More wisdom on Iran

ARTICLE: Abizaid: World could abide nuclear Iran, By ROBERT BURNS, AP, Sep 17, 11:33 PM ET

A wise voice urges caution and less uncontrollable fear on Iran.

My sense of meeting with Abizaid one-on-one when he was CENTCOM boss was that he was frustrated by his command's inability to deal with Iran directly, which is only natural. Hard to be COCOM and be told you can't interact with your region's biggest threat.

That lack of connectivity with Iran now comes to a head as Petraeus works the Shia issue.

Then again, the cynic in me says that may be the whole point with this administration as we are prepped for war with Iran.

On that score, I guess you'd also have to describe Abizaid as a serious skeptic.

(Thanks: air co)

Message and tactic

ARTICLE: At Iowa Event, Clinton Vows Pre-Inauguration Diplomatic Push, By Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz, Washington Post, September 17, 2007; Page A02

Great campaign message and sensible post-win tactic to tie Bush's hands ASAP. It wouldn't surprise me whatsoever for that crew to commit the U.S. militarily on Iran just like H.W. did to Bill on Somalia.

(Thanks: Matt Jones)

Sad but expected

POST: Rejecting Nagl, By Max Boot, Commentary Magazine, 9.17.2007

Sad but expected. Even as the advisory role of our ground forces explodes in Iraq, the Big Army bureaucracy rejects this most necessary change, instead indulging in that romantic view, encouraged by Kaplan, that special operators can do it all and therefore are enough.

That strategy of limited regrets gets you limited reforms, thus perpetuating the Big Army mindset that Kaplan so accurately derides.

(Thanks: Bill Weisberg)

The coming strike on Iran

ARTICLE: Bush setting America up for war with Iran, By Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington, Telegraph, 17/09/2007

This is how I would expect it to go as well: build the case, strike just over border, wait for response to justify larger strikes and then light them up.

If Iran falls for it?

Then, quite frankly, the mullahs get what they deserve for being such dumb-asses. They should be seeking some serious international insulation, but instead they allow Ahmadinejad's mouth to dig the graves of those citizens who will inevitably die. Not that they care. In fact, it suits their purposes quite nicely.

Persian arrogance is a consistent historical theme, and this time it may have met its match in an administration that feels it has nothing to lose in its remaining days.

I mean, think about it: two wars, neither of which have gotten America the outcomes it sought (al-Qaeda crippled, Iraq secure and democratic), so where's the legacy downside for Bush on Iran?

There is none.

It has always been very stupid to bet against America being unable to bounce back. We strike Iran and there's a lot of happy Sunni dictatorships and one very estatic Israel, all of whom will go out of their way to show some thanks and gin up an appropriately grateful PR blitz. Much sand gets kicked up and even if we don't set Iran's nuke program back at all (highly likely), we've sent our signal (our failures in postwar Iraq don't mean our Leviathan still can't bomb at will).

We're so freaked out over Ahmadinejad's "messiah returning" complex when our president has just as strong religious beliefs, a clear sense that time is running out on his term, and he's actually--unlike Ahmadinejad's weak presidential position--got the power to execute his will--and a real record of doing it.

Iran should be plenty scared of a large-scale military strike, but, of course, it's hardline leadership is not scared, because we could offer them no clearer stabilization program.

Ahmadinejad won't win re-election in 2009 without prompting such a strike, so I guess it has to happen.

I mean, if Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Tehran all want it to happen, who are we to say no?

(Thanks: Dan Hare)

Not on radio tonight

I canceled this time. No recovered enough yet from sinus infection. Brain too scrambled to go 60 at 11pm. Syntax just too rough right now.

THE Ignatius analysis on Iran right now hits the nail on the head

OP-ED: "Handle Iran with care," by David Ignatius, syndicated to Indianapolis Star, 17 September 2007, p. A6.

Not too long ago, I expressed some bafflement at Ignatius sounding the alarm on Iran's influence-peddling in Iraq. His analysis had struck me as a bit one-sided, like we should be surprised that Iran is actively seeking influence right next door with the world's first Arab Shia state. To me, it was uncharacteristically un-Ignatius.

This piece corrects any misperceptions from the previous one and reminds us what a comprehensively strategic thinker Ignatius is when he's on his game.

A very solid capture of the current dynamics:

The most dangerous flashpoint is still Iraq. Military forces are engaged--America's openly, Iran's clandestinely--in a battle for influence over the shattered remnants of the Iraqi state. Indeed, now that the new American priority is to prevent Iranian hegemony over Iraqi Shiites. U.S. officials say they have tried to reassure Iraqis they won't fight a proxy war against Tehran on Iraqi territory. But that's precisely what has been happening in recent months.

Even better are the four areas Ignatius highlights for the Bush administration to conduct more aggressive diplomacy:

1) Lebanon: some deal between central gov and Hezbollah
2) Palestine
3) Syria: to break off from Iran while the breaking's good
4) the PG: where "America's top military commanders in the Gulf favor an 'incidents at sea' agreement with Iran."

To me, that's a great idea that mirrors what we did with the Sovs. I will bet money that's Dave Nichols, Dep CENTCOM commander (who brought me down to Tampa last March) and especially Fox Fallon, CENTCOM commander who tussled with Rummy over Fallon's desire to do mil-mil cooperation with the Chinese while he was PACOM's boss. That desire would be in line with reports that Fallon and Petraeus are at loggerheads over the commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq for the long haul, leaving CENTCOM with little asset leeway to deal with any other scenarios--hence the desire not to be artificially trapped into some unwanted response on Iran. Combatant commanders want wiggle room when tensions are high. They want venues and options. What they don't want to be told is that "this is our only possible response!"

Whenever anyone proposes "negotiations" with Iran, the hardliners on our side act like you're proposing that and only that, when the reality is, that's the one thing that's been missing for years now. It's been all yang and no yin with Iran and on that basis we assume--wrongly--that there's no useful possibility of payoffs from real talks (instead of the ones we always pursue, or the ones that mandate Iran give up its nuke program to get anywhere in the process).

We need a real mix of confidence-building, useful negotiations on areas of common concern, plus the usual targeted sanctions and containment-focused shows of force. If all you do is sanction and show force, there's no balance to your approach, meaning you can signal your unhappiness but never your approval. We were smarter than that with the Sovs and it worked. With Iran, we're doing not much smarter than we do with Cuba.

As Ignatius rightly points out, our problem isn't the Iranian navy (such as it still exists), but rather the naval forces of the Revolutionary Guard.

His ending is also very sharp:

The United States and Iran are playing a game of 'chicken' in the Middle East. A collision would be ruinous for both. Each side needs to be careful to avoid miscalculation and act in ways that avert a crack-up.

What does this column tell me? Ignatius is a true canary in the coalmine. If he's writing this now, that tells you how actually close we are to military conflict with Iran.

Speaking of admirals . . .

Got a nice hand-written note from Joe Sestak, now Democratic representative of the 7th district of PA but formerly a Vice Admiral of the US Navy.

He thanked me for the discussion with the roles and missions panel of the House Armed Services Committee week before last.

Joe was always about the slickest admiral you'd ever meet. Few were surprised he went into politics or that he was immediately successful at it. A "political flag officer" to some (like Petraeus is often accused of being; I find these officers are exactly the ones who best see war within the context of everything else), but to me, it's hugely important to see former officers like Sestak or Geoff Davis of KY get into Congress. The low level of former officers in that body is a serious deficit, because Congress needs all the expertise it can get on this complex subject.

I found it unsurprisingly that a recent MSM story on Petraeus' testimony quoted Sestak making the same point I did recently in a blog post: that it's a bit spooky to see the White House outsourcing leadership of the Iraq effort to a general, no matter how talented he is (i.e., the whole notion that Petraeus didn't vet his findings with the White House prior to testifying--like that would be something wrong!). It takes a former military to make that kind of point with confidence. I mean, it's not like Sestak would need to have his staffer hold up a blown-up photo of him with Petraeus in Iraq to prove his bona fides on the subject.

People might assume a former mil guy would be a soft touch on the military, but the truth is, they tend to be the most usefully skeptical, meaning they can separate the wheat from the chaff instead of simply seeing everything as one or the other.

As I've said earlier, I expect (like Kristol recently argued) to see a lot of great political leaders arise from the military in the post-9/11 paradigm. That'll give us a smarter Congress and--by extension--better presidencies.

A head's up on a DC briefing

Got the official letter of invite from Gerry Mauer, the rear admiral commandant of the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, for my now annual address to the ICAF student body. As opposed to the previous two years when I gave it in August to kick off the school year (my first time in 2004 was at the end of the year in June), ICAF decided to hold me off until late October based on how they're using PNM this year.

Some chance C-SPAN may record. It's done it in the past twice (the long June 04 version of the PNM brief and the hour-long 2006 version of the BFA one). If the network decides to tape again, it'll catch the pre-next book version in one of its last iterations, meaning a tight summary of PNM, plus the essentials of BFA, plus numerous look-aheads to the next book.

Anyway, it's one of my favorite stages in the world (very warm, nice modest height, great sound, good screen behind, etc). The audience is always a solid 400 or so (the 300-plus students, plus a bunch of faculty and interlopers, like Barone sneaking in on the 2004 show), and because it's mil-heavy, I deliver at my fastest bit rate.

Plus, it will be fun to be hosted by Mauer. He's the admiral who brought me to a NATO conference in Berlin back in 2005 (a great trip) and I love to maintain connections like that over time.

Anyway, I raise the issue simply because if you're of the right stripe, it's a good event to catch.

Of course, the Smithsonian event will be at roughly the same time, and that one would be easier for non-field-insiders to gain access to.

Just trying to give people the heads-up they're constantly asking me to provide.

China's one-child gift to the world

OP-ED: "China's One-Child Mistake: With a shrinking working-age population, who will take care of the country's retirees?" by Nicholas Eberstadt, Wall Street Journal, 17 September 2007, p. A17.

The efforts by India and China to control their population growth over the past several decades changes human history forever--and to our collective great benefit. All those predictions of a global population boom out of control never materialized as a result.

But, of course, some cost is involved. China heads into a demographic challenge of immense proportions. Eberstadt sees a slo-mo humanitarian tragedy.

What is it about demographers and their amazingly self-confident hyperbole? You'd think they'd be a bit more careful on the hype given their past mistakes (Too many people! No! Wait! Now there'll be too few!).

Eberstadt even goes so far to raise the spooky specter of all those Chinese males unable to marry. But, of course, there we've already seen a preview in the form of Korean males facing a similar problem right now. Their answer? They fly to Vietnam and marry a young woman over the weekend--just like that.

Guess what China's males will do (those that don't leave as economic refugees for work elsewhere, which is a huge informal escape hatch)? Will they riot or demand war with other nations? Or will they also simply go farther afield?

Ditto for China's demographic challenge in general. Is importing workers (meaning, immigration) a complete impossibility? Is China somehow a sealed unit that will collapse under its own weight over the next 30 years, or--GODFORBID!--might it simply open up its system further to tap the necessary labor and investment and technology?

Eberstadt sees a tragedy because he's operating with an image of China that he cannot shake: the isolationist system that's hostile to outsiders. But that image is dissolving with time, as China has proven to be amazingly open to outside influences, right down to the point of letting foreigners adopt baby girls en masse (if they can manage that, what's the big deal about Chinese males marrying non-Han?). Somehow China managed to cope with this "sudden and very rapid emergence" of unwanted female babies, so why can't this highly practical society deal with the "sudden and very rapid emergence" of unmarried men? I mean, we estimate that 100 million Chinese will travel abroad every year by 2020, so might we assume some of these "trapped" single guys might actually chose something besides instability?

Honestly, these things get presented all the time by social scientists as inexorable tragedies, as though humans aren't adaptable whatsoever. Hell, you give me the choice between no woman and a racially different woman and guess which choice I "suddenly and very rapidly" make? Or take a gander at Ireland with its "sudden and very rapid" influx of immigrant black Africans? Inconceivable I tell you!

Until necessity makes it happen.

We have to remember: this is the same Chinese culture where men have left behind families for years on end to earn money abroad. If this culture can handle that level of practicality, what's so unbelievable about China self-correcting on this issue down the road? After all, they had the guts to set it in motion in the first place!

Obviously, I see something very different from Eberstadt on the issue of demographics: I see the huge impracticality of China going hostile and isolating itself from the world. By setting in motion the demographic wave, China inexorably commits itself to interdependency. It simply cannot navigate future challenges without remaining amazingly open to the outside world, and that means its ability to turn hostile is severely circumscribed.

To me, as a grand strategist, this is very good news. Trying to hype it inside out to the point of turning this positive into yet another negative fear of China's possible threat to us is misguided (although Eberstadt does not do this, I hear this pitch from national security types all the time).

Yes, China will naturally do as Eberstadt argues: it will lift the restriction, confident that the economic dynamics already deeply in place will prevent any big uptick in births. The time for this temporary fix is done. Now is the time to return the decision making back to the people--yet another example of how power naturally devolves downward with China's rise.

But don't present this as a mistake. This huge effort was China's gift to human history and it's an incredibly valuable one: relieving the danger of uncontrolled global population growth, plus forcing China down a path of economic interdependency that keeps its "rising" peaceful.

Good deal on both points for us.

Why we say no to Taiwan's bid for UN membership

OP-ED: "Let Taiwan Join the U.N.: China's ire is not a good cause for concern," by Bob Dole, Wall Street Journal, 17 September 2007, p. A16.

Dole makes a decent case here but eschews exploring the real issue for the Chinese: giving Taiwan membership would, in Beijing's eyes, rule out the potential for peaceful integration down the road. It would also make the UN responsible for Taiwan's defense in the event of hostilities between the island and mainland in the future.

The UN is smart to avoid that responsibility.

The reality is more than just the fact that the UN gave China's Taiwan's seat in 1971. The reality is that Taiwan held China's seat from the end of WWII to 1971, and on that basis claimed to be the sole representative of the nation known as China. We supported that claim, and then we, along with the UN, transferred that claim to the PRC.

In both cases (pre-71 and post-71) the logic has been the same: There is one seat for China.

Now, Taiwan wants to make the case for a second seat, and naturally, China takes that as an affront to its perceived territorial integrity. The equivalent would be something like DC asking for UN membership because it's denied statehood.

Saying, as Dole does, that the U.S. and the West do not support Taiwan out of fear of China's wrath is correct, but it's not much of a point. There are numerous international issues that other countries around this planet do not adequately address out of fear of America's wrath. Some are quite reasonable, others are not.

The larger issue of peaceful relations between the U.S. and China outweighs Taiwan's desire here. We made our call on this issue back in 1949, and then reversed in 1971, but it's our bed to lie in at this point, because we've stuck with the same position throughout: there is but one China.

Regulations on China are good for us and them

In Turnaround, Industries Seek U.S. Regulations, By ERIC LIPTON and GARDINER HARRIS, New York Times, September 16, 2007

Interesting dynamic with Chinese competition: because the Chinese undercut on both price and safety, U.S. industries see regulation as salvation.

Oddly enough, so will the Chinese over time. The better our regs work upstream on the Chinese, the more we help their economy become more rule-bound.

Good stuff for both sides.

Tom around the web hiatus

No 'Tom around the web' this week. Back next week. If you're burning to have us see something, leave it in the comments on the post.

Freedom!

Forgot about a radio segment that Jenn had scheduled a long time back for this afternoon. Got the call while painting a face at the parish festival, so left my daughter (my first subject 13 years ago; we painted her face for her cancer treatments as a form of silly escapism), who now paints with me, to handle the long line (many unhappy faces) and ran to the far side of the church to do the 15-minute segment right then under a grove of trees.

It was a couple of guys down in San Antonio, one of whom was a civil affairs specialist who did a tour in Afghanistan, so the questions and dialogue were unusually informed.

Still, it was weird to shift gears from painting tiger masks and Colts insignias (and generally stewing in my Alka-Seltzer-enhanced cold stupor; I threw out my voice this a.m. cheering my older son to a tenth-place XC meet finish and his best-ever time) and kick it immediately into high speaking gear.

I seriously needed my "singer's secret" throat spray.

As I was talking, I caught a glimpse of myself in one of the church's stained-glass windows and realized I was still painted up as William Wallace in full killing-English painted mask.

Just then our priest, Father Tom, walked by, spotted me and raised his fist in the air and yelled---sotto voce--"FREEEEEEEEDOM!"

I had to turn away to avoid laughing on the air and finished the radio segment.

Then Steve DeAngelis called after getting out of another marathon Pentagon meeting in DC (Steve's just back from his 6th trip to Kurdistan, Iraq) and wanted to data dump some more on emerging issues (I've had people in the Building working Kurdistan tell me they'd clone Steve if they could, to which I reply, "Enterra will take 4 copies when you get it done!"). I had to beg off til later, as the line was really long when I got back to the tent.

So many masters ...

This week's column

What our 'lost year' in Iraq ends up costing America

Army Gen. David Petraeus' report on Iraq, having been leaked to the press for days before his appearance on Capitol Hill, contained no surprises. The surge's several tactical successes in the Sunni regions are disconnected from any strategic progress in either strengthening the central government or stemming the opportunistic meddling by neighbors. Iraq is slowly separating into its three constituent parts (Kurdish, Shia and Sunni), with Baghdad becoming increasingly irrelevant.

America's military surge plays effective midwife to this Balkans-done-backwards, in which we removed the dictator first and then presided uncomfortably over the ethnic cleansing that killed Iraq as a unitary state. Iraq's soft partition was preordained by the first Gulf War's inconclusive outcome: Saddam Hussein survived to mercilessly crush a Shia revolt but was subsequently prevented by American air power from strangling the emergent Kurdish nation.

Read on at KnoxNews.
Read on at Scripps Howard.

Bin Laden is pathetic

ARTICLE: 'Bin Laden's new image: younger, more Marxist:The former multimillionaire now blames global capitalism and class for the tragedies in Iraq and Afghanistan,' By Fawaz A. Gerges, Christian Science Monitor, September 13, 2007

Cool piece by Farwaz Gerges, with whom I did 3 hours of Japanese TV a while back (with Francois Hesbourg) in Times Square.

He impressed me plenty then.

This, to me, signals how pathetic Bin Laden has become: his 7th-century shtick doesn't sell well, so now he's resurrecting bankrupt neo-Marxist diatribes against globalization in general and capitalism in particular. But since he promises only a pre-economic alternative, this angle is about as unappealing as the previous one.

Some will hail this as a clever tapping into anti-globalization sentiment, but this is Bin Laden watering down his message to attract a wider audience, and that just ain't gonna work with his attached fundamentalist package, which remains amazingly unappealing to anyone outside his narrow religious framework.

Most of Islam's revival and radicalization is an attempt to engage globalization while retaining identity, not trying to mount some complete alternative, much less one with so many unappealing social strictures.

Anyone seen Long Shanks?

Painting faces at the parish festival.

Gates and Fallon: doing their jobs

'Pentagon Chief Talks of Further Iraq Troop Cuts: Gates Expresses Hope Despite New U.S. Report on Unmet Goals,' By Michael Abramowitz and Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, September 15, 2007; Page A01

Gates is doing his job. No surprise. There will be back and forth on this. Gates and Fallon (Centcom head) are going to want to be able to cover other bets as soon as reasonably possible.

Like I wrote in "State of the World," the right strike in Europe with NW Pakistan fingerprints on it and we may be in a different strategic dynamic very quickly. Fallon won't want to face that possibility with his assets all tied down in the surge.

So all this back and forth is normal system reset.

Loftus on Monday

Tom's rescheduled on John Loftus' show for Monday night. John has a video preview.

Looking for a few good men

Enterra's plate fills in ways both exciting and very challenging. The excitement is easy enough to process: we've got the goods and chutzpah necessary to take advantage of situations where others have not stepped up.

The challenge portion, which stopped being about money a while back, is all about pulling in enough talented people.

As the reputation rises, getting talent interested isn't the problem, although we try not to poach people toooo much. Rather, it's just the time and effort involved in shifting them out of their own exciting careers into something even better (certainly more wide open, with attendant payoff opportunities) with us.

Right now we're looking for some senior players who can handle themselves at any and all high levels in the IC, DoD, and the executive branch (both our gov and others)--basically the kind of individuals who can't move from one shop to another without sending off ripples. We've avoided that level of effort in the past, by and large, because we've kept an appropriately low profile for a start-up. But within months we're going to be operating at a very different level--the kind people chronicle in books.

So we're looking rather openly now for talented seniors who will be sorely missed at the places they leave.

If you know of such people or are one yourself, please contact me ASAP.

Enterra intends to make some history in the next couple of years. Should be a ride well worth taking.

The perfect counterview on Iraq

OP-Ed: "The Remains of That Day," by Daniel Henninger, Wall Street Journal, 13 September 2007, p. A16.

I don't agree, but it's a great expression of the flip-side argument:

Petraeus' COIN is working.
AQI is weakened.
Both efforts require lots of troops for a long time.
Americans are bored with Iraq, and debates over troop levels don't excite them.
The only "fresh, forward-moving issue' of the hearings came from Joe Lieberman: "whether we should crack back at Iran."

The glass half full, with casualties dismissed, of course, and the casual slipping-in on Iran as the next war.

Get used to that message: Iraq is just fine and Iran is next.

Deny either and you're soft on defense.

And we wonder why so much of the world thinks we've left the ranch for good.

This is war within the context of nothing.

Our strategic debate on the Long War has devolved to the point of gibberish. We're still playing "Who's next?"

Accumulating enemies while losing friends is exactly how you lose a long war.