign and good idea by Obama team, whose only foreign policy clunker so far is the immensely stupid move on Mexican trucking--a cowardly pander to the Teamsters.

But this is very smart and right on the mark.

SCO mention, however, is completely wrong. Began in mid 1990s and NOT as result of U.S. Intervention in Afghanistan. A real bad fact-checking error, in my mind.

(Thanks: Russell Samuels)

Just like in the EU, China's reunification dreams suffer when times get hard

WORLD NEWS: "Taiwan Revisits Links With China as Exports Slide," by Ting-I Tsai and Ian Johnson, Wall Street Journal, 10 March 2009.

The best rejoinder to predictions, such as my own, that Taiwan will eventually seek economic union with China.

Recently, Taiwan's exports to China have fallen far more than its exports to both America and Japan, thus the popular questioning of Ma's strategy of seeking a free-trade agreement with China.

But note that the big drawback here is not political, but economic--the question of whether or not such a rapprochement truly pays off.

And yet, looking forward, where else can Taiwan turn? It's a truly entrepreneurial society with a fairly developed domestic market, so growth must come through globalization and China's orbit will be hard to escape.

But no mention of military matters in the article, and that tells you plenty.

Turn loose the super-empowered diplomats

NATIONAL WEEKLY EDITION: "To Talk With Iran, Stop Not Talking," by James Dobbins, Washington Post, 9-15 March 2009.

Good argument that the Obama administration should simply let our diplomats--at all levels--interact with Iran's opportunistically, rather than keeping all our eggs in the summit/senior-level basket.

In other words, continue dialing down rhetoric and avoid ramping up expectations and coverage:

The time for exchanges of presidential correspondence and even face-to-face meetings may come. But that is not where to begin.

Start small, then proceed as events warrant.

I like this logic a lot.

Good idea, but unlikely

ARTICLE: China backs talks on dollar as reserve -Russian source, By Gleb Bryanski, Reuters, Mar 19, 2009

Not an unreasonable discussion to start, although I think it's somewhat doomed as a concept. I see a future of three big balancing currencies: the dollar, the euro, and some basket version of the yuan (PRC), won (Korea) and yen (Japan). In that world, the other two keep the third from getting too far out of whack. For now, the euro is an alternative to the buck, at almost 30% of the world's total reserve currencies. Ideally, we grow the Asian variant slowly over time.

But jumping ahead to a translating global reserve currency? I just don't see that as the next iteration, even as the discussion must be welcomed.

(Thanks: Terry Collier)

Tom from Tavis' show [updated]

Complete video, audio and transcript (same page) now available. Check it out.

[Ed. Thanks, Vadim, for the tip.]

Tom's Carnegie Council transcript now available

TRANSCRIPT: Great Powers: America and the World after Bush, Carnegie Council, February 4, 2009

Again, this is my favorite recent Brief. Be sure to check it out, either from the transcript or the streaming audio.

Tom around the web

+ The Korea Times printed this week's column with some nice art:

+ g m g D e s i g n . c o m linked If No Threat, Connectivity is the Best Bet.
+ And linked Listen, Obama's no socialist.
+ And linked A lot more sanguine about Clinton as SECSTATE.

+ HG's WORLD linked Here's how globalization meets Pakistan.
+ And linked this week's column.

+ John Robb reviewed GP and linked Ten Questions with Thomas P.M. Barnett.

+ Russia Blog touted Tom's fight against the Big War Crowd.
+ Jihadistan linked Don't waste any crisis!
+ World Politics Review Blog linked Guess: Obama's managing our expectations on Iran.
+ Asia Logistics Wrap linked Lockheed leads, and is led by . . .
+ The NY Times Opionator weblog linked That emerging middle class keeps growing in its demand and ambition.
+ Superpunch said he gets a lot of his world news from Tom and linked The problem of the two tsars and Seriously, send in the Magnificent Seven.
+ House of Marathon said 'As Dr. Thomas Barnett, formerly of the DOD Office of Force Transformation, has aptly commented, the department had been buying for one kind of war while fighting another kind of war.'
+ Patterns 'R' Us agrees with Tom that there's little chance we'll fight a war with China.
+ The Image linked Tom latest article for Good.
+ Barnes & Noble posted a middling review of GP.
+ So did The Lowy Interpreter

Testifying before House HASC subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces

Invite was by email a while ago, and official letter arrives today.

It will be next Thursday, 10am,

I have already pinged my network for inputs and am reviewing a load of docs starting tomorrow (I killed my blog-posts pile today). Got to have statement to subcommittee by Tuesday, 10am, so will spend tomorrow reading and the weekend talking and Monday writing. I will make my statement my opening remarks, so limited to what I can read in five minutes. I like the concentration effect there.

Don't forget...

... to check out the week five reading group. Not too much action yet. Anyone still in?

No Hugh this week, but Dennis Prager live Monday

Sean will provide linkages as they come up.

I taped the two back-to-back with Hugh to cover his recent trip overseas, but when he got back, schedule conflicts prevailed, so we're hoping to hook back up with him next week after the two-week layoff.

Beside linking up with Hugh, I will do Dennis Prager's show live at 2pm EST on Monday, the 23rd.

Any advice from regular listeners?

Cease efforts on Smiley taping

Smiley's show sending me DVD, and one respondent already sent me entire e-file, so I can review the parts where my taping went bad.

I thank everybody for the responses, though. Very nice.