The Right got Freeman's scalp

ARTICLE: Charles Freeman's Statement in Wake of Withdrawal From Intelligence Post, Wall Street Journal, MARCH 10, 2009

Freeman was a surprisingly uncompromising pick for the no-drama Obama crowd, but I guess he was Blair's selection in particular. It's a job that typically attracts the low-key, which Freeman clearly was not.

One scalp for the Right: hoots and hollers all around.

ZenPundit's review of GP

REVIEW: With Great Powers comes Great Responsibilities..., By Mark Safranski, zenpundit,March 11th, 2009

Tom says:

Obviously, given Mark's role as an initial reader/provider of feedback, this serious effort is worth perusing.

Want to stay out of the nursing home? Put on this tracking bracelet

PERSONAL JOURNAL: "New Devices Track Patients Who Wander," by Philip Shishkin, Wall Street Journal, 10 February 2009.

All connectivity comes with a loss of privacy, but so does a lot of freedom, especially in mobility.

Nowhere will that trade-off be more apparent in coming years than among the elders, where wandering Alzheimer's patients present a big problem.

But like the recent posting about home-based sensors, this technology is all about maintaining a modicum of personal freedom while having trip-wires in place.

Old age is the prison we all eventually find ourselves inhabiting. If you want out of your cell now and then, the ankle bracelet is a reasonable trade-off.

The faster you try to catch-up by connecting-up, the wilder the ride--to be sure

BUSINESS DAY: "The Upside To Resisting Globalization," by Floyd Norris, New York Times, 6 February 2009.

Economists note that the less connected your economy was, the more insulation you enjoyed from the recent and ongoing financial crisis. Big surprise there.

If your economy sought foreign capital in the most desperate of ways, you now suffer the most in terms of resulting flight, whereas if you had more capital controls in place, you attracted less in the past and now lose less as a result.

So Iceland went for broke and ended up broke, while India is content to preserve its rural poverty in all its majesty.

So does this suggest an upside in "resisting globalization?"

Not unless you consider your mattress the ultimate investment target.

What it suggests is the usual truth that high levels of globalization only work when your government has good and sufficient rules, meaning globalization hardly signals the end of the nation-state--just the opposite. The states with the most regs and rules handle globalization's connectivity the best, and thus are able to sustain the highest levels of connectivity.

But yeah, if you want it bad, you sometimes can get it bad.

China's breadbasket goes dry

WORLD NEWS: "China Battles Worsening Drought," by Shai Oster, Wall Street Journal, 6 February 2009.

WORLD NEWS: "China Drought Persists, Threatening Wheat Crop," by Shai Oster, Wall Street Journal, 11 February 2009.

When I ran the environmental security exercise with Cantor Fitzgerald atop World Trade Center I, the scariest scenario for the all-day ex was a "black summer" in China that features a super-deadly heatwave and droughts to the nation's breadbasket.

As most experts predict, the hardest climate change caused by global warming won't be storms or hurricanes, but droughts. Australia is suffering a lengthy one now and China today battles its worst in decades. In some provinces, we're talking about 20% losses of crops (the key one being the winter wheat). Naturally, desperate farmers and ranchers tap ever-deeper water supplies, dropping water tables further.

High temps and low rainfall are the culprits, and with all those migrant workers returning to the ag areas, the timing couldn't be worse.

Why "buy American" convinces others around the world to do exactly the opposite

FRONT PAGE: "Nations Rush To Establish New Barriers To Trade," by John W. Miller, Wall Street Journal, 6 February 2009.

Everybody accusing everybody else of dumping, and everybody ratcheting up their subsidies to vulnerable industries. The net effect? Exacerbating the already scary drop in trade predicted for this year--only the third such year since 1971 (when Nixon takes us off the gold standard).

Meanwhile, events move so fast that the WTO is reduced to following news reports of new tariffs.

All this adds up to a "creeping" form of protectionism that, for now, is nowhere near the insanity of the early 1930s--all Lou Dobbs aside. The Smoot-Hawley act of 1930 raised tariffs an average of 20% for the U.S., something you just couldn't pull off today for a ton of political reasons.

Keeping the 300 million under mouse arrest

MEMO FROM BEIJING: "Chinese Learn Limits of Online Freedom as the Filter Tightens," by Andrew Jacobs, New York Times, 5 February 2009.

The economic downturn presents new tests of Chinese government efforts to continue policing the Internet use of its citizens. Blowing off steam is okay, but organizing is not. Exposing low and mid-level corruption is okay (and sometimes a quite powerful grass-roots tool to topple leaders), but you can only go so high with that stuff.

The basic dynamic explained:

For years, China has tried to strike a balance between allowing vigorous growth of the Web and preventing it from becoming a tool for undermining party rule. But popular anger against official corruption or ineptitude may become harder to contain in an era of economic pain.

With 70 million bloggers and 300 million regular users, that's quite the public-sector task, such as the untold thousands of "fifty cent party members" who are paid to make positive postings about the government at $0.50 a pop--sad, I know, but very Chinese.

And so the struggle continues ....

Don't forget GP Reading Group

The post for chapter 4 is up. I know our schedule has been a little weird this week, so wanted to make sure you see it.

And we'll be back to our normal schedule this Sunday with chapter 5, so read up!

Getting to meet Tavis Smiley

Always have liked the show, and when the offer came a few weeks back to do a 12-min segment, I was thrilled. At first, the notion was simply to do a remote, but I really hate doing remotes. You sit in this studio room all by yourself with an earbud feeding you audio while you stare into a camera. You can't tell anything about anything. You have no idea how you appear, or what you sound like. The audio typically sucks, meaning the other end sounds like it's at the bottom of well, while your voice is quite loud in comparison. You can't gauge any reactions to what you're saying, and typically the host must interrupt to get your attention, which is awkward given the time delay (which is why they won't show you a video feed). In short, it's a disembodied experience where impressions are hard to make and the interaction gets about as stilted as possible.

So I was watching Smiley's show about two weeks ago and I decided I'd fly myself to LA to do it in person. I have plenty of free Southwest flights, and they go right into Burbank, so why not avoid the anxiety of the remote and get to meet the guy for real?

So I flew out yesterday through Lost Wages and got to my airport hotel about 50 minutes before the show's driver showed up, giving me just enough time to steam the suit and iron the shirt. I wasn't feeling great, feeling a headcase coming on, so I played it very cool on the plane, just watching season 2 of "The Office" and chilling.

Once suited up and freshly minted, the drive into the KCET studio off Sunset was pretty cool: long drive past the sprawling Warner Brothers lot, turn at Forest Lawn, past the freeway exit to the Holllywood Bowl, a glimpse of Universal City in the distance, and then a long cruise on Sunset passing the famous Capitol Records building with distant views of the LA skyline.

Once into the studio (big complex, as they go), I am greeted by a show producer (nice lady) and taken into make-up, where I talk animation (careers WRT to my eldest) and face-painting (a hobby of mine that the artist also indulges in at the local LA children's hospital) and am feeling fairly relaxed, despite the oncoming illness (I just figure I need to keep my attitude and energy up to nail the segment). Smiley is doing a remote with Tom Ricks while I'm getting beautiful.

When the call comes, they walk me into the cavernous studio and he decides to go with the high chairs set instead of the more couch-like one, so we're set together fairly closely. As he tapes the intro to the show, he mentions his other guest (actor Timothy Hutton) and cites the 7 Deadly Sins WRT Great Powers. That makes me a little nervous, as I don't want to waste the 12 mins on that backward-looking topic of the first chapter.

So I get miked up and settle into the chair. He says he liked the book a lot and we agree it will be fun to do the radio too (tomorrow, between 11 and 12 EST; not sure if it's live or not, but it's on PRI; I'll be here in Indy at WFYI). Minor chit-chat of a couple of minutes. He asks his floor chief when the show will be aired (next Wednesday) and we're off and running in one take.

Tavis asks an open-ended question to begin, to the effect of "So just where are we in this post-Bush world?" and I am off and running with a fairly long answer. He indulges, and then follows up with two points based on my opening bit. Those two points generate enough back and forth to consume the 12 minutes.

I perform fairly well and an animated. As expected, Smiley engages back, so pretty easy to work through the minutes. I am almost completely unconscious of the setting, which is nice. I notice the monitor way in the distance, but I pretty much focus on him and ignore everything else. I engage in my usual tendency (see picture) to make my self smaller or shorter than the person I'm with. I'm not sure why I do that. I just know it comes instinctively, both when I interview and when I'm being interviewed. Being near-sick may have slumped me a bit too. Looking at the photo, I give off the air of a young Dick Cheney with the slumped shoulders, the no-neck look and the sly, near-grin. But that was me prior to taping. I get pretty animated when the camera is running.

Right after the taping ends, everybody in the studio seems pretty jacked. I get a lot of nice compliments from the crew on a good segment (both right there and later in chance meetings in the hall). Tavis has me sign his copy of the book and his guestbook and by the time I'm done he's out of tie and shaking my hand. On the way out I'm presented with the picture in a cardboard frame and a Tavis Smiley cup wrapped up in the cellophane decorative stuff. Very slick.

I have a nice conversation with the producer on the way out and while we wait for the car. On the way out we exchange pleasantries, almost in exact reverse, with all the crew that we met on the way in.

Bing bang bong and I'm back in the limo for the drive back to the hotel. I talk the driver into buying my book after he asks me questions about Bush's administration.

Back at the hotel I get some room service and suddenly feel completely exhausted. I realize that my adrenaline was holding off the infection and now I feel like crap. I end up nodding off at 8pm local and sleep ten hours before getting up for my flights home today. I feel pretty bad the whole way but have some meds waiting (my doc is very nice in helping me out as I travel so much), so I will have a couple of antibiotics in me before I drive off tomorrow morning to Indy to do the same drill with Tavis on his PRI radio show.

Was it worthwhile?

Yeah, definitely. Fun to meet him. Fun to blow in and out of LA for a TV taping. Beats the remote by a ways and I was going to be sick anyway (it started on Sunday). I mean, if you're going to write the book, you might as well do the associated stuff to the hilt, as afforded by the media's fickle attention. Smiley's interviews always impress me, because he prepares, so I was glad I took advantage.

GP in the Charleston Post and Courier

REVIEW: 'Powers' offers global insights, By Michael S. Smith II, Charleston Post and Courier, March 8, 2009

Nice review from friend Mike. Here's the lead:

As one of the most insightful diagnoses of the post-9/11 international system, "The Pentagon's New Map" (2004) became a must-read for military brass and foreign policymakers the world over. Building on that book and "Blueprint for Action" (2006), "Great Powers" is grand strategist Thomas P.M. Barnett's prolific yet user-friendly guidebook of best practices for policymakers hoping to reassert America's leadership role in the post-Bush-Cheney era.

Probably inspired by the writings of Francis Fukuyama, the notion that the question of identity will be a root cause of future conflicts is a key feature of Barnett's forecasts in "Great Powers." According to Barnett, the forces of globalization increasingly will ignite crises fueled by that question within the "Gap." The "Gap" is trademark Barnett-speak for states at the opposite end of the spectrum in terms of social, political and economic development from nations such as the U.S. and members of the European Union, which, also in Barnett-speak, are part of the globe's "Functioning Core."

The fine line on trade

OP-ED: Trading Up To Global Recovery, By Charlene Barshefsky, Washington Post, March 10, 2009; Page A13

ARTICLE: Democrats Stung by Dissenters, By Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, March 10, 2009; Page A01

Barshevsky always writes the most amazingly good op-eds on trade--para for para the best short-piece writer out there.

Very good advice; agree with all of it.

Really worth a serious read.

For now, Obama attempts to thread the needle: providing clear and immediate support to an American middle class while not not turning on trade too much. But since he clearly needs to recast America's trade relationship with the world and these pacts only come along so fast, he wants to rejigger them somewhat more as a signal to the rest of the world than as short-term help to the economy.

And therein lies much danger, for the more Obama signals to the world that we're looking out for number one, the more we'll trigger similar beggar-thy-neighbor dynamics from everybody else.

(Thanks: Bobby Williams)

The essential recession conundrum

DOCTOR DOOM: The U.S. Financial System Is Effectively Insolvent, By Nouriel Roubini, Forbes, 03.05.09

I think Roubini nails the essential conundrum with this para:

So without a recovery in the U.S. and global economy, there cannot be a sustainable recovery of Chinese growth. And with the U.S, recovery requiring lower consumption, higher private savings and lower trade deficits, a U.S. recovery requires China's and other surplus countries' (Japan, Germany, etc.) growth to depend more on domestic demand and less on net exports. But domestic-demand growth is anemic in surplus countries for cyclical and structural reasons. So a recovery of the global economy cannot occur without a rapid and orderly adjustment of global current account imbalances.

The old "Bretton Woods II" package was great for getting Asia to rise peacefully, but it was a co-dependent relationship, in that they didn't develop domestic demand (or the markets and instruments to make it happen) and we fed that bias with our over-consumption (our preferred bias), the surplus of which went back into our debt markets, keeping credit/money so amazingly cheap over here, which only continued the transaction.

Yes, it's great that we enabled Asia's peaceful rise as much as we did. Sure, it would have been great if it could have continued for another decade, but nothing succeeds like excess, so it came to its natural end.

Too soon for China and the rest? Absolutely. Chinese don't spend because they fear their medical and old age going forward. For the PRC to fix that will be one huge order.

Then again, the US has very similar problems, yes? To include huge, now sort-of state-owned firms with huge pension and med problems.

But no choice now on the structural adjustment on global trade: better for us, better and scarier for them--especially China.

Why couldn't we all agree this was happening in advance of the crisis and make changes to prevent the crisis?

Markets aren't like that, and frankly, we've never been like that. It was right-right-right for 27 years and now it's wrong. Those who warned the most in recent years get a cookie, because every crisis, as I wrote in PNM, is always preceded by numerous predictions that turn out to be AMAZINGLY RIGHT! The billions that were wrong-wrong-wrong until they were right, we forget, stunned as we are by those who timed it well (reminding me of that bit about monkeys, typewriters, and eventually somebody banging out "War and Peace").

But crises are always predicted because people are always predicting doom, and if they were right more often than not, human history would be far different than what it has turned out to be.

So now we tack differently, and regulate more, and get some more big government back, etc.

Obama's tack so far is not to leave any potential stone unturned and to treat every problem as a huge opportunity to make big changes. I think that is a good instinct (and I shudder to think about what McCain wouldn't have done).

Again, not the end of the world, just the end of a long and very successful stretch that simply could not proceed any farther.

And so we are forced to change.

But Roubini's conundrum here is real, and a hard nut to crack. We need a third pillar besides the US/dollar and EU/euro, because there simply isn't enough demand out there now to support an Asia that only sells, sells, sells.

Listen, Obama's no socialist

POST: Socialism? Please., By Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish, 08 Mar 2009

A fair defense of bold steps taken in an extraordinary time. I agree with Andrew: I see plenty of pragmatic liberalism here, and it does not seem out of place given the condition and current global trajectory. We need to clean up and re-jigger a whole lot here if we're going to move forward out of this mess and regain some competitive momentum historically.

I think we're getting just what we asked for, and just what the times demand/allow. All this carping is just that--a lot of bitching from people with few-to-no alternative ideas.

The problem of the two tsars

EUROPE: "Stepping Away From Putin's Shadow: Medvedev asserts a bit of independence on economic policies," by Philip P. Pan, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 16-22 February 2009.

INTERNATIONAL: "As Economy Sinks, Russians Stage Protests Against the Kremlin," by Michael Schwirtz and Clifford J. Levy, New York Times, 1 February 2009.

Putin's high standing clearly comes under pressure with the decline of Russia's economic fortune. The inconceivable (public criticism) becomes the inconvenient (Medvedev distancing himself a bit) becomes the inevitable (Putin weighs the utility of trying to return to the presidency).

Actually, Putin would do his country more benefit by leaving the government and demonstrating that power--especially economic power--can exist outside the Kremlin.

Meanwhile, we get the treat of the two-tsars problem, which got bad enough recently for Putin and Medvedev to agree that a note-taker attend their private meetings. Obama helps by observing tradition and--so far--speaking by phone only with Medvedev. WAPO notes that Obama likewise plans to meet with Medvedev in a separate bilat during the London economic summit in April.

Calvin Coolidge was known for a statement that went something like this: When you see 10 problems coming at you from down the road, odds are eight of them will go into the ditch before reaching you.

This economic crisis may clear a great deal of debris from the road.

Symmetricizing for the long war at home

SUNDAY OPINION: "The Coming Swarm," by John Arquilla, New York Times, 15 February 2009.

Arquilla is very good, but like a lot of high-tech war gurus who've now switched over to the long war, he tends toward the fantastically dark, where "nightmare scenarios" are the norm.

Everything we see abroad is now routinely predicted to be showing up on our shores any day now. Remember when IEDs were coming to America? Now, we are told to expect re-runs of the Mumbai attacks, except, of course, we've suffered the Columbine-style attacks by crazed gunmen for years and years now.

The fear, naturally, is that this tactic will now be married to political purpose instead of just adolescent death-wish fantasies.

The hold-up on this scenario is two-fold: 1) the Muslims we attract don't come here for that sort of stuff but for economic opportunity and religious tolerance, meaning--so far--the legendary sleeper cells of radical Islam exist mostly on cable TV and in movies; and 2) we've been pretty good at breaking up groups of bad actors who've been sent here.

But Arquilla's logic in this piece is well-reasoned: the future of such warfare will be the disposable and cheap, not the few and the ridiculously expensive. I've been preaching that for years re: our military, and as the conflict inevitably comes more to our neck of the woods over time, that logic likewise makes sense for whatever police and counter-terror assets we muster here. So Arquilla's suggestion that we fund all sorts of small-team responders who are just good enough to handle the situation versus racing around with super-trained high-tech squads strikes me as highly practical. In this solid op-ed, Arquilla argues that this is just a domestic version of the COIN logic that worked in Iraq: get out of the big bases, end the isolation, and stay close to the people--the strategic corporal recast as the strategic cop-on-the-beat. When they swarm, we do the same.

Again, very sensible stuff, especially for a populace as heavily armed and as eager to use its weaponry as ours is.

The great march westward

BRIEFING: "China's economy: A great migration into the unknown; Global recession is hitting China's workers hard," The Economist, 31 January 2009.

WORLD: "Return of jobless migrants strains China," by Calum MacLeod, USA Today, 17 February 2009.

ASIA: "China's Job Solution: Unemployed college graduates compete for state positions in the countryside," by Maureen Fan, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 9-15 February 2009.

Amidst China's stunning urbanization wave is this large chunk of migrant population that swishes back and forth between urban centers and origin villages.

We have it much easier: our economic system's rural poor are primarily located south of the Rio Grande, with their swishing back and forth timing our waves of migrant workers--both legal and illegal. When we don't want them anymore, we can drive them out of our country and build a fence. China has no such luxury: it's Latin America is already inside its national borders, thus the political fixation on "stability" in the rural countryside during this economic downturn.

Upshot?

China is incentivized to dramatically up-tick its efforts at the development of its West, even to the point of encouraging college grads to head West and land government jobs. Sooners, to your wagons, as your Peace Corps-like post-grad experience will see you extending Beijing's government-building efforts within its own borders.

Naturally, the locals will be suspicious of such carpet-bagging Easterners showing up, especially when jobs are very tight, so expect all the usual tensions involved with frontier-integration.

Exxon: where oil truly is peaking

FEATURE: "Exxon Is Weaker Than You Think: The king of oil companies is sticking to an out-of-date game plan as its reserves shrink and its competitors look to the future," by Steve LeVine, BusinessWeek, 16 February 2009.

The three biggest hauls by a public company in the history of the world all went to Exxon--over the last three years.

And yet it's future is very un-bright, say analysts, because it's living the dream while reality is moving on for the oil industry in general. Exxon's oil reserves are dwindling and growth prospects look even worse in a future where national oil companies increasingly dominate production.

Plus, Exxon is highly reactive: pushing up exploration when prices are high and then abandoning when they drop--a very short-term profit-maximizing strategy.

But the killer is, while other majors are exploring alt fuels seriously, Exxon simply turns a blind eye to any such exit strategy from the age of oil.

In some ways, then, Exxon is sort of America's national oil company, displaying all the usual swagger and stupidity.

Upshot of encouraging domestic consumption in Asia? Asian companies look homeward

ARTICLE: "China's Exporters Look Homeward: As global sales slump, mainland manufacturers start to woo Chinese consumers, threatening multinationals," by Frederik Balfour and Chi-Chu Tshang, BusinessWeek, 23 February 2009.

ARTICLE: "GM Hits a Wall in China, Too: Consumers, concerned about quality and about the carmaker's future, are buying more Japanese models," by David Welch, BusinessWeek, 16 February 2009.

"Everybody is chasing share," says Ford's #2 exec in China.

With the collapse of demand in the West, the East's major firms turn inward, threatening the dreams of foreign companies desiring breakthrough shares of Asia's still-suppressed but growing domestic markets.

Thing is, they are finding the domestic market to be very different from the overseas one (big surprise!): "Exporters that have worked with just a handful of foreign customers don't know how to negotiate the Byzantine distribution channels [at home]."

So I guess the Chinese domestic market is inscrutable to everybody.

The basic upshot? Competition for the brand loyalties of the world's emerging middle class will be fierce, meaning no cakewalks for anybody.

GM, for example, has long had strong performance in China to offset losses here in the States, but with the economic downturn there, consumers are shifting to more cost-value Japanese brands.

Toyota and Honda are expanding very aggressively in China, says BusinessWeek, "and the Chinese are swallowing their resentment of Japan and its wartime behavior," resulting in Toyota selling more passenger cars there than GM for the first time.

Remember when the security gurus were trying to sell us on future Sino-Japanese wars because of national soccer matches where fans got out of hand?

So much for the never-ending ethnic tensions of East Asia.

Tom around the web

+ Andrew Sullivan linked The real Middle Eastern conflict.
+ Small Wars Journal included GP in their '6 March SWJ Roundup'.

+ Cheryl Rofer reviewed GP.
+ Azady.nl quoted one of Tom's comments about Kurdistan and Kirkuk.
+ Winds of Change linked Be realistic on Iraq and Afghanistan.
+ World Politics Review Blog linked The Taliban truce makes sense--only if the quid pro quo is giving up al Qaeda.
+ The Blog of Walker linked An easy point of cooperation with Iran.
+ Asia Logistics Wrap linked Part 4 of Dr. Thomas Barnett's discussion of "Great Powers" with Hugh Hewitt is now posted.
+ Always Vigilant promoted the C-SPAN appearance.
+ PrairiePundit quoted Tom's last appearance on Hugh's show.
+ Munro Ferguson, the new author at Coming Anarchy, linked The complete failure that is the drug war is recognized down south.

+ The Daily Clarity thinks Tom and the guy who gave him the bad 'review' in the WaPo are closer than it appears.
+ HG's WORLD linked this week's column.
+ Naval Open Source Intelligence linked Ten Questions With Thomas P.M. Barnett.

+ American Digest embedded the TED video.
+ So did Mike Beversluis.
+ So did horizon200.
+ So did Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive.
+ So did Water Lane Crew.

A little perspective on China

POST: (Pretend) Annual Report: Military Power of the United States of America, By David Axe, War is Boring, March 09th 2009

Funny and instructive. Some perspective when our spy ship gets hassled off China's coast ("Again, they interfere with our military spying along their coast!").