Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 31 August 2005

God I love this apartment and how my "office" is just inside the front door and within reach of the "dining room" table. The one-ness with my family is priceless when I'm trying to work.

And then there's the need to take all my business calls out on the balcony, because my cell phone doesn't cut in and out all the time out there, plus we've got these really cool folding camping chairs out there and if you sit them just so in the sun before you come out, it's like having a heated chair.

Yes, yes, I will be sad to leave all this for the new house.

Already got the huge antique oak roll-top all ready, along with the oak antique library table (for the new Mac I will buy eventually), plus two oak antique file cabinets. All bought with just this office space in mind, and all scouted out by my mother-in-law, scavenger extraordinaire of antique stores across the midwest.

Until then, my 2x2 built-in laminate desk will have to do.

Frankly, I almost never work there, because the sectional couch beckons and I love my Mac a whole lot more than that XP nightmare that is the shared family PC (I will never buy another PC in my life).

Spent three hours today cleaning up all five separate desktops of various debris, spyware, etc. Got to the point of almost tears, and then I realized how ill I was feeling. No cross country today, but I did take daughter for more golf ball whacking (our first joint lesson tomorrow night) and by the time I got home, I was feeling like the flu. So I finally gave in and took a Zyrtec, and I must admit, it's some pretty nice stuff. Perked me right back up and I was back at it.

Long multiple phonecons today with various people, where I find myself explaining simultaneously: 1) where I'm going vision-wise, 2) what it is that Enterra does (I get better with each swing of the bat), and 3) what we're proposing in this "America Resilient" book idea. It's frustrating, because it's all a new stretch for me, and that makes me nervous.

But nervous is good. Steve DeAngelis is a full-time scrambler, and his 24/7 sales mode is a real lesson to me in how you sustain something so much larger than yourself.

Last night on the last of four bumpy flights (three commuter jets) I was reading BFA intently (my theory: I can't possibly die in a plane crash while reading my own book--my sheer self-absorption is like a magic shield!) and after we landed and I was walking through Indy's empty airport late at night, I just felt sort of exhausted in that way you can only feel after four flights in one day. But it felt worse than that (and the allergies were getting me then too): I felt my knees buckling from under the weight of all of BFA's content.

I mean, sometimes I put down the book and say to myself, "Just who the hell are you to be proposing all this stuff? You're still the snot-nose from Boscobel Wisconsin!"

As opposed to, say, Lancaster or even Platteville.

Then I think of what my Dad would say at moments like this. He'd say, "I really have to hand it to you: you've really gone out and done something with your life. So more power to you, I say!'

Dad always said that with a slightly wistful tone, as though he felt like he had done little with his life. But what I would always say in reply was, "You did plenty Dad, and you're still doing it through all of us [my four brothers and two sisters]."

And he'd say, "Yes, yes, you're all doing good things, and your mother and I take real pride in that. We really do."

And that's how I get myself through moments of self-doubt like that. I replay favorite exchanges with my Dad.

And I love to tell them here again simply because I get to write the words "my Dad."

Sometimes I think the worst part of losing my Father is that I will never get to address anyone ever again as "Dad." He took the word with him to the grave, so now I must subsist on hearing that word directed at me.

And whenever I think of that new reality (and it still seems new more than a year later), I think, "we're all going to China next time--all of us."

Still working the wife on that one. But I know she likes being called Mom, so maybe there's room for one more.

Just not in this apartment . . .

And don't worry. My wife never reads anything I write. "I don't have to," she says, "I lived it."

Anyway, just contemplating trying to answer every challenge/question/criticism of this book in a host of mass media venues in a non-stop blitz of appearances is very intimidating. I think this sort of dread mixed with intense anticipation is about as close as I will ever come to the feeling of pregnancy (don't get me started on my kidney stones!): you want it to come and yet it's something you don't mind staying in the future for as long as possible.

Last time, with PNM, I would find myself feeling tense weeks before it came out, and I would say to myself, "This is all going to work out great. Wouldn't it be cool if you could just believe that for a minute and learn to savor the anticipation of this great ride!"

And I would try. I really would, because I naturally prefer to live in the future given my mindset--and yet I couldn't. It was like trying to relax during a track meet in H.S. where I ran the first (110m high hurdles) and last (4x400m relay) races: there was just never a moment where I could simply feel relaxed about it.

Later, after the first few shocks were absorbed, I really got into it: like after catching your first reception in a football game, all of a sudden you want the ball all the time and you're certain you can do no wrong. But enjoying the build-up--that was impossible.

What helps this time is the simultaneity of the China piece going to print in the November issue of Esquire, plus all this next-book talk with Steve and others. It's like I've already starting shooting my next film and I don't have to just sit around getting too nervous over the debut of the last one.

Plus, the thinking through of America Resilient is becoming it's own great synergy: to figure the book is to figure the joint brief with Steve and to figure that is to figure out how I fit with Enterra and how Enterra fits with me.

So here I thought my wife and kids were undergoing the big adjustment with the move, and it's me who seems the most ajar with all these adjustments.

But again, nervous is good. Steve Deangelis is patient, and he provides (like helping me bring in an old colleague to join Enterra--one of my favorite content mentors). But push must come to shove, and I will have to take this proposal, this brief, and this relationship by the horns and make it work for me. I have to master this material and figure out where it's going to take me and the vision.

Early indications are solid, as the more I explain it to people whose opinion matters to me, the more exciting it becomes--and yes, more nerve-wracking.

But this is what I asked for, so I cannot complain. I did not want to sit in my office in Newport and increasingly be treated with kid gloves as the emerging "great thinker." I wanted a scrum. I wanted a scramble. I wanted that fear factor of running just beyond the defensive line looking wildly for the ball zipping through, knowing that if I have to stretch for it some linebacker may snap my back in the process.

I wanted to feel my heartbeat in my throat again.

I wanted that nervousness.

And I've got it--along with a date to testify in front of the House Armed Services Committee next Wednesday morning. Seems that the HASC is running a red-team effort on the Quadrennial Defense Review, which is interesting, since it's a congressionally-mandated review! I'll be curious who the other two testifying with me will be. We'll all go 10-15 in statements (which I will write over the Labor Day weekend in WI), and then take questions for 2+ hours.

I'll have to remember not to coffee-up too much beforehand, but I'm expecting to be pretty bright-eyed simply from the crowd factor (it's a good-sized room in Rayburn, if I remember).

Yes, nervous is good, and sometimes it's just enough to get by on.

Posted by at 11:44 PM | Permalink

Always grateful when Mark Safranski carries any of my water.

It's weird, but I'm beginning to see a real trend in Chicago-based supporters for my writing that's kinda strong. Safranski, if I'm not mistaken, teaches there. Then there's Michael Lotus of Chicago Boyz. Now I got RealClearPolitics getting ready to re-pub the Rumsfeld piece, and they're Chicago-based.

If it wasn't for the Bears thing, I'd be 100% behind the idea of a Chi-town power base for PNM.

Anyway, here's the post on The Democracy Project by ZenPundit. Mark, as always, is good.

Posted by at 3:45 PM | Permalink

Fairly extensive presentation of the entire event, from A to Z.

Find it at: http://newmapgame.com/newport2005/.

I am very pleased with how this turned out. Enjoy it for what it's worth.

Posted by at 3:06 PM | Permalink

Dateline: four flights on Delta in a roundtrip from Indy to Cincy to JFK and back again, 30 August 2005

Amazed to make it all the way to Manhattan and back, going through Cincinnati (listed as just about the worst airport north of Katrina to be traveling through today) with really no hitches.

Sad to watch the news coverage, which always seems to wallow in the suffering of others with a weird sort of pomp and circumstance. We hear the word "chaos" a lot (Aaron Brown on CNN seems addicted to it), when scattered looting hardly seems to add up to "chaos." But the media love hyperbole, and natural disasters give the talking heads a chance to break out all the over-the-top terms with abandon, demonstrating yet again how they "hold us together" during these desperate moments.

Still, as bad as it got today along the Gulf, it's important to remember that there's really no place on earth better than America to experience a natural disaster. Frankly, you're better off being a dog in the U.S. than being a human in most of the world when a serious disaster hits. No, there's never "enough" response, but there's more here in the U.S. than you ever see anywhere else, and that demonstrated resiliency should teach us something about ourselves and our networks.

Flew today to sit down with agent Jennifer Gates and my favorite editor in the world Mark Warren, actually stepping into Esquire's offices on Broadway for a brief appearance. The purpose? To talk through this early draft of a book proposal for a joint effort by Steve DeAngelis and myself (working title, America Resilient).

With Jennifer, we discussed the route of trying to make it a more obviously business-focused book (i.e., seeking a publisher from among the biz schools universe). With Mark, we discussed the route of trying to keep it more popularly focused. Both routes offer advantages, but my gut instinct is to try and keep it something a place like Putnam could say yes to until and if it becomes obvious that the compromises and/or outcomes would be somehow significantly out of which our core goals for the work. In short, I feel like it's wrong not to target Neil Nyren until he himself says it can't work with Putnam. That's a perfectly acceptable outcome, but why not stay with the best if you can?

Here's the daily catch:

■ America's "unprecedented dependence on foreign oil" easily surpassed by New Core Asia

■ Strategic connectivity versus strategic content

■ Iraq tripartite solution: It's my constitution and I'll fight (or sing) if I want to

■ America the arms pot shouldn't call any kettles black

■ The powerlessness at the bottom of the pyramid-seem familiar?

■ Offshoring teachers or offshoring parents?

■ Japan Inc.'s pot of gold may finally be unearthed

Posted by at 12:26 AM | Permalink

■"White House May Tap Oil Reserves: Closure of Wells in Region Prompts Capacity Concerns Amid Fragile Global Supply," by Russell Gold, Bhushan Bahree and Thaddeus Herrick, Wall Street Journal, 30 August 2005, p. A2.

■"Thailand Tries to Prop Up Economy," by James Hookway, Wall Street Journal, 30 August 2005, p. A9.

Katrina hits the U.S. energy sector hard, because so much of the oil and gas we import comes through Gulf ports. You can't knock those oil refineries down there off-line for any stretch of time and not impact prices. So there is loose talk of the White House tapping government oil reserves.

If that happens, it will only fuel the asinine talk here in the States that the Bush Administration's military efforts in the Gulf have "obviously" been in vain because "Look at the high price of oil!"

There is this uninformed view of the global energy markets that says the tightness currently seen is caused by instability in the Gulf, when in reality it's due to the rising demand for energy in Asia, which is both profound in its growth and very long-term in its unfolding.

More than that, Asia's dependence on oil is far greater than that of the Old Core (captured in the data for OECD countries). If you index oil consumption per unit of GDP, then Asia countries tend to require 2 to 3 times as much consumption as the average OECD country.

No surprise there. Undeveloped countries tend to need the most amount of energy to raise their GDP (far more than a 1:1 ratio of energy consumption growth to GDP growth), whereas emerging markets see that number drop toward that even mark of 1:1 as they mature. An advanced country like the U.S. can grow a percent of GDP at less than a percent growth in energy consumption (typically in the .7-.8 range).

The lesson? If you want better use of energy worldwide, then shrink the Gap. Conversely, if you grow the Core, expect the newest members to be far more dependent on energy security than the most mature members.

We need to remember that when we think about the Middle East. If it's largely their oil, then we need to make it their blood as well.

Not idealistic, but brutally realistic.

Posted by at 12:25 AM | Permalink

■"France to Protect Strategic Sectors From Foreign Deals," by Jo Wrighton, Wall Street Journal, 30 August 2005, p. A3.

■"China pulls rug out from Rupe," by Elizabeth Guider and Patrick Frater, Variety, 29 August-4 September 2005, p. 5.

Here's how I know that the U.S. scaring off foreign ownership in its economy is a backward and stupid concept: the French are all for it.

France faced a takeover bid for a major metals and mining company by a Brazilian one. My, that is a threat to France's economic future, which certainly should be about the high-tech industry of mining. Paris is also fending off interest from foreign companies in its planned privatization of its large toll-road companies (I can almost hear it: "Do you want to pay tolls to the Chinese to drive down what used to be a French road!").

So France is coming up with an official list of untouchables. Word is Paris will allow Pepsi to buy food company Danone, which surprises me. Isn't yogurt a source of national pride in France?

Is this pathetic or what? Old Core France resorting to protectionism to stop rising New Core powers from buying its companies.

Yes, yes, France. Hold onto those "strategic" toll booths. Your very standing in the global economy of the 21st century depends on it.

And France is supposed to be a pillar of the EU that's gonna clean America's economic clock down the road? Imagine Florida telling Michigan what "strategic" companies it could or could not buy!

So what about China telling Rupert Murdoch that he can't launch a channel via cable systems in northern China (We're talking a measly 400 million households here, because, hey! It's just northern China!)? Is that China acting similarly?

To a certain extent yes, but my impression is that this new push back on foreign control over media outlets in China has as much to do with Beijing wanting to tap that blossoming domestic market in order to grow its own media giants than it has with controlling media content. As Murdoch has proven plenty of times in Asia, he's not about pissing off the censors so much as empire building (his company Star TV is accused of peddling satellite dishes in China without permission, and few things scare authoritarian governments more than satellite dishes), and China's government wants to give its own media companies time to grow up with that market and thus eventually take on the challenge of media content exports to the rest of the Core, as Japan has done so nicely in recent years.

But yeah, keeping their fingers on the censorship button is likewise a desired goal for the Party. Don't expect that attitude to change any time soon. Remember, everyone wants connectivity, but not everyone wants the resulting content flow, so restrictions on the latter are to be expected as the cost of increased connectivity.

Posted by at 12:24 AM | Permalink

■"Agreeing to Disagree in Iraq: Even a good constitution can destroy a country," op-ed by Noah Feldman, New York Times, 30 August 2005, p. A23.

■"Sunni Opposition to Iraqi Draft Constitution Intensifies," by Robert F. Worth, New York Times, 30 August 2005, p. A6.

■"'Star' Lights Up Auds in Iraq: Talent show offers viewers an escape," by Ali Jaffar, Variety, 29 August-4 September 2005, p. 32.

Noah Feldman, the law school prof who helped the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq make its initial efforts to encourage the drafting of a constitution there, says the constitution is a passable one (warts and all) but that it will fail because the Sunnis won't buy into it: "The major problem is one of who is agreeing, not what they have agreed on."

So I guess a crappier constitution that everyone could agree to would be better? Or would we just end up with no one signing up?

No offense, but only an academic could come up with this sort of logic.

We set the Kurdish quest for autonomy in motion by refusing to deal with Saddam decisively back in Desert Storm, later satisfying ourselves with the northern and southern no-fly-zones that did little to achieve Shiite independence from Saddam in the south but effectively created a Kurdish mini-state in the north. That historical dynamic was our choice, or basically the choice of Bush the Elder and all his fabled "realists."

Expecting the recently liberated Shiite population to demand less than the long-independent Kurds is simply too much to ask, so the break-up of Iraq's unitary state was predetermined by America's unwillingness to follow through 14 years ago. We didn't pay the piper back then, so now we must do so by having to contend with a Sunni-based insurgency that is fueled, in no small part, but their resentment over this constitutional outcome.

But as long as we give Sunni resistance the sense that more violence will somehow hold up this train, the more violence we'll get. As one Sunni leader admitted, "My heart says no, [but] my mind says yes [to the constitution], because we have to move along."

Some Sunnis-especially the old Baathists-will fight on no matter what, but most, I think it's fair to say, crave a more normal life.

Posted by at 12:23 AM | Permalink

■"Weapons Sales Worldwide Rise to Highest Level Since 2000: Substantially more arms purchases by developing nations," by Thom Shanker, New York Times, 30 August 2005, p. A8.

Global arms transfers are up to a level not seen since 2000, and the biggest buyers are found in the New Core. China, for example, has bought a whopping $10 billion in foreign arms over the past four years alone!

Wow! China buys from other nations roughly 2-3 billion dollars of weapons and platforms each year.

That is impressive. I mean, that's an entire Seawolf submarine in cost!

Actually, China was surpassed by India in 2004, as New Delhi bought almost $6 billion in foreign purchases. Saudi Arabia was second with $2.9 billion, and "rising near-peer competitor" China managed only $2.2 billion-or exactly what the Pentagon pays for its new attack sub.

Yes, the Chinese are narrowing our lead all right.

Oh, and guess who's the biggest arms merchant in the world again this year.

You've guessed it! The United States. We accounted for one-third of all sales in the world, including roughly one-third of all sales to so-called developing nations (basically the Gap plus the New Core). But the big growth among Old Core sellers of arms occurs with Western Europe, not us. Britain, France, Germany and Italy sold less than a billion in 2003, jumping to $4.8 billion in 2004. And they managed to do this without lifting the EU's ban on military sales to China.

In all, the "developing world" bought just over $20 billion in arms last year, but take out India and China and that total drops to less than $14 billion.

Still, you have to ask yourself what the Old Core buys with all those sales to the Gap.

Since the Gap is the source of all the wars and ethnic conflict of note in the global security order today, wouldn't it seem like most of that money's being wasted?

Ah, but here's the big rationale we hear from the defense-industrial complex: (in effect) "we make so little profit per unit in the Old Core that we have to sell knock-offs to the New Core and Gap to recoup our costs and make a decent profit."

Beautiful system, isn't it?

Meanwhile we're told by so many security experts that it would "bankrupt" us to try and shrink the Gap militarily.

"Riiiiiiiiight," drawls Dr. Evil.

Posted by at 12:22 AM | Permalink

■"Where a Cuddle With Your Baby Requires a Bribe," by Celia W. Dugger, New York Times, 30 August 2005, p. A1.

■"Joint effort to fight AIDS virus in China," by Michelle Healy, USA Today, 30 August 2005, p. 5D.

Really depressing story of how poor people are systematically ripped off in service situations by provider systems that demand they pay extra in fees or bribes for the same things that the better-off get for free:

The bribes vary from place to place and in the services afforded, but stretch from cradle to grave, according to surveys and anticorruption investigators. People pay to give birth, and to collect their loved ones' bodies from mortuaries, and for everything in between: garbage collection, clean water, medicines, admission to public schools. Even policemen double as shakedown artists.

Sound bad enough? Well, "increasingly, it is being recognized as a major obstacle to economic development, robbing the impoverished of already measly incomes and corroding the public services they desperately need." In short, in far too many instances, such high barriers to service means many poor inside the Gap are discouraged from seeking medical care in the first place.

Think more official developmental aid is going to solve that all by itself?

This is why the promotion of good government in the Gap isn't some idealistic Wilsonian nonsense, but a moral cause that involves saving millions upon millions from premature deaths. Plussing up aid won't do it, nor will pretending we're all in this together. For some bad regimes, the "one campaign" that will work will be a military one.

But in many more situations, especially among the New Core states like China or India, where governments are incentivized by their growing and economically successful connectivity to the global economy to raise their public-sector capacity to deal with such problems, lest they prove a turn-off to foreign direct investment that prefers a safer or more stable environment, more aid can make a difference, so long as it's largely focused on growing local response capacity and not just treating and streeting the current patient pool.

In the end, if you want to curb the bribery and corruption, you need to give the country in question the economic opportunity to achieve a better state of affairs via the private sector. As with most Gap problems, the quickest solution route is to grow your way out of the problem. Absent the growth, expect far too much of the economic power to remain with the government, and expect that power to corrupt on a wide scale.

Posted by at 12:22 AM | Permalink

■"Offshore learning online: Overseas tutors help students in USA," by Greg Toppo, USA Today, 30 August 2005, p. 1D.

Interesting story on how for-profit tutoring companies are increasingly turning to overseas tutors via online programs. By doing this, they tap into a labor pool that costs about $1.40 an hour, instead of $20-30 bucks an hour. If that helps a Sylvan lower its costs dramatically so that more families in America can afford tutors, is this a bad thing?

It certainly comes off as threatening to local teachers, but frankly, we're talking about extra teaching that school systems simply cannot supply in a cost-effective manner.

Then there's the accredidation question: can we trust these tutors? Well, any push in that direction is only going to force an India (where many of these tutors are found) to simply synch up their internal educational rule sets with those of the U.S. How hard can that be? My sense is not hard at all, and if pursued, it will establish yet another line of personal connectivity between our two economies that will facilitate the free movement of labor between them (both real and virtual).

To me, the real question isn't the outsourcing of teaching, but of parenting. I spent 15 minutes last night with son Kevin working on decimals, prompted in part by my wife's threat to take him to Sylvan if he got any bad grades (remember my wife's mania for math). Me, I just wasn't ready to outsource that function. No, I remember my Mom teaching me how to cross-multiply-and-divide as a little kid, and frankly, I've solved most of my life's great mathematical quandaries with this exceedingly simple trick.

And that connection to my Mom matters a lot of me, something I wouldn't have outsourced for all the cost savings in the world.

So yesterday I helped coach Kevin's cross country team, took my daughter Em to the driving range (armed with our new but cheap drivers and gloves; we start joint lessons on Thursday), did my time with Kevin on decimals, and worked a while with younger Jerry on writing his full name and learning our phone number and street address (yes, even kindergarteners have homework). Meanwhile, wife Vonne is working night and day with baby Vonne Mei on learning words, lest we feel the need to take up the state of Indiana's offer for free speech therapy.

All of this is outsourceable. We can pay people to do it all. But our philosophy is that we didn't have kids to outsource the parenting. It's why I've worked like a demon to fashion the career path I now enjoy, including its location in Indy. And it's why my wife has been a full-time mom for the last 10 years (with some huge personal regret on her part due to lost career opportunities; something I hope to fix to a certain degree with our new LLC that she will manage).

None of this has been easy. I didn't pick up a golf club until my eldest did, and I play primarily with my kids. I have no real friends that aren't work related. Doesn't mean they're not special. Just means that's a limit I've placed on myself.

You in-source the kids, you in-source the commitment. Cheat one, cheat them all.

And that's just not how my parents raised me.

Not bragging. I know what I've missed, like being a great pianist on the side or climbing Mt. Everest (a real dream that I've let pass me by through the accumulation of responsibility) or having that brutally self-focused career in DC that makes me Secretary of Defense someday. All real compromises for this A-type personality.

But you can't beat this: yesterday in the car on the way to cross country, I told Kev I wouldn't be at practice today because of my quick trip to NYC. "It's okay Dad," he said, "I just appreciate the fact that you try to be at every practice."

Imagine what a good dad Kevin will someday be. That is a future worth creating.

And there's no pride, in my mind, in being the great visionary of that global goal if I can't deliver it on an individual level to my kids.

Having said all that, there's nothing wrong with tutors. If Kev really needs the extra help, he'll get it. But it won't happen because our lives were too busy or complex or demanding.

Posted by at 12:21 AM | Permalink

■"Japan's Post Offices: Full Service Political Battlefields; A mail service, bank, insurance company and rural welfare system, all in one," by Norimitsu Onishi, New York Times, 30 August 2005, p. A3.

I remember first being told about Japan's amazing post office financial system back when I did the economic security exercise on foreign direction investment in Asia (part of my Naval War College NewRuleSets.Project collaboration with the legendary broker-dealer firm Cantor Fitzgerald). Many of the execs I spoke with on Wall Street called it the equivalent of a "Ma Bell," not in terms of hindering postal service but in monopolizing the financial market for the bulk of Japan's personal savings. They described it's death-like grip on all that cash (roughly $3 trillion dollars-and I said "trillion") as being one of the main reasons why Japan's cozy financial system was having a hard time getting the economy to snap out of the lengthy recession that has dominated and defined the country's post-Cold War pathway-in effect, rendering Japan far less the global leader than it could be (and certainly was expected to become at the Cold War's end).

But it's not just the postal system's ability to fence off all that cash in relatively poorly performing investments that truly hampers Japan, the far worse aspect is political: Japan's effective single-party state of the last half century, the Liberal Democratic Party, has used it as it's main power base. Imagine if the U.S. Postal Service was also America's biggest insurance company and bank. Then imagine if one of our political parties had a lock on how it was run and used that immense power as a slush fund to basically stay in power virtually non-stop, decade after decade. That would be pretty bad, wouldn't it?

It's something worth remembering when politicians paint China as "communist" and argue that such high state ownership in the economy gives it an unfair advantage. Point being, that single-party domination of the economic landscape is exactly how every other Asian economic power has risen in the past half century. Japan is often described as the only socialist state that ever worked, and the postal system was a big reason why (allowing massive, state-directed investments in the private sector to be planned like clockwork),

But that system has long been broken in Japan, and so PM Koziumi (Esquire's best-dressed politician, I am duty-bound to remind you), in a truly bold and brave move, is seeking to privatize this "Ma Bell" and break it up into constituent companies. Do you think we'd all have cellphones today if Ma Bell still existed? Well, that's how important and positive a change Koziumi's quest could end up providing for Japan.

Combined with his push to get Japan more open to playing a bigger role in global security affairs, Koziumi is easily the best thing that has happened to Japan since the Cold War ended.

Posted by at 12:20 AM | Permalink

. . . italmost looks like a sidebar.

Sheesh.

I wonder what that looks like in the older versions of Safari?

Posted by Josette at 2:16 PM | Permalink

[Featured in today's newsletter]

Blogging's been very very good to me.

First, there's no question that it's helped me sell books. Nowadays people simply expect to be able to find all sorts of material about anything on the web, including authors. Anticipating that, my webmaster Critt (then, just a strange man who pestered me virtually from afar) pushed hard for me to start a blog in the spring of 2004, as the publication date for The Pentagon's New Map approached.

At first I resisted. I knew I needed to have a site separate from my Naval War College site, which, quite frankly, had been moribund since 9/11 killed the NewRuleSets.Project (along with my capacity to write the last report of our final exercise held in June 2001). And I knew I wanted to progressively migrate all my writings over to this new site, seeing, as I could, ahead to the day when the college would tire of my growing web presence (the college was just then beginning its own migration to the much dreaded and justifiably maligned Navy-Marine Corps Intranet).

Frankly, just moving all my documents over to the new site seemed like it would suffice to create a web presence that would adequately support the book. But Critt kept pushing for ancillary material directly related to the book, and that was something I was willing to consider.

Way back in the beginning of 2004 (oh so long ago) most of us were just getting familiar with the "second disk" aspect of "expanded DVDs," and that became the paradigm for the first great collection of material that I generated for the new site (all the director's commentary, deleted scenes, etc.). So far, so good.

But Critt continued to push me for a blog, saying it would become this invaluable resource for a one-many dialogue (I post, many respond, we dialogue). Critt didn't really have a great ulterior strategy in mind (to my knowledge), just the desire to set something up and see what happens.

Well, a lot did happen, and instead of the "disc 2" material becoming the great center of gravity for the site, it was-by far-the blog that anchored the site (based on our tracking of visitors, many come to check out my slides [they've seen me talk on TV], then my bio, and then they start scrolling the blog in-depth).

So my many talks brought many in, and all the "expanded DVD" stuff was great in getting them to browse the site, but it was the blog that created the relationship.

Now, of course, this whole thing started very slowly in the weeks leading up to the publication date, and then it expanded greatly across the first 8-10 weeks of the book's run. During that time, Critt and I allowed comments on individual blogs.

At first, the comments were useful and interesting and on-topic, but over time the blog seemed to become just another place for a lot of webizens to rant and rave over a host of issues. Pretty soon the comments became posts of their own, as people started blogging within my blog, posting entire documents, etc.

I tried to keep up with this flow, following every comment with one of my own, but that quickly became pointless. Then I just started becoming unhappy with the quality of the comments. I'd spent an hour or so shaping these posts, and then it was just a lot of crap being dumped on them by the same small collection of over-the-top types who never seemed to be offline.

And all that bile started ruining the process for me. I had always promised myself that as soon as the process stopped being fun, I'd stopping blogging. But Critt talked me out of it and we simply cut the comments function instead, angering a few of the blowhards but not seeming to impact readership numbers whatsoever.

At that point, we directed people to write me directly. That too soon became a bit much, because all the feedback was being channeled into this one pipe.

Then the compromise became, let's start a discussion group separate from the blog for people to dialogue over issues of common interest, and we'd create a new journal/newsletter venue for those who want to engage in serious, article-style posts on subjects related to PNM. Within that new vehicle, we also moved toward an Ask Tom format for letters, and finally, we seemed to find the right mix of blog, newsletter with Q&A, and the Blogging the Future forum--keeping everything free (after we learned what a hassle it was to collect subscriptions for the original journal).

That's the journey as far as dialogue mechanics go. Meanwhile, there's been the content dialogue, and here the blog's been invaluable.

First, the blog has become my "try out" venue for new thoughts and ideas. It's where I basically practice my ideas, fleshing them out progressively as I come across mainstream media articles and write up my commentary on them. This is a neat function because it forces me to link my ideas to real world events of some real magnitude or frequency, meaning I'm not chasing down the arcane, just the stuff that's really important.

Second, the blog, because it archives everything I write, becomes the great, audit-trail of my thinking over time: this huge database that probably is searched by me alone far more than it is by the readership in aggregate. It's like having this second brain crammed full of memory. So it stores not just the articles that I find interesting, it stores my first-impression analysis of them as well.

It's hard to explain just how amazingly useful this is for a horizontal thinker like myself. Since I'm mostly about drawing connections between things (in that crazed, Beautiful Mind-sort of way where I'm always searching for the "governing dynamics" that link seemingly disparate events), just keeping an archive of past articles that have interested me is a huge research function.

Third, the blog became my venue for chasing down the implications of the many concepts I put forth in PNM. I'd write something there, people would be curious about what I meant and ask me to elaborate vis-à-vis some real world event, and I would be forced to extend the analysis.

This last function truly made Blueprint for Action possible, because, as I discovered about six months into blogging, I had basically researched and thought my way through a host of subjects that naturally flowed out from the original material presented in PNM, which, I had come to realize over time, was more about explaining how we got to today than a serious projection of where we'd logically go next. The blog readers, therefore, became the great prompt to project into the future-in effect, determining which of the plethora of concepts presented in PNM needed to be fleshed out in a future-projection sense.

What was so cool about this was that the blog was creating a small network of content mentors for my work. I had always enjoyed the benefits of career mentors (a subject I cover throughout PNM) in my work, along with a few key content mentors, or people who'd say, "Wow, that's an interesting point. You should write about that!"

Hank Gaffney, going all the way back to my days at the Center for Naval Analyses, was more content mentor than career mentor (in the manner that Art Cebrowski and Bud Flanagan had been). At the college, my big content mentor had been Bradd Hayes, a colleague in my department.

But when I wrote PNM, I really left those content mentors behind by forging such a huge mass of both new material and the restructuring of a host of past material, generating a product that is, for all practical purposes, my grand unifying theory (PNM).

Now, by putting that huge GUT out on the table in PNM, I really moved beyond the capacity for any one person to be a content mentor. Instead, I needed a true network of content mentors. No network, no possibility to extend the material across a broad front, and therefore no possibility of cranking a "vol. II" (BFA) that-I now realize-is the equal of PNM in terms of synthesized, big-picture content.

What I'm saying, in effect, is that the blog made BFA possible along the timeline that it has unfolded. No blog, no BFA in the fall of 2005.

Could I have created BFA on my own? Sure. The vast majority of the prompts on content came from audiences that I briefed, not from the blog readership. But the dynamics of most presentation settings is such that you can take in the questions after your talk, offering the best off-the-cuff replies on the spot. But if you really want to chase down the larger implications of those questions, you need a venue to do that, plus a discerning readership that critiques your material in a real-time fashion.

So I would have arrived at BFA someday, but it would have taken a far greater effort, stretched over a far longer time frame. And, quite frankly, given the continuing demand for the original brief, I can't see how I would have found the thinking time sufficient to have made that extending process unfold.

This phenomenon of intense dialogue over product #1 strangling the ability of the artist to move on into product #2 is probably the best explanation for why "sophomore efforts" (the second album, the second book, the next TV pilot) often fail: the artist in question can’t move beyond the dialogue/interest generated by the first product, meaning he or she is a victim of their own success.

Now, the artist has two choices in the sophomore effort: an extension of the original product (sort of a give-them-what-they-want approach) or a sharp turn into significantly different material (like Kate Winslet going from "Titanic" to a series of weird, small characters in smaller movies), which, of course, greatly risks losing the audience you've built up with the first product.

Why risk that loss? Fear of stereotyping is huge for some artists, but I think obviously less so for authors in general and grand strategic visionary types like myself in particular. It's less a danger for me simply because I operate quite naturally at a very high elevation ("Just the vision, ma'am"), so there is almost never a lack of useful vectors to pursue.

I felt this with both PNM and BFA: complete amazement that I had written roughly 150,000 words both times and yet I was barely scratching the surface of the material I was racing through (in effect, meta-analysis, or analysis of analysis). In PNM, that meta-analysis was mostly of my own work (leading some reviewers to chastise me for not writing about other people's big ideas). But having done that meta-analysis of my own stuff in PNM (it truly is my "masterpiece" then), the only way I could move beyond it was to engage in meta-analysis of the works of others, and here is where the blog proved to be immeasurably useful because it generated all these leads from readers like T.M. Lutas, Michael Lotus, Mark Safranski (above all) and others.

The blog readers became the great prompts on what I should be reading and what I should be blogging. Looking back on BFA, I think the vast bulk (probably about 70%) of sources was provided to me by readers, with the rest being stuff I came across on my own. It was like having this vast army of research assistants sticking good stuff under my nose on a daily basis in a flow that could only be accomplished on a free venue like the Internet.

So, in the end, the blog didn't just sell a lot of books, it basically made the second book possible, both in terms of content reach and speed of execution. All those intellectual prompts from readers made it possible for me to--knock on wood--avoid the sophomore jinx of either going too far astray from the original "hit album" or simply regurgitating the same melodies.

Like any good "hit album," PNM created its own mini-genre, and the blog helped me figure out not so much how to "give them more of the same" but how to "give them more of what they need."

When you read BFA, you will see this phenomenon in spades, and I describe it in spades throughout. Naturally, I will get a lot of reviews that continue to harp on my "self-important self-referencing," and these criticisms will basically ignore the blog transaction function for what it's done. Because BFA is so chocked full of strategic concepts, I bet I won't see a single review that really tackles the blog function to any serious degree, and that's too bad, because--possibly more than any book yet written--BFA was constructed fundamentally out of an ongoing many-one dialogue I conducted with my readership.

Naturally, I'm responsible for the text and the ideas contained within, because, as always, I play the role of great synthesizer, deciding which ideas merit inclusion and which do not. In a couple of key instances (Lutas's "implicit villains" and Safranski's definition of "connectivity") I actually cite the fellow bloggers in question, but in the vast majority of instances I do not. This will bug some people who will recognize, "Hey, I gave Barnett that bit about Picasso painting Gertrude Stein." But, to be honest, there is simply no way I could generate an audit trail of all the pointers I got from people unless I spent half my day cataloguing emails and archiving them for the long haul, and that’s just not practical. I know everyone who writes me sees their email as unique in its content glory (and, of course, it is), but the sheer mechanics of going through hundreds of emails each day simply precludes that sort of precise archiving. I mean, I simply have to flush my email boxes regularly, otherwise they are shut down by the services that provide them.

Plus, it would simply be weird to have such extended citations: "this source, first presented to me by so and so, because of a blog I once wrote on this article, because of a blog my webmaster talked me into writing, a skill I credit my older sister for developing, based on an early childhood rearing by my mom … " and so on and so forth.

Hell, it would take me months simply to compile all the names of people I've interacted with, and in that list I'd generate a lot of unwarranted thank you's to go with all those warranted. So what I did in the acknowledgements of BFA was simply to thank the blogosphere and my readership in aggregate, citing by name only those whose frequency level was so high that they became distinct personalities in my mind (Safranski, Lutas, Lotus and Meade).

For the rest of you who, when you come across some bit in BFA that seems familiar to you because you remember some interaction over that subject matter, get this tingly feeling in your gut that maybe--just maybe--you were the one (or one of the ones) who generated that lead, enjoy that sensation for all it's worth, because in many cases it will be true. You really did help me write this book.

The best compliments I get on PNM are of the "you're just talking about the same ideas I've been talking about for years!" sort. Sometimes, the excitement of these missives rises to the level of almost accusing me of vision plagiarism ("We think alike!"), but mostly they just constitute a celebration of connectivity ("We think alike!"). Either way, these are the best sort of compliments because they signal the portability of the ideas contained within the book, and that sort of "aha!" feeling is crucial to the reproducibility of the strategic concept. In short, your great idea is yours alone, but your great vision is everybody's together--otherwise it's just your great opinion.

If PNM generated those sorts of compliments in spades, then BFA should generate them all the more (hopefully, along with fewer "young man, narrowly read" carps because BFA's meta-analysis focuses on the works of others more than on my past thinking), and the blog will be the reason.

The blog, therefore, becomes the giant feedback loop that raises the reproducibility factor of BFA by an order of magnitude. It makes PNM "the series" the vision that just keeps on visioning.

And THAT is why Critt now has a well-paying job as "Director of Corporate Blogging" at Enterra Solutions. I get it now. Steve DeAngelis gets is now. And Enterra has got him now.

Will BFA enjoy that much greater a reach than PNM? I certainly hope so.

And if it does, the blog will be the main reason, making the vast amount of hours I've put into it well worth the effort.

Posted by at 2:00 PM | Permalink

[Freely pass to people you know. Thanks.]

Feature: The Gift of Blogging

Blogging's been very very good to me.

First, there's no question that it's helped me sell books. Nowadays people simply expect to be able to find all sorts of material about anything on the web, including authors. Anticipating that, my webmaster Critt (then, just a strange man who pestered me virtually from afar) pushed hard for me to start a blog in the spring of 2004, as the publication date for The Pentagon's New Map approached.

Read the full text and more. . .

Download The Newsletter from Thomas P.M. Barnett - 29 August 2005 in PDF or Word document:

thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/barnett_29aug2005.pdf

thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/barnett_29aug2005.doc

Posted by Josette at 9:10 AM | Permalink

Good op-ed by Jackson Diehl, who always impresse:

Egypt's Potemkin Election . . . By Jackson Diehl Monday, August 29, 2005; Page A15

The Big Bang definitely shakes some walls in Egypt, but not enough for Mubarek not to try and steal another election.

Still, sad to think that we can't push this pile a bit more than we are. In many ways, this lost opportuunity is yet another casualty of doing the SysAdmin job poorly in Iraq.

Think about that . ..

Then read an excellent companion piece by Kagan:

. . . and American Paralysis
By Robert Kagan
Monday, August 29, 2005; Page A15

And ask yourself how good a job Rice is doing.

Posted by at 10:46 PM | Permalink

I am hearing about this book from readers, who note that Amazon lists PNM as a fellow traveller (also bought). Early indications say it tracks well with PNM, which is no surprise if you've read Peters' recent op-eds and articles about the Indian Ocean being the new center of gravity in the geo-strategic realm (the only ocean totally Gap, by my map).

Despite his often over-the-top style of bloodthirsty writing, Peters and I are more similar than dissimilar in outlook. He has a strong bias toward the Army, his service, whereas I have none, since I have never been in uniform. But since the SysAdmin argument becomes a pro-Marines, pro-Army argument thanks to Iraq (and wait til you read my blistering piece in the Nov Esquire regarding China, the war on terror, acquisitions, QDR, etc), more and more people are liking us for similar reasons.

Having said all that, now I just wonder why no one from Peters' end sends me a complimentary advance copy. I mean, I blog, people read--it could work! Instead, I only seem to get weird, DC-focused, report-like books sent to me for free. Really, like I'm on the wonks-only list or something. I like the hard-core just like the next analyst, but I like the more popular stuff too.

But enough desperate pleas . . .

Short of that I will pick it up in an airport at some point, even as I am hard pressed for reading. To be honest, I read BFA over and over again in anticipation of the tour. You would think I had it all down pat because I wrote it, but think again. You really want it flowing in your bloodstream when they turn those bright lights on you. And I aim to please.

Still, you need to clear the palate now and then, and Peters is definitely a throat-clearer!

His Amazon page is found here. Worth checking out.

Posted by at 3:32 PM | Permalink

Barone certainly has delighted my man Neil Nyren of G.P. Putnam's Sons (editor-in-chief and publisher), but my PR man Michael Barson's probably pulling his hair out over the last line in Barone's citation. Read it and see what I mean:

* Thomas Barnett's Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating. This is the PowerPoint guru's follow-up to The Pentagon's New Map, in which Barnett presents his recommendations for "A Department for What Lies Between War and Peace." Barnett argues that the military wasn't ready for peacekeeping in Iraq and that it has made mistakes. But, he goes on, "no public institution responds to failure better and more quickly than the U.S. military. And it has." This book will be widely read in the Pentagon, and should be widely read beyond. It's pre-order right now, but see if you can get (as I did) a reviewer copy.

See what I mean! Hey, you gotta like the enthusiasm, but let's get real Mr. Barone!

Seriously, having someone of his stature in your corner is a huge deal. People like him, Ignatius, Congressman Mac Thornberry--you get the picture. We're talking slightly right of center, serious thinkers. If I can't capture that, I have nothing.

PNM won that crowd over by its lack of squeamishness on defense. BFA needs to win over the slighty left of center with its idealism.

Then we've got the movement moving . . .

For the full text of Barone's piece, including his three other picks, go to here

Posted by at 3:13 PM | Permalink

Dateline: Nona's place, Terra Haute, Indiana, 28 August 2005

I am really glad we moved to Indiana. I've met more nice and polite people in one month than I did in living 20 years on the East Coast. I guess I was simply imprinted too deeply by my childhood to find any charm out East.

No offense to all the Bush haters, but I understand why the guy stays out of DC as much as possible. I would do the same as president.

No great slight meant for Easterners. I guess I just proved that you can take the boy outta the Midwest, but you can't take the Midwest outta the boy.

But the big thing is simply access to family: at Nona’s the past three weekends and at my Mom’s for Labor Day. Then someday soon, our own home as a place for others to visit.

But enough sociology. I want another dip in the pool before we head back to our collective prison cell.

Here's the daily catch, all from Nona's DELIVERED NYT! (I have discovered, for the second time, that the NYT doesn't deliver to my zip back in Indy, but I fear not, as my little neck of the woods is growing):

■ The winning strategy in Iraq, the winning Army in Iraq

■ Trading soldiers' lives for election-year votes

■ Beijing is too busy to invade Taiwan—until 2008 at least

■ Africa's answers are found down below

■ Hamas votes for extinction

■ The revolution will be unmanned--finally

■ Want connectivity, want the content too

Posted by at 5:46 PM | Permalink

■"Winning in Iraq: a classic strategy that might work," op-ed by David Brooks, New York Times, 28 August 2005, p. WK11.

■"Big Guns For Iraq? Not So Fast," by Craig S. Smith, New York Times, 28 August 2005, p. WK1.

David Brooks' op-ed touts the essay written by Andrew Krepenevich, that avatar of the transformed force, on how to win the counterinsurgency struggle in Iraq. Simple stuff, as Brooks notes, and as old as the hills: you grab the big cities, make them secure, and then work your way outward, expanding the circle of security.

No mystery. It takes a lot of bodies.

We could have had this victory in the immediate aftermath of Saddam's fall, but we confused the Leviathan's great victory with the SysAdmin's great responsibility. To his great credit, Krepinevich has been a real visionary of the lighter, more lethal, more agile force that won the war in Iraq. Now, he seeks to balance the overmatch by arguing—and arguing correctly—for boots on the ground to win the peace (however delayed by our poor choices since "Mission accomplished").

But here is where Brooks shows his ignorance of military matters to a stunning degree: describing Krepinevich's "new" thinking as the opposite of Rumsfeld's transformed force vision. First, Krepinevich was one of the great godfathers of this approach, and two, how we win wars is not the same as how we win the peace in the 21st century. Wars have become faster, easier, cheaper, and that means the peace becomes slower, harder, more costly.

Two realities requiring two forces. Brooks doesn't get that yet, and thus he foolishly presents Krepinevich as Rumsfeld's doctrinal opposite. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are identical twins when it comes to war, and frankly, they're close to being cousins on the question of the peace. It's just that Bush and Rumsfeld can't admit how much they screwed up the coalition-building in the run-up to the war. Plus, there are still too many neocon types gunning for China in this administration to allow us to cut the deals we need to cut, both regionally (like Iran) and with great powers (like India and China) to keep the Big Bang rolling in the region.

Exposing this fallacy—this false pitting of Network-Centric Operations against Fourth Generation Warfare—is the first thing I do in Blueprint for Action: Chapter One, Section One.

Putnam will send Brooks a copy, I am sure. If he still write stuff this off-base 3 months from now, I will definitely send him a letter.

Meanwhile, I think the Bush administration needs to rethink our withholding of high-end military assets from the coalition government in Iraq. If we're not going to do the long-term nasty, and we're unwilling to make deals with external or regional powers to accomplish the same, then we better be willing to up-arm the Iraqi security forces big-time. Arm them up, Mr. President, if you hope to get our boys home someday.

Posted by at 5:45 PM | Permalink

■"A Reader's Guide to Base Closings," editorial, New York Times, 28 August 2005, p. WK9.

■"Threat of Submarine Base Closing United Connecticut's Delegation: On the same side in this fight, but wait until the elections next year," by William Yardley, New York Times, 28 August 2005, p. A19.

The Connecticut delegation is all patting one another on the back for their heroic stance to save jobs in their districts, as Groton is spared. Good for them, but too bad for the SysAdmin forces that will continue to be shortchanged as a result. Lives will be lost needlessly over the coming years, as our boots on the ground will reach for equipment that is not there, await information flows that do not arrive in time, suffer wounds that could have been prevented, and await relief that does not arrive because there are too few bodies—and politicians such as these will be to blame. They will have blood on their hands and votes in their pockets.

The NYT editorial says it all:

"We wish the commissioners had paid more heed to the fact that the counterinsurgency wars America has so far been fighting in the 21st century are very different from the kind of superpower conflicts it built its current forces and base structure around. The military's current deficiencies have nothing to do with the staggeringly advanced and expensive fighter jets and submarines that the services so love to order and military contracgtors so love to build. The problem lies in the less profitable and less politically networked areas of ground fighting forces and basic supplies.

Lieberman and Dodd should be ashamed of themselves. Both pretend to be national leaders and both were so full of shit on this deal as to defy reason.

Both make me ashamed to be a registered Democrat.

Posted by at 5:42 PM | Permalink

■"Beijing's Quest for 2008: To Become Simply Livable; Toilets to Traffic, a Torrent of Complaints," by Jim Yardley, New York Times, 28 August 2005, p. A4.

The big push for the Olympics in China is going well from a logistics standpoint: construction is well on pace.

But from a showcase standpoint, Beijing has miles to go. All this massive reformatting of the ancient city is triggering big debate and big efforts at defining not just what it takes to pull off the Olympics, but how to look (and feel) good doing it. The concept is called "a City suitable for living." As one senior government planner puts it, "We've never thought about this before."

Why?

China's had the luxury of such thoughts for about half a millennium, having lost out big time for centuries after withdrawing from the world. Like the Middle East, China had a golden age and then saw it all slip away. But unlike Islam, China's made the comeback on something other than raw materials. So China has grown and developed and the 2008 Olympics will be its coming out party.

So Taiwan is most definitely safe for another three years, and after that China will be too busy counting its medals and accepting kudos for being a world-class power to bother with absorbing militarily a country, which—by then—will be well within its economic grasp.

The real invasion is well underway, and Groton won't be America's answer.

Posted by at 5:41 PM | Permalink

■"Neglected Poor in Africa Make Their Own Safety Nets: Neighbors come together to create health insurance cooperatives," by Marc Lacey, New York Times, 28 August 2005, p. A3.

Interesting article on how healthcare networks begin spontaneously in Africa from the bottom up. Governments too corrupt and too weak to do much good, so the people provide for themselves. The poor make their own safety nets in some classic, Hernando DeSoto "informal economic" activity.

Some governments, like Nigeria, try to set up national health care, but people are afraid to join, assuming it will just be a scheme to enrich politicians. They are probably right.

This poor-helping-the-poor approach is what will ultimately lift Africa from its knees. Our job is simply to reformat the bad governments standing between the people and their collective future worth creating. The right kind of incentive-laden aid can work in most instances, and here the Bush Administration's Millennium Challenge Account is a good start. But in certain key instances, we'll need to go in militarily to remove the bad and give the good some time to flourish. We'll also need to build up a local SysAdmin capability that's virtually non-existent (the African Union's peacekeeping troops) at this time.

But make no mistake: we send in the cavalry, we build and man the forts, and the settlers will most definitely come . . . because they're already there—ready and able to provide for themselves if only the minimal security rule sets can be established.

In short, the Big Push that Jeffrey Sachs talks about needn't cost the Core that much.

Posted by at 5:40 PM | Permalink

■"Shadowy Hamas Leader Issues Threat to Israel and Warns Abbas Not to Seize Guns: A stern warning, "These arms must be used to free our occupied motherland," by Steven Erlanger, New York Times, 28 August 2005, p. A9.

Hamas says its violence is why Israel gives us the Gaza. This is the claim of the Fourth Generation Warfare types throughout history, and as with virtually all cases, it's fundamentally untrue here. Israel gives up because it has a conscience, democratically expressed.

Hamas could be running Palestine if its leadership wasn't too stupid to look this gift horse in the mouth, and so they repeat Arafat's mistake, and—by doing so—sign themselves up for extinction.

The wall is basically up, and once the settlers are gone, Israel will close that border for the long haul, lobbing over shells and missiles as required. Hamas will keep that dynamic going because it's all that group knows after so many years of fighting. Gaza will remain disconnected and poor, but Hamas will claim "victory" for years, drowning out the voices of the moderates. The wall will stay up for a couple of generations, waiting out these idiots and madmen.

Abbas has his work cut out for him. He better be prepared to wage some serious war if he hopes to achieve some serious peace and prosperity for the next generation. Frankly, the current generation of youth is mostly lost already.

There will be no sympathy for Palestine once Israel pulls out and is guilty of nothing more than retaliations. That wall will cauterize the wound. The world will wait out the crazies, and will turn a blind eye to Israel's killing the most nasty ones.

And if any leave the country, hoping to internationalize the conflict, we should shoot them on sight.

Posted by at 5:40 PM | Permalink

■"Drones Will Be Used to Help Fight Wildfires: A way to track fast-moving flames while keeping firefighters safe," by Associated Press, New York Times, 28 August 2005, p. A13.

The U.S. military decides it needs secure transportation routes during nuclear war and the U.S. interstate system is born, revolutionizing the concept of travel and creating a global car culture that's sweeping Asia still today.

The U.S. military decides it needs secure comms during nuclear war and creates the Internet, revolutionizing the concept of information flows around the planet.

The U.S. military decides it needs to be able to locate people and things on the battlefield with great precision, and GPS is born, setting off a revolution in so many venues it's hard to track.

And the U.S. military decides it needs to be able to do things from the air while not putting airmen at risk, and unmanned aerial vehicles are born, and we're just about to see the revolution begin on that.

It would have arrived earlier, but 9/11 spooked us mightily. And yet, see how quickly America gets over it.

People say our short attention span is our greatest weakness. Frankly, I consider it our greatest strength.

Posted by at 5:39 PM | Permalink

■"Kung Fu Fightin' Anime Stars, Born in the U.S.A.: The creators of 6-year-old boys' favorite cartoon figures aren't actually Asian. But, they say, they have tried yoga," by Mark Lasswell, New York Times, 28 August 2005, p. AR19.

It always used to confound me why the lead characters in Japanese anime cartoons had Western features. I thought, do these people hate themselves?

The real answer warms the heart of any capitalist: the Japanese animators give the characters American looks to improve their marketability here—simple as that.

Japanese content export to the U.S. in this venue is so profound, that now the same content is simply being produced here, by Americans. That's like the Honda plant in Ohio that builds my Odyssey: at some point the exporting becomes in-sourcing and jobs are jobs.

Makes perfect sense to this dad. My daughter draws anime, my son reads manga, and my youngest kids prefer anime movies to Disney ones (although, one notes, Disney distributes Miyazaki films here in the U.S.).

Isn't it amazing that no one in America calls this "cultural imperialism"?

Not at all. America is the ultimate globalized culture—synthetic to the core.

Plus, the Japanese are simply smoother at it.

Just wait til the Chinese version starts a' coming . . .

Posted by at 5:38 PM | Permalink

Dateline: In the Shire, Indiana, 27 August 2005

Long morning at construction site: entire first floor is framed now. Found one mistake, and found many more decisions to make. Intimidating to see all this energy and money set in motion, when we must rely so much on others--trusting they will do right by us. Thankfully, our builder is a great one, and he proves this day-in and day-out. Still, it intimidates. You start something, and then you realize how hard the follow-though will be.

America stands at a similar point in Iraq, and in the Gap in general. We know what needs to be done, but we are beginning to realize both the sacrifice and change triggered by this effort, and so we struggle with what it means to face this undeniably reality: nation-building is something we're going to be doing a lot of from here on out. We did it about once every ten years in the Cold War and we've done it about once every two years since: through Bush the Elder, through Clinton, and through Bush the Younger. It won't end with this administration.

So the real question remains: Do we want to get good at this or not?

Here's the daily catch:

■ Realistically, Iraq is right where it should be; it's America's priorities that are off kilter

■ Want connectivity, willing to take whatever content comes with it

Posted by at 6:00 PM | Permalink

■"Political Violence Surges in Iraq: Two-Day Toll Reaches 100; Third Charter Deadline Missed," by Ellen Knickmeyer and Anthony Shadid, Washington Post, 26 August 2005, p. A1.

■"Divided They Stand," op-ed by David Brooks, New York Times, 26 August 2005, pulled from web.

■"Bush: 'We Will Stay, We Will Fight'; Faced with Rising Criticism, He Says Goals Are Being Met," by Sam Coates and Mike Allen, Washington Post, 25 August 2005, p. A1.

■"Before it's too late in Iraq," op-ed by Wesley K. Clark, Washington Post, 26 August 2005, p. 21.

■"Standoff Continues in Crawford: As Bush, Sheehan Return, Both Sides Plan Rallies," by Sam Coates, Washington Post, 26 August 2005, p. A17.

■"Rallying the Troops and Avoiding Reality," op-ed by Colbert I. King, Washington Post, 27 August 2005, p. A17.

■"New England, Va. Bases Survive Cut," by Bradley Graham and Eric M. Weiss, Washington Post, 25 August 2005, p. A1.

■"S.D., N.M. Air Force Bases Get Reprieve," by Bradley Graham, Washington Post, 27 August 2005, p. A6.

■"China to Allow More Stock Sales: $270 Billion of State Assets Put in Play," by Peter S. Goodman, Washington Post, 25 August 2005, p. D1.

Iraq's tortuously slow movement toward a constitution saps our sense of morale. "My God," we think to ourselves, "can't they move any faster with all this killing going on!"

But the outcome that's unfolding is both expected and probably the best we can hope for. I've said it before and I'll say it again: we killed a unitary state -- an artificial unitary state -- and what we begat were three societies with a lot of bad blood between them. The two past "losers," the Shiites and the Kurds, will not allow themselves to fall under the control of the Sunnis, no matter how much blood they must spill in the process. Since both have oil, both feel they'll be fine on their own. And they probably will be, especially the Shiites, because of Iran's obvious desire to sponsor and mentor the emergent mini-republic. Turkey, if it got over it's own fears, could play a similar role with the Kurds, but frankly, the Kurds are all right and will be no matter who looks out for them.

The Sunnis remain the odd man out: no oil, no sponsors, no hope for regaining top-dog position. So some significant portion of them will fight on, and so long as its Kurds and Shiites fighting back, it will never end. When Sunnis themselves fight back, then it will end. Sunnis will not fight back until they see that they have no choice, otherwise suffer the odd man out status permanently in a tripartite Iraq that never finds it within itself to ever come back together again.

The constitution process both marks the current state of this unfolding reality and it moves the pile a bit, so long as everyone keeps talking. On the oil issue, the proposal is for revenue sharing on a per capita basis. Smart move by the Shiites and Kurds, and the Sunnis will never get a better deal by fighting. Iraq experts agree: this is a pretty sensible outcome.

This is Iraqi democracy right now -- and that's okay.

If we want out, we need to build capacity within these three regimes individually, across the loose federation itself, and then in terms of local patronage expressed by neighbors. Iran needs no push on the Shiites. Turkey will on the Kurds, and that process should involve the EU and all the quid pro quos that implies. The House of Saud is the logically incentivized local on the Sunnis, and if we're not working that conversation now, we should be.

Bush says we will fight on, and this certitude, amidst the losses on our side during this obviously tumultuous time in Iraq, makes a lot of people mad back here in the states -- especially parents and loved ones of service personnel over in Iraq right now.

Bush is right to say we will fight on, because if we pull out now and pretend the Gap will be shrunk on its own, without the occasional employment of the Leviathan and -- quite frankly -- the non-stop deployment of our SysAdmin-type forces over the very long haul, we will simply find ourselves pulled into the next rotten Gap situation a couple of years from now, just as unprepared for the "slog" as we were in Iraq.

Make no mistake: argue yourself out of Iraq and you'll find yourself argued right into the next thing, whether it's North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Colombia-whatever. The question isn't, "Are we going to do this?" The question is, "Are we going to get good at doing this?"

Because if we get good, then we prioritize our resources better, and thus treat our people better in the process. We get more successful at it as a result, thus we attract more partners. Those partners want a more defined rule set for how we cooperate, and then we have a system emerging. And then we really get good at this. We save lives, we don't waste them. We create connectivity and foster hope. We deal with terrorists by destroying their ability to recruit, fund, and operate beyond the grasp of our law enforcement agencies. We win a global war on terrorism.

But doing all that requires we rethink our military big time, our government big time, and our international security system big time. PNM started that conversation for me and those for whom the book worked. BFA will extend it.

Wesley Clark says, "U.S. armed forces still haven't received resources, restructuring and guidance adequate for the magnitude of the task" -- meaning Iraq.

Meanwhile, Americans are fighting tooth and nail to preserve Cold War defense infrastructure all over America. And when we do this, make no mistake: over the long haul we trade lives for jobs. We put our people in the field at risk by preferring to hold onto the past and refusing to admit what we've stumbled into in the here and now -- a reality that I call the Gap. It cannot be voted out of office. It is not a Neocon invention. It is one-third of humanity in significant suffering. We owe that Gap plenty -- as spiritual people who care about others. And yes, what we owe them first and foremost is an opportunity for security.

Lives will be sacrificed in this process, but those lives won't be in vain if we make the restructuring necessary to give those troops the best possible resources, training, equipment, and doctrine for the tasks ahead.

Instead, big chunks of the Pentagon, of Washington, and of America prefer to cling to the past. We prefer our familiar scary monsters, because they keep our bases as is, our military industrial complex as is, our jobs in our congressional districts as is.

And as a result, we're not waging the peace we should be waging today in Iraq, because we can't get to that point with the limited SysAdmin force capacity that we now possess.

We can make Iraq secure. We can keep the Big Bang moving. We can shrink the Gap. We can do it all.

But not if we're going to refuse to change, move off the Cold War past, get over China. That's our real unwillingness to face reality.

China continues to open up, whereas the Gap continues to burn. At some point we get past China, reorganize ourselves truly for the tasks at hand, attract the allies who want to help us inside the Gap (especially the Indians and Chinese), and we get serious about this whole affair.

Bush started the process, but he has not committed his administration, his government, his Pentagon to the follow through.

If Sheehan et al force this much needed adjustment, then they will have done God's work. If all they achieve is America's selfish withdraw and refocus on itself, then more lives will be needlessly wasted inside the Gap than we'll ever be able to count. Those lives must count somewhere, sometime, with someone.

We have it within ourselves to do so much better than we're now doing.

When I said just before the election that I didn't think Bush had it within him to make the necessary changes to get broad Core-wide buy-in to that which he started with his Global War on Terrorism and the Big Bang, it's this sort of indecisiveness and inability to act boldly that I feared: this pretense that it's all going well enough and that we really don't need to change that much to succeed.

We do need to change -- a whole helluva lot. Millions upon millions of lives depend on this -- few of them American. But if we imagine a future worth creating, we will have to value these lives, we will have to wage these wars and win these peace's, and we will have to commit ourselves to shrinking the Gap.

Posted by at 5:59 PM | Permalink

■"Pakistan looks to India to save its cinema," by Ashraf Khan, Variety, 22-28 August 2005, p. 14.

Fascinating bit in Variety: Pakistan cinema is dying, so theater owners are pushing to lift ban on Bollywood films from India. They are saying, "without this connectivity, we cannot survive, so damn your sensitivity on the content-we want our Bollywood!"

Posted by at 5:58 PM | Permalink

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 25 August 2005

Allergies are a complete bitch, and getting bitchier the older I get.

I regret ever making fun of my Dad getting drowsy in the afternoon, especially in the summer.

What allergies mean to me is that I have about 8 good hours of thinking time each day, if I start at 0600. After 2pm the brain just starts to wander. Doesn't mean I can't give speeches, or conduct meetings, or brainstorm, or be generally charming. I just don't like creative writing--or blogging.

All my fancy way of excusing myself yet again today from the usual blog format of working through a list of articles. Tuesday and Wednesday were given over to editing the China piece for Esquire, and that sits with Mark now.

Wed and Thurs were given over to the first serious draft of a book proposal for a volume I would write with Steve DeAngelis (working title, "America Resilient: Beating Terrorism, Staying Competitive, and Innovating Our Way to a New World Over"). I had cranked about 500 words a week ago, just to get a feel for the intro, then spent time reviewing various Enterra stuff to make sure I was getting the gist of how they like to explain enterprise resiliency. Then dicked around for a while longer, just cogitating and practicing in my head. Then I got the itch late on Wednesday, tried on Thursday, dicked around some more. Then I got up Friday and it finally clicked for me and I'm typing all morning like a demon, with the clock moving incredibly slowly (funny how that works).

When I finally look up, it's 8 pages and almost 4,000 words. I give it a rest tonight and then read it through tomorrow again early and fire it off to Steve, Mark Warren, and agent Jennifer Gates. I don't know if Putnam will consider it an option book, but naturally we'll pass it past Neil Nyren first. Not sure if it's broad enough for Putnam, but maybe the business imprint at Penguin would have interest. If we pass those bailiwicks without interest, then I think we go the usual route of sending out to multiple publishers.

I must admit, I was skeptical I would have enough to say in a joint volume such as this, but the more I got into the proposal, the more psyched I got, realizing that I'm always truncating what I could be ultimately saying (even after two books totalling about 300,000 words) simply because the subject matter, especially if it's tilted in one direction (military, development, business), is basically infinite. PNM was all so mil focused, and BFA came out surprisingly development focused [at least, in my mind], so this book would be a recasting more strictly in the direction of business, giving me a chance to include a lot of material/stories that I just couldn't get into either PNM or BFA.

Then I think of Stan Crock from BusnessWeek (in his review) saying it was too bad PNM didn't have more business-oriented stuff (especially drawing upon my work with Cantor Fitzgerald and the original NewRuleSets.Project), and I'm thinking: this is the book to do it in.

Plus, partnering with someone else who's like me (but in a different sector) is the cheap and easy way to extend your brain into new spheres. I mean, with all these emails from law students and law professors, I'm starting to think an international law version of this whole package would make sense at some point. Maybe an educationally-oriented one, and so on.

Anyway, I have a load of articles I want to blog. Gotta run to the mall right now on family affairs (I fear I will be sitting through a movie about penguins having babies while others see more interesting fare), but at least they canc'd the cross-country practice today after four straight nights of running (a good 13-15 miles total, which was just enough of a shock for this 43-year-old who gave up daily running about 5 years ago). Otherwise, I doubt I would stay awake even through this sex-filled romp (do penguins' nipples get erect in all that antarctic frost?).

Tomorrow I promise to get up early, review and then fire off the book proposal, get to my backlog of articles, and then finish my backlog of Ask Toms and write my newsletter for Monday, all the while hoping Warren doesn't send me back anything until at least Saturday night.

The rest of the weekend, I suspect, will be spent in my mother-in-law's pool.

Don't feel the allergies there.

Posted by at 7:31 PM | Permalink

Email that comes to us through asktom@thomaspmbarnett.com and tom@thomaspmabarnett.com as well as the subscriber list to The Newsletter from Thomas P.M.Barnett -- subscribe@thomaspmbarnett.com -- has always been, is now, and will continue to be for use in conversations with "Thomas P.M. Barnett" only.

Effectively, the recent acquistion of New Rule Sets Project, LLC by Enterra Solutions, LLC acquires our company DNA, not our email address book.

With my new colleagues at Enterra Solutions, I'm working on an opt-in function to Enterra's proposed newsletter, which will be offerred via the NRSP Update list and this blog.

The target date for launch of Enterra's corporate blog and newsletter is mid-September.

Thanks,

Critt Jarvis

Posted by Josette at 8:26 AM | Permalink

[Note: as best I understand, this problems only shows up in older versions of Safari. Of course, now that I've said that, somebody will probably give me a heads up related to IE. (It's all magic. . .)]

Got this email from Peter Jansen:

Not sure if anyone has passed on a note, but the new sidebar links don't seem to work in Safari (1.2.4/OS 10.3.7) on my Mac, although they do work in Explorer on the same computer. Not a big deal in a Microsoft/PC-centric world, but thought you might like a heads up.

We live in a web-centric world. Meaning, this is a big deal. I don't see anything unusual with the markup.

Anyone else having a problem?

Thanks for the heads up.

Posted by Josette at 7:27 AM | Permalink

My new best friend for the day Keith Mitchell also alerted me to this Washington Times story (see the original here):

Abdullah sees elected leaders within 15 years

By Nicholas Kralev

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

August 19, 2005

Saudi King Abdullah promised Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice a series of reforms that could give the desert kingdom an elected government within 10 to 15 years, says a senior U.S. official who was present when the two met in June.

"He professed to transform his country and talked about having a representative government within a decade or a decade and a half," said the official, who asked not to be named.

The 82-year-old king made the pledge during a June 20 visit by Miss Rice to the capital, Riyadh, when he was still crown prince and the kingdom's de facto ruler.

It is thought to be the first time a Saudi ruler has attached a timeline to moving toward a democratic process.

The Saudi Embassy in Washington did not respond to attempts to verify the U.S. official's account.

King Abdullah took over one of the world's few remaining absolute monarchies after his brother, King Fahd, who suffered a debilitating stroke a decade ago, died on Aug. 1 . . .

In Blueprint for Action's "Afterword: Blogging the Future," I blog a series of stories at various depths into the the future (by 2010, by 2015, by 2020, and by 2025). In the "by 2020" group, I have the following imaginary headline from the future: "National Elections Complete Transition of Saudi Monarchy to Constitutional Status." 2020 is 15 years away.

Does it happen? Well, it matters if the new king there thinks it's going to happen.

But I must say, I wasn't expecting even that conditional data point to come out of the House of Saud even before BFA hit the streets!

Funny thing was, I was nervous about including that one, thinking people would laugh it off. Some still will, of course, because the proof will be in the pudding, as they say. Still, the glass looks half fuller with such statements of intent and hope.

Posted by at 5:14 PM | Permalink

Sent by fellow blogger Keith Mitchell, the original was published today in The New York Sun. Here's the first couple of paras (read more at Keith's site The Neil Rogers Show):

'Universal Democracy' Is the Goal As Congress Eyes New Legislation
by Eli Lake

When senators return to Washington this September, they will be set to consider new legislation that would commit America to ending tyranny the world over.

Tucked inside the House version of a bill that authorizes spending on foreign aid is the language of what is known as the ADVANCE Democracy Act. The act instructs American ambassadors and embassy staffs to draw up democracy transition plans for unfree regimes, with input from nonviolent opposition movements in the various countries. While Congress has passed laws that require America to work with democratic opposition groups for specific countries - such as the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act - never before has it considered a law that would, as ADVANCE proposes, "commit United States foreign policy to the challenge of achieving universal democracy."

A sponsor of the legislation, Rep. Tom Lantos, a Democrat of California, predicted that in the Senate the bill, sponsored there by Senator McCain, a Republican of Arizona, and Senator Lieberman, a Democrat of Connecticut, would not be opposed. "I don't think there will be any opposition in the Senate," he told The New York Sun . . .

I'm making a list, I'm checking it twice!

An argument I make in BFA is that we need a system--an A-to-Z Core-wide rule set for processing politically bankrupt regimes. Yes, most of the impetus and original pieces of such a system will come from the U.S., but the key is getting buy-in from the rest of the Core by stressing our own adherence to the emerging rule set (discoverable only through open discussion). As that comes together, we make the list and make it public, and if we do it right, we get most of these bad actors off the stage without having to intervene with the Leviathan, just the SysAdmin force to help in the reconstruction. But having the list and showing a willingness to use it constitutes the key deterennce, or strategic triad of the post-9/11 era.

In the Cold War, it was land, air and sea-based missiles that formed our strategic triad. Now, the new word I'm hearing from Army officers and Marines and Special Ops guys is that the strategic triad for the 21st century, or the force that deters bad things from happening to America directly, is the Army, Marines and SOCOM. This is, to me, a real breakthrough concept that I should probably gin into a slide.

Posted by at 4:54 PM | Permalink

Sent to me by reader Ricardo Maquez, asking for comment. The story appears in today's Inside Defense, but you need subscriber access to get the whole shebang.

Here's the opening para:

New 'Civilian Response Corps' Would Relieve Military of Non-Combat Stability Missions

Aug. 24, 2005 -- A Defense Department-chartered study is set to
recommend options for establishing a civilian corps of nation-building
experts that would relieve the military of non-combat stability and
reconstruction activities in future operations similar to Afghanistan
and Iraq. These civilian-led teams designed for overseas missions
could also have a homeland defense role, such as assisting American
cities to get back on their feet after massive terrorist attacks,
according to sources familiar with the study's recommendations.

Is this evidence of PNM's reach? As always, it's not a matter of influence but of accuracy. PNM reflects the world accurately, so it's a good guide to what the Pentagon will do in the future. But they don't do it because any one author says so, so I don't claim it, nor anything like it, as "actual evidence" that my ideas are being adopted.

I actually write about this phenomenon (the role of the visionary strategist) in Blueprint for Action in yet another shameless attempt to self-promote both myself and the vision while actually pretending to do otherwise. I will save the meta-explanation for that particular dynamic for Vol III.

Still, this is yet another example of more institutional movement toward the SysAdmin force. As I explain in BFA, I see the SysAdmin as roughly 1/2 military and 1/2 civilian, with the latter broken into a quarter each of police and development experts. So when I see something like this, or I see the Reserves and Guards retraining 100k infantry into military police, I'm pretty certain the pieces are coming together.

And yes, they will come together no matter how well or how badly the public perceives Iraq to be going. They come together because the Pentagon sees a future it cannot escape, and so it adjusts to this unfolding reality.

Finally, I will confess I post stuff like this to also stop emails demanding (sometimes, quite imperiously) that I submit a long list of data points "proving" that my ideas are being taken seriously by the Bush administration/Pentagon/Defense Department. I mean, what do people think I do all day? Comb my 2000+ blog entries for giant compilations just to seal the deal with them individually?

I mean, what kind of strategic visionarhy works like that?

Anyway, such lists would be pathetically meglomaniacal in tone: "Look, everything is coming together according to my master plan!" he typed furiously while laying in his bed in his pajamas in Indiana, sure as he was of his mastery over the military-industrial complex.

So I limit my crowing--nay, cheerleading--to posts like this. If you read along, you get a sense of the momentum, which NOBODY controls. And if you send me an email demanding I submit the list, you might just bump into my snotty, insolent alter ego in the reply.

And yes, HIS name is Critt, so send him your hurt, angry emails.

Last cool point about this story: the reference to dual-usage on homeland security may strike some as proof of DoD getting more in bed with DHS on this issue, but it's really the other way around. Over the long term, it'll be the Department of Homeland Security that logically gets more into the bed that is overseas interventions. As Sen. John Kerry proposed to me when I briefed him last spring, rather than propose the possibility of a new Department of Everything Else (not my serious title, but I do use it in BFA) to house the SysAdmin function (but not the DoD-shared troops), it's more logical to assume that DHS could aspire to that role as the country grows more confident in its societal resiliency (both public and private sector--hence my new association withi Enterra Solutions) and begins to realize that it's not about "us" but about "them," thus DHS gets progressively redirected overseas for the same reasons that the Defense Department is: better to take the fight/resiliency over there than simply try to hoard it here and pretend that that approach really increases our overall security.

Then again, such sophisticated long-term strategizing only proves why Kerry was too smart (alas!) to be president.

Posted by at 11:42 AM | Permalink

Reader Robert Schwartz sent me this post from Steven Levitt, author of Freakonomics, who has his own blog, re: the "oil peak" article by Peter Maas in the NYT Magazine last Sunday, which I already blogged (with some frustration). Levitt solves this frustration by offering a fairly simple and straightforward analysis, to which I subscribe completely. I know his analysis is very frustrating to those who want to believe in "abrupt shocks" regarding oil, but if it stops the emails, or even just slows them down, I will be grateful.

Here is his post (find the original here):

==================================================
http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/08/peak-oil-welcome-to-medias-new-version.html

Sunday, August 21, 2005

"Peak Oil:" Welcome to the media's new version of shark attacks

The cover story of the New York Times Sunday Magazine written by Peter Maass is about "Peak Oil." The idea behind "peak oil" is that the world has been on a path of increasing oil production for many years, and now we are about to peak and go into a situation where there are dwindling reserves, leading to triple-digit prices for a barrel of oil, an unparalleled worldwide depression, and as one web page puts it, "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon."

One might think that doomsday proponents would be chastened by the long history of people of their ilk being wrong: Nostradamus, Malthus, Paul Ehrlich, etc. Clearly they are not.

What most of these doomsday scenarios have gotten wrong is the fundamental idea of economics: people respond to incentives. If the price of a good goes up, people demand less of it, the companies that make it figure out how to make more of it, and everyone tries to figure out how to produce substitutes for it. Add to that the march of technological innovation (like the green revolution, birth control, etc.). The end result: markets figure out how to deal with problems of supply and demand.

Which is exactly the situation with oil right now. I don't know much about world oil reserves. I'm not even necessarily arguing with their facts about how much the output from existing oil fields is going to decline, or that world demand for oil is increasing. But these changes in supply and demand are slow and gradual -- a few percent each year. Markets have a way with dealing with situations like this: prices rise a little bit. That is not a catastrophe, it is a message that some things that used to be worth doing at low oil prices are no longer worth doing. Some people will switch from SUVs to hybrids, for instance. Maybe we'll be willing to build some nuclear power plants, or it will become worth it to put solar panels on more houses.

The NY Times article totally flubs the economics time and again. Here is one example from the article: The author writes:

The consequences of an actual shortfall of supply would be immense. If consumption begins to exceed production by even a small amount, the price of a barrel of oil could soar to triple-digit levels. This, in turn, could bring on a global recession, a result of exorbitant prices for transport fuels and for products that rely on petrochemicals -- which is to say, almost every product on the market. The impact on the American way of life would be profound: cars cannot be propelled by roof-borne windmills. The suburban and exurban lifestyles, hinged to two-car families and constant trips to work, school and Wal-Mart, might become unaffordable or, if gas rationing is imposed, impossible. Carpools would be the least imposing of many inconveniences; the cost of home heating would soar -- assuming, of course, that climate-controlled habitats do not become just a fond memory.

If oil prices rise, consumers of oil will be (a little) worse off. But, we are talking about needing to cut demand by a few percent a year. That doesn't mean putting windmills on cars, it means cutting out a few low value trips. It doesn't mean abandoning North Dakota, it means keeping the thermostat a degree or two cooler in the winter.

A little later, the author writes

The onset of triple-digit prices might seem a blessing for the Saudis -- they would receive greater amounts of money for their increasingly scarce oil. But one popular misunderstanding about the Saudis -- and about OPEC in general -- is that high prices, no matter how high, are to their benefit.

Although oil costing more than $60 a barrel hasn't caused a global recession, that could still happen: it can take a while for high prices to have their ruinous impact. And the higher above $60 that prices rise, the more likely a recession will become. High oil prices are inflationary; they raise the cost of virtually everything -- from gasoline to jet fuel to plastics and fertilizers -- and that means people buy less and travel less, which means a drop-off in economic activity. So after a brief windfall for producers, oil prices would slide as recession sets in and once-voracious economies slow down, using less oil. Prices have collapsed before, and not so long ago: in 1998, oil fell to $10 a barrel after an untimely increase in OPEC production and a reduction in demand from Asia, which was suffering through a financial crash.

Oops, there goes the whole peak oil argument. When the price rises, demand falls, and oil prices slide. What happened to the "end of the world as we know it?" Now we are back to $10 a barrel oil. Without realizing it, the author just invoked basic economics to invalidate the entire premise of the article!

Just for good measure, he goes on to write:

High prices can have another unfortunate effect for producers. When crude costs $10 a barrel or even $30 a barrel, alternative fuels are prohibitively expensive. For example, Canada has vast amounts of tar sands that can be rendered into heavy oil, but the cost of doing so is quite high. Yet those tar sands and other alternatives, like bioethanol, hydrogen fuel cells and liquid fuel from natural gas or coal, become economically viable as the going rate for a barrel rises past, say, $40 or more, especially if consuming governments choose to offer their own incentives or subsidies. So even if high prices don't cause a recession, the Saudis risk losing market share to rivals into whose nonfundamentalist hands Americans would much prefer to channel their energy dollars.

As he notes, high prices lead people to develop substitutes. Which is exactly why we don't need to panic over peak oil in the first place.

So why do I compare peak oil to shark attacks? It is because shark attacks mostly stay about constant, but fear of them goes up sharply when the media decides to report on them. The same thing, I bet, will now happen with peak oil. I expect tons of copycat journalism stoking the fears of consumers about oil induced catastrophe, even though nothing fundamental has changed in the oil outlook in the last decade.

(For those of you interested in more economic perspectives on peak oil, check out these three posts by Jim Hamilton of econbrowser: here, here, and here. And thanks to Alex from marginalrevolution for pointing me to Hamilton's posts.)

posted by Steven D. Levitt at 11:31 AM

If this didn't work the first time, I urge you to read it again. Levitt is really quite good, as is his book.

Posted by at 11:26 AM | Permalink

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 24 August 2005

Today lost to one long big edit of the China piece for Esquire. Got it up to about 7300. By then I had put in everything that I wanted to say. Hoping it works enough for Warren to begin the edit. I am feeling good about it.

Was going to blog tonight, after losing the site for several hours overnight and into today because of the latest Meme.net glitch. But my third evening in a row of running as a coach with my son's cross-country team has left me drooping.

Tomorrow, assuming the site is up.

Posted by at 10:59 PM | Permalink

We've modified the sidebar to include links to a few people who helped the PNM conversation early on, and those whose work we believe will further shrink the Gap through "smart connectivity."

Thanks.

Postscript: Logs say say these are the most common aggregators pinging us:

Userland (Frontier, Radio), My Space, Bloglines, My Yahoo.

Posted by Josette at 8:12 AM | Permalink

For those of you who were redirected, last night, to a page that said our hosting was suspended because we had not paid out bill, here's the host service's reply to my !@#$!@#!#:

Hello Critt

actually your site was suspended due to some major server load from last night. it had crashed the server due to taking up 37% of the load last night around 11. are you running any scripts? I am going to unsuspend it this morning but it will be monitored and if the load goes over again it will be suspended

I apoligise for the suspension but the server integrity is important. its either suspended your page or everyones page goes down.

Posted by Josette at 7:54 AM | Permalink

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 23 August 2005

Spent my creative energy today on the NPR show (that blows the morning-and I confess I did the show pacing in my shorts on our apartment's balcony) and then reading and rereading the old China draft I have sitting with Mark Warren for the November issue of Esquire. He wants it updated and reworked, but refuses to tell me how. He can be annoying like that-just pushing for better!

So I read and reread and think I'm ready to plow into the beast first thing in the morning. I won't bother with any cutting. That's what Warren is for.

As so often happens with me when I'm getting to write, I delay and delay and clean house in the meantime, working up my will to get started by clearing my decks.

Here's some old PNM business and some old Esquire business, to empty my "blogs to do" file in my email account.

Now if I could only get to the backlogged "ask Tom" emails! On that I will confess: you ask via a short letter that is specific, and those I do as I receive them (thus they go into the newsletter). It's the long letters that go into the hopper, hopefully someday to emerge).

■ Reviewing the Reviews (Bay Area Political Review)

■ Reviewing the Reviews (Charlotte Observer)

■ Catching up on some old "Sound and Fury" in Esquire

Posted by at 10:18 PM | Permalink

Here's the review, with my commentary to follow.

The Pentagon's New Map

In the words of Pentagon futurist Thomas Barnett, “we don't want to export American rule, we want to export American rules”. More than any other sentiment in his first book The Pentagon's New Map, this highlights the drive behind the liberal wing of U.S. imperialism.

First, you might ask, who is this Barnett character. And while this is a book review, and not a biography, a brief synopsis may help. After all, I am embarking on my own bit of futurism in placing such importance on him. There is a plethora of people in the world of geo-political strategy, all with their own ideas and predictions. Why focus on Thomas Barnett?

Thomas Barnett is a strategic planner whose educational foundation was developed in the final years of the cold war. Understanding that the role of America's military has changed since the fall of the Soviet Union, Barnett has developed new ideas for military strategy in the post cold-war world. He has worked for the Naval War College, and his idea for the Pentagon's New Map was formulated there and popularized in a series of Esquire articles. He was the Director of the New Rules Set Project, “…an ambitious effort to draw new "maps" of power and influence in the world economy so as to expand the U.S. Military's--and specifically, the U.S. Navy's--vision of where and how it can wield maximum influence across the international security environment of the Era of Globalization”.

It is the ideas of this project that form the core of The Pentagon's New Map. Barnett's map consists of two distinct entities in the global community: the Core and the Gap. To understand this thesis one must first recognize the four distinct phases of globalization outlined in the book. Globalization I is characterized as the era between industrialization and the First World War. Globalization II lasted from 1945-1980, and was characterized by a massive flow of resources facilitated by programs such as the Marshal Plan, developing a global economy dominated by the G-8. Globalization III is where we find ourselves today: Barnett would argue, in an era of uncertainty, where the international rules that allowed for Western dominance (Barnett would frown upon my choice of words) following WWII, are incompatible with the global realities of today. What Barnett is developing is a strategy to bring the world toward his dream; Globalization IV an era recognized by the elimination of the Gap.

The Gap is defined as those countries that have not accepted the economic, social, political, or cultural rules necessary for functioning globalization. The Gap is most easily recognized by what it does not include; the Core: North America, Western Europe, East Asia, Russia, the Subcontinent, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and notably, Israel and South Africa. The key to the future that Barnett envisions is “exporting America's rules” to the gap, so that these countries may be globalized both economically and culturally.

The majority of forces opposed to this globalization come from countries in the gap, Barnett refers to this opposition as an effort to maintain “disconnectedness” and he does little to differentiate between the various agents of “disconnectedness”. In his analysis, a Hugo Chavez is equal to a Bin-Laden, in that they both stand opposed to American Globalization. It is this clear and undisguised presentation that informs us of what anti-imperialists face, even from the mind of a self-professed Gore supporter.

Barnett though, is not a cultural strategist, but a military one. This book aims to define the role of the military in eliminating the Gap. The United States military is to act as a “leviathan” in this global relationship: providing the security necessary for international capital to flow into these regions. In order to allow the financial agents of globalization to succeed in the third world, Barnett suggests that someone needs to enforce a certain set of rules.

That someone is the United States, and he calls on Americans to develop the will to play this role. It is why he is comfortable stating that, “…our loved one's won't be coming home anytime soon.” The American military's role would be to respond to threats within the gap, which pose security problems for globalizations key agents, international corporations and financial firms. There is a strong emphasis put on military operations in seam-states (those Core countries that border on the Gap). As we have seen America's increasing interest in Eastern Europe, as well as the dismantling of large WWII era European military bases, we must recognize some of the accurate foresight of Barnett.

It is important to note the contradiction between this analysis of military and economic stability, with what we know about the profits to be made in regions that are unstable and in the midst of war. Secondly, to accept Barnett's principles we must avoid discussing the role America continues to play in promoting instability in the world.

Nonetheless, Barnett's vision is extremely palpable to liberals, and even some people who would call themselves progressive. His book continually espouses the great advantages of expanding globalization. Anyone familiar with the rhetoric of the World Bank will not be surprised to hear how this future, in which the military faces off with anyone promoting disconnectedness and financial firms flood economies with investment, will alleviate poverty around the world. Barnett's book states clearly that America must pay for its colonial past, and talks in detail about the fundamental importance of cultural equality for women. He has polished the messages that allowed liberals to sit idly while Clinton bombed Serbia and Iraq relentlessly. Furthermore, his stance on China is particularly attractive to large sectors of the financial world. Barnett clashes with figures in the Pentagon who view China as the next big threat. China, while not following all of the rules, is certainly following the economic ones, and therefore is not a threat, but an emerging member of the Core.

While Barnett is certainly a talented futurist, his analysis suffers from much of the shortcomings of capitalist economic theory. Most prominent, is an underlying belief in limitless resources. In fact, Barnett spends a brief portion of his book attempting to debunk current theories regarding the imminent crisis surrounding fossil fuels, particularly oil. He assures his readers that the point in which oil will run out is in fact significantly further away than many environmentalists would claim. He engages in what I would argue is a futile debate, as the important question is not when oil will run out, but rather what will happen when it does. It is inevitable that our dependence on oil as an energy resource is unhealthy both environmentally and politically.

The future that Barnett is so indebted to relies on a belief that the world can thrive, and poverty can be weakened, utilizing the principles that have facilitated America's rise to prominence. I would argue that this theory is flawed at its core. America's political relationships, as well as its relationship to the natural world, are unsustainable. Using America's success as a litmus test, one must ask whether the economic success experienced by America could have ever been realized absent the subjugation of the people and resources of the third world.

This speaks to a larger theoretical problem with Barnett's analysis. There is very little insight into causation as it relates to the current state of the world. In the picture Barnett paints, portions of the world are disconnected. Poverty and war exist, America, Western Europe, Japan, and other members of the “functioning core” do not experience those realities, and that is merely the way it is. If we can for a moment accept Barnett's language of “disconnectedness” (which I admit is asking quite a bit), is it only because despots and terrorist organizations wall these societies off? Or, can more sophisticated discussions of imperialism provide us with answers as to why the world looks like it does today? Using today as the starting point, it is easy to portray Iran in a negative light. However, taking three steps back, and understanding the relationship Iran has had with Britain and the United States, the Islamic Revolution in Iran begins to become more than religious clerics attempting to shun modernity. This is in fact why The Pentagon's New Map neglects, at least in detail, the political happenings of Central and South America. Because societies in that region have explored anti-American -a term I use positively-solutions that do not fit Barnett's mold of disconnectedness. Barnett's book, while intellectually difficult, is still in many ways written for a popular audience. Therefore, his model of disconnectedness in many ways mirrors popular misconceptions of Islamic anti-imperialism as being anti-modern and inherently oppressive. Anti-imperialist struggles in the America's, while not culturally, are still politically shaped by western political canon. How does Barnett reconcile this potential conflict? Throughout much of the book; by avoiding it, and periodically slipping Castro or Chavez into a list of disconnected despots.

The most rewarding theme within Barnett's book is his discussion of “horizontal” and “vertical” thinking, as it relates to geo-political strategy. Barnett claims that many of the problems associated with cold-war era military thinking is centered on the premise that all strategy leads to a definitive flash point. Interestingly, Barnett's model, much in the tradition of anti-soviet planning, remains bilateral. Only it has expanded beyond America and Russia, and now includes the “Core” and the “Gap. Cold-war era theorists essentially plan for distinct macro-level outcomes. Barnett argues that in fact planning for the numerous effects to macro-level events can be more helpful in planning for the future. Major events, Barnett would call system perturbations; have limitless shockwaves that are felt throughout society.

Barnett juxtaposes the potential Y2K crisis with 9/11 as an example for how this process works. Barnett was involved in a project that brought leading Pentagon analysts together with strategists from Cantor Fitzgerald, in order to study the likely financial and military scenarios resulting from a global Y2K crisis. While the Y2K crisis never materialized, Barnett points out how by accepting the assumption that global chaos would ensue the group was able to plan for the outcomes. In fact, much of what they predicted and planned for materialized in the aftermath of 9/11.

The “vertical scenario” was in many ways insignificant, and could not be planned for. However, the various “horizontal scenarios” could be applied to various situations.

Leftists can benefit in many ways from studying this approach to futurist strategy. By downsizing this method of thinking into an arrangement that accurately compliments the political spheres we work in, we can successfully move away from attempts at predicting what socio-economic reality will usher in a radical/revolutionary era. This approach instead encourages us to accept our ignorance of macro-level “vertical scenarios”, and therefore focus on likely reactions, both by our people and our adversaries, to major socio-economic events. I can't possibly conclude this paragraph without noting how important it was to hear first-hand accounts of a partnership between Wall Street and the Pentagon, particularly Barnett's assertion that Cantor Fitzgerald's intelligence was vastly superior to the Pentagon's

The Pentagon's New Map is groundbreaking for a variety of reasons. First, it is unprecedented in its brute honesty. The role of the American military as described by Barnett, deviates very little from what one may read in a book by Noam Chomsky on the same subject. However, Barnett views this role as positive, in fact coveted. Secondly, Barnett has crafted this vision in a way that is extremely palpable, even attractive (to an un-tuned ear). Thirdly, Barnett is at odds with established Pentagon thinkers, and may offer us a glimpse into the future of war planning. Lastly, Barnett offers undeniably important insight into successful approaches towards futurist planning. His philosophy of thinking reinforces my thoughts on what strengths the Left must hone, and what weaknesses we must compensate for.

Makis Antzoulatos

COMMENTARY: Hmmm. I guess this line says it all: "one must ask whether the economic success experienced by America could have ever been realized absent the subjugation of the people and resources of the third world." Yes, yes, America has only been successful because we've exploited others. Other than that stunning bias, and his "positive" use of the phrase "anti-American," the review is interesting enough, if only for spotting me as a very dangerous liberal who's apparently addicted to global capitalism, the record of which-quite naturally-cannot possible compare with all the achievements that socialism has wrought over the 20th century.

Find the original at: bayareapoliticalreview.org

Posted by at 10:15 PM | Permalink

Here's the full text, followed by my commentary:

Posted on Mon, Aug. 15, 2005

`Map' makes sense of disturbing events in a shaky world

CHASE SAUNDERS

Special to the Observer

THE PENTAGON'S NEW WAR MAP: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century
------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Thomas P.M. Barnett. Berkley Trade. 448 pages. $16.

The collapse of the Soviet Union. The role of the United States military. 9-11. American foreign policy. The global economy. The invasion of Iraq. The Madrid bombing. The London bombing. Is there anyone who can make sense of these events? Are they connected, and what can we do about them?

Thomas P.M. Barnett provides some answers. He is a Harvard-educated Naval War College professor with security clearances who studies and briefs the Pentagon on strategic planning.

His "The Pentagon's New War Map" provides a timely and profound analysis of the role in which the United States finds itself as the world's dominant power. Barnett's thesis is that the 20th century convinced the great nation-states that world wars and even wars between large nations were no longer viable. That lesson was learned over a century in two major world wars, regional proxy wars, a long Cold War and the interruption of global commerce begun in the late 19th century.

As the 20th century ended with the fall of the Soviet Union, we were left with a world engaging in increasingly interconnected transactions with commercial, financial and Internet-based connectivity. All the major global powers were becoming players in a new globalized, connected world. This produced an integrated core which moved toward shared values as a result of interaction. Barnett emphasizes that this core is evolving from an old model featuring the United States and Europe to a new one in which India and China are increasingly important.

Barnett sees the United States as the ideological parent of this new globally connected world. That ideology features a vision of a world moving toward freedom of choice, of movement, of expression, of life, of liberty, and of a chance to pursue happiness. "We are connectivity personified," he writes, but our vision is not universally shared. It has enemies that threaten connectivity and civilization.

As 9-11 taught us, there is a hostile world of those who fear connectivity and the freedoms we represent. Its leaders seek to enslave their populations and prohibit their participation in globalization. Those individuals, not nations, seek to destroy lines of communication and commerce in order to ensure their hegemony through tyranny. Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe and the like fall into that category. They are in mortal conflict with the world of connectivity. They are disconnected from the rest of the world. His new Pentagon map identifies those countries as the sources where most military and humanitarian resources are being spent.

Barnett's perceives a world "in which wars have become obsolete, where dictators fear for their lives more than democratically elected leaders, and where the world's great armies no longer plan great wars but instead focus on stopping bad individuals from doing bad things." To deal with those threats the military must be re-configured to provide not just a fighting machine, but also a machine that rebuilds countries, as in the case of the Marshall Plan, so that they can be reconnected to the world.

Chase Saunders of Charlotte is a former Superior Court judge.

COMMENTARY: Funny thing is, this review really isn't that different than the Bay Area Political Review one: both say, serious thinker with serious ideas. BAPR just finds me a fright, while this former judge finds me a comfort.

Find the original at: < href="http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/opinion/12385606.htm">http://www.charlotte.com

Posted by at 10:14 PM | Permalink

Just to keep my records in tact, here are the April issue letters to the editor regarding my article in the February issue, entitled, "Dear Mr. President, Here's How to Make Sense of Your Second Term, Secure Your Legacy, and, oh yeah, Create a Future Worth Living."

The Sound and the Fury

Apr 01 '05

An inviting and, yes, legal Scarlett Johansson played the siren for our
February issue. Inside, we celebrated 2004's gaffes with our annual Dubious
Achievements (sorry, Geraldo--not this year), and Tom Chiarella tested his
bartering skills on everything from a TiVo to a tube of toothpaste. Also,
as George W. Bush embarks on his second term, war strategist Thomas P.M.
Barnett, economist Jeffrey Sachs, and writer at large Tom Junod used the
occasion to advise him on how to spend his newfound political capital.

Thomas Barnett's excellent article ("Mr. President, Here's How to Make
Sense of Your Second Term, Secure Your Legacy, and, Oh Yeah, Create a
Future Worth Living") achieved that rare balance of being informative,
humorous, and thought-provoking. However, "This will never fly" was the
main thought circulating through my mind as I read it. Catching Dick Cheney
insinuating the administration's bellicose intentions toward Iran on that
evening's newscast sadly confirmed it.

HENRY MENA, Brooklyn, N.Y.

Barnett's analysis pays no attention to the foundation of the Islamic
Republic, the  velayat-e-faqih, or "regency of the theologian." This
theocratic model is inherently repressive and motivated by a strict
interpretation of religious ideology. Barnett refuses to accept that there
is no dealing with such a regime, that "realist" secretaries of state will
not be able to get any strategic assurances from the mullahs.

POUYA LAVIAN, New York, N.Y.

COMMENTARY: What I liked about the pairing was that I was tagged as the idealist in the first letter and the realist in the latter.

I'll take either, plus the reprint of the article in the annual compendium of "Best American Political Writing."

Posted by at 9:28 PM | Permalink

Pretty decent show, although a lot of arguing past one another. Didn't feel like I moved any piles, but didn't feel like I embarrassed myself either. Odom knows what he knows from the Cold War and Vietnam, and he won't move off that dime under any circumstances, just like that entire generation of Kissingerians. They are what they are.

Got them to mention both PNM and BFA and pushed Enterra position, but they prefer "former Naval War College" tag. They always reach for the "former" title, and I have to live with that. Problem on pushing Enterra tie here is lack of credentialing in that name for the subject at hand.

Listen to the show via this site (via Windows or Real).

Posted by at 11:54 AM | Permalink

Email came in this morning looking for someone to pair up with retired General William Odom, former head of National Security Agency and regular talking head on TV. He's been calling for a rapid pull-out of U.S. troops in Iraq for quite some time.

Here's the "On Point" blurb at their site www.onpointradio.org:

The Iraq Pullout Question Aired: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10-11AM ET The draft of the Iraq constitution faced another midnight deadline last night, and yeserday afternoon President Bush delivered a speech in Salt Lake City identifying Iraq as the frontline on the War on Terror.

Hear a conversation about what a Constitution will mean for the stability of that country, what it means for the President's domestic standing, and whether it's time for a pullout of American troops in Iraq.

I am the late addition, or the talking head to be named later (apparently at the last minute!)

Posted by at 9:28 AM | Permalink

I am told by my kind intermediary in NYC that the publishing house (Beijing U Press) wants to keep the contents of PNM "as is," and that they're working to get all the necessary permissions from various government agencies to make that happen.

I have no reason to doubt this explanation, and so I don't. But I also doubt this outcome is possible right now.

Interesting, though, to be caught up in this larger historical process that is China arising.

Posted by at 12:40 AM | Permalink

■"At Pentagon, Less Ideology, More Balance: With Wolfowitz, Feith Gone, Analysts See New Defense Leaders as More Attuned to Congress," by Bradley Graham, Washington Post, 22 August 2005, p. A15.

■"If Bases Aren't Needed, Some Fear Fleet is Next," by William Yardley, New York Times, 22 August 2005, pulled from web.

■"Democrats Split Over Position on Iraq War: Activists More Vocal As Leaders Decline To Challenge Bush," by Peter Baker and Shailagh Murray, Washington Post, 22 August 2005, p. A1.

Great set of articles, full of the irony one constantly finds in DC.

The return of the neocons with the Bush Administration back in 2000 was widely welcomed within the military: these guys would make good on all the "procurement holidays" taken by those soft-on-defense Dems.

Only it doesn't turn out that way, thanks to 9/11. The whole let's-get-it-on-with-China plotline is torpedoed, much to the dismay of the underwater crowd. The neocons never delivered on China as originally hoped, because the GWOT redirected their fervor to the Middle East, giving China a breathing space that likely changes world history for the better.

So now the neocons are leaving, and so hope rises again, meaning the Cold Worriers wonder if there's any chance the "legacy forces" (meaning built for the Cold War and apparently not flexible enough to have proven themselves somewhere in the Global War on Terrorism to date and believe me, plenty of them have proven themselves-just not all) get well in their wake?

Sad to say, no. In fact, they seem to be faring even worse.

Iraq and Afghanistan are real, whereas the make-believe China threat is not, and no amount of casting Taiwan as the pointy-end-of-the-spear-of-freedom is going to make it so. In a generation's time, China will be more important to even America than Japan is today, and compared to all that connectivity, Taiwan will be worth close to nothing geostrategically. The smart money in Taiwan prepares for that, the rest live in self-denial.

As does the sub crowd, which will pine for near-peer competitor China til its dying day. They keep arguing that subs will matter in a coming war with China. Good argument, wrong "war." That competition went the way of the 20th century. China will compete and China will threaten, but having subs won't help us one bit. Our exposure is financial, not blue-water.

Don't get me wrong. Not all submariners are dinosaurs. Scratch a younger officer and most times you'll find someone not totally wedded to the notion that subs comes in only one size: huge and absurdly expensive. But there is an entire senior generation of leaders, not to mention the crabby old grey beard retired admirals, that need history's hook.

Meanwhile, the Dems all argue about whether or not to be against the "war" in Iraq (even that term is so passé-who is at war with whom in Iraq? It's an insurgency that's close to a civil war, but America isn't the "enemy" even as targeting Americans remains the most salient means to a desired end among the insurgency's many elements, all of whom can't wait to get the U.S. out so that the main course-killing each other-can begin).

Yes, yes, neocons come and go, "empires" rise and fall, and the Dems are no closer to a conclusion about anything than they were in the 04 campaign.

As a sidenote, the WP story on neocons is a classic, which in the Post means there is a quote from Michael O'Hanlon about one-third of the way through (which, as always, says something to the tune of, "It used to be like this, but now it's more like that, and clearly that's a big change!") and then a closing quote from Loren Thompson (which, as always, says something to the effect of, "That would be a huge mistake, one that would haunt the defense establishment from here on out!"). Honest to God, the WP could write a piece on MREs and there would be these same two experts saying roughly the same thing as always. I mean, it wouldn't be a Post piece without quotes from the only two defense experts in all of Washington!

They will have to bury these two in the same coffin when the first dies, and then the Post will never be able to publish another piece on national security ever again.

Posted by at 11:08 PM | Permalink

Combined Company to Deliver Best-Practices Methodology and Technology Platform for Emerging Field of Enterprise Resilience Management™

YARDLEY, Pa. — August 22, 2005 — Enterra Solutions, LLC, the leader in Enterprise Resilience Management™ (ERM™), today announced it has acquired The New Rule Sets Project, LLC (NRSP), which advises businesses and government agencies about the impact of global trends such as terrorism, technology acceleration, worldwide competition and complex regulation on security, compliance and performance – the challenges that Enterprise Resilience Management is designed to address.

The acquisition combines two leading organizations focused on the challenges and opportunities of globalization; it augments Enterra’s established capacity to provide clients with a deeper understanding of their operating environment, and the strategies and technologies that will enable them to meet the demands of that environment – to perform, compete and win. The assets of NRSP strengthen Enterra’s recognized thought leadership and strategic consulting capabilities, and will enhance the value of Enterra’s technology products and advisory services.

Enterra’s Enterprise Resilience Management Solution™ (ERMS™) enables public- and private-sector organizations to respond quickly, effectively and consistently to the challenges of globalization, which take the form of new security, compliance and performance rules. The ERMS fuses security, compliance, information integration and business process optimization into a single function, automating rules and best practices, and providing managers with real-time visibility into critical processes.

Under the terms of the acquisition, which follows a June 2005 strategic alliance between the firms, NRSP’s consulting offering will be integrated into Enterra’s Enterprise Resilience Management Solution as a front-end globalization module, and will form the basis for an array of new consulting services. The acquisition provides Enterra with a significant opportunity to grow more rapidly in targeted markets, particularly in the financial services, national security, and international development sectors.

Enterra Solutions was founded by Stephen F. DeAngelis – a thought leader in the area of Enterprise Resilience Management, entrepreneur and Visiting Scientist at the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. The firm transforms organizations into Resilient Enterprises™ by identifying the rules and best practices that protect critical assets and business processes, and then translating them into executable software code applications that are embedded in the organizational IT core. Enterra provides a system for making an enterprise resilient and responsive – able to sense its environment, systematically detect and counter threats, mitigate risks, and capitalize on opportunities.

The New Rule Sets Project was founded by Thomas P. M. Barnett, a noted strategic analyst and consultant, nationally known public speaker, and the New York Times best-selling author of The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2004) and Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 2005).

“Public- and private-sector customers are calling for a holistic, best-practices response to the stressors that result from globalization, which come in the form of new security, compliance and performance rules – a response that enables them to perform, adapt, and compete in an environment of extreme and increasing complexity,” said DeAngelis.

“Public- and private-sector customers are calling for a holistic, best-practices response to the stressors that result from globalization, which come in the form of new security, compliance and performance rules – a response that enables them to perform, adapt, and compete in an environment of extreme and increasing complexity,” said DeAngelis.

Barnett, founding partner of NRSP, joins Enterra as senior managing director and a member of the company’s senior management team. Barnett is a prolific blogger on current global events at his website www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog, where he counts among his regular readers representatives from all the major U.S. military commands, virtually all U.S. federal departments, numerous foreign governments, and major research and corporate entities the world over.

“Both Enterra and The New Rule Sets Project are focused on enabling public- and private-sector organizations to become Resilient Enterprises,” said DeAngelis. “We are providing a new, comprehensive understanding of the performance platform for the global age – a holistic, full-organization response to a world of risk, and a world of opportunity.”

STRATEGIC EXECUTIVE BRIEFING

Among its first offerings following the acquisition, Enterra will develop a strategic executive briefing that will focus on the changing rule sets and new security environment challenges created by globalization that drive the need for Enterprise Resilience Management.

DeAngelis and Barnett will present this executive brief for the first time at a conference to help the financial services industry address compliance and security challenges. Financial services executives, technology leaders, senior security and compliance officers, and key governmental officials will convene at The St. Regis Hotel in New York City on Monday, September 19, 2005, for the one-day conference “Enterprise Resilience Management™ for the Financial Sector” that is hosted jointly with the Association for Enterprise Integration.

“At the September conference, we’ll be focusing on the total system response necessary to enable financial services organizations to monitor the security of their environments in real time, ensure minute-to-minute compliance with complex and ever-changing regulations, and demonstrate fast and flexible performance that meets the highest standards,” agreed DeAngelis and Barnett.

For more information on the Sept. 19 event, please visit www.afei.org/brochure/5AF2/index.cfm.

About Enterra Solutions, LLC

Enterra Solutions is the leader in Enterprise Resilience Management™ – a new best-practices approach that enables public- and private-sector organizations to respond to the environmental stressors that result from globalization and rapid technological change. Enterra’s proprietary Enterprise Resilience Management Solution™ (ERMS™) consists of a best-practices methodology and technology solution that:

• Identifies an organization’s critical assets
  


• Pinpoints the business processes that enable those assets
  


• Determines the rules and best practices that apply to those processes
  


• Codifies and embeds those rules into the organization’s core IT systems, and
  


• Provides collaborative command and control capabilities to managers and decision-makers
  

About The New Rule Sets Project, LLC

The New Rule Sets Project, LLC, (NRSP) was formed around Thomas P.M. Barnett’s vision for the world and his message of “A Future Worth Creating.” NRSP works collaboratively and strategically with its clients to develop groundbreaking ways of thinking about and creating desired futures. The firm helps its clients discover the sets of rules that enable or impede them across organizational sectors and geographical boundaries.

Posted by Josette at 2:37 PM | Permalink

Last week I decided, along with my partners Steffany and Critt, to accept Enterra Solutions' offer to acquire our fledgling partnership, The New Rule Sets LLC. As a result, whatever consulting I choose to pick up from here on out will be conducted through Steve DeAngelis' firm.

I join the firm on a less than full-time basis as Senior Managing Director, and Critt picks up a full-time load as Director of Corporate Blogging. Steffany won't join the firm formally, but will consult on a part-time basis, focusing on corporate communications and related marketing/strategic planning. Finally, our original angel investor in NRSP and our sole board member, Kevin Billings, will likewise sign up in a senior consulting role, performing a variety of crucial functions from his perch in DC.

And with that, NRSP's short life comes to an end.

Why did this happen?

It happened because the original NRSP model simply wasn't scalable in a manner any of us found acceptable—meaning we couldn't grow without stressing ourselves and our families too much. Winning consulting contracts with government agencies and corporate entities was just proving too hard, not in terms of the thought leadership, where we succeeded almost too well (leads and meetings and contacts we had in abundance). Remember that scene in the new "Willy Wonka" movie where Johnny Depp takes a business card from one of the parents and simply throws it over his shoulder—I was approaching that point in my organizational overload. The real problem was the sheer mechanics of making contracts happen (the follow-up, the negotiations, the form-filling, and the so on and so forth associated with contracting in general). So either we geared up on the office effort by hiring people and building the firm from the ground up, or we remained a boutique firm based solely around my F2F work with clients.

On the latter score, we simply ran into the reality that there are only so many hours in a day and only so many days in a month when I'm willing to be on the road, so either we lived with those limitations or we had to find some way to break out of them by partnering with a more established firm. That firm turned out to be Enterra Solutions, largely because our recent alliance with them was proving so fruitful in terms of overlapping interests, thought content, and mutual clients seeking us out separately for jobs. In sum, everyone who was calling me up seemed to be people with whom Enterra was also interested in establishing relationships, and vice versa.

Now, in some ways, the three of us jump out of the frying pan and into the fire with Enterra, which is itself experiencing such a booming demand for its services that growing pains abound. But of course, this is a good thing for Enterra, because—for one—it made them interested in acquiring us to fill some big holes in their staff. From our perspective, Enterra gives us all the infrastructure we need to take all these offers and contacts and leads and pursue them with confidence that: 1) we can actually follow-up sufficiently with each on the mechanics of establishing relationships; and 2) our choice of clients will be guided by some overarching mission, which for Enterra is all about systems integration with a focus on rule-set automation as the engine for boosting enterprise resiliency—or what I like to call "smart connectivity."

That first point on the sheer mechanics is a biggie, but frankly, it pales next to the second point on knowing what we want to do with the thought leadership position that The Pentagon's New Map has afforded me.

Here's what I mean from a variety of angles:

First there's the fundamental goal of giving my schedule more coherence. By joining Enterra, I now have metrics for deciding when to say yes and when to say no to offers, a process that frankly had me baffled in recent months.

Second, there's simply the utility of productizing my thought leadership, as in giving me an identifiable service attached to my presentation of strategic concepts, all of which are cool in terms of starting up great conversations with clients but were typically leaving me stranded in terms of prompting lasting relationships, and I want lasting relationships with clients whose needs will force me into analysis that furthers my own understanding of what my grand vision portends for the variety of actors–both military and civilian, public and private, domestic and foreign—whom I believe are essential to engage in any shrink-the-Gap strategy over the coming years and decades. I mean, on my own, I could access all these players, get into those meeting rooms, and make all those presentations, but when the sessions drew to a close, there wasn't any obvious impetus for a continuing relationship. Instead, I often heard, "Well, maybe we can have you back next year or when you write another book."

Part of the problem is that I'm not interested in doing studies any more. I don't want homework assignments. I simply feel like I've moved beyond that, and frankly, many of my potential clients think similarly, so much so that none of them seem interested in engaging me on that level. Mostly, they just want to pick my brain, as they say, but absent some driving impetus that narrows the discussion and forces that rubber-meets-the-road dynamic, I've been having a hard time making that pick-the-brain process be anything more than clients feeding me questions and me spitting out answers—and then walking out the door.

There's nothing wrong with playing that sort of wise man role—if you're nearing retirement and want to avoid all heavy intellectual lifting ("Hey, I'm wise and I don't have to do that anymore!"). But I'm 43 and am nowhere near that point (although I feel like I'm in the right time zone). Plus, the last thing I want to become at this point is a perceived wise man who spouts only the view from 30,000 feet. First, I can do it in my sleep at this point, which will only make me fat, dumb and lazy if I persist in letting that sort of give-and-take dominate my skull, and second, I simply get jazzed by learning new things, feeling slightly out of my depth, and constantly scrambling to meet challenging deadlines.

And I was getting none of those things with the little world of writing-speeching-blogging I had created since leaving the college. In effect, I had this perfect series of intellectual output venues but I wasn't putting myself in the position of gathering the necessary intellectually challenging input opportunities. To put it simply, I wasn't achieving any dwell time with players who are essential to my being able to run my vision to ground. I'd get these great questions. I'd form these fairly cool high-level answers. I'd get all jacked up and curious about where that conversation could move next . . .

And then I'd be out the door and on to the next venue, trapped in a schedule of nearly non-stop broadcast and not nearly enough collaboration.

And that's where Enterra helps me immensely. It keeps me in the rooms I want to be in, lengthening my dwell time with players whose needs, hopes, and desires I need to become far more acquainted with if my own ideas are going to continue to develop. The match between Enterra and myself is just about perfect, because as I find myself trying to explain what this company can do for both private firms and public agencies, I end up having the conversations I've been longing to conduct. I feel like my brain is operating at full speed, racing where it needs to go, feeling all the right frustrations and satisfactions that I believe are logically associated with where I am right now in this whole strange career trajectory.

And yes, I know that all sounds kinda weird and airy-fairy and vague, but hey! I'm making this up as I go along! I'm playing a role I never imagined I'd be playing in an historical period I never thought I'd experience, so the rule-set reset is–none too surprisingly—just as profound for me personally as it is for the country or the world. We're exploring undiscovered territories here, inventing new fields of endeavor, and creating new languages to describe it all. We've had our scary series of shocks to the system and now we're forced into a period of lengthy creativity, as we scramble to meet the growing complexities associated with this phenomenon we call globalization.

Steve DeAngelis sees all the same challenges, all the same rule-set gaps, and all the same finishing lines as I do. We finish each other's sentences. We constantly exclaim, "That's so weird, because what you're saying right now is exactly the same conversation that we've all been having for the past year!" We get jazzed by all the same things, and we get serious about all the same dreams.

And we both have Chinese daughters, which is cool.

But best of all, Steve and I compliment each other quite nicely. Where I am weak and need guidance or mentoring, Steve is naturally strong-and vice versa. We are, coincidentally, both 43 years old. What Steve wants to do next in his life, I have it within my power to help him–and vice versa.

That complimentarity extends to our two firms, NRSP and Enterra, but since Enterra is far more substantial, Steff, Critt and I have come comfortably to the conclusion that subsuming our firm into Steve's is the logical next step in our evolution.

Not much will change in my life. I will still blog. I will still write for Esquire. I will still write books. I will still giving lotsa speeches. What Enterra does for me is simply order the other stuff—the consulting—in a way that should provide me with the creative inputs and intellectual challenges I need to maintain what I hope will remain high-value output in my various broadcast modes.

Hell, I already know this will be the case, because in the various joint meetings that Steve and I have conducted with potential and future clients in recent weeks, I've come away from each encounter feeling supremely connected to everything I want to be connected to right now. The pistons are all firing. I feel like I’m doing God's work. I know I'm advancing the vision and making it more useful to the right people. I know I'm serving America's security interests and making the world a better place in whatever manner I'm capable of.

And I feel more centered than I have in many weeks.

Some of that is Indiana and everything it's done for my wife and kids. Some of that is having Blueprint for Action teed up. Some of that is the comfort level I have in working with class acts like Critt, Steff, Kevin—and now Steve especially. Some of it is having access to healthcare through a company again. And some of it is knowing that Enterra can provide a host of things I don't do well and don't want to do at this point in my life, while I can give the company in return a lot of value they can't find anywhere else (hell, Steve's been giving out copies of PNM to all new Enterra clients from day one of starting the company—so I know it's a unique fit here!).

But mostly it's that sense of structure in the one big chunk of my workload that's been rather chaotic since I've left the college, primarily because Steff, Critt and I were overmatched by the possibilities.

No more.

Working with Enterra, I now have the platform to push new rule sets in both the military and market worlds—the nexus now clearly formed for me intellectually and professionally.

And that feels very good.

Posted by at 9:00 AM | Permalink

[Freely pass to people you know. Thanks.]

Feature: Why I decided to join Enterra Solutions

Last week I decided, along with my partners Steffany and Critt, to
accept Enterra Solutions' offer to acquire our fledgling partnership,
The New Rule Sets LLC. As a result, whatever consulting I choose to
pick up from here on out will be conducted through Steve DeAngelis' firm.

I join the firm on a less than full-time basis as Senior Managing
Director, and Critt picks up a full-time load as Director of Corporate
Blogging. Steffany won't join the firm formally, but will consult on a
part-time basis, focusing on corporate communications and related
marketing/strategic planning. Finally, our original angel investor in
NRSP and our sole board member, Kevin Billings, will likewise sign up in
a senior consulting role, performing a variety of crucial functions from
his perch in DC.

And with that, NRSP's short life comes to an end.

Read the full text and more. . .

Download The Newsletter from Thomas P.M. Barnett - 22 August 2005 in PDF
or Word document:

thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/barnett_22aug2005.pdf

thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/barnett_22aug2005.doc

Posted by Josette at 8:00 AM | Permalink

Good piece by August Cole, who interviewed me in the past for Marketwatch.

Here's the start:

U.S. troop drawdown looms over Iraq contractors By August Cole, MarketWatch Last Update: 8:03 PM ET Aug 18, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- Moves by the U.S. military to relinquish responsibility to Iraq's security forces raise big questions over who will safeguard the shattered country's reconstruction in what is the biggest effort since the Marshall Plan.

The private security companies already protecting American officials and workers throughout the country may find themselves taking up some of the slack as the U.S. looks to bring home some of its 138,000 troops there.  

"This has gone far beyond what it has in past conflicts"
Rep. David Price 

Security spending is a windfall for the mostly privately held companies at work in Iraq. At the same time, it's a drain on budgets.

"One suspects that one way of compensating might be to do more private contracting," said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., author of a bill that seeks greater public disclosure of the stakes involved and oversight of security contracts in Iraq.

For the full story: http://marketwatch.com/news/archivedStory.asp

The SysAdmin is all about transitions, and the handoff from uniforms to private sector will be the hardest of all. The lessons are just beginning in Iraq.

Are we still listening?

Posted by at 1:15 AM | Permalink

Dateline: In the Shire, Indiana, 21 August 2005

Wonderfully slow weekend after a fast jaunt to Atlanta and back on Friday-Saturday.

I flew down to Atlanta Friday afternoon to fulfill my promise made just a couple of weeks ago to Lt. Gen. Helmly, the head of the Army Reserve, in his office in the Pentagon. The audience was the senior officers of the Army Reserve, at their annual "stand down" conclave. The event occurred on Saturday, but began on Friday with a special dinner at the Crowne Plaza not far from the airport. It wasn't supposed to be anything but a no-host social until Helmly turned it into my show.

Helmly wasn't there for the brief, because he scored a meeting with the Secretary of the Army late that afternoon. However, I did meet a number of officers I've interacted with over the years, including the current head of the Army Reserve in New England, who came to visit me at the college last year and coincidentally lives just down the road in Columbus Indiana.

I was a bit nervous to do the brief, because I hadn't given it in almost two weeks and that's an eternity for me, but it was a very receptive audience. I went over in my time, as usual, but the questions were sharp afterward (again, making me feel good about what I've put together in Blueprint for Action) and even though I started at 2030, I didn't get back to my room until almost 2300.

Saturday ends up being a blur. Back in Indy by 1030, and then I check out the construction site, where the basement is all framed in and the joists are completed above, with most covered by a base flooring that allowed me to walk the first floor in an abstract sort of way. Then home to work the apartment, a trip to the comic book store with the kids, Saturday eve mass, and then I chaperone older daughter at a dance put on by the diocese that pulled in junior high-age kids from all over greater Indy.

Today was one long pool break at my mother-in-law's, plus a golfing lesson from father-in-law for me and my two oldest as we whacked multiple bags at the driving range. A day of a lot of fun with no purpose beyond hanging out with my kids and inventing as many silly opportunities for play as possible.

Tomorrow's newsletter is a biggie for me: big announcement of a big change. Possibly a major turning point in my career as I continue to make it up.

Here's the weekend catch:

■ The peaking of oil revisited

■ Shrinking the Gap is all about discounting the future threat

■ Bush's alternative rule set on the ICC

■ Is the China fever passing in DC?

■ The aggressive evangelical foreign policy on Kim

Posted by at 11:50 PM | Permalink

■"The Breaking Point," by Peter Maas, New York Times Magazine, 21 August 2005, p. 30.

This seems like a weak article by a sharp writer. The evidence for the peaking is a lot of suspicions expressed by smart oil industry people that Saudi Arabia is blowing smoke out its rear when it says it can plus up its oil production in coming years. What the Saudis promise is lots more investment and better technology. And outside experts (there are no inside experts on Saudi Arabia excepts Saudis) just don't see this happening successfully in Saudi Arabia in the coming years.

What is this suspicion based on? Well, the big smoking gun here is a western oil expert who studies dozens of studies on Saudi oil fields and comes to the conclusion that everything there is a whole lot less solid than it seems.

Here's my problem with this analysis: Maas admits that the studies cover only a portion of the known Saudi fields and "date back, in some cases, several decades"! Despite these huge faults, these studies are presented "as perhaps the best public data about the condition and prospects of Saudi reservoirs."

Oh, and did I mention that the great expert, Matthew Simmons, is a banker and not a geologist?

This is the guts of a major NYT mag cover story?

How about a real expert?

Most experts do not share Simmons' concerns about the imminence of peak oil. One of the industry's most prominent consultants, Daniel Yergin, author of a Pulitizer Prize-winning book about petroleum, dismisses the doomsday visions. "This is not the first time that the world has 'run out of oil,'" he wrote in a recent Washington Post opinion essay. "It's more like the fifth. Cycles of shortage and surplus characterize the entire history of the oil industry." Yergin says that a number of oil projects that are under construction will increase the supply by 20 percent in five years and that technological advances will increase the amount of oil that can be recovered from existing reservoirs. (Typically, with today's technology, only about 40 percent of a reservoir's oil can be pumped to the surface).

40 percent.

Interesting how the great expert gets a whole paragraph but the banker who's read a lot of geology studies decades old drive the logic of the piece.

And that's a cover story for the NYT mag?

Posted by at 11:49 PM | Permalink

■"As Iraqi Terror Rises, Businessmen Find Niche in Life Insurance: New Policies Offer $3,500 To Heirs of Those Killed; Mr. Jabouri's Near Misses," by Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, 19 August 2005, p. A1.

Interesting article about how life insurance is being sought out more and more by Iraqis. It's a bit ghoulish, not unlike marketing life insurance to kids living in gang-ridden urban ghettoes in the U.S. (remember that scene from John Singleton's "Boyz in the Hood"?).

The best stuff in the piece is the statistics.

Some outside groups have claimed that 100,000 Iraqis have perished in the war and resulting occupation. But the best and most credible estimates put that number somewhere just south of 25k for the period March 2003 to March 2005, or roughly 1 in 1,000 people in a country population of 25 million.

Of that total, it's estimated that over one-third were victims of crime (9k), equating to a homicide rate of 1 in 2,800, much worse than America's 1 in 18,000 rate, and we do plenty of homicide here.

But if these numbers from two British groups, Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group, are good, then we're talking roughly 16,000 dead Iraqi civilians from the war and insurgency violence, or roughly 1 in 1,500 Iraqis.

Some perspective.

Posted by at 11:48 PM | Permalink

■"Bush's Aid Cuts On Court Issue Roil Neighbors," by Juan Forero, New York Times, 19 August 2005, p. A1.

The Bush White House cuts military aid to countries in the Gap and along the Seam if they don't sign special bilateral exclusionary treaties with the U.S. over the International Criminal Court. These are the infamous Article 98 agreements that we've got over 100 nations to sign (almost all are Gap). I call them "interventionary pre-nuptials," meaning the country in question promises in advance not to sue the U.S. in the ICC following any future military incursion on our part.

The Bush administration, just like the Clinton one before it, fears the ICC will be used to prosecute U.S. troops and government officials for alleged war crimes in connection to military interventions in the Gap, so we get countries there to promise to never invoke this alleged right.

Frankly, the fear is vastly overblown. The ICC was set up really to prosecute bad actors from Gap states alone, or from states lacking sufficiently robust legal rule sets to do such enforcement on their own. That's not America, and yet, when you see the Abu Ghraib and Gitmo debacles resulting in just a smattering of prosecutions yielding even fewer convictions, you just know we'd be facing such suits in the ICC from somebody.

Roughly 50 states in the world have told us to shove off with our exclusionary bilats, and the vast majority are Core states. The ones who have signed up are the Gap states that would rather face a sloppy U.S. military intervention than none at all at some point in the future when their country faces internal strife. Plus, the threat of losing U.S. aid is a big motivator.

A nasty bit of strong arming by the U.S.? Sure. But if the Core wants the U.S. to play occasion Leviathan and full-time SysAdmin in the Gap, we'll need some sort of blanket protection clause via-a-vis the ICC. It's as simple as that. Not something that's open-ended, as in, "Do what you want whenever your want and wherever you need to," but a standing agreement that says, "under these conditions, you're good to go."

Those conditions? That's the A-to-Z Core-wide rule set for processing politically bankrupt states in the Gap that's the centerpiece of Chapter 1 in Blueprint for Action.

You shrink the Gap and you replace bad states with good ones, and then the role of the ICC becomes moot in those successful cases of Gap-to-Core transition. But until that transition occurs, don't pretend you can hold the intervening troops to Core standards in lawless Gap situations.

Posted by at 11:47 PM | Permalink

■"Rice Warns China to make Major Economic Changes: Harm to World's Financial System Cited," by Joel Brinkley, New York Times, 19 August 2005, p. A9.

■"Investor Group to Acquire Stake in Bank of China," by David Barboza, New York Times, 19 August 2005, p. C5.

Condi Rice does better when she emphasizes that China needs to get its internal economic rule sets more synched up with globalization's emerging economic rule sets than when she chides them on their "outsized" (in terms of regional ambitions) defense spending. Frankly, the U.S. chiding anyone on their military ambitions is truly a case of the pot calling the kettle black. China isn't fighting any global wars, nor has it invaded any countries lately, nor is it engaging in nation-building except in an economic sense in sub-Saharan Africa. I mean, China's playing the pure SysAdmin role here, one devoid of military content, and in a world that needs a lot of SysAdmin effort from the Core, this is to be applauded, not condemned. Frankly, if we had any serious grand strategists in this administration, they'd be working to lock in China on exactly that score: we specialize in the Leviathan work and China mans the SysAdmin force. We do what we do well, and they bring to the equation exactly what they have in abundance and which costs us far too much-bodies galore that are willing to take risks and build a future worth creating in numerous Gap countries.

No pretense here that China would do this for any reason other than the usual ones: economic benefit. So we're not talking the Chinese turning over a new leaf, just being Chinese, and I always say, trust people to be who they are, not who you want them to be.

The news on that economic front is good from China: revaluation of the yuan, move toward a floating currency based on a basket of Core currencies, and the banking sector opening itself up to foreign ownership. Fast enough? Never quite, since the greatest threat to globalization that anyone can imagine right now is a Chinese financial meltdown, but certainly progress.

Too bad the U.S. can't manage any serious effort to make major military changes as quickly, because many of our Core allies cite our growing harm to the world security system.

Still, with President Hu Jintao visiting the U.S. next month, the latest bout of anti-Chinese hysteria seems to be abating now that the yuan and Unocal issues seem to be gone from the scene.

Posted by at 11:46 PM | Permalink

■"Bush Names Special Envoy For Rights in North Korea: An appointment sought by religious conservatives," by Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, 20 August 2005, p. A7.

The so-called religious right pushed hard to get the Bush White House to name one of their own as the president's special envoy for human rights in North Korea, a post mandated by law in 2004.

That this appointment is announced in the dead of Bush's five-week summer vacation is interpreted as the White House seeking to dampen any perception of a new hard-line stance on Kim just as the 6-nation talks are restarted.

Of course, the appointee, Jay Lefkowitz, won't be an "envoy" in any real sense of the word. If your envoy can actually meet with the intended target of your diplomacy over human rights, then frankly, you don't need a special envoy, because that country must be opening up to the outside world and thus reducing that internal source of friction in its relationships with outside powers. My point being, if you have to appoint a special envoy, then the country in question must be so Gap-like in its behavior that it's disconnectedness from the outside world is profound-hence no useful role as envoy.

Instead, the position is a symbolic one, and yet symbols matter greatly. What the post really says is that the evangelicals care about North Korea and don't plan on letting the matter slip into obscurity any time soon. Indeed, they want to ratchet it upward dramatically, in large part because of the religious intolerance their coreligionists endure there.

People like to speak of religion as typically being a great source of division in the world, but as globalization spreads and more religions globalize (not just radical Islam), then the connecting effect will far outweigh the disconnecting frictions that result.

Posted by at 11:45 PM | Permalink

ZenPundit has a day job of teaching, so he must be cranking because school hasn't started yet.

An interesting post showing his usual amazing breadth of knowledge. I quote Mark Safranski in BFA, citing him as an "historian" because "horizontal thinker" can be misinterpreted without context, but really, that is what Mark does best--think across subject matters.

Definitely worth a read at: BEYOND RESILIENCE: THE POWER OF CONSILIENCE IN NETWORKS.

Posted by at 12:17 PM | Permalink

Don't mean to scoop Association for Enterprise Integration's PR efforts (too much) on this conference they're putting on with the help of Enterra Solutions in Manhattan in mid-September, but Congressman Ford was kind enough to commit to a breakfast keynote talk to kick off the conference. Cool for me because that means we get a F2F guaranteed on that date.

But honestly, I won't feel certain about this until my people and his people talk directly. Ford is so fast on his email interactions (gotta have a Blackberry or something portable) that it seems inconceivable he and I could have exchanged that many emails in 24 hours. I mean, I often shock people by doing that, but I'm not a congressman gearing up for a senate run.

But then I check his campaign site and the email address I've been using with him is the actual one he posts on his front page for constituents to use. This guy must be brain-wired to the web!

Posted by at 11:52 AM | Permalink

Turkish publisher (1001 Books) of PNM just sent email saying the firm wants to publish Blueprint for Action.

That and Kirkus makes my day.

Posted by at 11:38 AM | Permalink

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 19 August 2005

With The Pentagon's New Map, it was Publishers Weekly that was neutral to positive and Kirkus Reviews that was snarky in the extreme ("Strangelovian"). With Blueprint for Action, the opposite seems to have happened: PW was dismissive and KR is complimentary. Here's the KR review in full, with my comments to follow:

Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating, by Thomas P.M. Barnett (Putnam, 20 October)

Geopolitical wizard and military insider Barnett (The Pentagon's New Map, 2004) returns with more prescriptions to make the world safe for the Empire.

That world comprises regions that are not to be found in any atlas, at least not for sale to civilians: the Old Core of the West, embracing the U.S., Europe, Japan and Australia; the rising New Core, made up of (economically) progressive states in Asia and Latin America; Seam States "lying on the edge of the global economy," including Mexico, Turkey, Indonesia and Algeria; and the Gap-not the clothing chain, but the rest of the world, a belt of sick and failing nations "that needs to be shrunk one threat at a time." Trouble is, to shrink it will require military action, and before that can effectively happen, the military will need to be reorganized. A case in point, by Barnett's account: Gen. Eric Shinseki was booted when he said he'd need 200,000 troops to take Iraq, while his boss, Donald Rumsfeld, seems to think that a well-motivated squad of high-tech soldiers could do the trick.

Barnett, who as a Pentagon consultant walks between the opposing camps
daily, diplomatically suggests that both were right: The break-things-and-kill-people military can number only a few exceptional fighters these days, but the make-the-peace military, the one Barnett calls SysAdmin, needs all the help it can get. Yet the military trains for "the least likely form of threat we face," namely "midrange conventional military threats from other nation-states." Barnett notes that the fight will be in places that America has dabbled in but then abandoned, and he asserts that "the Department of Homeland Security was the one great strategic mistake we've committed so far in the global war on terrorism," which is unlikely to win him friends in the White House.

Provocative reading for the interventionist, expansionist and policy-wonk
set.

COMMENTARY: Typically, the para-long reviews don't pack much descriptive info, but this one does, and it's all accurate. Best part of this review is that sense of "this is insider dope of highest order." Surprised a bit to see so much explanation of Core and Gap, but I think many reviews will do this, thus creating strong links back to PNM. Since that only helps sales on both, one can't complain, and yet it crimps the ability of reviewers to cover the full range of the material in BFA--to wit, both reviews so far can't make it past first chapter. Granted, it's a doozy and truly the center of gravity in the book, but to me, Chapter 3 China-centric material is the calling card.

Posted by at 11:11 AM | Permalink

Free country. People protest as they like and God love 'em for it.

No, the piece that tripped my wire was more academic. Actually, hopelessly so.

Posted by at 11:51 PM | Permalink

Ford's web people land in my in-box within minutes of my post. And I'm talking a sophisticated, non-form reply with links, etc. Very slick and very impressive.

I like his chances even better now!

Posted by at 11:47 PM | Permalink

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 18 August 2005

Up at 0400 and caught SWA direct to Balt-Washington International, where I participated in a breakfast meeting with an old friend from a past life whom I'm hoping to talk into a new one. Once that wrapped, back on the 1pm flight right back, getting back in time to pick up the kids at school. Rest of the day spent with kids in pool, running with Kev, and then checking out house construction.

Framing close to finished in basement now, and main floor coming into place. It's very intimidating seeing all your money pour into a construction site, but it's very exciting as well. Funny how the space seems smaller the less filled in it is, but as the walls go up the spaces seem to get bigger. Walking around tonight I had the distinct feeling the basement was much smaller than our one in RI, but then I marked off lengths with my feet (exactly 13 inches long) and I realized the space was far larger. My builder Kent warned me of this distorted sense of space, and he was right. The total space of this house will be about 40% larger than our last place, and after 6 months in this apartment, we'll need the big boost--and perhaps some therapy.

End of day happy news: NYT called with offer to new subscriber. At first caller thought I was holder of old number and when I figured that out, I thought perhaps the jig was up, remembering past phonecon with NYT and being told they didn't deliver to my zip. But I knew that had to be wrong, and it was. Paper delivery starts early next week.

Now on to the Post and Journal. Wife wants Indianapolis Star too. We will have plenty to recycle!

I had written a series of posts on the flight back, but one op-ed in NYT so pissed me off that the tone of the entire quartet was too acidic to publish. Tried to follow my Mom's advice today about not saying anything when . . .

I must admit. I hate this apartment like nobody's business, but seeing the house made me feel better, and it always feels good to fly home to Indy.

Got a nice pair of emails from Rep. Harold Ford of TN in the last 24. Apparently he's a serious fan of PNM (some very kind words imparted) and as part of that he's trying--among others--to get me to Memphis for a talk. I will admit, his career intrigues enough to probably win me over. Ford is running for the Senate in 2006, for Frist's soon-to-be vacant seat. I'd like to see him win. Tennessee's had a long line of very strong senators in the past few decades, and seeing that I'll be moving in the direction of some sort of relationship with Oak Ridge National Lab, I suddenly find myself feeling proprietary about the state in general.

Geez! Between that and the buried nasty posts, I'm becoming more Midwestern by the minute!

Then again, maybe it was seeing my old friend. He's always had that sort of influence on my judgment.

Posted by at 10:40 PM | Permalink

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 17 August 2005

Three kids all starting a new school today, so a lot of ferrying around. But all attending the same place, so that helps plenty. Also runs to YMCA and post office for a box (anticipating the mailed-in books for signing) and to mail uncorrected proofs of Blueprint for Action to my partners. Plus oil change on van plus stop for new plates. Wife's out picking granite. Setting up golf lessons for me and kids. Catching up on mail. Setting up online banking. Usual multitude of phone calls to various agents, editors, etc. Need to set up my LLC in Indiana. Picked up interim electric piano for apartment cause our big one's in the POD! Gotta get in another run with son Kevin. Promised kids we'd all hit the complex pool at sunset . . . and I'd really like to catch "Family Guy" on Adult Swim tonight.

Sigh! Might miss that last one.

My one full day home this week. Behind on three writing projects but working hard to catch up.

Sign of my times: I've started outsourcing PowerPoint slide generation. Just can't get off the dime on building new slide deck for BFA because offers keep rolling in to give talks on PNM, but I need that slide package to come into being. So first cut will be done by someone else, just to get the ball rolling. This is not the first time I've done this, and I think it'll be the route I take from here on out.

Getting the Post and Times online (haven't settled that issue yet), I come across two op-eds and a book review that catch my eye.

First one is by mainstay David Ignatius at WP. Here's the best bits (full story found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601179_pf.html
):

'Hard Slog' for Bush

By David Ignatius

Wednesday, August 17, 2005; A13

President Bush is saying the right thing about Iraq, which is that there is no easy fix for a war that his defense secretary correctly termed "a long, hard slog." But Bush is conveying this message in a detached way that upsets and angers growing numbers of Americans. The evaporation of political support at home is palpable. If the administration can't explain its war aims better, it may soon face a Vietnam-style tipping point.

First, let's look at what the president is doing right: At a time when anguished Americans are calling for a quick withdrawal from Iraq, Bush is telling them a painful truth …

The administration's Micawberesque approach to the Iraqi constitution also seems correct, if somewhat disconnected from reality. Nobody knows if Iraq's fractious political leaders can agree, but the president was right to praise "the heroic efforts of Iraqi negotiators" …

Finally, I credit the spirit of realpolitik that undergirds the administration's upbeat talk. Last Sunday's story in The Post headlined "U.S. Lowers Sights on What Can Be Achieved in Iraq" mirrored what you hear privately from generals and senior officials …

Now, let's look at what Bush is doing wrong. In speaking about Iraq to the nation, the president often seems tone deaf. Taking a nearly five-week vacation when U.S. troops are experiencing a living hell is a mistake. It reinforces what's cruelest about this war, which is that the soldiers in Iraq are doing all the suffering. Meanwhile, people back home go about their business …

I have no doubt that Bush grieves for every fallen soldier. But he undercuts his leadership role with his seeming insensitivity to Cindy Sheehan … a presidential listening mission would have seemed like a no-brainer -- except at this White House, which appears to regard any concession to a critic as a mistake …

Somehow the president must find a way to level with the country and build support for a sustainable policy that puts more of the burden on Iraqis …

But what I think Ignatius' op-ed really points up is the new reality: no matter how well the war goes, if you can't win the peace, your public will interpret the entire venture as a failure in political-military terms.

That is the huge change 9/11 and the Global War on Terrorism have wrought: in the 1990s it was just good enough to kick ass in combat and not worry about the aftermath, as we proved so ably in places in Somalia and Haiti -- and Iraq for that matter. Now, you either enter the situation ready to win the peace -- in full -- or frankly, you shouldn't bother with the war, because it won't be worth the political capital expended.

Second piece is by Frederick Kagan (another WP op-ed, the full text of which is found at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/16/AR2005081601181_pf.html

It Takes the Right Army:
Security in Iraq is not as simple as decreasing our troops and increasing theirs
By Frederick W. Kagan
Wednesday, August 17, 2005; A13

The Bush administration is making it clearer day by day that it intends to withdraw American troops from Iraq rapidly and roughly in step with the increase in the number of Iraqi troops deemed capable of taking over security responsibilities. Even while denying rumors of a rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces, President Bush has declared that "as Iraqis stand up, we will stand down."

This could be a big mistake. It is likely to simply sustain the current level of security in Iraq -- which is poor -- rather than take advantage of increasing numbers of Iraqi troops to improve the security situation …

The United States is engaged in creating a force of light infantry in Iraq that will ultimately number nearly 250,000 troops. This force will be well suited to conducting patrols in fixed locations, maintaining a presence in threatened areas, doing searches and sweeps, and performing high-end police functions. As more of these troops become available, we can expect improved intelligence and less friction between U.S. forces and local Iraqis …

It will not be able, whatever its numbers, to conduct a counterinsurgency by itself for many years, and it will not be able to do so at all unless certain critical deficiencies are remedied …

Iraqis thus rely on coalition logistics when they must move from their home bases -- or, more commonly, they simply do not move from those bases at all. Their transportation assets are minimal, and so they lack the ability to project their forces within Iraq. As a result, they would not be able to concentrate force rapidly in particularly violent areas or to destroy insurgent concentrations quickly …

It is also important to understand that the current Iraqi forces rely heavily on the availability of responsive U.S. airpower … conditioning the Iraqis to rely on a capability that only a significant U.S. presence can provide.

The efforts the U.S military has made to train the Iraqi forces should not be in any way disparaged. They have achieved remarkable results in a much shorter time than anyone had a right to expect. These efforts will, over the long term, prove essential to allowing the coalition to transfer responsibility for Iraqi security to Iraqis. But Americans should not imagine that this transfer is likely to come quickly …

As a rule, I find anyone with the last name of Kagan to be a bit too hard-core on military and strategic matters, but I tolerate Frederick the best. This is some solid analysis that points out the reality that we've generated an adequate SysAdmin-lite force among the Iraqis, but not one ready for our more Leviathan-like forces to leave. In short, Iraq now has the capacity to do its own SysAdmin absent a counter-insurgency, but that counter-insurgency -- the result of our own bad employment of our forces in the SysAdmin function following Saddam's defeat -- means that we can't withdraw as Iraq's Leviathan for some time to come.

Or to decode my own, sometimes overwrought reliance on my particular buzzphrases: If we had done the transition from the war to the peace better, we wouldn't still have a war-like insurgency going on and our efforts to train Iraqis to do their own internal security would be paying off in spades now. Instead, we're only a certain length down the ultimate pathway of nationbuilding in Iraq.

Kagan is absolutely correct in this analysis, and it shows the long-term costs we pay for doing the SysAdmin bit weakly. By now, the Iraqis would have been strong enough for us to walk, and that is the painful legacy -- along with the almost 1,500 combat-related deaths on our side-of the Pentagon's poor planning for postwar peace that almost was in Iraq.

Third piece is a book review of a volume on Saudi Arabia and the many challenges faced by the House of Saud in coming years -- a topic we should all care about if we hope the Bush Administration's Big Bang in the Persian Gulf will ultimately bear lasting fruit. Here's the key bits, with the full article found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/17/books/17grim.html

August 17, 2005

A Glimpse of Forces Confronting Saudi Rule

By WILLIAM GRIMES

Western reporting on Saudi Arabia has been in attack mode ever since Sept. 11. Not since the Borgias has a ruling family received such bad press as the House of Saud, and the United States-Saudi connection is probably the one that Americans would most like to sever, if it could be done without raising gasoline prices.

In "Saudi Arabia Exposed," John R. Bradley, a British journalist who spent two and a half years as a newspaper editor and reporter in Saudi Arabia, will not make Americans feel any better about the Saudi royals, whom he calls "perhaps the most corrupt family the world has ever known." But he does provide a highly informed, temperate and understanding account of a country that, he maintains, is an enigma to other Arabs, and even to the Saudis themselves . . .

The House of Saud and the religious establishment, fired by the puritanical form of Islam known as Wahhabism , hold sway in the central region, al-Najd; elsewhere rifts and tensions abound …

In the 1920's and 1930's, Ibn Saud created a unified state from the disparate tribes of present-day Saudi Arabia by force, imposing a brand of Islam that, in many areas of the country, is regarded as alien …

In the southwest, Shiites, who constitute a majority, chafe under religious oppression and an official policy intended to convert them to Wahabbism. One official put the matter starkly: "We don't eat their food, we don't intermarry with them, we should not pray for their dead or allow them to be buried in our cemeteries" …

Saudi Arabia's young people make up another worrying constituency. Mr. Bradley strolls the malls and sits in secluded bedrooms with many disaffected Saudis. Those who travel to the West seem to bring back little more than a degree and a pile of consumer goods. Those who do not travel sit and fester. Waited on hand and foot, they watch satellite television or, using illegal computer cards to bypass the censors, log on to X-rated chat rooms on the Internet. Parents, Mr. Bradley writes, have delegated traditional responsibilities to a despised class of mostly Asian drivers, servants and nannies. As never before, young Saudis have been left to their own devices and easily fall prey to jihadist recruiters …

Mr. Bradley tends to leap at the merest glimmer of light. His liberals and reformers, however attractive, hold very weak cards, and the regime has shown itself extraordinarily resistant to change …

Interesting and accurate description, based on all the intell I've ever come across, including the author's slim hopes for change.

But in the end, it's the demographics that house-breaks the Sauds.

Posted by at 10:00 PM | Permalink

Putnam tells me today that BFA is picked up by the Military Book Club as one of their "featured alternates."

A very good sign, Neil Nyren tells me, indicating, we all hope, a sense of building anticipation with "vol II."

I read a big chunk of BFA today on the flight home, and felt very good about it. The section on China, I think, is some of the best writing I've ever done. And that is exactly how I should feel right now. If your upcoming book doesn't feel like the best writing you've ever done, then you're not doing it right.

Posted by at 12:59 AM | Permalink

Dateline: SWA flight from BWI to Indy, 15 August 2005

Four-hour-plus meeting today with senior intelligence player with a lot of interesting issues on his plate, and the event marked my first tag-team effort in many months. Tired of traveling solo all the time, this trip saw me pair up with new vision partner Steve DeAngelis from Enterra Solutions, and I must say that it worked much better than I had anticipated (me, the king of low expectations on partnering-I am a commitmentaphobe on such things).

Okay, okay, I can't run a global movement for world change all by myself!

Still, being a visionary (and no, I do not shy from that self-description because either you're in it all the way or not at all when it comes to grand strategy) makes one's wary of teaming up with anyone. Gotta keep it real and pure and . . . uh . . . visionary! And once you start adjusting to anyone else's "future worth creating," then you risk getting your message diluted.

But Steve doesn't seem to present that problem, so much so that we're working on a joint book proposal right now, one that I think would be a blast to write and might even come in under 75k words (just like I promised for both PNM and BFA and then overshot in both instances by roughly . . . oh . . . ANOTHER 75k WORDS!). This high-concept book wouldn't be the planned third in the PNM trilogy (I know, I know, I count chickens while eggs aren't even quivering yet, but I'm in my forties so I gotta make hay while the sun still shines), but the first in a different series, sort of a "Blanket-blank's New Map" (even though I'd never advocate that approach in the title selection … or would I?).

Still in the discussion/early-planning stage, this book concept, so getting a chance to hit the streets with Steve in some meetings over the past two days was pretty useful.

Next up? I'm thinking Molyvos in NYC with Mark Warren. If we're serious about the book concept, I'd like to bring him into the mix if he can spare the time.

Here's the daily catch:

■ Updating old blogs, old positions

■ Looking backward, looking forward on the SysAdmin function

■ Islam's reformation will occur in the Core, Christianity's in the Gap

■ Important medical reminders

Posted by at 12:11 AM | Permalink

■"White House to Push for Revised Immigration Plan: Supporters Count on Help From Big Business to Sway Resistant Conservatives," by John D. McKinnon, Wall Street Journal, 15 August 2005, p. A1.

■"China May Offer Foreign Control Of a State Bank: Officials Weigh Auctioning of 50% In Guangdong Development," by Peter Wonacott, Andrew Browne and Robin Sidel, Wall Strett Journal, 15 August 2005, p. A14.

■"Koziumi Apologizes for War; Embraces China and South Korea," by Norimitsu Onishi, New York Times, 15 August 2005, p. A4.

■"El Salvador's Hunger Shows at Tuna Plant: Elusive Prosperity Seen in CAFTA," by Krissah Williams, Washington Post, 15 August 2005, p. D1.

■"Indonesia and Rebels In Aceh Sign Accord: Tsunami Spurs Deal Ending 30-Year War," by Alan Sipress, Washington Post, 15 August 2005, p. A8.

■"Talk to Tehran: Efforts to stop or at least delay the Iranian nuclear program are worth undertaking," op-ed by Fareed Zakaria, Washington Post, 15 August 2005, p. A13.

A day for catching up on old predictions/positions:

Reader recently sent me email on PNM, saying he had just finished it and that many light bulbs went off in his head, including a new understanding of why Bush and the White House are doing their level best to be as liberal as possible on immigration from the South (thinking of Jeb's run in '08, perhaps?). Whatever the reason, it's the right thing to do. Like other presidents before him, Bush will make the show of tougher enforcement against illegals while bending over backward to keep that pool's definition as small as possible. Tough lot for border states? You bet, and they should get extra federal help on that score. But it's good news economically for the U.S. as a whole over the long run.

Second bit on China dipping its toes in the water even deeper on foreign ownership of banks there: not just letting minority ownership but getting very close to allowing a major state bank to come under majority ownership by foreign firm. Bank is question is Guangdong Development Bank, and the question then becomes, "How can we call it a 'state-owned bank' if foreigners own 50%?"

Third bit on Koziumi (Esquire's best-dressed politician of 2005) in Japan apologizing to neighboring victim nations to an unprecedented degree on the occasion of his country's marking of the 60th anniversary of its defeat in World War II. When Japan and China were getting all jacked up on this issue a few months back, I was tempted to insert all sorts of additional language on it in the draft manuscript for BFA, but I'm glad I didn't. Yes, the politicians and the military types on both sides aren't nearly aware enough of the profound economic and network ties that already bind the two nations together, but the right, smart leader can do his best to correct that rule-set gap with the right words at the right moment. Koziumi did so yesterday, marking him as Asia's closest thing to a Tony Blair-like leader of real vision.

Fourth bit on big hopes being displayed in Central America regarding the Central American Free Trade Agreement just passed. No real gains yet and in many instances it will take several years to see the impact, but thank God we gave so many people in that region a reason for thinking a future worth creating is within their grasp.

Fifth bit follows up on the Asian tsunamis: that System Perturbation really did lead to a positive security outcome in Indonesia. All that foreign aid streaming in broke down many seemingly unbreakable barriers between the central government and the rebels in Aceh, and now there's real progress in ending that 30-year civil strife. Vertical shock yielding one positive horizontal scenario, and the U.S. military had a real part in making that happen with its humanitarian support and its subsequent efforts to repair military-to-military ties with Indonesia. That's SysAdmin work at its best. How many stories will you read in the mainstream press giving the Pentagon credit on that one? Zero, my friends, zero. But you and I know better.

Sixth bit is nice to see: Fareed Zakaria noting how we better find a way to somehow make nice with Iran over the nuke issue if we want peace in Baghdad. Add in Beirut and Gaza and the West Bank and you have my basic argument from the Feb story I wrote for Esquire. Of course, careful Fareed, who long ago announced his candidacy for the post of National Security Advisor to some future president, would never be so bold to argue my point of simply accepting that Tehran's getting the bomb, but that's fine. Fareed may never be bold as an op-ed columnist but he's always reasonable and balanced, and that alone sets him apart from the pact. I went to grad school with him at Harvard years ago, and he was exactly that way then, groomed as he was from birth for this career trajectory now well within his grasp.

Posted by at 12:08 AM | Permalink

■"Fighting The Last Hijackers: Who's Afraid of Pocketknives?" op-ed by John Tierney, New York Times, 15 August 2005, p. A17.

■"Sorry Baby, this plane's leaving without you: Screeners stop infants for names on 'no-fly list,'" by Associated Press, USA Today, 15 August 2005, p. 2A.

■"Gauging Iraqi Readiness Centers of 'Feel': Beyond Metrics, U.S. Taps Battlefield Views to Assess Local Troops' Strength, Progress of War," by Greg Jaffe, Wall Street Journal, 15 August 2005, p. A4.

Blistering op-ed by consistently strong Tierney, who's become my favorite NYT columnist after Kristof. He points out the essential mistake-within-the-mistake that was the creation of the Department of Homeland Security: the creation of the Transportation Security Administration and its entire closing-the-barndoor-after-the-cows-have-gone mentality.

There's a line I like to use in my talk know whenever TSA comes up: "Just be thankful Richard Reid didn't shove that bomb up his ass, because if he had, we'd all be taking off a lot more than just our shoes!"

It's a great punch line but a very sad commentary, one reflecting a backward-looking mentality that continues to afflict our response to 9/11: we think it's all about us when it's really all about them. It's not about raising our security practices but raising them abroad. America remains the most robust, distributed, resilient system in the world. To the extent that we need to tighten up, the private sector will take the lead far more than the public sector, which needs to set the rules only and let the private sector work the compliance issues voluntarily. That underlying philosophy is why The New Rule Sets Project LLC is moving toward a deep partnership with Enterra Solutions: I want my rubber to meet that particular road of rule-set automation. This is the big private sector response we've all been waiting for since 9/11, and its successful emergence will hopefully speed up America's movement from the "us" fixation to a new and far more consistent approach to "them" in the Gap.

And when DHS becomes the Department of Agriculture for the 21st century (progressively starved of capital by the federal government because it's utility is OBE), then we'll liberate all that rule-set talent for what it's really much better applied: extending the Core's rule sets into the Gap. DHS will be, in my preferred future, the future home of the SysAdmin function-one that serves the Core as a whole and not just the United States.

[Side note: scary stories about TSA pulling over babies and toddlers cause their names seem close to known terrorists on the watch list. My advice: spend some money and make the effort to get your child (each one of them) his or her own passport, and then never travel far from home without it. Seriously. All our kids have them (worth it when you have an Asian child whose skin tone doesn't exactly match yours and do-you-have-any-proof-she's-your-child-Mister?"). You're on vacation and your kid gets lost. What do you show the cops? ]

Much better example of forward thinking is how the Army and Marines on the ground in Iraq is thinking systematically about how to judge the progress of their training of Iraqi security forces. In many ways, both services are repeating "measures of effectiveness," or MOEs research that was done back in Somalia more than a decade ago, but it's great to see it happening. We need to think through this SysAdmin stuff like crazy. We need think tanks and workshops and exercises and experiments and lessons learned and simulations and training modules and anything else you can think of.

Posted by at 12:07 AM | Permalink

■"Unfree Under Islam: Spare a thought for Muslim women in Iraq-and Ontario," op-ed by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wall Street Journal, 15 August 2005, p. A16.

Good op-ed about how women are consistently disadvantaged in family affairs in any Gap state where shariah, or Islamic law, is used to trump secular law. The piece references the current constitutional fight going on in Iraq, but then emphasizes that this struggle goes on in mosques throughout the Core. Frankly, it's within the Core's greater political and social freedom where Islam's reformation will logically be enabled.

Conversely, and this is a big theme in Blueprint for Action, the revitalization of Christianity will be Gap-based, not Core-based. Forget secularized Europe and even bipolar America. The future of Christianity is in the Gap, along with the majority of the Christians.

Posted by at 12:07 AM | Permalink

■"In the Hospital, a Degrading Shift From Person to Patient," by Benedict Carey, New York Times, 15 August 2005, p. A1.

■"Essential but Uncommon Knowledge: Patients Have Many Rights. Just Ask," by Benedict Carey, New York Times, 15 August 2005, p. A12.

Two really good reporting stories from Benedict Carey in the NYT. The first one, on how hospitals routinely treat people like bags of meat is a frightening indictment of how bad most doctors have become in interpersonal communications. Here is the killer opening:

Mary Duffy was lying in bed half-asleep on the morning after her breast cancer surgery in February when a group of white-coated strangers filed into her hospital room.

Without a word, one of them-a man-leaned over Ms. Duffy, pulled back her blanket, and stripped her nightgown from her shoulders.

Weak from the surgery, Ms. Duffy, 55, still managed to exclaim, "Well, good morning," a quiver of sarcasm in her voice.

But the doctor ignored her. He talked about carcinomas and circled her bed like a presenter at a lawnmower trade show, while his audience, a half-dozen medical students in their 20's, stared at Ms. Duffy's naked body with detached curiosity, she said.

After what seemed like an eternity, the doctor abruptly turned to face her.

"Have you passed gas yet?" he asked.

"Those are his first words to me, in front of everyone," said Ms. Duffy, who runs a food service business near San Jose, Calif.

"I tell him, 'No, I don't do that until the third date,'" she said. "And he looks at me like he's offended, like I'm not holding up my end of the bargain."

Some asshole doc tries that on my mother, wife, or daughter and I punch him on the spot, something I made clear I would do when we went through a similar experience with our first born's cancer roughly a decade ago.

I can remember the night vividly: just that afternoon we got the shocking diagnosis of her advanced, metastasized cancer, and her first surgery was scheduled first thing the next morning. After several very difficult diagnostics where I was forced to hold down my screaming in fear and pain 30-month old daughter, we endured a parade of med students who entered our room unannounced to feel up what they all described as the biggest bloated cancer kidney anyone had ever seen.

We were so stunned by the diagnosis that it was about 5 students in before we came to our senses and told them to f-k off, shutting the door, putting a sign on it, turning down the lights and closing the curtain window. Nurses protested, and the resident presiding got really mad. I, in return, put every effort to emphasize my 6 foot, 2 inch, 200-plus pound frame and my willingness to use it on anyone who gave us a hard time from that moment onward.

Our reputation as badass parents was sealed, much to the delight of our pediactric oncology social worker, who saw it as evidence that we were determined to survive, in tact, as a family.

I maintained that intense level of anger for a good 15 months straight, until the entire process was consummated. It took me a good year-plus to come down off it, including a week of "difficult personality" training in the Maine woods that my company sent me to.

But it was worth every second.

Big point: everyone in the hospital acts like you're in a prison or something, with few rights. Nothing could be further from the truth, and if your doc can't handle you pulling out all the stops for your loved one-get another doc.

Second point comes from a USA Today story that I neglected to clip before my flight: grass-roots movement among emergency medical response personnel in Britain is spreading to the United States. Finding that many unconscious patients carry no info on them regarding whom to contact in an emergency (remember those cards in wallets?), they're asking people to do so on their cellphones.

Here is how it works:

Type in cell phone numbers for next-of-kin emergency contacts and then label the entry "ICE" in all caps. The acronym stands for "In case of emergency." The EMR techs just might find that phone on your and check the numbers (makes perfect sense to me that they'd check) and when they see that entry, they'll be able to hit the button and call.

Think about it and do it. I already have on my phone and I'll program my wife's when I get home tonight.

Posted by at 12:06 AM | Permalink

Dateline: Mandarin Oriental Hotel Washington DC 15 August 2005

In town for some meetings set up by a client, and I end up, because of the client's special deal with this hotel, with a nice room overlooking the Tidal Basin. The Mandarin is, I am told, DC's only 5-star hotel, and my general impression is that it is deserved, although I typically downgrade any place that doesn't give you the room coffeemaker.

Alas, I enjoy that tiny bit of self-empowerment on the road.

Still, the artwork in this place is almost worth the price of admission by itself.

My wife recently got me this way cool hand steamer (Jiffy Steam) that you fill up with tap water, plug in, and then use to steam all the wrinkles out of your suits and ties. Small thing, but again, that theme of empowerment. I now fear no luggage and can face my book tour with confidence!

Here's the daily catch:

■ More sightings of SysAdmin wannabes

■ The big rule-set resets typically squeeze the small guy

■ The buried lead on China's currency evaluation

Posted by at 6:17 PM | Permalink

■"Chinese, Russian Militaries to Hold First Joint Drills: Alliance May Extend to Arms Sales," by Peter Finn, Washington Post, 15 August 2005, p. A10.

■"U.N. Peacekeeping More Assertive, Creating Risk for Civilians," by Colum Lynch, Washington Post, 15 August 2005, p. A10.

The Chinese and Russians are having "first ever joint military exercises" this week-first bilateral ones, that is. Does this represent two Central Asian powers getting a bit nervous that outsider America seeks so overtly to run the "great game" there since 9/11?

To a certain extent, yes.

But it's also very natural. Two legitimate Core powers want to protect their own interests and to do that means both need to be interested in influencing events in energy rich Gap territory of Central Asia. I mean, hey, it's the same logic we use!

So it's not exactly weird that China and Russia cooperate in this realm. Actually, it would be weirder if they didn't.

The two will also continue to cooperate on arms sales. Why? No U.S. Congress or White House meddling on that one, and coming from a country in which arms sales is considered an almost holy rite ("You can pry away my gun from my cold dead fingers!"), I guess I understand other great powers not exactly digging it when the U.S. decides whether or not they can have this or that "gun."

The event is called "Peace Mission 2005," and the scenario involves "10,000 troops simulating a mission to aid a third state where law and order has broken down because of terrorist violence."

Oddly, enough, at the end of the exercise Russia will deploy long-range bombers "capable of carrying nuclear weapons, which will fire cruise missiles at targets on the surface of the sea."

Signal to us? On one level, sure. It says, "we still got stuff and it works!" But real message is demo to Chinese, as in, "See how good it works! Why not buy some?"

This is what our great defense of Taiwan gets us: all sorts of Cold War era-like internal balancing among great powers who should be spending their time and effort on more useful things, like truly cooperating on peacekeeping in the Gap that shrinks the Gap.

Hell, the poor UN is trying to get more assertive there, and looking pretty pathetic doing it. If we can just move past the Taiwans and North Koreas that still exist, there is real work to be done throughout the Gap, work that can be adequately handled if enough Core militaries are involved.

But boys will be boys. More fun to plot the intra-Core stuff with bombers and what not. The SysAdmin stuff in the Gap is so boring in comparison.

Posted by at 6:16 PM | Permalink

■"Biometric IDs could see massive growth: But debate rages about privacy, format and who gets the money," by Thomas Frank, USA Today, 15 August 2005, p. 1A.

■"Sarbanes-Oxley Is a Curse for Small-Cap Companies," op-ed by Neal L. Wolkoff, Wall Street Journal, 15 August 2005, p. A13.

The "big boys" get served first in any rule-set reset, but the "little guy" tends to get lost in the shuffle.

Think about proposals for special fast-tracking of people through security-checking systems like air travel: if you're willing to lose some privacy, you go faster. But this is really a transaction that serves the "big guy," here the frequent flier like myself. Frequent Flier is probably better off, on average, than Sometime Flier. So what's in it for Sometime Flier? Not much: effort to get "golden ticket" probably not worth the loss in privacy.

Sometimes, a new rule set simply imposes undue financial burdens on the small guy. Sarbanes-Oxley set up all sorts of new accounting/reporting requirements by companies to avoid the sort of cheating that led to corporate scandals of recent years. But these requirements are expensive. Big companies are the real target, because it was big companies that were guilty of the most serious excesses. So fair enough for them to pay the high auditing costs. But what about the small companies? They are burdened to make effort that doesn't really get them much in return-so a real sunk cost that hampers their bottom line and efficiency.

Again, in both instances, we conduct rule-set resets designed to make us all safer, but how we set up the rules seems to penalize the little guy.

The answer would seem to be rule set regimes that allow all players to maintain security at costs commensurate with their size/demand/frequency.

Posted by at 6:03 PM | Permalink

■"What Comes After 'Bretton Woods II,'" op-ed by John B. Taylor, Wall Street Journal, 15 August 2005, p. A12.

Good piece worth reading in full. Gist: economists had dubbed the ten year period in which China had kept its currency pegged to the dollar "Bretton Woods II," calling to mind the period from 1945 (or thereabouts) to 1971 in which the world's major currencies were similar pegged, with the basis back then being gold (as in, the gold standard). In effect, the emerging markets of Developing Asia had, by and large, replicated the same sort of currency stabilization strategy that America used in its post-WWII resurrection of the West (better to peg than to float).

Most economies there had, by now, moved off strict pegs and allow some level of controlled float. With China joining that dynamic, the synchronization of Asia's internal economic rule sets with the global economy's growing rule set will be accelerated.

In many ways, this is a real tipping point in Asia's progressive integration with globalization's more mature Functioning Core of the West. In effect, Asia reached the point of diminishing returns with that pegged strategy, meaning it achieved a level of economic development in which more control is to be had through allowing the currency to float than keeping it fixed, presuming the economy has the necessary institutions needed to offset that float dynamic. Done well, your economy will self-correct better, avoiding either overheating or hard landings.

China keeping its currency pegged to the dollar was a huge stabilizing factor in the global economy across the past decade, helping Asia survive the 97-98 flu in tact. Now that this stabilizing element is gone, the question is, does the Core enter into a new period?

Undoubtedly yes, but one that can be managed effectively if the U.S. and China begin to recognize their natural strategic alliance across this century.

The Bush Administration did a nice quiet job of making this change possible on China's side. Will it be able to manage a host of other similarly hard transitions that China must make in coming months and years? Or will the China bashers be allowed to run amok over whatever event strikes their fancy?

Tonight I sit in on meeting regarding another potential new strand of commercial connectivity between China and the US: private-sector driven and yet chock full of potential public-sector angst, despite the obvious logic in its unfolding. This is a dynamic we will see again and again on China: natural economic bonds emerging but political understanding lacking, thus the fear-threat reaction that-OMYGOD!-this connectivity "must" represent some new "threat" to America's standing in the world.

Sad to say, but we will have to survive the current generation of political and military leadership on this issue. The good news is, whenever a party assumes the White House, the leaders tend to be pretty darn reasonable in their judgments (Clinton bashed as candidate and then got wiser, Bush does similarly). Same, of course, cannot be said about the Hill or the Pentagon, where the turnover of the entrenched elites is quite low, and thus quite slow to respond to changes in the strategic landscape.

But give credit where credit is due: Bush and John Snow did a nice, quiet job of pushing the Chinese down this pathway-just in time. The optimist in me says such persistence will work with the Chinese on a host of seemingly more difficult issues.

Posted by at 5:42 PM | Permalink

Great bit from Strategy Page. Full story found at: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005814231341.asp

Here's the gist:

South Korea Prepares to Take Control in the North by James Dunnigan August 14, 2005

South Korea has been quietly preparing for the eventual collapse of the communist government in the north. South Korea has, for over a decade, been carefully examining the experience of Germany in reuniting its democratic and capitalist West with its communist and ramshackle East. As a result, South Korea has been developing an very strong civil affairs capability. Something like a half-million personnel (military and civilian, active, reserve, and retired) have been trained to assume administrative duties in the North in the event that unification takes places. Reportedly, half the civil servants in the ROK will move North as part of the reconstruction mission, and will stay there as long as it takes.

Sent to me by me favorite "Chicago Boyz" member Michael Lotus.

This capacity is well known within the defense community, but a quiet notion in the popular press.

Point in citing it: just another reason why usual predictions of huge "bill" for Kim takedown are vastly overblown. Ultimate "interested party" on this one, and that's before you add in China and Japan. Not at all like the beggar-thy-neighbor attitudes of the Middle East.

Posted by at 3:45 PM | Permalink

Sent to me by reader Joshua Schneider, as he beats me to the Post on a day lost to running with my older son (anticipating fall cross country), a Family with Children from China (Indy chapter) picnic, and "Sky High" with the kids.

Here's the best bits:

Diplomats for Tough Duty

By Tom Brokaw
Sunday, August 14, 2005; B07
Washington Post

With Karen Hughes moving into the post of assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, perhaps there will be more attention from the administration, Congress and the public to the difficult mission she is taking on. It has been on the back burner too long.

Defenders and critics of President Bush's war on terrorism agree on very little except this: There is a critical need for a more energetic, imaginative and effective campaign to promote the American ideals of democracy, tolerance, compassion and economic opportunity in the Islamic world.

It is a large and complex challenge requiring some fundamental changes. One possibility came to me during reporting trips to remote reaches of Afghanistan, where I spent time with U.S. Special Forces and units of the 10th Mountain Division.

Both outfits were stationed in hostile territory doing double duty: fighting the Taliban and trying to hold the hearts and minds of Afghan locals by building schools, medical clinics and roads in their isolated villages . . .

. . . I worried that the two missions of the military would at some point become incompatible, even incendiary . . .

What image lingered, I wondered. The good cop or the bad cop? . . .

The Special Forces concept -- unconventional warriors chosen for their intelligence, stamina, adaptability and range of skills -- has worked well for the military. Why couldn't it work as well for the Foreign Service?

The State Department could recruit young men and women who want an adventurous life and train them as the Diplomatic Special Forces, a kind of Peace Corps plus. Put them through crash courses in local dialects and skills relevant to the areas where they will be assigned. Place them in military outposts in remote areas, an arrangement that would have the added benefit of forging bonds between the military and the diplomatic corps. Give them extra pay and set the bar high so they have the same elite status as the Pentagon's Special Forces.

My guess is that it would be an appealing prospect for members of the younger generation who want to serve their country but not necessarily in military uniform. . .

Hmmm.

Yes, yes, it does sound like a sad rehash of Vietnam-era pacification strategies.

Full story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR2005081201411.html

Posted by at 9:40 PM | Permalink

Okay. . . Critt here.. still on the road, without laptop.

I'll get home Tuesday and put the newsletter together then. It should be in your Inbox early Wednesday morning.

Thanks.

Posted by Josette at 4:56 PM | Permalink

Dateline: stuck in Midway, wondering why anyone with a brain would ever want to connect through Chicago, 12 August 2005

Pretty amazing couple of days getting to know the staff of Enterra Solutions, and coming to grips with the verbal and intellectual Tasmanian devil that is Steve DeAngelis, their unconsciously charismatic leader. Being a big guy, you get him spinning and he sends the room and everyone in it spinning as well, and it's pretty to cool to experience.

What Steve's doing with Enterra is really amazing: simultaneously ramping up a start-up company while almost single-handedly plowing ahead on thought leadership in an emergent field that defies simple description and yet will define the next great wave of business change management in both America and the world. Enterprise resiliency will constitute the great private-sector response to the challenges we now recognize are posed by post-9/ll globalization and its fellow traveler, the global war on terrorism, and helping Steve realize that positive vision has The New Rule Sets Project awfully jacked up-all three of us.

Okay, so it's a small committee to actually save the world, so it only makes sense we ally ourselves with as much top talent as we can.

As always, security leads, but markets and innovation do the heavy lifting over the long haul, and Enterra is looking like a world-class weight-lifter in the world of rule sets. I have found my next Cebrowski, my new north star, and DeAngelis plays against type just as much or more than the Delphic admiral: where Art would dazzle you with one dense sentence that would lay on your brain for days, Steve will bury you with a blizzard of ideas and images that blanket your senses, muffling all distractions until you can see as far as he can. But the effect is the same: you find yourself won over by the obvious mastery of the material and the underlying sense of intense passion.

The logic centers, but the passion connects. I like to know where I am, but I love knowing where I'm going even more. I'm living in Indiana, but I'm racing to the future worth creating with a gang of like-minded individuals convinced that we can change the world.

I can't wait to get up in the morning and get started.

Here's the daily catch:

■ The need to see progress/failure in Iraq

■ The need to see progress/failure in China

■ A broken personnel system in DoD

■ Where are we?

■ Favre's twilight wasn't the right story for me

■ A reminder for Dad

Posted by at 10:02 AM | Permalink

■"Bush Cites Gains But Sees No Cuts In Troops In Iraq: Says Talk Is Premature; President Tries to Resolve Mixed Signals After Pentagon Remarks," by Anne E. Kornblut, New York Times, 12 August 2005, p. A1

■"Ohio's Marines Are Remembered And Understood," op-ed by Dan heninger, Wall Street Journal, 12 August 2005, p. A8.

Everyone in this ongoing debate wants Iraq declared either a fantastic failure or a fantastic success, when such definitions are simply impossible at any point in the process. Even in America's worst moments throughout its many decades (like the Civil War) it was never a complete failure, and even in its best moments (like WWII) it was never a complete success.

We tend to write our history like the press prefers to keep score in Washington, as in, who's up and who's down, when we were humming and when we were complete screw-ups. But the absolutes are never reached in truly pluralism. Plenty of sturm und drang, of course, and lotsa wasted motion and words, but mostly you muddle through, just like the Iraqis are today.

We tend only to see the negative, as in "How long must this war drag on?" When in reality, we should be amazed at how long we've been able to stave off a civil war in Iraq while all sides continue to negotiate toward something resembling a representative democracy.

Dan Henninger's great op-ed reminds us that American civilians tend to bitch about their wars far more than the troops ever do, going all the way back to General Washington and our revolutionary origins. Frankly, it's always been the "band of brothers" cohesion versus the turn-on-themselves citizenry. Every war we've ever engaged in ended up taking too long and costing too much compared with the expectations going in.

Somehow we bury police and firemen with real pride and gratitude with their sacrifice, but too many of us can't do the same with our similarly serving SysAdmin troops in this war on terrorism. Keeping our streets safe is seen as a noble calling, but keeping anybody else's must be cast as either over-the-top crusade or complete and utter lie foisted upon us by our corrupt leaders. There is no in-between, just the extremes of sentiment, as Henninger laments.

And when we view our interactions with the world in this way, how can we expect much better from the world outside?

Posted by at 10:01 AM | Permalink

■"Retreat in China; The distant thoughts of democracy are being extinguished by the repressive regime of General Secretary Hu as this 'new generation' of leadership is resorting to the old tricks of oppression," op-ed by David J. Lynch, USA Today, 12 August 2005, p. 11A.

■"Meet Jack Ma, Who Will Guide Yahoo in Chiina," by Jason Dean and Jonathan Cheng, Wall Street Journal, 12 August 2005, p. B1

■"In a Challenging China Market, EBay Confronts a Big New Rival: Yahoo Backs a Local Firm; An Online-Auction Duel Stirs Memories of Japan; Mr. Ma's Plans for Alibaba," by Mylene Mangalindan, Wall Street Journal, 12 August 2005, p. A1..

A pretty good op-ed on China that starts out all "dashing hopes that China's economic opening will produce greater democracy any time soon" and ends by noting that the Party's ability to control a society where now only a quarter of urban citizens still work in state factories is getting awfully weak.

Hard to reconcile huh? The Party seems to control less and less in China's economy and society, and yet it seems obsessed with maintaining as much control as possible in the political realm.

Not really. The more connectivity with the outside, the smaller the realm of Party control, but logically the greater the Party paranoia about losing its power grip, so the more vehement the effort. True to Chinese form, big showy displays of crackdowns are preferred, as in, arrest one dramatically and scare 99 implicitly. So plenty of renewed ideological discipline to cover the growing lack of its in all other spheres.

As the author notes, "Because of changes in society, though, Hu's crackdown is irrelevant to all but a small, politically conscious elite."

Hu gets away with it how? By emphasizing Party concern for rural poor left behind in China's economic boom. Can't have the leftist party return to power in China like Congress did in India or Lula and Co. did in Brazil. Can't have it because there is no such thing as a leftist party in China today, even though the ruling one calls itself "communist."

When only the labels remain, you obsess over the way such words are used. I mean, that's the essential struggle over certain wording in the Chinese version of PNM: if you criticize socialism in China you actually bring to the forefront the reality that there is no socialism in China-just single-party statism.

Me, I bet more on Ma than Hu, more on Alibaba than the CCP. The Chinese are more market oriented than most Americans-and hungrier too.

The world isn't flat, not so long as the Party rules in China, generating all that friction along national borders. But single-party rule there certainly faces an expiration date. At times, the progress along that path will seem plenty slow, even reversing in spasms, but the steps forward will likewise come in clumps, and outnumber the ones backward.

Posted by at 10:00 AM | Permalink

■"Waiting Out Logjam Of Nominees At Pentagon," by Leslie Wayne, New York Times, 12 August 2005, p. C1.

Right now a quarter of the top Pentagon civilian jobs are without officially confirmed occupants. As expert Loren Thompson points out, we're at war and we're missing two service secretaries. His opinion: "this is the worst confirmation logjam that we've seen," and we deep into a second term, not beginning one.

The excuse? Every time someone in Congress has a beef with the Pentagon, they block some nominee's comfirmation. John McCain's unhappy with the Boeing tanker deal, so the Air Force basically goes the entire year without a sitting secretary. Nice, huh?

Rummy's answer is equally bad: letting posts go unfilled. We've had no official undersecretary for acquisition in over two years.

Yes, there's a lot of in-and-out traffic of senior officials in the defense sector. It's a highly specialized field of senior management because of all the regulations and bureaucracy and special requirements. But if conflict-of-interest fears are driving this ungodly confirmation process, then all we're doing is scaring off talent. Instead of an effective embargo, why not just plus-us the enforcement?

Having all these regs and obstacles simply drives many fed workers nuts. I long held a beyond-top-secret clearance, so I was trusted with all sorts of information, and yet I was routinely submitted to all sorts of idiotic rules that reflect a fundamental mistrust of my motivations and behaviors by the bureaucracy, as though I might hold all sorts of secrets in my head just so I could go around bilking the government of all sorts of penny-ante assets. Trust me with state secrets but then hound me for $10 receipts on local travel. Simply amazing.

The hounding of political appointees obviously involves far larger sums of money, but the principle is basically the same. If we can't trust people not to abuse their jobs just for money, then how can we trust them on what really matters: the lives of American soldiers and citizenry?

Being a federal worker is no picnic, but when the government goes out of its way to make it even worse, you come to the conclusion that a huge make-over is required-and not just in the Reserve Component.

I wish Rumsfeld well in his ongoing efforts at reformatting the personnel system at DoD. I know he can't do much about the confirmation process, but I hope he breaks plenty of china in those areas he can actually change.

Posted by at 10:00 AM | Permalink

■"Minority groups breaking patterns: Census finds Hispanics fan out through USA, blacks cluster in South," by Paul Overberg, USA Today, 12 August 2005, p. 1A.

Fascinating bit on how Hispanics are spreading themselves around the country a lot more than previously, defying predictions of intense enclaving, a term that seems better applied to African-Americans, roughly half of whom now live in clumped areas in the 11 southern states that once made up the Confederacy. Weird, huh? I'm talking 17 million blacks in the old South, and the rest mostly spread in urban areas elsewhere.

Meanwhile, upticks in the percentage of Hispanics are being seen in counties all over the country, but mostly in the southern lower half of states (just not concentrated like African-Americans are now becoming in the southeast).

Sam Huntington asked, "Who are we?" in his recent book that focused intensely on the rising Hispanic population in America, but the bigger question would seem to be, Where are we? Are we seeing voluntary segregation of the oldest American sort? And given where it's occurring, are we seeing blacks become irrelevant politically by becoming so clustered in states that are overwhelmingly Republican?

Posted by at 9:59 AM | Permalink

■"As crowds adore him, Favre yearns for quiet: fishbowl life, publicized tragedies push Packers' iconic quarterback toward quest for solitude," by Larry Weisman, USA Today, 12 August 2005, p. 2A.

Brett on page one of the sports section today, in a story that reveals both his reticence on talking to the press and the difficulty of doing a profile on him. It's clear that the reporter got an interview with him, although it's not clear it was an exclusive or whether he was just pulling quotes from the mandatory weekly press appearance. Wife Deanna spoke by phone in the piece. That's about all you're going to get this year from the man: discussions of the end and not the you-are-there capture I was hoping for in the piece.

The piece ended up being pretty melancholy, with Favre describing how he tints the windows of his pickup and never pulls up evenly with anyone at a stoplight, lest he be recognized. References to Garbo and seclusion abound in the piece, as does the inevitable mention of first-round-draft-pick-and-heir-apparent Aaron Rodgers.

In the end, I simply wouldn't want to feel like I was imposing on that quest for quiet as the man tries to enjoy his final season peacefully, ending on a note that doesn't involve a member of his family dying or coming close to it-like his wife's cancer of last year.

I remember my profound sense of burnout after our long battle with our first-born's cancer roughly a decade ago. I remember wanting boredom and slowness and a sense of nothing happening so I could simply reconnect to what I had previously enjoyed in life. I hope Brett gets that this year, and then I hope he retires and does what makes him feel best in coming years.

And then I hope Aaron Rodgers is a good pick.

Hmmm, maybe a week-in-the-life-of-the-first-round-pick-replacing-the-irreplaceable-legend-at-Lambeau piece would make sense next year.

Hmmm, hard to say what I'll be up to next year. Warren's next grand scheme for me at Esquire is the most fantastic yet (after we finish the China piece we keep nurturing). But my hide should be plenty thick following BFA's release, so I look forward to making his next improbable piece spring into life.

Posted by at 9:59 AM | Permalink

■"DC compiles best of 'what if?" tales," by David Colton, USA Today, 12 August 2005, p. 1D.

This is exactly what it look like: a reminder to Dad to help son Kevin find this nifty, collector-edition softcover that includes the death of Superman, Jimmy Olsen marrying Lois Lane, and a funky, 1946 Captain Marvel story in which he's the sole survivor of nuclear war that's devastated the planet.

I got stuck last night in Chicago Midway for a horrible 5 hours of layover when a malfunctioning plane didn't show up until two hours after our scheduled departure. You always feel bad about leaving your family for business trips, but wasted down time like this makes you feel worse.

Better image: K-man and I beginning 3-milers today as we gear up for the start of the cross-country season at his school, which fields one of the best teams in the region. I won't mind the tendinitus of training with these young bucks as a volunteer assistant coach (yes, I've already received my mandated sex abuse-awareness training from the diocese), and it will be a great way to spend time with my son. Other than when travel prevents me, I'll be there for all practices and meets.

Posted by at 9:58 AM | Permalink

Send by reader Eric Allison.

Here's the opening bit:

In Saudi Arabia, a high-tech way to flirt

Bluetooth gives segregated sexes a way to reach out, discreetly
The Associated Press
Updated: 6:41 p.m. ET Aug. 11, 2005

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - The restaurant, like all Riyadh eateries, has taken precautions to prevent its male and female diners from seeing or contacting each other.

Circular white walls surround each table in the family section, open only to women alone or women accompanied by close male relatives. Other male diners are on lower floors.

Yet despite the barriers, the men and women flirt and exchange phone numbers, photos and kisses . . .

Ah, blue tooth kisses. Not exactly frenching, but you take what you can get in the House of Saud.

This is the downfall of all repressive Gap governments: they crave the connectivity, but can't handle the content uses that inevitably spring up, the most frightening being--of course--sexual in nature.

Like the mathematician's point in "Jurassic Park" (Jeff Goldblum character "Malcolm"): life finds a way.

Globalization is inevitable. It's ain't a choce because being a human isn't a choice and humans choose connectivity over isolation every time.

Full story found at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916890/

Posted by at 10:32 AM | Permalink

Dateline: HQ of Enterra Solutions, Yardley PA, 12 August 2005

Last time Publishers Weekly was a bit dismissive of the utility but reasonably appreciate of the effort. This time, it's just dismissive.

From Publishers Weekly

Military-strategy consultant Barnett follows his ballyhooed The Pentagon's New Map with this unconvincing brief for American interventionism. Echoing the now conventional wisdom that a larger, better-prepared occupation force might have averted the current mess in Iraq, Barnett generalizes the notion into a formula for bringing the blessings of order and globalization to benighted nations throughout the "Non-Integrating Gap." A "System Administrator force" of American and allied troops—a "pistol-packing Peace Corps"—could, he contends, undertake an ambitious schedule of regime change, stabilization and reconstruction in Islamic countries and as far afield as North Korea and Venezuela, making military intervention so routine that he terms it the "processing" of dysfunctional states. Barnett's ideas are a rehash of Vietnam-era pacification doctrine, updated with anodyne computer lingo and New Economy spin. Implausibly, he envisions Americans volunteering their blood and treasure for a "SysAdmin force" fighting for international "connectivity" and envisions the world rallying to the bitterly controversial banner of globalization. Worse, he has no coherent conception of America's strategic interests; "the U.S. is racing. . . to transform [the] Middle East before the global shift to hydrogen [fuel] threatens to turn the region into a historical backwater," runs his confused rationale for continued American meddling in the Muslim world. That Barnett's pronouncements are widely acclaimed as brilliant strategic insights (as he himself never tires of noting) bodes ill for American foreign policy. (Oct.)

COMMENTARY: I have to get used to this sort of review, which is essentially the anti-Bush Doctrine/anti-neocon/anti-Iraq review. It will consist of: "There's nothing new here, all these ideas proven totally bankrupt by Iraq, and--most pointedly--I can't believe anyone's listening to this guy." The fallback position will be: "I'm a realist who believes American should concentrate on its 'national interests' and eschew such wild interventionism."

Neil Nyren thought it was a rather stupid review, one that purposely misrepresented what I was seeking to argue, and I agree. I mean, when you read the "rehash of Vietnam-era pacificaction doctrine," you realize the reviewer turned off his brain on the work after getting all the way through the first ten pages or so. The larger realism I cite is simply this: this is the post-9/11 world, and the historical record is clear that we'll have to do a lot of failed states (both chaotic and non-functioning dictatorships that don't serve their peoples) or learn to live with the terrorism, fear, insecurity, civil strife, repression, etc. that they spawn. I think 9/11 made the living-with-all-this-crap aspect unworkable, but frankly, as I say in BFA (and I'm sure this person read the ENTIRE FIRST CHAPTER based on this comprehensive review), we have to deal with all these things simply because of globalization's advance (love it but you can't leave it) whether we want to or not.

To deal with that reality, I espouse what Charles Krauthammer calls a "democratic globalism" (the high-end Bush stuff) but my path way of implementation, or my blueprint for action, is far closer to what he calls "democratic realism" (yeah, I expect to wage some wars and deal with some nasty dictators along the way cause it won't happen overnight--in Iraq, in China, anywhere). In many ways, both PNM and BFA seek to bridge those two philosophies (high idealism in the long run, a bit more brutally real in the short and mid-term). Krauthammer calls this "neoconservatism convergence," and if you read that concept and the others I just mentioned in his fascinating and quite brilliant Commentary piece a reader just sent me (Tim Beidel, ME), I think you'll understand why I can get a first review out of the gate like this and not be bothered with it one bit.

And I can say, for the first time in my life, that--based on the Krauthammer piece--I now understand why so many people consider me a neoconservative. That I'm a Democratic as well isn't the point, because we're talking foreign policy schools, not domestic political parties.

I thank Tim Beidel for alerting me to the Krauthammer piece (find it at: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12001023_1). It was the perfect antidote to this truly pinheaded review.

Why do I say pinheaded? The bit about me not having a coherent sense of national interests is complete nonsense. I realize I have to cite PNM to prove this (vice BFA, but hey, it's Vol. II by design!), but frankly, I dare anyone to point out a better or more explicit description of America's national interests (and I'm talking about where the rubber really meets the road) than the section, "The American Way of War." I tell you in that section exactly why and under what conditions we go to war. As usual, this reviewer cites "national interests" simply as an ass-covering technique to declare: "America shouldn't care about that part of the world much less go there."

And that's the supreme oddity of that phrase, "neocon," because, in practical terms, it has come to mean that you care about security "outside, over there" more than liberal interventionists--because you're actually willing to see America do something about it rather than burying its head in the sand.

Posted by at 10:06 AM | Permalink

AUGUST ISSUE, PAGE 54

Vitriolic? Derisive? Let's call the tremendous response to July's 10 Men feature s passionate. Yeah, that makes us feel better.

We're not sure which comments in the 10 Men issue upset readers more: Donald Rumsfeld's on Iraq ("Old Man in a Hurry," by Thomas P.M. Barnett), a Guantanamo-based military chaplain's on war and faith ("The Gospel of Gitmo," by Tom Junod), or Val Kilmer's on how to Method-act your way to combat-experience ("Crazy Things Seem Normal …" by Chuck Klosterman).

THE MOST POSITIVE LETTER WE RECEIVED RELATED TO DONALD RUMSFELD'S INCLUSION IN OUR 10 MEN ISSUE

When I saw Rumsfeld on your cover, I was ready to send a letter canceling my subscription. Then I had the good fortune and great pleasure of reading your profile of him and nine other fascinating men-and I think they are among the best profiles I have read in any magazine in years.

BYRON REIMUS, Yardley, Pa.

THE SECOND THROUGH FIFTH MOST POSITIVE LETTERS

Rumsfeld is responsible for the deaths of more than a hundred thousand Iraqis and more than seventeen hundred American soldiers. Rhetoric aside, Esquire has celebrated a mass murderer.

NAME WITHHELD BY REQUEST, Los Angeles, Calif.

I was, to say the least, disappointed by your inclusion of Donald Rumsfeld in the July issue. This is a man who, at best, answers questions posed by reporters and even National Guard members in a cavalier and dismissive style; at worst, he lies to the American public in a manner exemplifying Orwellian newspeak.

MATT McSORLEY, Bloomington, Ind.

Rumsfeld is a famed bureaucratic infighter, so it should not be surprising that, with the disastrous results in Iraq, he has executed a classic bureaucratic sidestep and hoodwinked your interviewer, Thomas P.M. Barnett, into believing that he was a mere "technician" and that the policy blame belongs with [former deputy secretary of defense] Paul Wolfowitz and [undersecretary] Douglas Feith. Put the blame where it belongs: with the arrogant triumvirate of Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush.

WILLIAM CARTER, Medford, Oreg.

As public broadcasting goes, so does Esquire-to the far Right. Please cancel my subscription. I do not wish to support in any way a magazine that flacks for Donald Rumsfeld or the next generation of Bushes. Nuts to you!

MARY ELLEN CAREW, Washington, D.C.

CATHARTIC LETTER OF THE MONTH

F- Howard Stern. F- Donald Rumsfeld. F- Newt Gingrich. F- Hugh Hefner. F- Richard Nixon. F- Michael Jackson. F- Jason Alexander. F- Snoop Dogg. F- Kevin Federline. F- Dr. Phil. F- You.

JOHN HIEB, Lancaster, Pa.

COMMENTARY: It always amazes me how nasty the letters are that Esquire receives on my articles. Of course, most of the anger here wasn't directed at my effort so much as simply blasting the magazine for the selection (and I am to blame for that, in part, by making it possible). I do take exception, naturally, to the "hoodwinked" or "flacks" statements. I wanted to write up Rumsfeld in the way I saw him in history for the transformation process he has unleashed, not simply replicate the hundreds of articles that blame him for Iraq. My choice? Yes. Don't like it? Fine. But criticize the choice without implying that the only way the man can get a profile that doesn't crucify him is for the journalist to be fooled. That's not an argument under any conditions, and it's especially weak when you're talking someone who worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense for two years.

Posted by at 11:33 PM | Permalink

Dateline: Freebie SWA flights to Chicago and then Philadelphia, 10 August 2005

Spent morning with cabinet guy, making more choices than I ever imagined were necessary for such things, but very happy with the outcome. Building this house is proving to be one of the great creative expressions of our marriage, bigger than anything other than our shared children, faith, and politics.

I am actually missing my preseason Packer game for the second year in a row. Missed it last year for the trip to China, getting a daughter in return. This time I miss it for a hugely important series of business meetings with Enterra Solutions' senior management, hopefully getting something very exciting in return.

Shaping a house around your ideals is great, but shaping a career similarly is even better.

Beyond that, I am looking forward to two days with partners Steffany and Critt. This may be the last time we get together under The New Rule Sets Project LLC name, as we may be fashioning a set of new rules for us all in Philly over the next two days.

Here's the daily catch:

■ The global war on technology theft

■ You know you're joining the Core when …

■ Tracking the global commute

■ End NASA's monopoly on the right stuff!

■ Scotty ate lead on D-Day

Posted by at 8:04 AM | Permalink

■"FBI Sees Big Threat From Chinese Spies; Businesses Wonder; Bureau Adds Manpower, Builds Technology-Theft Cases; Charges of Racial Profiling," by Jay Solomon, Wall Street Journal, 10 August 2005, p. A1.

■"Big Foreign Investors Are Courting Bank of China: Stakes in State-Backed Bank Would Give Foursome Entry Into Huge Market," by Mary Kissel and Andrew Browne, Wall Street Journal, 10 August 2005, p. A9.

■"Australia, China to Discuss Nuclear-Trade Deal," by Dow Jones Newswires, Wall Street Journal, 10 August 2005, p. A9.

The FBI is mounting what is described as a big-time effort to track Chinese efforts to steal military-related technology from the U.S.

This is the same FBI that's so short-handed in the Global War on Terrorism. This is the FBI that's shortchanging state and local police in terms of regular crime prosecution.

And China, of course, is the only country in the world that's doing this right now in the United States.

Remember the huge FBI effort to curtail the widespread economic theft that Japan engaged in for decades? Neither do I.

You want a strategic vision for the 21st century. Here it is: either China and the United States are strategic allies in an expanding Functioning Core of globalization or globalization will likely splinter in very bad ways, leading to untold suffering throughout the Gap, and plenty of wasted security activities throughout the Core. Millions upon millions of lives will end prematurely in the self-inflicted madness of this second path, and the global war on terrorism will not be won.

China is rising. Don't just hedge against that, plan for it. The logic of our strategic partnership with China is profound. Sure, to most older than I, it will seem impossible or at least highly improbable.

The good news is, of course, the vast majority of people older than I won't matter much to this grand historical process.

Talk to someone in a few years whose entire life experience has been shaped in a world where China is considered an economic powerhouse, not some isolated, bizarre, almost North Korean-like nuthouse where millions die under a dictator's "cultural revolution." Those young people will grow up understanding the logic of this inevitable union, even if their forefathers, trapped as they are in values programmed decades ago, cannot.

Of course, I'm being unfair here. American business gets this reality. I heard it in spades five years ago atop the World Trade Center in the NewRuleSets.Project workshops with Cantor Fitzgerald. It's the politicians and the more senior military who tend to have their heads up their asses on this, but that's a dangerous combination, one that's capable of doing all sorts of stupid things in years ahead.

We need to pay attention to the Australians and Canadians more on the Chinese. Australia especially is the canary in this coal mine: as it learns to whistle a far different tune, our "down under" ally will be signaling our future relationship with China.

Watch and learn, I say.

Posted by at 8:03 AM | Permalink

■"M.B. A. Students Bypassing Wall Street for a Summer in India," by Saritha Rai, New York Times, 10 August 2005, p. C1.

■"He Created a Mirror For Black America," by Felicia R. Lee, New York Times, 10 August 2005, p. B1.

In "Blueprint for Action," I write in Chapter Four ("Shrinking the Gap by Ending Disconnectedness") a section ("Tipping Points in the Journey from the Gap to the Core") that describes, more illustratively than data-driven, how I think we need to think about a Gap country's evolution toward Core-status.

Geez, that sentence was so Gap-Core'y that I almost sounded like Friedman going on and on about "flatness."

Anyway.

One of the signs I cite in the section is when Old Core students and young people start coming to your country for practical career experience. Why? It signals that your society is becoming a big part of the global economy's future-something not to be missed by ambitious young people looking to get ahead in a competitive environment.

There have already been stories about young Americans outsourcing themselves to China (and elder Americans as well), and I endnote a couple in BFA. The first cite above is just another good example WRT India.

It's such a huge step forward when a country achieves this sort of human connectivity (the "flow of people" is becoming more and more, at least in my mind, the most interesting and perhaps the most important of the "four flows" I described in PNM). It's huge because it says the world-or at least it's most ambitious youth-look up to you. Today Gwen Stefani sings about Japanese fashion in her new album (which, other than the swears, is the best work I've heard in many a moon), but in a few years, the Gwen-after-next will sing about India and China as well-perhaps seeing her career take off after starring in a few Bollywood musicals or lush Chinese romances.

Those sorts of role models are one of the best antidotes for alienated Muslim youth, whether they live in the Core or the Gap but especially the transplants in the Core. Ricky Martin recently volunteered to serve as a role model for Muslim youth by proxy, but frankly, you need those success stories to be more direct.

And to get those stories told, you need Muslim media moguls who want to tell those stories in the way they need to be told, like John H. Johnson did for so many years in his many black-oriented magazines and shows.

Show me the Russell Simmons who's rising up right now in European Muslim circles and I'll show you a solution that will do more to prevent terrorism than any "strategic communication" the U.S. Government could put together.

Searching for these "Heroes Yet Discovered" is a big theme in BFA, and the title of my character-driven conclusion to the book.

Posted by at 8:03 AM | Permalink

■"Hurdles for High-Tech Efforts To Track Who Crosses Borders," by Eric Lipton, New York Times, 10 August 2005, p. A1.

Interesting piece on the successes and travails of the customs and border control units of the Department of Homeland Security in their efforts to create a variety of high-tech border-crossing tracking systems.

Yes, yes, security leads and we do this all first and foremost out of fear. But frankly, this shouldn't be a US Government directed effort-in sum-so much as a USG-enabled effort that encompasses both public and private sectors and is internationalized to the hilt.

Instead of posing this all in terms of the U.S. catching terrorists and criminals (the latter is basically whom we catch day-in and day-out with this stuff-plus the illegals), we need to push a Core-wide effort (forget the Gap at first, if countries there were that "with it," they wouldn't be in the Gap) that's pitched more in terms of enabling the global commute so that everything is streamlined and made efficient for the vast flow of humanity that now regularly cross borders for work. Make a system that works for all those people and you'll catch the bad guys as a bonus, but focus your system on catching bad guys first and foremost and what you likely end up doing is making life harder for that vast majority whose travel the Core needs to promote, not hinder.

Yes, the public sector stays in charge of it all (after all, we're talking borders), but lure the private sector in because it's a positive for their business rather than just a hassle to put up with.

This evolution from public-sector-driven-due-to-security-fears to private-sector-driven-due-to-productivity-gains is a natural one. Governments love to build networks in a monopoly fashion, but markets are much better at running them. I mean, there has got to be a better way-a much broader, horizontal, connecting way-to get this job done. One that makes America a positive rule-set leader, not an isolated rule-set purveyor.

Posted by at 8:02 AM | Permalink

■"Private Company Plans $100 Million Tour Around the Moon: Seeking adventurers with deep pockets for a cozy journey on a Russian space vehicle," by John Schwartz, New York Times, 10 August 2005, p. A10.

We're to the point with the shuttle where we're just happy if they get back on the ground without blowing up. This is where we're at in manned space flight three and a half decades after first walking on the moon.

I want to die in space. Always have, and always will. Not have my ashes shot into orbit-actually die somewhere off-planet. My kids aren't getting all my money. No. Some private space company will get it.

Unfortunately, I can't put together $100 million to fly around the moon, although I wish Esquire or the Hearst Corp. would come up for it (I'd promise a multi-year storyline!).

Anyway, I need for my kids to grow up first, but I will keep myself in shape and think hard about my investments over the next couple of decades (I expect the physical rigors of the trip to decline dramatically once private-sector space-faring takes off for real in coming years).

Trip would be about 20 days for two tourists, plus the Russian pilot (not a bad gig to get paid to drive). You go up in one craft, booster rocket in another. You dock in orbit and then ride the booster to the moon, jettisoning it along the way. Slingshot around the moon for the return and hit the ground in Kazakstan (I like ground landings versus water ones).

Sounds pretty cool to me.

Stuff like this and Burt Rutan's recent triumph is great. We need desperately to desanctify the whole space thing-stop treating them as God-like heroes and stop acting like every time one dies it's a national tragedy. We need a lot of people trying a lot of things, with many getting killed (inevitably) but the industry learning along the way-just like it was with air flight. Apollo was cool, but it's been all downhill from there. Time for the government to get out of the space business and let it actually become a business. Then what the military will do is simply police the environs instead of plotting and perhaps actually waging star wars someday.

We need to put "frontier" back behind "final." "War zone" sucks as an alternative.

Posted by at 8:01 AM | Permalink

■"Doohan Was Fan Favorite," obituary, Variety, 25-31 July 2005, p. 55.

Jimmy Doohan, famous for playing "Scotty" on Star Trek, left a tumultuous and violent home life as a young man of 19 by joining the Canadian army in 1939. He rose to the rank of lieutenant in the artillery, and landed on Juno Beach in Normandy France on D-Day. The landing went well, because the mines under the sand were set for heavy tanks, so Doohan and his fellow soldiers didn't trigger them.

But before the day ended, Doohan was machine-gunned head-on, taking six bullets. One took off his right middle finger (catch that, in all those years of watching him on Star Trek?), four others went into a leg, and the sixth he took in the chest (he lived because a silver cigarette case blunted its impact).

He and his wife of many years had seven kids.

I own all 79 episodes of the original series on VHS (a whim my spouse and I fulfilled when I worked as a superintendent at an apartment complex in Boston while getting my PhD-all that unspent rent money had to go somewhere), so I'm a fairly strong fan. Never went to conventions, read plenty of books though, and I must say, I never heard of Doohan's wartime record.

You have to respect that.

Posted by at 8:01 AM | Permalink

Dateline: In the Shire, Indiana, 10 August 2005

Apartment almost in a sort of stable form. Almost caught up in all our record-keeping/changing/rearranging associated with the move. House decisions proceeding apace. And big deals being worked through in terms of future business opportunities and challenges for The New Rule Sets Project. The great settling-in is settling-down, after one long, very confusing and stressing summer during which I basically forgot that I have a book coming out in the fall! What a neat "surprise" to discover at the end of that long tunnel!

One total bitch: NYT says no home delivery in my entire zip code! But I will figure a work around. The electronic version is great, as it is with the Post. May have to do the same with the WSJ, though that costs.

Here's the catch from two days ago. I have some serious air time today, so I hope to catch up even more by tonight:

■ What goes around, does it come around?

■ Does the Big Bang fizzle over the Iraq constitution?

■ There's always room for Plumpy'nut

■ She turned me into a newt!

■ Warren's ambition knows no bounds at Esquire

■ The run-around runs aground-for now-in North Korea talks

■ Searching for the second billion

Posted by at 9:16 AM | Permalink

■"At America's Malls, Grim Preparations For the Unthinkable: Spurred by 9/11 and London, Guards Adopt Israeli Tactics to Stop Suicide Bombers," by Robert Block, Wall Street Journal, 8 August 2005, p. A1.

■"War Plans Drafted To Counter Terror Attacks in U.S.: Domestic Effort Is Big Shift for Military," by Bradley Graham, Washington Post, 8 August 2005, p. A1.

■"Battling Avian Flu's Spread: Migrations Could Play a Role, But Effort to Track Wild Birds By Tagging Them Isn't Easy," by Nicholas Zamiska, Wall Street Journal, 8 August 2005, p. B1.

■"NATO's Peacekeeping Problem: Restrictions Hinder Allied Operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan," by Philip Shishkin, Wall Street Journal, 8 August 2005, p. A9.

■"Africa and Its Rapacious Leaders," book review by Janet Maslin, New York Times, 8 August 2005, p. B6.

■"The Next Chinese Threat," op-ed by Sebastian Mallaby, Washington Post, 8 August 2005, p. A15.

This series triggered a lot of associations-meaning horizontal linkages-for me.

America's getting jacked for suicide bombers at the malls, because if it can happen to the UK, which looks so much like us, it can happen here.

Except the Brits are less like us than you'd think, as are their Muslims. The Brits, to their credit, are awfully resilient when it comes to such terror, and as such, tend not to overreact in the ways that we tend to politically. We can do that with less fear in our system because we have a Bill of Rights that keeps us all individually more safe from such excesses than in Britain. Some view such a focus on individual rights as our "weakness," when in reality it's our greatest strength: we can go hard core with really very little risk to the republic, because, through our courts, we're self-healing.

Our military is right: if something really bad happened here in the States, the Defense Department would take the lead in the opening days of the response, but that role would be very short-lived. The Pentagon, like most of Washington, tends to entertain too many fantasies about how average citizens will freak out and tear the place apart in response to catastrophic terrorism, when our history is to respond with great aplomb, fantastic courage, and a willingness to stick with the problem until solutions win out. Frankly, we all tend to vastly underestimate the resiliency of this country, especially how the private sector ultimately provides the great bulk of that resiliency.

In the long aftermath of 9/11, our robustness will not come from Northern Command plans for near martial law in response to terrorism, but in the private sector's amazing ability to turn danger and fear into new products and industries that make us all safer while rendering our economic activities all the safer. It will be in that sense of growing safety that Americans will increasingly warm to the tasks and the moral imperatives of shrinking the Gap, because, in reality, it's mostly fear about what such an effort will do to us (not them) that holds us back.

It's not terror in the States that should drive this process, but our growing awareness that it's the sheer connectivity with the rest of the world that poses the inherent risks-not out of malice per se. Ask yourself, what is more likely to kill millions in coming years: Al Qaeda or something like avian flu.

But here's how it all comes together: Americans, freaking over terrorists attacking our food and water systems, build a more robust system. That growing robustness makes us more confident in our growing connectivity abroad on these issues. That growing connectivity spreads our more robust rule sets to more Gap-like areas, raising their practices. Meanwhile, we're all safer against terrorism. So yeah, security fears lead, but in the end, it's not the "Manhattan Project" or the "Marshall Plan"-like efforts of the government that's decisive, it's the private sector that simply marketizes that fear and turns it into a series of new products and services that keep us all safer and allow us to maintain our standard of living while spreading such benefits to a wider pool of humanity.

When government should take the lead is where it logically makes sense for us to lead: bringing security to the Gap through peacekeeping. Sure, let's have more cooperation between NORTHCOM and local cops in the U.S., but that goal pales before getting better SysAdmin cooperation between Core nations in Gap peacekeeping efforts. The political suffering of the Middle East takes most of our attention today, because 9/11 linked it so profoundly to our own sense of vulnerability in a connected world, but beyond the Middle East there are far bigger jobs that await in Africa, which, in an increasingly globalized world, will increasingly demand our attention because of its ability to export its pain and suffering (AIDS being just a preview of what will increasingly happen unless we do more to connect Africa to the Core in far better ways than today).

Sebastian Mallaby, a really brilliant thinker, makes a point that dovetails nicely with my emerging theory that it will be the "Chinese threat" in Africa that pulls us there militarily (lest they "influence" too much!): we stopped for now, through our resistance to China's bid to buy UNOCAL, the private-sector route for Beijing to meet its burgeoning energy needs (buying Old Core energy companies), and so we've forced them-inadvertently-down the more public-sector path of getting into bed with corrupt regimes in places like Africa. This will do bad things for human rights groups working with corporations to force better economic relationships on raw materials in the Gap, and that will likely worsen political and security situations there.

My point: trust the private sector to do what it does well (marketize routine SysAdmin stuff in the Core) and push the government to do what only it can (true Leviathan work and the tougher, more labor-intensive SysAdmin work in the Gap). This is just another way of describing the military-market nexus: the military helps the rules emerge, but it's the private sector that truly locks them in and maintains them over time. Democracy is self-policing and self-healing, and democracies go hand in hand with markets.

Posted by at 9:14 AM | Permalink

■"Some Fear Iraq's Charter Will Erode Women's Rights," by James Glanz, New York Times, 8 August 2005, p. A6.

■"God, Man, and the Common Weal: A great democratic experiment is taking place in Iraq," op-ed by Reuel Marc Gerecht, Wall Street Journal, 8 August 2005, p. A10.

Iraq under Saddam was reasonably secular: laws were based on Shariah but did not kow-tow to any extreme interpretations. In the current discussions on the new constituion, there are proposals galore and already some inserted wording that suggests sectarian and tribal interpretations of religious law may erode the position of women in society. Naturally progressive women are awfully worried about this, and so their protests are casting the current constitutional debates in a light surprising to some observers, but not so to others. In short, the most contentious items within Iraqi society, as well as between the political process and the American overseers, is all the social values stuff: love, marriage, family, sex, etc.

The scariest proposals basically say: let tribal sensibilities rule over the law when it comes to such sensitive matters. The upshot will be clear: women will suffer. Whenever clergy are given civil power, as one activist said, "We always lose our rights in religious courts."

How much should the U.S. intervene to prevent such outcomes? You let the system keep the women down and social and economic change will remain retarded, keeping serious democracy at bay. There are no democracies that treat women like minors-none.

This would be too big of a loss for the Big Bang process, but there's more hope than commonly realized, as Gerecht argues. The system of governances being put into place, so long as women retain the right to vote, should offer enough capacity for enduring compromises and that's the essential definition of democracy-including our own. Remember, our political system was built around what later proved to be a terrible compromise on slavery, which ensured a certain amount of internal strife for decades, ultimately leading to a severe civil war. If you give people the opportunity to rule themselves, things like this will happen. Authoritarian states war more often than mature democracies, but emerging democracies have the highest tendency toward war-they're the teenagers of political evolution.

So if you want democracy to spread in the Middle East, expect more and not less conflict in the mid-term. Like most good things in life, if you want them, you better be prepared for some suffering between now and the good stuff. It's a contentious process by design, and all the intransigence we're witnessing now in these debates, as Gerecht points out, simply shows how seriously Iraqis are taking this historic opportunity.

Posted by at 9:13 AM | Permalink

■"Hope for Hungry Children Arriving in a Foil Packet: A Peanut-Based Paste is Lauded in Africa," by Michael Wines, New York Times, 8 August 2005, p. A7.

Fascinating story worth reading (click here for full) on how a French invention for feeding starving babies and kids is working a significant number of miracles in Africa. Instead of the old, costly, complicated, and drawn out process of reviving starving babies and kids with milk as the delivery mechanism, Plumpy'nut uses peanut butter, and the paste is so reliable and so simple to administer (shove it in their mouths two times a day) that mothers can do it without any oversight from doctors.

Kids gain 1-2 pounds a week eating the stuff.

Lesson: much of what ends up shrinking the Gap is simple stuff: better foods, better crops, better materials. We don't all have to be poorer for Africa to escape poverty.

This is a big theme of BFA's chapter 5 ("We Have Met the Enemy . . .").

Posted by at 9:12 AM | Permalink

■"From Superstition to Savagery: Women Accused of Witchcraft Face Violence in Rural India," by Rama Lakshmi, Washington Post, 8 August 2005, p. A12.

Funny Monty Python bit to us, still real in rural India. But, of course, these attacks have always been about one thing and one thing only: punishing uppity women:

"Superstition is only an excuse. Often a woman is branded a witch so that you can throw her out of the village and grab her land, or to settle scores, family rivalry, or because powerful men want to punish her for spurning their sexual advances. Sometimes it is used to punish women who question social norms," said Pooja Singhal Purwar, an official at the Jharkhand social welfare department.

Remember this, as globalization impinges on any traditional society, women are empowered disproportionally to men, because connectivity, being gender-neutral, simply levels the playing field.

And no, that doesn't make the world flat! Don't mix up flat-worlders with witches, please!

Larger point is this: globalization comes to a traditional place and you can expect women to both benefit from the connectivity and suffer from resulting social strife over both content and changing power relationships.

And yes, men will be pulling out that old witch trick just like they always have.

Posted by at 9:11 AM | Permalink

■"An Article That Will Take 5 Years to Read," by Katherine Q. Seelye, New York Times, 8 August 2005, p. C5.

Esquire begins in the September issue the first of many articles in a series on the rebuilding of the World Trade Center site. Scott Raab, a writer at large, gets the job. First story is called "The Foundation."

If it's anywhere near as good as the multi-part piece on the "unbuilding" of the WTC by William Langewiesche that ran in The Atlantic Monthly a while back, it'll be a great read.

The series is the brainchild of my man Mark Warren, editor of PNM and BFA, and it's typical of his ambition. I mean, why be the executive editor of Esquire if you don't take risks?

The biggest risk, as the Times story points out, is that tough reporting will alienate the very players Raab needs to access as this story unfolds over many years. Tough balancing act, but if Raab and Warren pull it off (and I just know Mark will be editing these pieces), then Raab will have himself the making of one helluva book on the far side.

Posted by at 9:10 AM | Permalink

■"U.S. and North Korea Blame Each Other for Stalemate in Talks: 'We still have a lot of work to do, but I think there is progress," by Jim Yardley, New York Times, 8 August 2005, p. A4.

North Korea springs a new last-minute demand on the U.S. (the right to use light-water reactors) at the just-suspended talks and that's blamed for mucking up the works.

Yes, yes, if not for that then we easily lock in Kim to a sound and just agreement.

My opinion: North Korea will dick around for as long as possible, until the Chinese can't take anymore. Then they'll agree to something vague and immediately go about breaking the deal in secret, hoping not to be caught for quite some time.

China will abide by all this because it's ambitions here, given the fact that the U.S. offers it nothing of value to do more, are just to be seen like a trusted diplomatic player while getting this issue off the table for a while.

There is simply no incentive for Kim to give up the game that we're willing to play-and we shouldn't.

Scratching the right itch for China remains another question, but apparently one the Bush Administration has no intention of answering on their watch.

Posted by at 9:10 AM | Permalink

■"Hear the Big Pop? A Chinese Search Engine Went Public: Baidu is backed by Google, which is also a potential buyer," by David Barboza, New York Times, 8 August 2005, p. C3.

Ethan Zuckerman at the Harvard Berkman Center that studies the Internet pointed out to me when we met last December at a Highlands Forum that the first billion people to log onto the Internet were mostly Old Core (Europe, Japan, North America, Australia) and that the second billion were mostly New Core (especially China, India and Brazil). So what was the Internet bubble in the Old Core long ago (the before time) is resurrecting itself to a certain extent now in the New Core.

Nowhere is this seen more than in China, and no IPO has "popped" in its first day of trading since the Internet bubble burst in the Old Core than China's version of Google (also backed by Google and perhaps soon bought by Google) called Baidu.

China's rocketed past 100 million users, gaining most in just the last few years, and somebody's going to get rich searching on their behalf in Chinese, which BTW becomes the most used language on the Net any day now.

Do I worry about the Chinese government trying to keep 100 million users under "mouse arrest" through sophisticated blocking and tracking technologies?

Not for long.

Posted by at 9:09 AM | Permalink

Seems Denzel wrote a large check but not quite $1.5 million, which is what it takes for a new one of these facilities. Confusion occurred because a new house was being announced at the same time and people conflated the two events.

So Denzel made a big contribution but not $1.5 m, a number he has surpassed in one-time charity giving in the past.

So poor Denzel is not quite the hero in some people's eyes . . .

I too must admit the dollar figure rules all in my perception.

More seriously, this shows the danger of the pass-arounds on the web. My internal sensor should have gone off when the authorship wasn't clear. This is why I typically avoid such postings, sticking to stuff reported in major papers (that time filter being a good thing).

Still, you get moved by the moment, and if you lose that completely, you're no fun. And having a blog means saying you're sorry (for inaccuracies, etc.) and then moving on.

And yes, I always welcome the corrections from readers, even if I get snippy in reply. The only thing worse than being corrected is not being corrected.

Posted by at 2:25 PM | Permalink

Fact check sent from several readers via email: Urban Legends Reference Pages: Politics (Denzel Washington)

Sent to me by reader Mike Downing (original author unknown):

Forwarded in hopes that you all will give this info maximum disimination. . .. . ...Subject: Denzel Washington

Don't know whether you heard about this, but Denzel Washington and his family visited the troups at Brook Army Medical Center in San Antonio,Texas (BAMC). This is where soldiers that have been evacuated from Germany come to be hospitalized in the States, especially burn victims. They have buildings there called Fisher Houses. The Fisher House is a hotel where soldiers' families can stay, for little or no charge, while their soldier is staying in the hospital. BAMC has quite a few of these houses on base but as you can imagine, they are almost completely filled most of the time.

While Denzel Washington was visiting BAMC, they gave him a tour of one of the Fisher Houses. He asked how much one! of them would cost to build. He took his check book out and wrote a check for the full amount right there on the spot. The soldiers overseas were amazed to hear this story and want to get the word out to the American public, because it warmed their hearts to hear it.

The question I have is why does Alec Baldwin, Madonna, Sean Penn and other Hollywood types make front page news with their anti-everything America crap, and this doesn't even make page 3 in the Metro section of any newspaper except the base newspaper in San Antonio.

The email contains a host of pictures of Mr. Washington touring the facility and posing for pictures with troops and staff.

Posted by at 8:51 AM | Permalink

Find them at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/86583664@N00/sets/410310/.

I have read the draft of the report, which we'll make available soon. It's very well done.

Frankly, after reading the Office of Secretary of Defense' annual report on China, I feel we did a better job of capturing China in the game than they did in that report.

Not even close.

Watching the photos spin by in the slide show mode, I realize what a fantastic blur the game was for me. It was like having this really cool live play being performed about your ideas, in a script so much than you could have conceived. It was really that thrilling. It's just such a privilege to have that many smart people all come together. I really feel tremendously indebted to all involved.

Posted by at 12:29 AM | Permalink

Sent to me by my blog proofer, Sean Meade.

It is found at: http://longtail.typepad.com/the_long_tail/2005/08/a_methodology_f.html

Posted by at 12:03 AM | Permalink

Dateline: back in the Shire, Indy, 8 August 2005

Spent about 90 with the Chief of the Army Reserve, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, in his Pentagon office today. Kinda cool. I cite a speech of his that was covered in the Post in BFA.

Knew nothing of me or my work, besides reading a review of the book. Heard my pitch, with me pulling out my Mac and running a few slides. We go back and forth on a lot of issues, and I realize there is no sale to be made--the man is already there big-time on the SysAdmin concept and what it means for the Reserve Component.

Going no further, he asks if I can speak to fellow Reserve Component generals at one of two upcoming conclaves.

Will have to make at least one happen. How do you say no to the Army Reserve when they're dong that much fighting and dying in Iraq right now? I mean, you charge the big fees when you can to cover when no fee is appropriate; or you charge Peter and comp Paul. I got people to feed like anybody else, but your sense of duty says you help where you can with no questions asked. You're just happy to make a difference and feel useful to people with very difficult jobs.

Helmly is one of those Southern-drawling generals who measures his words like most people write checks. I mean, you really pay attention no matter where he is in the sentence. If Oliver Stone made a movie with him in it, he'd be played by Powers Boothe.

I always say, you walk out of an office in DC with one of two feelings: who the hell is that jerk? Or, thank God we got somebody like that in that job!

Helmly definitely strikes the latter chord, and I'm no pushover. I've met more dumbass flags than I can count, but the frequency gets closer and closer to zero the further we get away from the Cold War. We have the best military in the world because we have the best flags in the world.

I wish every American could spend time with some of these individuals. They're that impressive.

The Helmly meet (I didn't get to meet the head of the Army Nat Guard Gen. Vaughn because he was called to testify on the Hill at the last moment) was a legacy of TED, if you can believe it. A retired Army officer Jim Crupi, who's also with Leigh Bureau (my speaking agency) saw me at TED. Then he came to The New Map Game. When he set up this meet I frankly thought full of shit for doing so: what in God's name was I going to tell this guy? I do the big picture, and this guy's running hundreds of thousands of troops going into and out of a combat zone.

But you never underestimate the power of the strategic vision. Helmly finds a use, and I'm more than happy to be useful.

So I take my hat to Jim Crupi. As always, I am basically the worst judge of my own utility. I get things done when I trust people who "get it" (and me) better than I do.

Amazing what a little trust in your fellow man will do. . .

After Helmly meet I sit down with Frank Akers of Oak Ridge National Lab and Steve DeAngelis of Enterra at a hotel near BWI before I flew out (and yes, it felt awfully nice to fly to Indy vice RI!). Just listening to these two guys discuss business concepts and government strategies was an eye-opener. I feel world-class in what I do, but you listen to two guys that smart and you walk away thinking that there's an entire world of knowledge that still awaits your effort. Looks like I'll be doing something for Oak Ridge in the future and that excites me tremendously. Having access to that many brilliant minds all working bio, materials and energy is like being a kid in a candy shop. Most Americans have no idea how much talent sits in these national labs, and Oak Ridge is just plain chocked full. I'm still buzzed by all the cool stuff they showed me back in June.

Why does it matter? Material sciences like what they do at Oak Ridge will do more to shrink the Gap than all the words I hurl in decades of yakking. Simply put, we can absorb the Gap and not live lesser lives, and places like Oak Ridge will make that happen through technologies and breakthroughs galore, and that's not only good, it's the course of human history--and I want to be part of that.

As for Enterra, more on that next week. It too plays a big part in my plot to make a New World Over.

Posted by at 11:31 PM | Permalink

I have been replaced, and this is a very good thing . . .

From: Manuel Sandoval
To: asktom@thomaspmbarnett.com
Date: Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:02:36 PM EDT
Subject: Emergence of new rule sets

Seems the EU is trying to introduce Russia and Kazakhstan to new international rule sets. As the story points out, the move by the EU while mostly symbolic demonstrates the emergence of new rule sets for addressing the spread of diseases in animals before they can mutate to humans. Following your theory, this example demonstrates how Rule Sets can move from the Old Core to the New (and emerging) Core and even the Gap (Kazakhstan).

EU imposes ban on poultry imports from Russia & Kazakhstan

06.08.2005, 16.13

PARIS, August 6 (Itar-Tass) - The European Union is planning to impose a ban on importing poultry and feather goods from Russia and Kazakhstan, a high-ranking European Commission official told Itar-Tass on Saturday.

The ban will take effect late next week, he specified.

The European Union wants to protect itself from a potential chicken flu threat. Several cases of that disease have been registered in the east of Russia. The World Health Organization fears that the virus may mutate and become dangerous for humans.

The upcoming ban is symbolic in many ways because neither Russia nor Kazakhstan are exporting huge quantities of poultry and feather products to the European Union at the moment.

The European Union has compiled a blacklist of countries that are banned from exporting poultry to the EU states. Russia and Kazakhstan will be blacklisted next week.

The whole point of enunciating the vision--for the visionary, that is--is to make yourself irrelevant. You're no longer needed. People get the logic on their own, make their own connections, wield their own logic.

Nicely done, Manuel.

Posted by at 11:15 PM | Permalink

[Freely pass to people you know. Thanks.]

The Newsletter from Thomas P.M. Barnett - 8 August 2005

Feature: Going through the Cold War paces:
Reading the Pentagon's annual report on
"The Military Power of the People's Republic of China"

"In short, the whole piece has a weirdly antiquated feel to it. Hey, we could be doing something serious on the Global War on Terror, but since this is in our In-Box, let's wax scary on China's rising military threat. Yada-yada-yada. The whole thing comes off as more a domestic defense budget drill than a serious treatment of our relationship with China. If this is the closest thing we have to a serious strategic offering on China in the U.S. Government, then it's just pathetic. It's a laundry list, nothing more. It's the longest pole in the tent of the Big War crowd, nothing more. It's fear mongering by default, nothing more."

thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/barnett_8aug2005.pdf

thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/barnett_8aug2005.doc

Posted by Josette at 11:17 AM | Permalink

Special Edition: From WorldCom to World-Class:
A Resilient Approach to Compliance

by Stephen F. DeAngelis
President and CEO
Enterra Solutions, LLC

Visiting Scientist
The Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University

Today�s environment has raised the ante on developing core systems within an organization. The best run � and valued � organizations will be those that raise their institutional maturity levels by embedding automated rules sets for security, compliance and performance into their core operating systems - making those systems adaptable to a rapidly changing environment without disrupting their operations. These organizations will be the survivors in rapidly globalizing and consolidating industries.

thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/special_8aug2005.pdf

thomaspmbarnett.com/journals/special_8aug2005.doc

Posted by Josette at 8:03 AM | Permalink

Dateline: Airlie House, Warrenton VA, 7 August 2005

Got up 0400 this morning and caught a SWA to BWI. In my rental by 0900 local, even with the hour shift forward. Not bad.

Then drive to Warrenton VA to give a two-hour talk to the newest class of Air Force one-star generals. Good big audience, as it always is, and fun to talk with individuals over meals. I hear a lot of great stories about how PNM is being used or analyzed at various miltary commands to great effect. It is more than gratifying to hear that from the warfighters themselves, and it's amazing how many of these guys and gals have done stints in southwest Asia since 9/11.

If I keep this up, soon there won't be an Air Force general who hasn't heard the pitch.

Other than eating, I write up an analysis of the recent Defense Department annual report on China's military for tomorrow's newsletter.

Will probably work regular blog tomorrow on flight home. Tomorrow I meet with the heads of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard in the Pentagon. Should be interestiing. Not sure how I can help them directly, but then it's never apparent to me anyway. This meeting set up by someone close to them who came to The New Map Game.

You know, with the memory foam bed and pillows back home, I almost hate sleeping in hotels now because I wake up so cranky on the road compared to that ideal. Weird. Used to be the other way around.

Posted by at 9:15 PM | Permalink

I said in the Feb issue of Esquire, I say it again:

Some Bombs Used in Iraq Are Made in Iran, U.S. Says

By ERIC SCHMITT

Published: August 6, 2005

WASHINGTON, Aug. 5 - Many of the new, more sophisticated roadside bombs used to attack American and government forces in Iraq have been designed in Iran and shipped in from there, United States military and intelligence officials said Friday, raising the prospect of increased foreign help for Iraqi insurgents.

American commanders say the deadlier bombs could become more common as insurgent bomb makers learn the techniques to make the weapons themselves in Iraq.

But just as troubling is that the spread of the new weapons seems to suggest a new and unusual area of cooperation between Iranian Shiites and Iraqi Sunnis to drive American forces out - a possibility that the commanders said they could make little sense of given the increasing violence between the sects in Iraq . . .

You can say this is not good. I say it's as good as we choose to make it.

Full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/06/politics/06bomb.html

Posted by at 9:26 PM | Permalink

Here's the bit:

A Chinese City's Rage At the Rich And Powerful: Beating of Student Sparks Riot, Looting"
By Edward Cody Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, August 1, 2005; Page A01

CHIZHOU, China -- Liu Liang, a slightly built computer student with big glasses, was home in Chizhou for summer vacation. At about 2:30 on the hot afternoon of June 26, he was pedaling his bicycle by the downtown vegetable market on Cuibai Street.

Driving down the same street in his new-looking black Toyota sedan was Wu Junxing, deputy manager of a hospital in nearby Anqing. Wu, accompanied by a friend and two bodyguards, had come to Chizhou that day to attend opening ceremonies of a new private hospital and, associates said, survey the market to judge whether he should invest in his own facility.

Liu's bicycle and Wu's shiny four-door sedan collided, sending Liu crashing to the ground. Almost immediately, witnesses said, Liu, 22, and Wu, 34, began arguing over who was at fault. In the heat of the dispute, they said, Liu damaged one of Wu's side-view mirrors, prompting Wu's muscular bodyguards to burst from the car and beat the skinny young man senseless, leaving him bleeding from his mouth and ears.

The beating, part of a minor traffic incident on a slow Sunday afternoon, ignited a spark of anger. The spark became a riot, evolving over eight chaotic hours into an expression of rage against the Chinese Communist Party's new fascination with businessmen, profits and economic growth . . .

Why I don't like this reporting: it makes it seem like it's capitalism that's the culprit behind the rage, when in reality, it's the rigidity of the political system that's far more at fault. A multiparty system that processes such rage (like our Dems-against-the-rich and the Republicans-against-big-government) keeps both the political and economic scene cool. The problem in China is not the economics, but the inability of the politics to keep up. It isn't the CCP's "fascination" with businessmen, but that it seems to be losing touch with the workers. In a multiparty political system, the out-party reaches for that rage. In the single-party state, it's mob violence or nothing.

Edward Cody usually is more astute than this. He loses his context here.

Full story at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/31/AR2005073101163_3.html

Posted by at 9:21 PM | Permalink

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 5 August 2005

The original, long list of proposed deletions was just too much. I just had this feeling that I would hold the Chinese version in my hand and think to myself: it wasn't worth it.

I can understand Beijing U Press being nervous about printing anything critical about the Party. Fine. I can likewise understand wanting to eliminate statements about China "threatening" Taiwan or lumping that potential conflict in with a host of others, thus suggesting the strong possibility of war with the United States over this issue. To me, that's like asking the Government Printing Office of the U.S. to publish something that predicts the demise of the GOP or suggests that the U.S. is readying an invasion of Cuba. You can counter, "But Beijing U. isn't government." But, of course, it sort of is. In ten years I don't think we have this conversation, but for now, we do.

Again, those narrow cuts I can live with and rationalize.

It was cutting all the references to Iran, North Korea and Kim, and Pentagon planning on China that was too much. Plus some cuts that involved oblique critiques of socialism or suggested possible Old Core-vs-New Core tensions. Those cuts just crossed my sense of a threshold: better not to publish if that's the price.

So I cut down the rather long list to 14 cuts, and those cuts were slimmed down individually to the very distinctly offensive phrases on the Party or Taiwan, leaving the rest intact.

I passed this slimmed down list to the Chinese-American lawyer in NY who helped broker the deal and was involved in the translation. I have had no direct comms with Beijing U.

Here's my hope: BUP was gaming this all along, and thus proposed the larger list in the hope that I would balk but still be amenable to the far smaller list of statements on the Party and Taiwan, or the ones they might really catch hell on.

The risk here is minimal, in my mind: it's just not worth publishing with the longer list of cuts. I'd rather write them a check for the full advance myself--something I offered to do.

Posted by at 9:28 AM | Permalink

and it feels good.

Now to set up home deliver of NYT, WP and WSJ.

Picked out a century-old oak mantlepiece for the new house today, locating it at local antique store that specializes in architectural reclamations.

I am begining to love Indiana.

Posted by at 10:25 PM | Permalink

Funny man, funnier actor, but also a good writer and analyst of economics. This is the most sensible thing I've read on China--ever.

Don't Worry About China. Learn From It. By BEN STEIN Published: July 31, 2005 New York Times

ONE disadvantage of being 60 is that you have to get up in the middle of the night, often more than once. But a big advantage of advancing age is that you get to recognize news media silliness when it happens.

This comes to mind in terms of the economic relationship between the United States and China. Partly because a company affiliated with the Chinese government has made a bid to buy Unocal, a large American oil company, there is a lot of talk in the news media about how powerful China has become and how weak and pitiful the United States has become. There is talk of Chinese dominance over the world economy, and, from what I can gather, a general fear that soon we will be in peonage to the Chinese . . .

Consider the most optimistic C.I.A. data about China in 2004. It says China has a purchasing power parity G.D.P. of (very) approximately $8 trillion, compared with roughly $12 trillion for the United States. Again, this is for a nation with nearly five times our population. Even when using this most astoundingly optimistic estimate - I would almost say a preposterous estimate - China has a per capita G.D.P. of about $6,000, or about 15 percent of America's and well below that of any nation in Western Europe, or of Japan, Israel, Taiwan and many other countries.

In other words, the United States is vastly richer than China by any measure. This is not to boast, but it's also not to be afraid of imminent world-pauper status . . .

It is true that China is industrializing at a fantastic pace . . .

But suppose that these trends continued for 25 more years. Chinese per capita G.D.P. would be about $65,000 in 2040, and American per capita G.D.P. would be about $84,000. Again, this assumes that we use the most optimistic possible estimates of current Chinese G.D.P.

If we used the more conservative, non-C.I.A. estimates of where Chinese per capita G.D.P. is now, in 25 years it would be about $17,500- and this assumes the continuation of China's recent sizzling growth rates. That would put China's per capita income in 2030 at roughly one-sixth of our level.

In other words, it will be a long time before Chinese per capita G.D.P. matches ours. And for that to happen, it will take a previously unheard-of growth rate for an unheard-of length of time. This is a big series of ifs, especially for a country with a rapidly aging labor force and an inherent contradiction between dictatorship and free markets.

The fact that our neighbors are worse off does not make us richer, and the fact that they are better off does not make us poorer . . .

But we can certainly learn something from China. Individuals and nations become rich by investing in human capital - getting a good education, learning good work habits, saving and investing prudently and living healthy lives . . .

The moral here is simple: learning from our friends, the Chinese, means something. Fearing and envying them means nothing.

Full story at: www.nytimes.com/2005/07/31/business/yourmoney/31every.html

Pound for pound, one of the best columns I have ever read.

Posted by at 10:23 PM | Permalink

Saudis' Leader Is Dead, Ending 23-Year Reign

By HASSAN M. FATTAH
and MICHAEL SLACKMAN

Published: August 2, 2005

New York Times

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, Aug. 1 - King Fahd bin Abdel Aziz al-Saud, Saudi Arabia's long-ailing monarch who oversaw one of the country's greatest periods of growth while underwriting the spread of fiercely conservative Islam abroad, died Monday morning in the Saudi capital, ending a 23-year reign.

Saudi Arabia's New KingThe death of King Fahd, 82, marked the end of a decade-long transition of power that began when he suffered a debilitating stroke in 1995 and put his half-brother, Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz, in control of the country. Shortly after the king was pronounced dead on Monday, Prince Abdullah, 81, became Saudi Arabia's sixth monarch . . .

The transition of power in one of America's most strategically important allies on Monday occurred with few surprises. With Prince Abdullah acting as the de facto regent already, the most critical succession was complete in all but name, analysts said. The rise of Prince Sultan bin Abdel Aziz al-Saud, the long-serving minister of defense and aviation, as crown prince, meanwhile, also proceeded as planned, leaving little in the way of uncertainty . . .

For Abdullah, who has fashioned himself as a reformer in a land where conforming to tradition is a virtue, the challenge now is to make good on longstanding promises for change. In his nine years as the de facto ruler of the country, he pushed for changes that included the nation's first popular elections, which were held this year to elect local councils.

He also moved the education of girls from the control of the religious authorities to the Ministry of Education. And he has worked to balance close relations with the United States, which is perceived by many in the royal family as essential for national and regional security, against rising anti-Americanism among many of his nation's citizens.

But it remains to be seen whether King Abdullah has the fundamental power to challenge Saudi Arabia's imbedded powers, including the infamous vice police, the religious clergy and more than a thousand royals all vying for position and a hand at the country's purse strings. He may push for greater citizen participation in government, more rights for women and amnesty for some political prisoners, political analysts said . . .

This can't be anything but good news for the Big Bang.

Full story at: www.nytimes.com/2005/08/02/international/middleeast/02saudi.html

As Gerald Posner points out in an op-ed the same day, time is running out on the House of Saud: it's reform or perish.

Posted by at 9:11 PM | Permalink

The National Intelligence Council now states in latest estimate that Iran is 10 years from bomb, but really determined to get one.

Iran Is Judged 10 Years From Nuclear Bomb: U.S. Intelligence Review Contrasts With Administration Statements

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 2, 2005; Page A01

A major U.S. intelligence review has projected that Iran is about a decade away from manufacturing the key ingredient for a nuclear weapon, roughly doubling the previous estimate of five years, according to government sources with firsthand knowledge of the new analysis.

The carefully hedged assessments, which represent consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies, contrast with forceful public statements by the White House. Administration officials have asserted, but have not offered proof, that Tehran is moving determinedly toward a nuclear arsenal. The new estimate could provide more time for diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. President Bush has said that he wants the crisis resolved diplomatically but that "all options are on the table" . . .

Frankly, much as I admire the NIC, such carefully hedged assessments are almost completely useless.

Full story at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/01/AR2005080101453.html

Posted by at 9:06 PM | Permalink

Regurging your op-eds in your book is a time-honored tradition. No complaint there. That's the historical record of sorts.

But when you take stuff from your book and regurg it as new op-eds, that's a bit lazy, dontcha think?

Friedman's first para in this op-ed is a direct lift from his book:

Calling All Luddites By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: August 3, 2005

I've been thinking of running for high office on a one-issue platform: I promise, if elected, that within four years America will have cellphone service as good as Ghana's. If re-elected, I promise that in eight years America will have cellphone service as good as Japan's, provided Japan agrees not to forge ahead on wireless technology. My campaign bumper sticker: "Can You Hear Me Now?"

At the bottom of the piece it says, "Maureen Dowd is on leave until Aug. 10."

No dude, Tom Friedman is on reruns now.

Forget the full story . . .

Posted by at 9:00 PM | Permalink

About 77 percent of the world's 1.1 trillion barrels in proven oil reserves is controlled by governments that significantly restrict access to international companies, according to PFC Energy, an industry consulting firm in Washington.

So reports Justin Blum in the Washington Post: "National Oil Firms Take Bigger Role: Governments Hold Most of World's Reserves" (August 3, 2005; Page D01).

That restricted access and the desire of governments to limit knowledge of their holdings is why we typically and consistently underestimate the world's supply of oil (funny how they always seem to find more in such disconnected venues when the price rises. ..). When foreign companies are let in, they find more oil, but NOCs (national oil companies) are loathe to do that. Like most national companies, they prefer a smaller pie they can control completely to a larger one they can't dominate.

Full story found at: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201978.html.

Story also notes that CNOOC dropped its bid for UNOCAL. A setback of sorts, but not a showstopper. China's energy needs don't go away just because a few dinosaur U.S. congressman demand it. This was just an opening bid.

For a solid bit of analysis on that, see Keith Bradsher's "China Retreats Now, but It Will Be Back" (New York Times, 3 August 2005).

Posted by at 8:30 PM | Permalink

Sent by reader Frank Gordon, an old Navy R&D hand in San Diego, and a fascinating guy:

Updated: 06:20 PM EDT

U.S. Soldier Named Sheik by Iraqi Citizens

Horn Helped Arrange for Aid for Certain Villages

By ANTONIO CASTANEDA, AP

QAYYARAH, Iraq (July 31) - Sheik Horn floats around the room in white robe and headdress, exchanging pleasantries with dozens of village leaders. But he's the only sheik with blonde streaks in his mustache - and the only one who attended country music star Toby Keith's recent concert in Baghdad with fellow U.S. soldiers.

Officially, he's Army Staff Sgt. Dale L. Horn, but to residents of the 37 villages and towns that he patrols he's known as the American sheik. . .

Horn, 25, a native of Fort Walton Beach, Fla., acknowledges he had little interest in the region before coming here. But a local sheik friendly to U.S. forces, Dr. Mohammed Ismail Ahmed, explained the inner workings of rural Iraqi society on one of Horn's first Humvee patrols.

Horn says he was intrigued, and started making a point of stopping by all the villages, all but one dominated by Sunni Arabs, to talk to people about their life and security problems.

Moreover, he pressed for development projects in the area: he now boasts that he helped funnel $136,000 worth of aid into the area. Part of that paid for delivery of clean water to 30 villages during the broiling summer months . . .

To Horn's commanders, his success justifies his unorthodox approach: no rockets have hit their base in the last half year.

"He has developed a great relationship with local leaders," said Lt. Col. Bradley Becker, who commands the 2nd Battalion, 8th Field Artillery Regiment. "They love him. They're not going to let anyone shoot at Sheik Horn."

He has even won occasional exemption from the military dress code - villagers provide a changing room where he can change from desert camouflage to robes upon arrival . . .

"Lawrence" doesn't have to be a Leviathan warrior. In fact he's better as a SysAdmin peacemaker.

This guy is 25 and has received no real training for what he's doing. But he's from Florida and that's probably enough in terms of cultural awareness.

This guy is why we field the best military in the world, and why it's an amazing force for good around the planet.

Full story at: http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050731132509990004&ncid=NWS00010000000001

Posted by at 7:52 PM | Permalink

Last week I blogged a story about how Rumsfeld and others wanted to change the War on Terror (or Global War on Terror) to the "global struggle against extremism--and other forms of impolite behavior."

Okay, I added that last little bit.

Anyway, I freaked a bit inside and called my publisher Neil Nyren at Putnam, saying, maybe we should change all my "global war on terrorism's" (yes, I like the more precise word terrorism vice terror, otherwise you wage war against my five-year-old every time he wakes up and loses it at 3am).

Anyway again, Neil says a bit late to change and why do it? Maybe they'll change it back the following week for all we know.

Well, President Bush does just that . . .

President Makes It Clear: Phrase Is 'War on Terror' By RICHARD W. STEVENSON Published: August 4, 2005 New York Times

GRAPEVINE, Tex., Aug. 3 - President Bush publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

In a speech here, Mr. Bush used the phrase "war on terror" no less than five times. Not once did he refer to the "global struggle against violent extremism," the wording consciously adopted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials in recent weeks after internal deliberations about the best way to communicate how the United States views the challenge it is facing.

In recent public appearances, Mr. Rumsfeld and senior military officers have avoided formulations using the word "war," and some of Mr. Bush's top advisers have suggested that the administration wanted to jettison what had been its semiofficial wording of choice, "the global war on terror."

In an interview last week about the new wording, Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, said that the conflict was "more than just a military war on terror" and that the United States needed to counter "the gloomy vision" of the extremists and "offer a positive alternative."

But administration officials became concerned when some news reports linked the change in language to signals of a shift in policy . . .

Full story found at: www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/politics/04bush.html

I salute Neil's fortitude.

Posted by at 7:35 PM | Permalink

Iran wants the bomb, because Iran wants respect. Respect can't be given, only earned. How is the Core working to give Iran the opportunity to earn respect?

Getting bad boys outta the Gap and into the Core is a lot like parenting: no one acts responsibly until they're given responsibility. Otherwise it's just boyz in the hood forever.

Iran Tells Europe It's Devoted to Nuclear Efforts and Talks

By NAZILA FATHI
Published: August 4, 2005
New York Times

TEHRAN, Aug. 3 - The leader of Iran's team negotiating with Europe over its nuclear program sent a letter on Wednesday to the foreign ministers of the three nations involved in the talks, saying that Iran was determined to resume its nuclear activities but that it also wanted to continue the negotiations . . .

Full story at: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/international/middleeast/04iran.html?th&emc=th

Posted by at 7:25 PM | Permalink

Pretty cool. Senior advisor to an MP who works international affairs in the House of Commons. He wrote, "I found the Pentagon's New Map particularly useful in trying to understand the challenges we face in engaging with and developing those countries in the gap and I am sure BFA will be a very useful addition."

Briefing at the House of Commons in the fall of 2003 was one of the highlights of my career.

Can't wait to be asked back . . . hint, hint.

Posted by at 7:20 PM | Permalink

Fascinating piece by Broder in the Post

Share the Facts on The War

By David S. Broder

Thursday, August 4, 2005; Page A23

The common theme of the controversies roiling the capital this summer is the contest over access to vital information. This is one of the classic points of contention between the executive and legislative branches, but the conflict is sharper than usual this year . . .

As I wrote earlier, Congress, in a little-noted section of the defense spending bill passed this spring, had ordered Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to deliver a detailed report by July 11 on a long list of measures gauging Iraq's economic and political stability, the extent of the insurgency, and the capacity of Iraqi forces to provide security for their own country . . .

It came in two parts, a 23-page public document and a classified annex. The congressional resolution had suggested that questions about planned U.S. force requirements and troop rotations be dealt with in a secret annex, but it asked that everything else be available to inform the public debate.

The Pentagon has not stonewalled the request, but the quality of the information it has given lawmakers and the public is disappointing.

For example, the report includes page after page of blank forms that the coalition command in Iraq has developed to assess the quality of personnel, command and control, training, and logistics in Iraqi military and police forces. But the important question of how many of those units are capable of fighting the insurgency, independently or with help from U.S. and British troops, simply is not answered . . .

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense policy expert at the Brookings Institution, said he was struck by the fact that the Pentagon report not only is silent on the question of the degree of training and preparedness of the Iraqi battalions but also "doesn't capture the quality of the officer corps or the loyalty of the troops. . . . Rumsfeld has a lot more specific information," he said, "and he ought to share it."

Congress has required an update on this report in 90 days, so the Pentagon has an opportunity to improve on the product. The public will be well served if Rumsfeld takes the obligation seriously.

Full story at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080302012.html

This is a good sign. Congress will increasingly demand good SysAdmin analysis. This will force the Pentagon to develop such measures and make the effort at collection and analysis. This will force debate throughout DoD and USG about what works and what does not.

Congress is doing its job, proving yet again my point: the SysAdmin doesn't come about because it's a cool idea. It comes about because enough failure will convince us all that it beats the alternative.

Side point: Broder remains just about the most sensible op-ed columnist on the planet.

Posted by at 7:14 PM | Permalink

Treasury brings back the 30-year-bills:

30-Year Treasury Bond Revived After 4-Year Hiatus

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 4, 2005; Page D01

The Bush administration resurrected the 30-year Treasury bond yesterday after a four-year absence, giving the government a new tool to finance the expanding federal debt.

Treasury officials said the decision to revive the so-called long bond was driven by technical issues of debt management, not the federal deficit. The short-term deficit picture has brightened in recent months due to an unexpected surge in tax revenue.

But most bond-market analysts said the Treasury Department's move acknowledged the obvious: With the baby-boom generation nearing retirement, the long-term deficit picture remains bleak, and the government needs new ways to borrow.

"It's unfortunate that we're living in a time of significant, multi-hundred-billion-dollar deficits, but I do think Treasury is making the appropriate decision," said Gary Gensler, an undersecretary of the Treasury during the Clinton administration . . .

Full text at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/03/AR2005080300492.html

You want to sell 30-year T-bills, you better be describing a future worth creating. Otherwise, no buyers.

Vision matters.

Posted by at 7:07 PM | Permalink

. . . for Uncorrected Proofs. List is very large already, and we tap out the supply that Putnam is willing to put forth this early.

Requests, however, will often be granted in terms of advance copies due out in mid September.

Posted by at 6:01 PM | Permalink

A piece in International Herald Tribune forwarded by reader John Shissler.

International Herald Tribune -- Aug 4, 2005 http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/03/yourmoney/media.php

Beijing to clamp down on foreign media
By Chris Buckley International Herald Tribune
THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 2005

BEIJING China disclosed on Wednesday that it had frozen approvals for
foreign satellite broadcasters entering its market and would strengthen
restrictions on foreign television programs, books, newspapers and
performances in an effort to exercise tighter control over the country's
cultural life.

"Import of cultural products contrary to regulations will be punished
according to the circumstances, and in serious cases the import license
will be revoked," the rules, which were issued on Tuesday, stated. "In
the near future, there will be no more approvals for setting up cultural
import agencies" . . .

We have the tendency to think about globalization challenges us in terms of economics ("World is Flat" and all), but we typically vastly underestimate how much it challenges societies culturally. We think our "way of life" is challenged if Maytag goes Chinese, but imagine how scared we would be if Chinese movies and TV were suddenly flooding our marketplace, increasingly crowding out our stuff!

Actually, if you watch Cartoon Network as much as I am forced to, you realize this IS happening, except it's Japanese anime cleverly packaged with lots of round-eyed characters.

I understand China's fears. Hell, the Canadians go through this regularly. But it's a sensitive issue. Yesterday I got the list of proposed deletions from the Chinese publisher of PNM: basically all references to North Korea, Kim, Iran, the CCP going down for the count, Chinese threats to Taiwan, and the US planning for war with China.

Based on all the proposed deletions, you suspect the official line in China is: all is well with the world and there are no reasons for antipathy with the U.S. Reality is not nearly so nice, nor so clean-cut and easy for China. The leadership there has not grown up yet in terms of understanding China's growing international security profile. They keep acting like China is a minor security-wise even though it's clearly an adult economically-speaking. That just doesn't work.

But like all those satellite firms, you accept the restrictions for now in order to gain access to the market. For me, at least, I see no reason to deny all those non-English readers even the edited version of PNM.

I know that's hard to argue: patience. We want change and we want it fast. We identify the problem and we want it fixed. We're Americans, damn it!

But we forget how long it took to achieve what we have today in freedom, and how economics has always led the way, not politics.

Posted by at 5:48 PM | Permalink

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 3 August 2005

The uncorrected proof copies of BFA are going out now. Putnam will send to basically the same list we generated last time. If you have a case to be made for receiving one (review promised or something else truly special like your vaunted title/position/sense of self worth (hey, it works for me most days!)), then fire me an email with a snail mail and your best pitch and I will judge (very gently--I mean, my biggest biz opportunity of my career came about after some "nobody" asked for one last time, as in Steve DeAngelis, so you can guess what a pushover I am), sending on the proof-worthies to Putnam's PR people (Michael Barson runs me this time, although old hand and good buddy Steve Oppenheim will be involved as well).

Relatives go to the head of the line, natch, but they will come from my private stock.

Posted by at 3:51 PM | Permalink

The reproducible strategic concept keeps on reproducing and causing linkages to emerge. This pleases me to no end. I don't have an infinite time on this planet, and I want it to count.

Check out this interesting piece by J.G.P. Baan at peacejournalism.com/ReadArticle.asp?ArticleID=4318. This guy seems to get the military-market nexus in spades.

Posted by at 1:02 AM | Permalink

Dateline: in the Shire, Indy, 2 August 2005

Saturday with the missus was fun. Kids with relatives. We spend afternoon picking out flooring for new house, then dinner at St. Elmo's in Indy (great steak house famous for its horse radish mixed in the basement), then movie (War of the Worlds) at weird Hollywood Bar and Movie Club. It's a theater/bar/nightclub. You buy tix, then hang in bar, then are called into club-like setting, where waiters serve drinks and you can smoke, and then they show the movie. I haven't been in a theater with smoking in about 30 years. It was wild to be watching that very tense movie and then see explosion of light from match in audience.

Sunday was first night for us all together in new apartment. That's when we discovered the fleas from the previous occupant's dog. Yikes!

Yesteday was going to kids' new school, more unpacking, and seeing Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (ab fab). Today was all prep for flea treatment and then being homeless for six hours after treatment. We go book shopping, pick out all the appliances for new house (that was fun), game shopping, eat some ribs, then back home to finish washing every damn thing in house.

I am close to having my "office," or my built-in desk aided by antique baker's cabinet, put together. I am about three days away from having all the bills/record/address changes put together. Then I start the business for real again.

Good talks rolling in at speaker's agency, book tour with Putnam shaping up, and talks with two big players about consulting arrangements. Little to complain on--except discovering that Milwaukee Packer game package this year does not have us attending second preseason game (Pats in late Aug) as previously announced. No, now our game is the Chargers on a Thursday night (11th). Too late I realize, as I have already sked a biz trip. So I give tix to my brother whose sons are heading off to Iraq. My godson, unfortunately, must report day before game, and, as platoon leader, he's busy enough in final 48 State-side. Younger brother is going to game with dad and mom and grandmother (my Mom). My tix probably go to parish priest, which is fine with me. I want someone who'll behave and not lose me my tix. So this year, like last year with adoption trip, I blow off preseason game.

Worth it, though. Biz trip will lead, me thinks, to very big opportunity. And when you're picking our appliances like so many toys, you want opportunity.

Still, days into our new adventure, we keep running into fabulous stories and experiences that remind us why we're in the Midwest and not the Northeast.

Fleas--hah! We're Midwesterners now!

Posted by at 12:50 AM | Permalink

Dateline: In the Shire, Indiana, 2 August 2005

This piece by self-annointed media ombudsman Howard Kurtz, who I believe has a CNN show as well that covers the media, appeared in yesterday's Washington Post. Below are the excerpts relevant to my piece. You can find the full piece at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/31/AR2005073101051.html.

I have learned my lesson: media people are even touchier than academics! Beyond that, Mark Warren speaks for Esquire and I add nothing to his effective reply. I thought Kurtz kept it all very reasonable and fair.

What Did They Say, and To Whom Did They Say It?

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, August 1, 2005; Page C01

Journalists are expending plenty of time and energy these days accusing other journalists of the sin of ripping them off.

They got there first and deserve proper credit, the complainants say, rather than having their hard work lifted without recognition.

These are not the cases of blatant plagiarism that have cost a number of reporters and commentators their jobs. And most readers probably don't care. But in a business that measures scoops by seconds, journalists feel very proprietary about their exclusives -- and aren't shy about crying foul.

Take the case of the Deep Throat memo . . .

Esquire's July issue featured a long, carefully reported profile of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld by Thomas Barnett. The piece included a quote from Lt. Gen. Greg Newbold on Rumsfeld's style, saying, "If the environment's intimidating and suppressive, if it demeans, people tend to clam up."

ABC News producer Howard Rosenberg wrote to the magazine, saying he was "disappointed and surprised" to read Newbold's comments, which had been made to network correspondent John McWethy. "Newbold did not tell Barnett anything since, according to the general, he has never been interviewed by him," Rosenberg wrote.

Esquire Executive Editor Mark Warren calls the question of credit "a judgment call" and says of Newbold's remarks: "It was clear from the context of the piece that Barnett did not represent it as his own reporting. It was a very deeply reported piece and this was a small part. I don't regard it as an egregious error at all but more as a professional courtesy."

In February, Bloomberg News reporter Tony Capaccio wrote . . .

Where should the line be drawn? Major news outlets are actually better about this than they were 20 years ago, when they would grudgingly refer to "published reports" if they gave credit at all. But making a couple of calls to confirm a story that a journalist would not otherwise know about doesn't excuse the obligation to give proper credit. Plus, it's the decent thing to do. And it would mean a lot fewer complaints for this column.

Beyond this minor hubbub, it does feel weird to be written about as a journalist in a column about the media. Still, for an amazingly long piece (almost 8k) with a ton of reporting, I am happy to report that is the only complaint of note regarding my effort (other than the general and often incomprehensibly written "you suck!" letters one always receives). And I say that as someone who's been profiled or quoted (both with attribution and without) in numerous venues.

Still, lesson learned without rancor. Kurtz kept it reasonable. Warren did as well. Rosenberg struck me as rather overdone, but I guess TV people instinctively play it over the top, assuming there's a camera somewhere capturing it all.

Posted by at 11:49 AM | Permalink