All aboard the SysAdmin

BULK EMAIL from Newt Gingrich

"In addition, I have long argued for the creation of a much larger military. Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are all on record calling for a bigger army. The White House should answer their calls now. We can't wait until 2009."

Newt's website: American Solutions

Yes, Newt has wanted his SysAdmin going back to 1999, with Hart-Rudman.

I've named the concept a lot of things over my career, starting with the Transitioneers back in 1992, to the Department of Network Security in 2000 to SysAdmin in 2001 to the Department of Everything Else in 2004.

I have never been alone in this idea, nor was I anywhere the first to push it (the SysAdmin's heyday started June 7th, 1944, or D-Day +1), so when anyone embraces it, they are welcomed to the growing fold.

It was always a matter of time and pain.

Thanks to HVBoeziIII for sending this.

Dumb v. pathetic

ARTICLE: "Teaching Recent History From Opposite Perspectives: At Georgetown, It's Feith vs. Tenet and Policy vs. Intelligence," By Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, May 7, 2007; Page A17

Georgetown seriously needs to rethink how it attracts talent: Feith versus Tenet? "Dumbest f--king guy on the planet" versus just plain pathetic is more like it.

Feith was a total abuser of power while Tenet was a major league shirker of responsibility (spare me the courage of speaking out in your memoir, buddy, because we weren't paying you for that--were we?-- when you were CIA boss).

Is it just me, or isn't it weird how we all think intell is broken as an institution and yet everytime these guys individually go public with books, they're instantly treated as soothsaying geniuses?

If they're all that great, why don't we have better intell? Why don't we do better against terrorists?

Oh yes, I forget: system did it to them, politicians did it to them, and all their successes are never publicized.

Or we just swallow this BS whole.

Thank you sir, but I don't want another!

The Obama attraction

ARTICLE: "How Big a Stretch? For Barack Obama, Winning the White House Would Mean Bridging The Biggest Gap Of All," By Lynne Duke, Washington Post, May 7, 2007; Page C01

Seriously, for me, the attraction to Obama is: 1) generational, and 2) a sense of competency and vision.

As for the underlying question of "Is white America evolved enough to elect a black man president?" I find that sentence alone weirdly racial. Obama's half black and half white, so continuing to view him as "limited" somehow politically by his blackness seems so last century (the queer "one drop" rule).

If you want to go that route and make such arguments, then try this one on for size: Obama's the first black who's seriously qualified for the job. No one who ran before could be viewed so, either because the appeal was limited (Jordan was never believable, like electing your stern, lecturing aunt), the platform too narrow (Chisolm simply had no national standing, a la Kucinich she was a fanciful symbol), the candidate too weird (Jackson was and remains a Perot-like egomaniac without enough reliability) or the character too questionable (Brown was always the accidental candidate who lucked out).

Obama's serious because he covers all the bases, like any credible candidate does: great platform, great message, great appeal, great delivery, seems competent--the whole nine yards. His problem is that Hillary hits on all cylinders too, which makes the generational appeal perhaps the differential.

But I stick to some doubts on him, in that I still see him as JFK '56 and not quite yet JFK '60, so I think he'll run as Veep, like Kennedy almost did in 1956.

Serious upgrade in Paris

ARTICLE: Sarkozy Wins, Vows to Restore Pride in France, By John Ward Anderson and Molly Moore, Washington Post, May 7, 2007; Page A01

I think this is a great thing, especially as the son of an East European immigrant. France desperately needs to rejoin reality (by 2020, more than half of France will be over 55 years old) and the world desperately needs France to rejoin it (France obstructs progress in so many Core-Gap integration issues).

You've got Merkel in Germany, Sarkozy now in France, Brown soon in the UK and anybody soon in the US and I think the West's leadership is seriously upgraded (with Blair to Brown hopefully not being too much of a step down).

France has become recently what Poland always was for me as a kid growing up: the butt of all jokes. After 12 years of Chirac, his main accomplishment seemed to be making France the much derided laughingstock of the world.

Hopefully that goes away very quickly with a serious adult now in charge.

Tom around the web

+ Far East Cynic linked The State of the World.
+ So did Fraters Libertas.
+ So did Naval Open Source Intelligence.

+ Wide Ruin linked Tom's Pop!Tech talk.
+ So did Seeker Blog.

+ ZenPundit linked The son's criticism hurts.
+ And linked The State of the World: Author's Commentary Track.

+ Sheng-Wei Wang quoted BFA.
+ TM Lutas linked Good pipelines make good neighbors--eventually.
+ I Am Net-Centric linked Still optimistic on China.
+ You won't believe this! Redstate thinks Tom's wrong on Obama! ;-)
+ The Nimble Books Blog linked, what else? Book numbers.
+ Shloky linked Duh! Where we engage the enemy, they seem to attack more! In their preferred way!
+ Erkan's field diary linked The curious case of Turkey's Islamist middle class.
+ World and Global Politics Blog linked The far-too-successful nation-building that is Kurdistan.
+ Big Lizards referred to the Core and PNM.
+ Defense News referred to System Perturbations and PNM, but, sadly, it's subscriber only (I saw it on ERMB).

Another good move for the Navy

ARTICLE: "Pacific security called key for Asia: Pacific Fleet leader Adm. Gary Roughead will head Fleet Forces Command in Virginia," By Gregg K. Kakesako, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, May 6, 2007

Glad to see Roughead move from head of Pacific Fleet to Fleet Forces Command. He was great out in Pac, a truly visionary leader who saw the big picture and acted on it. Having him as boss force provider for the entire Navy will be great, pushing naval forces into the SysAdmin directions it needs to go. Yes, stay the preeminent blue-water navy on the planet, but also reconnect to a globalized world where transparency on the high seas is everything.

There's trying to find needles in haystacks and then there's having the capacity to watch the haystack get built.

Roughead's office at PACFLT is very cool. His secretary uses Nimitz's old desk from WWII and his artifacts are everywhere.

When I was there with Kevin a year ago, the Admiral gave him a command coin, which Kev still treasures (he's got one from Gen. Doug Brown too, longtime head of SOCOM , who I think steps down soon).

Again, a good move for Navy.

Those horny Americans, God love 'em!

ARTICLE: "America the Fertile," by Nicholas Eberstadt, Washington Post, 6 May 2007, p. B7.

Great piece on what keeps America so exceptional. This theme was a big one in Stuart Varney's opening keynote at a Richmond Events CIO conference where I speak today as the other keynoter. Varney bragged about being both an immigrant and father of six. I may someday lay claim to six kids, and at least half will be immigrants. So I guess it works either way. Other than that, I'd just like Stuart's bank account (when he took over "Moneyline," CNN made him sell all his stocks--just before the tech crash).

Big point of this piece: the US moves dramatically away from rest of Old Core, or West, first and foremost in demographics (which, as Varney pointed out. keeps us young and accepting of change). We just keep adding people (immigration) and having babies (not just immigrants, but our core stock of "Anglos" or "whites" are much higher in fertility than Europe or Japan).

By 2025, Eberstadt points out, Europe will be shrinking and we'll still be adding almost 3m a year. We'll have the highest growth rate then among developed countries and sport one of the lowest median ages. We'll also be the only sizable developed country where the kids still outnumber seniors.

The kicker:

Such trends might reinforce U.S. international prominence--even though the divergence in demographic profiles between the United States and the other developed countries may also portend an era of diminishing affinities between the United States and its historical Western allies.

Bingo!

Another guy connects the dots on that one.

So with whom does America align itself in this frontier age of globalization?

You know the answer.

The far-too-successful nation-building that is Kurdistan

ARTICLE: "A Separate Peace: Kurds are cultivating their own bonds with the United States," by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Washington Post National Weekly Edition, 30 April-6 May 2007, p. 7

Enterra just sent over its first personnel to Kurdistan on its first Development-in-a-Box contract with the US Government. All one can ask for is an incentivized target and the Kurds are definitely that.

Kurdistan markets itself like pork: the "other white meat."

The 30-second television commercial features stirring scenes of a young Iraqi boy high-fiving a U.S. soldier, a Westerner dining alfresco, and men and women dancing together. "Have you seen the other Iraq?" the narrator asks. "It's spectacular. It's joyful."

"Welcome to Iraqi Kurdistan," the narrator continues. "It's not a dream. It's the other Iraq.".

Slick as s--t, no?

You gotta love this sort of democracy in action:

With Sunni and Shiite Arabs locked in a bloody sectarian war, Iraq's Kurds are promoting their interests through an influence-buying campaign in the United States that includes airing nationwide television advertisements, hiring powerful Washington lobbyists and playing parts of the U.S. government against one another.

Their model for a strategic and institutional relationship with the U.S.: Israel and Taiwan.

Now that's brilliant.

Think about it: protection despite lacking certain international recognition.

The Kurds believe they should be recognized as a certifiable success story in a war that has lasted more than four years. They're largely secular, no U.S. military personnel have been killed in Kurdistan since the March 2003 invasion, and business is booming in Irbil and other Kurdish cities because Kurdish militias, known as peshmerga, have managed to keep out Sunni Arab insurgents.

Yugoslavia didn't fall into place in a day. It did so in sequential chunks. Recognizing Kurdistan-the-success is crucial to keeping the Big Bang sequential instead of cumulative.

Take what the board gives you, I say.

And pull most U.S. troops eventually back to Kurdistan. Don't leave Iraq, but stay where you're welcome and accept a certain commute for certain necessary activities.

Grow some lawn and stop only killing weeds. Then let others see where the grass is greener.

Demonstration effects make globalization go round.

You knew this was coming

ARTICLE: "Phones studied as attack detector: U.S. Says cells could warn of toxic agents," by Mimi Hall, USA Today, 4-6 May 2007, p. 1A.

Not pie in the sky whatsoever. Already being done to track and manage traffic.

Fears of privacy?

What if you could get warnings from your cells on all these dangers?

Or peer-to-peer warnings from others?

Worth it to you then?

Rudy channeling Tom

ARTICLE: Giuliani backs Army buildup nearing 600K, By JIM DAVENPORT, Associated Press, May 5, 2007

Good sign from Rudy. Especially like the war-peace quote:

"We need to not only win the war, we have to win the peace as well."

Where's the weblog reader?

Matt (MountainRunner) sent this to me earlier this week. Then Mark (ZenPundit) put his up, so I figured it was time to keep up with the Joneses ;-)

The service is statisfy: real-time display of who's reading your weblog around the world.

Here's Tom's page if you want to check it out.

Binghamton, NY, thanks for reading.

Manassas, VA, I see that hand.

One more, then I'm done: Cambridge, MA. Tom's old PhD stomping grounds.

Enjoy.

Tom's column this week

"Star Wars" America should really be buying

With North Korea and Iran achieving nuclear status, Americans naturally fear the rising potential for nuclear terrorism. As many presidential candidates point out, our ports remain unacceptably unsafe. But America needs more than just a firewall on its border. It needs defense in depth when it comes to detecting nuclear materials.

That I should make this argument more than five years after 9/11 is emblematic of our great failure of imagination since that tragic day, which turned far too much of our efforts and attention inward instead of outward. This is too narrow a perspective in a globalized world, where every nation is only as secure as every other nation to which it is connected by networks and trade.

During the Cold War, when America's primary nuclear threat was symmetrical, we were forced to--in Ronald Reagan's famous phrase--"trust but verify." But in a post-9/11 world, where transnational terrorists effectively elude threatened retaliation, emphasis logically shifts from the "trust" of arms control to the "verify" of active detection, preferably as distant from our shores--and population centers--as possible.

The good news is the technology exists today to accomplish much of this task, according to Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where last week senior scientists briefed me on the subject. America just lacks a coordinated research effort to bring it all together and address the remaining technical challenges. As one senior federal official who works nuclear counter-proliferation told us, "This is the number one security problem in Washington today."

At the end of the day, America needs both overt and covert capabilities to detect nuclear materials moved by sea: not just scanners at the port gate, but the capacity to monitor vessels surreptitiously. We need the public capability to signal our intent and interest, but also the secret version so interdictions can be made at the time and place of our choosing.

Ideally, defense-in-depth starts at overseas ports, both dockside and delivered from below by unmanned underwater vehicles. If we're just interdicting the material itself, better to do it at the port of embarkation. But say we're trying to figure out where the ship is headed, or maybe the device is too dangerous to approach in port.

If we're talking littoral waters, where such vessels skulk to avoid attention, then unmanned underwater vehicles are the way to go. They can be especially useful when targets stick to territorial waters to claim legal protection from outside inspection.

Once ships hit the open ocean, though, we face some of the toughest, almost James Bond-like challenges in getting close enough to detect without being noticed.

Seawater makes an excellent insulator, so if we want to detect thermal neutrons, we've basically got to achieve hull-to-hull contact with the suspected vessel. On the high seas, that means an approach speed somewhere in the range of 18 to 24 knots. That's very hard with an unmanned underwater vehicle.

If that's the case, then our forces might move on to special torpedoes able to keep up with the target or--better yet--deliver scanner-toting robots. These hull-crawling droids might be our only option to scan the entirety of a 400-foot ship, a process that can take up to eight hours depending on the nature of the shielding surrounding the material or bombs.

I know what you're thinking: now we've leapt past Bond right into George Lucas' fervent imagination.

Consider this: the Pentagon continues to spend tens of billions of dollars on strategic missile defense systems that still--after all these years--show no signs of working. Recently, the Bush administration started pushing missile defense onto countries like Poland and the Czech Republic, angering Russia in the process. Meanwhile, our government refuses to discuss a space arms treaty with China, which recently made its displeasure known with an anti-satellite weapon test.

Since we share these countries' fears of nuclear terrorism, why does our government continue to antagonize them in these counterproductive ways? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to pursue the sort of "Star Wars" technology I'm describing here?

For a fraction of what it would cost to continue funding missile defense or fill space with dangerous strategic weaponry, America could readily field a vast fleet of underwater R2D2s to better manage this very real and near-term threat.

Next time you see your representative or senator, ask them what they're waiting for.

On inclusion in the marketplace, follow the money

ARTICLE: "Overture to an untapped market: Advertisers Rewrite the Rules for Reaching Muslims," by Louise Story, New YorkTimes, 28 April 2007, p. B1.

It ain't about diversity or respect for religious differences. It's about the money.

Crass to some, beautiful to me.

The best form of color-blind.

Good news for Hillary, bad from Rudy

ARTICLE: "Handicapping With Optimism," by Benedict Carey, New York Times, 1 May 2007, p. A21.

The more optimistic candidate wins 80 percent of the time since 1900.

A measuring system from academics says Hillary is most optimistic (the Bill influence), then Obama. McCain, Romney, Edwards and Giuliani.

But frankly she's the only one who skews heavy to optimism.

Not sure on how they measure (based on words uttered versus delivery), because I think Rudy and Barack deliver optimistically, as does Romney, even if words don't indicate as much.

Still, I'm a big believer on this--naturally.

Duh! Where we engage the enemy, they seem to attack more! In their preferred way!

ARTICLE: "Terrorist Attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan Rose Sharply Last Year, State Department Says: Where American troops are deployed, terrorism has risen," by Scott Shane, New York Times, 1 May 2007, p. A10.

"Japanese kamikazes appear to attack more where U.S. warships are concentrated: Intelligence experts describe 'failure' of U.S. Strategy"

Terrorism is up globally last year, except Iraq and Afghanistan account for the vast bulk of the increase.

So we're losing right? Or are we just engaging?

So international terrorism rules the world, except fewer die globally than from guns in the U.S. (30k to a mere 20k from terror). Don't even get me started on global crime gun deaths.

See what I mean about not rising above the noise?

Arquilla has a weird quote for such a smart guy. He says "these statistics suggest that our war on global terrorism is not going very well."

Hmmmm.

30k gun deaths in U.S. population of 300m versus global deaths from terror at 20k in a population of 6.5 billion!

Yes, we must be losing.

Terrorism is totally out of control and terrorists clearly run the world. That's why the global economy is expanding at an unprecedented rate.

The future of politics is all about who gets access to technology

ARTICLE: "Saying No To Penelope: Father Seeks Experimental Cancer Drug, But a Biotech Firm Says Risk Is Too High," by Greta Anand, Wall Street Journal, 1 May 2007, p. A1.

When you have sufficient plenty, the politics become all about access to technology. When you don't, it's still all about technology (with nukes being the least useful, compared to stuff like drug patents and IT connectivity).

So no matter what the socio-economic level, it's first and foremost about technology. That's what drives the connectivity, and the connectivity is what drives the new and competing and destabilizing identity wars.

People want the modern but also the old. They want to advance but retain that which they see as sacred.

The story of the sick child is just a very pure expression of when push comes to shove, there's no limit on disposable income.

The curious case of Turkey's Islamist middle class

ARTICLE: "Presidential Pick in Turkey Is Sign Of a Rising Middle Class," by Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times, 25 April 2007, p. A1.

ARTICLE: "Turkish Islamists Hope to Ride Competence to Victory: To the secular elite, politicking can seem like demeaning work," by Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times, 4 May 2007, p. A3.

MEMO: "In Turkey, Fear and Discomfort About Religious Life: 'Even if Erdogan walked on water, the secularists wouldn't trust him," by Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times, 30 April 2007, p. A4.

We are watching Europe's future in Turkey: Islamists from the middle class who present themselves as competent administrators of a modern state that nonetheless--in their mind--needs more religion--you know, the Republicans.

And you know, there really isn't anything wrong with that, so long as your religion ends where it bumps into my political freedoms.

I know, I know. Easier said than done.

The real fear here, of course, of state-imposed religious strictures--again, not that different from America, is it? They just focus on what women wear, while we focus on pregnancies. So yeah, we're further down the road, but it's the same road.

To succeed without triggering the military coup (Turkey's rather crude Supreme Court), Islamists need to show they can rule without prejudice, that at the end of the day the law stands supreme and that law is secular.

But make no mistake, we will see the yin-yang pull played out in Europe in the future, with both sides evincing far less maturity than we're seeing here, so scarier before it gets calmer.

Exactly right. Watch it die

ARTICLE: New Delhi Wants To Buy Lockheed C-130Js From U.S., By VIVEK RAGHUVANSHI, DefenseNews.com,05/03/07

The perfect SysAdmin military sale: C-130s, as I learned on a very remote and short strip in Kenya in March, are great at landing where other planes cannot.

This is exactly the sort of stuff we want to sell India. But watch it get screwed up in Congress for all sorts of stupid reasons--meaning nukes.

Thanks to Pete Johnson for sending this.

The interregnum

I just can't pick up a newspaper, and I just feel no impetus to blog.

It's like the screen popped up and demanded a "restart."

Part of it was getting through the Esquire piece, which I now realize was easier than I thought, primarily because Warren is Warren. It's amazing to see him take about 15,000 words (when all is said and done) and turn it into a little over 6k. He's pulling from fore and aft and everything just falls into place, like some Rubik's Cube he can put together blind-folded. You sit next to him, watching, and you can't believe he can do it. It seemed so complex to you just a few minutes ago, and he's rationalized the whole thing in a few days (often working late into the night, which I can't manage, as I am a morning writer and an evening reader).

Part of it is roughly 100 flights so far this year, and more hotel rooms than I can remember, which are really starting to creep me out (there is something so amazingly random about sleeping in strange places all the time, and my trips are so classically three nights at three different hotels).

Part of it is the inevitably ramping up of requirements from the kids as they grow up.

Part of it is simply realizing you stay connected to your spouse or you lose her inevitably.

Part of it is that I'm naturally an introvert who needs a lot of downtime.

But I'm sensing the biggest part is that build-up before the storm of creativity. I really feel the need to write this book welling up.

Then I think: Good God man! You've cranked three 6k-plus articles this year (one sitting with Esquire for consideration), plus a column every week, plus the blog. And you did all that travel.

You're just tired.

Last Saturday I tried to play Joe Homeowner really fast by spraying all the weeds. Jumping under the deck, I did my best crab walk, hyperextending my right knee, so I've had the opportunity to limp all this week, feeling very middle-aged.

That wears on you some, but it also focuses the mind: What do you want to do?

I want to write that book.

I don't want to try and parent kids at roughly 15 minutes a week.

I don't want to lose track of my marriage.

I'd someday like to be the U.S. ambassador to China.

I want to die somewhere other than Earth.

I want to maintain deep friendships with people I care about, like Steve and Mark and others.

I want religious faith like I had when I was 12 years old, and served maybe 300 times a year.

I want to understand the passage of time better.

I want to effect a worldwide revolution in thinking about war and peace.

I want my own luxury box at Lambeau.

I want to do a show on Broadway.

I want to play hundreds of rounds of golf with my sons, later with my adopted daughters.

I want to want what I've got instead of getting what I want (my favorite Sheryl Crow line).

I want to read books about Teddy Roosevelt.

I want to hold more babies.

I want to resume playing the piano like it's the most important thing in my life, which it will never be, but I wanna play like it is.

I think that's it.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Reboot complete.

You want it bad...

Andy wrote in with this question:

I found this article about the ethics of our Army and USMC in the combat zones very worrisome.

Since Iraq is effectively not under any sense of control, do you think that a pistol-packin' Peace Corps would be doing any better? Or would we have the same mess, just different players? Or did Bush & Co. bring this on by failing to plan for the nation-building?

And what does this bode for future actions (such as Somalia/Darfur, Iran, etc)?

Thanks and keep up the good work

Tom's reply:

Ethics are a function of danger: less danger, expect higher ethics, and more danger, expect less ethics (more or less being very relative concepts, in this regard--as in, those who've been there can tell you about it and those who haven't, can't really describe it fairly). Those who find that basic relationship hard to wrap their mind around I would guess have never spent any time in a combat zone.

I mean, there's like and there's love. There's peace and there's war. There's basketball and there's football. In some venues, what's considered "fair" is considered pretty bad in others. You want better ethics, you make the better venue happen.

We have not done that in Iraq, and we've done that huge misdeed to both ourselves and the Iraqi people.

Danger is clearly related to nature of presence: more overwhelming the presence, far less the danger. Compare the Balkans to Iraq.

So I don't find these numbers particularly troubling or conclusive regarding any future nation-building effort. They simply reflect the difficult tactical, operational and strategic conditions under which this administration has forced our military to engage postwar Iraq.

You want it bad, you get it bad.