Thursday, May 31, 2007 at 1:54PM ARTICLE: Bush sees long-term role for troops, By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2007
Reality of this float: the DMZ runs between Kurdistan and the rest of Iraq.
Drawback means the 2K solution results: the vast bulk of our troops outta harm's way in Kuwait and Kurdistan.
Thursday, May 31, 2007 at 1:51PM ARTICLE: 'Can The Iraq 'Surge' Be Salvaged?,' By Greg Jaffe and Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2007, Pg. 6
Good summary with no agenda nor sugar-coating.
Thursday, May 31, 2007 at 1:47PM ARTICLE: Hospital ship preps for a novel mission, By Robert Little, Baltimore Sun, May 31, 2007
Getting something like this to happen is both very hard and truly historic. I've heard admiral after admiral describe how they've had to beg, borrow or steal to make these sorts of ship efforts happen very quietly in the past.
Now, the function goes mainstream.
Very nice.
Thursday, May 31, 2007 at 1:44PM ARTICLE: Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges, By Mitt Romney, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007
Another prez candidate asking for his Department of Everything Else.
Romney is totally solutions-based. I don't think he can win the nom, but you'd have to consider him as a totally do-something Veep.
Anyway, doesn't sound like I need to brief him, despite the efforts of several go-betweens.
Thanks to Nathan Brown for sending this.
Thursday, May 31, 2007 at 1:39PM Flew to BWI yesterday for meeting with major defense contractor on future collaboration possibilities with Enterra. Steve and I do our Penn & Teller routine over 2 hours in a conference room and then over 2 hours of lunch. Longtime reader set this up.
Lotsa fun to do, and great to spend time with Steve (we've both been traveling non-stop for weeks in separate orbits). Follow-up seems certain.
Frankly, we get pulled into these situations by the promise of strategic consulting, but once we tell our company story, in addition to our combined world view, that stuff typically gets rapidly superseded by talk of alliance. Better for them, more powerful for us.
With all the new business flooding in, we cannot have enough allies.
Last night I stay at Fort Meade in the Distinguished Visitors Quarters. Nice enough, but I still get antsy always sleeping in strange beds so much. After a while it creeps you out.
Great dinner with BGEN Randy Fullhart and his spouse at his residence. Dinner guests include Randall Larsen, the homeland security expert who has a book coming out in early September. Getting a galley to review. Very interesting guy and a fun fellow to compare notes with regarding career and work (he's been on Oprah).
This morn, Randy the general, who heads the Central Security Services (meaning he controls the roughly half of NSA's 30k-plus workforce that is military), picks me up and we head into NSA proper (Motto--from memory--in the entryway: "We don't give up: we never have, we never will"), first checking the AV set-up in the Friedman theater (so named for famous early female cryptographer). Then to his office to talk over stuff.
The decor of NSA? Early 80's metropolitan hospital. If you like beige, this is your heaven.
Then an office call with the NSA director, LGEN Alexander for about 30. Very fruitful tour d'horizon.
Then a very nice meal in a galley with senior officials (maybe 10). I am questioned throughout, so eat almost nothing. Too bad, because it smelled great.
Then back to the theater to brief somewhere north of 200 NSAers.
I was a bit sloppy in my delivery (the allergies kill me right now), but I was probably the only one who sensed that.
Went probably 90 and then 20 on questions. Got a nice command coin from Randy afterwards and signed a bunch of both books brought up by audience members.
Also had fun thrill of having my old running partner of many years while at CNA, a computer engineer named Eric, come up and chat me up as I rushed out to my ride. Hadn't seen Eric in about a decade. We had run thousands of miles together.
Right out of NSA back to BWI and plane home.
Overall, lotsa key connectivity achieved. Looking to go right back for more, as Enterra's pioneering work both here in the States and abroad draws a lot of interest there.
Great trip overall Just another example of all the cool and interesting places I get to travel. Really an honor to get that sort of access and audience.
Thursday, May 31, 2007 at 12:36PM OP-ED: The lessons of Vietnam, By Henry A. Kissinger, Los Angeles Times, May 31, 2007
Nice and sensible description of the task at hand in Iraq.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 4:44PM The more I grow in stature, the more time I spend getting called a complete dumbass by strangers.
I say, if you want to grow up to become a celebrated grand strategist, get used to people telling you how stupid you are all the time.
Of course, it would get dull only being told how smart you are all the time, but still! I had no idea how dumb I was until I got famous for being smart.
Clearly, I encourage this through my accessibility, but I find it quite amusing.
I mean, for a guy who gets accused of having a big ego, I leave myself awfully open to a constant stream of derision from strangers commenting from the sidelines. It reminds me of those Peyton Manning commercials where he's a "fan" cheering people on at their day jobs. I mean, how many people openly encourage such criticism from non-professionals in their field?
Think about your own career. How cool would it be to get dozens of emails each day critiquing your performance at work by people who've never done what you do? Would you dig that? Or would it get kind of tiresome after a while?
I'm not complaining, just observing. I understand the reality of the tasks I set for myself. I get the unusual circumstances.
I just find the charge of "ego" (in most instances, a confusion with a persona people imagine they see on stage) rather odd, given my circumstances and my accessibility.
Just like I find the "ivory tower" descriptions so amusing, given my non-stop travel and interaction with operators in numerous fields in a rather in-depth advising role.
Blowing off steam, I guess. Enterra's just gone from a yea-big company to a many-multiples-yea-bigger-company, thanks to our landing a slew of new business in the past few days.
We are now executing like mad instead of being primarily in sales mode and the shift is exciting but jarring.
Be careful what you work for, I guess.
I suppose it's just the reality of seeing my senior managing director role skyrocket that has me bitching about the public persona.
Only so many hours in the day ...
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 12:10PM ARTICLE: Chinese media attack Pentagon report, By Mure Dickie, FT.com, May 27 2007
The report wasn't that bad, just stunningly limited in its war-within-the-context-of-war mindset, which is par for the course. Having the Pentagon be our primary interpreter of China's rising power is pathetically limited, like interpreting a football game by only watching the field judge recite his calls But such is our 19-th century view of "power."
The funny and sad thing about our ongoing interpretation of China's rise is how we portray them as somehow conquering globalization while remaining immune to its effects (just like Japan was supposed to years ago), and building up its military power to somehow add significant muscle to that emergent domination when it's so patently clear that China's pol-mil capacity regarding its already immense economic connectivity with the world is markedly limited (Chinese workers will get targeted and killed regularly inside the Gap in coming years, just like in eastern Ethiopia recently, and China will basically have no military capacity whatsoever to do anything in response--unless you think the "charm offensive" is gonna cover it).
But since both China and our own myopic Pentagon analysts want to act like Taiwan is the center of the strategic universe, we both remain slavishly devoted to this OBE scenario.
Actually, I was happy to see the report notice China's very mild attempts to build up its power projection (a capacity we we should welcome and co-opt as rapidly as possible) and its growing cyberwarfare capacity (naturally, there too China can somehow threaten and not be threatened itself because networks and the Internet are funny like that: only America is vulnerable).
In sum, this annual report just strikes me as less useful each year, capturing less and less of an immensely complex reality.
But we like our reductionism in the defense community. It makes us feel like we've got the world figured out when we haven't got a clue.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 12:06PM ARTICLE: 'The Iranian Spectacle: An Istanbul Dispatch,' By Afshin Molavi, New America Foundation, Journal of International Affairs, Spring/Summer 2007
Good article, showing that it's a bit simple to say that high energy prices reward dictators and insulate them from the need to reform.
Bad economics is bad economics.
The question is, How to enable good economics? By focusing so much on the nuke issue or by engaging Iran more broadly?
We did that with nuke-heavy, terrorist-bankrolling USSR and what did that get us?
Eventually, no more USSR.
Thanks to Lexington Green for sending this.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 12:03PM Get email from journalist asking whether I've ever said the following:
Hitler never had to ask permission before invading any country, and the United States will never have to either.
Sounds like something I'd say, doesn't it?
EXCEPT I WROTE AN ENTIRE CHAPTER IN MY SECOND BOOK DESCRIBING A GLOBAL RULE SET THAT DETERMINES WHEN AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS AMERICA INTERVENES MILITARILY IN OTHER COUNTRIES!
But other than that tiny technicality (a mere canonical idea for me that I've briefed the world over for years, so embedded in my world vision that Robb includes it in his book) ... yeah, I'd buy that quote as coming from me.
I mean, I remember when Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, put up a bigger wall!"
May be somewhat untrue, but I'm paraphrasing a ... bit.
This is an essential reality of my success in spreading the vision: the malicious misquote is an asymmetrical counter-attack you regularly encounter.
Don't want to face it? Don't engage as a visionary, because if you do, you will be subject to this sort of thing.
There is no turning back, just more transparency.
For the record (and I paraphrase), I said the following:
If America is an "empire," then we're a pretty strange one. I don't remember Hitler or Stalin ever asking anyone's permission before invading another country. But we go around to every little member of the UN asking for permission repeatedly before we go anywhere. That's not an empire.
Slight, esoteric difference, I know, but I like to put my own words in my own mouth.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 7:15AM ARTICLE: Iran Aid To Taliban Hints At Policy Shift, By Jonathan S. Landay, Miami Herald, May 30, 2007
No more surprise here than in Iraq. We set this in motion by spurning Iran's offers way back when (see NSC's Flynt Leverett).
Now we reap the whirlwind.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 7:13AM ARTICLE: "A Quiet Revolution in Algeria: Gains by Women," by Michael Slackman, New York Times, 26 May 2007, p. A1.
The feminization of the legal profession in Algeria shouldn't surprise. It's been going on here for a long time.
What I love about this story is the crucial role of education. Globalization seems to sour local men on it: they either go right into jobs or head abroad.
Women, with less freedom of movement, gravitate toward college as liberation, and then backfill a host of rule-setting and enforcement careers (highlighted here, lawyers and judges). Slowly and quietly, society is fundamentally altered.
One way or another, globalization empowers women disproportionately to men simply by empowering women--no matter how small.
Good stuff.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 7:12AM ARTICLE: "White House Said to Debate '08 Cut in Troops by 50%," by David E. Sanger and David S. Cloud, New York Times, 26 May 2007, p. A1.
Like Zinni, I don't think we leave Iraq for another 5-7 years, but we will draw back, as I said in "State of the World."
The only way we can stay in Iraq is to reduce casualties. So numbers nearby (Kurdistan, Kuwait), SysAdmin in the background (train Iraq's military and police) and Leviathan doing it's thing in the shadows (SOF).
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 7:10AM OP-ED: "Beyond Saber Rattling," by Jim Hoagland, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 28 May-3 June 2007, p. 5.
The money quote:
Arab allies are urging such a course on Bush [deposing Maliki] and would not object to U.S. military action against Iran. There is growing concern in Baghdad that Washington is developing a "Plan B" that involves both hitting Iran and ousting Maliki ...
Another:
"Why should we fight somebody else's war in Iran?" asked Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Maliki's national security adviser .... "We say no to Saudi Arabia fighting Iran in Iraq."
State of the World, my friends.
Haogland's advice is what I wrote in Esquire more than two years ago:
Fully engaging with Iran on both Iraq and nuclear weapons, and bringing the Gulf Arabs and European allies into that dialogue. That would be the work of a confident giant.
Exactly.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 7:08AM ARTICLE: "'Pirates' Haul So Far Estimated at $401 Million," by Sharon Waxman, New York Times, 29 May 2007, p. B1.
$156m at home, but $245m abroad, as the movie's released worldwide in 104 countries in 10,000 theaters.
International cast, and not "landlocked to North America," "so this was the absolute perfect movie to open on a global basis." says Disney.
Also a good way to combat pirating.
Hollywood's globalization proceeds apace.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 7:06AM NEWS ANALYSIS: "In China, Blackstone Stirs Up Uncertainty," by Keith Bradsher and Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 29 May 2007, p. C1.
Many reasons for China to invest in Blackstone, but the most obvious to me is they want serious advocates on its behalf located within the U.S. financial industry.
Chu Shulong, the deputy director of the Institute of International Strategy and Development at Tsinghua University in Beijing, said that Chinese companies and the Chinese government had only begun to figure out how money influences policy in Washington. He doubted that the Blackstone deal would be used effectively for political purposes.
Japanese, South Korean and Taiwanese companies are all much more adept at influencing debates in Washington, he said, adding, "The Chinese voice is still very weak."
True, but you have to crawl before you can walk.
Blackstone will be a learning experience. What it will yield is a smarter China for the next go-around.
And that's all it's really required to do.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 7:03AM ARTICLE: "Special Operations in Iraq: High Profile, but in Shadow," by Thom Shanker, New York Times, 29 May 2007, p. A9.
What fascinates me so on CJTF-HOA is that, when left to their own devices, the military naturally splits into a Leviathan (Special Ops) and the SysAdmin (Combined Joint Task force-Horn of Africa's non-pointy "spear").
The two don't interact, really. It's the SWAT that works the threat as it must and the community cops who must work the environment, such as it is.
The former kills bad guys and stays in the shadows, the latter is out among the people, building security and trust.
Yes, they work at cross-purposes at times, but that is the nature of their yin-yang relationship.
Iraq evolves in that direction, as will our activities throughout the Gap, not because it's cool or visionary or theoretically sound, but because that's simply the new sets of tasks yielding the new mix.
It's not a huge numbers game per se, and doesn't need to be on the military side. Most SysAdmin functions will be driven by civilians and private-sector money, not uniforms and official developmental aid.
The key is simple the discretion: making clear that when A happens, that's when we come and kill you (pre-emption made exquisitely discrete, just like it is in America through our police). Outside of that, we're here to help build your capacity, leaving you in control.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 7:01AM ARTICLE: "China Urges Western Nations to Enter Extradition Treaties," by David Lague, New York Times, 29 May 2007, p. A3.
China finds suspects flee to Western nations with no extradition treaties with China, so China wants such treaties now.
But those countries have no such treaties because they don't respect China's legal system.
So cleaning up China's legal system enough to attract such treaties is becoming essential to fight official corruption (the classic case is the government official who steals and then flees). "Senior Chinese officials routinely warn that rampant corruption is one of the biggest threats to Communist Party rule."
Great, say I.
We just make our standards known and then sit back and wait on China to meet them.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 6:58AM ARTICLE: "U.S. and Iranian Officials Meet in Baghdad, but Talks Yield No Breakthroughs," by Kirk Semple, New York Times, 29 May 2007, p. A8.
Why should they?
We hold talks to see what Iran can do to save our asses in Iraq but refuse to use that venue to discuss any quid pro quo Tehran might desire.
These talks aren't designed to work. They're designed to check a box.
That's my weekend column.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 6:52AM ARTICLE: "After Computer Siege in Estonia, War Fears Turn to Cyberspace: Attack Struck Country's Digital Infrastructure," by Mark Lander and John Markoff, New York Times, 29 May 2007, p. A1.
Scary and a deep harbinger of things to come?
Sure.
A step backwards security-wise?
Anything but.
Yes, it will cost you money and take on many characteristics, in economic impact, of a blockade, but so long as it remains totally non-kinetic, it's hard to argue this represents some new form of "warfare," but rather its mild virtualization.
Designed to harm, yes. Designed to scare, yes.
But also designed to leave no visible impact. Also designed to be instantly reversible. Also designed not to kill anyone. Also far more easily terminated by negotiations than real war.
I mean, if this is our scary turn to the future, I say it's quite an improvement on what I see whenever the guns come out.
One expert put it well: "Whenever there is political tension, there is a cyber aftermath."
Okay, but why call it war?
Because we like calling everything war. Keeps you scared. Keeps experts in the money.
But here's the key difference: attack me for real and there's real damage. Attack me virtually and I'm forced into better security and resilience.
The former is a complete drain. The latter is a systems improvement.
Sticks and stones versus code? I will take the code.
