Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Critt here. . . Barnett's webmaster. . .

Bjørnar S., from Bergen, has more questions for Tom, but the email he included in the form (his girlfriend's. Heh.) bounces.

If anybody else writing an exam Friday knows Bjørnar, tell him to send his questions to tom@thomaspmbarnett.com.

Thanks,

Critt

■"Nonproliferation Enforcement Dilemma: U.S. Have Few Good Military Choices for Getting Iran, North Korea to Curb Nuclear Efforts," by Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, 28 February 2005, p. A4.

The only place with no movement in the Middle East? That's Iran, where high oil prices make the mullahs feel safer and the destruction of their sworn enemies left and right make them feel both surrounded by the U.S. military and emboldened to reach for the bomb. There some see the next invasion, but I see an authoritarian regime worth killing with connectivity, the same way we brought the bankrupt Soviets to their knees with détente. And no, it won’t take 16 years with this crowd.

We kill the mullahocracy with connectivity because isolation won't work any better than it does with Cuba and because there is no military solution to this problem, which isn't Iran getting the bomb, but the mullahs being in control of politics there.

There is no conventional military solution on North Korea either, but there we don't need an invasion to topple the regime, we just need Kim gone. Doesn't matter how it happens, just so that it happens, and China is the key. But what are we offering Beijing on this? Opposition to their purchases of arms from the EU? Japan joining in our defense guarantee for Taiwan? If Kim is such a serious enemy, then why aren't we dealing?

■"India keen to lure Russian oil investment," by Sujata Rao, Reuters, 21 February 2005, pulled off the web by reader Tom Walsh.

■"China's Oil Diplomacy in Latin America: Deals With Venezuela Include Offers of Needed Development Aid," by Juan Forero, New York Times, 1 March 2005, p. C6.

■"All Quiet on the Eastern Front?" op-ed by , New York Times, 1 March 2005, p. A1.

■"U.S. Loans for Reactors In China Draw Objections: A $5 billion aid package would assist a British-owned firm," by Matthew L. Wald, New York Times, 28 February 2005, p. C5.

The Indians want Russian help on oil and gas, and China's going to fund some development work in Venezuela to get at its oil.

Get used to such diplomacy. India imports 70% of its energy needs, and China's percentage will skyrocket in coming years. There is money to be made, and companies will make it. Cairn Energy of Scotland has tripled it market capitalization after making a number of new strikes off India's shore. We had the CEO of Cairns at one of our New Rule Sets workshops atop World Trade Center one before 9/11, and listening to that guy talk about India was to realize where the energy trade was going. We're talking almost 4 out of every ten humans on the planet: India and China. They join the Core and it's Katie-bar-the-door on energy.

Will that reshape some global diplomacy? Will that reshape some political alignments and security relationships? You bet. We can either use it to our advantage, exploiting the connectivity it creates, or we can increasingly look upon these states as obstructionists, complicating factors and the like. But whatever we choose, this train has left the station.

Why aren't we seeing the strategic opportunities in Asia? Francis Fukuyama says it's because of "the compartmentalization of decision-making in Washington between economic and security specialists." Ah, that old military-market nexus. So he warns: "The exigencies of Iraq and the war on terrorism must not blind us to the fact that China's rise will likely be the biggest geopolitical development of this generation."

As Gary Hufbauer, another alumni of the Cantor-War College economic exercises atop World Trade Center one, says regarding a contentious effort to support a Westinghouse bid to China for four huge nuclear reactors, "the choice is, as this case illustrates, not between 100 percent U.S. and 100 percent U.S.; it's between 50 percent U.S. and no percent at all."

Gary was talking about how Westinghouse's bid involves it deeply with a British firm, but he could have been talking about U.S. grand strategy in the years ahead. It isn't how we keep global domination 100% American, but whether we want our 50% or not.

Fukuyama ends his op-ed with the question: "We need to think seriously whether the political structures left over from the Cold War will be adequate to this task, and be creative in devising new ones."

Hmmmm. I'm feeling better about PNM-II by the day. . .

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 1 March 2005

I am sore. Sat on a tiny chair today at Jerry's preschool and painted a good dozen faces (3 Spiderman's, a bunch of T-Rex's and one cheetah). The problem was that the chair was a serious form-fitter, for someone four years old, and I just haven't had that sort of rear-end in a very long time.

Later, when the older kids got home, we went sledding and had a lot of fun on these undeveloped slopes down by the river: nice 20-yard hill, 60 yards of flat, and then another 20-yard hill. We four (me and the oldest) were all armed with inflatable inner-tubes, so we got a nice track going and then started doing trains (four in a row where we hold onto legs) with Jerry up front, then me for weight, then Em and Kev. Once the track was set, we were covering a hundred yards—easy. The fun ended, as it always does, with a train "wreck" that involve four-year-old Jer taking it in the head, but because we use only inflatables, no damage was done.

Then a long conference call with my partners, discussing a slew of interesting leads and other stuff we're collectively pursuing. Then I got the call back from Washington that I was waiting on, one that told me one of my two proposed stories with Esquire is definitely on—big time. So that was exciting to hear. So between that, the conference call session, and this blog, plus the face-painting and sledding—not a bad mix for the Home Office.

Tomorrow we meet with our realtor as we consider putting the house up for sale this spring. The churn never ends.

Here's the catch from yesterday and today:

■ The Big Bang just keeps getting bigger and better

■ The nukes aren't the issue with Iran and North Korea, the leadership is

■ The New Core's oily diplomacy

■"Syria Turns Over A Top Insurgent, Iraq Officials Say: Half-Brother of Hussein Seen as Financing Insurgent Attacks," by John F. Burns, New York Times, 28 February 2005, p. A1.

■"How Lebanese Drive To Oust the Syrian Finally Caught Fire: Killing of Ex-Prime Minister Capped Events With a Link To U.S. Mideast Initiatives," by Bill Spindle, Wall Street Journal, 28 February 2005, p. A1.

■"Lebanon's Pro-Syria Government Quits After Protests," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 1 March 2005, p. A1.

■"Mideast Mix: New Promise of Democracy and Threat of Instability: A ripple effect of Iraqi and Palestinian elections is seen," by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 1 March 2005, p. A10.

■"Allah and Democracy Can Get Along Fine: Iraq's neighbors show how Islamic politics is evolving," by Dilip Hiro, New York Times, 1 March 2005, p. A23.

None of this would happen, we would told by regional experts galore. The Big Bang was fantasy. There would be no ripple effect, just blowback and another Vietnam/Afghanistan. Bush and his neocons were reckless and unmindful of history. Imperial hubris, we were told.

Tell me those troops die in vain when you watch what's happened in the Middle East since the start of the year: elections in Palestine, elections in Iraq, elections in Saudi Arabia, the pullouts beginning by Israel, a cabinet half full of PhDs for Palestine, negotiations between a duly elected Iraqi government and Sunni insurgents, Syria promising to pull out of Lebanon, Syria handing over Saddam's half-brother, Mubarek calling for multiparty elections in Egypt this year, Lebanon's pro-Syria government shouted out of power.

How did Lebanon catch fire?:

The vocal surge, so sudden it astonished even those who helped stir, is the biggest challenge to the Syrian presence in Lebanon since the occupation began three decades ago. How it happened shows the way more-aggressive U.S. policies in the Middle East—from the invasion of Iraq to President Bush's rhetoric about fostering democracy—are mingling with local politics to jostle once-unquestioned realities in the region.

Now the pro-Syrian PM has resigned and:

Lebanese opposition leaders say they feel that the Damascus government in more vulnerable than ever and that this is the moment to act, especially as Lebanon's wary communities of Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians and Druse have grown more united in their demands for the Syrians to leave.

Read this and I dare you not to find some real hope:

In scenes reminiscent of protest in the United States in the 1960's, protesters rushed to get to the site of the demonstration, just yards away from Mr. Hariri's grave, and camped through the night, waving Lebanese flags as anthems played on. Many handed flowers to the soldiers and beseeched them to cooperate with them. Despite orders to prevent demonstrators from entering the area, soldiers eventually relented to the flood of largely young protestors on Monday, and the demonstration carried on peacefully.

Will this all work out in our favor? Hardly. But that wasn't the point of the Big Bang, simply setting in motion change was.

Yes, there will dangers along the way. But tell me that any of this happens when it does without the invasion of Iraq. Bush is engineering his own serious change in the Middle East, with the simplest and most direct form of political connectivity there is: the ballot box.

■"Uruguay Is Asking Why the Oscars Snubbed Jorge Drexler: Antonio Banderas Got to Sing His Award-Winning Song; National Pride at Stake,'" by Katy McLaughlin, Wall Street Journal, 2 March 2005, p. A1.

I really loved this story: guy gets nominated for first Spanish-language song nominated for Best Song Oscar (The Motorcycle Diaries), but doesn't get to sing it. And man is he-and his country-pissed off!

Antonio does a sort of flamenco version, according to Drexler, and he's simply flabbergasted, saying that everyone in US thinks that any ol' Spanish-speaker would do the song justice. Uruguay the nation is all up in arms. I mean, they have a new socialist president and it's all anyone down there is talking about. Huge deal. First Oscar winner from the nation. They're already comparing his a capella bit upon acceptance to a legenday soccer match decades ago against Brazil (a "triumph of dignity," it was proclaimed in a six-page spread in the country's largest paper).

Uruguay is only about 3.3 million people, so any sort of connectivity with the larger world is a big deal, especially when it shows them artistically in a favorable light. Hey, this country got excited when its name was said on the "Simpsons," even though it was used as a "you're a gay" punchline.

Why was he snubbed? Because no one knows who this guy is and Antonio is a huge star, that's why!

And yet, it's a real harbinger: the first Spanish-language song to win.

The connectivity southward grows . . .

■"Vermonters Vote on Study Of National Guard's Role: Antiwar Effort Looks at 'Weekend Warrior,'" by Pam Belluck, New York Times, 2 March 2005, p. A11.

Vermont towns passing resolutions asking State Legislature to investigate costs and impact of having National Guard units in Iraq-on their ability to defend Vermont!

More seriously, these peace activists are using the notion that the Guard serves the state they live in, first and foremost. Yes, they can be tapped under U.S. Code for the overseas stuff, but they do actually belong to governors. So yeah, the average citizen considers their main task to be responding to natural disasters and emergencies.

But it runs deeper than that. The activists argue the social costs of being in combat: "There are people from Vermont who have been sent to Iraq who have been called upon to do things which they wouldn't choose to do. They have been put in a vulnerable position. And then when they come home, we're the ones that are going to take care of them."

Is this just nutty Vermont? No. Small-town police forces have been put under serious strain all over the nation. This is real. What it says is, we need to renegotiate this function-this SysAdmin obligation we seem to have taken on with the Global War on Terrorism.

■"Latin America's Left Takes Pragmatic Tack: To Reduce Poverty, New Leaders May Have to Sell Economic Changes to Skeptical Public," by David Luhnow, Wall Street Journal, 2 March 2005, p. A15.

Interesting article. Yes, lotsa leftist governments now in South America, but it ain't your daddy's socialism. Lula in Brazil is so free trade that some of his supporters wonder if it would have been any different if the rightist candidate had won. The 90's were allegedly full of "centrist" leaders, but their hard-core free marketism always struck me as pretty rightist in economic orientation, minus the usual Latin American political authoritarianism. If Lula and company are the leftists, then they're about left-wing as Clinton was.

You remember Clinton? Balanced budgets and all that.

Great chart in the article detailing what's the same and what's different. The same is tight control over government spending and open trade with flexible exchange rates. What's different is more government activism in industrial development and more spending on poor. What's still missing is Hernando DeSoto stuff: overall tax code to raise government revenue, freer labor mobility, better education and more antitrust efforts.

Hell, it sounds downright Teddy Rooseveltian! If this is the leftist turn, I won't argue with a greater focus on the poor. Can't go Core if you've got too much Gap. But tackling those tougher issues is everything. No capitalism without attracting capital.

■"Missile spat won't scuttle 'three amigos' summit: Disappointed Bush still willing to proceed with trade talks, White House says," by Sheldon Alberts, Ottawa Citizen, 2 March 2005, p. A5.

Bush White House sending some signals that it's awfully unhappy that Canada decided to drive a wooden stake through the heart of NORAD and perhaps mortally wound the dream of Star Wars in the process by pulling out of the missile defense scheme for North America. Canadian PM calls to explain the decision, and Bush no takes the call and no calls back either. Maybe Rice will blow off a scheduled meet with Canada's foreign minister?

Nah, says the White House, the proposed summit with both Canada and Mexico is on, probably down in Texas. Truth be told, we're still so mad about Canada not joining the Iraq coalition that this is almost water off the back of a duck.

Tomorrow I speak at the 21st Annual Conference of Defence Associations in Ottawa. Chief of Defence Staff precedes my luncheon address, and US Ambassador Paul Celluci follows right after me. Both of them go for 45 minutes. Lunch is 1 hour 45 minutes. Not sure how much of that I get. Will find out and adjust tomorrow.

After that I walk down the street and do an interview at the studios of Canadian Broadcast Corporation's show "Newsworld." Should be fun.

Hmm. Wonder if anyone will mention this little tussle . . .

Also wonder how the SysAdmin concept will go over . . .

This one is a freebie by me. Last talk I set up while still with Naval War College. Kept the date to do my bit to save North America military unity.

■"Rumsfeld Is Sued By Iraqis, Afghans For Alleged Abuse," by Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal, 2 March 2005, p. A4.

So the ACLU and other lawyer organizations are helping formerly jailed suspects try to sue Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for damages in a civil proceedings. You want to know why U.S. administrations, both Democrat (Clinton) and Republican (Bush) fear and dislike the International Criminal Court, this is why. You start calling everything a "war crime" and nothing will get done. This is not how we want to build international law.

This is justice in search of defendants. There is no Secretary of Everything Else, or the guy who immediately takes responsibility once the Secretary of War has done his thing-and that's the problem. This guy doesn't exist, and Donald Rumsfeld isn't his name. Accountability comes with defined positions and bureaucratic policies that buttress and define those responsibilities. Our mistakes in this Global War on Terrorism reflect the gaps in our system, not the commission of crimes by identifiable parties. When you seek to punish the players absent the critical mass of system, you don't build the system, you abort it.

This dog is trying to hunt. It's just barking up the wrong tree.

■"Investors of the World, Here's the Word on Putin Inc.," by Erin E. Arvedlund, New York Times, 2 March 2005, p. A4.

A tough but reasonable verdict from a Kremlin official (their rep to the G-8 until he was relieved for these comments): when the Kremlin engineered that nasty renationalization of Yukos through the bogus auction, Andrei Illarionov declared, "Today, by our own decisions, we have done what is now, regrettably, clear to the outside world-we opted for the third world."

What Illarionov means is that Putin and Co. are acting like a Gap state instead of a Core one, more Saudi Arabia than Norway, say.

After a first term in which local and international business confidence was rising, Putin's second term is downright scary in its renationalizations, the uncertainty it's introduced in property rights, and its "tax terrorism" that beats any crony capitalism we've seen in Asia over the years.

So, if the first-term model seemed like Pinochet's Chile, or something akin to China or Singapore, now experts are calling it closer to PRI Mexico with its dominance of Pemex, the Mexican oil company it's run quite badly over the decades. Others say that's too easy a judgment, and that Russia will be Russia, not some carbon-copy of some other country's model.

Here's the real danger:

"Given that the Kremlin has succeeded in concentrating power, the worry is they're enjoying it for its own sake," said Mr. Litwack of the World Bank. "There's no proof you have to be an open democracy or free market to attract investment. But you have to create conditions for investors."

Good markets demand good governments, says Martin Wolf of the Economist in his book, "Why Globalization Works." But good markets require good market conditions. Putin is not creating those right now, and eventually it will cost him, no matter how much energy he's hoarding to the state.

■"GE Pins Hopes on Emerging Markets: Multinational Firms Expect To See Much of Their Growth From Developing Countries," by Kathryn Kranhold, Wall Street Journal, 2 March 2005, p. A3.

GE says 60% of its future earnings will come from "emerging markets," which is Wall Street code for New Core-and specifically China, India, Russia and Brazil.

"GE's outlook is echoed by most multinationals, many of them rivals such as Simens AG and Philips Electronics NV, and financial-services giant Citigroup Inc." The Old Core markets only offer so much growth and no more, whereas the New Core economies are growth personified for decades to come.

Maybe many in the Pentagon want to make such countries "of concern" in coming decades, but Wall Street is planning a very different future. We need to remember that when we reach for familiar enemy images. There is no long-term future in this pathway. Spout on all you want, but there isn't any long-term future in this for American business.

That's the everything else they consistently forget inside the Pentagon.

■"China Grapples With Social Ills: Leaders Fear Economic Boom's Inequities Imperil Stability, Growth," by Charles Hutzler and Kathy Chen, Wall Street Journal, 2 March 2005, p. A14.

■"U.S. Lawmakers Warn Europe on Arms Sales to China: Concerns are raised about sending military technology to Beijing," by Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger, New York Times, 2 March 2005, p. A6.

The Communist Party is gearing up for its annual session of the National People's Congress in the Great Hall of the Peoples in Beijing. Everyone on our end is concerned about the likely passage of the "antisecession" law, but the real topic of the congress will be making sure the rural poor don't fall too far behind. This is a big topic of PNM-II, and it should remind us that the Gap is all around us here in the Core, in pockets in the Old Core but in big swaths in the New Core. It reminds us that the Core can't move ahead without bringing the Gap along. This isn't neoimperialism or any of that other quasi-Marxist nonsense. This is the reality that the Core needs the Gap to get better if the Core is going to remain the Core. China is that microcosm of the whole, as is India.

We focus only on seeing the threat. We think China's going to get dangerous technology with arms sales from the EU, and we think we can control that transaction. We cannot. China is going to be a global center of high-speed computing. It doesn't need EU arms to pull that off, but the EU needs those arms sales to get access to China. We are tying to manage China's rise by negation, by interdiction, by denial. Think that would have worked for England with the U.S. in the early parts of the 20th century? Think again.

■"The American Witness: Congress gets a chance to get off the fence," op-ed by Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times, 2 March 2005, p. A25.

Kristof's piece on Sudan today is all about a Marine captain who's spent time as an American military adviser to African Union observers cataloguing war crimes in Sudan. Here is what he had to say:

"Every single day you go out to see another burned village, and more dead bodies," [former Marine Captain Steidle] said. "And the children-you see 6-month-old babies that have been shot,and 3-year-old kids with their faces smashed in with rifle butts. And you just have to stand there and write your reports . . .

It's systematic cleansing of peoples by the Arab chiefs there. And when you talk to them, that's what they tell you. They're very blunt about it. One day we met a janjaweed leader and he said, 'Unless you get back four camels that were stolen in 2003, then we're going to go to these four village and burn the villages, rape the women, kill everyone.' And they did."

Think there's going to be a solution that doesn't involve the U.S. getting its hands dirty-just a little bit? Feel better that we're not there, imposing our "imperialistic will"?

Guess what? Suing our government officials for civil damages in the Global War on Terrorism ain't the answer.

If you want perfect justice, just keep waiting. But if want to stop things like Darfur, then build the SysAdmin force. Make it big, make it Core-wide. Move beyond balance-of-power bullshit that keeps us fixating on familiar foes. Stop the killing now.

■"Lebanon's cry for 'liberty' shakes Mideast: Protests push president to probe murder of ex-PM; Syria predicts troops to withdraw 'in a few months,'" by Richard Foot, Ottawa Citizen, 2 March 2005, p. A1.

■"Full-Speed Ahead In Middle East: Catastrophic change is dangerous, even when it's bringing down a system people detest," op-ed by David Ignatius, Otttawa Citizen, 2 March 2005, p. A12.

■"Don't Rush on the Road to Damascus: Pushing Syria out of Lebanon could backfire," op-ed by Flynt Leverett, New York Times, 2 March 2005, p. A25.

■"Assad's War: Syria's autocrat is in retreat, but far from surrender," op-ed by Michael Young, Wall Street Journal, 2 March 2005, p. A16.

■"Saud Shiites, Long Kept Down, Look to Iraq and Assert Rights," by Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, 2 March 2005, p. A1.

■"2 From Tribunal For Hussein Case Are Assassinated: Judge And His Son Killed; Baghdad Says Iraqis and Allies, Not Syria, Seized Ex-Ruler's Kinsman," by Robert F. Worth, New York Times, 2 March 2005, p. A1.

■"Angry Iraqis shout 'no to terrorism': Thousands fill streets near site of suicide bomb that killed 125," by Qasim Abdul-Zahra, Ottawa Citizen, 2 March 2005, p. A8.

Now we have Syria predicting troop withdrawals in months . . .

Ignatius' version of System Perturbations is to cite the "obscure branch of mathematics known as 'catastrophe theory,' which looks at how a small perturbation in a previously stable system can suddenly produce dramatic change." He sees such a system perturbation in the Middle East, and he's worried about the U.S. getting too "giddy." His biggest fear? Iran's getting too powerful in the region. He wants us to mark some "red lines," but ask yourself if only sanctions and threats are what we can bring to the table with Iran right now. Don't we want to draw them into this maelstrom? Or do we hope to isolation them further with it, thus risking all we've set in motion?

I say, you perturb the system, and then you run with the waves.

Just as tough a question: how hard to push Assad in Syria? Is he used up as a potential reformer? Or does that pony still ride? Yes, we want Syria out of Lebanon, but do we want Assad out of Syria? We are chasing some horizontal scenarios here in the Big Bang. Not every one will work out as we want, and some strategizing of acceptable outcomes is in order.

We get an election in Iraq, and we've got some more restless Shiites in Saudi Arabia. Desired? No easy answers. But you don't slow down rapid scoring drives simply to avoid handing the ball back to the other teams. You take your points where you can. You plan on the fly. You adapt to circumstances as they change. You trust the people to stand up for themselves when given the chance, like in Iraq today, no matter what the threats they face. But you don't always assume the hard line is what gets some country's citizens the connectivity they need to motivate political change. One size does not fit all.

Dateline: Chateau Laurier, Ottawa Canada, 2 March 2005

Up at 6 am working the house like never before. Not just a cleaning but a snap re-ordering to impress our realtor about putting the house on the market sometime in mid-April. The verdict? Paint the first floor and offer a carpet allowance for old carpeting both on the second floor and above the garage. Otherwise, do nothing. So our realtor will supply the painter for a weekend touch-up job and we're good to go.

Same day we make big contact with our realtor of referral in central Indiana, our target landing spot. Indy is considered in numerous suburbs and nearby towns, but Bloomington looming large. Depending on where we could live in that Big Ten college town, I am about 50 minutes from a Southwest hub in Indy, just like I am currently in Portsmouth.

Hmm. The System Perturbation that PNM has been to my life continues to generate new horiztonal waves . . .

Hop on a US Airway Express commuter jet in Providence and endure one tumultuous descent into LaGuardia. I'm talking motion in all directions through some nasty turbulence on a clear day, which-quite frankly-is when it's always worst!

Barely make my Air Canada flight to Ottaway at 4pm, but my bag does not. On the flight, I realize I have no info on the hotel, no contact phones, no nothing. Typical for me, and I used to call my college admin gal or guy for immediate support. Now, I have to call my webmaster or my wife. Both delivered today.

So when I land in Ottaway and my baggage does not, I hop in a cab for a quick ride downtown to the Chateau Laurier right at the smack dab center of town. It's a wonderful, big Old World-type hotel. Had some fab room service, after making sure with my host that it was reasonable: nice Molson Canadian, smoked salmon and fruit plate. I would really love to have a house with this décor. Must be the French in me (mother's side).

Tomorrow I perform over lunch, then Canadian TV at the request of the CBC.

Here's the catch from the home subscriptions to the NYT and WSJ, plus an Ottawa Citizen I picked up along the way:

■ Making out the shaking out of the Middle East

■ China goes slow, China goes fast?

■ The SysAdmin on the sidelines in Sudan

■ Which model is Putin following?

■ GE bets on the New Core

■ Rumsfeld suit: the missing Secretary of Everything Else

■ The New Left in Latin America

■ The missile defense spat with Canada

■ Vermont wants to renegotiate on SysAdmin troops

■ Uruguay desperate for any content connectivity

Tom has three public presentations next week. The WAC event requires a token admission fee:

Tuesday, March 8, World Affairs Council, San Francisco

Check In: 5:30 PM, Program 6:00 PM,

Members: Free, Students (with ID): $5, Nonmembers: $15 Cosponsors: $7

Location: At the Council, 312 Sutter Street, 2nd floor Conference Room, San Francisco

Cosponsored by Marines Memorial Association and Stacey’s Independent Bookstore

March 9 and 10, Admiral Nimitz Lectures, UC Berkeley

Wednesday March 9th, "The Pentagon's New Map" 7 PM-145 Dwinelle Hall

Thursday March 10th, "A Future Worth Creating" 7 PM-145 Dwinelle Hall

Both Lectures are free and open to the public.

■"British girl wins battle over Muslim clothing: "I'm happy that I did this. I feel that I have given hope and strength to other Muslim women," by Dilpazier Aslam, The Globe and Mail, 3 March 2005, p. A14A.

British schoolgirl wins right in court to wear head scarf and full head-to-toe clothing at public school. Doubleplusgood for her. She shows the way for tolerance from non-Muslims and she lights a path for young Muslim women struggling for personal connectivity in the West, where they need-for now and probably a very long time-the social protection offered by these clothes. As Olivier Roy points out in Globalized Islam (excellent book), this re-traditionalization isn't about rejecting the West or its ways, but about trying to compromise with them. Remember, this is a discussion about how we get Muslim girls in public schools, not how we keep them out.

Yes, she may be excluded by some peers in the short term, but the longer-term inclusion of this young woman in educational and later work settings is the real future worth creating. The clothes will go away with time, but the connectivity will only grow.

This is the right way. The French are doing it the wrong way.

■"U.N. Troops in Congo Kill 50 Militiamen in Gun Battle," by Associated Press, New York Times, 3 March 2005, pulled off web.

Here are the opening paras:

United Nations troops killed at least 50 militiamen in a stepped-up campaign to clear northeastern Congo of rogue gunmen who have preyed on residents and are suspected in the recent slaying of nine peacekeepers, United Nations officials said Wednesday.

Responding to gunfire, the peacekeepers, backed by an attack helicopter, killed more people than in any other operation during their six-year mission in Congo.

The gun battle took place on Tuesday between 242 Pakistani peacekeepers and militia fighters. It broke out at a heavily fortified militia camp near the village of Loga, 20 miles north of Bunia, the capital of the lawless Ituri region, said Col. Dominique Demange, spokesman for the United Nations forces in Congo.

"While on operation we were fired upon, so we immediately responded," he said. He said 50 to 60 militia members had been confirmed dead.

You have to give it to the Pakistanis. They do deliver regularly on peacekeeping.

This is a good sign, but I suspect it goes nowhere. The UN can justify shooting back when their guys get killed, but the real step up is killing to prevent deaths of locals. 50k dead since 1999 (since the major war periods of the 1990s where roughly 3 million are believed to have been killed) and half a million forced out of their homes. Now the UN is talking about seriously pursuing these militias. Can it? Probably not, but at least it shows that the UN realizes how impotent it has looked for years in Africa.

■"A To-Do List for Putin" op-ed by Stephen Sestanovich, Washington Post, 3 March 2005, p. A25.

Sestanovich has long been one of the most sensible Soviet-then-Russian watchers. Here's the gist of the op-ed:

As they think about the evolution of democracy in post-communist societies, American experts and officials usually have in mind a long to-do list -- ensuring the rule of law, a free press, minority rights and so forth. Bush mentioned all these goals during his news conference with Putin last week. Yet the big political breakthroughs we've seen in recent years have not revolved around these issues. In Georgia and Ukraine, opponents of the regime, though unhappy about many things, had a different overriding demand: free and fair elections.

There is a lesson here for President Bush. Without forgetting his long list, he needs a short one, too. In fact, there should be only one item on it: Russia's presidential election in 2008. No other event is likely to have as large an impact on the course of Russian democracy -- and no other commitment that Putin makes will be as easy to monitor.

Under the Russian constitution, Putin cannot run for a third term, which leaves him and his entourage two choices: rewrite the constitution or try to put one of their own in the top job, just as Leonid Kuchma sought to install Viktor Yanukovych as president of Ukraine. For this reason, Western policymakers need to send Putin the same message they sent Kuchma for two years before Ukraine's election: A fraudulent vote will taint Russia's international standing for years to come.

Rather than make the 2008 election a litmus test of Russian democracy, some Western policymakers will prefer to stick to generic, and less confrontational, urgings about civil society and the rule of law. Without progress in these areas, they'll say, elections won't matter much anyway. They'll also argue that Putin, unlike Kuchma, is so popular he can probably get his own man elected fairly. If so, why focus on a contest that won't really strengthen democracy?

While I agree with those that say it's the economic connectivity, stupid! I also like this idea in the sense that it gives the political community something to focus on that is both good and right, plus it will keep them out of the hair of those in the private sector pushing for rule of law, etc., in the economic realm. As a looming possibility, this is the biggest rule-of-law issue out there: preventing the rise of the Big Man in Russia in the person of Putin. Will he disappear into private life once he leaves office? Unlikely. His guy will probably win, although we shouldn't rule out a Ukraine-like outcome (in fact, we and the EU should push for it like crazy, if quietly), but Putin will loom afterwards in the Kremlin, like Lee did in Singapore after leaving the PM's office.

■"Greenspan Says Federal Budget Deficits Are 'Unsustainable,'" by Edmund L. Andrews, New York Times, 3 March 2005, pulled off web.

This is Greenspan's basic message:

"When you begin to do the arithmetic of what the rising debt level implied by the deficits tells you, and you add interest costs to that ever-rising debt, at ever-higher interest rates, the system becomes fiscally destabilizing," he told lawmakers. "Unless we do something to ameliorate it in a very significant manner," he added, "we will be in a state of stagnation."

With deficits soaring since 9/11, this administration has pushed up the federal debt from $3.4 trillion to $4.3, or an increase of 26% in just three years. There is unlikely to be any serious deficit-reduction in coming years in terms of budgetary cuts. Our aging population simply makes that impossible. The bigger danger right now, is the almost $2 trillion added to the debt over the next decade if we keep the Bush tax cuts. They were crazy then, they will be crazier in the future. You can't combine any aging population with aging public infrastructure and a Global War on Terrorism with a tax cut. That isn't fiscal responsibility, and I don't care what excuses or rationales the Bush White House offers. That level of deficit spending is a serious threat to our national security in coming years. Saving some bucks now will put lives at risk later on.

■"Brave, Young and Muslim," op-ed by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 3 March 2005, pulled off web.

■"A Force for Good," op-ed by Robert D. Kaplan, New York Times, 3 March 2005, pulled off web.

Friedman, ditching his neo-green nonsense for the day, is back to his usual optimism, even if he won't give the Bush administration any credit for what's going on in the Middle East (Does anyone believe this all happens absent our invasion of Iraq? Ask yourself!). It is very good to see:

The last couple of years have not been easy for anyone, myself included, who hoped that the Iraq war would produce a decent, democratizing outcome. And even in the wake of the remarkable Iraqi election, the toppling of the Lebanese cabinet and the reforms brewing in Egypt, it is too soon for anyone to declare victory. We're dealing with some very unstable chemicals. But what makes me more hopeful today is precisely what made me hopeful that the Iraq war might work out, and that is the number of Arab-Muslim youth I've encountered since 9/11 who have urged me to keep writing about the need for democracy and reform in their part of the world.

Of course, many Americans are surprised by this.

Hah! No one's more surprised than Friedman himself! I mean, it's good to have a short memory if you're either an NFL quarterback or cornerback, but it's more reasonable to expect some self-awareness from an op-ed columnist of Friedman's towering stature. Notice how he never mentions the Iraq invasion, the neocons, or the Bush administration in this piece, instead giving a stirring description of this great book written by a Muslim woman calling for a reformation process within this globalized religion. Fair enough, but come on man! Give the administration its due and eat some crow.

Is it too early to declare any victory? Of course it is. But again, does any of this happen in a Middle East without our military interventions, when oil prices rise naturally thanks to a long-term confluence of diminished investment in infrastructure and exploration and production with a rising demand curve in developing Asia (the real cause of the long-term price rise)?

Kaplan's also turning a new leaf, or perhaps just beginning his PR campaign for his new book called Imperial Grunts. Instead of harping on how unprepared the U.S. military is for the Global War on Terrorism, now he's recognizing the rapid pace of change. His example here is the Asian tsunamis response (a weak one, but okay), not exactly my definition of "imperial." But it's awfully nice to see some optimism from the man who's so in love with the U.S. military (you think I love them!). It means these changes are becoming apparent to journalists in the field with the pointy end of the spear. It says that Rumsfeld's moves over the past two years are starting to penetrate the furthest reaches of our operational forces.

■"U.S. Turns Up Heat on Syria to Leave Lebanon: Egypt, Saudis Join Push to Remove Troops," by Robin Wright, Washington Post, 3 March 2005, p. A20.

■"Syria Under Pressure: Worse Trouble May Lie Ahead," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 3 March 2005, pulled off web.

■"Get out now, Bush tells Syria: The hard line on Lebanon helps the White House heal its rift with France," by Paul Korning, The Globe and Mail, 3 March 2005, p. A1.

■"Hezbollah set for key role in Lebanon: Parliamentary balance of power in hands of Iranian-backed group's 12 deputies," by Mark MacKinnon, The Globe and Mail, 3 March 2005, p. A13.

The Bush White House is pursuing a multi-pronged strategy: strong words in public, sterner ones along diplomatic channels (twisting some local arms to join in and working hard on this issue with the Europeans, basically healing much of our rift with France in the process), and threatening sanctions. The timing is good: Bashar al-Assad has reduced Syrian troops in Lebanon significantly since coming to power, from roughly 20k to 14k. Now the White House has the Egyptians and Saudis saying all 14k should go in the next two months. Apparently, we have convinced local governments that this is a key prerequisite to making peace come to Palestine and Israel.

What trouble lies ahead? Assad assumes a siege mentality, backtracking on some nice internal reforms since the invasion of Iraq. Okay, some loss there.

Bigger issue: where does Hezbollah go now? It's clearly the big player in Lebanon, and the connectivity to Iran is also clear. Hezbollah is both militant and Shiite. It's effectively Tehran's instrument of veto over peace in the region. The Parliament is split between pro- and anti-Syrian elements, putting Hezbollah in the driver's seat, because whom they side with will win.

This is what King Abdullah was talking about when he warned about a Shiite "crescent" running from Lebanon through Iraq and Iran. Our successes in transforming the Middle East have all had the same effect: removing Tehran's problems and elevating its allies. This is why it makes so much sense to find some modus vivendi with Iran. There is no future worth creating where Iran is not involved. We can wait on the mullahocracy to fall, or we can make that an end to these means (Big Bang) and not wait on this. People want to paint my call on Iran as appeasement, but I think it's the fastest way to getting what we want. The Big Bang is rumbling on. The question is, do we want to secure these gains or keep them at risk? Which way gets us to security faster? Which way more completely values the sacrifices we've made to date?

Dateline: Chateau Laurier, Ottawa Canada, 3 March 2005

Sat through some talks in the morning, then did my talk following lunch. Unusual for me, I had a very hard end-point to accommodate the security (I imagine) issues surrounding the 2:15 appearance of the American ambassador.

Nice big ballroom in this very beautiful and ornate Old World hotel in downtown Ottawa. About 300 in attendance. Got set up on podium with laptop, but talked from floor. Sat through lunch next to military head of Canadian forces, a four-star army guy. He was very amiable and we chatted for a bit. I ate the soup and then hit the head during the main course.

Thanks to a press award, I started at 1:20 and went right to 2:10, so no Q&A because the audience needed to migrate back to main conference hall to hear the U.S. ambassador's talk. I did, however, pass out a lot of cards and took a bunch in from people (uniform and civilian) who approached me right after the talk. I had to stay focused, because the danger is you will forget some of your equipment while you're meeting and greeting and simultaneously packing up your gear. So I have a firm routine of getting my clicker and USB clip first. Then my power cord with the cover for the input end. Then I unscrew the display adaptor, putting the plastic caps on both end. That all goes into a mesh bag and the bag goes into my roller luggage. Then I shut down the Mac and it goes in.

The talk went very well. I did a version I have never done before: the Core and Gap + A-to-Z System + Leviathan-SysAdmin split. Lotsa audience response and a big round of applause at the end. No cool souvenir though, just a pamphlet-like book.

When I was done, I ran my gear up to my room and then caught the tail end of Cellucci's talk (the ambassador). Then I started out on my walk to the Canadian Broadcast Network, armed with a map and sans hat, which was a big mistake, cause baby, it's cold outside!

Well, natural to my status as a visionary and map-focused perspective, I got the map turned upside down and got lost. So I did a very un-man thing, I asked a local and got it straight just in time to show up at the studio to get run upstairs to the room (after a quick head call) and get in the chair about 45 seconds before going on the air with CBC's David Gray. About 15 seconds before lights on, I was handed a piece of paper saying the subject was Canada's decision to pull out of the missile defense system.

So when the first question came, I quickly moved the discussion to the issue of postconflict stabilization and reconstruction, highlighting what I think is the serious growth potential for U.S.-Canadian security cooperation in shrinking the Gap. When probed again, I basically gave my blunt assessment of ballistic missile defense.

The interview ran about 5 minutes, and I performed unusually well considering I was just sitting in a room by myself, staring into a camera (Gray was in Calgary). I think I was just very warm from the talk, plus I had no time to get nervous in advance. So I was feeling very confident and breezed right through, aided in no small part by Gray's rather amiable style that allowed me to finish answers fully.

So I was in and out of the CBC in about 15 minutes. On the walk back to the hotel I dropped in a souvenir store and picked up all things maple: candy, chocolates, cookies and-ta da!-real syrup. Blew a quick $50 Canadian, and wasn't sure if that was a lot, because I can't remember which currency is more powerful right now.

Getting back to the hotel, I run the goodies upstairs, grab my Mac and head back into the conference, because the conference head asked me to appear on the last panel (once their trio of presentations was done) for the Q&A portion. At first, I got no questions, but then fielded the last two.

After suffering through the concluding comments of this seriously dumbass Canadian academic, who presented an idiotic analysis of U.S. national security since 9/11 (I came awfully close to letting my sotto voce "bullshits" get loud enough for some in the room to hear). I thought of walking out in an obvious fashion, but this guy's stupidity was so compelling, like a car wreck, that I simply couldn't. It was stunning, how much this jerk breathlessly misrepresented politics and security affairs in DC. Me, I was (I confess) sticking around for the liquor at the cocktail hour.

That was fun. Great Manitoban beer called "Catfish" and a lot of neat discussions. Canadians are like cool Americans-and I mean every color and creed.

After the cocktails, it was a quick night on the laptop with some room service. My flight tomorrow is awfully early (6am!), but the good news is that I get back to PVD well before noon.

Here's the catch from the online subscriptions to the NYT and WP, plus The Globe and Mail:

■ Bush's pedal to the metal on Syria-hard to argue against

■ Two big pessimists flip-flopping back into optimism

■ Figuring the way ahead for Putin

■ When Greenspan worries, I worry

■ The UN shoots back in the Congo (a nice start)

■ You go, (Muslim) girl!

■"Horse Trading for a Venture in China: Goldman to 'Donate' $67 Million to Cover Losses at a Failed Brokerage Firm," by David Barboza, New York Times, 4 March 2005, p. C1.

■"China Worries About Economic Surge That Skips the Poor," by Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 4 March 2005, p. A10.

■"Chinese Censors and Web Users Match Wits: Beijing steps up its effort to control what can be said online," by Howard D. French, New York Times, 4 March 2005, p. A10.

Goldman Sachs has opened a very big door on financial services in China by creating a joint venture "that gives the firm greater access than any other foreign investment bank." The price? Goldman Sachs had to clean up a failed brokerage firm by "donating" a chunk of cash to cover investor losses. Oh, and Goldman had to loan another $100 million to a banker who's apparently a favorite of the Party.

Why does Sachs do this?:

Analysts say major investment banks like Goldman are expecting a growing number of Chinese companies to tap the capital markets and they expect increasingly wealthy Chinese to start investing.

"There's a lot of talk now about a dysfunctional stock market," said Li Jin, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School, "but in the future China's capital markets will be huge."

And Goldman is gaining that access not through Hong Kong or Singapore or New York markets, where most Chinese companies have gone public in recent years. With this new joint venture, Goldman will be able to take Chinese companies public in China tapping Chinese investors.

That's the good. The bad is the rising issue of the rural poor, who won't exactly be participating in any Goldman schemes anytime soon. This is the focus of the National People's Congress:

"At past meetings, the stress was on fast growth—how many bridges were built, how tall the new buildings are," said Hu Jinguang, a legal scholar at People's University in Beijing who follows the workings of the legislature. "Now the main emphasis is on social well-being and spreading the wealth."

According to the article, China has one of the largest wealth gaps in the world, with the rural earning—on average—one third of the urban population. The key tasks for reform still lie ahead and they are land ownership rights, stopping the special discrimination that favors urban residents over rural ones in the best schools, and the changing of population controls that keep 800 million labeled rural and thereby limiting their access to a variety of social services available primarily in cities.

The ugly? That's the very sophisticated effort by the party to control the Internet in China, a huge task when you're talking 94 million users chased around the web by 50,000 web police. China's got the best real-time surveillance systems on the planet, by some accounts, but the Party is expected to ultimately lose this battle in an economy where broadband access is growing at double-digit rates every year.

But the real reason why intellectuals in China argue against this long-term effort is that trying to limit information flows will ultimately create more problems than their free flow:

"All of the big mistakes made in China since 1949 have had to do with a lack of information," said Gao Liang, an Internet expert a the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. "Lower levels of government have come to understand this, and I believe that since the SARS epidemic, upper levels may be beginning to understand this, too."

■"Fed's Chief Gives Consumption Tax Cautious Backing: Economic Growth Cited; Advisory Panel for Bush Considers Overhaul of Current Tax System," by Edmund L. Andrews, New York Times, 4 March 2005, p. A1.

Greenspan testifying before a presidential advisory panel cautiously endorsed the idea of switching our tax system from income to consumption to encourage savings and investment. Bush has said he's committed to simplifying the tax code, something most Americans would welcome, and I think a consumption-based tax is worth considering. If you want to spend a lot, get taxed a lot, but if you want to save a lot, avoid it. Seems simple enough.

■"Saudis Join Call For Syrian Force To Quit Lebanon: Arab Nations Back West; Rebuff Isolates Damascus—No Sign the Troops Are Pulling Out Yet," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 4 March 2005, p. A1.

■"Russians, Saudis Press Syria To Pull Out Troops: Lebanese President struggles to name a new PM," by National Post News Services, National Post, 4 March 2005, p. A12.

Listen to this disconnectedness:

"The Arabs have taken a stand and the international community have taken a stand," said Joseph Samaha, editor in chief of As Safir, a Lebanese daily. "This means there is no ally left for Syria …

"As long as the Saudis had organized to protect Syria, Syria could survive this," Mr. Amine [columnist with Al Hayat] said. "That's what makes this so important."

As key figures in the Arab League, Saudi Arabia and Egypt largely define the Arab line.

Then there's Moscow, which had been Syria's main sponsor for so long, also demanding that Damascus comply with the UN resolution that calls for the end of its occupation of Lebanon.

Syria's asking to keep as few as 3,000 troops as a sort of early-warning trip-wire force, but Arab states are denying even that request.

It's one thing when the UN calls for something, or the West, but when you get the momentum all going in one direction in a region, that which seemed impossible just a few months ago now seems inevitable.

And it will be accomplished without a military intervention. The key is to deny the regime those whom it defines as its key, backstopping patrons. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are turned on this subject, and all of a sudden Syria is seemingly without a leg to stand on.

But again, remember this, the big player in Lebanon is the Shiite group Hezbollah, so when Syria goes, Iran grows.

Dateline: above the garage, 4 March 2005

Up at 0430, check out of hotel and catch a cab to the airport. There I do the entire entering-the-country thing, which was a bit weird. What I mean is that everything that's normally done when you land in the U.S. was done there, before the flight, so I sort of "entered" the U.S. while still in Ottawa (signs welcoming me to U.S. confirmed that). So the usual drill was elongated quite a bit: first I did the electronic check-in, then I checked my bag, then I filled out Canadian departure and U.S. port-of-entry forms, then an ID check, then my checked bad was scanned, then I went through security, then I did U.S. passport and customs combined in one stop, and then I was finally done and ready to board. So when I landed at LaGuardia, it was just like landing there on a domestic flight.

Hung out in LaGuardia doing a massive "Reviewing the Reviews" from Amazon and Barnes & Noble sites, which I'll post on Sunday. Then found an NYT left on a chair. Getting home, I get to the backlog of NYTs and WSJs that came to my house, pulling stories while I watch a movie (Sponge Bob) with the kids. I'll bag those up tomorrow in my blog.

The big news for today? Kevin is the Student of the Month for his grade at his school. It's a big deal at the school and in our family, complete with an awarding ceremony at the monthly PTA meeting, which, unfortunately, I will miss due to travel long ago scheduled.

Here's the daily catch I managed from the NYT and Canada's National Posts:

■ The building pressure on Syria—a model for North Korea?

■ Today's good, bad and ugly on China

■ A consumption-based tax system to encourage savings?

■"In Rural Cambodia, Avian Influenza Finds a Weak Spot: Human Cases Escape Notice Amid Ignorance, Poverty As a Pandemic Threatens," by James Hookway, Wall Street Journal, 4 March 2005, p. A1.

Outbreaks of avian flu so far in 2005: Vietnam, Cambodia, Thailand. All are true Gap states with Thailand sporting the top per capita GDP at just under $2k (Cambodia's just under a dollar a day (severe poverty) and Vietnam's under $2 a day). If the avian flu becomes a true pandemic, it'll be because it was able to take root and grow inside Gap states whose medical systems were easily overwhelmed by its appearance.

The 1918 flu killed between 20 and 40 million, and the last biggie in the world was in the late 1960s, so we're due, according to that paradigm, but there's nothing that says this time can't be different. These countries aren’t alone, as there are several New Core powers in the region with both the money and the know-how to step in and stem this tide.

And these New Core powers are more than incentivized to do so. As one WHO doc said at an international conference on the flu in Vietnam last week: "The world is now in the gravest possible danger of a pandemic."

When this strain first starting appearing in Hong Kong in 1997, resurfacing big time in 2003, there were strong responses from strong states. But now the virus, having retreating from the cities, is resurging in the rural areas of these very poor Gap states, where the infrastructure of both surveillance and medical response is very weak.

Cambodia's state budget is not even a billion, and the vast majority of it comes in foreign aid (500 of 644 million dollars). What does the Core spend its money on in Cambodia? Mostly putting former Khmer Rouge leaders on trial. Japan donated $18 million to that purpose alone last month. As the article points out, total foreign aid to the region on avian flu is about $18 million, with only $1 million going to Cambodia. You have to wonder whether we're spending too much money on the dead and not enough on the living here.

How does Cambodia fight outbreaks? It's biggest tool seems to be cellphones. With few fixed lines, that's the key networking tool.

If we're facing a possible global epidemic that kills tens of millions and costs billions upon billions, you have to wonder about how much it would cost to just give Cambodia truckloads of cell phones.

Otherwise, that country's pervasive disconnectedness may not just pose danger, but end up getting a lot of people in the world killed.

■"Potential Putin Rival Spurring Speculation: President's Intentions Remain in Question," by Peter Finn, Washington Post, 4 March 2005, p. A14.

■"Moldova's Ruling Communists Are Leading a Swing to the West," by Marc Champion and Alan Cullison, Wall Street Journal, 4 March 2005, p. A14.

■"A Passage to Prosperity," op-ed by P. Chidambaram, Wall Street Journal, 4 March 2005, p. A14.

■"Mexican Oil Chief Seeks Expansion: The Possibility of Foreign Investment Draws Criticism," by Elisabeth Malkin, New York Times, 3 March 2005, p. C8.

After Viktor Yushchenko prevailed in Ukraine, Putin and his people started targeting potential Yushchenkos in his own government, like Mikhail Kasyanov, his former PM who's a focus of speculation as a possible reformist candidate against whomever Putin pushes to run in his place in 2008 (assuming he doesn't try to rewrite the constitution in the meantime, which would be enough to reclassify Russia as Gap if he pulls it off). Kasyanov is scared enough that allies say he's considering a run for the presidency simply to shield himself against potential arrest (two other candidates have formally announced they're running: one an ultranationalist and the other the former speaker of the lower house of the State Duma).

In short, the gaming regarding the end of Putin's reign has begun in earnest, and it's starting now in 2005 because the past year has been a horrible one for the current regime (Beslan, Yukos, the proposed pension cuts, and the Ukrainian election fiasco where it backed the losing side). Putin's approval rating is low at 42%, but the Duma's is inconceivably low at 3% (yes, 3%!), so the Russian desire for a strong leader hasn't gone away. But Putin's biggest problem, as the article points out, is that he's grabbed for lots of power recently, and it hasn't improved his government's efficiency on anything.

If anything, every time Putin grabs for more power, former Soviet republics tend to lean ever more westward (now it's Moldova, a place dominated by communists!). If Putin rewrites the constitution to pretend he hasn't served two terms, this trend will become a landslide, and Russia will be greatly isolated as a result. Money will simply stay away, and no matter how much the Kremlin controls the energy sector, it will starve for adequate funding, and that will curtail Russian power internationally far more than "losing" Moldova to the West.

[I am actually a rare person who can read Moldovan, which is Romanian in Cyrillic. Kinda trippy to translate a foreign language in another language's script. I studied Russian as an undergrad and grad, and took Romanian for my Ph.D. research on Ceaucescu.]

If Russia wants to remain in the Core, it can't do so only on energy. It needs to do what India's done: boost manufacturing and attract investment. In fact, Russia can't even be a major Core power on energy unless it attracts foreign investment. This is where Mexico is at with state-owned Pemex. As its own CEO forecasts, if Pemex keeps investing $10 billion a year, it can make enough discoveries to keep exporting. Anything less and Mexico will soon be importing! But if Pemex doubles that investment level, he predicts it can become one of the world's biggest suppliers of oil. Where is Mexico going to locate an additional $10 billion in money each year? Not at home, but only from abroad. What stands in the way? Idiotic national pride and small-minded legislators who would rather control all of a much smaller pie than lose some control over a much bigger one.

Putin should take note of Mexico, especially if his model of political control is like what the PRI did there for decades (a vigorous "democratic" process within a single ruling party). Mexico is not a serious great power, and it could be. That's where Russia is headed unless Putin and Co. wise up some.

■"China, Others Criticize U.S. Report on Rights: Double Standard at State Dept. Alleged," by Edward Cody, Washington Post, 4 March 2005, p. A14.

■"U.S. and China Bridge Divisions To Fight Crime: Cooperation Grows on Drugs, Terrorism and Swindles, Beijing's Newest Problem," by Matt Pottinger, Wall Street Journal, 3 March 2005, p. A11.

■"China's Game College Seeks to Foster Innovation," by Alex Ortolani, Wall Street Journal, 3 March 2005, p. B3.

■"Whose Patent Is It, Anyway?: Foreign Companies Confront China on Rights to Intellectual Property," by Howard French, New York Times, 5 March 2005, p. B1.

The State Department puts out its usual human rights abuse report, naming China, which in turn says that the country responsible for Abu Ghraib (let's not even mention Guantanamo and the turning over of terrorists to states we know will torture them) shouldn't exactly be throwing the first stone.

This is why I argued in Wired that we need to internationalize a rule-set on this Global War on Terrorism. You can't have it both ways. As I said in the piece, it's not about an immediately global rule-set, but one you grow with interesting and incentivized parties. Look at all the new police cooperation between us and China. China comes around on this because it sees the value in it: either suffer the inefficiency or network to improve rule-set enforcement. We will suffer certain inefficiencies in our efforts to spread democracy and rule of law so long as we're easily tarred with similar feathers as those we seek to casually pin on others.

Cooperation on these issues pays off. If we encourage China to be innovative, then it will want to protect such innovation, just like Japan does now after decades of stealing our technology. China is strongly incentivized in the economic realm, far less so in the political realm. So you take what globalization's growing connectivity gives you and press that mutual advantage, because, in the end, that'll get us to where we want to go faster than bitching about human rights. You tame and/or kill authoritarian rule with connectivity, not name calling.

■"Many View Argentina's Comeback With Skepticism: Some Financiers and Bondholders Say Offer to Settle Huge Debt Is Far Too Little," by Paul Blustein, Washington Post, 4 March 2005, p. E1.

■"Argentina Announces Deal on Its Debt Default: Creditors to Get at Best 30 Cents on Dollar," by Larry Rohter, New York Times, 4 March 2005, p. C3.

■"Argentina's Lessons for Global Creditors: Lend to deadbeats at your own risk," op-ed by Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Wall Street Journal, 4 March 2005, p. A15.

Argentina got more than three-quarters of its bondholders to agree to take 30 cents on the dollar, thus ending its default crisis that began in December 2001, when it stopped payments on $100 billion in debt—a record bankruptcy. Thirty cents is the worst deal yet offered by a major state in default, as the Russians at least offered 50 cents when they crashed in the late 1990s.

Is this a rule-set reset? "Lawyers, economists, underwriters and bond traders have all been speculating that Argentina's example may encourage other developing countries to act similarly." As the former Argentinian under secretary of finance and a key debt negotiator said, "The rules of the game have changed."

How so?:

Argentina chose almost from the start to break with many of the customary procedures in a debt renegotiation. Not only did it not seek an accommodation with the I.M.F. and the Group of 7, it presented a unilateral proposal to creditors, avoiding dealing with a steering committee and in the end largely imposed its terms on creditors, who were divided and fragmented.

Argentina could accomplish this in part because Argentinians themselves held almost 40% of the bonds, and because it's economy rebounded dramatically in the meantime, especially in agriculture. So foreign direct investment is flowing back in the country. This only underscores the importance of making sure Gap states have access to our markets for their agricultural exports.

Just as when the U.S. unilaterally rewrites some rules in security, Argentina is pissing off a lot of players in the Core. On average, international investors are suffering losses twice as big as they did in previous defaults in Russia and Ecuador. Of course, the Core's revenge is supposed to be a lack of FDI flowing into the transgressor's economy for many, many years, but this isn't happening with Argentina. The key is the budget surplus thanks to ag exports and keeping down the wages of public-sector employees. If the Core says, "We won't buy your public debt!" Then Argentina simply replies, "Fine, we're not floating any!"

So yeah, Argentina is getting away with it, and although their private companies will suffer, just as the people did with this bankruptcy, at least some real progress can be seen in the implicit A-to-Z global rule set on processing economically-bankrupt states. As O'Grady points out:

… the good news is that the world may have moved a step closer to a market-driven financial system where the costs of malfeasance are shouldered by those who borrow and lend rather than socialized through the International Monetary Fund.

In short, if pain is more directly connected to bad choices, then "lenders and borrowers will be forced to act more responsibly or suffer the consequences. As accountability increases, volatility and systemic risk are likely to decrease."

Point being, moral hazard should belong to the actors involved, not the world as a whole. If you don't want irrational exuberance, then don't make it look like the IMF bails states out no matter what.

■"Panel Backs Women's Rights After U.S. Drops Abortion Issue," by Warren Hoge, New York Times, 5 March 2005, p. A5.

UN conference on women wraps up with a unanimous report on furthering women's rights across the Gap and New Core, thanks to the U.S. dropping its insistence on an amendment explicitly condemning abortion. The U.S. rep claims we won a victory by stopping language that promoted abortion.

This is sheer face-saving on our part. Abortion is pursued all over the Gap and New Core, and our choice is to turn a blind eye to it (which we did here) or try to stop it, which is what we spent the majority of the conference doing, apparently. But when push came to shove, and the U.S. found itself a majority of one on the subject, we finally backed off, declaring false victory.

We backed off on another goal that most experts said would similarly backfire: criminalizing prostitution. The problem: when you drive it underground, you ratchet up the spread of AIDS and other diseases, because people forced to work in informal economies resist the sort of networks designed to control the spread of diseases.

So give us credit for being sensible on both issues, or simply acknowledge that our influence on both subjects is approaching absolute zero.

■"Iraqi Regime May Pose New U.S. Dilemma: Shiite-Promoted Policies Concerning Islam, Sunnis Appear Set to Conflict with Washington," by Yochi J. Dreazen and Farnaz Fassihi, Wall Street Journal, 3 March 2005, p. A4.

■"Good-News Bind: The Democrats and the Democracy Movements," op-ed by E.J. Dionne, Jr., Washington Post, 4 March 2005, p. A21.

■"The Road to Damascus," op-ed by Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, 4 March 2005, p. A21.

So Iraq isn't going to turn out to be some easily manipulated puppet-state. So it'll logically fall under Iran's influence. Let's be realistic. You can't push for democracy and then whine about the outcomes. Iraq's growing democracy is a huge threat to the mullahs in Iran, whether they (or we) fail to realize it at this time. The connectivity Iraq will create will pose serious dangers to their rule in Iran. Should we trade some near-term Iranian "influence" for such connectivity? You bet.

The Bush administration has done a masterful job of working the security issues and letting the political ones fall out as they must. That is a tack we should keep on Syria: work the security issue of their troops in Lebanon, and then let the political fallout from this eventual retreat work its magic inside Syria.

For now, the White House has wisely avoided politicizing these developments back here in the U.S., realizing what a bind the Democrats are in regarding past criticism of the Big Bang strategy. So Rice is getting what she wants in the Middle East and Rove is getting what he wants back here.

Dateline: above the garage, 5 March 2005

A day, nay a weekend, devoted to family affairs. My spouse is moving full force on reorganizing our household gear for showing the house and getting ready to move in the summer, and so a vast flow of unneeded goods makes its way to local charities and thrift shops. Meanwhile, I work the kids: Kevin's last BB game today, then haircuts for all the males on the base (got a day pass from a former colleague), then 5pm mass, then swimming at the Y, then McDonald's, then a movie in the basement. Tomorrow is Jerry's birthday bash with two friends at Fantasyland, a local indoor amusement park.

Tomorrow I will post a bunch of reviews, then I lapse into book mode again for probably at least three weeks, but maybe more, as Mark Warren and I start mowing through the chapters this week.

Thumbed through Jared Diamond's Collapse recently, and while I liked the environmental analysis for what it's worth, his take on politics and globalization is like looking through a soda straw. It always amuses me how hard scientists freak whenever soft scientists borrow from their fields, but then have no problem prognosticating like crazy about soft science fields like political science. For example, Diamond posts these two, amazingly self-serving maps on page 497. On top is the list of "Political Trouble Spots of the Modern World," and just below it is the map of "Environmental Trouble Spots of the Modern World." His two maps are exactly the same, hence his point that environmental problems accurately predict all political trouble spots is "proven." The list is Haiti, Madagascar, Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Indonesia, Philippines, Solomon Islands, and Mongolia. Yes, all but one state (Mongolia) sits within my Gap, but this is still one weird list of political trouble spots, ignoring North Korea, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Israel, the Central Asian republics, all of west Africa, all of southern Africa (especially Zimbabwe), and virtually all of central Africa save for Rwanda and Burundi. Haiti is it for Latin America, a virtual pimple on the ass of the western hemisphere's security environment. Instead we get Madagascar (which suffered a bad election and some minor social violence recently but that's about it), Bangladesh (provider of more UN peacekeeping troops than any country in the world), Mongolia (which is booming thanks to Chinese investment and commodity demands, and the Solomon Islands! I mean, geez, this is comically bad analysis.

Yes, I know I will have to cite his book on some level, otherwise (God forbid!) I'll have to endure all the academic reviews that decry my lack of respect for this pretty weak effort by the Pulitzer prize-winning author of Guns, Germs and Steel (where he was smart enough to stick to the past), but frankly, there is no reason for me to cite this book other than to assuage bibliophiles and academics. Yet, cite it I must, lest I be considered a "young man, narrowly read."

At 1pm today I'll do a live radio interview with a local station in Connecticut from above the garage. It'll be 18-22 minutes and it'll be on the book.

Here's the data on that one in case you just happen to be listening:

>When:Saturday March 5, 2005

>Time: 1:00PM EST

>Program: Special Edition Saturday

>Host: Larry Rifkin

>Media: WATR 1320 AM

>Duration: 18-22 minutes

I got an offer on Friday from a diplomatic journal in Canada to have the transcript of my talk there on Thursday posted in its entirety in their weekly magazine, that's how impressed the publisher was with my presentation (she was in the audience, although, for some reason, the regular working press was kept out). Nice offer, it was, but the problem was that I submitted no written record of my talk in advance, as I guess virtually all of the other speakers did. Why? I simply give my talk, whether it's 20 minutes or 6 hours, from memory. I have never written it down, except in PNM, of course.

Here's the daily catch from a combo of U.S. and Canadian papers:

■ Let's not be poor winners in the Middle East

■ China's rapidly adjusting rule sets

■ Argentina's resetting the rules on sovereign bankruptcy

■ U.S. does right by women at the UN

■ Putin's path will not build prosperity, FDI will

■ Avian flu's coming to a Gap state near you

Dateline: chilling above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 6 March 2005

My brother Jerry says that sometimes, when he's feeling stressed, he goes back to Amazon to read the reviews because he finds some of them so hilarious. I have to admit: I have done the same.

What I find so interesting, is how many of the very negative reviews nonetheless give me four out of five stars.

This will catch me up for now.

Where does he think democracy comes from?

I think Democracy is more important then economics

February 26, 2005

5 of 5 stars

No one's yet judged this review

Reviewer: Timothy (Arkansas)

Barnett seems to describe the problem using a systems method and an economic model of the world state. He seems to underestimate the great ideas of western civilization in favor of economics. While I empathize with his ambitions, I am troubled by his solutions.
Great men and great ideas change history, not just economics.

The goal of the military complex should be to establish individual liberty and natural rights for the majority of the world population. Freedom is very different then economic prosperity.

Lines of Freedom should be established. We should demarcate the world into areas of basic freedoms. The core should be defined as fundamentally democratic (little d), and having values very similar to ours, the gap should be defined as non-democratic.

Integrating non-democracies into the core is risky. We should be exporting "democracy," not "security." Exporting security is what you do when you just want to trade. Exporting democracy, on the other hand, is a much more stable long-term solution. History has shown that economic appeasement can only be viable as a temporary solution. Eventually, as history has shown, non-democracies can without deliberation, or consensus become tyrannies. So we may, in our attempts to integrate, be creating enemies with large and powerful military or inadvertently be subsidizing violations of basic human rights. I am skeptical of the 4-2-1 argument.

The recommended solution of exporting money and capital, and mass importing of immigrants will disenfranchise US citizens and cause cultural strain. They will feel betrayed and wonder whom to blame.

The Project for the New American Century seems to have the right idea for our troubled world.

COMMENTARY: Bingo! Since I never used the 4-2-1 argument anywhere but in C-SPAN appearances, I know this guy hasn't read the book whatsoever (not that that small fact should stop him from a review on Amazon, mind you). So he thinks it would be easier and safe to export democracy over economic connectivity—and they call me optimistic! This guy is obviously a bit to the right, and scared of furreigners!

Cheapskates should take the original article for a test drive!

Article mentioned within just as good as book. You decide

February 22, 2005

2 of 5 stars

No one's yet judged this review

Reviewer: tendayskomyathy (Long Island, U.S.A.)

Rumsfeld's Pentagon sees in our world an "Arc of Instability" which runs from the Caribbean, Mid East, South Asia, and North Korea. Mr. Barnett argues in this book that such a view is too myopic. He agrees with President Bush in that the pathway to global security begins in the Persian Gulf, but adds that it must travel elsewhere---not just along the "Arc of Instability"---but throughout that part of our globe that can be characterized as part of the non-integrating GAP. The world in his view can be split in two: countries that are part of the functioning CORE, that are integrating into the world economy---USA, EU, Japan, China, India, Brazil, Russia, et al.; and counties that are not functioning, that are not truly part of the world's economic system---i.e., The Middle East, Africa (except South Africa), Central Asia, Columbia, Peru, Burma, et al. "What America really needs to do," the author concludes "is understand we are in a race with history, connecting the disconnected before globalization's spread grinds to a halt, which would ensure no escape from the GAP for hundreds of millions and thus provide the forces of disconnectedness with a captive population." Making all these countries in the GAP democracies is not his argument, however. Rather America needs to export security to these countries, giving to states so afflicted something America has in abundance---"A belief in the future," by reconnecting these states to the world economy. With security no longer an issue, resulting economic development in such states (largely from the private sector, driven by foreign direct investment flows) will gradually result in increased liberties---and hopefully lead to democratic evolution; or so the author believes. "Did we win the Cold War," Barnett asks "just to hang back and let the world run itself? Wasn't that the same bold choice we made after World War 1?" Akin to the post-World War 2 era, in contradistinction, what America needs to do now, according to Mr. Barnett, is re-set the rule book once again, now that large power, state-on-state warfare is becoming a thing of the past. How is this to be accomplished? Mr. Barnett offers the following prescription: Divide the roles of the Pentagon into a go-it-alone if necessary, "Big stick" force & a world-system administrator force skilled in peacekeeping and allied coordination; Encourage creation of more alliances throughout CORE countries & create an alliance in Asia around U.S.-India cooperation; Modernize the UN Security Council; Revamp the U.S. State Department to allow it to have a strategic vision; Continue to sign bi-lateral free-trade agreements & regional free-trade agreements while working toward global free-trade agreements---anything & everything, in short, to make countries more connected to one another and the world system itself. In this manner "The Good Life" we in the CORE enjoy can best be preserved, and expanded upon for the future, the author argues. So, is this book worth reading then, or not? I'm going to let you decide that, actually, by letting you in on something. This book grew out of an article the author wrote for Esquire magazine which basically gives the rough case that he has fleshed out rather thoroughly in this work. So I suggest you read the article first (websearch: March 2003 esquire Thomas Barnett for the article) and then make your decision whether or not to give this book some of your time. Cheers!/blockquote>

COMMENTARY: Pretty chintzy review. Can't make up his own mind and won't make up yours. Oh, and he's got a "secret" to tell! I want to report this guy!

God-damned Yalies!

An important, but TERRIBLE book

February 22, 2005

5 of 5 stars

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: W. Barquist "web667" (usa)

Barnett has a PhD in political science from Harvard University, which, like many people who have gone to Harvard, is the first thing he tells you about himself. He thinks this means he is very smart, which he also tells you, over and over and over and over again. He also KNOWS a lot of very smart and important and powerful people, who may also have gone to Harvard, which he also tells you ad nauseum (that means until you want to throw up, in case you're wondering).

This is basically the story of how Barnett went from Harvard to Washington and found THAT ONE SLIDE that made his career in the big-time, as an important "pol-mil" analyst. He tells you all this, and much, much more, in the first part of his book, up to page 154. It just gets worse from there until it finally ends on page 389.

In the course of this book we learn that Barnett has lots of important friends and acquaintances, that he works 18 hour days holed up in Pentagon briefing rooms with admirals who yell at each other, that he single-handedly showed the Pentagon how to do their job right, that he left his wife to eat Thanksgiving dinner alone in order to spend time in briefing rooms with admirals, that he is a Democrat (no surprise there), and that his wife ("a card-carrying member of the ACLU") worries that he is becoming a Republican.

We learn a new language for expressing old ideas: "globalization" means "American world hegemony", "disconnectedness" means "no one has cell phones or computers", "the Gap" and "lesser includeds" mean "poverty-stricken countries" (what used to be called "The Third World") - you get the idea. New lingo, old ideas.

We learn that Gorbachev really deserves the credit for the fall of the Soviet Union, not Reagan (although I don't think Gorby really meant for things to come out that way), that "the world has effectively surrendered the seas to the US Navy, and it has done so out of immense trust that America will not abuse that unprecedented power", that the Bush administration has engaged in "bone-headed" diplomacy and "political gamesmanship of the most venal sort", and that when we "successfully exported that rule set to the other great powers" (he means the fall of the Soviet Union), "the threat of global war basically ended in human history".

The full onslaught of this incoherent torrent of self-referential egomaniacal Wilsonianism has to be experienced to be believed. I would recommend that every American taxpayer read this book at least up to page 154 just to get a feel for the kind of claptrap we are paying for in Washington. One can only pray that Barnett is a flash in the pan, and will not be taken too seriously.

He has an action plan, which starts on page 379:

1. Democratize Iraq (he calls it "reconnecting" Iraq)

2. Get rid of Kim Jong Il and unify Korea

3. Foment counterrevolution in Iran

4. Form a Free Trade Area of the Americas

5. Pressure the Saudis to stop funding Islamic maddrassahs, by shifting our automobiles to fuel cells

6. Develop a military and financial alliance with China

7. Form an Asian NATO

8. Merge that Asian NATO with NAFTA and the European NATO

9. Admit a dozen more states to the US (presumably from Mexico and Central America), with the first Mexican president of the US coming from a Mexican state.

10. Africa just will have to wait until the Middle East is pacified ("integrated into The Core")

The first three of these goals aren't total moonshine, except that Barnett doesn't tell us how we are going to accomplish them, other than through the use of military force, as in Iraq. I suppose that's the Pentagon's problem, now that Barnett has pointed them in the right direction. As to the rest of it, it's highly unlikely that Mexico WANTS to be a part of the US, and Africa may or may not be willing to "wait its turn". History is not nearly as predictable as Barnett seems to think. Of course, overwhelming military superiority tends to make things go your way, as long as it lasts.

Whether or not American world hegemony is a good thing for either America or the world is something people of good will may have honest disagreements about, but don't look for that discussion in The Pentagon's New Map. And if Barnett wants to call American world hegemony "globalization", I don't think anyone is going to argue the point with him, as long as 12 nuclear carrier battle groups and a large fleet of advanced attack nuclear submarines like the James E. Carter are there to back him up. However, it is highly unlikely that the world's problems are going to be solved by giving everyone cell phones and access to internet pornography, or even by giving women political power. We've had quite a few wars since women got the right to vote in America.

Barnett restrains himself from talking about himself long enough to make a couple of good, though unoriginal, points, namely that there is a strong relationship between military power and economic prosperity, and that we should try to avoid forcing China into a corner where they feel they have no choice but to fight us, like we did to Japan in the 1930's. But these points have been made better by other people, and wading through Barnett's tedious self-aggrandizement is too high a price to pay for these couple of nuggets of truth.

The book would be more readable if it had been edited, instead of being merely a verbatim regurgitation of Barnett's Pentagon briefings. Some elementary copy editing would also help: I don't think "static quo", used twice by Barnett, is a word in the English language. But no amount of editing will improve Barnett's half-baked ideas.

5 stars because the book is being read by important people, minus 5 stars for sloppy editing and out-of-control narcissism.

COMMENTARY: What can I say? Everything I've done in PNM somebody else has done better—somewhere else. I find it interesting when people read something they obviously hate simply so they can crap on it somewhere. Me, if I don't like a book, I simply put it down. Then again, I have a strong sense of self-confidence, as our man points outs—and as he clearly lacks. He's clearly pissed off that someone not nearly as smart as he has scored a book of PNM's level of success (hence the five stars for this stinking piece of shit), and buddy, he don't [copy edit please!] like that. I will just learn to live with W's envy. But my editor Mark Warren's still steaming mad about this one. Oh yeah!

Oh, and it's "copyediting," not "copy editing," and you never start a sentence with a number. The numbered list should have a period at the end of the last entry, and I don't think you can say "Wilsonianism" (just "Wilsonian" will do).

But that's just me being petty.

A sense of hope is powerful

Has GWB read this book?

February 22, 2005

5 of 5 stars

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: M. J Lane (Whitestone, NY USA)

It seems like the rhetoric from GW Bush has certainly fallen in line behind the thinking of this book. Gone is the talk of "bring em on" to be replaced with talk of the march of freedom, and calls for Russia to continue on the path of liberalization (with the carrot of WTO membership dangling). Personally, I hope so!

The notion of a future worth creating has been almost completely absent in the 1st Bush term. The war on Iraq was sold as a sinkhole of effort on a nation full of people who could do nothing for themselves. I know that sounds harsh but that is essentially how they sold it. What Barnett does is help put this effort in a context that makes sense in terms of a future worth creating. Barnett, for me, took the word globalism from an evil word to a positive one in the course of one book. That is powerful writing.

If you asked me about the optimal economic system I may not argue it is one dominated by corporations. However, I'm forced to admit that where globalism spreads, people stop starving and killing each other (on a mass scale anyway). Globalism is not the end of the road but it certainly does appear to be the optimal intermediary step and Barnett makes a strong case for it. Of course he does not look beyond globalism and perhaps that it just a bit too much to ask from one book.

COMMENTARY: Chris Rock likes to say that anyone who makes up their mind on a political issue before they know anything about it is a complete dumbass. This guy isn't clearly someone who approaches things with a fairly open mind—even things that really disturb him (like the first Bush administration). Fair enough, as was his criticism. I do take globalization for granted in PNM in terms of its positive impact. That's something I explore more in Vol. II but in PNM-I, I said to myself, I can't do a better job than any of the fine economic books on the subject, so why bother? Anyway, it's not what I'm best at, and I figured the book should be about that which I know best. So, it's perfectly reasonable to point out this limitation of the book.

I should have gone with feel-bad strategies . . .

The Author Should Visit the Real World

January 30, 2005

2 of 5 stars

7 of 14 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: Stanton A. Swafford "Balicat" (Bali, Indonesia)

I'm having trouble finishing this book. And I probably won't. The author goes on ad nauseum about how the U.S. can change the world for the better if only the senior people in the Pentagon and the armed services would agree to transform the military so it can deal with globalization and "everything else". As an American who lives in Indonesia, I have news for Mr. Barnett. The PEOPLE in the "gap" matter. And unfortunately for America, the people in these countries today are not inclined to follow American leadership regardless of how much security we wish to "export". Case in point. The Indonesians, thanks mainly to the Iraq invasion, no longer admire the United States. I live here. I feel it. The U.S. Navy provided a tremendous response to the crisis in Aceh. Rather than hearing expressions of gratitude for performing as Mr. Barnett indicates our military should (in the gap), a typical Indonesian commentary is that it is all an American conspiracy to control the Malacca Straits. Go Figure! There is just too much hostility to overcome today in the "disconnected" regions for Mr. Barnett's theories to see the light of day. I give him two stars for his optimism. And no stars for his knowledge of the people and how their sentiments toward America and Americans rip his feel-good theories apart.

COMMENTARY: What can I tell you about my sheltered life? I've learned four foreign languages, good enough to do graduate research in all of them (French, Russian, Romanian, German). I lived in the Soviet Union for a summer in 1985, and got a chance to tour Eastern Europe a bit. I've traveled to do research or give talks in a number of countries over the years: Austria, UK, Panama, Canada, India, China, Denmark and Norway. I interact with foreigners on a regular basis. Does that suggest I am as un-self-aware an American as the reviewer makes me out to be? Can't say I've lived in Indonesia, but I have met more than a few of them, and yes, their anti-Americanism and conspiracy-clouded outlook tends to be frighteningly pervasive—though hardly universal. Moreover, Indonesia ain't exactly the world, so I guess I'll have to take this guy's self-righteous indignation with a grain of salt. I could go on, but I'm having trouble finishing this retort.

Hotmail makes me grumpy too

New Maps, New World, New Ideas: A TEXTBOOK

January 11, 2005

5 of 5 stars

7 of 12 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: Frederick C. Monson "Hotmail's Grumpy" (Philadelphia, PA, USA)

Having seen the CSPAN presentation, I acquired and read the book. All criticism aside, and I am a student (of 65) on this playing field, I found this book a very clear exposition (description) of Planet Earth in political, economic and philosophic terms. As a life-long scientist and ersatz 'teckie', I look for the reality in political discourse in an attempt to unravel the polemic from the nutrients. I have feasted on Dr. Barnett's image of the world of 'now', and felt quite comfortable after such a BIG meal of political science that is, to my mind generally insubstantial, vague and loaded with an agenda. Dr. Barnet, however, holds fast to his visualization of the current state of things, and I left the table with a manageable concept of what is going on; not unimportant in these times. The consequence of what I have learned from him is that I feel engaged in a new way when I watch the evening news and listen to the 'experts'. A very interesting and enlightening read, it is the only book of this type I have been drawn to read that has altered my view of the world by organizing it for me. I am much the better for the experience, and appreciate seeing the 'New Map' prominently displayed on my bookshelf. Any book that is both informative and lubricates my gears is one that I keep.

COMMENTARY: Well, all implied criticism aside, you gotta respect a review like that. If you make someone feel smarter and more empowered in the end, then it's up to him to do what he feels is right with such information and analysis.

Disappointed in election

Great stuff. . .Stop what your doing and get this book

January 5, 2005

5 of 5 stars

7 of 19 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: Review "Review Done" (NYE)

Before I ran into TB on cspan I couldn't have told you why we were in Iraq other that some general feeling that the US wanted to exert influence in the mid east. Now I feel like I have a much clearer view of the world and America's place in it. It all makes perfect sense to me though I would be interested to hear a intelligent critique of the work with some alternatives proposed.

I have to say I'm disappointed that during the course of the election nether candidate made this strategy clear. They both must be aware of this work. Barnett says he briefed Congress IE Kerry. I'm sure Bush got the sock puppet theater version of the brief at some point. Got to keep his attention somehow and I'm sure if you ask Cheney he'll tell you, "The more puppets the better."

COMMENTARY: This person is searching for answers, and is disappointed that the presidential elections didn't feature something as clear and understandable as PNM. Nice compliment, sad commentary.

This review, in a word: Brilliant

This book, in a word: Brilliant

January 2, 2005

5 of 5 stars

8 of 11 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: Joel R. Helgeson "JRHelgeson" (St. Paul, MN USA)

Thomas P.M. Barnett does and incredible job of articulating the events of this world and America's involvement in them. This book provides the context to the world in which we live. I stumbled upon this work on C-SPAN late one night while on vacation. The broadcast of his presentation is available on-demand from C-SPAN, which I'm showing to anyone who is interested in politics.

His entire premise is built upon a solid foundation of common sense, backed by historical facts and figures. From this point on, if you want to argue politics, regardless of what side of the political spectrum you come from, you'll have to have read this book or you'll be left out in the cold.

Mr. Barnett is not some right wing "talking head" spouting off about something he read about; he's not even a Republican. He is a Harvard Graduated PhD wielding government analyst with a resume that is enough to impress even his staunchest critics. Neither side of the aisle can discredit his work without sounding like a conspiracy theorist.

Overall, this book is a momentous work that will forever change the discussion of politics as we know it. A must read if you're interested on what the future has is in store for our Military, our Government, even the United States of America and the rest of the world.

Only one criticism: The end of the book reads like it was written to meet a deadline. He starts to repeat himself in places but not too badly, only for a paragraph or two.

COMMENTARY: Amazing how some find the book so lacking in content and argument, while for others it's such an amazing feast of both. The end of the book did get near the deadline, but I disagree that it reflects that. I just wanted to get a certain number of ideas out on the table in the last chapter, knowing that I wouldn't be able to explain them all but wanting to end on a very high note. In retrospect, that last chapter was the great set-up for the sequel, but to be honest, that was the last thought in my head. I was just afraid the book would land with a complete thud and receive no attention whatsoever.

The best review possible from the average reader

A hope to solve the rifts around us

January 2, 2005

5 of 5 stars

9 of 11 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: Stuart Berman (Grand Rapids, MI United States)

This book offers hope, a hope to solve the rift within our nation, the rift between us and the other civilized nations of the world and the rift between civilized nations and the rest of the world. Read other PNM reviews on Amazon - quite a few liberals and conservatives seem to agree with Barnett which is quite a feat and offers important common ground in all of the three arenas mentioned above.

My first praise for the book is that it defies the partisanship that most of us have grown weary of - we want a solution that addresses the real problems and works and not one that gives our 'side' a 'point'. He is unafraid to praise and criticize the administration and its critics as his analysis sees fit. People are now aware of the dangers in this world and want results regardless of who provides them because the stakes are so high.

Along similar lines, Barnett's book is well reasoned and clear but not a dry academic work. He takes us through the background and history we need to put the situation in context. As others on Amazon have stated, through his force of reasoning you end up reevaluating some of your positions that you may have held dear, such as immigration policy, foreign policy, military policy, and outsourcing.

Another area of high praise I have is in his richly human presentation throughout the book. His perspective is not from some detached analyst in an 'ivory tower' but from a person with real feelings and experiences who isn't afraid to share them with you. He offers a profound interconnection between his personal life and his work that reveals the depth of his thinking, for example he shares his experience with battling his young daughter's cancer and how it taught him to never give up the battle for a positive outcome. How often do you read a book about globalization that is inspiring at this level?

I also relished the moments when he waxes philosophical as he reveals the differences between horizontal and vertical thinking. He uses this in describing his own experiences growing up, how his son is learning this and how nations often behave this way. There is a place and role for each of us no matter how we think the trick is to apply the appropriate type of thinking to the roles we choose. (You want a physician who knows his subject deeply but an architect should know his broadly.) As a horizontal thinker he qualifies as a Renaissance Man.

After reading The Lexus and the Olive Tree by Thomas Friedman, I was inspired to believe that globalization was a positive trend, however globalization seemed like little more than noise (such as Seattle anti-WTO & the waves of outsourcing pain) in the events unfolding around us. Now in perspective, globalization takes center stage in all of our lives. Thomas Friedman is about a general concept of globalization whereas Barnett describes the historical context, the practical impact and the hope it offers all.

After seeing Barnett on C-SPAN and reading his blogs I thought his book would simply offer greater insight into his thinking on globalization, however it has become much more than that it has become a textbook that I have filled with notes and questions. His book also offers a glimpse into the future synergy between written copy and online technology. On his website he offers the 'extended DVD' version of his book. You get the 'deleted scenes', the slides, updates and so much more.

Some critics view his work as overly optimistic, and it is typical to hear criticisms without positive solutions but he offers a solution that gives the world hope. Do you prefer to sit paralyzed with fear or move forward with the best answer you have?

I know the book is a success when I find myself continually asking, "What do we need to do to now?" or "How do I apply this in my life?", and then attempt to put issues into the context of the maps Tom has provided.

And my criticisms? They pale in comparison - buy the book and prepare for a complete education.

COMMENTARY: This is exactly the review from an average, not-too-informed-but-desirous-of-solid-and-straightforward-analysis reader that we (my editor Mark Warren and I) were looking for. Perfect, really.

I sold this guy the sequel

One of the few books that has ever caused me to change

December 28, 2004

5 of 5 stars

8 of 12 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: Alexander B. Anderson "bruiser2" (Dallas, Texas United States)

Like many of you, I have essentially abandoned literature the last three years and have done nothing but read Niall Ferguson, Thomas Friedman, Michael Scheurer, Bernard Lewis, Samuel Huntington, etc., and of all those brilliant works I have read, this one has caused me the most internal strife. This is the only book that has truly caused me to question my extraordinary opposition to the war in Iraq, although this book has done little to sanction my incessant Bush Bashing.

What I found most enjoyable in this book is Barnett's overwhelming optimism, which initially struck me as naiveté, but which by the end of the book caused me to reconsider my view of America's role in the world. Dr. Barnett's basic thesis is that the United States is the source code for globalization and that it is our moral duty to finish what we started. We saved the world from Nazi and Japanese terror, stood off the Soviets in the Cold War, and have basically ended State on State Conflict in the process. He does not see a resurgent Russia, a threat from China, or the EU challenging the United States. His view is that the new role of the US military is to basically spread globalization and the American way throughout the world. Now, he does not postulate a need for invading one country after another; military intervention is a last resort when a Non-Integrated Country (Failed State) refuses to abide by the new rule sets of the 21st century, which are still obviously evolving.

What I found most thought provoking is this. Let's say we do not continue to "police" the world. Let's say we retreat and allow the Non-Integrated Gap to go on its merry way. What will happen? Probably more of the same - Iran v. Iraq, Iraq v. Kuwait, various Middle Eastern Countries v. Israel, India v. Pakistan, Yugoslavia v. Yugoslavia, an ever-quickening spread of terror. Not hard to imagine, is it? If other countries know that we will do nothing if they break the international rule sets, then guess what? That is what they will do.

However, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq make clear to non-rule abiding states that if they transgress the international rule sets, then they will pay mightily and they may pay the ultimate price - invasion by us. Our global presence very much helps to keep the world in line and instead of just keeping the world in line, we need to do everything we can to integrate as many countries and as many people as possible. What country can you think of that has ever completely rejected US-led globalization once it has established firm roots? Been to France lately - the home of haute cuisine is inundated with fast food joints. Why? Because the young people like it. What are the most popular (NOT the best) movies in the world - Hollywood flicks. Why? Because people like them. If we can expose people to what Americans have created (an amazingly free and good life that I pray Bush does not steal via the Patriot Act and the infusion of radical Christianity into the government) then the world will not just become safer for America, it will become safer for everybody because everybody will become interconnected.

Where many people come to disagree with Barnett (especially veterans) is his idea that the US military branches no longer need to focus on fighting one big enemy (one peer war) because there is no one country out there that poses any sort of threat to us in a conventional military sense. What threatens us are rogue states, nuclear proliferation, and international terror. If we mold our military to meet those threats, even further expand trade and contacts with the non-integrated countries, and judiciously use our military when countries or terror groups refuse to play by the rules that most of the civilized world (including China) plays by, then we may truly be in a position to expand stability throughout the world, making us AND them safer.

The only problem with all of the above is the execution. How do you do it? I know the way you do not do it is by lying to the American people, lying to the world, and bulldogging your way into another country's capital. When that happens, you lose credibility and when you lose credibility, other countries will resist anything and everything you try to do, even when well intentioned. That is why I believe the next 3 years will be among the most important years of this generation. If we fail in Iraq and/or we make other missteps based on complete crap (you know, the way Bush sold us the Iraq war), then all will be lost and I will be forced to move to isolate myself in Reykjavik, doing nothing but bathing in hot thermal baths with beautiful blonde women and drinking lots of vodka, all the while Bush-bashing in pig-Icelandic.

COMMENTARY: Interesting review, given the tough sell of the ideas with this guy, but that only makes his comments all the more gratifying. The sequel is really written for this guy: couldn't put down PNM or deny its logic easily, but desperately wants to hear about execution. The Blueprint for Action notion is made for this reader.

One lazy-ass peacenik

This is an excerpt - (Can we change / learn from Iraq?)

December 26, 2004

3 of 5 stars

2 of 19 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: R. Allen Rydberg "Peace Activist" (minnesota)

When the Cold War ended, our real challenge began.

[He then excerpts the bulk of the Preface, ending with this bit o' analysis]

Barnett's view is still as a super power - Can we ever change?

(We spend $10 billion on Star wars! A total white elephant!)

COMMENTARY: Clearly, the guy hasn't read the book, just the preface, and tossing in this comment on Star Wars, where we've spent close to $100 billion, and yeah, I agree it's a total white elephant. Thanks for nothing!

The Army War College is heard from

A Galaxy Wide and An Inch Deep

December 23, 2004

2 of 5 stars

10 of 17 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: Analyst (Carlisle, Pennsylvania)

There are nuggets here but most of the meat of the book consists of broad, unsubstantiated assertions. And only about half is "meat"--the rest is nauseating, narcissistic self-praise with a smattering of "defense 101" level information. Dr. Barnett takes credit for inventing many ideas that other strategic thinkers developed first and with much more rigor. In general, the book is like a pop song--its "hooks" stick in the mind but it's no symphony built on development, depth, and nuance. As a result, the important arguments in it aren't made convincingly, but are simply asserted or suggested.

COMMENTARY: The Army War College is located in Carlisle PA. I've read this guy's review of other books, and he must have some "saint" he worships that I neglected to mention, cause he constantly harps on this "self-centered" issue a lot. Then again, maybe he's a professor whose book I didn't mention!

This guy gives the reviews one big "Duh!"

Influential & On The Inside

December 21, 2004

5 of 5 stars

19 of 27 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: B. Green "Master of Mediocrity" (Santa Cruz, CA)

Some of the reviewers here that critique Barnett crack me up. First, raking Barnett over the coals over not coming up with original thinking or paying proper tribute to others is just unfair. "There is no such thing as an original/new idea." New ideas are built upon old ideas, and Barnett has come up with an original synthesis of ideas and spells things out in a clear, concise manner. I learned in college that one doesn't need read every word of a book to "get it," so complaints by some reviewers that he takes too long to make a point tells more about the reviewer's ability to read than the author's ability to write.

Bottom line, Barnett occupies a rather influential and respected position within the "system." He has the eyes, ears and minds of many of our active military leaders and those in training. He's not just some columnist/pundit who is trying to sell books, papers, magazines, etc. Barnett's vision seems to be getting more embraced, and such thinking will certainly find it's way into policy decisions/discussions as our country navigates it's way through the challenges globalization brings.

Don't remain "disconnected" from some very important strategic thinking. Read this book.

COMMENTARY: This is a review of the reviews that I could have written myself. In fact, I think I have several times over the months. It always kills me that no one ever questions their reading or analytical ability, just my writing and analytical ability. But that's what you get for writing a book, I guess.

Wants his realism straight

Vision of Global Peace

December 17, 2004

4 of 5 stars

11 of 18 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: E. David Swan (South Euclid, Ohio USA)

Thomas Barnett comes right out and says it. Don't ask when the troops are coming home. They're not coming home. Obviously troops will be cycled in and out but the war on terror and closing of the Gap will be an ongoing process.

Author Barnett takes a refreshing and non-partisan look at America's goals for the coming decades. The world is divided into the Core (integrated countries) and the Gap (nonintegrated countries). Integration includes economics and information. The goal is to increase the size of the Core and reduce the size of the Gap. Barnett invokes a much brighter future than the dismal one expressed by President Bush. In fact Barnett describes the Administrations efforts to sell their plan as "Boneheaded". I might suggest that it's not Bush's failure to elucidate his vision it's the fact that Barnett's vision and Bush's vision are not the same.

Mr. Barnett is explicit about the fact that he's not trying to sell the Pax Americana that's so vogue these days amongst neo-conservatives. His goal is American global hegemony with a dream of seeing the end of war. Barnett points out that we've already entered an era where wars between nations seem to have practically halted. He argues that it's now time to focus on internecine wars in order to cement global security.

I am completely opposed to Bush's war in Iraq but I can, at least, appreciate Barnett's vision. The problem as I see it is that any book advocating global hegemony should at least address the fear of corruption from within. I don't agree with Barnett that we can rely on past successes and idealism. George W. Bush is not FDR and he's not Truman and he's not Lincoln and his predecessor will be something even entirely different. The willingness to become the global policemen does not make us above the law. Barnett agues that there needs to be a different rule set in policing the Core and policing the Gap but where does it end? Does the Geneva Convention apply in the Gap and if not who decides that? Is Abu Ghraib type torture ok in the Gap? Is it ok for the United States to write the Constitution of Iraq and allow it to be carved up by foreign investors? How much suffering do people have to go for their own good? Now more than ever the American people should carefully scrutinize that actions of the Federal government.

I wish Barnett could have expressed the responsibility of global hegemony instead of using the unfortunate phrase "might makes right".

COMMENTARY: Fair review. Points to a lot of things I naturally take on in Vol. II, so it's encouraging.

Reviewer way too smart for my book

Lots of implied assumptions, but good analysis

December 14, 2004

4 of 5 stars

12 of 15 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: Brian Villanueva "bdvillanueva" (Elk Grove, CA)

First note: The editor should have cut about 100 pages out of this book. The problem is that every now and them is a gem of real genius interspersed in tired prose.

In it's simplest form, this book can be summed up as: "Violent places are poor places to invest money. Make them secure, and money and prosperity will come." Some readers will get nothing more than that out of it, which is a shame.

Barnett is nether utopian socialist nor a pro-America imperialist. He is an odd hybrid arguing that essentially American economic dominance of the world is over, and that our most lasting contribution to the global economy today is our security apparatus, which can and should be applied to stabilize markets throughout the world. It is both a tempting and ambitious idea. However, his analysis reminds me of a layman's form of game theory, and suffers from a couple of problems:

1) All players (in this case states) are rational actors. What we do with the Kim Jong-il(s) of the world is unclear. (Can't pound them into the ground, and can't trade fairly with them.)

2) It is possible to create a coherent, capitalist rule set that allows Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism to become tightly integrated economically which retaining their cultural and religious identities. (This one poses the greatest problem, although intergenerational cultural change might allow for it.)

3) Western countries (particularly the US) have the political will to continue a long and costly military, public relations, and economic campaign to gradually improve countries throughout the world. (Probably true, if the goal is articulated correctly. Consider the popular support for the Cold War over 3 generations.)

There are some gold nuggets in here though. His arguments on coming immigration trends, the myth of resource depletion, and the low-likelihood of a US-China military confrontation are all very compelling, and the book is probably worth a read purely on that basis:

1) An aging Western population, unencumbered by a large working-age voting bloc fearful of their highly-paid jobs, could very likely demand looser border policies to gain access to cheaper, foreign labor.

2) Human history chronicles a gradually increasing level of energy demand, and exploitation of new energy sources to meet that demand. There is no historical evidence for either trend abating.

3) Even if military action against the West were culturally desirable to the Chinese, by 2020, their need for foreign energy supplies and capital markets will make such a war economically untenable.

The long-term question of globalization is ultimately: are individuals rational enough to see that their own self-interest lies not with xenophobic, us-vs.-them methodologies, but with legitimate embrace of globalization across both labor and capital? Barnett believes they are; only time will tell if he's right.

COMMENTARY: This reviewer does a very specific digest of the book from the globalization angle, where he obviously feels a lot of self-confidence in his analysis (and seemingly deservedly so). He never touches any of the military stuff, which must have been too hard for him to follow in the same way, thus it was perceived as a lot of useless BS. I could have shortened this review by about 250 words.

Friend of a friend, review of a review

See review below

November 28, 2004

5 of 5 stars

3 of 12 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: L. Cary (Little Elm, Texas United States)

A friend of mine who is a futurist for a major defense contractor phoned to say I'd better read this book. It changed his thinking. His is a professional interest in these matters, mine that of a simple citizen layman. I don't know who wrote the "Ready or not: new world order" review below dated Nov 4, but I agree.

COMMENTARY: What he said.

The average reader: two thumbs up!

Good Book. Very Informative

November 14, 2004

5 of 5 stars

8 of 10 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: Daniel C. Michener (Apple Valley, MN United States)

Judging by some of the reviews previously, I am going to assume they were written by people in the field that Dr. Barnett writes about. I am not. Being an average person, I found his book very informative and clear. I think that the ideas he presents are well thought-out and important. If you are a average reader new to the subject of Globalization and the concepts that are popular today when dealing with terrorism (pre-emptive strategy, etc). Then I would highly recommend this book. I think that it does present a very compelling view of how the world has been shaped in the last 50 years and what must be done to ensure that the world is free of terrorism.

COMMENTARY: Do you ever notice how the average readers don't talk about the book being "too long" and "too repetitive," but rather "very informative and clear"? If you want to sell tens of thousands of books instead of just a few thousand, you don't talk over and you don't talk down.

Globalization: Be afraid! Be very afraid!

A corporate Peter the Hermit

November 12, 2004

4 of 5 stars

12 of 32 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: P. M. DIBENEDETTO "mrcrouton" (USA)

I give Thomas Barnett's book The Pentagons New Map four stars because I see it as a useful tool for those who might want to get a glimpse into the mind of an archetypical globalist.

As he urges Americans to fight for the advancement of globalism from the safety of his ivory tower, he seems to have little regard or concern for his countrymen (or are they his globalmen?) and the freedoms promised them in the American Constitution.

Hamburger imperialism and the advancement of McWorld across the globe is the globalist aesthetic of Barnett, a dystopic world where biochipped mongrels wear the mass advertised clothes of the day, eat hydrogenated industrial food and are intimidated by hate laws for speaking out against what's been foisted upon them by the global elite. And although the world will be "connected", the net result is a world filled with fat and illiterate mass malleable men, a globally vulgar man, the natural result of consumerism since economics is all, and all that matters to men like Barnett.

Barnett's ideology is dangerous, and if put into action would enslave American's to an endless series of wars for his hackneyed utopian vision of the world, a vision common among marijuana smoking Grateful Dead fans in the 1970's, and other silly types who worry over people so far away, but who later put down their bongs and became realists as they sober up.

Even ex-dead heads learn to stop imposing their will upon others and would never think of using military force. But not Harvard grads like Barnett who believe in showing the world how righteous their theories and megalomania are, via modern streamlined gunboat diplomacy.

Doesn't the Catholic Barnett know that Jesus says to be your brother's keeper, not a foreigner's keeper thousands of miles away? And doesn't the American Barnett realize that the founders of this nation advised to steer clear of foreign entanglements? As he urges our young soldiers to entangle themselves to "close the gap" for globalism's holy crusade, all the while he just so happens to be in sync with in the exact interests of international corporations.

And so Barnett is the perfect spokesman for the Wall Street Journal and the class interests of the elite, and yet doesn't seem to be aware of how he makes a living. He's a parasite to the American taxpayer as he travels from agency to agency selling his brand of imperial snake oil to Pentagon bureaucrats with PowerPoint presentations. I believe there's more dignity cleaning toilets for a living.

And does Barnett mention the lowering of the standard of living within the United States due to his beloved globalism? Or the cost to Americans (I dare not call them his fellows) of the arbitrary and endless pursuit of "connectedness"? Of course not, because being a globalist advocate Barnett's concern is rhetorically for the poor in the Gap nations while the American working classes standard of living declines without his notice or concern. Just like the Wall Street Journal who seems to have fired the first cannon shot in America's domestic class war.

So Barnett parades around his corporate morality as though conscripting Americans towards his vision is a summary good and worthy of American blood and treasure.

Personally Barnett does not walk the walk of the Gap/Core world he espouses, since he mentions that he adopted a female Chinese child into his household; why did he adopt from within the functional core and instead adopt from the (Gap) Africa? Or even the inner city (Gap?) USA? Or did he not want a dysfunctional Gap child in his functional Core household? Clearly there was no closing the Gap inside the Barnett family.

Barnett is a silly man, and his ideology is the perfect corporate ideology, the ideology of eternal growth on a finite planet, an ideology of America the global meddler and nursemaid. America a slave to the worlds well being while indifferent to the loss of American's liberty whose interests he's supposedly advancing.

Either way Barnett's thesis is the polar opposite to what our founders had wanted for Americans, which was only to their liberty, and not to embark upon a quixotic fantasy of serving a global nirvana.

And so any decent American should eye his work skeptically and stay on the lookout for "Americans" who try to sell foreign adventurism, and talk about how they care so much for foreigners while not signing up for the Peace Corp like true idealists who walk the walk do.

Barnett could be nothing more than a modern Peter the Hermit urging Americans on a corporate crusade of economic man so capitalism can expand markets and governments can tax formerly free people.

I suggest that we let the fool march alone on his global crusade. Unfortunately the Pentagon might be listening to his nonsense, and so we must keep an eye out for them and men like Barnett.

COMMENTARY: My daughter was born, as I said in the book, in one of the poorer, interior regions of China. That the reviewer targets an adoptee for ridicule certainly says a lot about his character. The rest of "Mr. Crouton" is too stupid for words.

Wants his visionaries humble

Great except for the dose of ego

November 8, 2004

4 of 5 stars

3 of 8 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: J. Fowler (Texas)

I concur with the above reviews on depth of content. The author attempts to mimic Thomas Friedman's metaphorical style but falls short here. The book could have been about 80 pages shorter if Barnett did not have to ramble on about how great a briefer he was, and that he was the master of all things PowerPoint. Maybe that kind of ego is what it takes to make it in his profession, but his editor should have chopped it. Otherwise, an eye opening alternative to other global scenarios put forward by Huntington et. al.

COMMENTARY: Eye-opening but lacks content? Interesting. But it's true, I do go on about my briefs for approximately 80 pages, give or take a paragraph. That was, perhaps, a bit too long. If someone can ever point out exactly which 80-100 pages were focused solely on my PowerPoint skills, I'll make a point of cutting them in the paperback. Just don't email me unless you find at least 10 full pages that are about nothing but my briefing prowess.

I said, "Norman Angell with nukes!"

Ready or not: new world disorder

November 4, 2004

4 of 5 stars

11 of 18 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: A curious reader

Barnett's remarkable book is based on a view of the world that he has been evolving since the 1991 Persian Gulf war. It explains so much about the world that we live in and will be living in, that it will seem overwhelming to the casual reader. The consulting and military jargon also seems intimidating and frequently needs translation into plain English. But the book is the result of a synthesizing genius - everything from globalization, to the Pentagon's endless mini-wars, to global financial and disease crises, to American's unique place among advanced countries will make sense. Some reviewers wish it had been shorter. I too think that the book could have been about half of its length, with just the policy argument and some background about how the US government works (or fails to work). The personal material better suits the article or weblog format. (Barnett has a weblog: www.thomaspmbarnett.com.)

The world has been here before - the last such crisis was precipitated by the First World War and reached its climax in the 1930s and 40s. The center of it then was Europe and Japan. It took more than half a century to undo the damage. The center of crisis now is Barnett's "Gap" - how long will it take to get to the other side?

Barnett's arguments best fit the political views of those called "liberal hawks," but looking forwards, not backwards. He mates the naive Clinton emphasis on the economic and humanitarian side of globalization and the Bush post-9/11 panic over security - borderless world versus endless layers of security. His argument will rightly offend the two extremes of the political spectrum - the post-Cold War isolationist right and neo-isolationist left. The bankrupt left has never recovered from the collapse of communism. The right wants the outside world to go away. Conventional liberals (as suggested by the Kerry campaign) and establishment Republicans (like Colin Powell and James Baker) want to return to the mid-20th-century categories of intergovernmental diplomacy with fellow "Core" and potemkin "Gap" governments and, behind a smokescreen of multilateralism, politely ignore the world's most serious problems. The Powell-Rumsfeld attitude clings to a blinkered, Vietnam-inspired paradigm of warfighting that says, "Don't bother us with politics!" - as if war isn't inherently political. The post-9/11 Bush is aware of the terrorism challenge, but apparently aware of nothing else. (The Bush democracy rhetoric is only tenuously related to Bush policy. The overwhelming imperative is destroying terrorists.) The Bush administration itself is an exercise in group autism. No one really knows what to do, and all are in denial.

Barnett leaves some critical questions unanswered. Americans are not alone willing to carry this burden, nor should they. Will the (mainly Asian) allies (including China) who buy our debt and so purchase American security continue to do so? Are Americans of this and future generations ready to meet such challenges the way the WWI-WWII generations were? Is there a role for Europe in this new world? Barnett is not by any stretch a unilateralist - read the book to discover that for yourself. He insists on "a whole Core to shrink the Gap." But those who hyperventilate about unilateralism need to answer a question themselves: Hasn't the end of the Cold War also meant the end of multilateralism as we know it? Why should the US bear the whole military burden while allied governments mainly whine and contribute little? The current evidence on these questions is not encouraging.

There is a classic that bears on this question, Norman Angell's once-famous The Great Illusion (1910). In it, Angell, an economist and journalist, argued for the irrationality of a great European war. All true, and to no avail in 1914. It all worked out in the end, by 1989, but only after the deaths of a couple hundred million people.

Taxpayers pay for someone to think about this stuff, so that at least someone is not surprised by 9/11, or the rise of China, or outsourcing to India, or why the hi-tech Pentagon has been chronically unprepared for the post-Cold War era. Better rational thought like Barnett's than irrational conspiracy theories - which tend to be rampant in such times as these, when people lose their grip and stop understanding the world around them - like the 1930s.

Read this together with Thomas Friedman's recent books and Fareed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom. Robert Kagan's classic Of Paradise and Power serves as a prologue to Barnett's book, summing up the fading Eurocentric age of the Cold War. Also consider Dana Priest's excellent The Mission, about the post-Cold War US military and why it's all turned out very differently from what anyone expected 15 years ago.

COMMENTARY: Fair enough review. Obviously just wanted his concepts to skim and screw the narrative. Fine. Raising Norman Angell, when I address that specifically in the book, is a bit weird. He must have missed that section in his skimming. The best criticisms are dealt with directly in Vol. II, which I think this reviewer will also like.

The most generous review of the 21st century . . . so far

The Most Important Book of the 21st century. . . .so far

October 30, 2004

5 of 5 stars

9 of 19 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: Robert Spellings Jr. (Eugene, or United States)

THE PENTAGON'S NEW MAP will be the most important book you read this decade. The world doesn't make sense right now and our leaders are failing us because they are more interested in fighting with each other than in fixing the problems that plague the world and hold the future of humanity in the balance. Dr. Barnett, a prof at the Naval War College, not only makes sense of the world and clearly articulates that what we are seeing in the world is not mere chaos, but he also proposes a SOLUTION. . . .and it's a solution that everyone from all sides can agree on. It's based on evidence and analysis and not on politics. No matter what side you are on, this book is not what you think.

If you have any desire at all to help "fix" the world's current situation vis-à-vis terrorism/globalization, then read this book and pass it on. The guy is nothing less than a visionary and is probably a genius. Don't take my word for it, go check it out yourself, and don't hesitate! You won't be disappointed.

COMMENTARY: This guy's focus on the solution set is gratifying, and that probably accounts for his exuberance, which is great, if a bit over the top. People want understanding and they want to be empowered with a vision of the future and a sense of how we can bring that future about. This is the exact niche PNM occupied in the debates of 2004: the only optimistic vision of a global security order.

Fair and balanced

A worthwhile read, puts the Iraq war in a different light

October 19, 2004

4 of 5 stars

13 of 15 people found the following review helpful

Reviewer: A. Batwash "brewha37" (Jersey)

Barnett's work introduces many new conceptual tools for understanding the world that the reader will need to understand his argument. He divides the world into a "Core" and a "Gap", each of with functions according to different rule sets. Generally, the Core includes the US, the EU, Japan and the rest of the developed (and developing) world that operates through the rule sets of interdependence and connectivity. Generally, the Gap includes the Middle East, Africa, parts of South America, and South Asia. This part of the world is not connected to the Core because it operates with different, dysfunctional rule sets. This distinction is not perfect, there are anomalies in both the Core and Gap. The outliers notwithstanding, it boils down to globalization being part of the Core and not being part of the Gap.

Barnett argues that the Gap's disconnectedness is a threat to the Core and thus the Core should "shrink the Gap" (or "grow the Core" if you like). The 9/11 attacks represent this threat. Barnett calls the attack a "System Perturbation", but he essentially means that the operating rules in the Core were disrupted. Bin Laden attempted to change the US' rules sets to drive it out of the Middle East, but in the short term he had the opposite effect. The US realized that its post-Cold war rule sets were not sufficient to deal with the threat of disconnected states, so the US developed new rule sets like the Patriot Act and pre-emption.

Barnett argues that the US' (and eventually the entire Core's) adoption of new rule sets must work to shrink the gap over time. Much like what happened on 9/11, the US must create some system perturbations in the Gap. He argues that invading Iraq was a sort of big bang for the region where a whole new operating system will eventually emerge and develop from one cataclysmic event. The old rule sets were disrupted and new ones will emerge over time.

According to Barnett, the Core must hang around and ensure that connectivity results from the new rule sets in the Middle East. To do so he proposes a bifurcation of the existing US force into one more suited for war and one more suited for nation-building. Barnett stresses the importance of Core-wide cooperation in this regard; the rest of the Core will be more capable of helping the police force rather than the US warfighting force.

Basically, Barnett wants the Core to progressively baby-sit parts of the Gap until they are connected to the Core and no longer pose threats. A tremendous task to be sure. But unlike most pundits and experts he offers something better than reasons for despair, which I like. We need some guidance towards a better world in our policy. If nothing else his ideas ought to be debated and it is good to see that some of his strategic principles are gaining traction.

Nevertheless, I do not know what to make of his argument as a whole. It sounds like many before it in promising a peaceful, interdependent world, dating all the way back to Kant. Even in the decades before the first World War many in the Manchester school out of England made similar claims about the growing interdependence and prospects for peace in Europe. What I am trying to say is that while there may be a strong correlation between interdependence and peace, is there any causality? Barnett does caution by quoting Tolkien, offering "hope without guarantees" and I do not agree with doing nothing If anything, Dr. Barnett has clearly identified the systemic problems that pose threats to the Core, and particularly the US. However, I do wonder about the particulars of some of his ideas. How can we be sure that we can control system perturbations of our own making and of those by others against us? How do we reconcile differences within the Core yet alone come to a consensus on shrinking the gap? What about the stability of the global economic structure during this process of aggressively spreading globalization? Maybe trivial points, but before undertaking such an enormous challenge we ought to pin down some of these details.

Overall a good read though. Barnett's a decent writer for someone who works in the defense community. I recommend it, if for nothing else to get you think about the national security issues facing this country in a different manner.

COMMENTARY: Pretty fair review. Nice summary. His concerns are valid and well-expressed. I believe Vol. II will answer many of his fears, but not all. But again, see how reviewers cite PNM as unique among the many tomes on foreign policy that came out in 2004.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 6 March 2005

For the sake of completeness, here's the two lonely reviews on B&N:

Has a grip on the GWOT now

A reviewer

September 16, 2004,

4 of 5 stars

Clarifies the war on terror

Whichever side of the political fence you fancy, you need to read this title. It will clear up many of the questions you might have around what our government's policy is regarding global security. After reading this, when you hear the term, 'War on Terror', you will know exactly what is meant, what we are doing to win and what all it will take to get there. It is encouraging to see the government doing many of these things over the last 3 years! In a nutshell, his thesis states that by expanding globalization (trade, human capital, accountable governance) and the strategic use of US military supremacy against rouge regimes, the US will help 'non-integrating states' enter into the 'functional core' of globalization, bringing more peace and prosperity across the globe. These new rule sets and the dynamics between the specific actors are laid our in a well-researched, visionary manner. The most interesting thing about this book is that when you are done reading it, not only will you better understand the state of world affairs but will actually be able to wrap your mind around the idea that the US is not only on the right track, but is making substantial progress in this long, hard and costly struggle we were forced to undertake as a result of 9/11.

Also recommended: Naked Economics - Charles Wheelan. The Enemy Within - Michael Savage. The Death of the West - Pat Buchanan.

COMMENTARY: Clearly, he/she was a rather easy sell, given his rightward bent and given the overwhelming anti-Bush tone to most books.

Liked the brief . . .

A reviewer, an avid political sci reader

September 14, 2004,

5 of 5 stars

breathtaking vision of the present and the future

Watching him speak on c-span recently had me on the edge of my seat just trying to keep up with his fast paced and creative reevaluation of both our world today, it's gnawing economic and social gaps, and his vision of how we are going to get from here to tomorrow. . .this is a must read to fully comprehend the high speed paradigm shift detailed in his presentation. His is a presentation that is being carefully evaluated at the highest levels of our government, military planners and boardrooms across America. This book is quite possibly as insightful as A.Toffler's Future Shock was twenty five years ago.

COMMENTARY: . . . but it's not clear this person actually read the book. I get compared to Toffler a lot. He's also with the Leigh Bureau, my speaking agency. I would love to meet him some day. His hyperbole on the book's influence inside the U.S. Government is not as over-the-top as you might think. The book is being evaluated by a lot of people inside the federal national security bureaucracy. I am told many senior appointees tell their staffs to read PNM.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 6 March 2005

Fun long day celebrating Jerry's fifth birthday, which I will miss for real later this week. Got up early (discipline), walked the dog and then did 45 minutes on the treadmill (2 days in a row) watching "Pride and Prejudice" miniseries on DVD off my Mac. Then to 8am mass with the two oldest, then housecleaning. Then Tracy and son Jordan showed up and Jerry and I and Kev headed out to FantasyLand in Seekonk for his small b-day party, where we were joined by another boy from his pre-K class. It was a nice, relaxed time, with Tracy helping out kindly throughout. She's a lovely lady originally from Jamaica who works at Jerry's pre-school, so it was great to have another adult around to pass the time. Tonight some more b-day-like celebrations as we burn down our winter fire wood.

My Jerry-b-day present is PNM's tenth month on the Foreign Affairs Best Seller list. In the year since FA began its BSL, PNM has appeared the greatest number of months (10), while the two next-most frequent are Pete Petersen's book and the volume by Anonymous at 8 each. Dropped a few slots in February. Could be the last time on. But I'm hoping to stay on through April, because the paperback comes out in May. But two more months might be a big stretch.

Here's the complete list (find it online at www.foreignaffairs.org/book/bestsellers:

Foreign Affairs Best Seller List

The top-selling hardcover books on American foreign policy and international affairs. Rankings are based on national sales at Barnes & Noble stores and Barnes & Noble.com.

POSTED MARCH 2, 2005

1) Collapse by Jared Diamond (Viking), # 1 last month

2) China, Inc. by Ted C. Fishman (Scribner), new

3) The Case for Democracy by Natan Sharansky (PublicAffairs), #2

4) Running on Empty by Peter G. Peterson (Farrar, Straus & Giroux), #13

5) 9/11 Commission Report by National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (Norton), #4

6) The United States of Europe by T. R. Reid (Penguin Press), #3

7) Imperial Hubris by Anonymous (Brassey's), #5

8) America's Secret War by George Friedman (Doubleday), #6

9) The European Dream by Jeremy Rifkin (Tarcher), #12

10) Chain of Command by Seymour M. Hersh (HarperCollins), #10

11) The Persian Puzzle by Kenneth M. Pollack (Random House), #8

12) The Pentagon's New Map by Thomas P.M. Barnett (Putnam), #9

13) Our Oldest Enemy by John J. Miller and Mark Molesky (Doubleday), #7

14) Tower of Babble by Dore Gold (Crown Forum), #11

15) Chatter by Patrick Radden Keefe (Random House), new

■"Rule Change Lets C.I.A. Freely Send Suspects Abroad: Interrogation At Issue; Official Defends Program as Being Helpful in Effort on Terror," by Douglas Jehl and David Johnston, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A1.

■"U.S. Adopts Preemptive Counterintelligence Strategy," by David Morgan (Reuters), Washington Post, 6 March 2005, p. A7.

■"Many Actions Tied to Delay In Armor for Troops in Iraq: Army Was Forced to Scramble as Reality of Insurgents' Effectiveness Set In," by Michael Moss, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. A1.

■"U.S. Checkpoints A Deadly Gantlet: Iraqis Killed or Injured in Troops' Security Effort," by John F. Burns, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. A1.

■"How to Shake Hands Or Share a Meal With an Iraqi," by Peter Edidin, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. WK1.

It was kind of funny watching Michael Schuerer, he of Anonymous fame as a critique of the Bush administration, bragging about how he set up the "rendition" program whereby the U.S. routinely hands over terror suspects to Gap states we know will torture them at will. He said he has no problem with what the terrorists get at the hands of their torturers, and he said it with a smile.

Yes, Michael Schuerer, the man you want running your Global War on Terrorism. I mean, look at the bang-up job he did on Al Qaeda all those years, just like Richard Clarke, another security genius who deserves his fame as critic of the Bush White House.

Of course, Clarke and Schuerer were always "thwarted" when they tried to do good and necessary things . . . uh . . . including the rendition program, right?

No, when I call for a Core rule-set on the Global War on Terrorism in Wired, I get labeled a racist and torture-monger for calling for a World Counter-Terrorism Organization to regularize the treatment and processing of prisoners. But Schuerer, he of rendition program fame, he is to be lionized for his great contribution to national security! Must be cool to be on "60 Minutes" chuckling to yourself about helping terrorists get what they deserve . . .

So now the U.S. is going to have a preemptive counter-intelligence strategy where we go after other countries' intell services aggressively, lest they continue to spy on us. Who are the targets? We are told it is China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Libya. The last four I get, but are you telling me we shouldn't be seeking cooperation from China and Russia instead of engaging in spy wars? So we turn over terror suspects to authoritarian regimes in the Middle East we don't trust and then seek to turn China and Russia into enemies on intelligence? Tell me where we're going on that one? Does it seem like we're working at cross-purposes with ourselves?

On the SysAdmin side, sad stories told about the many snafus in obtaining body armor for our troops. Seems we got them only for the "front lines" of the Leviathan force, not the rank-and-file of the SysAdmin force. So we had enough for the warfighting, but not enough to keep the peace, which in its backtracking got us plenty of more warfighting.

Also, we see yet another snafu at a checkpoint, where apparently we go straight from handwaving to shooting, with basically nothing in between. This one boggles my mind, having worked on look-ahead technologies studies examining the many uses of non-lethal weapons and systems designed to trap both people and vehicles without killing anyone. So because we go cheap on all those programs over the past 15 years, our troops at the checkpoints are forced into bad decisions that cause serious fissures with long-term allies. Talk about a self-inflicted wound.

We know what needs to be done, and almost none of it's secret or necessarily kinetic. This is basic security generation and police work in many instances. You have to know how to walk the beat. You have to be able to take down potential suspects without deadly force-or you're off the force. None of this is new, and none of this is particularly expensive (although the labor costs do rise dramatically). It's all about deciding which wars and which enemies we don't need to fight anymore and moving those freed-up resources to the ones we do need to fight-and the peace we need to wage.

Not easy, but not complex.

■"Chinese Premier Pledges to Hold On to Taiwan: Anti-Secession Bill Mandates Attack if Independence Is Declared," by Philip P. Pan, Washington Post, 6 March 2005, p. A20.

■"China Questions U.S. Data on North Korea: Beijing may be softer on North Korea in public than in private," by Joseph Kahn, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. A5.

China is offering the usual yin-and-yang on Taiwan. Premier Wen Jiabao follows President Hu Jintao at the big annual People's Congress, and while Hu was all conciliatory and relaxed on Taiwan, Wen plays hard cop with tougher talk. Meanwhile, China continues to modernize its military in such a way as to make it difficult for the U.S. to counter any moves it might take militarily against the island.

In a phrase, the same-old, same-old.

On North Korea, China talks tougher in private than in public, but doesn't seem interested in sticking its neck out to help the Americans on Kim's quest for WMD (already achieved). Seems they like it being our problem more than theirs, preferring to focus on keeping the peninsula free of war but really being far more afraid that Kim's bombs will force both South Korea and Japan down the same pathway, something that would frighten them far more.

In a phrase, the same-old, same-old.

Meanwhile, the U.S. shows almost no imagination in linking these two problem sets together, as I did recently in Esquire. We want China's help on North Korea, and China seems obsessed on Taiwan, where we provide a defense guarantee. We're their key on Taiwan, and they're our key on North Korea. You'd think someday someone in the Bush administration would think to get a little chocolate on their peanut butter or vice versa. But no, both sides remain stuck right where they are, and no one gets what they want as a result.

But this, my friends, is considered "realism," and better to be "realistic" than naïve . . ..

■"Big Step for a Bank, and Saudi Women," by Eric Pfanner, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. C5.

■"Britain's Mainstream Muslims Find Voice: The Iraq war has emboldened some Islamic moderates to make demands," by Lizette Alvarez, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A4.

Banking in Saudi Arabia is a sex-segregated affair, just like religion, and just as in the mosque, the ladies' version is very low-key and kept hidden from view. So it's pretty amazing to see the local Leo Burnett ad agency doing TV spots and print ads promoting "ladies banking":

You have your dreams. You have your ambitions. You are not alone. With you is Banque Saudi Fransi.

In the campaign, women are shown with other women in business meetings, sitting at a computer, enjoying their own weddings. Can't show them driving a car, because that's not allowed, so I guess that rules out car loans. But hey, it's a nice start!

Also nice is watching the emergence of a politicized Islam in Europe that's all about normal political stuff: getting your voice heard, getting economic gains for your people, complaining about injustices and whatnot. Not issuing death threats, no calling for violence, but working within the system.

Could the Big Bang have reached as far as the UK?:

If the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks plunged the Islamic population in Britain and elsewhere into a state of alarm and dread, then the Iraq war and its aftermath have had an unforeseen consequence here: they have helped galvanize and embolden a core group of mainstream British Muslims to find its voice and make demands.

Do these mainstream Muslims oppose the war? Sure. But here's the trick: just opposing something isn't a political stand. You have to be FOR something to have a real voice, and that's what Iraq has forced upon European Muslims: it's forced them to think about what they're for and not just against:

"Before there was a sense of keeping our heads down," Mr. Bunglawala [mainstream political activist] said. "If there were radical elements, the police dealt with them. After 9/11, that began to change. We had to put clear blue water between us and the radicals."

Underlying the push is the growing economic and political success of Muslims in Britain. In short, they're feeling a whole lot more connected to their new home, and that means everything.

■"China Says It Won't Sell Dollars," by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. C4.

■"The Overstretch Myth," by David H. Levey and Stuart S. Brown, Foreign "Affairs, March/April 2005, pulled off web at foreignaffairs.org.

Doesn't it feel weird when America breathes a sigh of relief upon hearing that China won't sell off all its dollars quickly and force a scary drop in its value? I mean, our communist "rising threat" and all? With just under two-thirds of a trillion in US dollars, China is now second only to Japan in dollar reserves. What would this seem to tell you about the long-term prospects for military clashes between us and the Chinese?

Why does China keep buying dollars? As one senior finance official recently put it:

"If we do sell U.S. dollars now when it is tumbling, it means we lose money. If we do sell them, we have to buy other currencies such as the euro. But what if the euro drops?"

Yes, yes, what if the euro drops?

The Chinese leadership also likes to point out that while reserve holdings have tripled since 2001 (amazing, given all our war-mongering, yes?), the price of oil has doubled, and China is importing oil in unprecedented amounts.

Hmmmm. Security, money, energy. Sounds like a complex relationship.

The FA article makes the boldest case for America's long-term economic stability, arguing that it's that long-term growth potential-not Europe's or Japan's-that keeps the Asian exporters putting their trade winnings back into dollar markets:

Despite the persistence and pervasiveness of this doomsday prophecy, U.S. hegemony is in reality solidly grounded: it rests on an economy that is continually extending its lead in the innovation and application of new technology, ensuring its continued appeal for foreign central banks and private investors. The dollar's role as the global monetary standard is not threatened, and the risk to U.S. financial stability posed by large foreign liabilities has been exaggerated. To be sure, the economy will at some point have to adjust to a decline in the dollar and a rise in interest rates. But these trends will at worst slow the growth of U.S. consumers' standard of living, not undermine the United States' role as global pacesetter. If anything, the world's appetite for U.S. assets bolsters U.S. predominance rather than undermines it.

So it seems as though China can keep selling stuff to us like crazy, we can keep buying it like crazy, China can in turn keep buying dollars like crazy, and this whole merry-go-round keeps spinning.

■"Syria Offers Gradual Pullback of Its Troops from Lebanon," by Hassan M. Fattah and David E. Sanger, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A1o.

■"U.S. Rejects Syria's Withdrawal Plan for Lebanon: Citing U.N. Resolution, Washington Says Troop Pullout Must Be Quick," by Robin Wright, Washington Post, 6 March 2005, p. A24.

■"Hezbollah Backs Syria, Challenging Lebanese Opposition: A militant leader chafes at calls for a quick Syrian pullout," by Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, 7 March 2005, p. A3.

Assad says Syria will get around to pulling out its troops. It's just not saying when.

And the Bush administration says that's not good enough.

And the White House is right to push hard on this, because you need a Lebanon preoccupied with itself for peace to work in Palestine and Israel, not one that serves as staging ground for terrorist attacks. If Hezbollah is serious about being a party that serves the people, then it should get busy on that.

With Syria gone from Lebanon, then the real patron of Hezbollah will be the only local regime with serious influence over events there. That would be Iran. Can we scare Iran off like we seem to be scaring Syria off? If we can't, we might find ourselves stymied on both Israel-Palestine and Iraq, where Iran holds the only real vetoes now that we seemed to have lined up all the major Arab regimes and scared off Syria. In short, we seem to be winning the Sunnis and setting ourselves up for a showdown with the Shiites, with nuclear Iran as their gunslinger.

But remember who stands behind that gunslinger: New Core states like India and China, who've cut huge oil and gas deals with the regime. Is this connectivity to be advantaged? Or do we intend to isolate these rising powers as well?

■"Taking on Tehran," by Kenneth Pollack and Roy Takeyh, Foreign Affairs, March/April 2005, pulled off the web at foreignaffairs.org.

■"Iran Says It Won't Give Up Program to Enrich Uranium: U.S. suggests it will help Europe find incentives for Tehran," by Nazila Fathi, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A13.

Iran keeps sending signals that it won't be denied as a nuclear power, no matter what the economic carrots we offer. No, Tehran seems to be angling for something larger that just trade and investment. It wants to be recognized as THE security pillar in the region now that Saddam is gone and Israel seems ready to make peace.

Why no one sees this reality is beyond me. We keep thinking that we're going to give them some economic carrots that Iranians will munch on, and voila! All their security desires for acquiring the bomb will disappear. This only works when regimes don't want the bomb and simply want to get credit for walking away from that decision, but when they do want the bomb (either for security or prestige or diplomatic bargaining) these carrots are simply accepted and the quest continues. Meanwhile, we get played like dummies and the other side simply plays for time. In the end, they get the bomb and we get bupkis in the process.

And this is considered "realism" . . ..

Here's the summary on the FA piece by Pollack and Takeyh:

If Washington wants to derail Iran's nuclear program, it must take advantage of a split in Tehran between hard-liners, who care mostly about security, and pragmatists, who want to fix Iran's ailing economy. By promising strong rewards for compliance and severe penalties for defiance, Washington can strengthen the pragmatists' case that Tehran should choose butter over bombs.

Does that seem realistic to you? The hard-liners give up their guns because the pragmatists win more butter from a regime that's just demolished regimes to the country's east and west? "Oh well! If you give us some investment, then I guess we won't have to worry about huge numbers of your combat troops on both sides of our borders!"

What we have with Iran right now is a failure to communicate: the mullahs fear for their security and we keep acting like economic reform is the answer. We need to answer the security issues with security answers, and THEN we'll kill the mullahocracy with economic connectivity-not before.

Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

Hmmm. Even war-mongering Pollack (he of "let's-invade-Iraq-now-before-it-gets-the-bomb" CNN fame) seems to be wondering if this might not be the worst outcome:

It is an open question whether the United States could learn to coexist with a nuclear Iran. Since the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1989, Tehran's behavior has conveyed some very mixed messages to Washington. The mullahs have continued to define their foreign policy in opposition to the United States and have often resorted to belligerent methods to achieve their aims. They have tried to undermine the governments of Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the Middle East; they have waged a relentless terrorist campaign against the U.S.-brokered Israeli-Palestinian peace process; and they have even sponsored at least one direct attack against the United States, bombing the Khobar Towers--a housing complex filled with U.S. troops--in Saudi Arabia in 1996. Although Tehran has been aggressive, anti-American, and murderous, its behavior has been neither irrational nor reckless. It has calibrated its actions carefully, showed restraint when the risks were high, and pulled back when threatened with painful consequences. Such calculations suggest that the United States could probably deter Iran even after it crossed the nuclear threshold. There is no question, however, that the United States, the Middle East, and probably the rest of the world would be better off if they did not have to deal with a nuclear Iran. The hard part, of course, is making sure that Tehran never gets to that point.

Hmmmm, an "open question" according to the hardest of the hard-core Gulf experts.

But rather than explore that concept, the rest of the article is just so much blah-blah-blah on economic carrots and diplomatic sticks.

■"Unexpected Whiff of Freedom Proves Bracing for the Mideast: Political and Social Shifts Evoke Hope and Fear," by Neil MacFarquhar, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. A1.

■"What's in It for America? In the Middle East, democracy takes on its biggest task: killing a radical ideology," by Roger Cohen, New York Times, 6 March 2005, p. W1.

The NYT continues to go out of its way to deny the Bush administration any credit for what's happening in the Middle East. We are told it all comes from a variety of pressures, like globalization's technological networks creeping into the region (cell phones, satellite TV, internet) and the growing dissatisfaction of the young with the status quo. Oh, and "another factor, pressure from the Bush administration, has emboldened demonstrators, who believe that their governments will be more hesitant to act against them with Washington linking its security to greater freedom after the Sept. 11 attacks."

You know, it's like saying there's a whole bunch of dry wood, and that it was going to light up on its own absent some spark, when in reality, no spark, no fire.

Actually, the Big Bang take-down of Saddam was more like a lightning strike, scaring more than emboldening. These conditions have existed in the Middle East for some time, but now both authoritarian regimes and potential reformists/demonstrators feel some impetus to do something, lest their country become another Iraq. How else do you explain this unprecedented mix: "This is something unknown for the Arab world-it is pacifist, it is democratic and it is spontaneous," says one student.

Arabs differ in their opinions as to how much America has helped this process, we are told. Wow! Can you believe that? We're not going to get any credit from the locals! But how about the NYT? How about a little credit there for something the Bush White House predicted way back when, and then-as the insurgency arose in Iraq-was roundly condemned for by the NYT's many "expert" journalists and op-ed columnists. No, no, we were told, there would be no spontaneous uprising of the people against their governments. And yet, this is what we're seeing, at a pace that's both welcome and reasonable in terms of not unleashing social violence.

And what drives this process? The fear of becoming another Iraq. That's it. The demonstration effect is that powerful. No invasion, no effect, no fear, no movement.

Yes, yes, this is all so "unexpected" for the expert NYT, which always knew better than Bush.

No credit, and still no hope from the NYT. This is described as the "biggest task" for democracy in history, as if conquering the Soviet bloc was peanuts in comparison (not really a radical ideology, was it?). We are asked, "What's in it for America?" Yes, when's our payoff coming? Shouldn't we be safer right now? It's been almost two years since we invaded Iraq. Isn't the entire transformation of the Middle East (which we, the "experts" long declared would take decades!) done yet? Ooh! This is going to be scarier for the U.S.! Yes, watching street demonstrations in the Middle East is certainly scarier than 9/11? Michael Moore, are you filming any of this?

My, oh my. We are told that terrorism won't "crumble" like fascism or communism, because . . . uh . . . it's a tactic and not a political order?

Hmmm. Yes, that is scary. I guess if we get democracy in the Middle East, there could still be terorrism! That sounds like failure to me, how about you?

We are told democratic regimes in the Middle East could be harder for the U.S. to handle, what with all that popular sentiment at work. Hmmm. Yes, better to keep the dictators.

We are told that the Afghan model of fundamentalist Islamic society is rejected by the young of the Middle East, as is the tired authoritarianism of Iran. Oh, and "the invasion of Iraq has brought into the Arab heartland a model-still fragile and bitterly contested [Oh my! Imagine that?]-of a liberal and democratic society."

Hmmm. It's almost as if Iraq is . . . a model of sorts. Where have I heard this before?

We are told that containment of terrorism in the Middle East has been tried-and it failed. So now the U.S. has become more aggressive. Never the "Bush administration," but the U.S.! Whereas I praised specifically and condemned generally in PNM, the NYT does the opposite. Whenever anything goes well in the Middle East, the "U.S." is credited, but whenever there are bad things, it's all due to the idiocy of the Bush administration.

Hmmmm. This is all so radical and strange, this new world of the Middle East. Who could have foreseen such change coming on so rapidly? Could it be, as the NYT asks, that perhaps "the Middle East is not some strange exception, but will, as Europe and the Americas have, find in democracy a cause for peace."[?]

Okay, the NYT didn't ask that. I added the question mark.

It just amazes me how the Big Bang theory was so ridiculed for so long, and my defense of it in PNM made the lynchpin of so many negative reviews of my book, but now these same great thinkers who got it so wrong can't admit anything of the sort.

No, I suppose this was all just going to happen on its own, right? I mean, show me all the articles and op-eds predicting that prior to March 2003. Go on, I dare you! Find me even one article that predicted any of this.

I have a slide in my brief on the Big Bang, where I posit positive change accruing from the takedown of Iraq in such states as Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Okay, so I was too optimistic on Iran and I neglected to cite Egypt.

Oh, and I was so naïve to think that the U.S. military could ever do any good in the world.

Yes, yes, war is never the answer.

Dateline: SWA flight from Providence to Phoenix, 7 March 2005

Back on the road for one last big trip before the crush of finishing the book and then segueing right to two feature articles for Esquire, then a slew of speeches in April and May (baby needs a new big house in Indiana!), then the PNM paperback in May, then a wargame based on PNM in early June, then the great move to Hoosier land, then PNM II (Blueprint for Action) comes out in September, then I . . . have a nervous breakdown, beating my spouse by just a few minutes!

Long flight to Oakland today. Tonight there is dinner at Berkeley where I am expected to speak. Think I will do opening sequence from master brief, saving all the Core-Gap, System Perturbation and ordering principle segments for Wednesday night lecture, then Four Flows, Transaction Strategy and Leviathan-SysAdmin for Thursday night's second lecture. Tuesday night I'll do a shorter combined version at the World Affairs Council in San Fran. Four talks in four nights. Plus an appearance with a cadets/ROTC class (if I remember correctly), plus taping a local TV show.

Few things will be left unsaid this week. I will feel much love, but I won't get laid. And I'll miss my wife and kids and the dog and the cat and all the tumult that is our household, where I feel so amazingly connected to everything and everyone.

Weird, but the bigger the show, the emptier the feeling. But I am earning money this week, and that's the big thing (Berkeley pays well for this lectureship), so the sacrifice is tempered by the gain. Still, it will be a depressing week of just output and no input-emotionally speaking.

Forgot to say, we played our last BB game on Saturday, and Kevin was masterful in our season-ending 38-12 game. Two nice buckets, but a triple-double in rebounds, steals and assists (he played maybe 28 out of 32 minutes, as we only had 7 players). He was just awesome-a total disruptive force on defense and the biggest enabler of our transition game (he passes downcourt better than I ever did at his age-9). Just to be kind, Kev got confused after we switched sides at halftime and threw a rebound back in for a basket on the wrong end of the court! Honestly, that was his only mistake of the game, and at least it showed good sportsmanship!

It was one helluva performance by almost all involved. In the past five weeks, my co-coach and I spent most of the practices scrimmaging where we played alongside the kids, and our big goal was in showing them how to grab rebounds and start fast breaks. Just by showing them how cool it could be to pass down court, everyone caught the fever by the season's end. I mean, it was like watching UNLV under the Shark: as every rebound or steal wasn't just some breakaway by one kid but an entire jail break with people filling lanes (we're talking 8-9-year-olds) and passes zipping downhill all the way. Just beautiful to watch. We told the scorer to stop recording our baskets after a while, that's how big a romp it was.

Waiting on Warren to deliver to me the first two chapters of Blueprint for Action this week. Want to have those nailed down as much as possible during this trip, because the two Esquire articles may force me into DC between now and the deadline for the book with Putnam (1 April). And then there's the endnotes . . .. Got permission from Neil Nyren, my publisher, to let that slide past 1 April, wanting to focus all my available time on the text, plus I won't know what text survives until we're done, so why bother with endnotes on stuff you're gonna cut? I tell you, though, it will be a big fight, sked-wise, between the two Esquire pieces and the endnotes in April. Still, since both mag articles can easily provide good last-minute material for the book, thus spicing up the text (conceptually-speaking, as you know me not to be a tell-anything type regarding insider stuff; my mother raised me to hate tattle-tails), this is all good synergy.

God, it's so good to be free of all that conflict-of-interest bullshit! With Esquire and Putnam and the blog and the New Rule Sets Project LLC, I now have a constellation of activities that allow each to feed off the other, to the benefit of all. That was simply an impossible mix in the government, and as I could see them all coming together, it was a great relief to finally get my walking papers, no matter how demeaning the circumstances . . ..

But here's a weird catch: now that I am sort of a journalist myself, not to mention blogger, what's my interaction with media people? I mean, it's one thing to go on the air like I did last Saturday with a Connecticut station and describe my book, but how about having dinner with the staff of a major Pentagon-focused defense pub? I'll be doing this in April. What about having someone from the Atlantic Monthly send me an email, looking for an exchange of ideas? When do I cross the line from promotion to giving away material that I want to keep in articles, books, or the blog and its newsletter? This could all easily get to be hard to keep track of.

Oh, who the hell am I kidding! I love having such conundrums and conflicts of interest! It means I've got more work and ideas and outlets and interviews and articles than I know what to do with. It means I'm having trouble segregating them all. Heck, when you consider the alternative, this is a good problem to be worrying about.

And it's just more proof that it was a great decision to leave the war college when I did. And for that, I thank my partners at NRSP, my publisher, and Esquire for making me life so G.D. complex!

Here's today's catch:

■ Fearing the Big Bang

■ Syria sets up for a showdown

■ Dealing with Iran

■ Islam's softer side

■ The all mighty dollar

■ 2 + 2 = 4 on China

■ Leviathan rules, SysAdmin rules

Dateline: Faculty Club, U Cal Berkeley, Berkeley California, 8 March 2005

Got in around 2pm yesterday, rented my car and got to Berkeley. Checking into faculty club, I finally figured out how to use WiFi on my Mac (pretty cool!).

Then showered, got dressed, and was picked by nice female Navy Lt. who's a ROTC instructor here. She drives me to swank Claremount Club up on hill overlooking city for dinner in my honor to kick off the Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitiz Lectureship. About 200 in attendance. Cocktail hour of intros, then a nice dinner, then I was callled to podium after formal intro to give impromptu talk, which I did for about 15-20 minutes, just off the cuff. Mostly gave background of mentors (Gaffney, Flanagan, Cebrowski) and expressed my delight at following old profs in this honor (Huntington, Nye). Then I launched into usual intro to brief where I talk about my career at college, Cantor, Rule Sets Project, working in OSD.

Up late last night on email. Rushing out now for class where I lecture, lunch where I talk, TV show taping that will go on web, then over to SF on BART for talk at World Affairs Council tonight. Then back.

No story blogging today, unless I find time at night.

This is the last free issue of Rule-Set Reset.

In this issue you'll find original pieces by:

* Thomas P.M. Barnett, Founder of The New Rule Sets Project, LLC . . . "The Asian Tsunamis as a System Perturbation"

* Aurelius . . . "Notes from the Machine World: The Phases of Rule-Set Change"

* Christopher Zurcher, Chemicals Industry Manager . . . "Building Business Systems in the Context of Rule-Set Theory"

* Michael R. Baysdell, High School Teacher . . . "Policy Rule Sets: Use 'Em or Lose 'Em!"

* Gerald F. Feeney, Health Care Consultant . . . "Civilian Reconstruction Program: The Key to Core Growth"

Also, find out where Tom is speaking in March, read the favorite "In Focus" about the WTO, and enjoy the newly featured Q&A section where readers' questions are answered by Tom.

Dateline: Faculty Club, U Cal Berkeley, Berkeley California, 8 March 2005

Didn't get to sleep until after midnight last night. I was so taken with my ability to read email in my bed via the WiFi, plus the connection was a bit slow. I have the "penthouse" on the third floor of the club, which means a sort of loft that you access through a narrow stairway and then you're up in the tower's mast: windows on all four sides, small private patio off the roof, all woods and beams, very historic and very cool.

Had hard time sleeping to 8am because it was 11am my time, so popped up, got dressed and caught the continental breakfast heading out the door. Picked up by one Prof. Barnes, who takes me to his military history class where I offer the same basic package as I gave in Canada last week. Then Q&A with students. Whole deal about 2 hours. Very good questions, and good discussion. Bit of a pre-select, given the class subject, but no dummies in the room.

Then off to a faculty lunch with generalized discussion. Host is Dr. Wayne Kreisler, and site is Institute for International Studies. After half a sandwich and some pasta salad stuffed in my mouth, I give a quick-and-dirty 20 minute overview of PNM, followed by about an hour of Q&A, which Kreisler later described as "highly spirited." All the questions tended toward the usual skepticisms, which made me glad-once again-that I spend a chapter on these points in Vol. II.

After that Kreisler takes me over to a TV studio on campus, where we film a one-hour interview show very much in line with "Booknotes." It will appear on a U Cal CSPAN-like channel that broadcasts over Dish Satellite TV, plus it will be posted in its entirety for viewing in perpetuity on their website. Kreisler will send me the relevant info when it's up, and I will definitely ask for a complimentary DVD for myself.

His style was very much like Lamb's so I felt it was a great interview. More than Lamb, Kreisler asked a lot of questions designed to generate career advice to students entering or contemplating entering the field of national security, so that was pretty cool. The show is called "Conversation with History," and he's had every big name you can think of over the past 20 years, so like with Lamb, I was in capable hands throughout, so I gave a great interview, reinforcing my point that the interview's quality depends first and foremost on the interviewer, not the interviewee.

After the show I head back to the faculty club and hang out in the lounge for a while, surfing the web Wi-Fi, getting word that now both of my Esquire feature projects are a "go" from the perspective of the subjects. So a DC trip is looming even as Mark and I gear up for a marathon review session on the book that will stretch over several weeks.

I am beginning to remember the rather relaxed pace of war college life with fondness . . .

Strolled through the Berkeley campus, snapping this shot of the famous clock tower:

BTW, here's a shot of the Parliament building in Ottawa that I snapped last week.

I'm beginning to see a sort of guy-without-his-wife motief to my choice in photos . . .

Once off campus I locate the Downtown Berkeley BART station, which is a subway I've never taken, despite my many trips here for the Center for Naval Analyses in the mid-1990s. It has a strange, dated, Logan's Run-sort of sci-fi futuristic feel to it. In many ways, very similar to the subway style that DC ended up with in the late 1970s. I think BART goes back to the early 70s, though. Much of the track between Berkeley and the Bay is above ground, but then you go under, resurfacing in the downtown area. What a great way to get to the airport, but alas, I fly SWA outta Oakland Friday morning, before the crack of dawn. That should be sweet, especially returning a rental that I haven't bothered and won't bother to use all week-at Berkeley's request. That sits in the parking garage at $12 a day, to go with the $180 charge. Frankly, I gotta believe a cab back and forth to Oakland International would have been at least $100 cheaper.

I have all day tomorrow off. Interested in ideas of where to go. Guess I could drive again over to the Muir Woods beyond Golden Gate and hike. That would be cool. Will have to ring my friend from TED, local hedge fund chief Kevin, and see what he suggests.

Heading to the Powell station, where I'll get off and walk to the World Affairs Council. I go on at 6pm and they want some Q&A within a 60-minute frame for later broadcast somewhere. Not sure who's taping. Will give them the same package I used in class this morning, and in Ottawa last week: Core and Gap, War in the Context of Everything Else, and Strategy Defines Structure.

Going under the Bay right now . . . waiting for my ears to pop . . .

Will check in after the WAC talk on Bart home. You buy the tickets through machines just like in NYC, which is cool, cause you can use credit cards (easier business receipts).

Tonight when I get back to Club, may glance through NYT and WSJ to see if there's anything I must really blog. After four talks today, I expect to be a bit beat . . .

[next morning]

When I got off the BART, I dropped into a Virgin megastore to buy two DVDs for my kids ("Exorcist" for demon-loving eldest daughter and "Where Eagles Dare" for WWII-fascinated son). Also picked up a second copy of "Computerworld" album by Kraftwerk, because son Kevin has played my old CD copy to near-death).

Got to World Affairs Council about 10 minutes before show, and they were completely unready for me to use PowerPoint-my fault for not checking in advance. They were good, though, and set up rather quickly. Only bitch: I had to stand at podium and use mike because show being taped for radio broadcast. Because of timing of show (60 minutes), I had to cut the talk short, skipping the Leviathan-SysAdmin section, but I did mention the need for the split and gave a short description. Then questions from the crowd, read to me by Dan Sneider, the foreign affairs columnist of the San Jose Mercury News (my host). Not sure when the program will broadcast locally.

My performance was okay. Bit tired, so flubbed more than my usual share of words/lines. Audience much older (at least up close to me) and pretty reserved, so not a lot of reaction. Others in the back told me later that the room had a lot of buzz, but I wasn't feeling it up behind the podium. As usual, stuck at podium, I tend to come off darker, and I don't know why. Just can't move or gesture much, so the drama goes all into your voice.

After talk, signed about 20 books. Then dinner at a nice Japanese restaurant courtesy of partner Bob Jacobson. We dined with a local expert on gaming, a wonderful lady who rode home with me on the BART and told me all about David Byrne's somewhat mocking presentation on PowerPoint that she went to the previous night at some local venue.

Long day. Fell asleep in bed with laptop on stomach as I was logging onto to Internet.

Have plenty of stories I want to blog, but will hold them for now. Have to do another phone interview with yet another Japanese newspaper at 10 am local time. The reporter will call me in the Faculty Club. After that, contemplating quick drive (may be kidding myself) over Golden Gate bridge to John Muir forest for short hike. Did a long one about a decade ago and have always wanted to return. Would have to get back here well in time for 7pm speech tonight (first half of brief), which constitutes the first of two big Nimitz lectures I give.

Dateline: Faculty Club, U Cal Berkeley, Berkeley CA, 9 March 2005

Guess I was smart not to mention the exact academic who's material I found so stupid!

But this journalist screws up: they weren't allowed into my talk for some reason, and he must have heard all the buzz about it, so he wanted to pen something, but then he went off the bio in the program, which said I was still at the college, when I opened my talk by explicitly noting I had left. Shame, shame on that one.

Here's the excerpt from this post:

Embassy, March 9th, 2005
EDITORIAL

Soldier Talk

There is something refreshing about the talk of soldiers -- even generals . . .

If we hadn't already learned that lesson from Lt. Gen Roméo Dallaire, there was ample opportunity to get up to speed at a conference in the Chateau Laurier last week.

Military frankness was front and centre at the 68th Annual General Meeting of the Conference of Defence Associations and the 21st Annual Seminar of the CDA Institute. What that mouthful of a title identified was a get-together of military men and women (mostly men) around a number of intriguing, timely topics and several first-rate speakers . . .



[Tom: here he covers my appearance on the day's last panel, where I joined the speakers for Q&A.]

Following a talk by the third panelist, the Royal Military College's Dean of Arts, Dr. J. Sokolsky, the audience was treated to one of the stars of the conference, Dr. Thomas Barnett. Dr. Barnett is a professor at the U.S. Naval War College. His book, The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century, is said to have become deeply influential with forward-thinking members of the military.

Dr. Barnett told the audience that Canada had made the right decision not to participate in the costly and ineffective ballistic missile defence program. Later on after the conference he bluntly noted in his weblog that one of the speakers so infuriated him that he considered walking out on the panel, but changed his mind because " this guy's stupidity was so compelling, like a car wreck, that I simply couldn't."



[Here he gets it wrong. It wasn't any of the panel speakers whom I found lacking, but the guy who followed the panel and summed up the day's events. I actually didn't hear any of the panelists, as I walked into the room just as the last of them was wrapping up. Here is what I actually wrote in the blog: tell me how this guy screws up my meaning:

Getting back to the hotel, I run the goodies upstairs, grab my Mac and head back into the conference, because the conference head asked me to appear on the last panel (once their trio of presentations was done) for the Q&A portion. At first, I got no questions, but then fielded the last two.

After suffering through the concluding comments of this seriously dumbass Canadian academic, who presented an idiotic analysis of U.S. national security since 9/11 (I came awfully close to letting my sotto voce "bullshits" get loud enough for some in the room to hear). I thought of walking out in an obvious fashion, but this guy's stupidity was so compelling, like a car wreck, that I simply couldn't. It was stunning, how much this jerk breathlessly misrepresented politics and security affairs in DC. Me, I was (I confess) sticking around for the liquor at the cocktail hour.

Ah well, we downgrade this journalist for his sloppiness. Dude could have at least approached me.

Back to the rest of the text, where he continues to quote my blog.]

In the end he admitted he really liked Canadians -- especially drinking beer with them. "Canadians are like cool Americans," he said "and I mean every colour and creed."

By the time the panel abruptly ended, many of the civilian guests were thinking that a little more soldier talk might just be a good thing. And the next time it would be helpful to have the third D, for Diplomacy, better represented. The idea of getting Canadian soldiers, diplomats and development workers together in frank discussions seems ripe with promise. It should happen more often.

--Jim Creskey

Lesson: you never know who's reading the blog.

And no, I won't provide the name of the Canadian academic whose presentation struck me as so stupid.

For the full text of the online article, click here

Dateline: Faculty Club, U Cal Berkeley, Berkeley California, 8 March 2005

Long, tiring day, but a fun one. Got up, did some email, made some calls, missed my Japanese newspaper interview (bad phone connections at hotel), decided to give up and jumped in the car to cruise. Felt I needed to practice my run to the airport, because I'll be trying it at 4am on Friday, so a little up-front practice can be a good thing.

So I catch CA 24 to US580 and then catch US80 over to San Fran via the famous Bay Bridge, a two-fer than connects on Treasure Island in the middle (where I've actually spent some nights in a naval BOQ (Bachelor Officers Quarters) about a decade ago). Drive around the Embarcadero, then catch 101 to Golden Gate. Get to the Marin County side and stop at Point Vista (or is it Vista Point?), park the car, and then walk the length of Golden Gate back to SF and then walk the dog backwards over to Marin again (takes about an hour). I shot of bunch of pix I may post tomorrow. Fog would roll in periodically in vast waves from the ocean. Unreal to see on sunny, cloudless day.

Then jump back in car and drive to Muir Woods off Hwy 1, one of the most crazily curved roads you'll ever drive (more hairpins than Rapunzel used to wear). Get to Muir Woods and do about 100 minute hike: up a mountain for 1.5 miles, then along ridge-line for another 1.5, then take hillside trail back to start. So just over 4 miles. Lotsa verticality. Views were unreal, if you like trees. Sometimes, looking into a narrow valley, your sight could take in as many as 200 redwoods, all 9 to 15 stories high and very tightly clustered in "families" (or rings of trees that grow off of roots of original center tree).

Then it's 3:30, so I buy a sandwich at the Muir gift shop and jump back in the car. Instead of driving the way I came, I head north on 101 through San Rafael and catch the 580 Richmond bridge back over into Oakland, getting back to the Faculty Club around 4pm. Then I load up a couple of Kraftwerk songs to open and close the brief (mood setters), using "Computer World" for before the talk and "Computer Love" for after. Tomorrow, night I'll use the main title and another key theme piece from the "Last Emperor," because I'll talk less military and more globalization tomorrow night.

Once Mac set, I shower and get dressed and then walk over with Lt. Hiler again to the auditorium. It's a bit smallish and way too hot, but the overhead projector is good and the sound is integrated.

Then I have a brain accident: I slap the Interlink RF clicker USB port in the Mac, and start testing the brief by clicking with the mousepad. Here I learn something weird: when the USB port is in the machine, and you click with the mousepad, it clicks straight from slide transition to slide transition, skipping all the internal animation embedded on each slide. Well, I found this problem around 6:30, but didn't realize that I was just messing with myself by doing this, creating almost a panic attack. Finally, about 10 minutes before showtime, I realize how I'm causing a non-problem and simply use the clicker to advance the slides and it all works fine. I also figure out how to correct the snafued Law and Order ch-ching sounds on the header slides, switching the sound effect from the transition to the emphasis effect within the slide. Never had a problem with this on PCs, but on Mac the secondary animation cuts off the ch-ching sound, so by switching to the latter effect, it's preserved in its entirety. I fix all the headers by 5-minutes-til, then trigger the opening Rule-Set Reset ad slide, likewise triggering the Kraftwerk song to settle down the audience.

Room is very hot and I go about 1:40 instead of 1:00, but few leave. It's SRO with about 20 people in the aisles and another 30 or so crammed in the doorways. About 15 minutes of Q&A. Then to the Faculty Club for about an hour of informal talks with ROTC cadets and retired vets. Just too tired to pop right now, so this will be it. Tomorrow I have a lunch, a class-meeting with ROTC cadets, and Part Deux of the Brief. I am promised a bigger hall tomorrow night, and hopefully a cooler one.

Hosts seemed pleased by the talk. I am ready for bed after the 2.5 hours of hiking and then the 2 hours pacing on stage. My dogs are barking!

Dateline: Faculty Club, U Cal Berkeley, Berkeley CA, 10 March 2005.

I spoke to Tolson about this story way back when. It came out in this week's online version of U.S. News.com. Tolson's an impressive writer who reminds me of Greg Jaffe in that he can tackle very large subjects and get a lot done in a short space.

Here's the opening para and the final third, where my ideas are highlighted:

Nation & World

The coming storms

Scholars and pundits trade dark prophecies--and high hopes

By Jay Tolson

Read this in full at www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/050314/usnews/14policy.htm

So how is World War IV going? With the second Bush administration well underway--and now with a new terror alert to alarm the nation--it is hardly surprising that strategic thinkers are asking the question. What is surprising, though, is that so many leading analysts still disagree over the nature of the struggle: the origins, the stakes, the objectives, the definition of the enemy, and even the aptness of the word war itself. Differing loudly in a variety of print venues, from the popular monthly Esquire to the more scholarly Wilson Quarterly, they inadvertently drive home a common point: It's a curious war indeed that makes people argue over whether they are really fighting one.



But these debates are more than curious. They are of great consequence. And the reason is one on which most analysts would (uncharacteristically) agree: If the current struggle is as much a war of and by ideas as it is a war of arms, the character of the conflict is itself an idea with crucial consequences …

In saying that military actions stemming from America's pursuit of material abundance are a major cause of World War IV, Bacevich rules out any possibility of idealism or altruism in Bush's security policies, particularly as applied to the Middle East. And that is where Thomas Barnett, author of an important article in the February issue of Esquire, offers a more nuanced--and certainly more hopeful--perspective.



Breakdown. Barnett's position extends one of the central arguments of his widely hailed book, The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century. There, the former U.S. Naval War College researcher and professor argued that 9/11 signaled a major system breakdown in the U.S.-backed globalizing process. "In the process of rapid expansion," Barnett says, summarizing his analysis of the go-go '90s, "economics got way ahead of politics, technology got way ahead of security." Older structures intended to support global security, including the United Nations, were simply not up to the task, he believes. The growing disjunction between global security and economic globalization aggravated--and was aggravated by--the distance between the "Core" nations that generally play by and profit from the rules of globalization and the "Gap" nations that do not yet operate by those rules. By Barnett's analysis, 9/11 was a gesture of defiance orchestrated by a well-organized group of extremists who seek to keep the people of the Gap outside the Core--and locked into a totalitarian theocracy fundamentally opposed to the openness that comes with globalization. Those extremists, Barnett adds, rightly associate globalization with American ideals and interests. But--and here Barnett differs decisively with Bacevich--the historical uniqueness of those ideals and interests is that they benefit not just one player but all players in the non-zero-sum game of globalization.

But if Barnett earlier praised Bush's new bold security initiatives (including regime change in Iraq) for redressing a system imbalance, his Esquire article warns that bold military moves will lead to nothing if America does not now induce other Core nations--not just the obvious European ones but also India and China--to participate in new and often ad hoc security arrangements involving extensive and vigilant policing of the troubled Gap areas. In addition to transforming our own military for large peacekeeping operations, America must engage in more imaginative and persuasive diplomacy, using enticements, for example, to bring Iran into the game as a responsible regional player instead of merely threatening it not to build the bomb. "Iran's the key," he writes, urging Bush to think like Nixon on the road to detente with China. "Squeeze it now while it's scared--and while Arafat's still dead. America has played bad cop long enough with Iran. For crying out loud, Iranians are the only people in the Middle East who actually like us!" To lock China into a new security arrangement--and particularly to get it to cooperate in the effort to remove North Korea's Kim Jong Il from power--Barnett urges Bush to drop the U.S. defense guarantee to Taiwan, which will only stop Taipei from making unnecessary symbolic gestures of independence from the mainland.

"I hate all the World War IV stuff," says Barnett. "In the Middle East, the administration successfully started a big bang. Now they are in a state of planning. To lock in their gains, they are going to have to make some compromises. We have to convince the world that our security equals the world's security. We did that during the Cold War. But that's where Bush's people are stumbling now."



How's that war going, then? Maybe, if Barnett is right, the best answer is to rephrase the question: Are we finally learning how to win the peace?

COMMENTARY: Hard not to like this: compared to Podhoretz, Clarke and Bacevich, and described as the nuanced and hopeful one in sharp contrast to this gloomy trio. Plus, the book is plugged, Esquire is plugged, and he correctly notes that I've left the college. Only nit: I didn't say, "Now they are in a state of planning," but "Now they are in a state of adaptive planning." Adaptive planning means you're on the fly and adjusting to altered conditions. Dropping that word (I'm sure it came out garbled on his tape or in his notes because I tend to talk very fast on my cell phone) diminishes my meaning somewhat, but that's a tiny quibble. By and large, Tolson is very impressive and you have to like his horizontal ambition in story-telling. Sadly, this is a very rare trait right now in journalism.

Dateline: Faculty Club, U Cal Berkeley, Berkeley CA, 10 March 2005.

Here are some photos, first from the bridge and then from the woods:

My view driving north over the bridge

Walking back to San Fran over the bridge: the north tower shrouded in some fog coming off the ocean

Same view from other side, meaning I was standing in the middle of the span

Looking up the south tower

Looking from the south tower along the length of the span when a particularly big wave of fog rolls in

Proof positive: the plate on the south tower

Muir Woods: A typical view from the path cut into the side of valley

A sense of the path

Looking up a "family circle" of redwood trees

Dateline: Faculty Club, U Cal Berkeley, Berkeley CA, 10 March 2005.

45-minute interview with Tom Wantanabe of Japan's Asahi Shimbun just now by phone

Story will appear later this month. Article will focus on PNM and introduce me to the Japanese public. Wantanabe promises a big article.

■"China Sends Warning to Taiwan With Anti-Scession Law," by Edward Cody, Washington Post, 8 March 2005, p. A12.

■"Sale of I.B.M. Unit to China Passes U.S. Security Muster," by Stteve Lohr, New York Times, 10 March 2005, pulled off web.

Well, those non-too-subtle Chinese have done it alright: they've formalized the notion that they won't stand for Taiwan's independence and they would use military force to prevent it.

Wow!

Imagine the U.S. passes a resolution saying that if you attacked-I dunno-anywhere in the Western Hemisphere, we'd respond with military force. It would be . . . like a doctrine or something.

Hmm. U.S. has a Monroe Doctrine for entire Western Hemisphere and China has a Hu Doctrine for . . . all of . . . Taiwan.

Man, who does those Chinese think they are?

I mean, America gets to invade countries and topple regimes in the Middle East and China's talking about threatening a small island nation off its coast, to which the losing side in its civil war retreated several decades ago. Who do these people think they are?

But China must not be too scary, otherwise why give them the keys to the 21st century? The ability to produce PCs on par with IBM, that leader in PC . . . uh . . . IBM makes PCs?

■"Evangelical Leaders Swing Influence Behind Effort to Combat Global Warming," by Laurie Goodman, New York Times, 10 March 2005, pulled from web.

■"An End to Days of High Cotton? GOP Constituents Caught in Battle Over Subsidies," by Dan Morgan, Washington Post, 8 March 2005, pulled off web.

Those evangelicals are getting greener by the minute, and given past successes in raising Washington's awareness on foreign policy issues such as religious persecution, violence in Sudan, AIDS in Africa and sex trafficking (all biggies in the Gap), this development is not to be scoffed at.

Evangelicals are already getting more and more behind the reduction of ag subsidies, believing America's stand on that is immoral-and they're right. Cotton growers say we should pay them for depressed world prices, and I say that's nuts. Taxpayers are supposed to pay people to continue producing goods that are uneconomical? I thought that was the Soviet Union's gig!

■"Japan Inc, RIP: There is no longer a 'Japanese way' of doing business," op-ed by Bill Emmott, Wall Street Journal, 10 March 2005, p. A16.

■"Emerging Ways to Invest In the Wild, Wild East: Some Pros Tout Buying Stocks Directly, But Risks Are Immense," by Jeff D. Opdyke and Laura Santini, Wall Street Journal, 9 March 2005, p. D1.

Sony picks Howard Stringer to become the first non-Japanese CEO. Why? He's currently their most successful exec. As Emmott puts it, "The fact that he is a foreign is almost secondary." There is no "Asian way," there's only the right way to run a business, and Asian variations on that theme.

Hard to imagine from today's perspective, but we will see many such changes come to Chinese business in coming years. Already China companies show enough rules to attract the most bullish Western investors. Why? They "tout the investing environment as comparable with what America represented a century ago, a risky place but an opportunity to invest early and for the long haul in an emerging economic giant."

■"Syria Supporters Rally in Lebanon: Hezbollah Chied Puts U.S. on Notice As Thousands Fill Streets of Beirut," by Scott Wilson, Washington Post, 9 March 2005, p. A1.

■"Syrian Troop Deal Exposes Festering Lebanese Resentments: In Bekaa Valley, Soldiers Impose a Daily Burden," by Scott Wilson, Washington Post, 8 March 2005, p. A10.

■"U.S. Called Ready to See Hezbollah in Lebanon Role," by Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 10 March 2005, pulled from web.

■"Can Hezbollah Go Straight," op-ed by Michael Young, New York Times, 9 March 2005, pulled from web.

■"The Beirut Tea Party," op-ed by Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 10 March 2005, pulled from web.

Hezbollah musters an impressive crowd of demonstrators and reminds us all that it is the true power in Lebanon. Syria's troop withdrawal and concentration in the Bekaa Valley probably won't work for long, given the burden on the local population there, so we may be looking at them being gone far faster than anticipated, and that will mean Hezbollah is back to being Big Man in Country.

Once that happens, the reality of Iran's strong influence and patronage will be impossible to deny. The U.S. says it's read to see Hezbollah be responsible, but you have to wonder if Hezbollah is ready for this role. Thomas Friedman is getting all gushy on the waves of democracy, but I don't see them lapping up to any great degree on Iran's shores right now, and Iran holds the key to peace in Beirut, Jerusalem and Baghdad. When smart local experts talk about "fragile," they're referring to Iran's ability to ruin this "party."

■"For Bush, a Taste of Vindication in Mideast," by Todd S. Purdum, New York Times, 9 March 2005, pulled off web.

■"Mideast Strides Lift Bush, But Challenges Remain," by Peter Baker, Washington Post, 8 March 2005, p. A1.

■"Giving Wolfowitz His Due," op-ed by David Brooks, New York Times, 8 March 2005, pulled from web.

■"Critic of U.N. Named Envoy: Bush's Choice of Bolton Is a Surprise; Democrats Plan to Contest Nomination," by Glenn Kessler and Colum Lynch, Washington Post, 8 March 2005, p. A1.

■"Iraqi Shiite Women Push Islamic Law on Gender Roles: Powerful Female Politicians Seek to Scale Back Rights; Divorce, Alimony at Issue," by Farnaz Fassihi, Wall Street Journal, 9 March 2005, p. A1.

Nice to see these bits from the Times:

It now seems just possible that Mr. Bush and aides like Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz were not wrong to argue that the "status quo of despotism cannot be ignored or appeased, kept in a box or cut off," as the president put it in a speech at the National Defense University here.

The failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq, his administration's shifting rationales for the war, the lingering insurgency and steady American casualties there were a drag on Mr. Bush's political fortunes for most of last year. But a wave of developments since the better-than-expected Iraqi elections in January - some perhaps related and others probably not - have brought Mr. Bush a measure of vindication, which may or may not be sustained by events and his own actions in the months to come.

"By now it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating tyranny in the pursuit of stability have only led to injustice and instability and tragedy," Mr. Bush said on Tuesday. "It should be clear that the advance of democracy leads to peace, because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors."

And from the Post:

The rapid pace of developments has surprised even Bush advisers and silenced or even converted some skeptics in Washington less than two months after the president opened his second term with an inaugural address setting the goal of "ending tyranny in our world." As he prepares to give another major speech today to mark the progress, Bush has been in a buoyant mood, aides said, seeing the recent moves as vindicating his expansive vision. "He feels validation," said one aide.

How much the president influenced events driven by indigenous forces on the ground remains a point of debate here and in the region. Some diplomats, analysts and intelligence officers with long experience in the region worry that the Bush team is celebrating too soon and overestimating its ability to steer the change it is helping to set loose. Reforms have been announced in the Middle East in the past only to prove hollow in reality. And the U.S. government has rarely built the sort of sustained effort that many believe will be required to ensure that genuine change takes root …

The cascading images of democracy in the region have made these particularly heady days for Bush, who began talking about Middle East democracy in his first term with little evident success. Aides were thrilled with a Newsweek cover story on Lebanon's so-called Cedar Revolution headlined "People Power," followed by a secondary headline that said "Where Bush Was Right."

The debate in Washington has shifted as well. Jon Stewart, a liberal talk show host on Comedy Central, raised the idea last week that maybe Bush was right. "This is the most difficult thing for me, because I don't care for the tactics," he said, "but I've got to say I've never seen results like this ever in that region."

His guest, former Clinton national security aide Nancy Soderberg, author of a new book critical of Bush policy, generally agreed: "There is a wave of change going on, and if we can help ride it in the second term of the Bush administration, more power to them."

Ooooh! Jon Stewart!

Brooks does the best job of putting Wolfowitz's role in some perspective. The guy has stuck to his guns (pun intended). The real question for me, though, is whether Wolfowitz is smart enough on China to do what needs to be done to secure a serious strategic partnership with that rising giant. But Brooks is right: decades from now biographers are going to praise, not bury Wolfowitz, and his critics will be nowhere to be found.

Along the same lines, no problem for me to see John Bolton go to the UN. We should continue to push for reform there just like in the Middle East.

And speaking of which, when we unleash the Big Bang, we have to expect plenty of backsliding among the locals. Especially in the short-term tumult, expect women to favor order over justice. These are ultimate in "security moms."

Dateline: SWA flight from Providence to Phoenix, 7 March 2005

Last day here. Spend morning posting, then do the interview with Japanese journalist, then off to lunch with reserve officers' association, which was interesing because most of these guys just back from Iraq, so lots of stories. Plus we ate at Berkeley City Club, this ornate 1920s building designed by same lady architect that did Sam Simeon for William Randolph Hearst, the publication magnate and the inspiration for "Citizen Kane."

You know, I work for Hearst now, because it owns Esquire, along with a host of other mags.

Then spend hour and half with naval cadets in auditorium. I do impromptu speech on transformation, then answer questions (all pretty sharp). An impressive bunch overall, and a nice time.

Tonight I do my second and last lecture (same hall, as they couldn't switch), then I'm outta here at 0400 tomorrow morning, so I probably go pretty light on the Sam Adams tonight at the reception.

Here's today's catch:

■ Giving the Big Bang its due

■ The reverberations in Lebanon/Syria

■ Doing right by the Gap on the environment and agriculture

■ New ways of doing business in Asia

■ China scary, China not so scary

■"A Fine Rendition: The C.I.A. was right to ship terror suspects abroad," op-ed by Michael Scheuer, New York Times, 11 March 2005, p. A23.

Oh-oh. Michael Scheuer wants to both take credit for the rendition program of sending terrorist suspects to states we know will torture them and blame any problems all on White House-types like Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke. Scheuer originated the program at the request of the Clinton administration and ran it in its first, formative 40 months.

Man, didn't both Clarke and Scheuer singlehandedly win the global war on al Qaeda before penning their best sellers describing their stunning exploits and victories? If they start turning on one another, then where will we be?

Scheuer doesn't want any hounding of CIA personnel over the program. Why? First, the politicians called all the shots. Second, the program was/is a huge success. I mean, it stopped al Qaeda in its tracks and prevented 9/11, right? Third, the CIA was/is only following orders.

If there's any blame, give it to Clarke, Berger and Clinton, or the current crew, but the CIA is blameless. Take it from Scheuer, because he's the guy who so successfully ran the agency's counter-terrorism effort across the 1990s.

■"Talk in Japan About the Dollar Stirs Up Markets," by Jonathan Fuerbringer, New York Times, 11 March 2005, p. C1.

■"2 Fed Officials Offer Different but Upbeat Views on Debt: Some outside analysts fear the dollar's value may fall because of rising trade deficits," by Edmund L. Andrews, New York Times, 11 March 2005, p. C6.

Japan's PM makes remarks that sound like his central bank will dump dollars. The Ministry of Finance immediately follows up to suggest otherwise. The dollar falls, but not too much.

This comes after similar suggestions and retractions by China and South Korea, making you wonder if this isn't the chosen method of driving down the dollar slowly: hinting every so often that the dump is going to occur but then always denying it to limit any one drop to a manageable amount. The cumulative effect? The slow-but-steady decline of the dollar, which everyone, including America, seems to want.

This, my friends, is collusion among great powers of the best sort.

Meanwhile, Fed officials, to include Greenspan, speak sanguinely about the plus-up in private debt and the trade deficit. Greenspan says this is a one-time shift of financial flows toward the U.S. that won't last. It happens because globalization reduces the "home bias" of capital and for now, we remain the best bet for long-term, steady growth, so our currency wins as the reserve:

Globalization—the extension of the division of labor and specialization beyond national borders—is patently a key to understanding much of our recent economic history.

But Greenspan cautions that "the free lunch has yet to be invented," which is his cute way of saying that this situation can't last indefinitely. Asia won't be so savings-oriented and so export-driven, and the rise of the Euro will provide a correcting mechanism—an alternative. For now, both inevitable trends await culmination, or tipping points, so America's ability to sell debt remains strong. It's possible that Asia will always prefer relying on America's long-term growth potential over that of Europe, but eventually Asia's "saving glut" will go away as internal development trumps an export-driven strategy.

The clock is running on America's strategic task of locking in China at today's prices into a series of security, political and economic alliances. We can do it under conditions of strength or duress, but we will end up having to do it.

■"Bombing at Shiite Mosque In Mosul Leaves 40 Dead," by Robert F. Worth, New York Times, 11 March 2005, p. A8.

■"Behind the Scenes, Israelis Press for Syria to Leave Lebanon: Hezbollah is the real enemy, but Syria keeps it vigorous," by Steven Erlanger, New York Times, 11 March 2005, p. A10.

Current interim Sunni PM Allawi may soon be out of a job, as the Kurds and Shiites appear to have brokered a deal among themselves. He was working for something between the Kurds and Sunnis to hold off the Shiite majority, but it was not to be. And who can blame the Kurds for picking the Shiites over the insurgency-riddled Sunni triangle? Plus, by doing this, the Kurds' asking price was probably a more rapid settlement of property rights for their people in and around oil-rich Kirkuk, a city they once dominated but were driven out from by Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime.

Meanwhile, Israel's not shy about wanting Syria out of Lebanon, believing it will weaken Hezbollah:

Israel sees Hezbollah and Iran "as practically synonymous," [one anonymous Israeli] official said, while Syria served as an Iranian ally in the locality, able to supply Hezbollah with weapons and money. "Syria was able to stop any activity of Hezbollah in Lebanon at will, which is why Israel trusted Syria," the official said. But Syria used Hezbollah for its own purposes, to drive us out of Lebanon. And it was happy for Iran to supply Hezbollah for that purpose."

But Hezbollah's open support for Syria is likely to hurt it as a political party, the Israelis say. At the same time, given the group's close connection to Iran, there is little reason to believe Hezbollah is going to abandon militancy and terrorism for pure politics.

Iran is nervous troo, the officials said. Iran sees Israel as an ideological enemy and a regional rival that is pushing the United States and Europe to try to deny Iran nuclear weaponry and destroy the Iranian revolution. "Iran's gun against Israel is Hezbollah in southern Lebanon," a military intelligence official said.

So the question is, how to disarm that gun? We've isolated Iran with sanctions and embargoes and whatnot for decades, and what has that done for us? What will several more years of that approach do for us? Except perhaps squander the Big Bang's rolling waves?

■"U.S. and Allies Agree on Steps In Iran Dispute: Incentives and Penalties on Nuclear Issue," by David E. Sanger and Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, 11 March 2005, p. A1.

■"South Korean Aid To North Increases Tensions With U.S.: Seoul, Fearing Collapse, Tries To Keep Neighbor Afloat; Nuclear Situation Heats Up," by Gordon Fairclough, Wall Street Journal, 11 March 2005, p. A1.

The U.S. agrees to a joint approach with the Europeans to offer economic carrots to Iran to stop its nuclear effort. We'll give Tehran spare parts for its aging jetliner fleet and we'll support their entry into the WTO, something we've successfully blocked in the past. If this doesn't work, the Bush White House sends all the signals that it'll push for UN Security Council resolutions that elevate the tensions further.

What has Iran said all along? It will not stop enriching uranium under any conditions and that, because it's a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation, it's allowed to do so for peaceful purposes.

We should have both low expectations of success with this offer and low hopes for any meaningful action in the UNSC, because China is likely to veto any effort given its recently-concluded huge oil and gas deal with Iran. Further pressure from the U.S. on this issue is likely to push Iran to give us more trouble in both Iraq and Lebanon/Palestine and Israel. Eventually, we'll be forced to decide what we want more: an isolated Iran or a peaceful Middle East. But I do not believe we can have both at the same time.

As for North Korea, we're told we'll never get serious support from South Korea to change the regime in the North because it "would be simply too expensive, in both economic and political terms." Not everyone agrees with South Korea's rather fantastic projections of the economic cost of rehabbing North Korea, noting that it doesn't have to be done overnight (it never occurs that way) and that the private sector will bear the brunt of the burden, as well as the subsequent profit. As the article points out, "critics also say that South Korea isn't doing enough to prepare itself in case Kim Jong Il's regime does fall. Instead, Seoul seems to do its level best to prop the regime up with foreign aid and investment.

How long is the rest of the Core supposed to pay, in terms of defense effort, to defend itself against North Korea's missiles or its spread of WMD? America's number one rationale nowadays for Star Wars-lite is North Korea. So I guess we should pay whatever it takes to make sure that South Korea, the world's 10th-largest economy, doesn't get stuck with any bills too large to pay.

And if all that suffering to the North doesn't move them to open up their wallets, America should just pull out of the peninsula militarily, because Seoul shouldn't be able to have it both ways.

Dateline: SWA flight from Phoenix to Providence, 11 March 2005

Last night gave my second lecture at Berkeley. Same hot room, and I had one key slide self-destruct in its animation (the final slide on Who Gets Custody of the Kids? that shows how the military's main assets pools are spread across the Leviathan and SysAdmin forces). That's not happened to me in several years, and probably is some snafu of running a PC-derived brief on a Mac. I will have to fix.

But other than that, the brief went well. Couple of nastily-delivered questions that were more rhetoric than reason, but other than that, the Q&A was fine. Conversations at the reception following were also good, with a couple of goofy exceptions. I bagged the effort at 11pm, an hour after the event was scheduled to end, feeling like I had fulfilled my contract in full. Earlier in the day I did a lunch with a Reserve Officers Association chapter, as well as almost two hours of talking and Q&A with naval ROTC cadets. With the 3:30am wake-up call, I wasn't going to stay out as long as the previous night, so I hit the hay, after packing up my gear, about 11:30.

Up well before dawn, I get in my rental and drive to Oakland International Airport, where I drop of the car and catch the shuttle to the terminal for my 0600 flight to Ontario airport, just outside of San Bernadino in southern CA. There I am picked up by partner Bob Jacobsen and we head over to the HQ campus of ESRI, the "Microsoft" of global spatial data management and analytical software for a fascinating morning of demos and discussions. Their stuff really knocked my socks off like few technologies I have ever encountered, and it's all open-source and web-based to boot!

We were invited to sit down and talk with some senior managers about PNM (which they really like) and possible overlapping future interests and projects, and I must say, it was an eye-opening discussion. ESRI is a very impressive company, and the senior leaders we met with left me even more impressed. I'm hoping NRSP, or the New Rule Sets Project, can find some mutually-beneficial common pursuits with ESRI in the future, because their way of looking at both technology and the world is very similar to my own. Plus, they're a natural pillar of any SysAdmin-like effort to shrink the Gap, which I remind you, will be an overwhelmingly private-sector, non-military effort driven by technology and the connectivity it brings.

Flying home rest of day. Get back to house around 12:30 to find Kevin up and waiting for me, which was very nice.

Here's the catch:

■ The transformation of military transformation

■ News from the Big Bang

■ Working the Axis of Evil

■ Why the West Isn't Winning the War on Terror

■ Talking about the dollar

■"Rumsfeld Details Big Military Shift In New Document: Drive for Pre-
Emptive
force, Wider Influence Will Trigger Changes in Strategy, Budget," by Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, 11 March 2005, p. A1.

The Secretary's planning document for the Quadrennial Defense Review is out, and it signals the big changes that have reached their tipping point in the Pentagon:

The document sets out Mr. Rumsfeld's agenda for a recently begun massive review of defense spending and strategy. Because the process is conducted only once every four years, the review represents the Bush administration's best chance to refashion the military into a force capable of delivering on the ambitious security and foreign policy goals that President Bush has put forth since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 . . .

Mr. Rumsfeld's goals, laid out in the document, mark a significant departure from recent reviews. Deeply informed by both the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and by the military's bloody struggle in Iraq, the document emphasizes newer problems, such as battling terrorists and insurgents, over conventional military challenges . . .

In the document, Mr. Rumsfeld tells the military to focus on four "core problems," none of them involving traditional military confrontations. The services are told to develop forces that can: build partnerships with failing states to defeat internal terrorist threats; defend the homeland , including offensive strikes against terrorist groups planning attacks; influence the choices of countries at a strategic crossroads, such as China and Russia; and prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by hostile states and terrorist groups.

Contractors and defense firms wedded to the Leviathan's old focus on great power war will suffer in the meantime, as big-ticket items will be cut short in numbers. The big question according to one involved official is "how much is enough to win the conventional fights of the future, and where can we shift some resources to some of these less traditional problems?"

The shift to the SysAdmin force is on—full throttle.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 12 March 2005

Jumping through our asses, as they say in the military. Painter comes on Thursday to do entire first floor and stairwells up and down. Mother-in-law arriving same day. Day before we host some friends from China (Beijing U). Both girls got bad colds. Snowed all day. House going on market in about a month. Filling out parochial school forms for Indiana (we are now targeting Franklin but others still in the race). Warren's editing chapters 1-3 and will have something to me within hours. The deadline looms, the two Esquire stories loom . . . but Favre returns!

So all is well with the world.

Email from Neil Nyren at Putnam: sales people worried about similarity of old and new titles, so we go with cover (which I received last week while on road), but official title will be Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating so as to avoid title confusion in data bases and search engines. I am happy with this decision. The "PNM" brand will still appear atop the cover, as will the words "New York Times Bestselling Author" above my name.

I'll try to post the cover art tomorrow. I really love it, especially the color.

But tonight I set up a giant Rokenbok monorail system with Jerry. Making up for missing his birthday.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 13 March 2005

Good talk with Mark on the phone today. He sent me Chapter 1 edited. We synched our schedules. Pretty scary between now and mid-late April. I realize I have flights already scheduled for one trip between now and then and need to schedule five more on my own later today, anticipating probably two more for an Esquire project.

I am back off the normal stories blog and back into hyper-drive mode on the book. Just gonna have to be that way for about a month.

Today I write the essay for April issue of Rule-Set Reset and get my personal finances in order on Quicken, plus help Vonne engage in a load of packing in anticipation of the painter coming on Thursday. Tense to be having so much going on, but feel these are all sensible decisions, unavoidable deadlines, and opportunities not to be passed up. For example, I have executives from various companies/organizations flying up to Newport in the next two weeks to take me out to lunch and discuss possibilities. If that's happening, I need to be planning very aggressively for opportunities, making sure we take all necessary plunges as early as possible, thus the rationale for the move this year. Hard, yes, but next year much harder.

Plus, the huge reason for move to IN is being closer to family in general, and to wife's especially. That'll give us possibilities on kid-watching that we've long denied ourselves. I can even imagine taking Vonne to a football game this year.

Just noting some headlines from today's Post

■ "Egypt Frees An Aspiring Candidate: Presidential Hopeful Is Released on Bail," By Daniel Williams, Washington Post, March 13, 2005; Page A16.

■ "Syria Vows Phased Lebanon Exit: Some Personnel to Depart by March 31; U.S. Wants Prompt Final Pullout," By Robin Wright, Washington Post, March 13, 2005; Page A01.

■ "Give the Arabs Credit," Op-ed by Mona Eltahawy, Washington Post, March 13, 2005; Page B07.

Mubarek's government makes the rushed multiparty elections look a little less unreasonable in its timing by letting a possible candidate out of jail. Bit much by our standards, but remember, this is Egypt.

Syria is promising to remove one-third of its troops from Lebanon by the end of March. Enough? No, but still pretty amazing given past responses.

The op-ed by Eltahawy is something else:

The invasion of Iraq was the equivalent of a bucket of freezing water thrown in the face of an Arab world in deep slumber.

There, I've said it. Can we move on now?

There is a way to talk about the effect of the Iraq war on the rest of the Arab world without actually supporting that war. This time last year and the year before, I marched in demonstrations in New York against the war on Iraq, which I did not believe was launched in the name of democracy and freedom. But we would be lying to ourselves if we didn't acknowledge that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is a major catalyst for what has been happening lately, be it in Egypt, Lebanon or Saudi Arabia.

Pretty much says it all, huh? The Big Bang is having its desired effects. Bitch about the employment, stick to your story about the administration's worst motivations, and deny all credit to Bush, but there it is.

Mubarek doing the unthinktable--until Iraq. Syria doing the unthinkable--until Iraq. Questions being asked that were unthinkable--until Iraq. It all reminds us that Iraq was never the end, always the means.

Got a nice email today from Greg Jaffe of the WSJ: in it he said that when I spoke of the Marines being SysAdmin a year ago, he thought I was pipe-dreaming somewhat. He no longer thinks that, given what he sees in the Marines and what he hears from them. It has been an amazing year all around, reminding us that occupations tend to change the occupiers more than the occupied.

So it was never Iraq as end, always the means, both here and in the Middle East. Pretty amazing, when you think about the unthinkable. Even more amazing when you publish it in a bestselling book.

Last week PNM was dropping to between 1-2k on Amazon, but pulls back up to 800s now, which is good for a Sunday.

Here's the list of "statistically improbable phrases" that Amazon now cites in PNM:

future worth creating, economic rule sets, security rule sets, slim connectivity, exporting security, rule sets that define, strategic security environment, vertical scenario, horizontal scenarios, legal rule sets, global rule sets, economic connectivity, growing connectivity, internal rule sets, killer brief

A good reminder as Mark and I collaborate on BFA:AFWC's editing process. The jargon is the jargon, but it cannot dominate the ideas. Mark is very excited about the A-to-Z Rule Set on Processing Politically-Bankrupt States in Chapter 1. It's a huge section, and he says my first draft is a bit too much legalistic in its tone, losing me as a voice in the process. So we'll adjust, but we'll also preserve a bit, because it's a big concept, a big proposal, and a big part of the book. No one is proposing something like this, and no one could right now except for me and except for BFA:AFWC. That groundwork was laid in PNM. The next steps are logical, and that is what vol. II will be all about.

The density and jumpiness of this post indicate my sense of pressure right now. I feel like I'm entering a black hole of creativity: nothing will escape.

Gotta go and make this day happen.

Here's the cover as promised:

What do I see? I see continuity, which I like. I see boldness in the main title--almost presumption. Like my Critter says, "Ain't bragging if you can do it!" I see the promise of the PNM fulfilled in the subtitle. I dig NYTBSL tag, cause I f--kin' earned every bit of it--as did my family in all my absences. I love the color, very dignified but very hopeful. I like the color because it evokes a solemnity of purpose, a sense of importance. This book itself is a big deal, because what it says about the future is a big deal. I love the shine. I love that the globe is seen in whole--this is a comprehensive view for the planet as a whole. I like it because it just totally pysches me to edit this book with real passion, now that this marker is up and out there in cyberspace--the gauntlet thrown down. I just plain like it, and so do Mark and Neil.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 13 March 2005

Here's the cite:

'Mildly Pro-Choice' Rice Won't Rule Out Presidential Bid

By Mike Allen

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, March 13, 2005; Page A05

First, let's not pretend anyone can get elected without ever running for office before. Last person to do that: Ike. All he did was lead D-Day and conquer Germany. Rice is not in that category, and never will be. Hell, Powell didn't even come close. Everyone since Ike has won elections--big elections for big jobs. Rice has yet to do that, and probably can't.

Why?

Second big reason: she is completely unexamined. The biggest faultline? How Rice, as National Security Adviser, ran the Iraq occupation into the ground by not coordinating the process as she was supposed to. The occupation in Iraq has been a grand failure of the inter-agency process, and she was in charge of that. That was her great chance at leadership to date, and she failed miserably.

But here's the biggest reason why she can't be elected president: she's single and she's never been married. Americans simply won't elect that person in this day and age, and they're right not to. Voters want to see that personal connection to spouse and kids. They trust that. It says powerful things about who the person is and how they can be expected to think about the larger world and act within it. It's not just image, but the soul of the person that's reflected in family. Rice is as alone as alone can be, and Americans don't get that, don't like that, don't trust that.

Ask yourself: would you really trust someone who's married to his or her career to be president? Someone who's never be exposed to any of the things all must learn in marriage and parenthood? Someone that single-minded? That uncompromising? That self-defined?

Personally, I don't see things I trust in that sort of life, not when I'm considering the presidency. Frankly, I see things I've always feared about myself--expressed to the n-th degree. And I think, deep down, so will the vast majority of Americans. They simply won't recognize themselves in this person, no matter the qualifications on paper.

Yes, Rice is very talented and yes, she's had an amazing career, and yes, her stint as SECSTATE is going well. But no, she is not a serious candidate for anything in her current incarnation. She is not the anti-Hillary, she is the anti-candidate.

See also: On the Philly Enquirer "single" article

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 14 March 2005

Some scamp (scroll down to the bottom) put this on his website:

Dateline:above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 14 March 2005

Didn't get to the editing of Chapter 1 today. Had to prep first floor for painter later in week, plus get my home office in order, which I haven't done in months in terms of bookkeeping (just for taxes), but today's was filing and organizing all the other paperwork, plus gearing up my plans for a load of trips in April.

When I get to Indy, I am seriously going to consider a personal assistant.

I am delaying a bit. Warren's edit of Chapter 1 was more transparent than I expected: he just cut about 3k out of 22 and really worked the text, but there's not a lot of inserts that I have to answer. Part of it is just that I write better the second time around and he edits better, plus we're both so much more at ease with the material. Then again, I am probably imagining he did less last time, when in reality, he did roughly the same.

The guy who mocked up the Shrink the Gap logo is from Madison WI. He was pretty excited that I reposted it. If I wasn't so behind the curve today, I would have given his URL, but I am tired of catching up for the day.

Had some stories from NYT, but none big enough to move me, although I did notice that the Iranians once again blew off our economic carrots, which didn't surprise me. Hard-liners on security v. reformists on economics: we're rewarding the latter while asking the former to back off. It's just not connecting, this offer. Making the reformists happy on trade doesn't placate the hard-liners.

One story today did catch my eye in WSJ: "Afghan Warlords Slowly Come In From the Cold," by David S. Cloud (WSJ, 14 March, p. A1). Interesting tale of how US took the slow and quiet road with warlords compared to rapid dissolution of Iraqi army and Baathists, upshot being everything is falling into place in Afghanistan security-wise on the militias. They're slowly melting away and being replaced by regular army. Country still hurting, still full of opium, still got some Taliban, but overall security is good and the scene is relatively quiet, which is very different from Iraq.

No grand plans for Afghanistan, and a slower pace. "Salutary neglect," one officer put it, referring to lack of DC oversight. Just letting the country reconnect itself up to itself at a pace it can handle.

Interesting story.

If you can help me troubleshoot the template and stylesheet that generates the html for this page, please send me an email:

critt.jarvis@newrulesets.com

It looks fine on my Firefox/Win2000Pro. Sidebar is whacked on my IE/Win98, IE/WinXP, and Tom's Mac.

I'll be out for the day with my son -- just returned from Iraq (1/18inf) -- and will check email tonight.

Thanks,

Critt

Okay. . . one step at a time here. . .

First step was to resolve the html rendering issue in the sidebar. Michael Jones -- the designer behind Armageddon Design (http://www.armageddondesign.net/) and new CIO of CITAR (The Center for Independent Threat Analysis and Research - http://www.citar.org/v2/ -- suggested possible inheritance problem with CSS definitions. Also, he suggested changing the way I was commenting out blocks of code. Impatient, rather than changing the comment out code, I deleted all the code I no longer use, both template and stylesheet. Doing so, the sidebar renders the way I expect.

The next step is to modify the Banner, with the former background and enough white background to display "Heads Ups!." Eric Allison at Stanford is helping me with that one (Don' want to hurt myself, you know?)

So. . . Off to spend last full day with my son and all my family.

And, thanks to Michael and Eric.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 15 March 2005

I now know why I futzed around so much yesterday: I was pretty scared to dive into the editing. I feared reading the text, that I would find it amazingly wanting even after Mark's edit, and that would have depressed me. But it was an irrational fear. I didn't spend any time rereading the text this time around, like PNM, when I wrote much smaller sections each day and spent much time, late in the wee hours, working the text over and over again, so that by the time I sent it off to Mark, it wasn't that it was much better (my writing improves with time, like any muscle) but rather that I had a much better sense of its quality fixed in my memory. This time around, I edited plenty along the way, but only within the text as I wrote, not going back over the entirety several times before cashing in for the day.

I just didn't have the time this time around, because my schedule was so much more crowded, plus I was writing off an outline I had created not that much earlier (only a few weeks), while with PNM I was working off slides I had delivered orally several hundred times over several years. In short, it was a tougher row to hoe this time, but the quality of the output (not judging the ideas just yet) was just as good.

So I had no reason to fear Mark's edit. At first glance, it seemed like he had only a few inserts in this first chapter, or places where he called out for me (in bold) to add something or change something. But the 20 or so for the chapter was actually fairly similar to last time (three or four callouts for each of four to five sections in a chapter). If his instructions were easier or tighter in focus, it's because he has more confidence now to change things directly on his own, something I encouraged him strongly to do this second time because both he and I felt he would naturally be able to do so given that we've now collaborated on two books and three major articles. Plus, as I said before, I'm writing better this time around, something Mark noted, unsurprising to him, as I was cranking the first draft in January and the first half of February.

Of his 20 fixes, about half were 5-minute jobs, another five took about a half-hour each, three took a good hour, and two were about three hours each. The first three-hour job was to write the intro to the chapter. I wrote it very fast, in about 75 minutes, but then I edited it like crazy over and over again. Later on, when Mark had a note about making sure I reintroduced all the main terms (Core, Gap, etc.) formally in the text for the first time, I ended up going back over the early portions obsessively until I felt I had everything roughly under control (noting that I need to add both Leviathan and SysAdmin to both the Preface and the Glossary). [SOMEONE REMIND ME LATER IF I WRITE ABOUT EDITING THE PREFACE IN THE FUTURE AND FAIL TO MENTION DOING THAT.]

Overall, a fairly painless day. I don't mind editing or rewriting at all. In fact, I really like it. It's the original draft I think of as being hard to crank.

Yes, I had some dreams of getting through all the call-outs by noon and then doing a thorough read-and-edit of the text para by para, but my fallback position was to do that tomorrow, which I will between 0630 and 1230 (we're only talking 36 pages and about 22,000 words now—yes, I added back the 3k Mark cut by addressing all his callouts).

Got up at 0630 today. Watched baby while wife got started, then took dog for walk and carried out the garbage (we are sorting stuff like crazy, so our garbage is kinda outta control right now).

I have to admit, all this house cleaning and attic clearing and stacking of furniture and taking down of all wall pictures has so changed the look of the house on the inside that it already feels like we're moving. And when I think of it, we're probably here only about 120 more days.

And I have to admit, I'm really happy about that. I'm really happy about returning to the Midwest (although I think Indiana is actually considered part of the Central Lowlands).

I futz around some more, then take a shower and get dressed up for a business lunch, finally settling down with my Mac in the basement around 8am. I crank until 10:45, then a quick dog walk, take a couple of important calls, and then I hop in my Pilot for the drive to the lunch.

I sit with Dave Chesebrough, President of the Association for Enterprise Integration, and Steve DeAngelis, President and CEO of Enterra Solutions and we have a nice meal at Coddington Brewery near Gate 11 of the Naval Base.

Dave, I know from several years back, as I've kicked off their annual conference for two years straight and will do so again this year in DC (Reagan building—great theater!) in May. He wanted to prep me on the conference and talk over some other issues/possibilities. Steve, whom I never met before, struck me as a bit tongue-tied at first as Dave and I chatted, but when he launched into a description of his company, that man could speak as fast as I can at full throttle. Listening to him, I realized why people like to invest in what he does (he's successful from a long way back), because he talks like someone who really knows his stuff—I mean, REALLY. Since I know what it takes to get to that point (practice, practice, practice), I really admired his delivery. Very passionate guy, very interesting company, very on-target vision to do good. Enterra is like a SysAdmin company for the Core's private sector. Very cool.

Best part about Enterra, Steve used PNM in the business plan as a cite, and even sends out copies to future potential partners and clients to help them understand their perspective on business and the world. Gotta like that in a future collaborator!

Plus, Steve's a fellow adopting-from-China father, which is an added plus with me nowadays, for reasons I don't have to cite.

All in all, a real fascinating lunch that left me very jazzed about the connectivity coming my way since I left the college. I hope to do good and important things with both AFEI and Enterra.

Back home after the lunch, Vonne and I sit with a rep from the National Association of the Self-Employed, talking our way through a host of healthcare enrollment forms. Very nice deal. Also very portable. Beats our COBRA continuation by about 50%. My thanks to business manager Steffany Hedenkemp, fellow partner in The New Rule Sets Project LLC, for putting us on this track. After our time with Dr. Gil, to whom I'm pretty sure I sold a book, I go to pick up the older kids from school.

Then back after that, I slip back into editing from about 3:30 to 9pm, breaking for dinner and giving baths to Jer and Vonne Mei. Jerry got a bunch of Star Wars figures for his birthday (which I missed—ahem—a one-time habit I plan to break), and the coolest is the snowman monster from Empire Strikes Back—complete with detachable "cut-away" arm just like the one Luke severs with his light saber! Too cool! So I go at it with Jerry's Mickey and Minnie Mouse dolls, stealing Minner and having Mickey rip my arm off repeatedly to rescue her. Mei Mei (as Jerry calls her, it actually means "little sister" in Chinese) thinks this is hilarious.

As for stories that catch my eye today:

■ George Melloan's op-ed in WSJ today, (A21), "Hu Faces Rising Distrust of the Communist Party," makes a solid point that has been my operating theory on this whole Taiwan law (and then quickly dismisses it): that Hu did this simply to solidify himself as new chair of Central Military Commission (remember it wasn't that long ago that Jiang Jemin gave up this post). To me, this is the best explanation for this "tough" step: Hu is insulating himself against future charges of being soft on Taiwan, which was the whisper campaign Jiang used on him for a long time as part of his strategy of keeping that important military post to himself in "retirement."

■ Interesting story on NYT front page "Reshaping Nuclear Rules: Bush Seeks to Close Loopholes in Treaty Letting Iran and Others Enrich Uranium," by David E. Sanger: seems queerly legalistic for an administration not given to respecting treaties all that much, but I guess it gives the White House some sense of building a case. Me, I am unimpressed, if this is the strategy.

■ Last one was "Huge Demonstration in Lebanon Demands End to Syrian Control," by Neil MacFarquhar on front page of NYT. Big thing about this one was opposition demonstrating same ability to mass the ranks as Hezbollah did last week. Tit for tat, and pretty cool at that.

Promised myself to exercise tonight. Really just an excuse to watch "Pride and Prejudice" while on the treadmill. Need to break the mind lock, and I've yet to answer any email today, so gotta run.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 16 March 2005

Very quiet day for me, doing a slow and careful edit of the first chapter. All fixes already made, so this was just the read through, changing only what really irked me, and sticking in arguments I've developed since the first draft. Worked from 0700 to 1200, with only a break to talk things over with long-time mentor Hank Gaffney at the Center for Naval Analyses by phone. Got through 34 pages out of 41, and will finish early tomorrow.

Had to break at 12:15 to pick up Jerry at pre-school. After that it was cleaning straight on through until our guests from China arrived at around 4:30. The two we knew from before were Prof. Niu Ke from Beijing University (for some reason the Chinese still insist on calling this Peking University, but once trained, I can never go back), who's now the Yenching scholar at Harvard for the year. He is getting access to all sorts of books he never thought he'd get access to, which is less a Chinese coming to American thing than an anybody coming to Harvard thing. Harvard's library system is stunningly rich and deep, especially in Cold War security studies, which is Ke's forte, so I understand his excitement well. I spent many many hours wandering the stacks at Widener and other libraries there, although that whole concept now feels like a bygone era, like typewriters.

Niu Ke brought our great guide from our Beijing time, good friend Zhang Yue, who is just about the sweetest woman Vonne and I know, we both fell in love with her about 15 minutes after meeting her. It was hugely exciting to have her in our house, meeting our kids. She was only here three hours, but it was a very special night for us, reminding me of what a fantastic trip we had in China and how that entire experience changed our lives for the better.

With Ke and Yue came three additional gentlemen, all very charming and very interesting to talk to, especially one fellow who's lived in LA for 10 years now. So we toured the house and the yard, and my kids put on displays throughout (piano, singing, drawing manga, acrobatics on the backyard playset, various games on the widescreen, etc.)—totally non-stop performances which our guest delighted in throughout.

I must confess, I must adjust my assumptions about Chinese adult males and kids. While in China I never saw many men with kids, so I didn't get much sense of the interaction, but these guys were all very adept charmers with all four of my kids. So I have to say I was very impressed.

So, a lot of great conversations, a huge, fabulous meal from my unbelievable live-in cook, more pictures than I can remember, lots of hugs, and real sadness to see them go. What a special night it was. Our guests acted like it was a big deal for me to break from my "busy schedule," but the treat was all ours.

Only one story caught my eye today: "Is the Empire Striking Back? Keep Japan out of the Taiwan debate," an op-ed by Yong Xue, an assistant prof of Asian history at Suffolk University (NYT, 16 March 2005, p. A23). Here's the passage that really rang true for me:

On the issue of Taiwan, the United States would be wise to deal with China alone. After all, anti-American sentiment in China is shallow. Many Chinese people continue to admire America for both its values and its political system. More practically, they also realize that China needs the United States to maintain a stable international order so its economy can continue to grow. They have benefited greatly from trade with America.

They are also sophisticated enough to understand America's distrust of China's emerging power; they expect only sensible and fair leadership. The Bush administration should deal with China in a business-like manner, without needless provocation that leave the moderate forces within Chinese government and society little room for maneuvering. In this respect, unilateralism may be preferable to multilateralism—especially if America's partner is Japan.

Japan, you have to remember, invaded China in WWII, killed millions, and not only never cut a peace treaty, it never has bothered to apologize for anything connected with its brutal occupation. America, if you remember, fought on China's side against the Japanese.

So Xue's point is a simple one: getting Japan to toss its hat in the ring on our defense guarantee on Taiwan accomplished nothing of utility in our relationship with China. I remain flabbergasted by the choice. But such is the skill of American diplomacy in the world today.

Above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 17 March 2005

Going on "RadioTimes with Marty Moss-Coane," which is broadcast by WHYY out of Philadelphia live today at 10am EST. Dave Davies will be hosting the show tomorrow. He fills in often, as well as for "Fresh Air with Terry Gross." He is a reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News. And he has been poring over PNM for the past couple of weeks, I am told.

Dateline: trapped above the garage (thankful I went to the bathroom) in Portsmouth RI, 17 March 2005

Probably good I didn't know this beforehand. Hour-long interviews are a real effort, in terms of energy. I'm busy still editing Chapter One, but . . . once committed, you simply have to follow through.

[I will check back during a break]

Actually, here is the note on the WHYY website:

Radio Times for Thursday, March 17th
Hour 1
Guest host Dave Davies talks with THOMAS BARNETT, military analyst who has worked in national security affairs since the end of the Cold War. He is author of “The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century.” He is a blogger on global security and world events and a contributing editor to Esquire magazine.

Find it at http://www.whyy.org/91FM/RadioTimes.html

[checking back at 20 past hour]

This guy surprises me with a lengthy opening sequence on working in the Pentagon, the world of PowerPoint, etc--all very career oriented.

Then we segue into the 1990s being similar to the 1920s, which forces me into a long explanation of rule-sets, my shorthand for the 1990s, globalization needs a bodyguard, etc.

Get a short break for commercials, now back at it:

[second break]

Got into more globalization stuff, then SysAdmin-Leviathan. Took first question from caller (big two-parter) and gave a long answer. As so often happens in the middle-segment in an hour-long interview, it just flew by in a blur. Now the rush of the last segment where the interviewer tries to cram in everthing he wants to cover.

[. . .]

Ooops! Host caught me typing as he started third section, and asked if I was blogging the show while on the show!

I guess that was his gentle way to ask me to stop that damn ticky-tapping sound in the background!

But it did allow me to offer this URL on the air.

This guy did a great job of cramming it all in: al Qaeda, Big Bang, Wolfowitz nomination to World Bank, the Iran-bomb argument, and the North Korea take-down argument. Plus, we got a huge question from Tariq that allowed me to push connectivity over democracy as a theme!

Then, to end the show, host gives me a huge opening to plug The New Rule Sets Project LLC.

Damn! Nice show.

Producer on the phone after it ends: will send me CD and will post archive broadcast we can link to.

Not bad for one hour!

[signing off at 11:04]

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 17 March 2005

Today I finished the substance edit on Chapter One, then re-edited the entire text a second time, adding three bits I realized I had used many times in the brief and somehow had assumed had gotten into the text, but they hadn't. All important points to me, so glad they got in.

Hard to explain, but for now hard for me to remember the entire text at 140,000. Need to have read/edited it at least 10 times before it gets very solid in your head.

After the second read, finished just now at 2100, I did a spellcheck and then sent back to Mark. Printing out the second edition now. It begins the new pile in the Author's Box, and the old, first draft, in 18 separate sections, now goes into the archives. This second version is printed out in chapters. The third edition that will go to Putnam on 1 April will be one, big single file.

Spoke with Mark over the phone this afternoon. We talk scheduling for my two Esquire projects--both DC-based. First trip, set by the handlers down there, will come before the 1 April book date, so that may slip the weekend into Monday, 4 April, as a result. May result in some last-minute rewriting too, given with whom I'll be talking.

Mark is threatening to kill my "Iraq Lessons Learned" section that would otherwise start off Chapter Two. He has a good point, so it's a tough call. I cover Iraq so much in Chapter 1 that it may feel too much like a regurgitation, meaning we cut for the classic reason: pacing (as in, "Enough already, let's move on!"). Still, the section with some good bits--many, I think. So what to do? If it gets cut down too much, it can come off as cursory. Again, a tough call that we'll discuss quite a bit.

Still, we're both feeling awfully good on Chapter 1. It is the King Kong of the book (though 5 is my favorite), just like Chapter 3 in PNM. I predict most reviews will never make it past Chapter 1, it's that big.

Editing it wasn't hard, and yet it felt like passing a stone. Very intense, small work, like engraving or something. I get much more tired doing this than writing, but I like it a lot more. It's actually more relaxing.

However, if I was doing this on my own, I know I'd be freaking right now--big time. So having Mark along for the entire process is really great. Stressful for both families, but we have a blast doing this. It's like a mind-meld that goes on for way too long (you can almost hear Spock screaming in the background!).

A short comment on Wolfowitz for World Bank: He does have the background, and he'll probably do a really good job. He wants to be his own guy, and this is one helluva job for someone with his long career of working with foreign governments. To me, it's putting in the WB a guy who's really smart on developing Asia (former ambassador to Indonesia famous for his immersion techniques), and that's a huge plus right now. Getting all of Asia into the Core is more important than fixing the Middle East in the grand scheme of things--a lot more important. Having someone Bush really trusts in that job is key--a very good sign. It's yet another amazing turn for a guy with an amazing career. I honestly see it as overwhelmingly positive, understanding the many misgivings many have about him. Comparing him to McNamara is nonsense, really. Two very different people. Wolfowitz is no technocrat, not even a Vulcan. Deep down, he's far more romantic in his understanding of the world than anyone realizes, in my opinion. He'll do fine. It'll be a great choice in the end.

Want to go work out. Have for four days in a row, usually at 10:45 pm to 11:30pm. My 45-minute stints on treadmill are great, because I watch DVDs on Mac. Go very vigorous speed-walk, with strong uphill tilt. I have gone from Shatner Episode #79 (last one) to maybe Episode #60 (still third season, but I'm feeling tighter). If I stay disciplined, my goal is to return to the Shatner waistline of . . . oh . . . "Charley" in Year 1.

Watched the BBC Colin Firth (Mr. Darcy)--Jennifer Ehle (Elizabeth Bennett) version of "Pride and Prejudice" while I worked out these last several days. Really my favorite single soap opera of all time. Must finally read the book someday. Just one of the best productions of anything I've ever seen, so I love watching it again and again (maybe my tenth time now). Gonna do "Sense and Sensibility" and then "Emma" next. Then I'm not sure, maybe a bunch of Kurosawa samurai flicks (lest I become too sensitive).

Baby's cranky, and mother-in-law here. Nona and spouse leave for NYC and a bunch of musicals and plays, so I have all four kids, plus kitty, plus puppy to myself. I expect to get ooodles done on the book between now and Monday, and drink the rest of the beer from our Chinese feast . . .

Oh, and get down to maybe Shatner in Episode #55, which I think was "Specter of the Gun" (a favorite).

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, still trying to get on the treadmill (damn! and I have to walk the dog one more time!) in Portsmouth RI, 17 March 2005

Here is the URL for the online archived audio file. I start a bit shaky, then really pick up speed. Davies REALLY read the book, and he REALLY knows how to interview (both steering me and keeping his mouth shut when he should--almost Brian Lamb-like), so he gets a good interview.

whyy.org/rameta/RT/2005/RT20050317_20.ram

Dateline: out of my mind in Portsmouth RI, 18 March 2005

The Russian word for insanity is sumashedshii, as in sue-ma-SHED-she. The prefix "s" stands for "away from," "um" means "mind," "shed" means "having gone," and "shii" is the adjectival ending. To be "insane" in Russian translates as "having gone away from your mind." Neat etymology, huh?

I am ready to sue my wife for divorce, if only to force her immediate return from New York. I have been alone with the kids for . . . oh . . . six hours, and I'm stressing out.

Interesting stories today:

First is "Pentagon Invites Allies for First Time to Secret Talks Aimed at Sharing Burdens," by Thom Shanker in the NYT, p. A18. Don't kid yourself, this has nothing to do with the Leviathan force, but with getting allies to help more on sharing the SysAdmin's many burdens. Interesting bit on the Quadrennial Defense Review: the word "transformation" largely excised, because it's so identified with high-tech programs—yet another sign of the transformation of transformation from high-tech to low-tech, from capital to labor, from Leviathan to SysAdmin. Also interesting: the Pentagon is finally abandoning the 2 major theater whatevers (wars, contingencies, responses, crises) as the force-sizing principle. Why? Once you really take terrorism seriously, such measures no longer capture the world. So if "win decisively" and "swiftly defeat" are gone as parameters, what's next? As one official says, DoD may have to "come up with a new lexicon and a new construct." Hmmm. Gotta like the sound of that.

Trio of articles on nukes this and that. First ("As Evidence Grows Of Iran's Program, U.S. Hits Quandary," by Carla Anne Robbins, WSJ, p. A1) makes it clear that the mullahs aren't giving up. Why? We have virtually no leverage, only threats we know we won't go through with. As I said on Tucker Carlson's show: There isn't any question but that Iran's getting the bomb. The only question that remains is: what do we get in return? Think hard about that question, because someday soon we'll need an answer. Second ("Brazil's Chance to Lead on Nuclear Containment," op-ed by Bernard Aronson, WSJ, p. A13) sees a former State official arguing that Brazil's unwillingness to stop its uranium enrichment program is a real problem for a Bush administration trying to close that loop in the Non-Proliferation Treaty, one that allows states to enrich uranium for power purposes. I can see that one working well, given the third article ("Uranium Becomes the New Hot Commodity," by Patrick Barta, WSJ, p. C1), which points out how nuclear power is coming back big-time the world over. I mean, the Core's gonna go wild on nukes in coming decades, but we're going to try and control uranium enrichment the planet over. Remember this: it's not which country has the bomb that's the issue, but what its leaders think about its potential usage. Plenty of countries have gotten the bomb in the last half-century, but we remain the only nation to have used one—twice. Ask yourself if this is the best way to win a war on terrorism, or is it a great way to weaken and possibly split the Core?

Third one is about Zimbabwe ("For Zimbabwe, Peaceful Vote, But Is It Fair?" by Michael Wines and Sharon LaFraniere, NYT, p. A1) and Mugabe's big efforts to pretend this upcoming election is going to be truly free. Good show of letting opposition leaders talk, but clear signs around the dial that the fix is in. Still, interesting that Mugabe feels the need to put on such a fake show. Does the Big Bang reach all the way down there?

Fourth one is about women reformists in American Muslim mosques ("Muslim Group Is Urging Women to Lead Prayers," by Andrea Elliott, NYT, p. A14): a risky demonstration today in Manhattan with a woman Islamic scholar leading a prayer service. This is the work of the "progressive Muslim" movement in the U.S. You think American Catholics are a pain to the pope? The mullahs the world over will find this about as unpalatable as it gets. And yet it is an inevitable and unstoppable force. The Islamic Reformation has begun, and it will be first and foremost a Core-led affair. As one female American scholar puts it: "A new generation of Muslims is coming into its own . . . The children of the immigrants are looking for new ways to create an American Islam, one in which they feel comfortable in an American context." Ouch! Islam in the context of everything else. Mullahs! Start your nightmares!

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 19 March 2005

Watched movies late last night with kids, after taking them to diner and having decent dinner. We then went to Barnes and Noble on the island. Em got a bunch of manga books and Kevin got three Mad Magazines and a couple of Archie digests. I bought a "Pride and Prejudice" for myself for down times on planes and in airports.

Today it was all about getting the big family room up and ready for the painter, so lots of work before 0800. Escape with kids for the day in Providence at the big mall, shopping here and there (got "Mansfield Park" to complete my Austen quartet of DVDs) and seeing a movie ("Robots"--okay). Feeling pretty bad, sinus and allergy-wise.

During movie, started thinking more about something Mark cut from Chapter 1 that I wanted back in. When we got back, I put a wee bit of it back in, leaving the rest of his cut intact. Also added a couple of short bits on the Quadrennial Defense Review and the 2006 budget. Chapter 1 is the only chapter where such current issues will play, as the rest of the book projects into the future. Just covering my ass, I guess, from the predictably pinheaded academic reviews ("Sadly, Barnett chose to ignore the 2006 budget and the obviously historic change embodied in the QDR!").

Getting nervous now over chapter 2. Fear Mark is going to really push to kill entire first section. Either that or he's working a severe edit. But he does have a point on avoiding repetition, plus he argues that everyone and anyone has already done Iraq occupation post-mortems, so why should I? Shouldn't I stick to exactly what I do best?

Ah, but you worry about the review: "Strangely, Barnett chose not to have even a single section of his book explore the failures of the Iraq occupation in a dedicated fashion! Yes, he mentioned it 5,000 times throughout the text, but clearly he was afraid to deal with the issue head-on . . . "

Can you tell I read a bad review recently?

Mark always tells me to skip reviews why I'm working, but this one came in the mail and it was especially pinheaded and academic: guy writing for Defense Intelligence Journal very upset with my characterization of "Pentagon strategists" in the 1990s, and gives scathing review of book as result. Then he launches into review of various books written in 1990s and articles written in various war college reviews, proving that my comments about the Pentagon were all wrong! Except, of course, he doesn't. He doesn't deal with my comments on the Pentagon whatsoever. He's just really pissed that I didn't cite a wide range of really mediocre military writings from all over the Defense Department's academic centers in my book, and that I'm now the equivalent of a "national security rock star." Weird, straw-man sort of review. I criticize the Pentagon and actually mean the Pentagon, not the hinterlands, and he comes back at me all hurt and prideful because he feels the hinterlands got shortshrift in my book. My god! The academic ego on display . . .

Oh, and just to make it clear, this colonel's bio at the end of the piece points out he's currently a head academic down at the Air Command and Staff College and that, before that position, he edited an academic military journal. Ouch! He must have really loved the response my brief received down there in AL last November from his college's entire class!

I'll review the review at some point in the future, but I will need plenty of time to type up the very long text, since it's not online.

Still, reading it reminded me of why it was a VERY GOOD THING to leave the DoD academic world.

Only article I want to cite today is by Robin Wright, pretty much always good for the Washington Post: "In Mideast, Shiites May Be Unlikely U.S. Allies," 16 March, p. A16.

Point of this is simply to point out that the Big Bang most likely means that biggest agents for positive change in region will be Shiites, a group we have had trouble dealing with for ever so long. As one Iranian-born expert (Shaul Bakhash) at George Mason puts it: "America is going to have to deal with newly empowered groups in the region for whom religion clearly has much greater centrality than for the Sunni elites with whom the U.S. has been dealing up to now. It's a turning point in the sense that [the Bush administration] recognizes the realities in the region."

Why is this so stunning? Because Shiites make up big chunks of the populations in three countries where our stakes are highest, Wright argues: Iraq, Iran, Lebanon. Shiites are only 10-15 percent of Muslims worldwide, but half the Muslims in the patch stretching from Lebanon through Iraq through Iran to Pakistan.

Bigger point: as the minorities long suppressed, Shiites are our natural allies in reform:

Given current opportunities, some [Shiite communities] fall naturally into the role of agents of change. "For over 1,000 years, Shiites have been critical of political affairs in Muslim states," [Iraqi Shiite Laith] Kubba said. "The Shiites have been encouraged recently to speak up and spell out injustices. They've now become really vocal about it."

People say I don't understand Iran's theocracy? Hah! People gotta be a lot more realistic about who's really likely to help us secure lasting change in the Middle East. You may not like the mullahs, but you better find a way to get at that Shiite population through them, whether you like them or not.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 19 March 2005

Got it from Neil Nyren this week after the decision to remove TPNM from the official title. The cover change is slight: still have TPNM as "brand" above, but it's shaded to distinguish it from main title. TPNM will not appear in any listings of the title, which will be shorted as BFA and rendered long-form as BFA: AFWC.

Here's the final cover:

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 20 March 2005

Mark was just killing himself yesterday trying to edit down section one ("The Lessons Learned With Iraq") of Chapter Two ("Winning This War With Connectedness"). I mean, I could just hear it in his voice. Family sent to the country, Mark all day in a coffee shop, his brain swelling to twice its normal size . . . GAAAAAD!

"Will no one rid me of this section!" he cries out in Manhattan.

Meanwhile, I keep adding stuff to Chapter 1, compounding Mark's perception that Section 1 of Chapter 2 is getting more and more redundant. He says, "It's killing my sense of momentum in the book. We establish this huge push with Chapter 1 and then need to keep going in Chapter 2, but this first section comes off as too much of a repeat from one."

After reading the section seriously yesterday afternoon, it hit me: Mark was really right. I was so caught up in my trios for each chapter that I stuck one in Chapter 2 that really doesn't need to be there, once I've written Chapter 1 in total the way I have.

So we're talking on the phone and he keeps making the point over and over again, which is when I can tell he wants me to come to some conclusion he's already been entertaining for some time. So we chat about maybe just killing Section 1 of Chapter 2 and using the good bits for some blistering Chapter 0 that does quite a rendition of what went wrong in Iraq, moving all the "Blogging the Future" scenarios from my originally proposed Chapter 0 to some sort of Postscript at the end, after the Conclusion. Mark likes the sound of that, up to a point. He's been gently pushing me to think of shoving all of Chapter 0 into a sequence at the end, because he thinks the material, while neat, is simply too diverting up front. The idea for Chapter 0 came from my agency, and it was a good one on paper, but it just hasn't worked out that way in the text, even as Mark and I both dig what I did in that proposed opening mini-chapter.

So there's at least one breakthrough: we're pretty much decided that if Chapter 0 lives, it will live at the end. Having written now the Preface and the intro to Chapter 1, I feel, as does Mark, that there's enough up front to fire up the reader and send him or her careening through the now big Chapter 1 (although I caution on that perception, because at almost 25,000 words, it's still—as I just discovered—5,000 words shorter than PNM's monstrous Chapter 3).

So we talk about stripping Section 1 of Chapter 2 for parts and reconstructing something in front of Chapter 1, but we quickly kill that notion, me more than Mark. Now I'm quoting him: no one's waiting on me to do a post-mortem on the Iraq occupation per se, only within the context of extending my arguments on the SysAdmin force and beyond, which I do in spades in Chapter 1, so there's no point in a Chapter 0 that tries to do that. If you really want that, read anything Anthony Cordesman's already done. Let Barnett be Barnett and not be a pale version of somebody else, we affirm.

So then I trot out possibility number 2, knowing full well that this is probably Mark's plan for at least the last 24 hours or more: I strip Section 1 of Chapter 2 for parts and insert them in Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter 1. This is what I do tonight after spending a day reconstructing the house after all that painting of the last three days, plus picking up some dinner and doing some long-planned shopping (a boombox for Kev, a mini-tape recorder with lotsa microcassettes and triple A batteries for me—expensed to Esquire for my upcoming interviews in DC for a couple of stories I'm working on). What I end up doing is just grabbing (copy and pasting off the original file of Section 1) the paras I really love and shoving them into the right spots in Chapter 1. It's really quite easy, I find, and in the end Chapter 1's word count jumps from just under 23k to just under 25k (and that's when I go back and do a quick word count on PNM's Chapter 3 and get over my fears on BFA's first chapter being too long).

Mark was so relieved when I proposed this. He said it was like he was getting ready to break up with somebody after dating them for months and then realizing it just wasn't going to work. He didn't have the heart to do it himself against my protestations, but . . . if I were to suggest it myself . . . then man, was he so incredibly relieved!

So, just like that, we kill 5,500 words, leaving Chapter 2 now with just two sections instead of three, which will make it far shorter but likewise far better, because now it will be really focused. Plus, Mark likes a book where the chapters vary in length, feeling that it gets to feel like artificial filling if every chapter stretches the same length for no compelling reason. So now Chapter 2 will be on the Big Bang in the Middle East and fighting the global Salafi jihadist movement, and whatever else I need to say about Iraq I'll make sure it gets into the first of those two sections (if it's not there already).

This was a big turning point for Mark and I on the book. Both of us felt, like last time, that the first two chapters would be the hardest to edit. By chapter 3, which Mark says he's already finished editing, the book is on autopilot, meaning I really know exactly what I want to say and it's coming out in reasonably right-sized and right-paced sections. But just like with PNM, chapters 1 and 2 were all about figuring out—writing and editing-wise—what this book was going to be all about in terms of tone, style, pacing, etc. Now we feel we have all that down, and—not surprisingly—we're looking to shape the book much as Mark predicted to me we should the first night we discussed it last fall. Back then, he said, we should make this second book all the more so in comparison to the first, so that what readers really loved about PNM, they'd love even more about this one, and what the critics hated about PNM, they'd hate even more about this one! So if PNM was about cartography and orientation, this one is far more focused on painting a brilliantly bright future and getting the reader inspired to act on that image. So Neil hits it on the head again: Blueprint for Action. The ambition is going to be all the more ambitious, the optimism all the more optimistic, and so on and so forth. There will be less of me, because less is required, and there will be more of other thinkers' ideas, because more of them are required. But the style and the vision remains infuriatingly my own, and we achieve the same thing we achieved with PNM: producing a book that only I could have written.

And frankly, no one should ever write a book unless it's one that only they could have written . . .

Three fascinating articles in NYT's "Week in Review":

First one ("Beyond the Bullets and Blades," by Marc Lacey, p. WK1) is really good, because it explores, thanks to some pathfinding research by Physicians for Human Rights and the International Rescue Committee, "how a society breaks apart when Africans flee the onslaught." You want war within the context of everything else? This is it.

Two graphics tell it all:

In first one, they note that "for every violent death in Congo's war zone," you get 28 children under 5 dead, plus 6 kids 5-14, plus 13 women 15-and-older, plus 15 men 15-and-older. How do they die? In their movement away from, through, and all around the violence, they come under stress. Six of these 62 nonviolent deaths come from malnutrition, 11 from respiratory diseases and diarrhea. Ten come from anemia, measles, meningitis, accidents, and TB. Seventeen come from fevers of various sorts, and 18 come from "other causes, to include newborn deaths and pregnancy-related deaths.

Graphic in back is even more telling: "destroying a family." A 75-year-old man had lived with his family and livestock in the Darfur region of Sudan, until his local city was hit by the janjaweed. In their retreat to refugee camps and their survival there, what was a man and his wife, their seven kids and at least three times that many grandkids, plus 3 donkeys, 25 camels and 105 sheep and goats is now reduced to this: a man and his wife, 4 kids, 10 grandkids, and 1 donkey. They're guessing 10 family members are dead, along with 104 animals lost or stolen or dead. That's a family destroyed. How many died a violent death? Who knows? But most probably did not.

War within the context of everything else.

Second story (Op-Chart "Two Years and Counting" by Lawrence J. Korb and Nigel Holmes, two personnel experts, p. WK13) does big run-down on the roughly 1,500 U.S. troop deaths since the war/occupation began.

Interesting numbers abound.

30% Marines and 50% Army and 16% Reserve Component. All inner-city poor? Like Michael Moore would have you believe? 26% urban, 40% suburban, and 33% rural. Average poverty rate of public high schools attended was exactly the nation average (30%), so very much a cross-section of the country. 96% were HS grads. 89% were enlisted, but then, 85% of all personnel in the military are enlisted, so no great surprise there. 73% were white, when only 67% of all the military are white. 12% were Hispanic, above their 9% for the military as a whole. African-Americans accounted for 11% of all the deaths, well below the 19% they represent in the military.

Why is that latter point true? African-Americans go in for the SysAdmin jobs more than others (a fact), tending to be in it for the longer haul than most, I'm guessing.

Third story is the usual yin-yang thing on China ("In Hong Kong, China Prefers Power to Law," by Keith Bradsher, p. WK4). China definitely cracking down a bit on Hong Kong as they swap out bosses and cut down terms from five years to two.

But here's the odd part you can't forget: "From purchases of handheld toys to charters of supertankers, contracts in China are frequently written so that disputes must be resolved under Hong Kong law and in Hong Kong courts—even when the parties involved are mainland companies."

The CCP wants its rule sets, but at its own speed. Where have we seen this before? With basically every emerging market over the past half century.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 21 March 2005

A strange transition day, with Vonne and her mom returning from their 3 nights and five plays in NYC around midday, a bunch of errands, a bunch of paperwork and scheduling for varous trips (speeches and Esquire assignments), and a whole lot of training Bailey on the invisible fence, which I reactivated today. Got him a big-dog collar, threw the little flags in the ground and set about it.

I must admit, I don't drag it out as long as the manual says. Short story being, after drilling him several times on coming back in toward the house as a rule, I let him wander past the flag for his first shock. As expected, he came right back to me a bit scared and confused, although you could see him recognize something bad was coming on the basis of the sound emitter in the collar just before the shock. Later (we went out about 8 times today) I let him chase a car . . . right up to the flags, and I let him decide he was going to see the big dog in the yard behind ours (also on the IF) . . . right up to the flags. Last time out just now he caught the sound twice and immediately jumped back in from the flags, showing a lot of care to remain juuuust inside the marked barrier.

Within a week I bet he'll be able to go out alone, which he'll love, because he loves to sniff around for as long as you let him, plus he can chew on the playset (we have a very large one I built years ago) and dig in the pea gravel that surrounds it.

Last four days have been very nice, actually, very much a matter of immersing myself in parenthood in a way that can only happen when you're pretty much it as the single parent. Nice break for Vonne, nice reconnection for me. Audiences are great, but the appreciation of your kids--while they're still your little kids--is impossible to beat. And it was nice to feel all that in abundance.

Long talk with Mark Warren today about the book and the projects for Esquire. He had sent me Chapter 2 last night but it never made it into my Hotmail, so I connected him to my new account and I'll dig into it first thing in the morning. Tomorrow will be a long day in the dark basement again--just me and the word. I will break, though, for a business lunch on Goat Island just off Newport. I have a senior exec from a national lab coming to meet me and discuss future possibilities, at his request. That'll be a nice break in the day.

Some good stories today, but nothing I feel compelled to blog when I feel so tired. It really is exhausting mentally and emotionally to be around such highly-charged kids 24/7, inevitably sleeping with one or two of the youngest. They're just in your face or on your chest and pulling at your arms basically all the time.

I now know what my wife means when she says she's tired. I knew that before, but you tend to forget, so this weekend was good.

I have several days in a row now to work on the book and then I have a couple of days on Esquire stuff, so the focus has to be laser-like for now, even as I start some conversations with key trusted friends on one Esquire project, take this lunch tomorrow, have the painter come to do some more tomorrow night, get the healthcare set up, review details and planning on this "New Map Game" with Alidade that we're set to do at the end of May, and continue plotting various other endeavors. Plus train the dog, get the house finally ready to show, and review listings from our realtor in Indiana.

I'm just glad I'm not totally on the hook for the kids for the rest of the week.. .

Check out the New Map Game website ("The New Map Game: Investigating War and Peace in the 21st Century"). The opening is pretty cool. We're having a fascinating email discussion on the countries we're going to pick for Old Core, New Core, Seam State and Gap (we'll have four teams of 25-30 players distributed across those four categories, so deciding the ultimte mix is key--and fun to spin out in your head).

Off to work out. Getting to be a real selfish prick on that score, but I feel it is essential as a self-employed breadwinner for six.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 22 March 2005

Got up expecting to dive into Chapter 2, except Warren's email lost. So bug him at home. He resends. I receive. Get it on my Mac and head to basement. Have my Vonne-crafted breakfast roll and java all set, lighting just so, open the file, and it's absent any comments from Mark!

So waste morning revamping my bio (when in self-doubt, self-stroke). Mark finally gets it to me just before I'm leaving for business lunch. I am stunned by his number of comments (42 compared to 15 for Chapter 1), and at a loss on how to intro chapter.

So I head off to lunch, nothing accomplished.

Lunch with guy from Oak Ridge National Lab is pretty cool. This man really knows how to woo someone just like me. Geez, if Naval War College had this guy's smarts, I never would have left. And he's a retired 1-star USA general!

Very impressive LLC that runs Oak Ridge for DoEnergy. U Tennessee plus Battelle. Smart set-up, smart company. I'd be stupid to not want to make something happen with that much talent shoved into one private-sector entity.

Plus, I worked out my issues on intro to Chapter 2 with this guy over nice lunch!

Back in basement, spend about 5 f--king hours to write 3-page intro. I'd rather have my tonsils out again. Feel so bad at end, I call Mark and read over phone in desperation. He loves it!

I am spent for day at that point. Watch a bunch of "Incredibles" with Jerry, the real "Dash." Then work out to second 45-minute chunk of "Emma." Then phonecon with NRSP colleagues.

Too much, too fast, but good day. Once past Chapter 2, Mark and I are convinced it's smooth sailing. Having tried out a bunch of material on Oak Ridge guy today, I am getting more and more convinced that BFA will be a BFD!

Tomorrow, I deal with the 42 "issues" Mark has with chapter. He threatened to "kick my ass" on 12 of them . . .

Really, he actually writes stuff like that!

Dateline: in front of a roaring fire on a snowy night in Portsmouth RI, 23 March 2005

Spent the whole day (free time, that is) working Chapter 2's 42 callouts from Mark on my Mac in the basement (damn comfy wrap-around couch). Two were big inserts, maybe another dozen with sizeable ones, and the rest were medium-to-small-sized fixes. I started at 0800 and went right through to 4pm, breaking only for times outside with the dog, who's getting better with the invisible fence each day. At 4pm I broke from the effort, having nailed all 42 items.

At that point we packed everyone (all four kids, Vonne and I, and Vonne's mom) into my Pilot and drove to Swansea MA to a Japanese restaurant we really love (we know the owners from a school our kids previously attended off-island). That's always fun being around the grill and getting the full show, plus the food's so good.

The snow was falling pretty heavily on the way home, so we're worried about Nona's departure at 0600 tomorrow morning. We're up at 0300 to start the process, and since I'm driving, I may be spending much of the day at TF Green editing on my Mac.

For now, the fire's dying and I'm contemplating the workout, wondering if the extra hour of sleep would make much difference. I'm guessing it could, especially driving in a snowstorm in the dark, so I'll play it safer tonight and hit the hay without it.

Overall, the book editing is going well. I have probably 4 more hours to do my run-through on Chapter 2 tomorrow, and then I dig into Chapter 3. My guess, though, is that we'll not truly be done editing the main text until about a week after the deadline, so like last time, we'll be working some back-end when we turn in the virtually completed text on April Fool's.

I remain worried about how much Esquire assignment number 1 will impinge on our extended editing efforts in April. Last time Neil Nyren at Putnam gave us another 3 weeks to nail the editing, and we'll need something similar this time, lest the review copy contain too many mistakes. Then again, it's the review copy, so there's only so much to be done with that.

Tsk, tsk. Best to stay focused on the topic at hand.

Oh yes, getting to bed.

Dateline:above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 24 March 2005

Finished the edit of Chapter 2 today. Ended up being almost 24k, so not much smaller than 1.

Rest of day lost in various phonecalls on Esquire assignment (fascinating), talking with Mark on the book, quick interview to French journalist (Le Point), and sit-down with United Van Lines rep to estimate cost of move to IN (plenty less than I had budgeted, so pretty happy with that one).

Feel cold coming on in throat.

Wanted to blog long interview I gave to US News reporter earlier in week on China (please watch for that story), plus various weird things written (blog quoted in one DC newspaper), U. Berkeley story on me, and something else.

But . . . screw it . . . Kev just came up and pointed to clock. Promised kids we'd watch Monty Python's "Meaning of Life."

Hmmm. Meaning of life. I'm almost certain it isn't found here in my blog . . .

Night.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 25 March 2005

Feel pretty bad with cold. Still, work to be done. So, got up at 0700 and did 2.5-hour interview by phone for Esquire story. Used my cell and taped it all with my new microcassette recorder. Worked well.

Did later interview in afternoon same way. Will send all FEDEX to Esquire on Monday for transcribing. This was all big practice for next week's trio of interviews in DC. Gotta remember my passport, cause I need two picture IDs and I no longer carry any USG ones.

Rest of day lost to phone calls nonstop, and general malaise of cold. Have chapter 3 from Mark and may work it tonight (opening intro + callouts in first of three sections). This is the growing-the-Core chapter and it reads well from get-go, so should be easier.

Got attempted written transcript back from French journalist (Le Point; spoke with him yesterday), but he had so mangled my responses I simply had to say no. He tried to talk me into email responses, but I'm just too down right now to make his deadline. That is first time that's ever happened to me, but I don't know what else to do right now.

I'm just wearing down. Probably shouldn't have bothered to write anything here, but I feel some responsibility to the blog.

Gonna go lie down and try to make something happen on the Mac. If I eat, that might help.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 25 March 2005

Find the original at www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2005/03/17_Barnett.shtml

War and peace, bells and whistles at Dwinelle

Nimitz lecturer Thomas Barnett says our best weapon against terrorism is increased globalization

By Barry Bergman, Public Affairs | 17 March 2005

Generals, the axiom goes, are forever fighting the last war. Thomas Barnett thinks that’s putting it mildly.

Nimitz lecturer Barnett power-pointed during his Dwinelle talk (Peg Skorpinski photo)

The former U.S. Naval War College professor (and in-demand author of The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the 21st Century) warns that the American military’s mindset remains frozen in the Cold War, and that its reluctance to adapt leaves the nation ill-equipped to deal with terrorist threats and other modern-day global challenges.

In an era of unconventional wars, Barnett, an “economic determinist” who views globalization as the best hope for tamping down terrorism, seems a fittingly unconventional war strategist. (“Deep down,” he confesses in his blog, www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog, “I consider myself a peace strategist.”) A proponent of the 2003 Iraq invasion, he’s a self-described “Tony Blair Democrat” — a Democrat on domestic issues, but hawkish on foreign affairs — who voted for Al Gore in 2000, and advised the Kerry campaign in 2004.

He has also delivered controversial briefings to an impressive array of military brass and intelligence VIPs, armed with a PowerPoint presentation that, the Wall Street Journal wrote, “more resembles performance art than a Pentagon briefing.” Barnett brought that presentation to campus on Wednesday, March 9, for the first of two Chester W. Nimitz Memorial Lectures in National Security Affairs, under the aegis of the campus Military Affairs Program. With his crewcut and clipped, gravelly bark, and framed by an ever-changing backdrop of loopily animated slides, he suggested a younger, civilian-clad George C. Scott in Patton, with PowerPoint standing in for the Stars and Stripes. The packed house at Dwinelle Hall, including dozens of blue-uniformed members of the Air Force ROTC, was dazzled.

Barnett began by noting he’d recently left the War College, a career shift that hasn’t affected his message, he insisted, but that does mean “I have to apologize less for what I say.” Over the next two hours he fired off unapologetic shots at Colin Powell, Richard Clarke, the United Nations, Michael Moore, Condoleezza Rice, Ann Coulter, the Department of Homeland Security, and the CIA, among others, and described the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by al Qaeda as “the first live-broadcast snuff film in human history.”

“First chance I ever got to watch about three dozen people I knew fairly well die, live on national television,” he said. “I was meant to be impressed, and I was impressed.”

The events of 9/11 were what Barnett calls “system perturbations,” shocks emanating from the “lesser includeds” — military-speak for less-developed countries that U.S. forces are presumed capable of keeping in check, and thus that are implicitly “included” in any strategy to stave off threats from great-power countries like Russia and China. In fact, said Barnett, demands on the U.S. military since the collapse of the Soviet Union have had almost nothing to do with great powers but have centered more and more on discretionary deployments in hot spots like Somalia, the Balkans, and Haiti.

Yet while the global challenges have evolved, he added, the American military remains too small, and too focused on the likelihood of great-power war, to deal with the new global reality.

“If you want an explanation for Abu Ghraib and every other snafu that’s happened in this [Iraqi] occupation,” he said, “you can find it in our response to this rising demand curve across the 1990s, and the Pentagon’s refusal to get off the Big One, in terms of contingency planning, and adjust itself to a world of lesser includeds.”

What 9/11 showed, according to Barnett, is that the most serious threat is not from so-called great powers but from groups of “super-empowered individuals,” a phrase coined by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, another staunch advocate of globalization. Where we once had to worry about the Soviet Union “blowing up the world,” today “it’s all about killing bad guys,” said Barnett. “If you don’t pay attention to that kind of change, you’re going to be deeply confused — as so many in the Pentagon are.”

The Core and the Gap



“Disconnectedness defines danger,” Barnett declared. “That’s my mantra.” He breaks the world into two categories: the Functioning Core, characterized by financial opportunity, stable governments, and rising standards of living; and the Non-integrating Gap, where political repression, widespread poverty and disease, and chronic conflicts create breeding grounds for terrorists.

“One-third of the world is still outside the global economy, noses pressed to the glass, unable to join,” he said, adding that “terrorism is not caused by poverty,” but by “disconnectedness.” The reason a father in the West Bank straps on an explosive vest, said Barnett, is that “he sees no better future. He thinks that’s the next best step. That is disconnectedness.”

Calling Osama bin Laden “a latter-day Lenin,” Barnett insisted the way to defeat him is to cause “system perturbations” of our own — the Iraq invasion being a good example — while simultaneously shrinking the Gap and expanding the Core.

“What he’s going to try to do is drive the West out of the Middle East and hijack the Middle East out of the global economy,” said Barnett. “If we want to defeat that purpose, we’ve got to connect the Middle East to the global economy faster than he can disconnect it.”

Such a strategy, he made clear, includes war — but war, as he sees it, “in the context of everything else.”

“What we’re searching for in many ways is a new definition for not just the American way of war,” he said, “but a new definition of the American way of peace, which frankly we do better than any other military on the planet, and we still suck at it — as we’ve seen in Iraq.”

Turning to the Bush administration’s lack of preparedness for the postwar occupation, Barnett sniffed, “Condi Rice? Everybody said we’re not gonna do nation-building, we’re not gonna do any of that peacekeeping crap, none of it. Condi said, ‘The 82nd Airborne isn’t gonna escort any children into kindergarten on my watch’ — words she has yet to eat.”

He also dismissed the views of pundits on the right (“Ann Coulter says ‘hell, let’s kill ‘em all’”), the left (Michael Moore takes a “soda-straw view of history”), and in the middle, such as former anti-terrorism czar Richard Clarke (“If he had his way he’d put a big fence around America. Trust me, I know this guy — you don’t want to live in his country.”).

As for the Department of Homeland Security, Barnett called it “a strategic feel-good measure” and “mostly a waste of money.” Its creation, he added sarcastically, was “a transformative event — especially for those poor bastards that actually have to work there.”

“Americans do not want to hear this,” Barnett wrote in the March 2003 Esquire magazine article on which he based his book, “but the real battlegrounds in the global war on terrorism are still out there.” If we want to ensure our security, he told his Nimitz audience, we need a military nimble enough to complement our economic and diplomatic efforts to bring more of the world’s people from the Gap into the Core.

“Direction is critical, not degree,” he maintained, observing that the People’s Republic of China today is ruled by a communist party “whose ideological mix is about 30 percent Marxist-Leninist, 70 percent The Sopranos.”

While he views Iran as a country that could be brought into the Core, he was far less charitable toward North Korea, condemning dictator Kim Jung Il as a mass murderer and “the tailbone of the Cold War.” By offering China stronger incentives to work with the U.S. toward “truly global” globalization — for example, rescinding our longstanding defense arrangement with Taiwan — we could, said Barnett, “build an East Asian NATO on that idiot’s grave.”

COMMENTARY: As captures of my brief go, this one is pretty good.

Dateline: Holiday Inn, Arlington VA, 27 March 2005

Yesterday was a physical meltdown, although, creatively, it was good.

Woke up with a very bad throat, but felt I might be reaching the tipping point on that one. I was right, I was tipping right into a sinus infection and two ear infections.

Worked my way through Chapter 3's intro by 1000 and then did the first section's callouts. It's my China-centric piece, which came out very well in the first draft--the first one I really nailed out of the 18 (it was number 8).

Mark gets me the rest of the chapter later that afternoon, and I tackle the callouts (17) in the second and third sections over the afternoon and into the night, but I am fading fast. Concerned about a tone change at the end of the second section, so work that nicely and run it past Mark on the phone. We dicker back and forth over some sentences, and he has me add one that we write together, reminding both me and the reader the biggest point of the chapter, which I guess I knew, but I just never put out there completely in the text.

It was a great interplay and it reminded me of why I love working with Mark so much.

As I was talking to Mark, I could feel the pressure in my right cheek about ready to break the bone, and I noticed the slight clicking sound in my right ear. I told Mark I had a 10-day supply of antibiotics which I had picked up for my trips abroad during the winter, and he advised me to start dipping in. My wife did the same, and so I popped a couple before bed and it made all the difference in the world. Tough night, but when I got up this morning, I felt the danger had passed.

So I kept my promise to my wife, and spent the 8 hours I had before my flight working the house, as did all my kids (in their own ways), once they had found their baskets, etc.

Upshot of 6 tough hours of effort, the upstairs is ready to show, and the attics (both) are very organized and looking good.

Then a nice Easter dinner, then I pack and roll.

I get through about 1/4 of Chapter 3 on the plane, and will now try to do a bit more, but probably won't get too far as I'm fading after all the effort at home, the drive, the flight, the drive, and the sense that I need to get up at a decent time and get my head together for these interviews in the Pentagon.

Best news: Chapter 3 is really good. Deadlines are deadlines, but if the content isn't there, then you got nuttin'.

Next Friday, as per the contract, we'll turn in the book edited solid through all five main chapters, working the preface, conclusion and afterward (blogging the future) over the following weekend (much like last time).

I spent way too much time writing this (almost 30 minutes), so I better get to bed.

Dateline: the public affairs office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Pentagon, 28 March 2005

You know, when I worked at the college, getting in to see a 4-star was a huge deal. Not that it freaked me, it just stimulated the system so much that everybody and their brother needed to "coordinate."

Life is so much more interesting now with Esquire, because I pitch my F2F's directly on my own, and when I get them, they happen. So today, with a very nice assist from the Office of Secretary of Defense's public-affairs people, I get to interview two four-stars by lunch, with somebody just as good for later this afternoon.

I won't kid you, I never got into any of these offices when I was working for OSD, because those were places my mentor and boss Art Cebrowski went. And I had no problem with that.

Still, it's kind of amazing that I'm about 3 months working as a Contributing Editor with Esquire and here I am getting into three offices I never could have touched in my old day jobs.

Interviews went well. The first 30-minute went 60, and the second went 40. I only wish I wasn't in such a recovery mode still.

Hell, here I am sitting in one of the coolest places in the world to eavesdrop on conversations (big cubicle pool of action officers here in OSD public affairs office) and my hearing's so bad right now (feel like 10 feet under water with two ear infections) that I can hear my heartbeat and not a whole hell of a lot else!

Still, they are treating me very nicely. My handler, a wonderful USAF colonel, is taping all the interviews as well (standard practice), so as I work my little recorder for the first time, at least I have a backup. Neater still, they promise written transcripts within the day, which is nice.

Of course, I will still send my cassettes off to Esquire for transcription, because my guys there are genetically incapable of trusting authorities (just as my guys/gals here are genetically incapable of trusting the press). Fortunately, I am used to operating at this seam, where everyone sort of trusts me.

As a side note, my colonel/handler was nice enough, after the two morning interviews, to escort me (I am without clearance right now) to the Pentagon's barbershop where I got my usual cut (#4 on top, #2 on the side), which was fun. I haven't managed a stop there in two years or more, and I used to love getting my hair cut there.

Dateline: the public affairs office, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Pentagon, 28 March 2005

Warren's right-hand Tyler tells me Mark's been called into jury duty he could not escape (something like his fifth warning). Of all the weeks!

I'd shit a brick if I wasn't so caught up in so many things myself right now (book, two features for Mark, putting house on market, finding new house).

I'm hoping Mark's trapped in some windowless room in some courthouse, sitting around, waiting to be called, Chapter 4 draft in his lap.

Dateline: Holiday Inn, Arlington VA, 28 March 2005

Weird side note to long interesting day: the new, bizarre window coating on the outside-facing rooms of the Pentagon.

I hadn't been in the PNT for a bit now; last time, I think, was late last fall. So this was my first time seeing this new window tinting they've done on all outside offices (known as the E Ring, these are the nicest offices because the views actually show something). Well, today I got a good gander because all three interviews I did were E Ring stops.

I asked my public affairs handler what was up with the windows, and she tried to explain but sort of gave up, kind of muttering to herself. Instantly, I recognized this phenomenon as one of the those weird techno things that the experts explain to you once, and you sort of understand it, but when you try to explain it again to anyone else, you just end up choking on the words, giving up with a defensive sort of, "I dunno, it just does something!"

I don't doubt it cost a lot, and I am willing to believe it's highly useful. After all, the blast-resistant glass they put in the new wedge that got hit on 9/11 saved plenty of lives (the glass is deadly in those sorts of attacks). But man, it's weird to see. The outside world is a crazy sort of green on a cloudy day, and I don't mean your-old-man's-favorite-sunglasses-green, I mean weird, what-did-you-put-in-my-drink green. I'm told that on sunny days, it's a lurid sort of yellow (a brilliant combination for Packer fans, but for anyone else?).

My last interview saw me sitting across from the guy who had his back to the outside wall. On either side of his head were windows. As I interviewed him, the vision of the outside view was stunning: lurid green, nasty storm cloudy flying by in hyper speed, regular flashes of lightning. It was just so hallucinatory that I wanted to stand up and yell "Cut!" (then turning to the crew I'd say) "What in God's name is wrong with the rear-projection window views. Damn it, they look puke green! Can't anybody fix that before I go insane getting this shot in the can? Come on people! Show me some professionalism! How can I work under these conditions?"

About the only thing I can compare it to is when Oliver Stone is obviously screwing with your head in movies like "The Doors" and "Natural Born Killers" (he loves to dick around with absurd speed on clouds and sunsets/sunrises/storms, tinting the footage in some psychedelic tone).

Seriously, I expect to read some Post story 20 years from now about a Pentagon worker who sues DoD for twisting their brain with that view. It's just not natural.

Still, the haircut was good. No windows at all there.

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 29 March 2005

Up early this a.m. to meet with, interview and observe subject of second Esquire piece I'm working on. A long, interesting trail of a day where I asked every question I could think of, and when I was done, I have 3.5 hours of tape and almost 30 pages of notes. This one will be more the straight profile than the Pentagon-centric piece, and I walked away today with enough to write 1,000 words each on: where this guy came from, who is he today, what he does today, and how he does it (the most interesting part). I will sit on this material for now, possibly getting back to him with more demands next week or the one after that. The other piece rules in priority, but this one will be a more interesting writing challenge for me personally, because it will be so not-me and all-him.

So today I really felt a lot more like a reporter. I was watching everything with different eyes, and writing lotsa atmospherics down, because to describe this guy is to describe him, and where he works, and what that day feels like. I've been around people like this for years, and those offices for years, and those meetings for years. But it all was different today, because I chose to look at it differently.

Because I was a reporter today.

Sitting in an office in the Department of Energy today, following the conversation I was permitted to witness, I notice a picture on the wall of the flag being draped over the Pentagon wedge hit by the plane on 9/11, and I notice that the shade in the window is a distinct green. I think to myself: that green tint stuff goes at least as far back as 9/11, and so I realize it may just be that the new window tinting exists only on those windows that are going up in the new wedges (second one almost complete now after first wedge re-done after 9/11) and I had never been in the new wedge before--at least in the E Ring--so I thought it was something quite new.

And I thought to myself, if I wasn't trying to be so observent, I'm not sure I would have realized my mistake in yesterday's blog.

And so I felt like . . . an observent reporter.

Now I just feel tired. Flew back after roughly 7 hours with this guy (nice, but that is one loooong meeting; I simply popped off the recorder when I realized we both were running on empty), and find my Pilot's battery dead. Long story short: boys playing in my car Saturday while I washed it, hit lights in car accidentally, but since master switch off no issue until I drive to airport, pull into darkish parking, turn on lights to see what I'm grabbing and then don't notice cab lights left on in back. Bingo!

So I get to hang for a bit until airport security help me out.

No pretense in trying to finish edit of Chapter 3 tonight. Will get to last 5k words (out of 23k) tomorrow early. Then tackle Chapter 4. Mark and I are very comfortable turning in Chapter 5 with only his edit, plus Conclusion, Afterward and Preface with only his edits. By the time I hit 5, I was humming, so we're both cool with that minimal editing for delivery of text on time Friday. We'll continue to work the text following.

You know, yesterday, whenever they brought me into an office to meet someone, all the aides and admin people would state to one another: "The reporter is here . . . The reporter is outside . . . I have the reporter now," and so on. The first few times I would almost look around instinctively to see if it was someone famous (I really like reporters as a rule). But by the end of the day I stopped flinching, especially as I had to write "Esquire" down for my "COMPANY/OFFICE REPRESENTED" on the sign-in books.

A strange transition, but there you have it.

I have got to get some of those really cool business cards from Esquire.

Oh, and brush up on my First Amendment rights.

Do you think I'm afforded any more protection in my blogging on this basis?

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 30 March 2005

Son Kevin turned 10 today, and besides a lot of vintage Star Wars models, including a C3PO model from 1977 (wonder where my wife found that one!), he got cool comic books (including a couple of compendiums of "The Simpsons" and "Futurama"—both signed by Matt G. himself) and the PSP (I think?) new portable game player that everyone's going so wild over right now. We had a great cake upon which our favorite baker (Mad Hatter in Newport) did a brilliant rendition of B-29s flying over Normandy and releasing airborne troops in parachutes (Kev remains obsessed with WWII). Emily, our artist, drew an entire manga comic for him that went on for pages and pages and—of course—involved vampires. Nice little party.

I spent today getting some more stuff done on the house for showing, plus taking Jerry to his annual physical, plus working out a solid hour on the treadmill (finishing "Emma" and moving on to "Mansfield Park").

Lined up seven more stars on the Esquire story: a four and a three. The timing will wreak some havoc with my flights as planned in coming days and weeks, but traveling with the magazine is proving to be a lot more easy than with the government (not so many regulations).

Also ordered some business cards from Esquire.

Big accomplishment of day was finishing my edit of Mark's edit of Chapter 3. It rang in at just under 24,000 words, meaning the first three chapters are all very close in size. Four will be similar, but Five will be much smaller. Conclusion and Afterward will be in the 5-6k range, and Preface less than 2k, so text body is looking like around 140,000, meaning the net effect of the editing will be close to zero. We'll just have to see if Neil Nyren is happy to get 2 times as many words as promised this time as he was last time, and maybe I'll learn to stop signing contracts for 75,000-word books I'll never write.

Tomorrow will be a non-stop crunch on Chapter 4, plus I think I need to get an intro written for Chapter 5 (the only outstanding writing that I am to do once Four goes to bed (or box) tomorrow night).

Scanning some of the articles I've pulled in last few days:

The biggie was the WSJ front-pager sounding the alarm on "China Flexes Economic Muscle Throughout Burgeoning Africa: Beijing Forges Deep Alliances With War-Torn Nations, Countering U.S. Influence" (by Karby Leggett (if that's his or her real name!), 29 Mar, p. A1). Bit much in this "breaking story" that's been going on for . . . I dunno . . . about half-a-decade or more. The scary tone comes off as a ways hyperbolic. Like we're "losing Africa" or something! My God! We want nothing to do with the place and never have! Big deal if China's engaging in aid and investment there: are we suddenly against that?

Ah, but the Chinese tend to favor rancid dictatorships that make the energy and other resources flow steadily. We've never done anything like that, have we?

Ah, but the Chinese use their aid and investments to curry favor with the governments regarding their pet diplomatic causes, like non-recognition of Taiwan. Again, I'd hate to cast the first stone on that one.

Ah, but the Chinese stop us from doing anything in Sudan!

Ah, but I guess we'd actually have to want to do something there for that to matter.

So the Chinese look for opportunities wherever the Americans and the West in general tend to express little interest. Hmmm. That is odd. I mean, why wouldn't they concentrate on countries that already have a huge Western presence?

Ed Royce, the CA congressman I met a while back at dinner is quoted in the article as citing China's growing influence on the continent as a "concern," but why is that, exactly? I mean, we tend to ignore Africa, so why is it bad if somebody else doesn't? Or is it supposed to stay ignored when we ignore it? Or are we the only ones who can do good things there, like build roads or invest in infrastructure?

Africa is a place with the U.S. and China could logically locate a lot of common strategic interests, or a lot of mutually exclusive antagonisms. I guess I just wonder why the bias is always toward the latter, as if that is the extent of our strategic imagination on the subject. Or can we do better?

Another scary story on Japan and China conflicting over energy in the South China Sea ("Drawing the Line on Energy," by James Brooke, NYT, 29 Mar, p. C1). This macho posturing on both sides is too stupid for words, because China without access to reasonably priced energy means Japan will suffer economically in a big way, and ditto the other way around, so what exactly are they going to fight over? The right to see one economy tank on lack of energy so that the other can lose it's most important long-term trade/investment engine? The answer on this one is such a no-brainer: Chinese muscle and Japanese money = development of cheaper energy they both share. The two countries will reach this understanding eventually, but watch stupid politicians on both sides make a lot of dumb moves and say a lot of dumb things before logic prevails.

Cool story ("Brazil: Free Software's Biggest and Best Friend," by Todd Benson, NYT, 29 Mar, p. C1) on Brazil's efforts to keep redefining itself as not just a "body" nation (commodities producer) but a "head" nation (high-tech/content-oriented) as well. Watching them connect up average citizens in innovative ways is really cool. Brazilians are a huge chunk of the second billion on the web, according to Ethan Zuckerman of Harvard.

Lest we forget India ("India's Ties With Iran Pose Challenge for U.S.," by John Larkin and Jay Solomon, WSJ, 25 March, p. A7), we are reminded that China isn't the only energy-hungry, influence-peddling, rising New Core state that bears watching. Isn't it weird how, the more India and China behave like us in global markets, the more we distrust them?

Best article on Kyrgyzstan's quick-and-clean revolution is by stalwart Steven Lee Myers of NYT ("Contagion: Popular Risings in Ex-Soviet Zone," 25 March, p. A8). Real strategic point of Georgia, Ukraine and now Kyrgyzstan: the signals sent to Putin regarding the 2008 election. Screw the "whole world," your people will be watching! And they're proving to be enough in places like Georgia, Ukraine and now Kyrgyzstan. That's the lesson for Putin: stick to the high road or watch it happen to you!

Three quickies from today's Post online:

"In Zimbabwe, Withholding of Food Magnifies the Hunger for Change," by Craig Timberg, p. A1.

Nice story. Here's the opening two paras:

Hundreds of bags of cornmeal were stacked in front of a bar near here this month, rising as high as its roof. The only problem for the hungry people of this drought-stricken area was that the food, like the bar, was controlled by officials from the ruling party. With a crucial election nearing, they weren't about to give it to just anyone.

The officials first held a rally by their impressive mound of food, witnesses here said. The next day, as hundreds of people from surrounding villages gathered to collect the 110-pound bags they had ordered and paid for months before, ruling party officials announced that only their supporters were eligible. When the names of opposition voters were called, they were simply handed back their money, according to several people who were turned away. The leftover bags went on sale hours later for twice the price.

Now, there's something on which to cooperate with China in Africa.

"Syria: Troop Pullout To Precede Elections: Lebanese Premier to Step Down Again," by Colum Lynch and Scott Wilson, p. A10.

Opening sentence is all you want to hear: "Syria's government told the United Nations on Tuesday that it would withdraw all of its troops from Lebanon before Lebanese parliamentary elections this spring."



Gotta like that, but it means we're getting into bed with more Shiites (Hezbollah) if we want success to follow.

"Rumsfeld And the Generals," op-ed by David Ignatius, p. A15.



Not that I'd ever say anything bad about David Ignatius, but my sense of the dynamics in the Pentagon is not that a new Chairman needs to be able to stand up to Rumsfeld, but that Rumsfeld finally needs to get his own chairman.

According to people I speak with, Ignatius is right about Pace (current Vice, USMC Gen.) and Giambastiani (JFCOM boss and USN Adm) being the front runners. Most likely scenarios are: 1) Pace moves up for 2 years, with G. as his Vice, then G. takes over for his four-year stint, or 2) G. goes straight to Chair and Pace remains his Vice for two more years. Many think Pace is in slight lead, but others tell me the service clock on Giambastiani's career means he either goes this summer to Chief or not at all. Something about his being trapped by 35-year-mark in Vice's job (a technicality that apparently doesn't apply in same way to Chief's spot). I'm not too clear on such details, but my guess is that Adm. G. is the man. He was Rumsfeld's mil aide and then the guy he trusted with Transformation's main command. I think this one's in the bank, and such an outcome would be good for the Pentagon and DoD as a whole, methinks.

Oy! Can't wait to put the AC's in the windows. Tired of this wintry moldy allergic feeling.

Even better news: can put Bailey out in the yard on his own more and more. Dog really evinces no desire to leave the confines of the invisible fence. I am convinced he's almost trained.

Now to organize the damn basement: the virtual tour people will want to shoot it for sure, given the great job we did in finishing it.

I'm already thinking about the really beeeg canoe I'm going to buy once we land in Indiana. Gotta explore the Wabash. Maybe the Ohio after that. No, I won't miss the ocean too bad. Grew up on rivers, like to go places in boats, don't like engines, and don't want to rely on the wind. Enjoy the currents and the workout. Really enjoy the silence. Can't wait to go with the kids. I have this dream of taking them back to WI and going several days down the Wisconsin from the Dells to the Mississippi. That will be fun.

Finally, Putnam's got a new president, according to a big press release out on the web. What's cool about the release is how the company chose to list it's important non-fiction authors. See the concluding "note":

NOTE TO THE PRESS:

G.P. Putnam's Sons, a hardcover imprint of Penguin Group (USA), founded in 1838, is one of the oldest and most prestigious imprints in the publishing industry. It led the publishing industry in 2004 with an unprecedented 32 hardcover fiction and nonfiction New York Times bestsellers, more than any other single hardcover imprint in the consumer trade book publishing business, besting its previous year's single-year record. Putnam has been the hardcover bestseller imprint leader for more than a decade consecutively. Among the distinguished roster of bestselling authors Putnam publishes are Dave Barry, Lilian Jackson Braun, Tom Clancy, Robin Cook, Patricia Cornwell, Catherine Coulter, Clive Cussler, Kaye Gibbons, William Gibson, W.E.B. Griffin, Jack Higgins, Jayne Ann Krentz, Steve Martini, Robert B. Parker, Amanda Quick, J.D. Robb, Nora Roberts, John Sandford, Daniel Silva, Amy Tan, Kurt Vonnegut and Stuart Woods.

In nonfiction, Putnam's authors include Lance Armstrong, Thomas P.M. Barnett, A. Scott Berg, Maureen Dowd, Linda Ellerbee, Goldie Hawn, T.D. Jakes and Spencer Johnson . . .

Damn that Tour de France guy's last name! There's always some A-hole in front of me!

Dateline: above the garage in Portsmouth RI, 31 March 2005

Spent the early morning hours getting the house ready for the walk-through by our realtor. It goes on the market next Monday, and we really had it looking spectacular today, so we're feeling good about our price in a very tight market on the island.

After we were done with that, I expected to find Chapter 4 waiting for me from Mark, but a twist in the case unfolded: it was not in my email in-box. Turns out Mark was indisposed more than normal as his trial culminated and he was sucked into the deliberation process. He surfaces tonight with a guilty verdict, feeling a bit drained by it all. Me, I spent the afternoon helping the painter get his last room ready for primer, and then I organized the garage like nobody's business.

So I guess we got through the day with both verdicts coming in favorably in the sense that we're both free now to go into overdrive in finishing up the book. Mark's basically edited all the text. We just need to interact over the remaining call-outs he's inserted for me to change things, plus I need to write the intros to 4 and 5. But I do know this: we're turning in 75k well edited words tomorrow, and that's what the contract called for! The other 65k are very close—by Wednesday of next week at the latest, I would estimate. If Neil Nyren likes what we turn in tomorrow (he read it all in over that very same weekend last time, so I expect the same treatment this time), we'll probably get a significant chunk of time to nail down all our final edits before the text gets shipped off to the review-copy (with errors) printing. Given the tight schedule just like last time, there will be—I imagine—only one pre-pub version, meaning the reviewers won't be reading the final version. Last time that created a few weird bits, where I was taken to task in reviews for stuff I later changed in the final edit, but that's the price of keeping to the ambitious schedule.