Monday, December 27, 2004

Rugby V. Football: The Future of War

When I was in the army my battalion commander was from a West Texas football town. If you've ever seen Varsity Blues then you know that Football is everything in West Texas. Conveniently for my BC football has been everything for the Army for some time, as well. The concept of rushing troops across terrain, making an end-run for Baghdad, is simply appealing. Throw in a complex series of rules, a pile of armor, and... wait, I'm confused. Are we talking about football or war?

It's easy to see how this model for warfare came to be. It's the 1980's, fourth quarter of the Cold War, and the Eagles are up on the Bears by a field goal. Both teams line up along the line of scrimmage (a.k.a. Iron Curtain), and Pentagon commanders call plays. The bad news is that the Bears conceded victory on that one, so we never got to see the mother of all superbowls. Instead we had to settle for Iraq I, but that's okay because Stormin' Norman was even good enough to name his strategies after football plays. Between that and CNN cum ESPN (of war) the first Iraq war was better than watching the UT Vols during the Peyton Manning years.

Fast forward a decade. Same basic strategy. Roll 'em up across the desert. Baghdad's the goal line. Woohoo! Touchdown! Wait, why aren't they running off the field? Oops. This is a rugby match. If you've ever clicked over to ESPN 2 at 1 AM then you've seen rugby. It's what football was during the Precambrian period, back when the other popular sport was dinosaur jousting. The basic idea is that the ball stays in play. Forward passes are against the rules, so no gaining ground quick. You've gotta run the ball. There are no downs, no field goals, no punts, just a bunch of guys playing offense and defense at the same time, constantly trying to adjust to the other team and passing backwards in order to get a shot at a few steps forward. Sound like fourth generation warfare? Oh, and these guys don't wear helmets.

Any further comparison would be pointless. The last thing I want to do here is convince anyone that rugby is the way to think about war. What I do want to do is to make the point that in order to prevail in this conflict we must shake ourselves of the mindset that there are periods of down time, that we could conceivably call a time out, and that running the ball to the goal line warrants a silly dance. Like rugby, this game is constantly in play, and there is no easy way to get to the other end of the field.

A Full Stocking a Day Late

I just wrote a massive post on a host of good news, but my computer crashed. So, in lieu of rewriting the entire thing I'll hit the main points and call it a night.

Palestine is looking good to go on elections with Israel pulling out troops to ensure that polling is seen as fair. So long as Hammas the political party can either reign in or divorce itself from Hammas the suicide bombers the new government stands a good chance of being seen as legitimate by both the Palestinians and the international community. Let's see if it can leap the bureaucratic and legislative hurdles that all new governments face.

Go Yuschenko!!! Get ready to see a more European Ukraine.

Afghanistan is pulling together a new opposition party by internationally normal methods. I call that a big win. Who was it at Foreign Policy Magazine that decided to run that title "Why Democracy Won't Save the Middle East?" Howsabout "Why Pessimism Won't Save the Middle East?"

If I can get gifts like this I'll wait until the 26th every year!

How Fleixible is Asia?

One of the major defining characteristics of a functional, decentralized network is its flexibility. South Asia has just suffered a catastrophic loss of human life and property. Over the coming weeks the predictible aid will flow in from the EU, US, and NGOs, but I predict that India may be more able to deal with this crisis than they are being given credit for. A truly amazing turn of events would be a massive Chinese aid response, though I won't be holding my breath. If those two nations want to flex some international muscle this is the time. They're undisputed powers in numerous areas. Now it's time to see how they respond to crisis management in their own backyard.

Friday, December 24, 2004

Happy Holidays

Okay, so I've been accused of having a heart three sizes too small this time of year. I generally don't do too well with Christmas, but I just wanted to wish all of our servicemen and women overseas, in combat zones, on ships, and pulling guard duty all night in the cold a safe and uneventful holiday weekend. It's never a Merry Christmas when you're standing in a guard tower for 12 hours and you're scared to look at your thermometer, but I just want to remind everyone to think of those men and women. The desert gets cold at night, and even colder when you're ten thousand miles from home.

Thursday, December 23, 2004

Speak Plainly

I have at various times in the last three years stood by several very different opinions with regard to America's attempt to police the Middle East. Let's go ahead and call a spade a spade. That's what we're doing. We're policing a bad neighborhood. In Iraq today there are innumerable factions divided between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, theocrats, technocrats, tribalists, Baathists, Islamists, and probably at least one political satirist. What I'd like to point out is that if America stands for anything, if we want the lives of our dead soldiers to mean anything we must ensure that we leave Iraq with these groups, nay, these individuals, represented in some form of democratically elected government.

We, have sent our men and women in uniform into harms way to eliminate a totalitarian regime, and have found ourselves involved in a prolonged conflict. My patience for hearing ivory tower academics denounce the war in its entirety is exhausted. Certainly criticism of officials managing the war strategy, both military and political, is appropriate, even patriotic, however it is unpatriotic in the highest order to insinuate that a pullout from Iraq, after having destabilized that region, is appropriate. I call it cowardly. I call it cowardly because it is irresponsible, shortsighted, and because those prominent columnists who insinuate that we should execute such a "strategy" do so under the guise of bold criticism for the administration. We now owe it to the people of Iraq, Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and all, to leave them with at least more stability and security than they had when we came.

I propose a new code for op-ed journalism, a very simple rule to follow: If you don't like it, offer a solution. Simply stating that something is evil, dangerous or ineffectual after the fact simply doesn't cut the mustard for quality journalism. Maureen Dowd, someone whose writing I have hithertofore admired, has, among widely circulated columnists, been most guilty of breaking this rule. Maureen, like it or not, we're in a war. If you can't offer solutions then give your rather prominent space in the Times to someone who can. I wonder if after rear-ending someone you would feel the need to give a twenty minute denouncement of traffic patterns and your own driving before exchanging insurance information. It strikes me that Ms. Dowd would be willing to leave Iraq in the hands of Baathist militants, a group who, as her counterpart Thomas Friedman points out, have been begged to come to the table of democracy and declined in favor of what amounts to gang violence. I'm afraid, Maureen, that two wrongs don't make a right. Leaving Iraq in its present state would definitely constitute a second wrong.

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Congratulations!

Congrats to Tom Barnett and Critt Jarvis on their new consulting firm The New Rule Sets Project! The Project will also have a monthly journal based around Tom's stellar foreign policy work called Rule Set Reset to which Tom's asked me to contribute. I have to say, I can't imagine what they're thinking (must be all the stress from the new business), but I'll give them whatever I've got. If we're in a war of ideas, these guys are the Delta Force of network-oriented thought, moving heaven and earth for a future worth creating. Cheers, boys!

The News Matrix

Critt Jarvis and I have been discussing a "News Matrix," or a way to graphically represent the data we collect every day. I'm sure that some of you are already familiar with the concept of pattern recognition, or noticing trends in news and society that let you know what's going to happen. It's a useful skill, but one that's difficult to teach because it requires a worldview paradaigm and an intuitive grasp of data analysis. We feel that a graphic aid would be helpful in explaining our ideas to others, perhaps even providing a piece of software that would allow people without the intuitive grasp to perform the analysis.

There's a discussion going on Critt's blog about this.

Surprise!

Well, everybody said that the Kremlin was going to end up in control of Yukos. Everybody said that Baikal was a front. Surprise! Everybody was right, but nobody expected it to go down this quick.

Damn, Vladamir, you puttin' the smackdown on that free trade bullshit WWF style!
Score one for the bad guys.

Monday, December 20, 2004

A Certain Breed of Arrogance

This morning I'm feeling saucy, so, having just spent the evening defending my globalist viewpoints against an assault of Kaplan and Huntington quotes, I'd like to make a very broad and very firm statement. Simply put, it takes a certain breed of arrogance to firmly believe that within one's own lifetime some massive, tectonic shift in the function of the world will occur. This is why Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" and Kaplan's "Coming Anarchy" are tantamount to Chicken Little's "The Sky is Falling," with their implications of a radically altered world, shaped by the ravaging forces of chaos and the imperial might of the U.S. military (and dollar).

The world is an ever more complex place than that. There will be no titanic struggle between Good and Evil for the fate of the world fought on pay-per-view. My apologies to the cable networks. I know you were banking on that one. Instead of a "clash" I think we can expect more of a "mild friction" as two imperfectly matched networks try to aggregate. The struggle between Good and Evil? I'm afraid it will be somewhat Biblical. Oh, I mean Biblical like Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John Biblical, not Revelation. Biblical as in personal, interpersonal, and very, very human. I'm afraid that the images of John Wayne singlehandedly taking down Osama, thus bringing about peace on Earth will have to wait for the DVD edition of the 21st century. For now, we'll have to content ourselves with slowly, haltingly working towards "a future worth creating."

Sunday, December 19, 2004

Good Will Gestures for the Holiday Season

Well Santa Claus sure just hit up the Palestinians and the Chinese. Sharon (the bionic man of Israeli politics) and his new buddies at Labor are putting their new deal on paper, so the pullout is looking good. The Israeli's are tossing in 170 Palestinian prisoners (the non-violent type) to sweeten the deal, and Hammas' Gaza faction is even backing peace talks. Christmas is looking good for the Arab-Israeli conflict, a little too good. I'd be ready for the hiccups to start early in the new year. Hammas' other factions aren't so ready to deal as Gaza is, and they'll be likely to voice their opinion with semtex. There's still a lot of budgetary stress in the Israeli government, so I'm still standing by my theory that that'll be the weak link on Israel's side of the fence. Sharon's driving this bus right now, and he's got a lot of support, but there should definitely be some third party structure going on. Mr. President, get in or get somebody else in! Somebody's gotta sweeten the deal for everyone involved, just like the trade deal for Egyptian-Israeli cooperative products.

In China there's yet another carefully worded change of policy on free expresion. Now, according to the Chinese government, you can believe whatever you want and people can't discriminate against you for your beliefs! Careful about how you exercise them, though, that's still regulated. The moral here, though, is that China is testing the waters about freedom of religion. This move is going to spark religious activity (or rather, did spark), and how that activity progresses will determine Beijing's future actions, a Sun Tzu approach to domestic policy.

Hmm... maybe that'll be good for article fodder... yes... excellent... my plans for world domination are coming along nicely.

Saturday, December 18, 2004

Irony in Buenos Aires

There's some irony in the fact that global warming talks are being held in B.A. That said, this round of talks may have more impact than Kyoto could've ever hoped to have. The Bush administration has been wildly criticized for not signing Kyoto, and I'll admit that I was on that bandwagon. However, there may be some boons for the future in the rejection of that particular treaty. Bush's main objection is that it didn't constrain the "developing nations" of China and India, creating an unfair trade advantage. While China and India are emerging economies, their frail attempt to hide behind the "developing nation" title is absurd. Yes, they're in the middle of their respective industrial revolutions and tech revolutions. Yes, they will have to operate under looser rule sets than we do to continue their development. No, they're not under that "developing nations" umbrella with Pakistan and Ghana.

Now, at the moment, imposing a massive rule-set on those two nations would be disasterous, but at the rate they're trying to connect up to the global network, they'll be needing those rules very soon. In order to be effective any global treaty on pollution is going to have to include the two largest populations on earth. As usual, a graduated shift is in order, but, as governments are wont to do, it's an all or nothing deal. 2012 is the slated date for the expiration of the Kyoto Accord, and that's probably about the time we'll want to put pressure on those states to adopt more stringent rules regarding pollutants. China's not too far behind the power curve already. It's rules on cars are quite strict, but while the rules in place are apropriate, the rules don't encompass enough of their polluters. I imagine that much of this situation will be remedied internally by 2012, paving the way for more globally relavent agreements.

Sunday, December 12, 2004

Softly With A Big Stick

Today's NY Times article on the Iran nuke situation carried some interesting connotations. The most eye catching was in a comparison to the Iraqi nuclear program at Osirak, destroyed by Israel in 1981. It reads:

"Iran takes great care to protect its technology and production/storage capability with multiple layers of security, hardening and dispersal," said one Air Force general with experience in the Middle East. "All this complicates identification, targeting and execution."

What's fascinating about this analysis is that these are not characteristics of an unstable R&D program. The level of coordination required to pull off this kind of decentralized effort signals two very important things. The first is a highly functional bureaucracy, necessary for prolonged operation of a decentralized network. Rogue elements like terrorist organizations can operate on a network-oriented model by utilizing infrastructure that is already extant (phones and internet) and because they are driven by the zeal of their members, requiring little bureaucracy to function. Government R&D programs require complex bureaucratic structures in order to transfer information, pay staff, and coordinate operations. "Multiple layers of security, hardening and dispersal..." are not something that can be accomplished without a stable, functional bureaucracy. I'll say more on this later.

The second point to be made by this analysis is that Iran hardly presents a major threat to global nuclear security. Any government (be it a democracy or a theocracy) going to these lengths to secure a program isn't going to be inclined to distribute its secrets to the highest bidder. Iran's main concern is Iranian security and stability. Distributing nuclear technology to terrorist groups or unstable regimes would seriously undermine both, almost assuring economic, political, and military backlash.

The really good news in this is that Iran is sporting a functional, and probably fairly massive, political bureaucracy. Couple that with a fairly well-educated population and an economy that swings some lumber regionally, and you're looking at a lot of network infrastructure in the making. Networking means connectivity, and connectivity inevitably leads to communication. This in turn leads to a free-market for ideas, and once you've got that truly representative government is on the way.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that we should just let Iran have the nukes and expect them to become a democracy afterwards. That's absurd. What I am suggesting is that because of Iran's capacity to develop an extensive nuclear program that we can't readily eliminate (or even cripple) Iran is probably further down the road to being a democracy than even they know. Insofar as the nukes go, keeping international political pressure on them is definitely the best route, but avoiding economic sanctions is probably wise. That would do little but stifle those aspects of Iranian civil society and government that we would most like to foster. A stable Middle East requires a regional power that can be both feared and respected by its neighbors. Excluding EU bound Turkey, Iran is the only Middle Eastern nation that can be expected to be both by 2020. An Iranian nuke is a big stick to look at, but it's that soft, steady walk that should be drawing our eye.

Thursday, December 09, 2004

Where Do I Sign?

The November 3rd Theses

This pretty much rounds out what I've been saying about the Dems. Wonder why I didn't see this earlier.

Gay for Pay?

New Zeland's parliament just passed a controversial bill to legalize same-sex marriage. Ever since this debate heated up in the U.S. it's been on the rise in other countries as well. (See: Canada 'Can Permit Gay Marriage' BBC News UK Ed.) Most notable among states legislating protections for same-sex couples (and unmarried straight couples) is Singapore. Notorious for its intolerance of personal freedoms, Singapore's push for GLBT legislation is, well, strange.

The reason is that Singapore (and several of these other nations I imagine) is interested in capitalizing on America's strangely hostile climate for homosexuals. Depending on who you cite anywhere between 2 and 10 percent of the American population is gay. (Kinsey pulls out the top end at 10, but 6 is a more reasonable figure.) Avoiding all of the traditional stereotypes about homosexuals (even the one about good taste in shoes), what that means for NZ, Singapore, and possibly Canada is that those homosexuals with the means, especially couples, will be inclined to consider moving to and working in those nations. Singapore's GLBT movement outright admits that it wasn't a human rights victory, but a free enterprise victory.

Tighter top-down controls on a population isn't conducive to the free spread of ideas, which isn't conducive to capitalism. I'm not suggesting that all of America's gay population is going to move to Singapore. What I am suggesting is that the most creative, most adventurous, and possibly wealthiest of the GLBT population in the United States will find themselves with a decision to make about where they want to make their home. That decision will become decidedly easier as U.S. states pass gay marriage bans and lovely little Pacific islands attach pink triangles to their flags.

Not Until You're Older

- "South America Creates Single Market,"
BBC News UK Ed. Thursday, 9 December, 2004, 03:13 GMT

More connectivity. More international agreement. Less focus on dealing with their individual lack of infrastructure. This is only good if South America can, as a whole, integrate the massive extralegal economies that exist in its individual states. Brazil is making good strides, and I'm sure that Argentina and Chile are trying as well. But, really, does anyone delude themselves into thinking that because Bolivia is managing its first peaceful (and legitimate) election and Colombia is begining to have great connectivity to the U.S. where extradition of drug lords is concerned that they'll be ready to join a union of states akin to the EU or US by the time that Argentina or Brazil will be? The loosening of trade restrictions in South America has far too many smuggling ramifications at present to be reasonable. Argentina, Brazil, and Chile are fighting to be part of the global economy. They won't be ready to serve as three pillars of a South American currency by 2020. One passport? Do you want Brazilians and Colombians to have equal access worldwide?

This is a giant step that the South American governments are taking, and they're taking it in their dad's oversized shoes. There's gonna be some slipage and maybe a fall or two. Is it overall bad? No. But it's definitely too soon to call this a success. This greater network that's being created won't be worth anything until the smaller networks beneath it are fully functional and able to go online. That said, it will be good for there to be a network structure there when these smaller networks are able to start the aggregation process, though I imagine it will be somewhat tired and defunct by then. Think "League of Nations" tired and defunct.

Tuesday, December 07, 2004

Doing Things the Hard Way

Should we promote connectivity at any cost?

Thomas Barnett, a man whose opinion and insight I value greatly, posits that the Middle East's connection to the functional world through oil and natural gas provides a slender strand of connectivity on which to build, but I find this to be an imperfect linkage, destined to break. While I recognize the value of fossil fuel as an impetus to have some manner of connection with the source, I do not see that connecting an oil field to a major consumer requires the consent of the local populace or their participation. A global network must consist of innumerable tiny networks, networks of neighbors, networks based on common need. The connection of the Middle East to the more developed sectors of the world is flawed because there need be no real exchange, especially on the local level , only an extraction.

When dealing with many areas of the economic network there is an impetus to create stability. That impetus is "the long term," but with non-reneweable resources it is less of a factor for the simple fact that there is a forseeable end to the resources themselves, at least in a given form and geographic location. Certainly, the Middle East as a whole may have massive fossil fuel resources, however the long term stability of the entire region is not required to extract them, and it may in fact be less expensive to maintain the stability of a few oil platforms and buy concessions from "big man" type governments than to transform the region as a whole in "the long term."

It is for this reason that I believe that the Middle East will not likely be transformed by the intervention of nations largely interested in its natural resources, but by its more natural route of connectivity, Turkey. While we are clearly not intervening in Iraq for control of its oil reserves, our interest in the region as a whole is based on two things: oil and terrorism, or, more bluntly, greed and fear. I do not suppose to have an over-arching answer to the questions that this raises. I only wish to pose the question: "Should we build along the flawed link, or tear it down to create new, stronger ones? Can we do both at the same time?"

Balancing Act

Of course, networks are balancing acts of internal structuring and external forces, so while Turkey (hopefully as an EU member) provides the external connectivity to the developed world, Iran, I expect, will provide the internal structure to support that connectivity. Personally I do not forsee the obliteration of the Islamist regime in Iran the way many do. Instead I note that economic forces are forcing Iran to flirt with free-trade zones. Turkey's new government of moderate Islamists will provide a unique bridge between the Middle East and Europe as many policy analysts have noted. However, it is worth pointing out that the overthrow of the Ayatollahs is not really relavent to whether or not this bridge is functional. In fact, the functionality of that bridge is something that the West (note I do not say "developed world") should likely observe from a distance. That connectivity will be fostered through Islamists, not through secular capitalists. Being Islamist, after all, does not preclude being capitalist or interested in building a better future.

Our attempt to unilateraly create stability in Iraq is doomed. Our method of repairing the region resembles a man with a mallot striking a broken television in hopes that the picture will clear. This may work on the first or second attempt but after that... well... you know the old saying: "The definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over expecting different results." As the dust settles from Fallujah and we near the promised deadline for elections we shall see if the striking has worked or if it is time for us to change tactics dramatically.

I believe that should we hope to stabilize the Middle East, the link provided by oil is irrelavent at best. Should we wish to bolster it we will take more resources, and energy (read: blood and treasure) than would be necessary to push the solution of a Turkish bridge between Europe and the Middle East. Dr. Barnett is fond of noting that no oil = no impetus. As usual, he's right, but the statement is somewhat misleading. The oil will continue to be the impetus for someone for a long time to come, whether it is China, India, or another nation going through its industrial revolution. To suggest that the West should maintain its dependence on Middle Eastern oil (something I believe Dr. Barnett does inadvertently) is somewhat strange. The developing world will increase its rate of consumption faster than we can decrease ours. If demand increases, the focus on oil as the link between the global network and the Middle East will increase as well, and it will not likely serve to bolster is so much as to draw focus away from other, more lasting links. No decent network engineer would design a global computer network with a huge portion linked only by one massive fiber. That doesn't support network stability.

The Illusion

The problem with thinking of oil as the first in a series of linkages, is that the link is really an illusion. There is no extant network to connect to, so the network cannot naturally aggregate. By pushing the "Turkish Bridge" scenario we grow connectivity at the same rate as the local networks. By insisting on maintaining our own independent link to the Middle East, we are struggling to create an artificial network with which to connect ourselves.

Removing Saddam Hussein was not a flawed concept. It was merely the execution (for reasons to oft discussed to repeat here) that was horrific. Now it is time that we accept that failure and move towards a natural trifurcation of Iraq. Turkey will be best suited to steward the North. Iran will naturally gain influence in the South. In the former case we should do all we can to foster this. In the latter, we should be prepared to cut deals and involve as many moderating forces as possible. If executed with deftness this could even serve as an oportunity to create another bridge into Iran, a more moderate statelet of similar makeup. If executed poorly, this could serve as a propaganda victory for extremists. The Sunni Triangle presents a challenge, and it will likely come in the form of a military one. The most important thing is to prevent it from doing damage to the two more stable regions.

The network will grow. Of this I am certain, but beware the flawed links and the urge to press forward when a step sideways is more productive. Even network-oriented thinkers are susceptible to tunnel vision sometimes.