"The Daily Barnett."
How to be "catastrophically successful" by not really trying
¦"The Strategy to Secure Iraq Did Not Foresee a 2nd War," by Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, 19 October 2004, p. A1.
¦"Limited U.N. Role Hinders Iraq Vote: Security in Crisis, Citizens Take Lead," by Robin Wright and Colum Lynch, Washington Post, 19 October 2004, p. A1.
¦"Pentagon Survey Shows Reservists Harbor Doubts," by Greg Jaffe and Yochi J. Dreazen, Wall Street Journal, 19 October 2004, p. A3.
It's 16 April 2003 and Gen. Tommy Franks is smoking victory cigars in Baghdad, talking about how he's planning to draw down American troops quite rapidly in coming weeks. By September, 130k should be 30k.
How, you might have asked at the time?
We had just decided (in the White House, no less) to start really pressing the Europeans and other allies to send peacekeeping troops, plus we figured the UN would jump right in, right? Plus, we just knew the Iraqis working in the government would stay at their posts after we knocked off their dictator of several decades. Then there was the plan to get everything up and running in infrastructure within weeks.
But here's the rub. Secretary Rumsfeld wins his debate with Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki. They were arguing different points: Rumsfeld for a small transformed force to win the war and Shinseki for a large ground force to win the peace. Both had plenty of precedents on their side: the Air Force had won Bosnia and Kosovo almost by themselves, and the Special Ops guys had been enough to topple the Taliban. And yet, if we had put in the ground forces for the subsequent peacekeeping in the manner of Bosnia or Kosovo, we would have had something like a third of a million soldiers under foot, or ten times what Franks expected to have there in September.
This article by Gordon idiotically compares Rumsfeld's effort to win the war with Powell's overwhelming force doctrine. But in reality, Powell's doctrine was all for overwhelming force during war so as to be able to pull it all out as quickly as possible as soon as the shooting stopped. It's a very bad and incorrect comparison
The RAND Study led by a former U.S. ambassador who's been on the scene in a variety of postconflict situations (James Dobbins) said it clearly: the more troops you have on the ground for the peace, the fewer casualties you suffer. We got through the war in 6 weeks with about 150 casualties, which was great. The peace, however, didn't go so well, and it was indeed a matter of numbers.
Don't start the war unless you're ready to go all the way on the peace.
That's why the UN doesn't want to help us out on the elections.
That's why our troops are losing morale: they're trained and ready for peacekeeping (those Reserves and Guards now over there in big numbers), not for slipping back into Leviathan work.
We have no one to blame but ourselves for screwing up that 6-month window after "Mission Accomplished."
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 10:06 PM
A close-up look at an "implicit villain"
¦"The Man Who Bought The Oil From Iraq: Inquiry Into U.N. Program Puts Focus on Texas Deal Maker," by Simon Romero, New York Times, 19 October 2004, p. C1.
Great article about the "most hated oilman in Texas," Oscar S. Wyatt and how he bought oil on the sly (with bribes to Saddam, of course) throughout the oil-for-food UN program of the 1990s—you know, the one the UN later estimated helped kill 50k kids under the age of 5 each year in Iraq. Old Mr. Wyatt is one of TM Lutas' "implicit villains" to the core. We know more about him than the French and Russian companies who paid the vast bulk of the $200 million plus in bribes over the years, primarily because his company is publicly listed (see how important such rule sets are!).
Wyatt is too rich for words. When confronted with the evidence that Saddam gassed his own people, he replied: "We don't need to go out of our way to interfere in a domestic problem. Have they gassed any Americans?"
No sir, if the abusive husband next door kills one of his own kids, that's strictly his business.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 10:05 PM
The great Chinese outsourcing begins . . . with cars!
¦"Chinese Automaker Plans Assembly Line in Malaysia: Rivals are keeping an eye on the cars, which they say too closely resemble their own," by Keith Bradsher, New York Times, 19 October 2004, p. W1.
First China's running out of young female labor for certain factories so they getting ready to outsource jobs. Now comes word they're getting ready to outsource entire factories!
Here is a copycat carmaker that reminds one of the old Japanese tricks. But even better than trying to take on Detroit head on, this company, Chery, is "hitting them where they ain't," meaning going into Malaysia and Iran instead of the U.S.
Still think Chinese diesel submarines are the biggest threat to America?
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 10:04 PM
Voting with their money: How the rest of the Core puts the brake on "unilateral" America
¦"Bearish on Uncle Sam? As Foreign Investment Shows Decline, Economists Keep Watch," by Jonathan Weisman and Ben White, Washington Post, 19 October 2004, p. E1.
Here's a compelling scene that should send chills down your back:
On Sept. 9, as it must frequently do, the U.S. government turned to Wall Street to raise a little cash, and Paul Calvetti bet that demand for $9 billion worth of long-term Treasury bonds would be "huge."
But at 1 p.m., as the auction opened and the numbers began streaming across his flat-panel screens, the head of Treasury trading at Barclay's Capital Inc. slumped in his chair. Foreign investors, who had been voraciously buying Treasury bonds, failed to show up. Bond prices cascaded downward, interest rates rose, and in five minutes, Calvetti, 38, who makes money by bidding on bonds at one price and hoping market demand lets him quickly resell them at a profit, had lost $1.5 million.
"It's amazing," he gasped, after the Treasury Department announced that Wall Street traders, not foreigners, had been left to buy virtually the entire auction. "I don't think I've ever seen this before."
Now, you might first be asking yourself if it isn't amazing that Barclay's basically employs this guy to do day trading on bonds, but that's a separate blog for another day.
The real point is, as the story claims, "a portentous issue." Foreigners hold about half of the outstanding Treasurys right now, or almost $2 trillion, so any turn in sentiment overseas against betting on America's long-term future (and don't bet that doesn't include a sense of our security role in the world!) could ripple through our economic well-being like a hot knife through butter. Last years foreigners bought only $17B in Treasurys, compared to $30B the 12 months before that. Meanwhile, we go on running up the deficit and funding a major effort in Iraq like there's no tomorrow.
The big fear here is that Japan and China will start holding more reserves in Euros, which look more stable vis-à-vis the dollar as time goes by. Chinese holdings of Treasurys have tripled in this decade, but don't expect that trend to continue forever, as they've already started diverting more and more profits to Euros. Ditto for India.
Larry Summers, former Secretary of Treasury, calls is "a kind of global balance of financial terror." He thinks it's odd we're the biggest military power and the biggest debtor in the system, but he shouldn't be surprised. It's an essential transaction we conduct with the outside world, but especially with the rising economies of the New Core.
And guess what? If they don't like what they're buying in terms of global security, they'll take their money somewhere else.
You can call it all "confidence in U.S. markets," but I call it the military-market nexus.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett at 10:04 PM
New Core to Hollywood: Tone it down!
¦"G-rated Exports: Nemo and his pals are a crucial part of U.S. trade policy," by Todd G. Bucholz, New York Times, 19 October 2004, p. A29.
Interesting bit about how New Core markets like India and China, where learning English is all the rage, represent huge potential profit centers for Hollywood, if only they'd tone down the sex and violence, adding—as is the custom of Bollywood musicals—more sax and violins. Wholesome themes play far better in China and India, where tastes are closer to 1950s America than the U.S. of today.
This is yet another signal to the U.S. that says, "slow down" in terms of shoving your cultural content down our throats, and if Hollywood was smart, it would listen.
Posted by Thomas P.M. Barnett |
