Think the SysAdmin is being built? Think again.

ARTICLE: “Sailors, airmen land new role: Training to help strained Army in combat zones,” by Tom Vanden Brook, USA Today, 8 May 2006, p. 1A.

ARTICLE: “With Jobs Scarce, U.S. Pilots Sign On At Foreign Airlines: Global Travel Boom Yields Tempting Pay for Expats; Concerns About Safety; A Captain’s New Life in Dubai,” by Susan Carey, Bruce Stanley and John Larkin, Wall Street Journal, 5 May 2006, p. A1.

So we’ve seen Army and Marines recruiting airmen and sailors coming out of their hitches, and now we just see the ground-pounders start borrowing people while they’re still wearing blue instead of green.

Army spokesman says this doesn’t reflect any stress or strain. Sure it does.

Krepenevich says so, and he’s right.

But in reality, this is just the Pentagon responding too slowly to long-building market changes. The Leviathan has cornered the war market, and now basically owns it. So the world and our enemies move to a new mountaintop, countering Net-Centric Warfare with Fourth Generation Warfare.

So we either master this new terrain or marketspace by building the SysAdmin force and function, or we find ourselves consistently beaten (politically, not militarily) by such “newcomers” to the market.

This sort of backfilling is the same as relying on private military corps to do more and more of the SysAdmin stuff, and pretending that, in the future, the Pentagon can outsource the GWOT to Special Ops Command.

Same basic thing’s happening in the airline industry: where our pilots are losing jobs and are increasingly turning to booming New Core (Asia) and Gap (Middle East) markets.

Wait until some foreign airline tries to take over an American one, like China Southern buying some ailing US giant and turning it into a discount airline. That’ll make the Dubai ports deal seem tame by comparison.

And yet, this scenario is inevitable, and it will happen much faster than we expect. The business world is like that, even if the Pentagon can live in denial about its own marketspace for years on end.

Seeking liberation at home and abroad

OP-Ed: “Finding spiritual world’s middle ground,” by Henry G. Brinton, USA Today, 8 May 2006, p. 13A.

Great bit on religion in U.S. that actually explains how we wrongly conflate fundamentalism with evangelicalism.

The key line is that it’s not about conservatives and liberals, but “obligation-keepers” (more fundamental, but not always fundamentalist in the sense of seeking separation from a corrupt world) and “liberation-seekers” (often evangelical and highly connective).

This distinction reminds me of a great explanation of sexuality that says there are really only two types of people in the world: those who seek to penetrate others and those who allow penetration and that that’s a better and more accurate way to describe sexuality than gay or straight (almost like extrovert versus introvert).

But Brinton throws you for a loop next, by declaring Bush an obvious obligation-keeper (prior to 9/11, a natural description) and Clinton the obvious liberation-seeker (very true in his take on religion and politics, which were both all about redemption to him).

But then you step back a bit and think about the foreign policies of each, and it seems to break down--unless you consider the times.

Think about the 1990s and Clinton’s liberation theme shines through primarily in economics (promoting globalization) and only in security under duress (when things get too bad to ignore--and yet, compare his Balkans to Bush’s Iraq and Clinton looks pretty damn smart in comparison, yes?).

But then think about the post-9/11 Bush administration and you get Brinton’s explanation that obligation-keepers and liberation-seekers tend to swap sides during war, with the obligation types getting more liberational (our duty to the oppressed) and the liberation-seekers getting all pacific (can’t redeem via war, apparently).

And I guess the Tony Blair middle ground would be to act liberational in both venues (Clintonesque at home, Bushy abroad), and I guess that would make both him and me a “obligation-seeker” or “liberation-keeper.” Bit clumsy expressed that way, but closer to my Christ than either of the other two, once you accept the original definitions and naturally seek the hybrid.

Out with the old, in with the old?

ARTICLE: “CIA Chief Goss Abruptly Resigns: Surprise Exit Follows Time Of Scandal, Influence Drop, Adds to Bush Team Shakeup,” by Christopher Cooper, Scot J. Paltrow and Robert Block, Wall Street Journal, 6-7 May 2005, p. A4.

ARTICLE: “Concern voiced over CIA choice: Hayden’s military ties seen as hurdle,” by John Diamond and David Jackson, USA Today, 8 May 2006, p. 1A.

ARTICLE: “Hayden admired for directness, but resume has holes: Lacks experience working with Mideast issues, spies in field,” by John Diamond, USA Today, 8 May 2006, p. 5A.

I never thought Goss would be much of a DCI. Choosing him reminded me too much of Aspin moving from his House committee to become SECDEF: in general, I think legislators who become department heads do badly--they’re just not CEO material. Plus they bring all their staffers and they usually piss off all the locals from the get-go, assuring a non-record of success.

Boy, his legacy will certainly be near-zero. His entire time he was overshadowed by the DNI creation and Negroponte and his agency’s own string of scandals and leaks. Chalk up his meaningless reign to Iraq, I guess.

As for picking Hayden, it’s a tone-deaf pick, given the recent tumult over the listening program at NSA plus he’s military. Too bad, because he’s a very sharp guy who’d actually probably do a great job--if allowed. I don’t think the lack of Mideast focus or experience handling spies matters much. His time at NSA was good, and CIA needs a good bureaucratic operator right now more than anything else.

Tom in Best American Political Writing 2006

For the second year in row, one of Tom's Esquire pieces will be included in The Best American Political Writing. Last year it was Dear Mr. President.... This year it's The Chinese Are Our Friends.

Royce Flippin, the editor, wrote to Tom today to ask him to OK the inclusion, which Tom did, happily.

Tom's Washington Observer interview [updated]

Dejin Su is a reporter with the Washington Observer Weekly, a Chinese-language magazine on American foreign policy and politics that is sponsored by World Security Institute (formerly Center for Defense Information), a think-tank based in Washington, D.C.

'Washington Observer is one of the most influential sources of information for Chinese opinion makers, foreign policy makers and analysts. It has 150,000 subscribers, half of whom are journalists in mainland China, the other mainly officials and researchers.'

The following is the interview that took place via email between Tom and Mr Su:

1) "Stakeholder" has recently become a catch phrase to depict China's new status. However, not much is written about its specific meaning and ramifications. Can you shed light on China's rights and responsibilities in the international domain as a stakeholder? Do the new Sino-U.S. ties envisioned in BFA fit the description of China as a stakeholder?

Being a good stakeholder means--first and foremost--recognizing that nonzero-sum outcomes are the norm for most international security issues, meaning there are win-win solutions just waiting to be found in U.S.-Chinese cooperation on such issues as Iran (where the U.S. should be using China as an intermediary in diplomacy) and Darfur (where China should be willing to propose peacekeepers of its own in exchange for the oil it's taking out). Of course, win-win outcomes require both sides to recognize overlapping interests, and there I blame the U.S. leadership as much or more than I do China's, because too many of our own leaders can't get beyond looking at China primarily as a threat or enemy. I honestly believe China is far more ready to be a responsible stakeholder in global security than either we or the Chinese themselves realize. The problem is, the Bush administration hasn't really opened up that strategic dialogue yet with China. Yes, we have talks at senior levels, but we mostly lecture and don't really offer China anything more than our hectoring advice in exchange for Beijing's hoped-for support on a host of international security issues. The best news? Both China and the US are less than half a decade away from a generational change of leadership at the top, so I'm speaking more to those future leaders in BFA than I am to current leaders on both sides, both sets of which I consider to be largely unequal to the task of thinking ahead as strategically as I propose in that book.

But yes, I do consider the Sino-American strategic partnership that I describe in BFA as a good description of a China that is a valued and legitimate stakeholder in the global community of advanced states, or what I call the Functioning Core of globalization.

2) Are there any major differences in reception between PNM and BFA? To the Chinese general readership, a key factor of the success of PNM is that it is well-received by the military community in the U.S. Can the same be said about BFA?

Yes it can. There has been less media attention on BFA than on PNM, but far more acceptance for my ideas with the second book than with the first as far as the military is concerned. I now, for example, regularly brief to all the new flag officers each year for all of the four services. I don't know of any other officer with that kind of reach.

Oddly enough, given your question, is the fact that Beijing University Pres is currently holding up publication of PNM in Chinese, despite the volume being fully translated into the language. The problem? BUP wants me to submit to all sorts of censorship, basically removing all references to China in the book for fear of angering government officials. So for now, my ideas of Sino-American strategic alliance actually is better received among American admirals and generals than it is among the "general Chinese readership," who are prevented from reading PNM.

3) What prompted you to rethink Sino-US ties regarding Taiwan? ("Put Taiwan on the table" ) Why has strategic ambiguity regarding Taiwan, which has served U.S. relatively well since the 1970s, become obsolete? How is your new position received in the Pentagon?

I didn't rethink it, but rather enunciated it for the first time.

Why is it important to do so? Too many elements inside the Pentagon (and especially the Air Force and Navy) use the Taiwan scenario to both justify unnecessary arms acquisition decisions (denying the Army and Marines the resources they need for this Global War on Terrorism) and prevent effective exploitation of nascent military-to-military ties and cooperation between the Chinese and American forces (something that U.S. Pacific Command pushes hard to develop, despite strong disapproval from Washington).

But my biggest fear is that leaving this strategic ambiguity intact allows Taipei to basically declare war between America and China at a time and under conditions of its own choosing, and to me that's just plain dangerous to our long-term strategic interests with regard to China.

I want North Korea gone and all talk of a missile shield in East Asia also gone, because both stand in the way of establishing an East Asian NATO-like military alliance, and that alliance not only allows America to shift resources from Asia to the Middle East and Africa, it allows Washington to explore strategic military cooperation with Beijing in both regions.

Taiwan simply isn't worth holding up all that potential strategic partnership ad infinitum.

4) Many people suggest that if U.S. views China as a threat, China will become a threat, sort of a self-fulfilling promise. Will China become a friend if viewed by the U.S. as a friend? What kind of role do personal interactions play in the formulation of your perceptions about China?



Both the danger and the promise of self-fulfilling prophesies exist with China. I'm just arguing that America has a choice here, much like England did in the early 1900s: we can assume China will be the United States of the 21st century (the rising power peacefully accommodated) or the Germany of the 21st century (i.e., the cause of global wars). This is a powerful choice that our business community seems to have already made. That economic connectivity, however, is nowhere matched by political and military connectivity between the two states, and yes, in that process, personal bonds and connections can be huge. Both China and the U.S. will have new generations of leadership within the next decade, so ties built across those generations may well prove to be the determining factor in any emerging Sino-American alliance. I consider such a goal to be a major task of my career, and I have already met plenty of my equivalents on the Chinese side--forty-somethings moving into positions of power and influence. But clearly, there is much work to be done. I return to Beijing in June, and expect to both strengthen old ties and establish new ones during that trip.

Update: the link to this interview in Chinese.

Setting in...

DATELINE: USAIR flights to Tampa FL, 8 May 2006

Heading down to a warfighters conference in Tampa, mostly a CENTCOM affair I believe.

Weekend was a blur.

Following my talk on Thursday at NSA to the 704th Intelligence Brigade (solid 2 hours of me and 30 Q&A), I drove to DC and did another brief to about 100 people at the Hudson Institute (90+30).

Then I caught a cab to Pentagon City where Steve and I had a long chat with an OSD guy with extensive experience working IT infrastructure in the Gap generally and in Afghanistan particularly following the takedown. This F2F, arranged by others in OSD, made for another strong point of positive feedback for our Development-in-a-Box concept. The talk will also trigger follow-on F2Fs with more well-connected USG players on this subject during this current trip.

So the momentum builds nicely there.

Also built some great momentum with Steve and a couple of senior Accenture execs during a conference call from my home Friday morning. We're catching Accenture at just the right market time: they're doing some amazing things in banking worldwide and we have strong powerful stuff we can add to their mix. Potentially, a huge deal for both of us, according to our Accenture counterparts. Steve and I couldn't be more thrilled.

Weekend was non-stop setting up rooms. Basement basically done. First floor now basically done, except staging-area known as the sun room. I finished last big messy piece today before leaving for airport: the dreaded pantry!

Bedrooms now all set, and I must say, it changes my life to be able to store my clothes logically once again in various drawers and shelves and hangers, instead of stuffed all together in one huge Tupperware bin.

Playset done, and landscapng and plantings all done. Irrigation system went in today. Now just seeding the lawn, some final outdoor lights, all that shredded tire stuff around the playset and... my OFFICE!

I tackle the office when I get home from this trip. By Mother's Day I hope to be firing on all cylinders again.

Meanwhile, I take this trip with road buddy Steve and amazingly enough, I have no plans to give any talks. I do, however, plan to renew some strategic friendships, like that with China scholar Banning Garrett, who came to my Hudson talk and hopes to set up an address for me in Beijing in late June when I'll be there on a trip for Royal Dutch Shell.

Ah yes, setting in--indeed.

Worth the flight

Some feedback on Tom's Hudson Institute appearance:

Tom,

Thanks again for speaking at Hudson Thursday. I have been bombarded by thank-you notes such as the one below.

My only regret is that I forgot to ask you to autograph my copy of the book--so I will need to catch you during your next speaking engagement in DC!

Best,

Richard

--

That was a remarkable conference. Barnett is a unique speaker.

It was worth just flying in from Puerto Rico to hear him.

Thank you for the invitation.

C E C

Today's column on KnoxNews

Development-in-a-box would be answer in Iraq

May 7, 2006

Let me tell you something you probably already suspect: Iraq won't be the last time America tries to rapidly resurrect a shattered society following some national trauma. Whether it's regime change, civil war, natural disaster or state failure, our military's overseas crisis responses have grown both more frequent and dramatically longer in the past two decades.

So the real question is, do you want America to get better at doing this? [read more]

Old toys found

We are opening the last boxes this weekend.

The gas “crisis” won’t be solved by politicians

HOT TOPIC: “Soaring Gas Prices Hit Washington,” Washington Post 29 April 2006, p. A7.

ARTICLE: “Gas-Price Uproar Is Likely to Shift U.S. Energy Policy: Anxious Congress Weighs Tougher Fuel Standards, Ethanol and Hybrid Cars; Little Short-Term Impact Seen,” by John J. Fialka, Laura Meckler and Steve LeVine, Wall Street Journal, 29 April 2006, p. A1.

ARTICLE: “A Failure to Communicate? Big Oil Thinks It Has a Message, but It Isn’t Reaching Consumers,” by Kate Phillips and Julie Bosman, New York Times, 3 May 2006, p. C1.

OP-ED: “Let’s (Third) Party: Who will take on the energy crisis?” by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 3 May 2006, p. A27.

ARTICLE: “U.S. Makers Facing Glut of S.U.V.’s As Gas Rises,” by Jeremy W. Peters, New York Times, 3 May 2006, p. C3.

ARTICLE: “Bolivia’s Energy Takeover: Populism Rules in the Andes,” by Simon Romero and Juan Forero, New York Times, 3 May 2006, p. A8.

ARTICLE: “Bolivia Nationalization Puts Investors Off Balance: Brazil Initiate Discussions With Other Governments About Potential Solutions,” by Geraldo Samor and Matt Moffett, Wall Street Journal, 3 May 2006, p. A7.

ARTICLE: “Brazil’s Petrobas Halts Investment Planned in Bolivia,” by Geraldo Samor, Wall Street Journal, 4 May 2006, p. A4.

OP-ED: “How Much Oil Is Really Down There? The SEC’s ‘proved reserves’ won’t tell us,” by Daniel Yergin, Wall Street Journal, 27 April 2006, p. A18.

COLUMN: “Premium pressure: George Bush fails to defend an inalienable right: cheap petrol,” by Lexington, The Economist, 29 April 2006, p. 38.

The gas “crisis” reappears for the summer driving season, right on cue. Washington is naturally “shocked” at the obvious market manipulation and price gouging, and politicians stand in line for photo-ops at local gas stations, venting their righteous indignation and ignoring the fact that America has gone out of its way in the past to allow domestic drilling or the building of new oil refineries, so voila! Now they’re going to fix it with a rebate or some showy hearings where oil execs are lined up with their right hands raised (the ultimate photo-op).

It is all just too pathetically predictable to warrant serious comment. Our crisis is nothing more than the piling up of our consumer choices over the past several decades, our willingness to make investments within our own country (especially in refining), and this weird public sense we have that cheap gas is an American right.

So now the market corrects many of those assumptions with the same level of indifference we've long displayed on the subject. And politicians are going to make this process better somehow? Or are they just likely to confuse the issue, as they so often do?

And yet the calls for “action” will be vociferous. Certainly Washington must take the lead, plying various industry players with all sorts of rigged incentives and sprinkling their districts with “much needed” research grants. All of this will be largely forgotten after the fall elections, when the grandstanding will serve no purpose, and the short-term impacts of all this huffing and puffing will be miniscule.

Big Oil will seek to explain itself, but since they’re big and oily, all will be regarded as evil propaganda.

Yes, yes. It’s all their oil companies’ fault, not our car culture, or our environmental culture, or our NIMBY culture. None of that matters.

So we’ll get grandiose calls for “Manhattan Projects” and--yeah baby!--an entire third party to take on this crisis.

Friedman quotes the quintessential DCer David Rothkopf as saying “We used to say the system is broken because it won’t respond until there is a crisis.” But now it’s even worse “because the system can’t even respond to a crisis!”

Smell the hubris there: Washington’s in charge of reality and economics and globalization. If only our “system” would wake up and start “Running the World” better (the title of Rothkopf’s book), we could fix things. This is the epitome of the DC view of the world: “We’re in charge!”

Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth in these matters, but no matter. The public loves to believe the President and Congress really operate the universe according to their own plans. That way we can blame them when things don’t turn out as planned.

Meanwhile, the market does it natural thing: it responds.

SUVs won’t sell as fast. New models will brag about fuel efficiency for the first time in a very long time. Oil companies will do more exploration in response to price. But no one will push for new production to enough of a degree to really drive down prices. Not this late in the Oil Age. Consumption is moving down the hydrocarbon chain inexorably. You can’t expect energy companies to stand watch on oil while it loses its top-dog position across the 21st century.

Of course, not everyone got that memo, so some governments will give into the notion that nationalizing their energy resources will make them more powerful over time, like Bolivia acting like it’s going to thumb its nose at the world by grabbing gas fields, when all it will really do is push its main customer, Brazil, into seeking sources elsewhere. Oh, and Petrobas will cut back its planned investments there to basically zero. CANYOUBELIEVEIT Sweater Man?

Meanwhile, the real culprits (India, China) behind the price pressure will go largely unnoticed in this ritualistic political frenzy in the U.S. Better that they do, though, since who knows what stupid trade tricks Congress might think up in retaliation.

Doha: not quite alive, not quite dead

ARTICLE: “Mapping Detours in Trade Talks: Doha Stalemate May Force U.S. to Narrow Goals, Seek Bilateral Deals,” by Greg Hitt, Wall Street Journal, 3 May 2006, p. A4.

EDITORIAL: “Five minutes to midnight: Will politicians realise the global trade round is worth saving before it is too late? The Economist, 29 April 2006, p. 13.

OP-ED: “Free Trade Vision,” by Rob Portman and Susan Schwab, Wall Street Journal 1 May 2006, p. A14.

Doha is just about dead, just like the Uruguay Round previously died a thousand deaths only to rise a thousand other times like a phoenix from the ashes--always well behind schedule, of course.

Just as expected in this multilateral doldrums, the U.S. will do its usual trick of focusing in the meantime on bilateral accords, as Doha deadline after deadline passes.

But the Economist is right: New Core powers like India, China and Brazil will lose far more if the world turns to regionalism. All need access to both the Old Core and the Gap if their trajectories are to be maintained. The question is, Will the Old Core let them forge the necessary compromises? Or does Doha self-destruct just because the French are such wimps (afraid to take on farmers, much less the kids down the street)?

Bush needs to call in some old markers with some old friends. Too bad he has neither beyond our borders.

Yet another sign of what Iraq ends up costing us, or--better put--what the 2004 election ends up yielding us (one real year of presidency, three lame years of post-presidency).

The connecting phenomenon: see the glass half-full

ARTICLE: “Indian Firms Increasingly Look Beyond Borders to Add Scale: Cheap Capital, Bolder CEOs Help Fuel Acquisition Spree; Year’s Deals on Record Pace,” by Peter Wonacott and Henny Sender, Wall Street Journal 1 May 2006, p. A6.

ARTICLE: “Gazprom Makes an Energy Deal With BASF,” by Andrew E. Kramer, New York Times, 28 April 2006, p. C4.

COLUMN: “Russia’s Power Play Has High Stakes: The West Is Urged to Counter Moscow’s Bold Energy Plan; ‘Our Core Values’ Are at Risk,” by Frederick Kempe, Wall Street Journal, 2 May 2006, p. A9.

JOURNAL: “Daring to Use the Silver Screen to Reflect Saudi Society,” by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 28 April 2006, p. A4.

ARTICLE: “Intel Invests in Developing Nations: Pledge of $1 Billion Made Over Five Years to Improve Access to Web, Computers,” by Don Clark, Wall Street Journal, 2 May 2006, p. B2.

You take your connectivity where you get it.

India is stunning Europe by showing up and buying companies. CANYOUBELIEVEIT?

Meanwhile, Putin’s Microsoft-like arm-twisting to buy Gazprom’s (and others’) way into downstream energy markets is just beginning to roll. Scary stuff to some, but to me, a good development. Russia doesn’t end up being Saudi Arabia if it owns the gas station down the street from your house.

Hell, I’ll even give it up to Saudi cinema (Quick! Name your favorite Saudi movie of all time? Hell, name any Saudi movie from any time!).

The Saudi film in question sounds like every Bollywood musical I’ve ever seen: daughter from traditional family wants to marry modern man, but family set on traditional suitor, so “family members find themselves torn between modernity and tradition.”

Ah, it hurts so good!

“The plot may seem mundane but in important ways, “Keif al Hal” is a landmark project with big ambitions. It is the first feature film from Saudi Arabia, a country with not a single legal movie theater.”

Well, that explains the novelty factor…

But it also explains why traditional U.S. firms increasingly look to the Gap as the area of long-term serious growth. I mean, how many more theaters can you build in America? Or how many more computers can you sell?

I got a question today at Hudson: “What makes you think aging Boomers are going to pay for postwar reconstruction inside the Gap?”

My reply: “Your addiction to the good life will take care of that, as will your fund managers. Stop thinking quagmire, start thinking virgin markets.”

Yes, yes. Less Clausewitz, more Sun Tzu. And take the connectivity where you can get it.

How markets are reshaping Chinese society

ARTICLE: “In China, More Facilities Go Green: Foreign Firms Look to International Standards Amid Inconsistent Environmental Practices,” by Andrew Batson, Wall Street Journal, 2 May 2006, p. A8.

ARTICLE: “As Families Splurge, Chinese Savings Start to Take a Hit: Long-Awaited Cultural Shift May Not Ease Trade Gap With U.S. in Short Term; Mr. Su Gets a New Townhouse,” by James T. Areddy, Wall Street Journal, 2 May 2006, p. A1.

ARTICLE: “China Raises Interest Rates To Rein In Galloping Growth: With Small but Symbolic Step, Beijing Signals Movement Toward Market Economy; Slowing an Export Juggernaut,” by Andrew Browne and Michael M. Phillips, Wall Street Journal 28 April 2006, p. A1.

OP-ED: “Health Care for 1.3 Billion People? Leave It to the Market,” by Scott W. Atlas, Wall Street Journal, 1 May 2006, p. A15.

ARTICLE: “No direction: Everyone is in love with Chinese cinema. Except the Chinese,” The Economist, 29 April 2006, p. 69.

ARTICLE: “The party, the people and the power of cyber-talk: At present the party has the upper hand. It is starting to sweat, though, The Economist, 29 April 2006, p. 27.

ARTICLE: “Japan Expects China Ties to Get Better Over Time,” by Sebastian Moffett, Wall Street Journal, 1 May 2006, p. A4.

Honestly, can China change any faster than it already is?

We’re told China is going to hell environmentally and won’t change fast enough. Except we see signs of that change--in fact, signs of an amazing embrace that’s far faster than our own was decades ago.

We’re told that China’s middle class will emerge and start having an impact on society someday, and yet they already seem to be here, altering what has long been described as an intractable Asian thing about super-savings. I know, I know, they’ll never be like us--until suddenly they are.

Have no doubt: the Chinese government and party leadership feels like its head is swimming with all the choices they face. There’s healthcare. There’s trying to keep tens of millions under mouse arrest. Which way to jump? Where to turn?

The good news is, of course, that every time China gets in a pinch in its efforts at export-driven growth, the leadership and business community there realizes that there’s no place like home--meaning, domestic consumption becomes their long-term salvation.

China’s got a thriving movie industry, and yet it has about one-tenth the cinemas the U.S. has despite having four times the population. Having trouble cracking Oscar’s code? Simply look homeward for your audience.

Others have done this for years now, and over time all this attention will benefit China’s bilaterals with the rest of the world, but especially with Japan and the U.S., two countries that need to toss most of their top leadership and dig down deeper into younger, more sensible ranks on the subject of China. Hopefully, Japan will lead the way on this, teaching Washington a thing or two about more Sun Tzu, less Clausewitz.

See how we reward our GWOT allies?

ARTICLE: “Pakistan Gets Praise, But No U.S. Trade Deal: Backing for Washington’s War on Terrorism Fails to Stitch Up a Hoped-For Textile Accord,” by Shahid Shah, Wall Street Journal 2 May 2006, p. A6.

ARTICLE: “Taliban Threat Is Said To Grow In Afghan South: More Arms and Fighters; Insurgents Emboldened by Plan for NATO Forces to Replace the U.S.,” by Carlotta Gall, New York Times, 28 April or 3 May, p. A1.

Always great to see America and its closest allies give the shaft to Gap and Seam States who are putting their lives on the line to keep our citizens safe at home.

Pakistan risks all, but can’t even get a crappy textile deal from the U.S. Can we get any more stingy and near-sighted?

Meanwhile, our European friends screw us royally in Afghanistan. After years of working the easier provinces, we finally convince them to relieve us some in the tougher southern ones. NATO’s return favor? Announcing up front they just do windows and don’t kill terrorists.

You can get a long way with a kind word, but even longer with a kind word and a gun. All SysAdmin and no Leviathan makes Osama a happy boy.

Brownback will be a factor in 2008

DATELINE: Hotel near Fort Meade, MD, 3 May 2006

Alas, CSPAN has already passed on the Hudson Institute tomorrow, but my host Richard Weitz reports a lot of press showing up, including multiple foreign press from a number of New Core (TASS from Russia, for example) and Seam States (Mexico, Turkey). Over a hundred RVSPs so far, and a mix Hudson doesn't usually draw, so happiness there.

Flew to DC Reagan this morning early after dropping kids at school and running garbage to curb (ah, the routines of suburban fatherhood!). Rode USAIR, which has to have the least legroom of any planes on the planet. Naturally, I got the very tall man who wanted to sleep in front of me. I ended up reading about a dozen old WSJs and NYTs, collecting a ton of articles for about 6 posts. Never got to writing them, though.

As soon as I land in DC, it's a lunch with an OSD guy working Afghanistan and Iraq, as Steve and I continue working our Development-in-a-Box concept. Then a quick stop to Enterra's new DC offices. Then a dash to our favorite DC hotel where Steve swaps out clothes he still had on from red-eye flight from Vegas (big IT conference; Steve has an amazing capacity to function with little sleep).

Then we cab it to the Hart building and do about 30 minutes with Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas.

It was a clean-slate presentation, where I do the life story very fast and then lapse into almost book-tourish renditions of PNM and BFA. Brownback asks very penetrating questions on the A-to-Z rule set on processing politically-bankrupt states. We also talk China and Iran (Larry Kudlow's arguments on soft-killing Iran triggered this meeting), with Steve making some great points.

Then we get all set to dive into Development-in-a-Box and we're trumped by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, plus a roll call.

So we part promising to link up again (who knows), but we'll definitely follow-up with nice hardcovers of both of my books and some literature on both Enterra and DiB.

All in all, Brownback comes off as very impressive in person. Not afraid to let himself be seen thinking. No pomposity. Very with you when he's with you. By the time we're done touring the world, I'm not finding much we disagree on.

Two things he didn't say impressed me most. He didn't say, "What can I do for you today?" Nor did he say, "What I really need is... In short, he avoided the cut-to-the-chase tone you often get with lawmakers, like they want their piece of cheese before leaving the meeting, or expect you to ask for yours. This guy wanted real dialogue, and he got it.

I came away impressed.

Assisted (national) suicide

Remember the Brother's keeper post? Jacob followed up with this email:

Tom,

Good point. However. do you think the US would explicitly place Israel under its nuclear umbrella? And, if they did, then wouldn't that put us in the same circumstances with unpalatable choices if Iran did attack?

Also, MAD assumes that both sides could completely destroy each other. That wouldn't be the case for Israel. Israel would have to depend on another nation for that extra punch and, as I said in my earlier email, that doesn't always work.

I believe an acknowledged Iranian bomb would FORCE Israel to attack Iran because Israel by itself couldn't maintain deterrence on it's own. An Israeli strike, even if they went it alone, would have serious repercussions for the American and the Israelis alike. Nobody would believe that the Israelis would have done this on their own and the American would be blamed anyway. Hence, with no real stable MAD you have no stabilizations in relations and in fact stability disintegrates.

In regards to a fix,I don't think you truly need a military strike. I believe effective sanctions would probably remedy this situation. I believe that if you could find an economic way to get China and Russia on board (money to the Russians for lost weapon revenues and alternative sources for oil and natural gas for China) Iran would be more pliable in negotiations. Maybe I am naive but I truly believe that tight sanctions would do the trick in this case. The Iranina gov't isn't all that popular with its citizens and maybe their frustration might lead to a change of policy for Iran.

Again your comments are most welcomed.

Jacob

Tom's reply:

Easy to do, just like Europe. No hard choice: Iran harms Israel and we follow through on massive (and completely justified) retaliation. Rule set on that is same in Mideast as in Europe: if you are willing to commit national suicide, we will glumly assist rather than let your first use go unanswered.

Enter page right

From Dave Davison:

Hi Tom: I'm sure you have already noted Chuck Logan's "Homefront" reference to you as "that snappy consultant guy, Barnett," and his almost perfect rendition of the Core and the Gap in the same paragraph, along with reference to Boyd's OODA loop theory on the same page.

Appearing as a walk-on character in somebody else's thriller must make your day.

If you haven't had time to read it, it's really your kind of book.

"Homefront" by Chuck Logan from HarperCollins Publishers

Pretty cool, and if C-Span passes on me again this Thursday (expected, my publisher says), then this will have to be my mass media ego-stroke this week.

Naturally, I recommend this book--for its snappy characters alone.

Why note something like this?

Three words: reproducible strategic concept.

It's the business I'm in.

All maps, all the time

After all, the first book did feature a map prominently. ;-)

First up, Chirol's at it again with his fourth installment of Mapping the Gap, this time relative to the military deployments of our allies.

Secondly... Chirol again, this time linking to Foreign Policy's Failed States Index for 2006. As Chirol says, comparing the FSI to PNM 'there’s almost a perfect match'.

And, third, Tom's esteemed brother Andy sends in:

Worldmapper: The World as You've Never Seen It Before

This site features cartograms, maps showing global regions "re-sized according to the subject of interest." Some of the many map subjects include births, total population, children, elderly, refugees, immigrants, tourism, transportation, and imports and exports. Maps are available in a printable poster format, and are accompanied by explanatory text and data files. A collaboration among the University of Sheffield (England), University of Michigan, and other groups.

URL: http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/worldmapper/

LII Item: http://lii.org/cs/lii/view/item/21269

Enjoy!

Sequencing, then patience ...

Only had five different workmen here yesterday at the house. Today so far one, with four more to come.

More and more of the house is claimed by order. Only two more pieces of furniture to assemble and then I start on the basement. Getting done what I can now, then a quick DC trip. By the end of next week I intend to be completely up and running and back in the blogging business from my office (mostly doing it now off my laptop via wireless connection (we set the whole house up).

Plus, damn it all, I gotta keep up all my Enterra obligations, which lately tend to a lot of conference calls..

Thursday in DC I speak to the Army's largest intell unit at a National Security Agency conference in the morning (not open to public, obviously), but later in day at 3pm I speak at the Hudson Institute in DC fro two hours (the current mega brief). Closing in on one hundred RSVPs from all over dial (industry, gov, mil, foreign govs, foreign press), I am told by host Richard Weitz at Hudson (old Harvard bud and one-time CNAer). Trying to get C-SPAN interested through Richard and--hopefully--Putnam, but my connectivity with the latter seems a bit weak right now (probably the crush of spring releases, but puh-leez!).

Spent yesterday and today working my Sunday Knoxville News Sentinel column. This one is my take on Development-in-a-Box. Losta stuff I didn't get in that I wanted to, but I didn't want to rush the explanation so that it got too cryptic.

Mother-in-law got me housewarming gift (besides the amazing antique oak hall tree): "Axis of Evil III" finger puppets with Rummy, Dick, W and Condi. I plan on unwrapping the oak puppet theater I built for Emily years ago and explaining geopolitics to my kids tonight...

That Nona is getting more Democrat by the minute! Bad sign for the GOP.

On another note, I am awfully happy with the Packer draft. Lotsa talent from north of Mason-Dixon line, meaning guys who played college in cold-weather climes. No Florida guys need apply. Proud of my man Ted Thompson.

Patience, then sequencing

Tom got this email:

Hi Tom,

I was wondering whether it would really be wise to go for the hard kill option on N.- Korea.

I mean, Kim has probably allready amassed a couple of nukes by now. Don't you think he's effectively achieved a deterrence with that?

In your latest knoxnews column you write that "Iran has already achieved a crude, asymmetrical sort of nuclear deterrence vis-A -vis the United States". And they haven't got the bomb yet. But N.-Korea however does have them in all probabillity. So don't you think that N.-Korea has effectively achieved this deterrence also then?

You argue for the hard kill option on North Korea, because it has no future in Asia. I agree with that, but I also think that it is too dangerous to take Kim out the hard way. Even if all the main powers in the region would support the hard kill option on N.-Korea, don't you think Kim is crazy enough to use the bomb? Cause I think he is...

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Erwin van der Rijnst

He replied:

Reasonable. Big difference is Iran is real nation and functioning regime, if bad. Authoritarian regimes can be killed with connectivity, but totalitarian regimes cannot, because population too enslaved.

Going after Iran loses China, but NK done right gets me China, so you balance your goals and you're realistic on sequencing.

Given the collateral fall-out, I don't think there will ever be a time for hard kill on Iran (though you never say never, especially with Israel as an independent variable). With NK, it's hard to see avoiding the hard kill, because even the implosion scenario probably necessitates some version.

I want both regimes gone, but again, sequencing is second only to patience for the successful grand strategist.

Tom