How Obama Should Maneuver Against the 'Axis of Evil' 2.0

With U.N. Week offering him more awkward handshakes, the Right backing him into World War III scenarios, and a brand-new missile system offering him even fewer defenses, can the president play the bad diplomatic hand dealt by his predecessor? A game plan for hard-line regime talks.

Continue reading this week's World War Room column at Esquire.com.

Well played, Secretary Gates

SPEECH: Air Force Association Convention, By Robert M. Gates, September 16, 2009

Excerpts:

IRREGULAR WARFARE
As you know, institutionalizing these kinds of capabilities was what drove many of my budget recommendations earlier this year. The goal was to give these critical capabilities a seat at the table when priorities are set and budget decisions were being made. But, contrary to what some have alleged, the purpose was not to reorganize and rearm the entire U.S. military to hunt insurgents and do nation-building or to fight wars just like Iraq and Afghanistan. Program specific to these kinds of missions will continue to
make up a small fraction of overall defense spending. For example, over the next few years, the Air Force is planning to devote an extra $175 million annually on programs dedicated exclusively to irregular warfare - a significant commitment at a time of tight budgets, but not exactly an existential threat to overall modernization accounts, which, in the case of the Air Force's, will total some $64 billion requested for the next fiscal
year.

"FIGHTER GAP"
the Air Force's modernization program includes accelerating the retirement of more than 230 of its oldest fighters - just under 13 percent of the total fighter inventory - leading some to allege a looming "fighter gap." In my view, such a conclusion is based on dated assumptions about requirements and risk - assumptions that also pervade thinking about some of our land, sea, and amphibious forces as well. The definition of the requirement should be un-tethered from the current force structure and instead be defined by what is needed to defeat potential adversaries in plausible scenarios. What we then find is that the more compelling gap is the deep chasm between the air capabilities of the United States and those of other nations. For example, the United States is projected to have more than 1,000 F-22s and F-35s before China fields its first fully operational fifth-generation fighter - a gap that will grow well into the 2020s.

The disparity with other countries is even greater when it comes to pilot quality and logistics. Last year the United States Air Force devoted one-and-a-half million hours to flight training - not counting ongoing operations - and conducted roughly 35,000 aerial refueling missions. The Russian Air Force, by comparison, conducted about 30 refueling sorties.

UAV POTENTIAL
A key additional - and yet untapped - part of this mix of capabilities is unmanned aerial vehicles. Today, because of their effectiveness in Iraq and Afghanistan, these systems are mostly thought of as counterinsurgency platforms. But they have enormous game-changing implications for conventional conflict as well.

In future years, these remotely piloted aircraft will get more numerous and more advanced, with greater range and the ability to fight as well as survive. The director of the Air Force's unmanned task force has compared judging UAV potential based on today's systems to judging manned aircraft based on the Wright Brothers Flyer. Large numbers of increasingly capable UAVs - when integrated with our fifth-generation fighters - potentially give the United States the ability to disrupt and overwhelm an adversary using mass and swarming tactics, adding a new dimension to the American way of war.

At this point it is not clear what the full strategic impact could be - whether, for example, it could be comparable to the impact of carrier aviation on naval warfare. We certainly do not want to engage in the kind of techno-optimism that has muddled strategic thinking in the past. But we cannot ignore the wider implications of this profound shift in battlefield technology, especially since their low cost and high utility make UAVs very
attractive to other nations.

LONG RANGE STRIKE -- BOMBER
I am committed to seeing that the United States has an airborne long-range strike capability - one of several areas being examined in the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review. What we must not do is repeat what happened with our last manned bomber. By the time the research, development, and requirements processes ran their course, the aircraft, despite its great capability, turned out to be so expensive - $2 billion each in the case of the B-2 - that less than one-sixth of the planned fleet of 132 was ever
built.

Looking ahead, it makes little sense to pursue a future bomber - a prospective B-3, if you will - in a way that repeats this history. We must avoid a situation in which the loss of even one aircraft - by accident, or in combat - results in a loss of a significant portion of the fleet, a national disaster akin to the sinking of a capital ship. This scenario raises our costs of action and shrinks our strategic options, when we should be looking to the kind of weapons systems that limit the costs of action and expand our options.

Whatever system is chosen to meet this requirement - be it manned, unmanned, or some combination of the two - it should be one that can realistically be produced and deployed in the numbers originally envisioned. That is why it is so important that with aircraft - as with all of our major weapons systems - schedules are met, costs are controlled, and requirements are brought into line with reality.

REFUELING TANKER
I am pleased to announce that source selection authority is returning to the Air Force for the KC-X refueling tanker, with a draft Request for Proposals to follow. I don't need to belabor the importance of getting this done soon and done right, and my office will continue to have a robust oversight role. We are committed to the integrity of the selection process, and cannot afford the kind of letdowns, parochial squabbles, and corporate food-fights that have bedeviled this effort over the last number of years

Gates continues to play this game very well, knowing time (meaning, current contingencies) is most definitely on his side. All very sensible stuff that shows he will not be suckered into stupid arguments.

I especially like the "existential threat" comment on modernization. The guy's got a wonderful bit of smart-ass in him.

(Thanks: Thayer Scott)

Tighten the border, turn loose the national forests

U.S. NEWS: "Pot 'Plantations' on the Rise: Border Crackdown Makes Farming in U.S. Forests Attractive; Cartel Links Suspected," by Stephanie Simon, Wall Street Journal, 3 September 2009.

The spread of pot farms in national forests: just CA in 1995 (3 forests), then also OR, WA, ID and UT in 2001 (38 forests in all), and then also NV, AZ, CO, WI, MI, TN, AL, GA, SC, NC and VA in 2009 (61 forests impacted).

There are not fly-by-night ops, as the article points out, but substantial investments in effort, often with PVC piped irrigation schemes.

The backers tend to be Latin American cartels looking to localize production. Cuts in state-financed park patrols helps plenty.

So, once again, we see the futility of trying to stem the flow of production. This remains a demand-side problem, made incredibly lucrative by the illegal quality of the enterprise.

So we do get pissed off when distant powers start messing in our hood!

OPINION: "The Emerging Axis of Iran and Venezuela," by Robert M. Morgenthau, Wall Street Journal, 9 September 2009.

A nice, long prosecutorial presentation from Morgenthau, who argues we need "to ensure this partnership produces no poisonous fruit."

Basic description here makes sense: two countries bent on becoming regional powers, seek in each other an ally for nefarious activities. Why? Neither succeeds at un-nefarious activities, and both are in the process of running down their real economies, so like-minded autocrats attract.

Do they target their nefarious, usually criminal activities? Yes.

Do you expose them like crazy? Absolutely. Especially when we're talking an "Islamic Republic" getting in bed with a narcotics trafficking power.

But realize this: we've gone from serious powers like China and the Sovs linking up (all those years ago) to a world in which our biggest package right now is Iran and Venezuela.

Yes, as Morgenthau argues, these are arguably two of the most dangerous regimes in the world. That just shows you, though, how danger has shrunk over the past several decades.

But absolutely, we should f--k these two up every chance we get.

The rise of global middle class women

ARTICLE: The Real Emerging Market, By Rana Foroohar and Susan H. Greenberg, Newsweek, Sep 12, 2009

A consistent argument of mine and the heart of Kristof and Wu's new book: economic connectivity empowers women more than men and that empowerment is the heart of economic development. (Notice our lengthy boom after women's lib.)

So, no surprise, the rise of a global middle class is female-skewed. There is simply no way to get ahead economically if you keep your women behind socially and--ultimately--politically. Prahalad makes this point as well: to sell to the growing bottom of the pyramid is mostly about winning over the brand loyalty of women--purse strings, my friends.

God's work: bringing China and the US together

EVENT: China's Arrival: The Long March to Global Power, Center for a New American Security, September 24, 2009

CNAS is doing God's work on this one. Steinberg (he of two Chinese daughters) may end up being the key sub-cabinet player here.

I've spent the entire decade sounding this horn, so it's nice to see some shift in serious thinking beginning to finally emerge.

(Thanks: VacationLaneGrp)

Too much money chasing too many tiny loans?

FRONT PAGE: "A Global Surge in Tiny Loans Spurs Credit Bubble in a Slum," by Kataki Gokhale, Wall Street Journal, 13 August 2009.

Some Indian slums are now being "carpet-bombed" with micro-loan offers, triggering growth rates that are bubble-like (too much money chasing too few good ideas). Yet to be seen.

For now, an underserved market is being served, and that's an experiment worth going a bit crazy on.

Yes, people will abuse and scam. Imagining opening up a new loan to pay off an old one? Why, people in America would never do anything like that, especially with credit cards (an open-ended micro-loan if ever there was one).

For now, I like watching the global investors step in. They're making money so far.

We can't expect people to adjust instantly to these opportunities. Learning can and must occur, and that means booms and busts.

America's scary sexual predator list

LEADERS: "America's unjust sex laws: An ever harsher approach is doing more harm than good, but it is being copied around the world," The Economist, 8 August 2009.

BRIEFING: "Sex laws: Unjust and ineffective; America has pioneered the harsh punishment of sex offenders. Does it work?" The Economist, 8 August 2009.

Disturbing stuff that says too many U.S. states with too-low thresholds for being labeled a sexual predator for the rest of your life. An underage male or female having sex with another underage kid does not a sexual predator make, otherwise I missed the list only for not having been caught (and I'm guessing many of my readers could make the same statement, as roughly one-third of all teenagers have sex with other teenagers prior to turning 18).

But this list, and all the accompanying laws, have gone too far, basically outlawing such people from vast urban swaths of America.

Why is bad? I'm the father of four, and we welcome the transparency.

But making the entry threshold so low in some cases, the list fills up with non-predators, making it harder to track and deal with the truly bad ones. And the lifestyle restrictions go too far. In one city, the only place sexual predators can live, when all the "not within X feet of any . . ." restrictions are added up, is somewhere in the middle of a nearby lake. Truly egregious is the guilt-by-extension to family members. What if your underage daughter has sex with an underage boy and you, the parent, are held responsible? You can be labeled a sexual predator for the rest of your life (true story cited). Then there's the obvious effect on family when somebody is barred from living or working in certain situations.

Everybody wants the right exclusions, but if expert analysis says only about 5% of the people on the list are the real threats, while another 30% are potentials, then we're talking 65% of people who pose little threat and yet are receiving Soviet-like punishments.

But the worst impact, by far, is that other nations are copying our lead, giving me a rare example of when our exportation of rules is to everybody's detriment.

Real scary piece. Make sure your teenagers are aware of the rules in your state.

Where Obama falls distinctly short in both vision and action: North American integration

THE AMERICAS: "The North American summit: Reluctant partners; A messy ménage à trois," The Economist, 8 August 2009.

Gist: Mexico wants to talk about forming an EU-like union as the next step in political integration in North America, whereas Canada is fixated only on better relations with the U.S. after Bush and "shuns trilateralism." Meanwhile, Obama continues Bush's tendency to focus more on border security than integration.

Political asylum from Latin American gangs?

U.S. NEWS: "Family Seeks U.S. Asylum After Fleeing Gang: Government Could Change Standards for 3 Salvadorans Who Faced Threats of Violence from MS-13 in Their Hometown," by Miriam Jordan, Wall Street Journal< 21 August 2009.

Seems reasonable enough. Warfare on an individual level yields political repression on a similar scale, so why not political refugees?

Scholars estimate thousands of Latin American young men have escaped to the U.S. over the past decade over this issue.

Naturally, a new rule awaits, one that presumable seeks to reduce the potential for false claims.

Hardly a gambit, more an economic imperative for China re: Latin America

OPINION: "China's Latin Economic Gambit," by Hugo Restall, Wall Street Journal, 24 August 2009.

BRIEFING: "Latin American geopolitics: The dragon in the backyard; Latin America is tilting toward China, Iran and the global "south"--and away from the United States," The Economist, 15 August 2009.

China, as the manufacturing superpower of the 21st century, naturally sees the providers of raw commodities turn in its direction politically. This was the same power we once had in abundance, but we moved upward and onward in terms of development (although the energy dependency remains strong), plus we never faced quite the same resource shortages that China has across the board (excluding coal).

As the Restall piece argues, there is virtually no ideological threat from China's involvement in Latin America. They mostly just want the stuff and their money is a wash, politically speaking (won't tame leftists, but won't create any either).

China is only 10% of the region's trade--for now. It's the rapid climb that catches the eye, along with the fact that "the main tool Beijing is deploying in the region is China Development Bank's massive pile of U.S. dollar reserves." Meanwhile, our favorite tap (Inter-American Development Bank) is largely tapped out.

Aha! The return of dollar diplomacy--simply recycled.

Let's hope China does better than the Middle East and Europe did in the 1970s and 80s. Eventually, the stockpiling of commodities while they're cheap will come to a close, and that drop-off, combined with the ever-present danger of overcapacity in China, may well put Latin America on yet another tumultuous ride.

The hope?

For all the talk of budding South-South relations, the reality is that developing economies directly compete with each other because their comparative advantages are similar. The U.S. may ultimately be able to play the other two sides against each other in this triangular relationship because its own economy is complimentary with both.

The U.S. may yet be able to bind the region together by offering Latin America greater access to its markets and giving its neighbors a leg up in competition with China. After the failure of the Free Trade Area of the Americas negotiations in 2005, the only way forward for opening markets was much more limited agreements.

But as China's footprint expands in the Americas, it may concentrate minds and bring the negotiators back to the table. That would be a win-win outcome for the whole hemisphere.

As for the Economist piece and the suggestion that the Monroe Doctrine is dead, that analysis both misinterprets the Doctrine and the current state of affairs. An "open door" swings open for everybody, whereas the doctrine was about military domination and associated attempts at economic extortion (Roosevelt Corollary).

And please remember we're still far bigger traders and investors in the region than China or anybody else.

But no doubt we're seeing a realization on our side that we've long ignored the region, especially with the "war on terror."

China's role in the region (besides wiping out low-end manufacturing with its own economy) is not that deep and mostly centered on extractive industries. India, meanwhile, invests more in technology (software, pharma) and not just in resources.

Yes, China may well free Chavez of his uncomfortable dependence on the U.S. market, but it's fueling fears in the region that China's primary impact, in combo with stifling manufacturing, is "causing the region to respecialize in commodities"--a decidedly 19th-century outcome. And no, China has zero interest in "peoples' liberation"--just the opposite, so don't expect the PLA to show up in numbers, except to sign contracts.

As for Russia, it's only interested in selling arms--for money and not for outcomes.

Only Iran can be said to have any serious ideological ambitions, reflecting the stupidity of its economic relationships with the outside world.

Can we complain about this outcome? Hardly. If we wanted better relations with the region, we could have them. But we chose a drug war and economic stinginess whenever things get tough. So we definitely could use some competition.

Israeli realism on Iran

ARTICLE: More and more Jewish Voices opposing Israel-Promoted pre-emptive Attack on Iran, by Allan C. Brownfeld, Media MonitorsSeptember 14, 2009

Have no doubt, there tends to be plenty more realism on this subject inside Israel than outside. But that doesn't mean the American Jewish community is in the tank on this one already either.

Good overview from Brownfeld here.

Sullivan's superior takedown

POST: Obama Is "Pushing Israel To War", By Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish, 15 Sep 2009

Sullivan is willing to make more of an effort on his rebuttal than I was. It's worth reading.

Stephens was just cartoonish here for me to take seriously, and I get tired sometimes of repeating myself on Iran.

You don't bring up Stephens being Jewish (my mentioning his time at the Jerusalem Post) when he's making a reasoned argument. You just take the argument and deal with it as it stands. But when he gets this oddly skewed in his logic (Sullivan's dismemberment is almost too easy), you do bring it up, because there's no good way to explain away this kind of performance. It's just too partisan to stand up to scrutiny. It would be like me, years ago, arguing the U.S. should take the side of the IRA against the UK. At that point, most reasonable people would just blow me off, saying I'm Irish Catholic. That wouldn't exactly be anti-Irish. It would simply be noticing that I lose my perspective on this particular subject.

Now you can also say Stephens is just being WSJ/conservative (he runs the op-ed pages), but how it is conservative to advocate a third war while we're trying to clean up two in the same region and are losing our popular consensus already there?

But any such perspective just gets tossed here. Iran cannot have nukes like Israel has, and America MUST wage pre-emptive war to stop that natural balancing.

As I have said for a very long time now: #2 reaching for the nuke when #1 has one is not crazy. That's why Kim Jong Il and the DPRK needs to be our focus now, not Iran. Kim runs a totalitarian state, immune to pressure from below. Iran does not, as it's clearly evident today. The DPRK is a fake state with no claim to history. Iran is not, and it's been around for centuries (unlike Israel). The DPRK is highly incentivized to use nukes as a result, but Iran is not. The DPRK is a terminal cult-of-personality criminal regime, while Iran is a late-stage revolutionary state whose ruling mafia is beset by infighting. I don't see connectivity working with North Korea, I do see it working with Iran. That's why I don't believe in talks with Kim, but I do believe in talks with Tehran.

We have been down this path several times with countries like Iran, and know how to balance the containment and rollback and efforts at detente designed for the soft-kill. There is no solid logic for going all wobbly on Iran's nukes. We simply know how to manage that package.

But there is no model for North Korea except East Germany--and Kim knows it.

Eventually, Israel has to adjust itself to the reality of a nuclear stand-off. It cannot hold a monopoly forever. It is that simple.

Clinton said it correctly during the campaign (we will nuke Iran if it uses) and has offered the logical extension of our nuclear umbrella to Israel and the region. But pre-emptive war at this time is a fool's errand (Iran will simply redouble its efforts), dangerous to our Iraq and Af-Pak efforts (where previous and ongoing sacrifice must be respected) and a dangerous leap into a post-American world (it will cost us plenty vis-a-vis the New Core powers).

There is nothing conservative in Stephen's logic, which is why his clear bias must be acknowledged.

WSJ: America is evil if it does not wage war on Iran

OPINION: "Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War," by Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, 15 September 2009.

Quite the rhetorical sales job here: If Obama does not wage war on Iran pre-emptively, then he is to be blamed--not Israel--when Israel goes to war.

You have to be a special kind of stupid to buy this lame argument.

Israel, it seems, is totally under our thumb, so much so that we determine when it wages war. Who knew we had such power?

Or maybe it's the other way around, because now America is supposed to wage war on Israel's behalf whenever the latter decides it cannot live with another state breaking its decades-long monopoly on WMD in the region.

Stephens was the editor of the Jerusalem Post from 2002-2004, so you know he speaks from the heart here, as opposed to his head.

But the "kill the Persians now!" push he offers here is transparent beyond words.

On the other hand, the Aussies don't seem to mind

WORLD NEWS: "Australians Warm to Chinese Mining Investments," by Patrick Barta and Rachel Pannett, Wall Street Journal, 12-13 September 2009.

After all these pieces noting the rising tension between Australia and China as the latter seeks to increase its equity holdings in the former's mining industry, here's a flip side argument: plenty of Australians seem to be arguing that the more China owns, the better for both sides.

Why?

In the past year, Western resource companies have proved unreliable in some places, suspending new projects or closing mines because of weakened commodity prices and funding constraints. Chinese companies, by contrast, have kept investing, keeping some rural communities afloat and boosting China's standing in areas that once viewed foreign ownership with skepticism.

The Chinese are simply seen as being more of a stabilization force--in Australia, mind you.

So little wonder that China gets a welcome in Gap countries when it comes a' hunting for resources.

Two emerging markets going in the opposite direction

WORLD NEWS: "Indonesia Cracks Open Power Sector for Investors," by Reuben Carder and Patrick Barta, Wall Street Journal, 9 September 2009.

WORLD NEWS: "Mexico's Fading Oil Output Squeezes Exports and Spending," by David Luhnow, Wall Street Journal, 9 September 2009.

Indonesia's parliament passes a law to open up the state-dominated power sector. Why? Electricity shortages are becoming the long pole in that nation's development tent, and when you want to rapidly expand infrastructure and capacity, you need to attract foreign direct investment.

Smart call by Presient Yudhoyono, just re-elected.

Indonesia needs about $84B by 2018 in the electricity sector alone, otherwise it loses competition with China and the rest of Asia.

The current state-owned company controls 85% of the electricity production in the country.

The key provision in the law: localities can push ahead with own investment schemes. Turn the power over to the people!

Meanwhile, Mexico, which prides itself on keeping Pemex closed off to FDI, continues to see oil production fall, thus less export earnings, and thus less government spending.

Ah, but to be proud of keeping ownership over one's own natural resources: is this not better than money and development?

Some recent legislative efforts in Mexico to open things up a bit, especially on deep-water efforts, but so far, the nationalists prevail and the monopoly continues.

Oil is not the curse. National oil companies are the curse.

Big loan for used gear to small fry

ARTICLE: Russia lends Venezuela $2bn to buy tanks and missile system, (London) Telegraph, 14 Sep 2009

Something to be monitored, and yet, it's pretty pathetic: Russia has to lend Venezuela the money to buy its second-rate military gear. Very impressive.

(Thanks: Robert Frommer)

First Mexico, then Argentina on relaxing pot prosecution

WORLD NEWS: "Argentina Eases Rules on Marijuana," by Matt Moffett, Wall Street Journal, 26 August 2009.

ARTICLE: Latin America Weighs Less Punitive Path to Curb Drug Use, By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO, New York Times, August 26, 2009

ARTICLE: In Mexico, Ambivalence on a Drug Law, By MARC LACEY, New York Times, August 23, 2009

Argentina's Supreme Court basically decriminalizes pot possession (likely small amounts held by users vice suppliers). The ruling ends an era in which small-time possession could get you up to two years.

Key bit:

The Argentine ruling comes as many countries in the region are trying to shift their drug-enforcement focus to traffickers rather than consumers.

Also cited are Mexico, Ecuador and Brazil, which effectively decriminalized consumption back in 2006.

The drivers are overcrowded prisons, burdened court systems, corruption in the police and political ranks, and a rise in organized crime and resulting social violence.

Latin America is now more in line with Europe: a focus on medicalizing the use issues.

I am in favor of decriminalizing, or better stated, I favor the regulation of the market. It just causes us too many bad security relationships and challenges. We're also a country of self-medicators who will only increase such behavior going forward, given all the technological opportunities. Fighting this rear-guard action just doesn't make sense to me.

"The Americans Have Landed"--revisited

Talked recently with Capt. Steve McKnight, my profiled protagonist in the piece. He checked in re: his continued experience there (he stayed on for two more years) and his new assignment.

I told him when when parted at Camp Simba in Kenya to look me up down the road, as Enterra is always on the look-out for talent that can go into frontier situations with minimal support.

But more near-term, I'm thinking he could be useful in a column follow-up at Esquire.com, assuming we could get the military's okay for him to talk. The guy learned a ton during his lengthy Kenya stint re: the 3D approach. Plus, he experienced the post-election tumult there.

So that's a debrief worth pursuing.

We need China

ARTICLE: The American Eagle Trap: Why a weak dollar won't save America, By Ian Welsh, The Open Left, Aug 31, 2009

Key phrase:

Right now, devaluing the US dollar does nothing for the US. A forced radical devaluation by making China end its peg would probably be disastrous for the US.

A sense of how much we depend on a warm relationship with China.

(Thanks: VacationLaneGrp)