Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

OP-ED: Chinese New Year, By PAUL KRUGMAN, New York Times, December 31, 2009

Some compelling logic from Krugman on Chinese mercantilism as reflected in the pegged yuan:

I usually hear two reasons for not confronting China over its policies. Neither holds water. First, there's the claim that we can't confront the Chinese because they would wreak havoc with the U.S. economy by dumping their hoard of dollars. This is all wrong, and not just because in so doing the Chinese would inflict large losses on themselves. The larger point is that the same forces that make Chinese mercantilism so damaging right now also mean that China has little or no financial leverage.

Again, right now the world is awash in cheap money. So if China were to start selling dollars, there's no reason to think it would significantly raise U.S. interest rates. It would probably weaken the dollar against other currencies -- but that would be good, not bad, for U.S. competitiveness and employment. So if the Chinese do dump dollars, we should send them a thank-you note.

Second, there's the claim that protectionism is always a bad thing, in any circumstances. If that's what you believe, however, you learned Econ 101 from the wrong people -- because when unemployment is high and the government can't restore full employment, the usual rules don't apply ...

The bottom line is that Chinese mercantilism is a growing problem, and the victims of that mercantilism have little to lose from a trade confrontation. So I'd urge China's government to reconsider its stubbornness. Otherwise, the very mild protectionism it's currently complaining about will be the start of something much bigger.

I am progressively moving toward accepting this position, primarily because I can't see the sustainability of the current policy trajectory China is on, given the recent severe correction.

ARTICLE: U.S. International Trade Commission rules in favor of U.S. steel industry on subsidized Chinese imports, By Peter Whoriskey, Washington Post, December 31, 2009

As long as the pegged currency issue stays hot, I wouldn't see the Obama administration holding fire in other trade realms.

So expect more and more of these shots across the bow.

ARTICLE: Saudis quit Caribbean oil storage; China steps in, By Joshua Schneyer, Bruce Nichols and Chen Aizhu, Reuters, December 31, 2009

I remember this being my standard pitch back in 2000: when Asia becomes the global demand-center on energy, it will displace the central position that America has held for more than half-a-century.

What's it like to be the global demand center? The world revolves around you, because demand is king, and supply merely the consort.

(Thanks: Terry Collier)

ARTICLE: Under Discussion: What was the most significant change in Christianity over the past decade?, by Ruth Moon, Christianity Today, 12/23/2009

Specifically:

"The huge surge of Christianity in China is a major development that several decades down the road could make the difference between peace and war. If Christianity continues to grow in China, I think relations between the U.S. and China will develop very well. If Christianity sputters out there, we're probably looking at a military confrontation of some kind. The hopes for world peace depend on what happens in China." Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief, WORLD Magazine

Bit self-centered, don't you think. Why only Christianity?

China's been a big competitive religious space for thousands of years, with three big mainstays: Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism. Christianity will become the fourth, but I think it's the height of arrogance to think it's the great tipping point development in relations with the West.

(Thanks: Terry Collier)

ARTICLE: Integrating COIN into Army Professional Education, by Major Niel Smith, Small Wars Journal, December 3, 2009

Good read on crucial issue:

In the eight years since the invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. Army has failed to integrate counterinsurgency (COIN) into Professional Military Education (PME). Counterinsurgency instruction remains uneven in quantity and quality throughout Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) institutions, which have failed to define standards, competencies and outcomes for COIN education. This lack of consistency contributes to ongoing operational confusion and poor execution of operations in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom due to lack of common concept of what counterinsurgency is and what it entails, despite great advances in COIN application and execution by troops in the field.

Changing professional military education ensures a lasting shift in the direction of small wars/SysAdmin ops, because a permanent constituency is created. Just like Gates said his last budget created a "home" for this sort of warfighter, the same space needs to be carved out within PME for such training.

POST: Showcase: Asian Crossroads in Africa, By EIRINI VOURLOUMIS, Lens, December 11, 2009

Old theme: Asians heading to Africa change the environment there in all sorts of ways.

Right now, the most obvious heavy flow are the Chinese:

As many as 500,000 Chinese have immigrated to Africa, lured by its oil, copper, uranium, wood and other natural resources. Many have thrived, creating large conglomerates. To serve them, other entrepreneurs have opened palatial restaurants. Or karaoke halls. The infusion of a distinctly different culture into African society -- again -- is turning out to be a critical chapter in the continent's post-colonial history.

Here we get a compilation of relevant photos from past NYT stories on the same.

ARTICLE: Americans Surprisingly Flexible About Religion and Faith, By DAN HARRIS and WONBO WOO, ABC News, Dec. 10, 2009

Essential truth about America's competitive religious landscape: we change religions more than anybody else on the planet, and we mix-and-match more too.

As we represent the future of globalization (I believe), this tells you that, in the future religion becomes more demand-centric than supply-centric.

And I think that is very good.

(Thanks: Andrew Stewart)

ARTICLE: Workers May Lie About Drug Use, but Hair Doesn't, By PHYLLIS KORKKI, New York Times, December 12, 2009

Look for even more shaved heads among working-class males!

ARTICLE: Geothermal Project in California Is Shut Down, By JAMES GLANZ, New York Times, December 11, 2009

No surprise here, as this is not the way to go on geotherm (cracking and thus pushing water down into the cracks), in large part because it can cause quakes, but also because it's water-intensive and has huge maintenance costs (terrible build-up of minerals in pipes).

There is a far better way that Enterra is pursuing with a business ally.

ARTICLE: Bombing reports start trickling in to Obama, By Karen DeYoung, Washington Post, January 1, 2010

So Obama is only getting these reports now!!!!

Oooh! Does that reporting mean to imply that Obama doesn't spend a major portion of every day sifting through individual terror warning reports?!?!? OMG!

What did we elect this guy for?

Buck stops here, right?

Fire everybody, and then turn around and complain about how our intell agencies suffer from such a merry-go-round of leaders--damn straight!

ARTICLE: CIA base attacked in Afghanistan supported airstrikes against al-Qaeda, Taliban, By Joby Warrick and Pamela Constable, Washington Post, January 1, 2010

Would appear, at first glance, that this would be the major reason for the attack.

Inevitable, when you think of it: drones becoming so big, CIA being so big in their deployment, ergo CIA becomes target of retaliation for their successful employment.

Like most things, these attacks get interpreted as a "major setback" when--most often--they represent friction in response to serious advance on our part. You want no friction, you avoid any movement, but if you move forward, don't expect anything but more friction.

ARTICLE: Petraeus Warns of a Long and Expensive Mission in Afghanistan, By MARK LANDLER, New York Times, December 9, 2009

More realism from Petraeus re: Afghanistan, giving lie to any hard 2011 deadline.

ARTICLE: China's Economic Power Unsettles the Neighbors, By MICHAEL WINES, New York Times, December 9, 2009

ARTICLE: Recession Elsewhere, but It's Booming in China, By KEITH BRADSHER, New York Times, December 9, 2009

Nice contrasting pair of articles that hover around the issue of China's continued pegging of its currency to the dollar: China booms and thus becomes key, near-term engine of global recovery, but it does so at the expense of neighbors (and the EU, as previously noted).

Honestly, this is why we don't need to organize some global coalition to hedge against China: as it loses its "developing" tag (as far as true developing economies are concerned), the back pressure will build naturally and on its own.

WORLD NEWS: "Hanoi Weighs Price Controls, Tightens Grip: Foreign Investors Grow Concerned as Conservative Factions in Vietnam Reverse Liberalization Trend Amid Downturn," by James Hookway, Wall Street Journal, 23 December 2009.

Vietnam is planning price controls and cracking down on all manner of personal (e.g., access to social networking sites) and political activities. All of this scares off business and investment, naturally.

All of this bodes ill for the next Party congress next year.

As usual, the Party wants a rapid economic expansion "without spurring any grassroots clamor for more freedom."

Good luck capturing that unicorn, dumbass!

A sign of concern? You bet. Everything was cool so long as Vietnam hit the magic 8 ball every year, like China, but now with growth projected more in the 5-to-6% range, the freak-out begins.

ARTICLE: Judge Drops Charges From Blackwater Deaths in Iraq, By CHARLIE SAVAGE, New York Times, December 31, 2009

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it almost seems like the big mistake here was the lack of (a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning">"Mirandizing" the suspects, in the sense that the State Department told the Blackwater guys that what they said couldn't be used against them in a court of law--and then it was.

According to the story:

The guards could not be prosecuted under Iraqi law because of an immunity agreement that had been signed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the governing authority installed by the United States after the invasion of Iraq. But American prosecutors knew from the beginning that they were facing a difficult task in bringing the case. Complications included the applicability of federal statutes to the guards because they were working overseas at the time for the State Department, and the significant problem stemming from statements the guards gave shortly after the shootings.

The guards had been told by State Department investigators that they could be fired if they did not talk about the case, but that whatever they said would not be used against them in any criminal proceeding.

Nevertheless, Judge Urbina found that "in their zeal to bring charges," investigators and prosecutors had extensively used those statements, disregarding "the warning of experienced, senior prosecutors" that "the course of action threatened the viability of prosecution."

Problems and issues remain, and yet, in the absence of some larger and yet more specific (to the environment) rule set on employing private security guards on behalf of U.S. public officials abroad, it can be said that our domestic default system worked as it was designed to, in that it leaned more to protecting the rights of the accused than facilitating rushed prosecutions.

ARTICLE: Yemen's Chaos Aids the Evolution of a Qaeda Cell, By STEVEN ERLANGER, New York Times, January 2, 2010

Pretty standard story: when state failure looms, al Qaeda moves in.

ARTICLE: October U.S. Trade Deficit Narrowed as Exports Rose, By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ, New York Times, December 10, 2009

The continuing advantages of a weakened dollar.

ARTICLE: A Politician Goes Hungry to Redraw India's Map, By JIM YARDLEY, New York Times, December 10, 2009

Classic: open up to globalization and unleash popular pressures for remapping. Why? Increased contact with the outside world triggers more intense self-identification.

ARTICLE: In Iran, Protests Gaining a Radical Tinge, By ROBERT F. WORTH, New York Times, December 10, 2009

Interesting stat: 1 out of every 20 Iranians is a college student.

Some youth bulge!

As always, a combustible situation for a country and here, hopefully a positive force for change.

Nasr's point: as the students continue to radicalize, the senior officials associated with the movement are forced to make difficult choices.

OP-ED: The God That Fails, By DAVID BROOKS, New York Times, December 31, 2009

Some brilliant stuff from Brooks, scratching an itch I was trying to reach but could never quite find the words:

During the middle third of the 20th century, Americans had impressive faith in their own institutions. It was not because these institutions always worked well. The Congress and the Federal Reserve exacerbated the Great Depression. The military made horrific mistakes during World War II, which led to American planes bombing American troops and American torpedoes sinking ships with American prisoners of war.

But there was a realistic sense that human institutions are necessarily flawed. History is not knowable or controllable. People should be grateful for whatever assistance that government can provide and had better do what they can to be responsible for their own fates.

That mature attitude seems to have largely vanished. Now we seem to expect perfection from government and then throw temper tantrums when it is not achieved. We seem to be in the position of young adolescents -- who believe mommy and daddy can take care of everything, and then grow angry and cynical when it becomes clear they can't.

My first response to Napolitano saying the system had worked was to nod my head in agreement, but that's because I consider all the passengers who acted bravely to be part of the system--you know, that whole self-aware thing. Somehow expecting the government or governments to acquit those on the scene of any responsibility to act seems bizarre. Do I feel bad all the technology got trumped and it was left to the "carbon devices" to step up and do something? Sure. But my immediate response was to revel in the passengers' actions, which now seem lost in this whole finger-pointing game.

The piece gets even better then:

Much of the criticism has been contemptuous and hysterical. Various experts have gathered bits of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's biography. Since they can string the facts together to accurately predict the past, they thunder, the intelligence services should have been able to connect the dots to predict the future.

Dick Cheney argues that the error was caused by some ideological choice. Arlen Specter screams for more technology -- full-body examining devices. "We thought that had been remedied," said Senator Kit Bond, as if omniscience could be accomplished with legislation.

Many people seem to be in the middle of a religious crisis of faith. All the gods they believe in -- technology, technocracy, centralized government control -- have failed them in this instance.

In a mature nation, President Obama could go on TV and say, "Listen, we're doing the best we can, but some terrorists are bound to get through." But this is apparently a country that must be spoken to in childish ways.

Amen, brother!

When I've told people for years that I feel like my entire career in national security boiled down to helping the U.S. military "come back to society," this is the essential reason why:

For better or worse, over the past 50 years we have concentrated authority in centralized agencies and reduced the role of decentralized citizen action. We've done this in many spheres of life.

Inside the national security establishment, it was this odd focus on nuclear war that seemed to distance the military most from society. There were, according to this logic, so many things that the military didn't bother needing to be good at--COIN included.

Well, 9/11 and the resulting wars forced the military back toward society--not just our own but every society into which it intervenes on the behalf of global security. A certain amount of individually-held responsibility remains (the strategic corporal and so on) and the basic F2F can never be completely obviated.

ARTICLE: U.S. Sees an Opportunity to Press Iran on Nuclear Fuel, By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD, New York Times, January 2, 2010

I honestly believe this to be the more tired of logic:

As President Obama faces pressure to back up his year-end ultimatum for diplomatic progress with Iran, the administration says that domestic unrest and signs of unexpected trouble in Tehran's nuclear program make its leaders particularly vulnerable to strong and immediate new sanctions.

No matter what happens inside Iran, we ALWAYS believe we're on the verge of sanctions working oh-so-much better.

Again, I support stuff that targets the Revolutionary Guard, but anything that translates into pain for the people will, I think, backfire.

Instead, I'd rather see a big push by the administration to shine a light on the protests and simply to blow off the whole enrichment story, where I think our efforts are almost entirely meaningless.

A more democratic Iran won't feel the need for nukes, or if it does, we won't care.

ARTICLE: Army History Finds Early Missteps in Afghanistan, By JAMES DAO, December 30, 2009

Would seem to be strong confirmation of the "taking our eyes off the ball" thesis WRT Afghanistan.

And yes, on the surface that is a serious undercutting of any Bush-Cheney logic on the redirect to Iraq in 2003, which I supported less on timing and more on the notion that eventually it was going to happen (in general, and as I preached at the time in the brief, speed is never of the essence for the world's sole superpower because inevitability is more his calling card).

But the counterfactual here stinks even worse: what if the administration would have come to their senses--at that early date--on the need to do serious COIN in Afghanistan and concentrate resources there before turning to Baghdad? Sounds perfect, does it not?

The problem with this counterfactual is, Afghanistan alone probably would not have forced the required learning within the military--certainly not any faster--absent Iraq, so saying that we should have stayed "on the ball" in Afghanistan and assuming the same learning would have occurred on that basis alone is, to me, a very weak argument.

In the end, I would still maintain that, unless you had something of sufficient size (meaning, resulting in serious U.S. casualties) and sufficient strategic importance, whatever learning did occur within the U.S. military wouldn't have made it all the way up to the White House in the manner of Bush-Cheney finally accepting the COIN/surge notion following the 2006 midterms. Afghanistan alone just wouldn't have been the critical mass.

Is that cynical of me to say? More simple realism, in my opinion, after working with the military across a host a SysAdmin-heavy interventions starting in 1990.

(Thanks: Jeffrey Itell)

ARTICLE: C.I.A. Takes On Bigger and Riskier Role on Front Lines, By MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times, December 31, 2009

Applying all aspects of "national power" necessarily means a wider array of casualties, both public and private sector.

ARTICLE: Branson to Introduce Tourist Spaceship in Mojave, AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, December 7, 2009

Unfortunately, I don't have a spare $200K sitting around.

But someday . . ..

ARTICLE: In Shift, U.S. Talks to Russia on Internet Security, By JOHN MARKOFF and ANDREW E. KRAMER, New York Times, December 12, 2009

A very good and obvious call that took far too long for the USG to make, but such sensibility is why I voted for Obama.

The gist:

American and Russian officials have different interpretations of the talks so far, but the mere fact that the United States is participating represents a significant policy shift after years of rejecting Russia's overtures. Officials familiar with the talks said the Obama administration realized that more nations were developing cyberweapons and that a new approach was needed to blunt an international arms race.

Like with space, the longer we went with the I-refuse-to-discuss, the more we were going to see efforts by near-peers to demonstrate their rising prowess. Why? It's the obvious asymmetrical response to a Leviathan that's stronger than you across the board. You keep signaling until you get some symmetry via talks.

Why it's essentially smart for us? Great powers aren't our primary problem in cyberspace. Robb's global guerrillas are.

I assume Obama will eventually push the same with China. Will such talks or any treaties magically stop China's continued attempts at industrial theft? No. Only rising income stops that, along with the growing recognition that protecting IP is valuable in and of itself (and that too, doesn't come until the country in question gets rich enough--just like it did with us).

OP-ED: Will Big Business Save the Earth?, By JARED DIAMOND, New York Times, December 5, 2009

The gist:

As part of my board work, I have been asked to assess the environments in oil fields, and have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I've also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies. I've discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world's strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.

The embrace of environmental concerns by chief executives has accelerated recently for several reasons. Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run. And a clean image -- one attained by, say, avoiding oil spills and other environmental disasters -- reduces criticism from employees, consumers and government.

Most biases, like military plans, do not survive first contact.

FRONT PAGE: "Mexico Ramps Up Drug War With a Surge on Rio Grande," by Jose De Cordoba and Joel Millman, Wall Street Journal, 22 December 2009.

FRONT PAGE: "Hit Men Kill Mexican Hero's Family: Attack on Relatives of Marine Who Died in Drug Raid Suggests Cartels Turning to Terror," by David Luhnow and Jose De Cordoba, Wall Street Journal, 23 December 2009.

The WSJ calls the killing of the family of a Marine who died in a drug raid "terror," and this seems a legitimate use of the term--even if the goal of such terror is purely profit versus political change.

You track this sort of mass violence and I don't see how we exit this new decade without decriminalizing (and thus, medicalizing) narcotic abuse.

OP-ED: The Next Surge: Counterbureaucracy, By JONATHAN J. VACCARO, New York Times, December 7, 2009

A lot of this is due to the incredible array of USG players in the aid mix. Too many cooks, too much bureaucracy, too many permissions to seek.

Another implicit argument for the Department of Everything Else.

ARTICLE: U.S. Adds Drones to Fight Smuggling, By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD, New York Times, December 7, 2009

You knew this was coming: more and more domestic use of drones.

I remember thinking after 9/11 that the use of UAVs here at home would be delayed because of the nature of that attack. But you get over it, and so I would expect to see continued expansion, eventually spilling over big time into the civilian sector.

Rule sets to follow, naturally.

ARTICLE: Iranian Students Clash With Police, By ROBERT F. WORTH and NAZILA FATHI, New York Times, December 7, 2009

As I stated at the beginning of this whole deal: the question is the staying power of the protest movement. Obviously, the students are the key resource here, so their continuing willingness to act is very impressive.

"National Anthem" is my new favorite song in the world, and "KId A" my new favorite album.

I love losing it for a group about six albums in, because then you have such a huge relationship you can immediately lose yourself within. It's why I don't watch fab new series until the first season comes out on DVD. No dribs and drabs for me. I want immersion.

Though my new favorite group is Muse, which I find very T-Rex-y.