Buy Tom's Books
  • Great Powers: America and the World After Bush
    Great Powers: America and the World After Bush
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett
  • Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating
    Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett
  • The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century
    The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett
  • Romanian and East German Policies in the Third World: Comparing the Strategies of Ceausescu and Honecker
    Romanian and East German Policies in the Third World: Comparing the Strategies of Ceausescu and Honecker
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett
  • The Emily Updates (Vol. 1): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    The Emily Updates (Vol. 1): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    by Vonne M. Meussling-Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett
  • The Emily Updates (Vol. 2): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    The Emily Updates (Vol. 2): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Vonne M. Meussling-Barnett
  • The Emily Updates (Vol. 3): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    The Emily Updates (Vol. 3): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Vonne M. Meussling-Barnett
  • The Emily Updates (Vol. 4): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    The Emily Updates (Vol. 4): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    by Thomas P.M. Barnett, Vonne M. Meussling-Barnett
  • The Emily Updates (Vol. 5): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    The Emily Updates (Vol. 5): One Year in the Life of the Girl Who Lived (The Emily Updates (Vols. 1-5))
    by Vonne M. Meussling-Barnett, Thomas P.M. Barnett, Emily V. Barnett
Search the Site
Powered by Squarespace
Monthly Archives

Entries from September 1, 2005 - September 30, 2005

6:38PM

Egypt's election is one small step for Mubarek, no giant leap for Egyptians

"For first time, Egypt has more than 1 presidential candidate," by Charles Levinson, USA Today, 7 September 2005, p. 17A.

"Egypt Vote Gets Mixed Reviews: Mubarek Opens the Field but Draws Protests Over Restrictions," by Karby Leggett and Yasmine El-Rashidi, Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2005, p. A14.


"Lethal Fire Heightens Egyptians' Anger at Government: Another reason for ignoring a chance for expanded democracy," by Michael Slackman, New York Times, 7 September 2005, p. A3.


Mubarek was spooked enough by Iraq's elections and the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon to promise a competitive election, but true to his strongman form he's subsequently gone out of his way to turn it into a competition not unlike the Harlem Globetrotters taking on the Washington Generals (decent show, outcome never in doubt).


If so many average Egyptians are fed up with his rancid authoritarianism (the opposition movement's name is "kafiya" (which here means "enough already!"), then why is Mubarek getting away with it with such relative ease? The economy has long been beset with double-digit inflation and unemployment, but the new PM has been pushing a serious agenda of reform focused largely on reducing the state role in the economy, thus making Egypt seem more open for business and investment. Mubarek, in my mind, wants to re-legitimize his rule for one more six-year term on the hope that he can engineer a stable transition to someone else (the preferred vessel being the son, in a sort of Assad-like shift) the next time around, winning enough kudos from the public in the meantime for the government's economic reforms. In short, he can't afford a truly free election this time, but he wants enough of the appearance of one so as not to curtail the global business community's rising opinion of his economy.


The people's anger is real and profound, and the right spark can light it. Mubarek needs to buy himself some political slack with Washington with this pseudo-free election and his economy some time to let the reform process work. His long-term goal, like any strongman, is to extend his rule-here, virtually since he's so old.


A Middle East that's opening up progressively to the world in economics because it's security situation is improving works to Mubarek's plan-and frankly, our own because we can't hope for much better any faster in Egypt.


This is yet another reason why settling Iraq is crucial, and we need Iran's compliance to achieve that.

6:37PM

Japan's caboose faces cut

"As Japan Votes, Aid to Countryside Hangs in Balance: Mr. Koziumi Aims to Remove Crutches for Rural Areas; An Airport With 4 Flights," by Sebastian Moffett and Ginny Parker Woods, Wall Street Journal, 7 September 2005, p. A1.


The vote on privatizing Japan's huge financial giant and social welfare funnel postal system occurs on Sunday, and what this article highlights is that Japan's government (or more to the point, the long-time single-party system known as the Liberal Democrat Party) has long used this entity as a way to make sure it's caboose (least advanced, least rich, typically most rural citizens) don't get left too far behind in the country's ever-upward economic advance. The postal system is thus a giant, nation-wide Tennessee Valley Authority-like funnel for infrastructural investment, so any messing with it is akin to the mother-of-all base closure proposals in the U.S. Plus, given its huge asset pool of personal savings, you're not just talking the break-up of Ma Bell (Koziumi wants to break it up into four big chunks), you're suggesting the privatizing of Social Security.


You sense the reaching for analogies here: it's almost impossible to capture the breadth and depth of this change for Japan. It's like the Party giving up control of the military in China, that's how identified the LDP is with the postal system: it's a fundamental basis for regime legitimacy and control. Neither party in the U.S. has anything like it, which is why we're legitimately described as that most rare of beast: a functioning two-party state where neither side is locked into power thanks to its profound control of state assets. It would be like the Democrats "owning" DHHS or the Republicans "owning" Defense-and I mean never giving up control even if administrations changed.


So when Koziumi says the government needs to privatize the post office banking system, he's doing more than what's necessary to make Japan a far more competitive economy, he's really altering the political trajectory of the country in a big, big way. And why it's so controversial is because he's threatening the existence of a quasi-governmental entity that's long played the key role in keeping Japan from becoming too much of a have-have not society despite its meteoric economic climb. For the EU to try and do something similar, we'd be talking a serious dismantling of their workers' social welfare rights.


By doing this, Japan would become a lot more like America-with all the attendant risks. But I think the real driver here is the sense of competition from China over the long run.


And that's what's interesting to me about this push by Koziumi: it's the flip side of China's efforts and the related fears of its Fourth Generation of leadership (Hu, Wen, etc.). Japan is saying, "we've got to lengthen the train a bit in order to get competitive," whereas China's leadership is saying, "we've got to shorten our snaking train a bit or we'll end up with unmanageable political unrest in the interior provinces."


My point with the whole "The Train's Engine Can Travel No Faster Than the Caboose" theory in Blueprint for Action is that there's an optimal speed level associated with successful integration with the global economy. The earlier you are in the process-historically speaking-the more you'll want to let your caboose "brake" your pace (lest you suffer social unrest), but the more mature you become, the more you'll going to have to allow a certain amount of income equality in order to remain competitive and efficient (i.e., you're going to have to let the market move your labor for you). Otherwise, you find yourself funding ghost towns that correspond to no economic logic, making your economy as a whole more uncompetitive.


No magic standard for all countries, as the sense of sequencing trumps all calculations. Development is a lot like aging: to shrink the Gap is to age it upward demographically, along with all that entails economically and politically and-best of all-militarily.

6:37PM

Iran will reach for the bomb when it's damn well ready!

"Nuclear Weapon Is Years Off For Iran, Research Panel Says," by Alan Cowell, New York Times, 7 September 2005, p. A11.


Iran, if it really wanted to throw caution to the wind, says a group of international experts, could have a nuclear weapon by 2010, otherwise it would take much longer. Of course, since we know so little of what goes on in Iran on this subject, this estimate could be off by a ways.


So let's just say Iran is within negotiating range of being a nuclear power and that it's measured pace reflects a leadership that knows nukes are for having, not using. Because, after all, if they really wanted a nuke bad so they could use it pronto, they'd probably have it by now. But just buying a hot nuke isn't the same as being recognized as a nuclear power (the capacity to build your own), which means being recognized as a major security player, which is really Iran's goal in all of this (plus, obviously, taking them off the "to do" list in the Pentagon).


It has been said that Gorbachev chose political reform before economic reform in the old USSR, whereas Deng chose economic reform before political reform in China. This is why the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) is still ruling in China and the CPSU (Communist Party of the Soviet Union) is defunct in a technical sense (although a weak successor party lives on in Russia). What the mullahs are doing in Iran, in my estimation, is this: they want to "re-form" the country's security profile before engaging in any serious economic change, so fearful are they that any economic liberalization will put the ruling elite at risk both politically at home and externally in terms of security. They hope that if they can lock in their rule from the possibility of foreign military intervention (meaning us), they should be able to balance some economic liberalization without sacrificing too much in their political control. In effect, the mullahs want a security guarantee up front on no regime change, and they believe nukes will get it for them.


You know what? Given the size of the population and the regime's growing energy ties to China and India, nukes will most definitely put them over the top. This is something we need to understand: we will not negotiate this capability away, the mullahs simply want it too much. If we want to get to the economic opening-up part, we need to help Iran "reform" its security profile first. Since that effort should logically get us what we need from Iran (quid pro quo) in Baghdad, Beirut and Jerusalem, we should send "Nixon" to Tehran sooner than later. Because, after a while, Iran will get far enough along in that process that the hard-liners will increasingly begin defining that sense of sufficient security in terms of what the East (China, India, Asia in general) can offer them, not the West (U.S.-dominated NATO, from which Tehran would logically assume it could break off the Europeans-or at least Germany and France).


My point is this: all these calculations regarding nuclear end games really speaks to the cessation of our diplomatic freedom as much or more than Tehran's. In other words, their situation improves over time, ours does not, and they are in control of the progression, we are not.


Our intransigence on this is very odd to me, because it effectively kills the ability of the Bush Administration to both lock in existing gains from the Big Bang and to propel its advance. Move on Iran diplomatically now and the Big Bang lives. Dig in your heels solely over nukes and the Middle East will look largely unchanged 20 years from now.


I know, I know, many would look at my argument and say that, if pursued, we'd be making a mockery of the sacrifices already rendered in Iraq. But my argument is the exact opposite: do this now so as to make those sacrifices worthwhile. Otherwise, we're simply pissing them away slowly over time.


The Middle East isn't our Petri dish alone to mess with. Asia won't stand still over the next twenty years. Either we connect the Middle East to the world or the regimes there will cut their separate deal with Asia, and Osama's dream of civilizational apartheid will be achieved.

7:21PM

Katrina's perturbation settles into a number of waves

Dateline: in the Shire in Indy, 6 September 2005

As Dan Balz points out in the Post yesterday ("For Bush, Next Moves Are Key to Rest of Term"), the President is walking a mighty fine line right now. Cindy Sheehan and Iraq had him down prior to Katrina, and then New Orleans knocked him for a real loop in public esteem, only to have his base reenergized by the sudden death of Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist. August may have slipped in rather sleepily, but September's rip-roaring in politically. Bush can get things right or very wrong in coming weeks. Both levees and reputations need to be repaired.


Of course, scape goats will have to be offered up (Spencer S. Hsu and Susan B. Glasser, "FEMA Director Singled Out by Response Critics," Washington Post, 6 September). Fair to blame one man, one agency? Well, when the National Hurricane Center tells you 32 hours in advance that Katrina's landfall will likely break levees in its path, yeah, that's more than fair. And since the guy in question doesn't have the background one usually expects from a leader like this (basically a friend of a friend pick), Bush might want to rethink his penchant for loyalty on this one.


Beyond fingering someone low-enough to play fall-guy, you have to reassure the markets (Ben White, "Wall Street Sees Limited Storm Impact," New York Times, 6 September), but that would seem a fairly easy trick for now, as most market analysts are talking about growth delayed, not growth denied. What we don't see across the rest of 2005 is predicted to appear in early 2006, as the Great Rebuild begins down South. Much will depend on the popular perceptions of gas prices, but work arounds abound (Simon Romero, "Houston Finds Business Boon After Katrina," New York Times, 5 September) and here is the real resiliency of horizontally networked America, as what goes up gets spread around.


Speaking of spreading it around (Lolita C. Baker, "Halliburton Subsidiary Taps Contrract for Repairs, Washington Post, 5 September), no one should be surprised to see SysAdmin conttractor supremo Kellogg, Brown & Root at the forefront of the recovery efforts with Katrina. Last July it won a big Navy contract vehicle to be the company that comes in after big natural disasters and do clean-up. SysAdmin away, SysAdmin home. Seems pretty natural because it's basically the same all over. So don't expect KB&R to go away any time soon, no matter how stinky its past associations with Cheney might seem. It simply fills too big of a niche. On the contrary, expect more KB&Rs in the future, not less, and they will all seem cozy with the government because they'll always be picking up the 3D (dirty, dangerous, difficult) jobs that the Fed wants to outsource--both at home and in the Gap.


Over the longer run, take solace in this realization: the big disasters rarely live up to their initial billing. Chernobyl, we were told way back when, would end up killing tens of thousands of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarussians. Now, when it's all added up years later, a team of global scientists say its more like 4,000 deaths (Elisabeth Rosenthal, International Herald Tribune, 6 September), with 100,000 to 200,000 suffering some level of measurable physical impact. Of course, that doesn't stop 7 million citizens around Chernobyl from taking payments long-term from the government. (Hey buddy! It's called socialism!)


Doesn't mean it doesn't hurt. Just means we tend to be more resilient than we realize--even under the worst of conditions.

3:03PM

Der Spiegel interview with Lee Kuan Yew

I've had about a dozen people send me this, saying how we seem to think alike. I must admit, I have read much about Mr. Lee but never an interview before. I now know why he comes off as so impressive. I really wish I had his command of economics.


Find the interview here: It's Stupid to Be Afraid Really worth reading on China and India alone.


This was basically going to be my message to the House Armed Services Committee on Thursday, but the hearing is now cancelled. Too many Members down in NOLAland (New Orleans, LouisianA), so session called with no rain date. The sked just moves on.


I spent three hours today writing up testimony, which I will table for now. It's too much a pastiche of past testimony, Blueprint for Action and the November piece in Esquire (tentatively titled, "The Chinese are our friends").


But I must admit, I like "It's Stupid to Be Afraid" better. So give it up to Lee and expand your understanding of a sharp Asian outlook on the global economy.


In consolation, the HASC staffers asked if I could just stop by in the same 10-1 timeframe on Thursday. I said I would (what the hell), so it looks like I'll give the brief instead and have a chat.

7:08PM

Newsletter for 5 September 2005posted

[Freely pass to people you know. Thanks.]


Feature: When disconnectedness defines danger


Download The Newsletter from Thomas P.M. Barnett - 5 September 2005 in PDF or Word document:


thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/barnett_5sep2005.pdf


thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/barnett_5sep2005.doc

6:25PM

Better to be lucky than good

Dateline: In the Shire, Indy, 5 September 2005

There's the scene in "The Guns of Navarone" where the British special ops boss explains his choice of one senior officer to lead the dangerous mission by explaining that once Napoleon was brought a young general along with the assurance that he was a capable officer: "Yes, yes I know he's brilliant," replies Napoleon (as this Brit paraphrases), "but is he lucky?


Rehnquist's sudden but hardly unexpected death arrives at a very good time for Bush, reminding his base why they want him in power and distracting us all--just a little bit--from down South.


My Mom called it the minute she heard about it (she the retired lawyer), by saying Bush's best move would be to elevate the Roberts' nomination immediately, rather than fight three fights at once. Now, Bush really has only one fight (the O'Connor swing seat, not Rehnquist's predictable vote already now locked with the careful Roberts' pick)--and for most of the marbles. That tension alone will work mightily to Bush's political advantage in coming days and weeks.


Here I thought I'd be testifying on Thursday (moved back a day) to the House Armed Services Committee on the biggest issue of the day (national security), but frankly that's running a close third after Katrina and now this.


Why? People have been waiting for this sort of shift possibility on the court for decades.


Yes, yes, better lucky than good.


On that count, I picked up my Dad's old golf clubs today when I left my Mom's place. Nothing special and everything special--all at once.


I won't be good, but I will feel lucky.

8:20AM

Signposts - Monday, September 5, 2005

(Freely pass to people you know. Thanks.]


Signposts - Monday, September 5, 2005.


August 28, 2005 - September 3, 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.


To receive the current issue send an email to get.signposts@thomaspmbarnett.com. Auto-response delivers the current issue to your Inbox.


Thanks.

6:40AM

The art of the long view

Dateline: my Mom's in Boscobel WI, 4 September 2005

Saw my childhood home yesterday. The front porch is still missing and now the owner is adding a godawful gazebo bit on the side. This is an historic home, one of the three Blaine homes in Bosocobel that's easily 130 years old. Blaine was the most famous resident of Boscobel's origins in 1875, eventually going on to become governor of Wisconsin.


It's sad to see that home get progressively weirded out, although we did our own share with an addition off the back in the 1970s.


So I guess I'm not pretending to be the historical purist here, just the sentimental fool.


Vonne and I talk about the second vacation home somewhere that doubles as our think-ahead toward a retirement home--long range planners we. Yesterday, she just tossed out the notion of buying place here in Boscobel (my Mom had pushed us to buy the famous old Ruka house on Wisconsin Avenue (1872), a huge expanse of a place that ran in the 160s (houses not exactly expensive in this backwater). It was just a dream for us now to own a second house (my God, we have kids heading toward college!), but frankly, you should always be dreaming 15-20 years down the road (we'd be in our early 60s)--just like I do in Blueprint for Action. No dreams is the perfect recipe for inaction, I say.


Anyway, the dream would be for me to buy our old place on Superior Street so that when my Mom eventually leaves town, there is still a Barnett (we were the town's first mayor) owning property here. We'd try to fix it up to its original grandeur, including the cupola on top, and it would become a private bed-and-breakfast for our collective family to use for mini-getaways. Sounds crazy, some distant Green Bay cousins of mine did the same thing on a farm around here not long ago for their big brood of siblings and associated families. Imagine a collective family gathering in the old house to open presents on Christmas Eve, and then the block-plus walk to Immaculate Conception Church for midnight mass!


A nice dream, yes. How likely, I have no idea, but I don't want the only place I visit years from now being the graves of my parents, my two brothers, and my paternal grandparents and Great Aunt Catty. I want some other reason for coming here than just death.


So I dream this little dream.


And it's good to have such dreams.


A lot of readers want me to get wrapped around the axle on various current events--to make them the immediate and broadband fixation of my work. But to crusade on Iraq or China or Katrina alone isn't really what I do, nor is it what I want to do. I want to stay the grand strategist, meaning most of my battlefields will remain in the future.


So instead of always bemoaning today's failures, like Katrina, I like to focus on tomorrow's victories, like Porter Goss opening up the CIA ("Opening Up the CIA," by Timothy L. Burger, Time, a recent one (I pulled the page out of one of my Mom's issues last night and now I can't find where she put them away and for some reason the sheet has no date!)).


Instead of crusading on today's fault-lines, I like to highlight and get behind tomorrow's new capacities, and Goss is doing just that, tossing $100 million at an open-source unit. That's what I and others have been saying for a while: make the CIA more what it was originally supposed to be--not the puzzle palace but the actual central respository for intell that all could contribute to and all could use (both public and private).


You know, I think Google's got 'em scared at Langley . . .


This doesn't mean the occasional broadside won't emanate from my lips, and that is exactly what we have teed up in the November issue of Esquire on China. But no one such rant will overwhelm the raves, because the raves are future pointers and not just finger pointing, which always has a past-oriented flavor (who didn't do what when).


In sum, this is how I maintain my optimism and it's how my influence can truly be expressed. The SysAdmin force is coming into being, in a big way and all around the dial. It will be created not by the political leaders so much as the mid-level bureaucrats who you never hear about and who never leave. And it will be created by a generational wave of military officers.


The temptation now is to crap on everything, to bundle up Katrina and Baghdad and say this'll never work and let's go back to what we know and love (big war with a big opponent to justify our big contracts and our big bases that keep so many jobs and votes and congressmen in their seats). And while some of that is completely right, and for some people, a good call as a full-time calling, it's isn't what I'm all about--nor will it ever be.


Nor will I be putting one party or leader (like Bush today) off to the side WRT to critical remarks. I have to tell you, whenever I get that email saying what a smart fellow I am virtually all the time except for that one comment about Bush, the simplest reply to self-professed vision adherents is that they have both the wrong guy and the wrong vision. I don't generate long-range strategic vision that works for only one party because that concept is so anathema to my logic as to defy everything save some useless angry sputtering in print.


In short, if that is what you need to stick around, then it's time to move on. I don't have that blind spot and I never will. I criticize all and I work with all. In my business, the Dem-Repub divide really doesn't mean a whole helluva lot--and I like it that way.


That's the price of the long view, as my friend Peter Schwartz would say.

9:06AM

Interesting validation and slight correction on the Rumsfeld piece

This is why it's so cool to post stuff, a point I keep making to Esquire


Here's an email I get from a reporter:



Just read it -- feels v . accurate to me, and I've been covering the guy daily for 5 years. A little clarity on the Joyce Rumsfeld life story book anecdote: Rummy put together a picture book of Joyce's activities in the wake of 9/11 and gave it to her for Valentines Day in 2003 (I think -- they had a dinner for pentagon reporters right before the war). The book was on the coffee table and she told us he said upon presenting it, everyone knows what I did after 9/11, but no one (or our grandchildren?) knows what you did, or something to that effect. The story has been told a lot, like telephone. . .but I think that's the accurate version -- the book, which I flipped through, really is lovely. It might have been an anniversary gift, but Valentines Day sticks in my head for some reason.


At any rate, good work. I learned things from you!



As Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story!

9:00AM

Michael Vlahos, an infuriatingly clever thinker

I used to have an office next to Mike's at the Center for Naval Analyses in the mid-1990s. Mike is too clever for his business. He should really write science fiction because I think he'd produce some amazing stuff.


I don't agree with much of what Mike says--he's that annoyingly clever. But as someone who tries to think out-of-the-box, he's someone I regularly turn to for exactly that, and I can count those people on one hand.


Here's an interesting review he wrote of a book. As always, it makes you think uncomfortable thoughts, like a good Twilight Zone episode.


Find it at: news.monstersandcritics.com

6:35AM

The storm surge begins

Dateline: U.S. 39 rolling north through central Illinois, 2 September 2005
So much blame to go around.

New Orleans is revealed, to no one's surprise, as a woefully loose-ruled environment barely managed by a corrupt, incompetent government.


Support networks in the poor, rural coastal areas are revealed as meager and painfully brittle.


State governments are revealed as low-ballers on a host of long-term investments in infrastructure and network resiliency, only to be superceded by the federal government's enduring penchant for unfunded mandates.


Federal relief agencies are revealed as surprisingly incoherent in their "coordinated response," begging the question, How many 9/11-like shocks must there be before Washington gets its lines of authority straight?


The military, which has gone to untold lengths to brag every chance it can since 9/11 that homeland security is job #1, still seems to be under the impression that it requires an engraved invitation from a Constitutional Congress to get off its collective ass and respond rapidly to a domestic emergency.


And perhaps most damaging of all, the Bush Administration is revealedóyet againóas strangely incapable of grabbing the bull by the horn when disaster strikes, as though such leadership is only to be summoned once it becomes a public relations damage-control function.


Sad to say, the best-working aspect of the emergency response to date has been the mediaóthe MEDIA for crying out loud!


A lot of long-held biases are likewise revealed.


The Fed's tendency to wait until local and state resources are depleted or overwhelmed is revealed as hopelessly antiquated in this connected age. By then, too much damage is irreversible and a long-term recovery is locked-in. This is a national emergency, not some bureaucratic means test. The "I'm-with-stupid" approach to chain of command just doesn't cut it when disaster strikes


The military's strong bias against involving itself with civilian situations reveals itself as a weird sort of inability to take charge in situations that naturally demand it. For a culture that prizes decisiveness in challenging, austere environments, the military tends to tip-toe around whenever it's called into action domesticallyótalking a big game but never leading. I mean, where's the cigar-chomping general who couldn't give a rat's ass about pissing off the locals because he's got a job to do and he doesn't take no for an answer. Because wherever he is, he's missing his best chance to jump-start a presidential run in 2008.


[Then I wake up this morning (3 Sept) in my hotel room to find: a) a small, strangely cuddly Chinese female in my bed; and b) a cigarette-smoking, casually "Goddam'ing" African-American Lt. Gen with a Cajun-sounding name (Honore) doing a Patton-like tirade on a street-corner (can anyone say, "Answer Man"?), screaming at soldiers to put their weapons down and ordering trucks around like he's really pissed off, which is good, because we need a public face for "pissed off" instead of the happy-glad stuff from Laura and Bush uttering "adequate" over and over and over again. Because, you know what? Babies dying from dehydration and old women slumped dead in their wheelchairs isn't "adequate."]


The usual bias of the two political parties is revealed all too predictably: the Republicans look incapable of caring and the Democrats look incapable of leadingóexcept in correctly pointing out their opponents' odd detachment from a sense of personal responsibility. Good God, the Bush people look almost startled that the country expects them to lead!


The Bush Administration may well be fatally wounded by this crisis. With its legacy of tax cuts, budget cuts everywhere save the military and national security (and look what that's gotten us to date in this response!), unprecedented budget deficits, andómost damaging of all right nowóits tendency to alienate our allies even as it ambitiously seeks to reshape the world, the Bush White House seems dangerously out of step with history's demand that we face globalization's rising complexity with our own increasing ingenuity. Instead, we seemed plagued by leaders who have outsourced vision to God knows where. This is what "Who's next?" "Bring it on!" and "Let's roll!" takes you: absolutely nowhere you're prepared to go.


And so New Orleans looks like Port-au-Prince overnight, right down to the infantile behavior of its lowest residents, who never seem to notice the cameras rolling as they descend into acts most of us wouldn't put up with from a well-trained dog. Where have these people been living up to now to think that all bets were off once the lights went down?



I mean, I understand the cagedñanimal mindset of Iraqis living for decades under a brutal dictatorship, but how to excuse the criminally feral behavior of that many people at the drop of a hat? All of us have experienced shocks in our lives, but not all of us are instantly plunged into a primitiveness that seems to revel in its inhumanity to others in clear pain. Communitiesóreal communitiesóaren't atomized overnight. Someone let New Orleans reach this latent state of brutality a long time ago. And in that process, virtually everyone is too blame: parents, churches, politicians, companies, schoolsóeveryone. We are watching the Gap's seering pain revealed right here in America in a manner that should humble us all, because there's a whole lot more broken in the Big Easy than the levee. The physical disconnectedness on display here is nothing compared to the social and even spiritual disconnectednessóand that runs from the lowest looter right up to the mayor who couldn't bother to stay with his city.


Finger-pointing is all directions has already begun, with the vast majority of these heat-seeking missiles naturally coming round to President Bush himself, who remains white-hot from the emotional scorching put on him recently by Cindy Sheehan, in what can only be described as the revenge of Michael Moore (don't tell me you don't see the similarities between her quest and Moore's breakthrough documentary "Roger and Me"). You'd think his handlers would have learned from "Fahrenheit 9/11" that silence is deadly when it comes from leaders who hesitate to lead at moments of obvious crisis.


Honestly, that crew makes Jon Stewart's job such a frickin' cakewalk that the man should send his Peabody's to the White House as a thank-you.


The presidential election of 2008 began on Tuesdayófor all of you who didn't pick up on that. Bush's second term ("Oh why does America ever bet on sequels!" the self-righteous blogger types furiously as his "vol. II" is being printed in vast numbers this very day) is now cast irretrievably as a two-and-a-half-year effort to live down its past mistakes: the systematic alienation of allies from day one, the tax cuts, the lack of peace in Iraq (andósadly but not justifiablyóthe war in Iraq by extension), and now this. We are witnessing the earliest onset of post-presidency ever.


And that's more than bad, it's tragic. Bush's instinct for action and leadership is his best quality, but he seems often to put it on the shelf in a strange sort of blind trust in the people he picks for positions of leadership around him. Frankly, other than Rummy and a few of his direct managers, I don't think I'd pick any of the rest of this administration's senior people for my team. They're just plain mediocre, despite all the past job titles. There simply isn't much imagination with this crowd: they know what to cut but not what to add. I don't anticipate any initiatives worth mentioning from this bunch absent Rummy's continued push to revamp the Pentagon. The rest, including Rice, just seem to be treading water. Rove seems lost now that he's won Bush's re-election. The ambition just isn't there any more (Remember the big push on Social Security? Won't that be a great Trivial Pursuit question years from now?). Instead, Bush looks increasingly uncomfortable, like the dog that caught the car. He has his second term, besting the old man, but all that seems to have gotten him is the resurrection of the ambivalent, rather aimless politician he was so often accused of being in the past.


I mean, what exactly did we reelect him to doóother than not be a Democrat?


It's weird, but six months before the election I remember writing here that it was Rumsfeld that was the biggest burnout of the crew, and the one most needing jettisoning. Now, he remains the one figure in the crowd likely to enjoy a big legacy: the reshaping of the force from its Cold War mindset to the beginnings of the SysAdmin's profound emergence.


With a Bush White House on its heels, expect the midlevel bureaucrats who really run Washington to be largely in control through the remainder of the term, and here the System Perturbation that is Katrina will likely prove Chernobyl-like in its impact: spurring the system toward a profound rethinking of what security really is in this increasingly interconnected world (the loss of the node that is N.O. being the biggest horizontal scenario for the long haul, revealing as it does critical infrastructural weaknesses in our economy). Rebuilding the devastated coast will be a lot like shrinking the Gap, because to create real resiliency there we'll end up creating lots of new infrastructure where we now realize there was noneóor at least not nearly enough.


This will not be a rebuilding, but a re-imaginingójust like we need to do in the Gap. And here I think the country will end up regretting giving Bush four more years becauseóagainóthis crowd lacks imagination.


Still, it's not just the military's turn toward the SysAdmin function that's likely to be accelerated, we're likely to see a new empathetic resonance across previously firewalled sectors, like urban renewal and foreign aid, overseas crisis response and homeland security, and public versus private responsibilities for ensuring social resilience.


And in this process, I really believe we'll get stronger, get smarter, and move this pile. In getting a real dose of what the Gap feels like within our borders, we should start noticing the larger picture, the larger challenges, and the larger opportunities.

9:54AM

"Old Man in a Hurry" profile of Rumsfeld (Esquire, July) now online

Find the article here: RealClearPolitics.


Michael Barone gave it a good plug in his blog yesterday. Here's what he said:



9/1/05

Must reading


I don't normally look to Esquire for information about important changes in public policies and institutions. But the July Esquire has at least one such article, by Thomas P. M. Barnett (The Pentagon's New Map) on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.


Barnett is one of the most interesting strategic thinkers around, and his article told me a lot I didn't know. Money quote: "Four armed services existed at the outset of the Rumsfeld era, but only one military force will remain when he's gone." The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986, one of the most important laws Congress has passed in the last half-century, imposed jointness in military operations: Each of the regional commands draws on forces from all the services and makes its battle plans separate from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But the services have tended to go their own way in what seems to be their major work, acquisition of military equipment. Rumsfeld, Barnett argues, is changing that, and in ways that he hopes will long survive his tenure. Fascinating.


As they say, read the whole thing.

10:55PM

Katrina's System Perturbation may feature many long horizontal scenarios

In the Shire, Indy, 1 September 2005

The sheer collapse of New Orleans is shaping up to be a significant System Perturbation all its own.


Time to pull out the six lenses we used to employ in my studies at the Naval War College:


First, there is the social scenario of seeing an American city so desperately humbled. We can say N.O. was a freak of man-made invention with the levee and the notion that you could keep a city that large below sea level, but still, this is one desperate scene. By definition, this will be a recovery of great length and with strong differentiation--meaning some will recover with reasonable speed while others with great delay or perhaps never. In general, America tends not to accept such humbling well, preferring to answer the challenge with a "never again" sort of resignation that can be expressed in a variety of explosive ways. And explosiveness is what defines the System Perturbation: a change so abrupt that incremental responses are abandoned in favor of radically new approaches.


If there are parts of N.O. that are written off as simply too hard to resurrect, then the environmental scenario may well become predominate, with a lot of finger-pointing regarding how America has overdeveloped coastal areas and run a boat-load of risks in a world featuring a warming global climate and rising sea levels. When you get a humbling of this magnitude, many will reach for biblical analogies and once you cross that line, the sense of transgressing God and Mother Nature may lead to a strong response not just in Louisiana but elsewhere across the nation.


The economic scenario is already playing out: the Big Easy was a hugely important transit point on trade, the movement of raw materials, and especially energy. The 3-dollar-plus gallon of gas is here already, and we may see a lot higher before recovery kicks in--if it does. Remember the underlying demand pressure from Asia. None of that goes away. So if this System Perturbation pushes markets to consider a rule-set reset, or a radically new discounting of risk regarding energy, new pathways may be explored that accelerate moves to new paradigms.


The political scenario stems in large part from the economic one. This one feels off the usual scales, and that means the government is stuck with the perception of needing not just to make good with the victims (thus letting the market do the rest), but to resurrect that which was lost. And if that cannot be done in what is perceived to be a timely manner, then the Big Flood can be perceived as yet another example of the Bush Administration being unable to handle big complex problems, along with Iraq and the slow pace of reforms/change associated with 9/11 (e.g., a clumsy Department of Homeland Security and the general sense of a pointless "Osama tax" on so much of our day-to-day lives). Thus N.O. becomes a straw that breaks the camel's back--if the Bush Administration ends up looking like it screwed things up yet again.


That gets us to the lens of security. The perception may balloon that America's troops are being stretched abroad and thus the homeland is left that much more bare of these assets. But whether that happens will depend much on the performance of the U.S. military. Whom do we associate with such disaster responses? Naturally, the National Guard and the Army Reserves. What happens if it is perceived that we're light-handed back home thanks to a Global War on Terrorism that feels bogged down right now in Iraq? Good question, not easily answered.


These are all the natural downsides.


The upsides, of course, tend to arise from the notion that "that which does not kill us makes us stronger"--and more clever. Here we're into the last lens of technology. In short, we innovate our way out of perceived dead-ends. Specific examples of resiliency reborn may signal new understandings of how you bring back the disconnected to the world of connectivity--not so much repairing the old but creating new forms of connectivity. And I'm not just talking in a physical, networked sense, but in a social-economic sense: how do you make sure the rural and urban poor aren't permanently disconnected from the future by this tragedy? Does the shock allow us to solve old, seemingly intractable situations such as these, or does it simply exacerbate them?


Positive lessons in this regard can give us a renewed sense of confidence that this nut is not necessarily that hard to crack--not just at home but elsewhere.


And we may become more empathetic with that elsewhere.


One thing is clear: our system has been perturbed.


When that happens, new rules tend to come in waves, just like Katrina did.


Time to pull out the old Y2K report. Time to anticipate the political backlash, the rise of the "answer man" and the search for scapegoats.


The horizontal scenarios are just beginning. . .

+++ Technorati tag: +++

Page 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7