Clarification from military Mideast watcher on Iran's Expediency Council

Got this email from a nice major who often sends me stuff:

†† One minor point of clarification, the Council for Determining the Expediency of the Islamic Order (CDE) headed by Rafsanjani is not a new body. It was created in 1988 by Ayat Allah Khomeni to arbitrate disputes between the hardline Guardians Council and the popularly elected Majles (Parliament). The CDE also advises the Supreme Leader (Khameni) on political, scientific, and economic matters through a "think tank" called the Center for Strategic Research (also headed by Rafsanjani). The former President Khatami was recently given membership in the CSR.
†
Khameni has expanded the CDE's powers and given it oversight over all three branches of government (under his guidance of course). The Cabinet and Majles are upset by this and a rift among the hardliners is developing.

Excellent information, for which I am most grateful.

So the "newness" of the Expediency Council since the last election is that it now mediates and oversees not just the mullahs-parliament relationship, but now also the parliament-cabinet and cabinet-mullahs relationships, bringing the cabinet under its wing. Clearly, the mullahs feared the outcome of the election would be a shift too far in the direction of the hardliners under the new president, and so moved the reformist (and losing presidential candidate Rafsanjani) into the post of head of this council. If you analogize the mullahs to the Supreme Court, the Parliament to our Congress, and the Cabinet to the Executive Branch, then the Expediency Council becomes the Supreme Leader's way of making sure the fights between the three branches don't get out of control, meaning no one gets too far out of line.

Fascinating huh? Ahmadinejad the hardliner gets elected. You'd think the mullahs would rejoice, but the Supreme Leader puts him on a leash, and then hands that leash to the reformist (Rafsanjani) whom Ahmadinejad just defeated in the election.

Imagine how pissed off that makes him get. Then imagine how he feels when Rafsanjani starts talking about being more realistic and less inflammatory about their nuclear program, suggesting the government should be more willing to negotiate.

Then Ahmadinejad takes the opportunity of the annual Death-to-Israel day to declare (big surprise) that he wants death to Israel. It's a calculated trick, of course, that brings plenty of condemnation from abroad and soothing words from Rafsanjani.

As my major noted, there are clearly internal rifts developing in Iran. My point is, why aren't we engaging them on this in order to exploit them?

Instead, Condi says no direct talks, leaving Ahmadinejad to play the world like a guitar with calculated outbursts like this, knowing as he does how this inflames Israel's supporters in the U.S., considered a powerful lobby in DC.

This is the oldest trick in the book: work up a vocal interest group in the U.S. and on that basis win a standoff with the Americans instead of any serious negotiations which, obviously, Ahmadinejad hopes to avoid.

Can't be a hardliner if you negotiate, so to remain a hardliner, duck negotiations by employing inflammatory words that do unto your enemy what you fear he will do unto you: divide you from within and conquer on that basis.

Can I get a "duh" from the State Department?

All right, the bow-tie crowd probably knows this reality better than most and I'm sure they're frustrated at having their hands tied so by the White House. I know for a fact than many in the military are certainly frustrated by this. Hell, even Bush has complained publicly about the lack of leverage. So why do we stick with this Castro-like approach that plays into the hands of the hardliners?

Lack of imagination, pure and simple.

Lack of imagination is the hallmark of realism. Realists know what they know, and they're happy with that.

As my Dad liked to joke, "You read that in a book somewhere?"

Realists read security and history and military books like crazy. What they don't read enough is the Wall Street Journal.

The return of the face painter

Dateline: Indy, 31 October 2005

Today I resurrect my face-painting skills at my kids' school in honor of Halloween. The apartment grows crowded with so many superheroes prowling around.

We'll walk our new neighborhood tonight, introducing ourselves to future neighbors.

Alas, we have decided, during construction, on tricking up the house so much that we're unlikely to enter it until mid-spring. When you choose carpet, it all gets done in roughly a day, but when you choose quarter-cut oak planking of various widths alternating, to be finished in-construction, then you're looking at roughly two weeks of work.

It's choices like that, plus a myriad of others, that end up lengthening the construction that otherwise proceeds quite smartly. But what the hell, I don't plan on building again, so if we're going to stay in Indianapolis for the long haul, we might as well build the house we really want the way we want it.

Here's the daily catch:

■ The counter-reality on Japan and China

■ Send in the drones!

■ The home team is weak right as the away game gets huge

■ The virtuous circle on security: the slippery-slope to resiliency

The counter-reality on Japan and China

Good story on the counter-reality not well covered yet in the press. Japan's political and military elite might now have a clue about how interdependent their economy already is with that of China, but Japan's business elite is under no such illusion.

Here it is:

October 31, 2005

Economic Ties Binding Japan to Rival China

By HOWARD W. FRENCH and NORIMITSU ONISHI

New York Times

SHANGHAI, Oct. 26 - At a call center in Dalian, in northeast China, young workers speaking flawless Japanese answer customer service calls for a Japanese insurance company. In western Japan, a new commercial Chinatown is rising in Kobe City's rebuilt port area.

Rather than the gaudy restaurants of the old Chinatown, the new one contains nondescript office buildings leased to Chinese companies focusing on everything from biotechnology to that most traditional form of Japanese attire, the kimono.

At a time of rising political tensions, heightened by a growing nationalism, China and Japan are more intertwined economically than they have ever been. In their breadth and intensity, the ties have begun to surpass those between the United States and Japan, whose economic relationship has often been called the most important in the world . . .

French and Onishi both write very well on China. I use a lot of articles from each in Bluprint for Action.

Send in the drones!

Waiting for this article to appear for about half a decade.

Why to expect?

The military invents the Internet, and years later it revolutionizes the private sector with its capacities.

Then the military invents GPS and years later it revolutionizes the private sector with its capacities.

It was only a matter of time with UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles). What slowed this down a lot was 9/11 and the reality that planes were used.

Now, we get enough time and distance and just watch this next revolution take off. Huge demand in the public military sector will drive this, but over time the spillover effect in the private sector realm will dwarf it, just like with the Internet and GPS.

Here's the Washington Post piece:

Small Firms Turn to Drones
Demand Grows for Unmanned Craft

By Dina ElBoghdady

Washington Post Staff Writer

Monday, October 31, 2005; Page D01

This genie is just about out of the bottle. In ten years we'll all see UAVs all over America. It will be a great example of the ubiquitous utility of military technologies that serve the SysAdmin force.

The home team is weak right as the away game gets huge

■"Bush Troubles at Home May Impair Power Abroad: Hurdles Rise on Trade Pacts, Nuclear Threats, Bringing Shift to Seeking Out Allies," by Gerald F. Seib and Neil King, Jr., Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A1.

■"Many Hindrances Beset Iraq's Road to Recovery: (1) Coalition's Moves to Quell Insurgency Hurt Efforts To Win Hearts and Minds, and (2) U.S. Auditor Says Violence, Incompetence, Corruption Stymie Rebuilding Effort," by (1) Philip Shishkin and (2) Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A14.

■"India on the Frontline," op-ed by Brahma Chellaney, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A17.

■"Bombings in India Could Complicate Pakistan Relations," by Peter Wonacott, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A14.

■"'Wiped Off the Map,'" editorial, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A16.

■"Regime Change: A case for strategic engagement with Iran," op-ed by Abbas Milani, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A16.

The Bushies are finding everyone turning on them in international for a. New Orleans was the start of the Bush post-presidency. Libby's indictment and Miers' withdrawal just formalized it.

Experts like to talk about the famed late Reagan second term reorganization under Howard Baker as the model for getting out of this hole, but the missing link here is Nancy Reagan, Ronnie's key ally in moments where his heart ruled his head on friends in high places. There is little sign to date that Laura has that steely, nasty quality when it's needed most, and that's too bad, because a weak America over the next three years will mean we'll have a lot of compromises forced upon us under duress, instead of with our leadership. In short, the system will run itself under this scenario, and that will get us a lot of temporizing instead of needed action.

Iraq, for example, still burns far too much under the incompetence of our rebuilding effort. There is no Falluja we cannot destroy, but there's also no Falluja that we can rebuild adequately enough to win any hearts and minds by trying to drive out the insurgency. We have the worst of both worlds: the Leviathan works its destruction but the SysAdmin force is missing in action, in large part because its coalition makeup simply doesn't reach the critical mass to convince our enemies that the world wants peace in Iraq instead of the U.S. just wanting enough security to be able to pull out. If I was the insurgency, I'd jack up the pressure right now too. Bush is weak, America has few friends, and insists on rerunning the whole WMD thing with Iran when all that will do is secure the leadership of the hardliners for the long haul.

Things simply won't wait.

India can't wait. India's relationship with Pakistan can't wait.

India can't be aggressive in rooting out terrorism in the region unless it has some larger cover provided by a strong America. Otherwise, Pakistan will freak in the process and the fragile peace in that region can easily be shattered. And when that happens, which way does China go?

We don't need brave talk about wiping Iran's regime off the map right now. The question isn't, can you imagine that regime with nukes? The question is, what kind of Iranian regime would make that quest meaningless? And how do we get there?

We can't muster the votes in the IAEA to refer Iran to the UN Security Council right now. Compare that to 14 resolutions on Iraq and ask yourself, "Expect America to put together any serious coalition on Iran any time soon?" Especially one that we can be certain Brazil, India, China and Russia oppose? Because if you can't imagine that, then regime change is off the table except by co-optation. We'll have to kill the regime with connectivity. Democracy is not an option with Iran, because the mullahs won't allow that any time soon, but connectivity is just what the Expediency Council ordered (the new body created by the mullahs to override any stupidity coming out of the obviously incompetent cabinet put in place by the "wiped off the map" pinhead that is Ahmadinejad. My God! When you key enemy's leadership basically countermands the outcome of an election in which the hardliners win and installs the losing reformist candidate who's spoken openly of dealmaking with America in a new superpowerful body that sits above that hardline government, is that the time to run around like chickens with your heads cut off simply because the president mouths some tough talk?

But where is our foreign policy leadership right now? Rice has basically punted the issue. She says America won't talk to Iran one on one right now, instead leaving it to the Europeans. Such is the status of our global leadership right now.

Here's my dream scenario: Card steps down as chief of staff in the White House, citing exhaustion. Bush says to Condi, "I need you here" and Bob Zoellick takes over at State. Then Rummy steps down and Gordon England, steady hand that he is, moves quietly to continue the Old Man's brilliant reforms of the Pentagon from within. In that much more level bureaucratic playing field, Snow's take on China at Treasury starts to prevail and Zoellick is free to work some serious magic in international fora on our behalf (Zoellick is a trusted agent who could get us plenty where we need it most: help from key New Core pillars like India, China, Russia, Brazil, South Africa et. al).

A dream, yes, but a good one.

The virtuous circle on security: the slippery slope to resiliency

■"How Tools of War on Terror Ensnare Wanted Citizens: Border, Immigration Agencies Tap Into FBI Database; Questions About Privacy," by Barry Newman, Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. A1.

■"Globalizing the Boardroom: Companies World-Wide Add Foreign Directors, but Boards In U.S. Are Slow to Follow," by Joann S. Lublin,

Wall Street Journal, 31 October 2005, p. B1.

Wow! Connecting the dots really works. Being able to actually link databases means that criminals can't hide simply by switching states.

Invasion of privacy? Give me a break!

But privacy advocates fear "mission creep" whereby those searching for terrorists and illegal aliens are pulled into catching ordinary Americans with outstanding warrants.

My, my, that would be a shame, one that gives lie to the stupidity of the home game-away game distinction.

All these fears say is that the SysAdmin function needs its Department of Global/Network Security or its Department of Everything Else. It needs a responsible party for all these connecting-the-dots exercises in security enhancement. Americans will want a face connected to this emerging networking power.

Why? Building the SysAdmin function will naturally trigger domestic fears of rising federal power over their lives, just as it will trigger fears overseas of American ambition to rule the world. So we need to make clear in our intentions that this SysAdmin function will be one of networking with others and in that process building real security for ourselves.

Yes, many wondrously positive externalities will emerge from this: all sorts of beneficial side-effects in which we catch bad guys unexpectedly and thus improve not just our security but that of the global system as a whole. And you know what? Most of our best allies in this process won't be whining too much about the "loss of privacy" for their citizens, because countries like China, India, Brazil and Russia are all looking for more internal security due to rising concerns of criminal behavior, terrorism, capitalism run amok and porous borders.

Remember the basic mantra of global resiliency: no nation's network security is achieved in isolation. Any network is only as secure as every other network to which it connects. So the more we work those inter-nodal connections and the rule sets that must arise to manage them, the more we'll increase our security across the dial in a world in which the dominant security threats stem from individuals and their small networks than from nation-states.

But to embrace that future we need to let go of the past. We need to admit that the most likely pathways of America's economic and political and security destruction lie within, not over there. Our inability to master the challenges of resiliency in an increasingly connected world is what will haunt us most, strategically, in coming years. And the biggest bias we must overcome in that quest is our tendency to define our biggest strategic challenges as arising from fellow nation-states instead of from bad actors and their networks.

In short, we gotta get out of the business of isolation, whether it's our idiotic attempts to firewall ourselves from the outside world or trying to "contain" rising China or isolate bad rogues like Iran and North Korea. Connectivity and the benefits of resiliency that such connectivity offers will always be the answer. With an authoritarian regime like China or Iran, we "kill" that authoritarianism slowly over time with connectivity. With a totalitarian regime like Kim Jong Il's, we go for the takedown, pushing for strategic connectivity with China and others in Asia on the far side.

Business shows the way. Look at how corporations the world over-except in America-are globalizing their boards like crazy. That's creating interpersonal resiliency at the highest reaches of the multinational corporate world. That's building the SysAdmin function, board seat by board seat.

What boards are we building right now in the global security arena? None, quite frankly. Far too often, we're putting up new walls and, by doing so, decreasing the system's resiliency on security when we need it most.

Signposts - Sunday, October 30, 2005

Signposts is a weekly digest of major op-ed and feature analyses from the blog of Thomas P.M. Barnett -- www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog -- and is distributed via email in html format.

Mixing peanut butter with my chocolate (State and Defense swap SysAdmin funds)

Thanks to a reader for bringing this one to my attention:

Defense Dept. Seeks More Aid Capability

By Bradley Graham

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, October 29, 2005; A18

In the autumn of 2001, when U.S. officials were feverishly trying to enlist other nations in the newly declared war on terrorism, President Bush promised the republic of Georgia critical assistance in training and equipping Georgian troops.

Nearly eight months passed, however, before the administration could sort out U.S. legal provisions and begin the project.

Now that episode is frequently cited by Pentagon officials still trying to dispatch military assistance to other countries more quickly and more extensively. Having repeatedly stressed the need to build "partnership capacity" in Africa and other underdeveloped regions as a bulwark against international terrorism, defense officials complain of a lack of legislation and a dearth of resources to carry out the mission.

To address the problem, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is pressing Congress to grant the Pentagon new authority -- and contingency funds totaling $750 million -- to bolster counterterrorism, border security and law enforcement forces in other nations.

But the proposal has run into resistance from lawmakers worried about vesting such military assistance powers in the Pentagon rather than in the State Department, where they have traditionally resided. The argument for keeping such authority with State, advocates say, is that it ensures the military programs remain in step with U.S. foreign policy.

Among key senators still wary of Rumsfeld's initiative is Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. "He has expressed strong concerns that are widely shared in Congress about foreign assistance programs being run by somewhere other than the State Department," an aide to Lugar said.

Significantly, the State Department, which had been cool to the Pentagon proposal, recently threw its support behind it. The shift, according to State Department officials, came after Condoleezza Rice replaced Colin L. Powell as secretary of state and agreed during the summer to co-sign a previously unpublicized letter with Rumsfeld urging congressional approval.

Aides to Rice said she overruled lower-ranking staff members who cautioned against expanding the Pentagon's powers and said that existing laws provide sufficient leeway.

"There are some in the bureaucracy who think you could get the same effect without new legislation," a senior State Department official said. "But we will certainly line up behind the secretary and carry out whatever it is she wants us to."

In a larger context, Rice's change in direction for the department on this issue is cited by some current and former administration insiders as representative of a smoothing of the stormy relations between the State Department and the Pentagon during Bush's first term.

A number of outside observers have attributed this reduced tension to the departure this year of such controversial senior Pentagon officials as former deputy defense secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and former defense policy chief Douglas J. Feith. But Feith and others credit the change in climate to Powell and his deputy, Richard L. Armitage, stepping down . . ..

Rest of story details the other half of swap: State would get $200 million for Carlos Pasquel's State office on postconflict stabilization.

To me, watching these baby steps on budget swaps: they signal the natural desire of both sides to renegotiate their poor bilateral relationship on this issue of postconflict stabilization and reconstruction ops. This is right and good. It shows that the SysAdmin function is essentially shared by both and owned by neither.

We will see many such swaps and new offices and new bilateral ties in the future, giving me more hope that the SysAdmin function will be grown not just in Defense (which it must naturally arise given the bodies and bucks) but in State more and more (USAID is a natural player in this).

None of this will be easy, and we must expect more failures to drive even more reform and change over time, but we will improve the SysAdmin role because we have no choice.

On the problems between State and Defense: I do believe Powell's reign was a disaster for State, so Rice can only do better. But there is no secret that Wolfowitz and Feith were also disasters for Defense. Reforms there, most will tell you, happened DESPITE their time in power. And if either had come close to doing their job well, Iraq wouldn't be the mess it is today.

And yet that mess drives these reforms and new relationships, so some good always comes with even the worse bads.

The tragedy of having Cold War types run our defense strategy way beyond its expiration date

New U.S.-Japan Plan to Realign Military Defenses

By Ann Scott Tyson

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, October 30, 2005; A18

The United States and Japan agreed yesterday to move forward with the biggest overhaul of the Pacific alliance in decades, aimed at bolstering military cooperation against new threats while consolidating U.S. forces on the island and withdrawing about 7,000 Marines from Okinawa.

The Marine ground and air forces, including the headquarters of the Third Marine Expeditionary Force, will be transferred to Guam to build up forces there. The move, expected to be complete in six years, will reduce the number of Marines on the island of Okinawa from 18,000 to about 11,000, defense officials said. Japan agreed to work with the United States to finance and thereby accelerate the move to Guam, in part to alleviate long-standing Japanese frictions with American forces on Okinawa.

The plan's goal, outlined in a 14-page bilateral report released yesterday, is for Japan -- with U.S. backing -- to beef up its defenses against threats ranging from ballistic missiles to attacks by guerrilla forces, or an invasion of its remote islands. Meanwhile, the militaries will realign their forces in Japan so they can work together more closely to counter regional and global threats such as terrorism.

"This relationship must and is in fact evolving to remain strong and relevant," said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld at a news conference after meetings with his Japanese counterpart Yoshinori Ono, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura. The plan is part of the Pentagon's review of the posture of U.S. forces around the globe.

"We are in fact opening a new era" in the alliance, Ono told reporters.

A subtext of the cooperation, hinted at in the report, is to counter China's military buildup, which the Pentagon views as a growing threat not only to Taiwan but also to other Asian countries, such as Japan and India. Close defense cooperation "is essential to dissuade destabilizing military buildups, to deter aggression and to respond to diverse security challenges," the report said, in an apparent reference to Beijing's rapid military modernization. It called the U.S.-Japan alliance the "anchor" of regional security . . .

The Bush Administration's insistence on treating China's rise as a military threat will come back to haunt us big-time economically in the future. China will seek to isolate us economically in the region commensurately with our attempts to do the same with them militarily.

The Cold Warriors still want their China for all that she justifies in their bloated legacy weapons and platform programs. China is arguably a trillion-dollar gold miine in strategic justifications for acquisition programs that otherwise might suffer in a stringent reevaluation (yet to be done) WRT the Global War on Terror.

Involving Japan in this strategic mistake only reveals how infantile that country's security strategy and thinking remains: the antiquated (U.S. Cold Warriors) informing the immature (Japan).

The biggest danger in the world right now is the hangover of Cold War-imprinted political and military leadership in the U.S., China and Japan, and the frightening lack of imagination and strategic throught they bring to the key strategic issue of our age: locking in an alliance with China at today's prices. These players are stuck hopelessly in the past, and need to be watched vigorously until they're replaced by the next generation.

A deadly-weakened Bush Administration over the next three years may give rise to the China hawks running amok both on the Hill and in the Pentagon. Business needs to stand up and make itself heard. These dangerous types, if they have their way, will place us on a pathway to war with China within a decade.

Yes, such conflict would be a disaster, sending both China and the U.S. to second-tier status in the world. Meanwhile, our ground forces will be underfunded, understaffed, underprioritized, and overwhelmed in the GWOT.

For a good example of this, see the NYT story on how we're magically replicating the same problems on lack of armor with Iraqi forces:

October 30, 2005

Lack of Armor Proves Deadly for Iraqi Army

By MICHAEL MOSS

New York Times

After a string of deadly attacks against Iraqi forces in the spring, American soldiers in the Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad established an operation at their Army base to add armor to the unprotected open-bed trucks used by the Iraqis. But it is a meager enterprise: four Iraqi ironworkers armed with two welding torches and thin sheets of metal.

Even as American forces are relying more on Iraqis to fight the insurgency, the Iraqi Army is facing some of the same procurement problems that American troops have experienced in getting adequate armor and other equipment, according to interviews in Iraq with American and Iraqi military officials. But if the Americans have faced an uphill battle in getting vital gear - their shortfalls continue to this day - then their Iraqi counterparts are confronting a herculean task. . .

So yeah, these Cold War types not only threaten us with magnificent death in the future, they will waste a lot of American lives in the short run too.

Most pathetic in all of this is these guys' contention that they actually are thinking beyond the Cold War, but the truth is that all they do is resurrect the great power-war thinking of the Cold War and recast China in the new role as the Soviet Union. That's the big limitation with this crowd: they need a big enemy, otherwise they SIMPLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO MANAGE THE WORLD'S SECURITY SYSTEM.

It is time for this crowd to leave, not just here but throughout the Core.

The threat of peace between Pakistan and India

Watch this story unfold:

Three Blasts in New Delhi Kill at Least 55
Pakistan Strongly Condemns Attacks

By Muneeza Naqvi

Special to The Washington Post

Sunday, October 30, 2005; Page A17

India and Pakistan have moved toward serious peace since the close call on war in late 2001 and early 2002. The Pakistan temblor and India's warm response on help only accelerated that sense of hope and progress, so naturally, the enemies of that connectivity must strike to prevent its full flowering.

The key now is, how do Pakistan and India deal with this?

There is little doubt that India and others, including the U.S., get pulled much more dramatically over time into Pakistan in an attempt to deal with all the transnational terror potential located within.

Yet another exmaple that our most incentivized allies over the long haul will be New Core pillars like India, China, Russia, Brazil and others--the countries really on front lines surrounding the Gap.

Why do Americans swallow dictators' propaganda so willingly?

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 29 October 2005

Had planned quiet weekend with kids, but a number of emails get under my skin, all running along the lines of "ARE YOU STILL HOT TO GIVE IRAN THE BOMB!"

This is, of course, all based on the current President's (Ahmadinejad) rather inflammatory statements at a pre-programmed, annual, "anti-Zionism" rally that's been held each year in Iran since the revolution.

As such, the timing of the hard-liner president's comments are taken by some, including hard-liners in our White House who display absolutely no imagination in dealing with Iran these 5 years, as proof positive that Iran with the bomb will torch Israel immediately, despite Israel having the bomb now for . . . I dunno . . . maybe a generation or longer and making no secret of weaponizing that capacity a very long time ago.

I've already made my explanation in a previous pair of blogs (one to note the amazing development of the Expediency Council, with loser-presidential candidate Rafsanjani as head, and another to deal with the current president's comments in light of that amazing apparent diminution of his governmental powers at the hands of the man he defeated in the election) about why I am less than impressed with these statements.

Yes, they were over-the-top, and yes, these comments will elicit all the usual condemnations, etc., from the UN, Israel, the U.S. and likeminded countries the world over.

But these statements, as calculated as they were (as well as perfunctory, given the venue, basically Iran's annual "death to Israel" holiday), ARE FULL OF SOUND AND FURY BUT BASICALLY SIGNIFY NOTHING!

Nothing, except that Ahmadinejad is definitely feeling scared about his standing vis-a-vis the mullahs (i.e., the creation of the Expediency Council to mediate and make final decisions on all disputes between the government and the mullahocracy). Rafsanjani was clearly brought in to make sure that Iran doesn't go too far in this WMD standoff with the West and especially the U.S.

How do I know this? Check out all his statement regarding the nuclear program and the ill-advised nature of Ahmadinejad's comments.

What we are watching here, just like we see it so many times recently in China on similar matters (e.g., Gen. So-and-Sing says, "We will nuke America!"), is an internal political struggle breaking out into the openness of foreign affairs.

This is a good sign, one that says our ability to manipulate the internal situation in Iran is far greater than we realize. But like the Miami Cubans have so often killed any such opportunity for effective manipulation of Castro's stale regime, so too do many Jews in this country suffocate any chance for clear-headed manipulation of what are obvious internal struggles within the Iranian regime by hyping the harshest statements they can find and proclaiming, "See! I TOLD YOU SO!"

And then there the hardline, anti-Chinese types in the Pentagon and on the Hill who tie our hands similarly with China when these things happen (as always, they reflect internal politics most of all, like the "stunning" passage of the anti-secession law there last spring).

My point in pointing all this out, is that Americans tend to think with their hearts instead of their heads on so many hot-button national security/foreign policy issues that interest groups in our system do far more harm than good WRT to our foreign policy and security strategy. People who seek to think both long-term and strategically are thus constantly under attack by the Chicken Littles of all varieties who forever see their particular section of the sky falling.

Grand strategy is not something you change every time some dictator spouts off some new nonsense, whether it's good or bad. Grand strategy isn't about the next two weeks, or even the next year, but about thinking far ahead about what you want in this world, and then manipulating others (instead of being manipulated so unceasingly by them) to get what you want.

I have never talked about "giving Iran the bomb."

Iran is getting the bomb on this current trajectory, and we are playing into the hard-liners' hands in Iran right now.

And THEY'RE PLAYING US LIKE CHILDREN WHEN WE RESPOND TO EVERY SINGLE TAUNT THEY DECIDE TO THROW OUT.

People need to grow up. American needs to grow up. We need to be able to think strategically, without being so casually manipulated and turned against our real strategic interests every time some loud-mouth cares to do so.

If you want a stable Middle East, then Iran will be part of that. Iran can get the bomb if it so chooses, and eventually, inevitably, it will have it.

The only question that remains, as I have said time and time again, is: What are we going to get in return?

Because if we get nothing in return, then we're fools, and easily manipulated fools at that.

Thanks Doc: Yahoo News Search (got blogs?)

Doc writes: Why do Yahoo's blog search results pile up in a column on the right where they look like advertising?

Hmmmm. . .. what happens if I try "blueprint for action"?

All the stuff I'm SOOO missing out on!

I appreciate people's concern that there is some great venue that I'm not getting access to (and there are so many), or some great person I ABSOLUTELY need to meet, or some show I MUST get on, or some speech I HAVE to deliver (typically free) and--in general--there are things I SHOULD be doing and because I'm not, then I must not be very serious in my work/vision/life/etc.

Everybody means well by these emails. Some are written quite nicely, others seek to shame me into doing whatever the writer is asking/demanding/suggesting.

Everyone is convinced their particular advice is what's standing between me and greatness/success/"real world" validation, and the implied assumption is always that whatever I'm doing now just ain't enough (real enough, cool enough, profound enough, impactful enough).

I understand that PNM turns people on, and that's great. I understand that BFA pushes my stuff much further beyond the military, and that's great too.

I understand that all that turning-on and pushing creates expectations and desires to do real things, and that's spectacular.

In reality, though, I can't be part of everybody's thing, no matter how great it all is. Also, in reality, the work I end up prioritizing within the USG and the military IS really IMPORTANT and useful and good and--quite frankly--it's what I love to do most and it's what I do best.

In that venue alone, I have a lot of interactions constantly going that are easy for me to pick up because the government itself simply arranges for most of it, meaning I just gotta show up and do my thing in consulting.

The reality for me right now is, between the military/gov/intell/foreign govs interactions like this, the speeching, the blogging, the writing for Esquire, plotting Vol. III and that little thing called being Senior Managing Director for Enterra Solutions (and through that a small host of new titles looming at or through Oak Ridge National Lab), I am somewhat tapped as the husband of one, father of four, and house-builder whose trying like crazy to work as many PR opportunities as possible to support BFA (like going on the radio in MN in about 30 minutes).

I will, of course, quite naturally be a "loser" and "fake" and "ego-maniac" and a host of things to anyone who's proposal I just can't pick up and run with, and I will have to live with that. But I will prioritize my family as much as possible. I will not end up being the great man who saves the planet and whose kids hate him because he never gave a rat's ass about their existence (and there are so many such "great men"). As my wife often says, "Don't treat strangers better than your family."

Yes, I will continue to try to do all and be all and read all and write all and speech all and meet all.

I'm not trying to discourage anyone's email, because quite regularly they end up changing my life, my work, my content, my damn near everything, like Michael Lotus convincing me to read Martin Wolf or others pushing Hammes' book in my direction or people counseling me to lay off Friedman or a guy named DeAngelis wanting an advance copy and a year later I'm his Senior Managing Director.

I don't want to stop any of that. I just want people to be more reasonable in their expectations. Most emails for me, given the incredible volume which I still seek to wade through, have to be a several seconds thing and no more. Otherwise, that becomes my life and I'm not into that.

Yes, I now have help in personal assistant (in addition to being webmaster) Critt Jarvis, and he will end up speaking and interacting for me more and more. I can't escape that outcome. It's just as it has to be.

Enough whining from me today. Need to shower and get ready for Tracy.

For all of you who've emailed over the "Daily Show," know this: Putnam did pitch and they passed. Putnam will pitch again, but that show is booking already into early Jan, so the likelihood of them backtracking to an Oct pub date is miniscule. Yes, it would be cool to go on the show, but that is a ratings driven world and celebrity authors rule. I could pursue the celebrity thing full time, but I have only so many years to do what I want to do, and making the vision thing happen for real inside the military simply strikes me as most important. And yeah, that world doesn't like celebrities or having most of their stories told. I will do what I can via Esquire and elsewhere to make that world transparent to the larger world, but I respect the need for secrecy, understand their desire to keep a low profile, and realize that most of what I do in that venue will never hit the light of day.

And that's okay. I will sell enough books. I will change enough minds. The celebrity I have now is more than enough for me. I will pursue that angle only to the degree that it makes sense given all the competing concerns and desires.

I chose this path a long time ago, knowing it would not be the best route for either riches or fame. But this route continues to mean the most to me. Nothing even comes close to being on stage working a military audience--nothing. And even that doesn't compare to the rooms I get to enter, the conversations I get to have, or the players I get to work with. All THEIR achievements and responsibilities and sacrifices demand respect, and my time, and my best efforts at pushing the vision.

And they will have all those things for as long as I work.

DC Area: Wednesday November 2, 2005

2:30 p.m. APL Colloquium -- Warfighting in the 21st Century will be given by Thomas Barnett, Ph.D., author and strategic planner. This free event will take place in the Applied Physics Laboratory in the Parsons Auditorium and is sponsored by APL Colloquium at JHU. For more information call Laura Mercer at (443) 778-5625.

On the Iranian president's recent rant concerning Israel ...

I get a few snarky, what-have-you-got-to-say-for-yourself-now emails on that one.

Fair enough, but please, can Americans stop being so g.d. literal in everything! We have this amazing tendency to buy everyone's propaganda when, in reality, we trust almost nothing our own leaders say. We did this with the Sovs and Mao, and now we do it with rogue leaders throughout the Gap: If they say it, it must be real!

Ask yourself why the newly-elected President of Iran feels the need to spout off so, saying he'd just as soon wipe Israel off the map.

Does anyone remember a blog post by me recently where I noted a new body being set up by the mullahs to mediate and make final decisions on any disagreements between themselves and the government? Remember who was put at the head of this almost, supreme court-like body?

Well, it was the guy that the current President beat in the election: Rafsanjani.

How would you like it if the guy you beat in a national election was just placed in such a decisive position over you? Especially if the first words out of his mouth upon elevation were to cut out the harsh talk on nukes?

I dunno. Maybe you'd shoot your mouth off big-time regarding the hard right's favorite regional whipping boy.

Boy, that is shocking! Never could have seen that one coming! Right outta right field!

If people want to get jacked up by things like this, then they need to pay more attention to the news. Not just the flaming words, but the complex, often internal dynamics that lead up to them.

So yeah, I did tell you so.

On the Philly Inquirer "single" article

I thought it was an okay article. She had an axe to grind and she did it.

The piece was entitled, "The single stigma: In American politics, the unmarried are somehow suspect. And it's worse for women," by Amy S. Rosenberg. It ran 25 October.

It began:

Face it. America is uncomfortable with an aging single woman, especially a never-married one. Just ask Harriet Miers.

An aging single man has a few more outs, a few more culturally accepted notions of bachelorhood. But he too can run into a wall of public disapproval.

Just ask Jon Corzine, who saw a double-digit lead in polls in the New Jersey governor's race pretty much evaporate, some pollsters say, at least temporarily, after Doug Forrester put his slightly annoyed-looking wife on TV to say he'd never let his family down.

Despite census data that show single adults outnumber couples with children as the most common type of household in the United States, there seems to be little tolerance for the unmarried in public life, especially the female variety. There's nothing sexy about spinsterhood, at least in the public's imagination.

Then I'm quoted, or should I say my blog is quoted:

Thomas P.M. Barnett, a national security consultant, Esquire magazine contributing editor, and blogger, wrote recently that Americans simply will not put an unmarried person in high office. Referring in particular to the idea of Condoleezza Rice - another in Bush's band of unmarried female devotees - for president, he wrote that Americans do not trust someone "that single minded. . . that uncompromising. . . that self-defined."

"Voters want to see that personal connection to spouse and kids. They trust that," Barnett writes. "It says powerful things about who the person is and how they can be expected to think about the larger world and act within it. It's not just image, but the soul of the person that's reflected in family. Rice is as alone as alone can be, and Americans don't get that, don't like that, don't trust that."

But aren't most high-powered men single-minded, uncompromising and self-defined, regardless of marital status?

Rosenberg's question at the end of my quote seemed kinda weak to me. The whole point of my post was that no matter how driven you might be in your career, the fact that you compromise enough in your private life to actually include others in it to the extent of marriage and children is a sign that many voters want to see in terms of well-roundedness. Marriage and family are huge efforts, even when done badly, and when done well, that sort of balance tells you much about a person--and voters want that sort of knowledge about people before voting for them. Not for every job, but you can count on it for things like the presidency, which is what I was talking about in my post.

Now at least Rosenberg admits in her piece that she's just quoting a blog and didn't get any interview with me (I was busy on the book tour). So either it's a compliment to the blog that it gets quoted so or Rosenberg's just plain lazy.

The truth, I am sure, as always lies somewhere between those two extremes.

Not my normal story to be quoted in, but hey! That's the blog.

Critt, make sure you link this one. . .

Boo hoo on PACOM trip

My bad.

Agreed to the trip before checking my calendar. Can't make their date due to previously scheduled event for Oak Ridge National Lab, where I will soon be named a grand senior poobah of sorts. With titles come commitment, so I intend to keep that one as promised.

The family still goes to Hawaii, and this way we don't pull the kids out of school early, so it's better.

Eventually, I will get to Pacific Command for something else.

Good perspective from Victor Davis Hanson in NYT on 2,000 mark

I will say many of these things in professional circles, but it's another thing to write them down in the NYT. I give it to Hanson for that.

Good op-ed found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/27/opinion/27hanson.html

The "raving maniac" made good at NDU

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 27 October 2005

You remember the email I got from a retired military officer who said when he brought up my name with an old colleague now on the staff at National Defense University that the reply came back, "Oh, most of us here consider him a raving maniac."

Actually, roving maniac would be a better term, given my travel sked.

Anyway.

I got a nice thank-you letter from Mike Dunn, three-star (LGEN) head of NDU stating that "It is an honor to be able to tout a regular speaking engagement from such a distinguished and independent thinker."

Nice stuff and de rigeur, of course, but you know he put that line in himself (independent thinker, because he made several jokes to such effect as he spoke after my talk). Dunn's about as quick as they come, and he doesn't back down from any intellectual discussion, much less disagreement, which I like, frankly. He's very engaged in his role at NDU, pulling off new stuff right and left, reminding me a lot of Cebrowski but more academically practical (more bricks and mortar). I hope he continues to go places. Flexible minds wearing silver stars are worth their weight (and wait) in gold in this military.

Here's the daily catch:

■

Donor fatigue and donor fatheads

■ Some transitions from the Cold War military go well, others stuck in a time machine

■But has PACOM read my China piece in Esquire?

■ The China Causcus in the House: that's ALSO all about money

■ The transnational-patriotic gap in America

■ Media connectivity and content in the Middle East: the balance is tilting

Donor fatigue and donor fatheads

■"Farmers, Charities Join Forces To Block Famine-Relief Revamp: Bush Administration Wants to Purchase African Food; Lobby Says Buy American; Proposal Stuck in Congress," by Roger Thurow and Scott Kilman, Wall Street Journal, 26 October 2005, p. A1.

■"Aid to Quake-Hit Pakistan Trickles: Some Fear Donor Apathy Could Further Inflame Ire At West in Volatile Region," by Zahid Hussain and Peter Wonacott, Wall Street Journal, 26 October 2005, p. A17.

Don't get me wrong, because I think the WSJ is the best. But sometimes it does just repeat stories from the Post or Times, acting like it got there first. I can't remember the exact date, but I blogged the first story (about blocked reform on food aid) a while back, from NYT I believe.

Still, that one was a bit cursory in its treatment and this one is more in-depth, so worth reading.

And it's such a huge reminder that when it comes to stuff, as in our food products, we're more than happy to waste tons of money accomplishing little of utility. But when it comes to actually empowering people, like African farmers, so there isn't so much famine and poverty and conflict and terror on that continent--buddy, that is SO complicated and complex.

I mean, why do right by the Gap (and God) when there are so many constituents and companies and ag corporations and homegrown religious charities whose oxen would be gored. Yes, yes, we can feed mouths and liberate souls over there or we can fill pockets and grease palms over here.

As with so many debates that pretend to be about national security or foreign affairs, this one too is all about the money and who gets to control it.

And that's so sad.

Meanwhile, the donors get fatigued, the disasters get so old (why cover a temblor in Pakistan that kills 100k when you can cover Wilma here at home that kills in the single digits?), and the suffering in the Gap goes unabated.

And yeah, on days like this I do find myself considering the judgments of those who say America gets the terrorism it deserves--not because of what we do abroad (the old canard about our support for Israel) but because of what we don't do abroad, which is value "their" lives (be there foreigners or our own troops) over "our" jobs (or let's just say some jobs in some congressional districts).