ARTICLE: Sen. Collins: Navy scrapping stealth destroyer, By DAVID SHARP, AP, July 23, 2008ARTICLE: 'Boeing to Buy Insitu In Unmanned-Vehicle Push,' By August Cole, Wall Street Journal, July 23, 2008
The few-and-the-absurdly-expensive (Leviathan) yielding to the many-and-the-cheaper(-and increasingly-unmanned).
(Thanks: Pete Johnson
OP-ED: “Fight Terror With YouTube: Why Al Qaeda can’t make the leap to the more interactive web,” by Daniel Kimmage, New York Times, 26 June 2008, p. A23.
Like an authoritarian entity, al Qaeda wants its walled-garden when it comes to the web: environments and messages it can control.
That gets harder over time for al Qaeda in theory, and yet the Internet restrictions imposed by authoritarian Middle East governments plays into its hands, so says this RFE/RL analyst.
His answer? Push connectivity and let the P2P generation sort it out on its own:
There is a simple lesson here: unfettered access to a free Internet is not merely a goal to which we should aspire on principle, but also a very practical means of countering Al Qaeda. As users increasingly make themselves heard, the ensuing chaos will not be to everyone’s liking, but it may shake the online edifice of Al Qaeda’s totalitarian ideology.
Connectivity is the cause for the friction, but also the force that ultimately wins.
INTERNATIONAL REPORT: “North Korea Razes Nuclear Tower, but Intent Is Less Apparent: Hints of shifting ties between reformers and conservatives,” by Norimitsu Onishi, New York Times, 28 June 2008, p. A5.
Glass-half-empty says Pyongyang destroyed a nuke tower it no longer needs. Glass-half-full says reform-minded civilian leaders may be getting somewhere with the hard-line military leaders.
Tell me this doesn’t sound familiar vis-à-vis Iran (from a South Korean expert on North Korea):
North Korea wanted the United States to come to the negotiating table, and since the United States did not want to come voluntarily, North Korea used the nuclear card.
Pyongyang knows it needs to modernize, but can’t stand the idea of being dictated to by either South Korea or the U.S., but they need the peace to feel confident enough to go the China reform route, and until they get it, the situation seems somewhat frozen. Meanwhile, Beijing is pressing Pyongyang in a passive-aggressive manner: denying bits and pieces of economic support so as to push the internal dialogue along.
Can this work out? I would love to see it. Because anything that got North Korea calm enough to reform economically would lead to its slow-motion demise, which is how South Korea prefers to see it unfold.
ARTICLE: “Pakistan Is Said To Be Attracting More Insurgents: U.S. Officials Note Rise; Seen as Bolstering of Al Qaeda—Setbacks in Iraq May Be Spur,” by Eric Schmitt, New York Times, 10 July 2008, p. A1.
Spray one apartment and the bugs move over to the next. Wherever there’s the least resistance or the most opportunity, you find them clustered.
The Anbar awakening ruins al Qaeda’s long-term chances in Iraq, and so the clustering refocuses on Pakistan.
With the surge succeeding in Iraq and Bush finally coming around to rapprochement with Iran, our re-direct on Afghanistan/Pakistan seems well underway for the next president.
GLOBAL BUSINESS: “The Green Link Uniting Old Foes: China wants clean tech; Japan has it to sell. Why necessity could trump animosity,” by Michael Schuman, Time, 14 July 2008, p. G1.
Good, sensible piece.
What must China do to attract such technology?
Increase protection within its system for intellectual property—plain and simple.
Development forces pollution forces better IP rules forces rapprochement with Japan, which in turn gives Japan a clear leadership role in an age when it feels like globalization is making it irrelevant on some level.
Good stuff all around.
Global Times ran a front page story about China Security's 'Debating China's Future', which Tom was a part of.
Read the original version (Chinese, pdf) and the translated English version (doc).
ANALYSIS: Obama Makes War Gains, By Dan Balz, Washington Post, July 22, 2008; Page A06ARTICLE: Iraq Points to Pullout in 2010, By Sudarsan Raghavan and Dan Eggen, Washington Post, July 22, 2008; Page A01
The synchronicity here has more to do with Maliki's own conditions than with U.S. -perceived conditions. At some point, the half-life of our occupation is reached (Petraeus' theory all along), and any success from the surge simply accelerates that process.
As it happens, that dynamic is more in line with Obama's desire to redirect on Afghanistan. McCain wants his "victory," problem being, no one in Iraq (or the region) is much inclined to deliver that on terms he/America might find satisfactory (esp. vis-a-vis Iranian influence).
That's why, in my mind, making a diplomatic surge to accompany the troop surge was crucial. If the surge worked (which it did), then we time out for Iraqi domestic political reasons (happening now) and U.S. troop exhaustion reasons (plus now the lure of the redirect to Afghanistan). Both were always inevitable--meaning when, not if.
If the surge didn't work, same problems emerge but with no saved face for us (it may never be perceived as a US "win," but it's now unlikely to ever be perceived as a US "defeat" either--and that, quite frankly, is as good as it gets in this long war). Either way, we're forced to accommodate Iran in the end (something Bush is realizing finally), both on Iraq and its demand for regime security (neither pleasant, but hard to see how we get our way on either, given our strategic tie-down--again, as Bush is coming to realize).
The difference?
If we had made the diplo surge, then presumably fewer US troops needlessly killed in the meantime (Iran's obvious meddling) and we're simultaneously bringing Iran in from cold, working Israel-Palestine a bit better (hard to see it could be any worse/slower than it's been), and looking at a redirect on Afghanistan with Tehran's helpful collusion (they don't want Pashtun control/re-Talibanization either).
Eventually, all these things are going to work out in the manner I favor, the differential being our stubborness (almost non-existent with Obama, substantial with McCain). The questions have always been: 1) how much needless loss of US/NATO troops in meantime; and 2) how much Iran-Israel war risk ensues.
The question of Obama's support/lack thereof re: surge is meaningless, in my mind. We were headed to these decision points (occupation half-life in Iraq, Army-Marine institutional burn-out, accommodating rising Iran, and Afghanistan redirect) anyway, the only meaningful deltas being needless American deaths and military exhaustion (and no, civil strife in Iraq per se was never an important enough strategic measure, because it can always be resurrected at the drop of a hat--like we saw in Lebanon recently, thus U.S. military commanders always speaking of "fragile" gains).
As always, real grand strategy is getting leaders to recognize the inevitables as early as possible so as to approach the "inconceivables" with all appropriate speed.
COLUMN: “Let’s Shoot the Speculators!” by Robert J. Samuelson, Newsweek, 7-14 July 2008, p. 18.Obviously, the title is sarcastic. Point of piece is rising demand from emerging markets, that drive up prices in following percentages since 2002:
ARTICLE: India, Pak, Iran to meet in Tehran to push IPI project, Times of India, 16 Jul 2008
Some movement.
(Thanks: jarrod myrick)
Mike Nelson writes:
As a Californian watching my state burn for the 6th year in a row I got motivated to document an idea of mine. I brought this to Tom's attention and he was kind enough to offer to post it here so that it might get some visibility among those in a position to consider and act on it.Specifically I propose that the Air Force rework their refueling tanker contract to include the mission of Fire Tanker, and see the C-17 airframe as an ideal candidate. In addition I assert that this platform would provide better utility for our emerging SysAdmin mission requirements as well as the foundation for supporting international disaster relief. I figure if we're going to spend $35B+ on this program, why not get a platform that also meets additional important needs? The attached PDF provides a summary of this idea.
My thanks to Tom for the assist in circulating this.
Tanker Idea Summary (pdf)
ARTICLE: US defense chief cites 'militarization' of US foreign policy, AP, July 15, 2008
There is the inevitable "reset" of the military in terms of stuff that happens when much of the gear we sent to Iraq gets sent back to the U.S. for rehab (through Turkey, it would seem, to mend some fences with the economic boomlet that should accompany this flow), then there is the inevitable "reset" in terms of roles and missions. Gates is addressing the latter here, putting down a marker, as he has so many times in the recent past, for a more balanced USG approach. Because he doesn't want DoD getting stuck holding too much of the bag next time, he argues for plussing-up the capacity of other agencies in the meantime.
It's a careful balancing act: Gates doesn't want the military to slip into next-war-itis but he also doesn't want the Pentagon thinking that the interagency process will be as lopsided next time as it was this last one, so he has to argue in both directions at different times/venues/audiences.
Tricky bit, but he does it well.
(Thanks: Rory Stolzenberg)
PRESS RELEASE: Sociological analysis shows emergence of 'rights revolution' in China,
Students of our own history should find this more familiar than we typically do. Human rights always starts small and practical and then gets more ambitious.
(Thanks: Lexington Green)
ISLAM IN A NEW WORLD: New Saudi Arabia university will have a Western feel, By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times, July 13, 2008
Such is the nature of Saudi accommodation of globalization over time. For jobs to work, they must be competitive, and to be competitive, they must accept a degree of modernity (e.g., coed).
So the cost of stabilization is jobs is education is coed is change.
(Thanks: jarrod myrick)
CORPORATE NEWS: "Fate of Lockheed's F-22 Raptor Up in Air: Pentagon, Air Force Disagree on the Need For This Type of Jet," by August Cole, Wall Street Journal, 14 July 2008, p. B3.
I am reminded of those who ridiculed my notion--long-stated--that war tends to be bad for big defense contractors because it inevitably puts their programs of record (weapons systems, platforms) at risk, money simply being needed elsewhere for operations, bodies, medical care, etc. You stock up in peace, you spend in war.
The F-22 is a poster child for this: great jet, so great we can't share it. But also so great that it's really not that appropriate for the operations we face today. So the Pentagon is set to stop buying them, which means Lockheed is set to stop building them, leaving us to work the current stock (any shot down lately?) and wait on Joint Strike Fighter, so expensive ($300B to develop and buy--today's estimate) that we're sharing production costs with everyone we can stand.
The Air Force? It holds out for China and Russia.
ARTICLE: Miss Universe Spotlights Thriving Vietnam, AP, July 12, 2008
Hosting these sorts of events signals the desire to belong and be seen as belonging. This one especially carries some freight: your country is safe enough for us to send our virginal young women!
Recall my Nigeria story on the same in PNM ...
Vietnam is clearly moving into the Core.
(Thanks: Doug Clark)
ARTICLE: Chinese firm to build $1 billion road in Nigeria oil hub, Reuters, Jul 13, 2008
Oil revenue for infrastructure development is a hot thing right now, so China moving intelligently in line with globalization's forces--basically their COIN sans kinetics (Galrahn's point) or I could call it a Chinese version of Development-in-a-Box™.
(Thanks: Galrahn)
ARTICLE: Med Union priorities explained, BBC, 14 July 2008
Corresponds with the current cover story of The Economist: "Club Med: Why Europe should look south."
Again, this is inevitable, much like America's own southward expansion. "Inconceivable" to many now, but getting obvious to those who think ahead.
ARTICLE: U.S. Weapons Package for Taiwan Stalls as China Tensions Ease, By Ting-I Tsai, Wall Street Journal, July 21, 2008
The trifecta on a week that's tracking nicely with my notion that the Pentagon's 3 "big war" scenarios are all going down the toilet. I opine on North Korea and Iran in next weekend's column. The Chinese one is becoming too blase to mention.
Having said that, people need to remember that each of these three scenarios have plenty of champions inside our national security establishment, all of whom will fight any perceptions of their preferred scenario's loss of credibility.
(Thanks: Pete Johnson)
ARTICLE: "A battle over 'the next war': Many military officers are pushing back against Defense Secretary Gates' focus on preparing for more 'asymmetric' fighting rather than for a large, conventional conflict," by Julian E. Barnes and Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times, 21 July 2008.
As you would expect, Mattis has the killer quotes (from my perspective):
"I think that nation-state and conventional war is in a state of hibernation," said Marine Gen. James N. Mattis, who commanded U.S. forces in Fallouja in 2004. "I don't think it's gone away, but the most likely threats probably today are not going to be conventional or from another state."Mattis argues that the current fight is not an interlude.
"I recognize some people want to say: 'Let's hold our breath. The irregular world will go away, then we can get back to good old soldiering again,' " he said. "Unfortunately, in war, the enemy gets a vote."
And the Army's TRADOC chimes in:
Maxie L. McFarland, the deputy chief of staff for intelligence at the Army's Training and Doctrine Command, predicts the Army will be involved in regional conflicts -- over energy resources, extremist movements or environmental changes -- in places of growing strategic importance, such as Nigeria. Defense chief Gates wants to spend more on U.S. diplomacy "The Army believes it has to prepare for warfare and conflict among local populations with unfamiliar cultures . . . in urban settings or harsh lawless areas," McFarland said. "We think this environment will require long-duration operations, at extended distances."
The big war comeback is classic and decidedly vague:
"If you want to avoid war, prepare for war," [Air Force Maj. Gen. (and lawyer) Charles] Dunlap said.
We live in the first truly globalized economy the world has ever known. Nothing that has come before has come anywhere near this level of connectivity and integrated production chains--nothing.
And yet we expect war to retain its pre-nuclear great-power flavor?
If you want to avoid war, work the peace.
On this point alone, it's worth Obama considering to keep Gates. I fear any Dem pick will simply give in to the Big War crowd to placate them and industry and to appear "tough" on defense.
Thanks to numerous readers for passing along.
