Turkish deal for Blueprint for Action is made

Same basic package as last time with same publisher. I give the okay today to my agency.

The weird pseudo-agreement-to-have-an-agreement with North Korea to give up its nukes

Citation is:

N. Korea, U.S. Gave Ground to Make Deal
Long Process Looms On Nuclear Accord

By Glenn Kessler and Edward Cody

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, September 20, 2005; A01

Find the full text at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091900565.html

It's one of those weird, papering-over-the-differences agreements where everybody seems to read the document as they see fit.

North Korea signs a document that says--in effect--it's willing to negotiate its nuclear arms program away. There is no agreement, just that statement of willingness to negotiate one. All this means is that, for now, North Korea has abandoned its pledge never to give up its program. That's it.

North Korea still wants a light nuclear reactor, and we've given up our demand that they give up that demand. If a deal is struck, North Korea agrees to abandon its programs and allow inspections, and rejoin the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But that's if a deal is struck. All sides say any deal would require lengthy negotiations, during which I'm not seeing any pledge by North Korea to abandon anything.

As far as I can see, Pyongyang and Beijing have successfully taken the issue of America's unhappiness with North Korea's pursuit of WMD off the table by getting North Korea to sign a piece of paper saying that someday--under the right conditions--they might sign a piece of paper promising the Americans what they want.

In my mind, this is the Bush Administration saying, "We're tied down in the Middle East and cannot try anything beyond temporizing the situation in North Korea." In effect, they punted on the issue for the rest of the term.

In an immediate demonstration of the difficulty ahead, the official North Korean news agency early today quoted an unnamed Foreign Ministry spokesman as asserting that Pyongyang would not give up its weapons program until it received nuclear reactors from the United States. A State Department official shrugged off the statement, saying the focus would remain on the Beijing declaration . . .

Several key issues were deferred or avoided through diplomatic sleight of hand, such as the Bush administration's demand that North Korea admit the existence of the uranium project. The agreement contained no clear timeline for when the North would give up its nuclear programs, or how . . .

For the Bush administration, analysts said, the agreement was welcome at a time when the war in Iraq has lost support at home and negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programs have sputtered. In addition, the president's approval ratings are low in the wake of his administration's response to Hurricane Katrina . . .

An expert on North Korean military matters is quoted in the piece as saying:

"It's an all-front crisis for the Bush administration . . . I think they thought, hey, North Korea is a small country and maybe we can handle it if we put it to the side for a while."

But in the end, this arms expert said she didn't expect North Korea to give up the arms program--ever. She called it "its platinum trump card."

What are we seeing in this agreement? It's not just the rest of the world that's already begun discounting the remainder of the Bush Administration. Now, the State Department is doing it as well. This process will only pick up momentum in coming months, as the world plans increasingly for what comes after Bush.

Listen to how the NYT describes the dynamics of the deal-making (September 20, 2005, "U.S.-Korean Deal on Arms Leaves Key Points Open," By JOSEPH KAHN and DAVID E. SANGER):

All day Monday, Washington time, the Bush administration said the only appropriate time would be well after North Korea dismantled all its nuclear facilities and allowed highly intrusive inspections of the country. On Monday evening, less than 24 hours after the deal was signed, North Korea declared that the United States "should not even dream" that it would dismantle its nuclear weapons before it receives a new nuclear plant.

As described by senior Bush administration officials and Asian participants in the talks, Mr. Bush agreed to eventual discussions on providing a nuclear plant only after China turned over a draft of an agreement and told the Americans they had hours to decide whether to take it or leave it.

The North Koreans, dependent on China for food and oil, were unhappy but ready to sign. "They said, 'Here's the text, and we're not going to change it, and we suggest you don't walk away,' " said one senior American official at the center of the debate.

Several officials, who would not allow their names to be used because they did not want to publicly discuss Mr. Bush's political challenges, noted that Mr. Bush is tied down in Iraq, consumed by Hurricane Katrina, and headed into another standoff over Iran's nuclear program. The agreement, they said, provides him with a way to forestall, at least for now, a confrontation with another member of what he once famously termed "the axis of evil."

So after two days of debates that reached from Mr. Bush's cabin in Camp David to Condoleezza Rice's suite at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York to Tokyo, Moscow and Seoul, Mr. Bush gave the go-ahead on Sunday evening, once he had returned to the White House, to signing a preliminary accord with Kim Jong Il, a leader he has said he detests.

Had he decided to let the deal fall through, participants in the talks from several countries said, China was prepared to blame the United States for missing a chance to bring a diplomatic end to the confrontation.

The debate over signing the agreement reflected the fact that the North Koreans drove a tough bargain.

Hear that? The North Koreans drove a tough bargain. That's what screwing up the Iraq occupation has gotten this White House: now it's Pyongyang that drives tough bargains.

You may ask, Does this change my thinking on North Korea or "locking in China at today's prices"? Not at all. The WMD issue was never at the center of that discussion for me, just as it never was for Saddam. We still need an East Asian NATO. We still need strategic alliance with China. We still need Kim gone and North Korea reabsorbed.

This agreement simply says the Bush Administration is passing on these goals in the second administration, and everybody in Asia is more than willing to go along with it on this, because over time all of their situations improve while our strategic position deteriorates.

This is yet another example of how our poor SysAdmin effort in Iraq haunts the entirety of our foreign policy. Building the SysAdmin function is how we avoid such pathways and limitations in the future.

And don't think that Katrina wasn't a serious tipping point here, because it was. Bush has already begun his post-presidency.

Daily Kos grades Bush's second term using my Feb "Mr. President" article

Interesting. Happened over the weekend and found at:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/17/174339/498.

I have heard a lot about Kos in the past, and I've started reading him based on references from readers. His site is very sharp looking. He obviously puts in a lot of effort.

I guess I assume he's not a she? I feel like I've read about this person in the Post or something.

Interesting, but I found this ego-surfing MSN Search in the "News" category. Is the Kos that established as a blogger that he gets listed as "news." If so, pretty interesting elevation of the A-list bloggers.

Why ego surf? Mac.com down for maintenance so I can't check email and I haven't done so since Saturday night (withdrawal), so here I sit looking for fun with my laptop, still too keyed from the rocky landy at Indy tonight to go to sleep.

Feeling tired but resilient

Dateline: SWA flights from LaGuardia through Midway to Indy, 19 September 2005

Stayed up way too late last night dicking with the brief (almost 3am), when I had to get up at 0700 and get over to the St. Regis for the event in time to show Steve DeAngelis how I had animated his half of the brief.

The day went well, though. First, it was cool to meet Congressman Harold Ford, who comes off as impressively as any Representative or Senator I've yet encountered. Pretty slick speaker too (although I swear to God I caught him checking his Blackberry behind the lecturn while one questioner went on and on in his query-let me check the tape in slow-motion and get back to you on that one later). Ford was very kind in his comments regarding my book, told me he was halfway through the second (and demonstrated that in his words), and gave me some good background on my upcoming appearances in Memphis (yes, I scratch his back too, as I know how hard it is to get a Congressman at your breakfast keynote).

My presentation with Steve went well, as the brief merged nicely and we both made a lot of cross-references to one another. Good feedback from audience members, plus the best question of "How many times have you two given that brief together?"

This was the first time.

I later spoke over lunch, previewing BFA (I am now deep into Chapter 2 in my first read of the final text-and loving it, to my great relief), and that went even better (I was more relaxed and so was the audience). Steve and Enterra CIO Doug Todd also had a good demo of our system of automated rule sets. Good conversations and networking all around, plus a nice scotch with a venture capitalist to end the day before the cab ride to LaGuardia (I change clothes in the cab, as is my custom) and the two flights home.

Long day after the four hours of sleep, but glad I put in the effort.

Here's the daily catch stretching back over a few days:

■ Diplomacy without connectivity is an exercise in frustration

■ FEMA: we don't budget for disasters

■ China's tentacles of connectivity just keep growing

■ Back to the future: the return of Prohibition-era border control effort levels

■ Nothing has changed in North Korea's efforts to deny foreign aid to desperately needy citizens

■ When is meddling in democracy okay?

■ The Gap within the Core that is Brazil's Amazon

■ The SysAdmin may go virtual/enclaved, but it will never leave the Middle East

Diplomacy without connectivity is an exercise in frustration

■"A Frustrating Week at the U.N. for the White House Team," by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 17 September 2005, p. A3.

■"Why Haven't We Mined Iraq's Borders?" op-ed by Melik Raylan, Wall Street Journal, 17-18 September 2005, p. A14.

■"Don't Push Syria Away: The U.S. should have welcomed Assad," op-ed by Joshua Landis, New York Times, 17 September 2005, p. A27.

■"Why OPEC's Over a Barrel," by Michael Williams, Wall Street Journal, 17-18 September 2005, p. A2.

The White House comes out of its intense week of diplomating around the United Nations with almost nothing to show for it: nothing on North Korea, nothing on Iran, nothing new or substantial on Iraq-nothing even to show on UN reform proposals (not that the Bush people tried too hard on that last one). Having burned many bridges over the run-up to the war in Iraq and our poor effort at quelling violence there in the Sunni Triangle since, the Bush Administration now finds itself a new world order of one on many issues. You push away enough allies and refuse to run with the playing field (dealing on Syria and Iran) once you've tossed all the game pieces in the air by toppling Saddam, and lo and behold, you're pretty much out of answers and options.

I mean, if talking about mining Iraq's borders is considered a legitimate topic for discussion, we're talking an intellectual dead-end.

Me, I look at Syria and Iran and see two rancid authoritarian regimes ripe for killing with connectivity, and Damascus even already has a potential Gorby in power, something Tehran now misses with the change in administrations.

Why harp on this? Especially the notion of flipping Iran from "axis of evil" to potential strategic partner down the road?

Global oil demand will continue to grow significantly in coming years. Saudi Arabia will be able to ramp up only so much production. The only other two major-league reserve countries operating significantly below capacity (unless you consider all that oil sands in Canada . . . ) are Iraq and Iran. Iraq won't ramp up for lack of both security and foreign investments, while Iran won't until it too opens itself up successfully to FDI and foreign technology. Iran gets you Iraq.

Kill the mullahocracy with connectivity, I say. Do it for the global economy. Do it for New Core pillars India and China (and get their thanks for it). And do it to keep the Big Bang rolling in the region.

We need to play the board as it's laid out now after Saddam's fall. We need some imagination. We need Rice to step up.

FEMA: we don't budget for disasters

■"FEMA, Slow to Rescue, Now Stumbles in Aid Effort: Officials and Evacuees Tell of Frustration With Poorly Coordinated Recovery," by Jennifer Steinhauer and Eric Lipton, New York Times, 17 September 2005, p. A1.

■"Life in the Shelters: Isolated and Perilous," by Motoko Rich, New York Times, 18 September 2005, p. A18.

■"The Five Stages of Crisis-Management: After Katrina-and a hurricane of debate-a well-worn pattern emerges," op-ed by Jack Welch, Wall Street Journal, 14 September 2005, p. A20.

■"Even in Iraqi City Cited as Model, Rebuilding Efforts Are Hobbled," by Craig S. Smith, New York Times, 18 September 2005, p. A1.

Weird, but not surprising when you think of the same issue that exists with the Defense Department, but FEMA basically has no budget for dealing with disasters. As one senior FEMA official put it, it's "an agency with limited federal money that must quickly expand its operational capacity only after a major disaster strikes." Why? "It has not won a large chunk of the new federal homeland security dollars, that have been dedicated to terrorism."

In that sense, FEMA is like DoD, which also has no effective budget for real-world ops, just an open invite to beg Congress for "supplementals"

Katrina may end up helping FEMA and other domestic SysAdmin-like agencies steal back money that was taken after 9/11 and funneled so intensely in the direction of the Global War on Terrorism. Good or bad?

Largely good, I would say, because getting America up to snuff in its own self-maintaining SysAdmin function makes us far more likely to be willing to engage in such stuff overseas, presuming the White House does a better job in enlisting allies for any future rogue regime takedowns. After all, it was Bush himself in his N.O. speech that promised "the military would play a new role in federal disaster relief."

And evidence abounds that FEMA reform is desperately needed. Despite the best and most energetic intentions of the FEMA personnel on the ground, the reality is that most civilians and businesses who try to help the situation there find that it's basically impossible to get a "yes" out of the FEMA bureaucracy in anything less than several days. Apparently, no one on the ground is much empowered to do anything but send messages up the food chain.

Get the military more involved? Absolutely. If the military knows anything, it's how to empower its lowest non-commissioned officers to take the initiative in operations. In fact, it's a big calling card of our forces, where your average sergeant has more operational and tactical pull on resources in theater than most countries average one-star generals. I know it's counter-intuitive, but the U.S. military pushes down decision-making authority in operations far more than most people realize.

Sounds like FEMA needs to do the same or get out of the business. I mean, when 1,500 Floridians are still living in a "FEMA village" of mobile homes in some isolated strip along the shore more than a year after Charley hit, you have to wonder if FEMA's in the business of re-connecting or disconnecting.

According to Jack Welch, FEMA's response to Katrina was classic bad management of a disaster: denial, containment, shame-mongering, the blood-on-the-floor of heads rolling, and then actually getting around to fixing the problem. Sounds pretty apt to me.

But then you read seemingly all the same criticisms of our efforts in Iraq, some of these problems continuing unchecked to this day, and you realize: this SysAdmin thing is neither "home game" nor "away game," it's THE GAME.

Back to the future: the return of Prohibition-era border control effort levels

■"House Passes Prohibition: Law and Order Assured," advertisement, Wall Street Journal, 14 September 2005, p. A5.

A rather cryptic full-page ad in the Times that shows that headline from a "Chicago Register" newspaper dated 1919. It just shows this paper with no other reference, so I'm not exactly sure what the sponsor is trying to say with the ad. Never a good thing.

What it reminded me of is that Department of Homeland Security officials, with whom Steve DeAngelis and I had spoken with at the Custom and Border Protection division of DHS, had commented that their efforts along the coast of Canada had reached levels not seen since the era of Prohibition.

Was making that connection the point of the ad? Beats me. Still, it's amazing to think DHS officials can say that about Canada-Canada for God's sake!

China's tentacles of connectivity just keep growing

■"How Mr. Kong Helped Turn China Into a Film Power: Producer Weds Low-Cost, High-Quality Projects With U.S. Distribution," by Geoffrey A. Fowler and Karen Mazurkewich, Wall Street Journal, 14 September 2005, p. A1.

■"Chinese Firms to Pay $1.42 Billion For EnCana Oil Assets in Ecuador," by Ben Dummett, Wall Street Journal, 14 September 2005, p. A3.

■"Citigroup Sets Chinese ATM Deal," by James T. Areddy, Wall Street Journal, 14 September 2005, p. D5.

I said it several times at several points today in various conversations with people at the Enterprise Resilience Management conference in Manhattan: politicians and military leaders in both China and the U.S. basically have no idea how intertwined are our two countries economic fates-already.

You'll see it in content, where Chinese studios will eventually attract a Hollywood that's always looking to cut costs. You'll see it in energy, where China will continue to buy assets in Latin America and North America, thus impinging in two regions upon which America truly is dependent for foreign oil. You'll see it in the banking and financial sectors, as American companies, eager to access that high savings rates, will increasingly buy weak Chinese financial institutions as entry fees for penetrating that vast market (hell, just $1 charges on ATMs is enough for Citigroup to come en masse).

Some may plan for high-tech war in the Pentagon, but the facts on the ground are being established in the economic realm far faster than any established in the security realm. Same old, same old. Economics races ahead of politics, technology and networks race ahead of security. Don't look for intell from Washington on China, look to Wall Street.

When is meddling in democracy okay?

■"Russia Hounds Human Rights Group That Gets U.S. Help," by Steven Lee Myers, New York Times, 18 September 2005, p. A13.

Word that Putin's government is targeting a pro-democracy group for harassment, one that receives U.S. government aid. Sounds friendly enough: the Russian-Chechen Friendship Society. Hell, it sounds like something the old Sovs would gin up.

Putin is pissed on two levels: 1) he doesn't like foreign funding (fair enough, as the U.S. usually has a hissy fit whenever we've found foreign governments trying the same here; and 2) the group highlights civil rights abuses by Russian forces in Chechnya.

On the latter one, there you have to go with the group, although it would be better if money didn't come directly from the USG.

Again, it looks like Putin is getting all his ducks lined up in a row as he looks ahead to the 2008 election.

There's no doubt that Putin aims to make Russia a de facto single-party state, keeping him in line with most of Asia and with most of the former Soviet republics.

How much can we do to prevent it? Not much. No one in the West really wants to own any security issues inside Russia, and America is frankly happy enough that Putin acquiesces to our military bases in Russia's "near abroad." Getting Russia to give up Chechnya is extremely unlikely, simply because Russia considers the region part of Russia proper. You can say, "Hey! Russia's only been there for about 150 years!" To which the Kremlin might rightfully reply, "And how long have you been in some of your Western states?" Or, "How about giving Alaska back which you bought from us when we were weak?"

You know, it's funny, but between the Louisiana Purchase and the Alaska Purchase, we actually ended up buying a major portion of our country. I mean, which other country can claim they acquired that much of the their territory in real estate deals?

Anyway, expect Russia to hold firm like China holds firm on Taiwan. I wouldn't ever expect to negotiate anything on either score, anymore than we'll be offering Florida back to the Spanish.

Nothing has changed in North Korea's efforts to deny foreign aid to desperately needy citizens

■"North Korea Poses Aid Puzzle: Donated Food Is Going Astray, but Government Resists Oversight," by Gordon Fairclough, Wall Street Journal, 16 September 2005, p. A12.

Where does a great deal of the food donated by foreign governments end up in North Korea? Government and Party rackets sell it for profit. As one North Korean merchant who's since fled to South Korea stated, "They'll do anything to make money."

These are the people we'll negotiated with over WMD? Fat chance, say I.

In this story they say the likely death toll of the preventable famine that Kim oversaw in the late 1990s was probably around 1 million, not the higher figures some cite at 2 to 3 million, but also not the low-ball numbers (low six figures) that other research organizations cite either. Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about the true number, not when roughly 4 out of all 10 kids in the country are considered malnourished, for no good reason other than-as one aid official puts it-"In North Korea, you have a ruthless government that is holding its own people hostage."

If that's not a politically bankrupt state that the Core should be interested in processing right out of existence, I don't know what one would ever be.

Here's hoping Beijing is listening to DepSecState Bob Zoellick's offer to think about a regional security alliance on the far side of a reunited Korean peninsula.

The SysAdmin may go virtual/enclaved, but it will never leave the Middle East

■"Pentagon Construction Boom Beefs Up Mideast Air Bases: The military says it is not planning to have a permanent presence," by Eric Schmitt, New York Times, 18 September 2005, p. A8.

The Pentagon is spending $1.2 billion to spruce up air bases in the Middle East. Troops will inevitably be reduced, but the SysAdmin will leave behind a footprint that's substantial for the long haul. I say SysAdmin more than Leviathan because-quite frankly-the Leviathan can reach the Middle East from Kansas if it so chooses. So who needs the bases? Apparently, U-2 spy planes (awfully long range), Global Hawk UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles also for surveillance), and the big KC-135 refueling planes (which fuel up bombers for the return flight back to the States).

Uzbekistan told the Air Force to leave, but other Kyrgyzstan picks up the slack just like a Singapore picking up where the Philippines left off years ago. Qatar, Bahrain and U.A.E. are also putting money against the problems the Air Force faces in trying to retain sufficient command and control facilities in the region. Qatar and U.A.E. sport the two most permanent bases, the rest being more on the Spartan side.

Of course, this is all described as "temporary" and "not permanent," but I'm sticking to my prediction of years ago (recounted in PNM) that bases in the region will someday rival Ramstein for their familiarity among U.S. military personnel.

The Gap within the Core that is Brazil's Amazon

■"To Many in the Amazon, Government Comes on a Boat," by Larry Rohter, New York Times, 18 September 2005, p. A4.

Interesting story about how local government comes to many in isolated Brazilian sections of the Amazon by boat. In some remote locations, where waterway river traffic is the only way to get around, it can take up to 17 days to reach Brazilia, which frankly is like 1800s California making its way back to DC.

The two big things the boat tends to bring: opportunities to have documents processed (identity, land-owning, etc.) and the chance to see doctors for chronic problems. Brazil is a lot like China in this way: surprisingly Core along the coast and still amazingly Gap in the interior.

Still, connectivity is everything in keeping a sense of political rule and social order. Lose that, lose it all.

All is subsumed ...

Dateline: Michaelangelo Hotel, Manhattan,18 September 2005

Yesterday lost to fun family stuff, like Kevin finishing 12th out of 40 boys in his grade-school cross-country meet (I do love watching/coaching him while he runs) and probably our last time in Nona's pool for the summer.

Today is lost to getting merged brief together with Steve DeAngelis for our conference tomorrow here in Manhattan.

One cool thing over the weekend: Neil Nyren of Putnam sent me my first copy of Blueprint for Action in final hardcover. All the changes I had feared would not be made seem to be in there,with the only easily spotted typos in the Acknowledgements (two misspelled names--one my fault and one Putnam's). But if you have to screw up, best to do it there. Reading the book for 4th time on way here and I'm more thrilled than ever that I got all this down in print.

Up too late futzing with the brief, as is my custom. Have plentyof stories clipped. Will have to get to them tomorrow, following my two talks.

I wouldn't expect a newsletter this week, since everyone is here for the conference with me and we value face time when we get it.

Signposts - Sunday, September 18, 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.

Back home, focus on the family

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 16 September 2005

Long but very fruitful morning at Oak Ridge National Lab, where Steve and I finalize deal for my senior-level consulting there starting in October. Also talk over some largely possibilities which are very exciting. I finally feel like Johnny Appleseed armed with some real seeds.

Long pair of flights home via Atlanta.

What awaits me at home is cool (besides wife and kids): final hardcover copy of Blueprint for Action.

Mighty fine!

Business readers: Early adapters and best movers opt-in

If you would like to continue participating in Tom's work--Senior Managing Director--at Enterra Solutions, please add yourself to the Enterra Solutions mailing list:

subscribe@enterrasolutions.com

Critt Jarvis

Director, Corporate Blogging

Enterra Solutions, LLC

1040 Stony Hill Road, Suite 100

Yardley, PA 19067

(215) 497-3100 x124

cjarvis@enterrasolutions.com

www.enterrasolutions.com

Subscribe to TPMB Updates

If you would like to receive Signposts, alerts for The Newsletter from Thomas P.M Barnett, and other announcements about Tom's work, send an email to:

subscribe@thomaspmbarnett.com

Your email will only be used for sending TPMB Updates.

Thanks.

On the WCO . . .

Apparently this organization is created in 1952 under a different name, now known as the World Customs Organization (probably changed to be more like WTO), so whatever treaty Customs and Border Protection is talking about must have been a rule-set reset to this organization, not the founding document as I had assumed. This reset is probably analogous to how the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs mutated into the WTO.

If I weren't running around so much, I think I would have thought of that myself, because when you think of it, you just knew it was one of those international organizations generated after WWII.

So the question for me now in future interactions with CBP is, how is the WCO revamped (apparently, the name change was recent) by this rule-set reset?

Women, Networks, Diplomats

Dateline: Hamilton Inn, Oak Ridge TN, 15 September 2005

Another triple of a day.

Got up and jumped in limo the previous night's client had arranged for long haul in DC from hotel way out past Dulles. Had my four newspapers (WP, USA, WSJ, NYT) in hand, and read them in hour-long drive. See results below.

Arriving at Mandarin Oriental, I immediately spot two celebrities: Minnie Driver looking pretty fine despite the huge, pitch-black sunglasses and Bishop Desmond Tutu, who also looked fine with all his obligatory garb.. In both instances I thought at first I must be imagining things. Then I realized, hey! It's DC's only five-star hotel. So I chalk it up to the weird perks that come with traveling with Steve.

Once into the hotel I spend hour with Patricia Smith and Barbara Marx Hubbard of women's global peace-focused networking group and world futures study firm (respectively), basically giving a taped interview to Smith and then doing Q&A with Howard. It was a very interesting exchange, all about the central role of women in the journey from the Cap to the Core (I have a section in BFA entitled, "You Can Tell Everything You Need to Know About a State By How It Treats Its Women."). Promises of future interactions with groups from their side of the aisle, but I won't hold my breath. Honestly, it's hard to get that conversation started from their end, as opinions tend to be just too strong about the military.

After that I meet up with Steve DeAngelis and have fascinating discussion with Dick O'Neil of the Highlands Group, which runs the Highlands Forum for the Office of the Secretary of Defense's chief IT people (I've attend three over the years (starting with the one on Y2K) and had PNM featured in two of them (global futures and post-conflict stabilization ops) in the past year)). Dick's group does a lot of amazing work, including some dabbling with Hollywood as script doctors on futuristic films. He tells more intriguing stories about people and places than just about anyone I know, and he's been a good friend and supporter to me and a lot of other out-of-the-box thinkers in the Defense Department realm over the years. Man is a connector extraordinaire, and just a really wonderful man to boot. It was great to see him looking healthy and happy and as fired up as ever (this man is a happy warrior in the world of grand ideas), for as I get older, too many friends have a harder time managing the former and that leaves us all unhappy.

Then I catch a cab over to Meridian House, which sits a couple of blocks north of Dupont Circle. It's an old, dusty mansion of a place, with no AC and open windows galore. Perfect for 92 degrees, high humidity and pollen to beat the band. I'm there for the State Department conference on non-standard threats, to give a presentation alongside Michael Mandelbaum (he of many fine books) of Johns Hopkins. I also get to hear David Rothkopf, who's very sardonic but a brilliant guy who can talk all day about the most complex things and never say anything stupid (a feat I will never master). My presentation goes well, and Mandelbaum's on his new book (early 2006, The Case for Goliath) is really intriguing. I find myself nodding in agreement with almost everything he says. He has a truly original mind. We do Q&A in a very complimentary (and complimenting) fashion. I was amazingly mature-almost grown up, really.

Then to National for a nice dinner at California Pizza Kitchen. Then a USAIR flight to Knoxville, during which I spill a Sprite into my Mac's keyboard (seemingly no issue following my heroic efforts to dry out). Then my third hotel in three nights.

Tomorrow is a quick morning of brainstorming at Oak Ridge National Lab with Steve and the locals. A strong finish, no doubt, to a strong trip

Here's the daily catch:

■ White House pushing its case on Iran, and getting nowhere with allies-either old or future

■ The only country more revolutionary than the U.S. in the 21st Century will be China

■ Does the drawdown begin in Afghanistan or not? And what does that tell us about the GWOT?

■ Canada looks a lot bigger at $70 a barrel

■ The Latinization of the American farm

White House pushing its case on Iran, and getting nowhere with allies-either old or future

■"U.S. Deploys Slide Show to Press Case Against Iran," by Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, 14 September 2005, p. A7.

■"India Balks at Confronting Iran, Straining Its Friendship With U.S.," by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 15 September 2005, p. A11.

The U.S. is pushing a secret PowerPoint briefing to allies on Iran, trying to convince them that the WMD question is drawing to a head there.

Guess how far we get with India, which is planning a huge natural gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan? Not very far. We can try to tempt India with nuke technology, but we can't get them to choose between gas and nukes. India will need both in spades.

Bush got nowhere yesterday with Hu Jintao either. China recently signed a huge oil and gas deal with Tehran.

The U.S. never gets a peep out of Tokyo either. Care to guess how dependent Japan is on Iran's energy?

The White House keeps saying Iran doesn't need nukes cause it has all those hydrocarbons.

Funny how it never asks itself why Iran wants nukes, and yet pursues them in such a slow-mo fashion. Strategic listeners we are not.