The Big Bang was never about making America safer—except in the long run
Tom Barnett
¦"Poll Finds Dimmer View of Iraq War: 52% Say U.S. Has Not Become Safer," by Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A1.
¦"Assault on Women at Protest Stirs Anger, Not Fear, in Egypt," by Michael Slackman, New York Times, 10 June 2005, p. A1.
This is the backlash you get when you see a basic police action (arrest the offender) sold as a us-versus-them war. It was never us versus them in Iraq, but the global community versus a mass-murdering tyrant. How we got rid of him is less important than how we improve the Core's process—based on the experience we regain in Iraq—for removing from power political tyrants in the Gap and rehabbing their country systematically.
There are a host of powerfully political movements for reform that have sprung up in the region thanks to the Big Bang. The key choices we make today arre all about how we keep that ball rolling and disarming any potential veto-wielding players in the game—like Iran.
China and America: more alike economically than you think
¦"Do China And U.S. Face Same Woes?" by Floyd Norris, New York Times, 10 June 2005, p. C1.
¦"China Weighs Modest Currency Change," by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, 10 June 2005, p. C4.
¦"Getting Around Pyongyang's Hard-Liners," op-ed by Selig S. Harrison, Washington Post, 10 June 2005, p. A23.
Facinating piece by Norrris, comparing the plight of big corps on both sides (state-run on Chinese side, private on ours). Both types have taken on a lot of welfare functions for their employees over the years (China because it was socialist for so long, in America because employment with a major company was supposed to be rewarding in that way (lots of bene's, otherwise why put up with the bureaucracy?). When China cuts back on the state-run companies, abandoned workers are left without a host of support nets. Ditto here in the states, where healthcare and pensions seem to be going the way of the dinosaur with each passing year.
Bit of a Catch-22 brewing: our corps want relief from all their financial legacy woes and seek it through revaluation of the Chinese yuan, but that revaluation is resisted by China because it fears political unrest is too many state-run enterprises are sunk too fast by a rising yuan.
China will move to a floating yuan, something we talked about a lot roughly five years ago in the economic security exercises I ran atop the World Trade Center with Cantor Fitzgerald. But Beijing is smart enough not to create a giant do-loop with the yuan floating solely against the dollar (I don't think anyone in their right mind wants such a focused float, because what hurts America could hurt China could hurt America and so on).
So hopefully China's 9-man leadership group, known as the Standing Committee of the Party's Politburo, will make this move sooner as opposed to later, so we can seek real cooperation with Beijing on North Korea.
And yes, as Harrrison points out, I am aware that getting the Chinese to pressure Pyongyang pisses off the hard-liners there, due to past bad blood between the two. I just don't care if getting Beijing to go hard on Kim recalls 19th Century dynamics between the two. Simply put, nothing but Kim's downfall will bring any reformist element to the fore in North Korea. Harrison, with all his years of first-hand experience, still can't get off his appeasement shtick.
We should all be tired of being reasonable with Pyongyang. And I've got a good 3 million reasons why.
Africa: forgiving debt is nice, administering the security system is better
¦"U.S. And Britain Agree On Relief To Poor Nations: Writing Off $16.7 Billion; Plan to Release 18 Nations From Obligations Gives Blain a Timely Lift," by Elizabeth Becker and Richard W. Stevenson, New York Times, 10 June 2005, p. A1.
¦"As Africans Join Iraqi Insurgency, U.S. Counters With Military Training in Their Lands," by Eric Schmitt, New York Times, 10 June 2005, p. A10.
This posting is essentially a redux of one I just did: great for Old Core to plus up its economic aid to Africa, but unless it does the same or better on security help it all adds up to nothing.
Same noble intentions cited in the aid piece (all worthy), but Schmitt's piece is a lot more informative: citing Africa as the strategic rear of the Middle East-centric global Salafi jihadist movement. I've been briefing the "tactical seam" between Central Command in the Middle East and European Command's ownership of most of Africa (Centcom owns the Horn) for roughly a year now. It's a bit I developed while sitting down with Centcom's policy planners last summer at MacDill in Tampa (where I'm heading now). So as that strategic rear gains importance, expect the U.S. to get involved in more and more military-to-military programs in Africa. What drives this process is the rising importance of African jihadists showing up and fighting in Iraq (roughly one out of every four we catch).
Naturally, after cutting their teeth in Iraq, these jihadists are ready to rumble on their home turf, a phenomenon we've seen already unfold in Saudi Arabia.
So our previously tiny expenditures on such military training in Africa have grown to surpasss $100 million a year.
Who does the bulk of this training? Right now it's Special Operations Forces.
This plus-up in military aid is described by one senior Bush official as "get[tin] ahead of the power curve."
Indeed. My basic premise still holds: succeed against the jihadists in the Middle East and you take that fight south over time. You want to get the Pentagon to Africa fastest, cheer on the Big Bang and the occupation in Iraq. Africa needs it to succeed even worse than we do.
The Washington Post's op-ed page: the good, the bad and the really boring
¦"'We Need to Accelerate,'" column by David Ignatius, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A21.
¦"Amnesty's Amnesia," op-ed by Anne Applebaum, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A21.
¦"The Right Path to Arab Democracy" op-ed by Madeleine Albright and Vin Weber, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A21.
¦"Judging This Court" column by George F. Will, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A21.
¦"Candor on Immigration" column by Robert J. Samuelson, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. A21.
Thinking back to my judging of the various levels of quality of op-ed pages in general (WSJ strong, Post pretty strong, Times getting weaker), the 8 June edition of the Post reminds me of that paper's continuing strengths relative to the Times, which—quite frankly—I was surprised to rank 3rd of the 3.
For your political/legal you've got George Will here, instead of the insufferably smug Maureen Dowd, who unfunny humor (sophomoric is the word) makes it impossible for me to actually wade through one of her silly pieces.
For economics, you have Bob Samuelson, who actually informs, instead of Paul Krugman, who mostly just rants on Bush nowadays, to sad effect (for his reputation, that is).
For national security, there's David Ignatius versus . . . I guess Friedman, who's tourist stint there seems ended. Kristof's really the guy now on security.
For general self-righteousness, you've got Anne Applebaum, who's top flight, compared to Bob Herbert, who's bottom drawer in his sputtering rage.
[Applebaum's is especially good on Amnesty International's stunning tendency to compare Guatanamo to the Soviet gulag system—a comparison so amazingly dumb in its skewing of historical weight as to defy reason).]
Where the Post tends to lose is in the quality of the guest columnist (where WSJ rules). Here we have Madeleine Albright (who somehow manages to write just as boringly as she speaks) and Vin Weber (not exactly your towering intellect). In their supremely dull piece, they tout their Council on Foreign Relations study, highlighting its main findings (wonderfully obvious, they manage to say almost nothing new, which seems to be a prerequisite for CFR writing, which is so careful never to offend, you basically have only Sam Huntington's "clash" article as a seemingly controversial piece during Foreign Affairs entire post-Cold War run). The Times, in contrast, seems to have as many or more Foreign Policy writers than Foreign Affairs types, and on that basis it clearly outperforms the Post.
What's right with this picture?
¦"Fewer Doughnuts, More Dunkin: Beverages Increasingly Drive Chain's Sales; Franchises Team Up to Build Off-Site Bakeries," by Dina ElBoghdady, Washington Post, 8 June 2005, p. D1.
I know, I know. Living in RI all these years and blogging well over a year and I've not written anything about what is arguably the corporate image that defines little Rhody: Dunkin' Doughnuts.
Well, now that I'm on my way out the door, let me correct that oversight.
First, I will say that Dunkin' Doughnuts are—without argument—the worst doughnuts on the planet. Even more amazing to me, the other half of their claim (dunking part) is equally bad—the coffee (amazingly junked up beyond all ability to actually taste the coffee).
But Rhodies love 'em. We have three, I believe, on the island and they all do big business. Simply put, crap sells here.
Now that I have that off my chest, let me cite the real reason why I blog this piece: the picture of the 8 franchise owners who have formed a production alliance. The interesting thing about this picture, taken as it was in Northern VA, is that all of the owners are clearly Indian: four Patel's (who apparently own doughnut stores now in addition to their vast holdings in motels; no kidding, check it out next time to check in!), one Javia, and three Bhalani's. Far more amazing: only one has a gut of any heft.
Of course, the archetype of the Indian who owns the franchise is the character on "The Simpsons" who owns a 7/11-like store. But Indians, when they're not being docs or working for Microsoft, are hustling entrepreneurs who work a day longer than I can stay awake (Friedman likes to call it the "35-hour work day" that Indians naturally aspire toward).
I remember a Post of a while back talking about how DC-area Indians in the IT sector were banding together to form a Political Action Committee to pool their growing political weight. Judging by this picture, a doughnut PAC would probably feature a lot of Indians as well.
Of course, the story starts with a bit about a Rhode Island native who remembers pressing his nose to the glass of his local DD as a kid. He now owns several in the DC-area. His name is Andy Cabral, and I'm betting he's Portuguese. We have both types of people in Rhode Island: Irish and Portuguese. So it's an easy call on my part.
Elsewhere, though, the melting pot clearly has a wider array of inputs. |
