StrategyUnit

Introduction
Tyler Cowen (from Marginal Revolution) presents an excerpt for this interesting paper:

Results of the experiment demonstrated dramatic cultural differences in financial value estimations, as well as on the influence of variables such as framing effects. Chinese participants made higher object value estimates than Americans did, even when adjusting for differing national inflation rates. In addition, the results showed that contextual information, such as framing, morality information, and group membership affected judgments of financial values in complex ways, particularly for Chinese participants. The results underscore the importance of understanding the influence of cultural background on economic decision-making. The authors discuss the results in the context of behavioral law and economics, and propose that importing cultural competence into behavioral models can lead to cognitive debiasing, both temporary and permanent.

Realism, Decision Making and Culture
One of the fundamental flaws of the school of realism is the belief that all actors are self-interested rational actors. We can assume that all actors are rational, yet we need to recognize that different value systems (as influenced by one’s culture and enviorment) can bring about very logical, but very different decisions.

From my own personal college experience in International Relations courses, I never once remembered a serious considering on how cultural values shaped decision-making, policy objectives and grand strategy objectives. Yet despite all this, we know there’s a difference. There are business consultants who consult on the different business styles of Americans, Indonesians, the French, Russians and others.

While I am sure those inside the walls of the State Dept., DoD and other policy-making and shaping groups know this, there should be a more frank open discussion by the mainstream media, which too are policy-shappers in the area of public opinion.

Introduction

Noah Schachtman of DefenseTech is always a persistent source of great information regarding the technology and equipment that is used in today’s battlefields. (Via Op-For) In PopularSciences, Schachtman and David Axe write on “Winning—and Losing—the First Wired War“: “U.S. forces in Iraq are waging a pivotal campaign in modern warfare—combat on the first “networked” battlefield. One problem: the enemy has a few networks of its own ”

Schachtman and David Axe go to the heart of the issue in Iraq:

“But now, more than three years into sectarian conflict and a violent insurgency that has cost nearly 2,400 American lives, an investigation of the current state of network-centric warfare reveals that frontline troops have a critical need for networked gear—gear that hasn’t come yet. “There is a connectivity gap,” states a recent Army War College report. “Information is not reaching the lowest levels.”

This is a dangerous problem, because the insurgents are stitching together their own communications network. Using cellphones and e-mail accounts, these guerrillas rely on a loose web of connections rather than a top-down command structure. And they don’t fight in large groups that can be easily tracked by high-tech command posts. They have to be hunted down in dark neighborhoods, amid thousands of civilians, and taken out one by one.”

Net-centric Warfare v. Global Guerillas
Net-centric Warfare defined in a monograph at DODCCRP (same folks who published “Shock and Awe”):

“We define NCW as an information superiority-enabled concept of operations that generates increased combat power by networking sensors, decision makers, and shooters to achieve shared awareness, increased speed of command, higher tempo of operations, greater lethality, increased survivability, and a degree of self- synchronization. In essence, NCW translates information superiority into combat power by effectively linking knowledgeable entities in the battlespace”

As Schachtman and Axe noted, NCW is layman’s term the “Walmart-ification” of warfare. (Indeed the monograph of the excerpt above, goes into great detail analyzing the logistical success of Wal-Mart and Dell and other corporations.) But what does NCW look like on the battlefield, Schachtman and Rose describes the following:

“The air-ground collaboration is one of dozens of different ways that network-centric tools are slowly starting to rejigger the military’s hidebound hierarchies. In the Gulf War, the various armed services didn’t talk to one another much, except at the highest levels. That’s partly why there was a six-week air campaign and then a ground attack. During the 2003 invasion, the air and ground assaults struck at once.”

But one of the most powerful tools in battalion command posts like these, notes Garstka, the network-centric theorist, may be one of the simplest: a Web browser, so junior officers can log into secure online forums. There captains and lieutenants can swap tactics, well before they appear in printed field manuals. This is critical in a place like Iraq, where insurgents’ strategies change almost daily. ”

With exception of advance weapon systems and resource intensive efforts like building a Carrier battle group, it is John Robb’s “Global Guerillas” which are best suited to adopting and adapting to technology. For more information on “Global Guerillas”, I strongly suggest reading John Robb’s “THE Bazaar of Violence in Iraq” and “THE Bazaar’s Open Source Platform “. It is required reading in my book.

The US Military and Global Guerillas are both fighting as net-centric agents, but the US Military is after all a hierarchal system, a tool of the nation-state and thus structurally it is slower to adapt. Meanwhile as decentralized and organic entities, “Global Guerillas” naturally evolve into ever more sophistication: the weaker insurgent groups get killed and captured, while the more successful groups sharing and help others replicate their success.

The advantage of the US military (or conventional militaries in general) is its ability to focus its resources into a certain direction in a more coordinated fashion, while the “Global Guerillas” can afford to use a slower trial-and-error method - attrition is not as much as a concern for them.

John Robb’s “Global Guerillas” will always be more nimble and faster that traditional nation-state militaries. The state and its military are by definition more slowly moving, more hierachial and more bound by policies and laws - then numble, adapting, loosely networked, nimble and Global Guerillas. Its not so much that the Global Guerillas are networking better than the US Military, its that the Global Guerillas can afford to adapt more quickly.

Net-Centric Warfare - Myopic Pipedreams
Setting aside the “Global Guerilla” issue, NCW has great limitations. When reading defense experts and their whitepapers/monographs on “Net-Centric Warfare” and “Effects-Based Operation”, we see terms phrases like “information dominance” and “complete situational awareness” and the like.

But the case-studies such war studies experts like to review - Amazon.com, Wal-Mart and Dell - are a world aware from an actual, fluid and “fog” ridden battlefield. There are collecting and analyzing information from a relatively static “battle space” so to speak.

Planning, preparing, executing and adjusting to the changing and fluid battle-space of fourth generation warfare is utterly different than keeping an excellent inventory over your retail logistics network – basically what the Wal-Mart, Dell and Amazon.com case studies are all about. It’s a joke to assume that future soldiers will be equipped with electronic devices to depend on a full host of communication and information share – where will the electricity come from? Are these devices anti-virus proof or even from protected from rough use?

The “Fog of War” will always be a factor that will be foolish to underestimate. Thus, the premise of complete “information dominance” and complete “situational awareness” is a false hope. Net-Centric Warfare is one of the new components of warfare, but it won’t be the last nor the only.

Introduction - Immigration in the US
StrategyUnit has abstained from the US immigration debate since there’s a high level of complexity in what is legal, moral and practical. But, it suffices to say that this author is an immigrant in this great land, so I do support a more robust system of allowing immigrates to become productive and integrated Americans.

John Podhoretz has done an excellent job in trying to provide some clarity on the immigration debate by understanding that what is the “immigration debates” is actually three different, but overlapping debates:

There are really three immigration debates. There is the cultural debate, there is the economic debate, and there is the security debate. (Emphasis StrategyUnit’s) On matters of culture, I believe as everybody else here does that our immigration policy makes no sense if it is not directed at the process of turning non-Americans into Americans through the instruction of English, knowledge of civics and American history, and helping to instill a sense of pride and commitment to the country.

On economic matters, I agree that if immigrants are not of net benefit to the country, it makes no sense for us to allow newcomers to do harm in this way — and here, in my opinion, the case made by restrictionists is by far the weakest. On security matters, an uncontrolled border is clearly unacceptable, and a panoply of measures, including a border fence, is more than called for.

As for dealing with the illegals already here, there’s a sense in which this debate has been radicalized to such an extent that the Right won’t be satisfied with a policy that does not explicitly advocate expulsion — all other policies being dubbed “amnesty” and therefore illegitimate — while the Left refuses to consider any policy other than special-treatment affirmative-action line-jumping legalization. In other words, there is nothing our politicians can do, absolutely nothing, to satisfy the activists — because neither extreme will be reflected in any kind of law or policy that emerges even from a Washington energized to deal with them. (link)

All discussions on immigration must be careful to not freely mesh-up these differing strands (intertwined as they may be at times) - cultural, economic and security spheres.

Immigration - An International Issue
While the US debates and (hopefully) finds its own path towards intelligently reforming the process of immigration - from Europe to Africa. Note also how these select news items below (by no means representative or exhaustive) can under the issues of security, culture and economic.

Botswana (Via AfricanFiles):
” Zimbabweans are fleeing their politically and economically troubled nation in large numbers. The relatively prosperous Botswanans resent this influx as a threat to their livelihoods, especially the possibility of the spread of foot and mouth disease to their cattle, their second largest earner after diamonds. The electrified fence Botswana is building along the border is viewed by one group as a barrier against animals; it is considered an insult to humans by the other.”

Spain - (Jamestown Foundation, 04 May 2006):
“Spanish security officials continue to worry that members of al-Qaeda will take advantage of the clandestine immigration pipeline route by inserting terrorists to make their way to either the enclaves or to the Spanish mainland. To this regard, the Directorate General of National police recently advertised 357 posts for anti-terrorist officers to monitor potential Islamists in areas where the presence of Muslim immigrants is well known, such as Melilla, Ceuta, Granada, Malaga and Alicante.”

Belgium (Via Brussels Report, 11 May 2006):
“The crisis between the Catholic Church and the government is escalating in Belgium. So far over 30 Belgian churches have been occupied by illegal immigrants or so-called “sans papiers” (“people without papers” [=staying permits]). The latest church taken over by squatters is the Saint Susanna Church in the Brussels borough of Schaarbeek, where a group of thirty women with small children have installed themselves. They were invited in by the local parish priest.”

Conclusion
Immigration is an issue that is not going away. Any historian will tell you that the migration of people has been a fact of human history well before the development of states and of nations. It is simply that globalization has accelerated the course of human migration as compared to decades pasts.

Understanding how to deal with immigration - from the cultural, economic, and security perspectives - will be an important factor in the success of many states, be it those in Europe, United States to Botswana to Japan.

A state built as an anti-immigration fortress will fail in its isolation, but an open door policy may bring more change than a state and its society can be able and willing to handle. As with all things, it is through the middle we will find the answer. I hope that the leaders - in political circles and activist groups - in the US will understand this.

Introduction
Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal planned seems very elegant: Build a wall and unilaterally withdraw. In essence, this unilaterally creates a state of Israel and a Palestinian state. It’s not peace, but its forcing Palestinians to acknowledge the existence of two separate states.

The long held criticism of this plan was that Sharon and Israel was essentially boxing itself in, creating an Israel surrounded on both flanks by two Palestinian failed-states. The Hamas-led victory in the recent elections was no comfort, especially after the opportunity for new leadership given by the passing of Arafat.

Olivier Guitta noted on April 5th that “a Jordanian intelligence source confirmed to Al Hayat that a major Al Qaeda attack was just very recently foiled in Gaza. This source also confirmed that Al Qaeda has been expanding in Gaza and tried to penetrate the West Bank but with less success there.” A mix of Israel’s withdrawal, Arafat’s death and the democratically-elected Hamas is paving the way for Al-Qaida’s presence in Palestine, furthering Al-Qaida’s overall reach and adding another dimension to Israel’s security threat.

The other path presented to Israel, continuing to occupy Palestinian territory and building settlements, is unsustainable in the eye of global opinion and Israel’s moral position. Yet, unfortunately for Israel, the imposed two-state solution provides Israel with some higher moral ground, but presents its own strategic challenges.

Fortress Israel - But for How Long?
So far, Israel is shifting from being a quasi-occupying presence (the settlers) in Palestine to fully embracing its image as Fortress Israel. But..
- As Palestinian terrorists switch from suicide-bombings to rocket attacks (thwarting the barriers), there are clearly limits to this strategy.
- While Israel can withstand the occasional rocket attack, Israel cannot indefinitely retaliate each attack without causing escalation on both sides, eventually compromising any security provided by its barrier.

A Future War between Israel and Palestine
The passing of the Arafat era brought a lot of promise, promises so far dashed by the Hamas victory in the recent elections. But as Israel continues (for now) on its path to unilaterally creating a two-state solution, the question must be asked:

What happens if a democratically-led Palestinian government leads a popular war against Israel?

How would Israel be able to fight an all out war (surely a fourth-generation war) against Palestine, where the line between the Palestinian militants and civilians would be a blur?

That’s a question Israel must ponder as it continues its withdrawal from the territories.

During every Passover, it is tradition to declare “L’shana ha’ba-ah b’Yerushalayim” (Next Year in Jerusalem)

Israel already has their Jerusalem, but when will there be peace?

With Passover coming, Yehudit has a nice light hearted posting “If the Passover Story Were Reported by The NY Times” over at WindsOfChange.Net

The cycle of violence between the Jews and the Egyptians continues with no end in sight in Egypt. After eight previous plagues that have destroyed the Egyptian infrastructure and disrupted the lives of ordinary Egyptian citizens, the Jews launched a new offensive this week in the form of the plague of darkness.

Western journalists were particularly enraged by this plague. “It is simply impossible to report when you can’t see an inch in front of you,” complained a frustrated Andrea Koppel of CNN. “I have heard from my reliable Egyptian contacts that in the midst of the blanket of blackness, the Jews were annihilating thousands of Egyptians. Their word is solid enough evidence for me.”

Read the whole “story” over at WindsOfChange

Quick Post: Update on “Getting India Right : Recreating the Anglosphere”
The Economist Writes on US-India relations

The StrategyUnit has recently posted several articles relating to India, with the strongest being “Getting India Right : Recreating the Anglosphere“, where it is declared:

“There has been discussion that just as Great Britain gracefully passed its world power status to the United States, the United States must look to do the same with India or else face decline in the face of a raising China.”

Now the Economist (Feb 25), ahead of Bush’s March visit to India, leads with two articles highlighting the Bush Administration’s approach with India. The second article, “The Great India Hope Trick“, goes through the three major topics: 1) the difficulty surrounding the Bush Administration’s nuclear technology deal with India; and 2) the American temptation to see India as part of an anti-China axis partner; 3) while India needs and wants to be seen as an equal in any partnership with the US.
(more…)

Quick Post - Francis Fukayama on Europe’s Identity Crisis and Islam
Europe, Muslims, Demographics and Eurabia

On Slate Magazine today, Francis Fukayama’s “Europe vs. Radical Islam” takes to tasks the rash of “decline of Europe, raise of Eurabia” books that have been hitting American shelves lately, specifically “The West’s Last Chance” by Tony Blankley and “While Europe Slept” by Bruce Bawer. However, Fukayama focuses on the most extreme and perhaps even founder of the “decline of the West” crowd: Pat Buchanan’s “Decline of the West”.

Oddly and disappointingly, Fukayama skips over Bat Ye’or “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis “, though he mentions the word. Its a shame because Eurabia is probably the most credible of all four books that addresses the subject with the fullest sense of reason and moderation with no wild scenerios like the type Blankey represents. Why this major omission?

Regardless, I believe Fukayama goes to the heart of the issue of Muslims in Europe and shifts the question on the need for Europeans to redefine what it means to be British, French, Germany…what it means to be European:

The problem that most Europeans face today is that they don’t have a vision of the kinds of positive cultural values their societies stand for and should promote, other than endless tolerance and moral relativism. What each European society needs is to invent an open form of national identity similar to the American creed, an identity that is accessible to newcomers regardless of ethnicity or religion. This was the idea behind Bassam Tibi’s concept of Leitkultur (guiding or reference culture), the notion that the European Enlightenment gave rise to a distinct and positive universalist culture based on the dignity of the individual. Muslims coming to Europe would be minimally expected to accept this perspective as their own. The German Christian Democrats timidly endorsed a version of this five years ago, only to retreat in the face of charges of racism and anti-immigrant prejudice from the left. Interest in a “demokratische Leitkultur” has been revived in the wake of recent events, however, and a vigorous debate has opened up over how to define it. There will be many missteps along the way: The state of Baden-Württemberg, for example, recently introduced a test that would require the respondent to support gay marriage as a condition for citizenship, something deliberately designed to exclude Muslims.

Time is getting short to address these questions. Europeans should have started a discussion about how to integrate their Muslim minorities a generation ago, before the winds of radical Islamism had started to blow. The cartoon controversy, while beginning with a commendable European desire to assert basic liberal values, may constitute a Rubicon that will be very hard to re-cross. We should be alarmed at the scope of the problem, but prudent in responding to it, since escalating cultural conflict throughout the Continent will bring us closer to a showdown between Islamists and secularists that will increasingly look like a clash of civilizations.

Fukayama nails on the head that Europe needs to find out what being European means before they began a process of incorporating other groups into their societies. The threat of a “Clash of Civlizations” in Europe is very real but fortunately has not fully materialized yet. Time is running short, but that doesnt mean its too late.

Summary
Many commentators have discussed the possibility of the Six-Party Talks on North Korea - which consist of China, Japan, US, Russia and the two Koreas - as the future basis for a security forum for Northeast Asia. East Asia is an important and dynamic region with growing economies and equally growing security needs, yet formal mechanism exist for communication and dialogue among the major players.

While the need for a security forum is apparent to all players involved, the specific issue that should help bring a security forum into fruitarian is Energy Security. The need for energy security coordination in a region highly dependent on imported oil is well overdue.

Indeed, even in the OSCE, the current chairman has called for a conference for all OSCE members to discuss the need for better coordination on energy security matters. It is time for the even more imported energy dependent nations of Asia to do the same and much more.
(more…)

Spook86’s “In From the Cold” is a blog folks need to check out. Spook86 mentions some possible motives behind Bush Administration’s support for the UAE port deal:

From Port Call:

Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE, strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract, all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn’t already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight–even with political allies.
…
Cancellation of the contract would be viewed as an insult to the UAE and its leadership; regional critics would accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy–anxious to utilize UAE bases and sell its defense hardware to the Dubai, but unwilling to let a UAE company manage operations in U.S. ports. Such criticism, in turn, would cause other Gulf allies to question Washington’s long-term committment to the region, and make it more difficult for the U.S. to sustain basing rights in such countries as Qatar and Bahrain.

In the domestic area, the Bush Administration is in a tightspot as it defends the deal, while the Democrats are taking advantage of the UAE deal to look strong in homeland security. However, as Spook86 mentions, the deal has wide geopolitical implications. There’s a lot at stake for the US, the Middle East and the War on Terror (GWOT). Congress has a right to be concerned, but these concerns must be placed in greater political and international context.

For more on US Military Bases in UAE check out GlobalSecurity.org

Today’s Quick Links
1. Hamas: Winning the Candidates, not Votes?

Via Chief Wiggum and Coming Anarchy, comes this interesting story:

A close look at the final results of last month’s Palestinian election shows that the apparent landslide that gave Hamas 74 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council and only 45 to the once-dominant Fatah movement was, in the words of one analyst, “an optical illusion.”

Read more Here

2. Can “Psiphon” Beat China’s State Censorship?

Non-State actors continues to undermine state control over information:

[A] band of Internet volunteers headquartered in Cambridge has launched the Tor Project, which uses people’s spare Internet bandwidth to help others bypass the censors. And in Canada, computer scientists at the University of Toronto are working on a similar project, called Psiphon.

Anonymizer and Tor have attracted strong support from the US government. American military and intelligence services are major customers of Anonymizer, because it lets them scan foreign Internet sites without revealing their identities. The Voice of America, a broadcasting service sponsored by the US government, uses Anonymizer to help people in Iran tune in, despite their country’s efforts to block the signal.

Read More

3. Forget Russia, China and Russia, there’s also Japan in Central Asia

From PINR (published by Asia Times):

Japan added a new dimension to its engagement with Central Asia with the formation of the Central Asia Plus Japan (including Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan) initiative in August 2004. While low-key compared with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO - China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan), Japan through the Central Asia Plus Japan initiative is likely to play an increasingly significant geopolitical role, not just in Central Asia but also in Eurasia. An important question is how Japan’s new regional initiative will impact the SCO, which is largely considered the de facto regional organization in Central Asia.

Read More

4. John Yoo on FISA and the War on Terror

Interesting short interview by Foreign Policy:

While an attorney with the U.S. Justice Department after September 11, his legal memos helped lay the groundwork for what some see as the Bush administration’s constitutional power grabs—from the treatment of enemy prisoners to domestic wiretapping. FP recently asked Yoo, now a law professor at Berkeley, about amending FISA, ending the war on terror, and whether torture works.

Read More

5. Refrigerator with Built-In Beer Tap!

Words cannot describe StrategyUnit’s Joy:

Introduction
Back in November, StrategyUnit wrote on the “War on Drugs” escalation in Mexico and the great danger it poses for US security:

The U.S. and its “War on Drugs” is partially the cause of the escalation of the drug war. The US and other states have escalated the war, only to encourage the development and spread of fourth generation gangs, increasing the corruption of governments - and the growing nexus of gangs and corrupt officials leading to a narco-state.
…
If Mexico slides towards Colombization, two threats will gather strength: 1) the number and strength of potential gangs that could work with groups Al-Qaida will increase; and 2) the spill over of violence and nacro-trafficking from Mexico to the southwestern U.S. states.

While Mexico isn’t Colombia yet, these major threats are more than sufficient enough for the U.S. to strongly reconsider its approach to the War on Drugs and its own domestic drug policies.

The US-Mexican Borderlands
Source: http://www.epa.gov

Follow-Up Since November 2005 Posting: Yes, things are pretty bad

Fast forward to February 2006, the headlines on what’s going on in the US-Mexican border are not encouraging:

Guns and money: U.S.-Mexico border besieged by crime, terror:

Following separate raids on Jan. 12, 26 and 27, U.S. authorities announced they had seized two homemade bombs, materials for making 33 more, military-style grenades, 26 grenade triggers, large quantities of AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, 1,280 rounds of ammunition, silencers, machine gun assembly kits, 300 primers, bulletproof vests, police scanners, sniper scopes, narcotics and cash.

Differing views on Texas/Mexico border incursion:

The chief of the Border Patrol today urged U-S House members not to lose sight of the danger agents face each day along the Mexican border.

The situation has drawn more attention after last month’s confrontation between officers in West Texas and military-uniformed drug smugglers along the Rio Grande.

Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar says agents regularly encounter individuals hurling rocks at them from across the border, ramming their vehicles and sometimes firing at them. (Empahsis mine)

New York Times: US Cites Rise in Violence Along Border With Mexico P

Mexican criminal syndicates are stepping up their attacks on American agents patrolling the border as officials of the Homeland Security Department intensify efforts to stem the flow of immigrants and drugs into the United States, American officials said this week.

In recent months, scores of Border Patrol agents have been fired upon or pelted with large stones as well as with cloth-covered stones that have been doused with flammable liquid and set ablaze. Since October, agents have been attacked in more than 190 cases, officials said on Thursday.

ON THE BORDER: Within hours, violence claims 2 Mexican lawmen:

The police chief of a wealthy suburb of this bustling industrial city was gunned down Monday, shortly after the top police official of another northern Mexican community was kidnapped and shot dead.

Hector Ayala, chief of police for the town of San Pedro Garza Garcia, was driving in nearby Monterrey, whose sprawling metro area is Mexico’s third-largest, when a car overtook his vehicle and opened fire.

Times Online UK: Huge tunnel undermines border

Mexican officials have discovered the deepest tunnel ever gouged under the US border, equipped with electricity and ventilation and concealing two tonnes of cannabis.
The scale of the tunnel — the 21st discovered in more than four years — stunned authorities, who said that the passageway revealed the lengths to which smugglers would go to evade detection.

The underground smuggling route began near the airport in Tijuana, Mexico, and ended 2,400ft (720m) away in a warehouse in San Diego in the US, Michael Unzueta, special agent in charge of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Diego, said. It was unclear how long the tunnel had been in operation, he added.

The 60ft-deep (18m) tunnel had a concrete floor, electric lights that ran down one of the hard soil walls and air piped from the surface. An adult could nearly stand in the 5ft-high (1.5m) shaft. “It was like being in a cavern or a cave,” Mr Unzueta said. “It’s just huge, absolutely incredible.”

Conclusion
The instability along the US-Mexican border areas demonstrate the increasing vulnerability of a US that is no longer protected by its vast oceans nor its once-calm borders. If the narcot-gangs continue its viral infection of the US-Mexico borderlands, intertwining with terrorism and corruption, the US will have a soft and vulnerable underbelly threatened by modern, globally connected and resourceful gangs. Nation-states have difficulty adapting fighting such organizations.

Unlike other countries, such as Russia, the US is not accustomed with border instability issues, it will be challenging for the US to understand how to control it borders - a very basic act for a nation-state. Before it was simply about illegal immigration, but now the stakes are higher: narco-fueled terrorism, narco-fueled corruption, nexus between narco-gangs and Islamic terrorism and so on.

But the situation has not reached the tipping point yet, the US must act boldly and strongly reconsider its “War on Drugs” program as the only effective method to de-escalate the narco-gangs driven violence and the instability it brings.

In military strategy, its trendy to talk about Fourth Generation Warfare (4Gw) and the notion of the “multi-dimensional battlefield”, where understanding religion, social dynamics, culture, economics is as important as counting a state’s number of tanks and airplanes.

Back in November 2005, StrategyUnit discussed posed the question of obesity as a security threat and pointed to the “French Solution” as a possible method to combat obesity in the United States.

The Governor Huckabee of Arkansas (a Republican) seems to be following the same lines of thinking and tackling obesity as an issue of financial and economic security. Nicholas Kristoff of the New York Times, writes the following in “Mike Huckabee Lost 110 Pounds. Ask Him How“:

Arkansas has become a national laboratory for using policy levers to try to encourage healthier lifestyles. Other states and the federal government should adopt the same steps — like curbing soft drinks in schools, informing all parents of their children’s body mass index as a step to encouraging fitness, giving exercise breaks as well as smoking breaks, paying for preventive health checks like mammograms and prostate examinations, subsidizing efforts to quit smoking and seeking to give food stamps more purchasing power when they are used to buy fruits or vegetables.
…
Repeatedly, Mr. Huckabee came back to the same argument: Obesity is reducing not only the quality of life of Americans, but also the fiscal soundness of our government and the competitiveness of our businesses.

‘’This year, G.M. will spend more on health care for employees and pensioners than on steel,'’ Mr. Huckabee noted. ‘’Starbucks will spend more on health care than on coffee beans.'’

Obesity is linked to 112,000 deaths a year in the U.S., according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and leads to an extra $75 billion in direct medical costs. Mr. Mike Huckabee [Governor of Arkansas] argues that it would be worth paying small sums — for a session with a fitness trainer or a diet counselor — to avoid paying the far greater costs of heart disease and diabetes later.

Consider type 2 diabetes — the ailment that afflicted Mr. Huckabee (but which has now gone away, thanks to his regimen of salads and exercise). It has increased tenfold among children in just the last 20 years. (Emphasis Mine)

In today’s State of the Union Address (SotU), President Bush spoke of the need to keep America competitive in the global marketplace. While obesity will not be the singular or the biggest factor in determining a state’s power and competitiveness, we would be foolish to ignore expanding the concept of security and consider a full “multi-dimensional” approach to security and the variables that go into that equation - from sea lanes that carry oil supplies to our diet.

If we are seeing the benefits of approach war studies from a “multi-dimensional” perspective,than why not for the whole realm of security issues?

Its good to see Gov. Huckabee leading the way with Kristoff bringing this up in the media, hopefully more leaders, politicans and pundits will follow suit.

Introduction

Tom Friedman’s recent NYT column, “Axis of Order?”, is a very interesting article not because of its main topic, dealing with Iran, but its recognition that we need to adjust to new realities of the new-core states. In essence, the need for bringing in the new-core states like China, Russia and India into the interntional process to be stakeholders:

Why has this now become a stakeholder test for China, Russia and India? Because if the Iranian mullahs who are now awash in petro- dollars know one thing, it is how to read power and weakness. The Iranians know that the United States has already put all the sanctions on Iran that it can. They seriously doubt that the Europeans will ever impose sanctions. And this is the key even if the Security Council censures Iran, and Europe miraculously joins the U.S. in imposing sanctions, the Iranians assume that China, Russia and India that’s half the world will never follow.

Only if China, Russia and India make it clear that they are not only willing to let Iran’s case be taken up by the Security Council, but that they will also join in stringent economic sanctions, will Iran back down. Western threats, which Iran’s radical president dismissed with the back of his hand Thursday as some little “fuss,” are no longer credible.

Communist Russia and China opposed the United States during the Cold War, and socialist India was neutral. But since the end of the Cold War, all three countries have embraced capitalism and become huge players and beneficiaries of today’s global economy, with Russia providing oil and gas, China manufacturing and India software. All three now have a huge stake in the stability of the international system.

But these countries have basically been cruising along as free riders on a stable international order, which has been maintained largely by the United States, with help from the European Union, NATO and Japan. Both Russia and China have actually used their clout at times to protect international bad actors like Iran, Sudan and North Korea out of a narrow economic self-interest and a kind of residual third-world, gotta-counter-the-Americans reflex.
…
That helped keep Iran on the fence for a while. But now Iran has gotten off the fence, and so must Russia, China and India. For their own sakes, if not America’s, these emerging big three have got to become the Axis of Order. The old cops on the beat can’t deal with the Axis of Evil alone anymore. Pay attention to how this one ends, folks. The structure of the whole post-Cold-War world is at stake.

Commentary

On the Evolving International System

Friedman is correct that the Iran Crisis will be an interesting test on how the new New Core members - India, China, and Russia - will react to a major crisis that is ocurring in: 1) near their neighborhood; and 2) a country with which they have substantial energy and financial connections with.

Calling the trio of New Core states to be an “Axis of Order” is cute, but doesnt address the bigger questions: How do these New Core states fit in to the international system? And, how do we ensure that these New Core states will adjust to the new international system in a way beneficial to the United States and the world?

For the United States, at the very least we need a Big Four Alliance system composing of the UK-US-Japan-India. Thomas Donnelly at AEI has written an excellent essay, Big Four Alliance on this. The only fault is that Donnelly’s focus is too narrow - focusing on anglosphere countries and it needs to be more ambitious. There should be a “Big Four Alliance” for sure, but this should be part of a larger framework of institutions that include the Big Four, as well as, Russia, China and Brazil.

On Iran and Nuclear Proliferation
The bigger question to ask in Iran is: Can we honestly say we can stop nuclear proliferation? And if not, what are our options?

In The Atlantic (Jan/Feb 06), William Langewiesche correctly argues in “The Point of No Return” that in this current world we cannot stop proliferation. Here’s a choice anonymous quote from the article:

You cannot have a world order in which you have five or eight nuclear-weapons states on the one hand, and the rest of the international community on the other. There are many places like Pakistan, poor countries that have legitimate security concerns—every bit as legitimate as yours. And yet you ask them to address those concerns without nuclear weapons—while you have nuclear weapons and you have everything else? It is not a question of what is fair, or right or wrong. It is simply not going to work.

Indeed, the world has changed and with it - to quote Thomas Barnett - we need new “rule-sets”.

Related:
If you would like a good roundup on events surrounding Iran, I suggest checking out this excellent posting by The Moderate Voice by Joe Gandelman.

Summary

Declining birthrates in places like Europe, Japan and Russia and increasing immigration in once homogenous states (like France) is becoming an issue of mainstream discussion. Just last week (January 04 & 05), the WSJ and the Economist both ran articles on the issue of demographics, commenting on the opposite ends but equally faulty premises. One seeing immigration and demographics change as signaling the decline of the West (WSJ) and the other tends to underplay the challenge of declining birthrate and changing demographics (Economist).

The impact of changing demographics are analyzed through the New Republic’s piece on the Netherlands, on the effects of Muslim immigration and the socio-political upheaval (a turn to the Right) it has caused in a state stereotyped as an uber-liberal country.

The challenge facing Netherlands (and other countries) is a major one: it is the challenge of successfully transitioning from a nation-state to a market-state. Indeed, Philip Bobbitt has already foresaw such issues in his seminal work The Shield of Achilles:

“Whereas the nation-state based its legitimacy on a promise to better the material well-being of the nation, the market-state promises to maximize the opportunity of each individual citizen…The current conflict is one of several possible wars of the market-states as they seek to open up societies to trade in commerce, ideas, and immigration which excite hostility in those groups that want to use law to enforce religious or ethnic orthodoxy.” (Emphasis mine)

(more…)

As in update to my previous posting “Barnett’s Path to a U.S. Grand Strategy in Three Paragraphs“, Curzon at “Coming Anarchy” has an excellent post (”The New Allies”):

The United Kingdom is our main ally inside the EU. Althouh a part of the union, Britain does not use the Euro and emphasizes the “one market” aspect of the union, not a unanimous foreign policy. There is no better way to limit EU meddling than by allying with a powerful country inside the union that wish to limit the scope of its power.

Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Baltic Three fear Russia and yet are wary of Franco-German dominance in the EU. The US has brought all these countries into NATO, Poland has the fourth largest number of troops in Iraq, and Bulgaria and Romania are in the final stages of negotiating the installation of US “lilypad” bases.

Ukraine and Georgia look to the EU and the United States as their possible protectors in the face of Russian aggression.

Strong relations with Vietnam, Mongolia, and Japan can be attributed to the fear of China flexing its muscle in the region.

All of these countries save Vietnam have troops in Iraq.

Though its a great overview, I think Curzon could have gone in greater depth in analysis. Most suprisingly for me is his omission of India from the map. Here’s my initial response to his posting, which attempts to inject further analysis on this topic:

The majors players working with the US are the major players of the Angolosphere (India, UK and Australia) and US former quasi-colonies in the East (Japan and possibly Philippines). Israel is also a strategic partner.

The other states are to all some degree buffer states with Poland the exception. In Europe, the Baltic states are too small to matter, while Romanian and Bulgaria don’t count so much other than possible military bases. With its internal political issues, Ukraine is a toss up at this point. Poland is still out to make a name for itself within a New Europe, but I dont know if it’ll ever have even comparable clout to Germany, France and the UK. Not until Poland can pull its GDP up.

The mentioning of Mongolia etc as part of the “Coalition of the Willing” is a joke. Only the UK, Poland, formerly the Ukraine and 1-2 other countries contributed substantial troops. Mongolia sent a token force of less than 300 troops. And the Ukrainian troops were famous for retreating under fire from the Insurgents.

Overall, the map looks pretty lonely. What about Turkey, South Korea, Latin America (lots of lng and oil) or Canada (possible large source of future oil)?

Heck, what about China as a limited partner? We have common interests in the security of the sealanes (where oil is transported); stability in the Korean Peinusula and also in the overall world; our mutual economic relationship direct and indirect; and stability in energy supplies.

Also, the question of where Russia fits into the “New World Order” is still in question. Russia has historically needed to expend its sphere of influence to feel secure. Indeed, the U.S. needs a stronger Russia to keep Central Asia and the Caucasus in line, while also holding a check against China.

Iraq maybe a future partner, but only fools would consider this so early in the game. Overall, we are pretty isolated in the Middle East, Israel excepted. With Iraq, Iran is a major puzzle to U.S. foreign policy there.

In the future, China may or may not be the next superpower, but no doubt it will be an even bigger player in the world. We need a major player in every region, especially those growing in power, e.g. China and Brazil. We can either ride the wave to the future or try to stubbornly stop it like fools.

Overall, the US is in a diplomatic low point, but it also presents the real partners we can depend on, mainly the UK and Austrialia. I would hope that soon we can add India (a new raising power) into this category.

Too many people are stuck in the old ways of thinking, be it ideaologues like neoconservatives to International ANSWER or jingoism of the Anti-China folks. Thomas Barnett is not one of them.

In his blog posting today, Thomas Barnett succinctly offers a very different perspective and game plan on what the U.S. must pursue to adjust to a true “New World Order” (in the words of Bush senior):

We should be promoting India as a regional security pillar in the Middle East, but we do not. We should be pushing hard for Russia’s fully admittance into NATO and some prioritized pathway into the EU, but we do not. We should be encouraging China’s use of the ASEAN group to create the genesis of an Asian Union, with us included in a special status, but we do not. Instead, we promote China’s encirclement through military alliances and then express surprise that China seeks to do the same to us.

The dynamics of the 21st century security environment will inevitably push the U.S. to greater reliance upon, and alliance with, Russia, India, China and Brazil. This is simply too big of a change for the current administration, just too far of a conceptual leap. So we end up waiting out the second Bush administration, hoping that we don’t fall too far behind, strategically speaking, in this process.

Meanwhile, Iran continues to look ripe for the connecting. When your best and brightest all seek to make a run for greener pastures, like Dubai just across the gulf, then it’s clear the current regime is failing. We can either prop it up by obsessing over the WMD issue, repeating the same myopic focus we had with Iraq, or we can judge the case on its merits and kill that tired authoritarian regime with economic and social connectivity.

Gone are the days when we think of state power in a state v. state way.

As mentioned earlier in StrategyUnit (”Events in Context: Paris Riots and SAFTA“), globalization has forced the national-state to evolve. While I think the overall Weberian notion of the nation-state still hold, nation-states must include greater connectivity (internall, externally and overall in the world) as part of its security considerations, and an increasing one at that.

Introduction

Koffi Annan’s push for UN reform has come and gone. Indeed, as the Washington Post reported last week, there are already moves to push for candidates as Annan retires on December 2005.

But it’s unlikely that Koffi Annan can make any reforms in his remaining tenure; and indeed, it must be said that it is also unlikely for any future Secretary General to enact any ambitious reforms. It’s a Herculean task that is highly improbable, unless the big 5 work in concert.

In today’s NYT, Ruth Wedgwood (from John Hopkins University) purposes to bring market forces to reform the UN:

Monopoly can be corrosive for any institution, and many of the problems addressed by the United Nations can be and have been handled in other forums. Washington and Turtle Bay would both be aided by recognizing the virtues of “competitive multilateralism.”

Wedgwood goes through the two main benefits of “competitive multilateralism”: 1) More policy options for the U.S. instead of a “Go with the UN or go it alone” strategy; and 2) that competition would reinvigorate the UN:

If the United Nations can’t reform on its own, America needs to support other multilateral venues. In fact, our seeking parallel paths to international intervention can help the United Nations as well.
…
The idea of competitive multilateralism avoids the stark choice of going alone or going to the United Nations. America must still support the purposes of the United Nations; it is a historic alliance, a product of World War II, and remains the only all-inclusive political organization around. America enjoys prerogatives as a permanent Security Council member that would be hard to gain again. But we do have some flexibility in how we choose to approach international cooperation.
..
In the Internet age, there is no single venue for cooperation. This is true for politics and business alike. The United Nations may gain a second wind and a youthful gait if it discovers that it has some real competition.

Commentary

While I find Wedgwood’s perspective very interesting, there several weaknesses I need to point out:

1) I am not sure how the UN responds to any sort of “market pressure” - the pressure that creates innovation in a marketplace. It is not a single organization with one voice per se, but rather represents (or the result of) 191 different nations vying for a voice and power in a large international organization.

In a normal market situation, if say the U.S. (the “customer”) stopped paying attention to the UN, the UN might make concessions to bring the U.S. back. But at this current trend of anti-Americanism around the globe, no one can honestly see China, France and Russia (UK maybe excepted) offering concessions for the U.S. to come back.

When Wedgwood speaks ‘The idea of competitive multilateralism avoids the stark choice of going alone or going to the United Nations”, I would assume that she alludes to the War in Iraq. But, what organization could the U.S. have reached out to? NATO? OSCE? League of Arab Nations?

Indeed, President Bush said that UN action on Iraq would define its legitimacy. But in the end, the U.S. went along with its “coalition of the willing” and it is the U.S. that today has no legitimacy.

2) Who wants a stronger UN? In any area, some nation would lost out. Stronger intervention powers for the UN would not be in US interests when Indonesia annexed East Timor. I doubt China would be too eager for the UN to intervene in Sudan, where it gets its oil. If more transparency is provided, that would limit the ability for nations to use cloak-and-dagger tricks to gain the upper hand in the UN.

In an effort to fit every nations’ interest, the UN is left to be the lowest common denominator - rarely doing anything bold that would upset any of the powers or a bloc of smaller ones.

3) States are already using organizations outside the UN. When the U.S. led an intervention force against Yugoslavia over Kosovo, it was done under the NATO - not UN. When China and Russia issued a statement asking the U.S. to leave Central Asia, they did it under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization - not the U.N.

Sometimes the U.S. has been somewhat successful such as with U.S.-led NATO action in Kosovo and other times lukewarm to disastrous like the “Coalition of the Willing”.

Ruth Wedgwood is right to say the U.N. should not have a monopoly in what defines the international community and the U.S. should nurture relationships with other international organizations for its own foreign policy goals. But, it wont be catalyst for U.N. reform.

Indeed, it can lead to the fragmentation of the international community space - with major power getting “legitimacy” for its policies from whatever regional or international organizations out there.

In the end, its not impossible to reform the U.N. - but U.S. using the dynamics of competition and market forces will not be the answer.

Introduction
A week back, John Robb did a concise overview of Moises Naim’s Illict:

“Moises copiously documents how globalization and rampant interconnectivity has led to the rise of vast global smuggling networks….He shows how these networks make money through an arbitrage of the differences between the legal systems (and a desire to prosecute) of our isolated islands of sovereignty. He also shows how their flagrant use of corruption can enable them to completely take over sections of otherwise functional states. ” (Emphasis mine)

As mentioned in Paris Riots: Welcome to Netwar?, Manwaring’s “Street Gangs: The New Urban Insurgency” gives an example of what Naim describes - but in the context of netwar, fourth generation gangs and the nexus between narco-gangs and weak governments.

While Manwaring gives examples of distant states in Central America and South America, Ted Carpenter brings the issue a little closer in his 15 Novmeber 2005 article: “Mexico Is Becoming the Next Colombia“.

Indeed, he points to the example of Nuevo Laredo. In June 2005 this year, the Mexican federal government effectively lost control of Nuevo Laredo, a city of over 400,000 (just across Laredo, Texas), and had to send over 800 federal troops to effectively regain control from the narco-corrupted local government and law enforcement. This led to a short-lived gun battle with the Nuevo Laredo police and the federal troops.

”Mexico Is Becoming the Next Colombia”

Here’s a general synopsis of Carpenter’s article:

The Colombian-ization

Militarization of Cartels. Cartels are increasingly employing former military elite forces, Mexico’s Special Mobile Force, as their assassins and hitmen. Carpenter warns this increasingly resembles Columbia in the 1980s and 1990s, which proved disastrous for Columbia’s government and people.

Corruption and the Decline of Government Control. Carpenter cites the showdown between federal troops and law enforcement authorities in Nuevo Laredo as a completely breakdown of authority of the government and its ability to maintain effective independent control from the narco-traffickers. Carpenter goes on to cite maybe other examples, including more commonly known cities like Cancun and Tijuana.

While an extreme case, the temporary loss of Nuevo Laredo has shown that nacro-corruption is endemic in Mexico – resulting in losing government control of a major city. Indeed, in 1997, the Mexican drug czar General Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo was arrested after three months his appointment for taking bribes the drug lord Amado Fuentes.

Consequences

Deteriorating Cycle.More corruption – unaddressed – only leads to more corruption. And with the nearly bountiful supply of funds and resources of the narco-gangs, this will simply lead to a further spiraling effect that weakens the state of independent control and makes it more beholden to narco-gang interests.

Spillover Effect. Carpenter notes that violence has already been spilling over to the southwestern US states, with law-enforcements officials in Dallas particularly seeing gang violence. Carpenter also cites problems in New Mexico. While not particularly mentioned by Carpenter, there is the fear of such groups linking up with Al-Qaida or similar groups for attacking the United States.

Commentary

Carpenter’s article caught my attention because it strongly relates to: 1) Moise Naim’s “Five Wars of Globalization” article; 2) The Unwinnable Escalation of the “War on Drugs”; 3) Manwearing’s article on Netwar – focusing on nacro-gangs in Central/South America; and 4) Andrew V. Papachristos on the Viral Growth of Gangs.

1. Globalization Wars

In February 2003, Moises Naim wrote “The Five Wars of Globalization Wars”( http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2&page=0), outlining other major challenges globalization present to states, other than that of Al-Qaida and global islamist terrorism:

1. War on Drugs
2. Arms Trafficking
3. Intellectual Property
4. Alien Smuggling
5. Money Laundering

Naim lists the characteristics network-based of these groups, giving them a great advantage over the state:

1. They are not bound by geography.
2. They defy traditional notions of sovereignty.
3. They pit governments against market forces.
4. They pit bureaucracies against networks.

The narco-gangs in Colombia to Mexico definitely hit on all four points.

2. Escalation of the Drug War. “Plan Colombia” – placing Colombian troops on the offensive with U.S. support and with an attempt to offer alternative crops to plant - has not resolved the overall goal of curtailing supply, only serving to shift the cocaine production from Colombia to other places in the Andes.

By forcing on escalating the Drug War on mainly militarily terms, it has also only serves to force the narco-gang networks to evolve more sophisticatedly and drive deeper in bed with corrupt officials.

Here’s a quick except on the growing sophistication of these narco-groups:

Feeding this habit is a global supply chain that uses everything from passenger jets that can carry shipments of cocaine worth $500 million in a single trip to custom-built submarines that ply the waters between Colombia and Puerto Rico. To foil eavesdroppers, drug smugglers use “cloned” cell phones and broadband radio receivers while also relying on complex financial structures that blend legitimate and illegitimate enterprises with elaborate fronts and structures of cross-ownership.” (1)

Escalation of this was is not the goal, it should be 1) de-escalation of the war; and 2) shifting the way the war is being fought (away from military means).

3. Third Generation gangs. The nacro-gangs in Mexico are turning to classical 3rd Gen Gangs. Third Generation gangs operations at a global level and political goals. In most cases, the political goals were focused on helping attain market protection for these organizations. As expounded in more depth by Manwaring’s “Street Gangs: The New Urban Insurgency”:

This political action is intended to provide security and freedom of movement for gang activities. As a consequence, the third generation gang and its leadership challenge the legitimate state monopoly on the exercise of control and use of violence within a given political territory.

The infiltration and alignment of parts of the governments in the Central and South Americas (at the differing times) with nacro-traffickers/narco-terrorist are examples of this. Unfortunately, so was the dire situation in Nuevo Laredo. Indeed, we cannot simply call the narco-traffickers as pure non-state actors, as with time – they evolve to corrupt and control elements of the states.

(As to not repeat previous material, I strongly suggest checking out Paris Riots: Welcome to Netwar? for brief over and links to more indepth material.)

4. US Policy and the Viral Growth of Gangs. While not directly addressed by Manwaring, Naim or Carpenter - the U.S. policy of deporting gang members who are illegal aliens has only led to the proliferation and globalization of gangs:

“Since the mid-1990s, U.S. immigration policy has dramatically boosted the proliferation of gangs throughout Latin America and Asia by deporting tens of thousands of immigrants with criminal records back to their home countries each year, including a growing number of gang members. In 1996, around 38,000 immigrants were deported after committing a crime; by 2003, the number had jumped to almost 80,000.
…
In the case of MS-13, the U.S. government has deported hundreds of members, many of whom continue to illegally migrate back and forth, often carrying goods or people with them. Those that remain in their home countries are almost sure to connect with other deported gang members, and authorities in these countries say they are responsible for a large upswing in crime and violence. In a sense, U.S. immigration policy has amounted to unintentional state-sponsored gang migration. Rather than solving the gang problem, the United States may have only spread it. ” (2)

Closing Remarks

The U.S. and its “War on Drugs” are partially the cause of the escalation of the drug war. The US and other states have escalated the war, only to encourage the development and spread of fourth generation gangs, increasing the corruption of governments - and the growing nexus of gangs and corrupt officials leading to a narco-state.

Naim has stated that “in 1999, the United Nations’ “Human Development Report” calculated the annual trade in illicit drugs at $400 billion, roughly the size of the Spanish economy and about 8 percent of world trade.” (1) So, there are a vast group of quasi non-state actors – the Nacro-Network – with a GDP equivalent to Spain.

With the economy the size of Spain at stake, any attempt to diminish to reach of these narco-gangs will have to be found in inventive ways beyond military means.

In February 2005, the Economist declares that: “In five years, Plan Colombia has offered no evidence to weaken The Economist’s conviction that cocaine should be legalized (though its use, like that of tobacco, should be discouraged).”(3)

Indeed, if the United States was to take the Drug War in a big picture view of security threats, they may have to consider some sort of decriminalization of drug use as the means to undercut the power of these gangs.

The El Rukns gang in Chicago represents the worse that can happen. In 1986, El Rukn were contracted out by Libya to carryout acts of terrorism, but were caught before their plans were enacted.

Remembering El Rukns, there are fears that Al-Qaida will attempt similar plans with narco-gangs. There have been rumors of secret talks between MS-13 (orignally based in Honduras) and Al-Qaida on smuggling material and persons in to the United States. Ironically, the deportation of MS-13 members by the U.S. has helped grow the network.

If Mexico slides towards Colombization, two threats will gather strength: 1) the number and strength of potential gangs that could work with groups Al-Qaida will increase; and 2) the spill over of violence and nacro-trafficking from Mexico to the southwestern U.S. states.

While Mexico isn’t Colombia yet, these major threats are more than sufficient enough for the U.S. to strongly reconsider its approach to the War on Drugs and its own domestic drug policies.

Sources:
(1) Moises Naim, “The Five Wars of Globalization Wars, Foreign Policy, February 2003
(2) Andrew V. Papachristos, “Gang World”, Foreign Policy, March/April 2005
(3) “The drug “war” in Latin America”, Economist, 10 February 2005

Howdy All Y’All…Happy Thanksgiving Day.

Here’s quick Weekend Reading…just in case you need a break from all that turkey and gravy. By the way, I’ve been doing some light posting this past two weeks, but I’ll start going back to the normal beat of things soon.

OxBlog on Jame’s Fellow’s “Why Iraq Has No Army” in December’s Atlantic Monthly

David Adensik does an analysis of James Fallows’ cover story in the Atlantic monthly “Why Iraq Has No Army”. The article has caused such a buzz that even “George Stephanopoulous attempted to use the article to cross-examine Donald Rumsfeld on Sunday morning.”

I agree with David Adesnik that despite the hype of a title, Fallows doesnt really say anything new nor goes into depth about anything groundbreaking. Adesnik also the lack of definately strong position in the article (from critical/pessimistic to hawkish) as reflective of the overall difficult position of the Democrats:

“So is there a third way that will allow Democrats to both criticize the war and be seen as hawkish? Yes there is. They can click their heels three times and say “I agree with John McCain.”"

The article is available for subscribers only, but if you would like a copy let me know and I can email it over. And, dont forget your local library (via online database) may carry a copy.

Oil Drum’s “There’s A New Kid In Town — Iran Versus Kazakhstan”

I’ve done an extensive research on Kazakhstan’s foreign policy and energy resources as part of my thesis in college, so its interesting (but not too surprising) to see Oil Drum’s “There’s A New Kid In Town — Iran Versus Kazakhstan” - which boldy proclaims the growing importance of Kazakhstan OVER Iran on energy resources:

Iran is still a giant and Kazakhstan is a middle tier country among the world’s oil suppliers. Iran produced 4081/kbd in 2004, 5.2% of the world’s total while Kazakhstan produced 1295/kbd, a paltry 1.6% percent of the whole. Iran has 132.5 billon barrels in proven reserves, 11.1% of the world’s total while Kazakhstan has 39.6 billion barrels, a 3.3% world share. But let’s look into our chrystal ball to see what the future may look like.
…
Around the years 2008 to 2009 period, Kazakhstan is exporting more total oil supply to the OECD countries, China and (perhaps) India than Iran is (Empahsis mine)

Eurasianet’s “China joins the Central Asian Base Race”

Stephen Blank of Eurasianet writes on China’s recent move to secure a military base in Kyrgyzstan and even in Uzbekistan, which the US has recently been kicked out from.

While Blank focuses on Chinese miltiary presence on Central Asia, we should not forget the joint Chinese-Pakistan naval base in Gwadar, Pakistan.

Beijing’s search for a base has occurred against a backdrop of growing regional militarization and an intensification of great power rivalry in Central Asia. Thus, China’s requests of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, even if made sotto voce, have served to heighten the geopolitical jockeying in the region. It also suggests a growing willingness entertain the use of the military instrument to address regional issues. This cannot be considered a good sign.

While SCO (which includes Russia, China all all major Central Asian states) asked for the US militray to leave Central Asia, Blank correctly points out that Russia come out more strongly against a Chinese over a US presence in Central Asia.

In the UK: “Gas industry on brink of winter crisis”

The OilDrum and EnergyBulletin have been covering the less known natural gas issues that faces the US, UK and others, but here’s a mainstream news on UK’s winter energy crisis:

The country’s gas industry is on a knife edge this winter and could tip into crisis if there is a major breakdown in its ageing North Sea fields and pipelines, analysts said on Thursday.

Europe’s biggest consumer is fast running out of gas from the fields that once made it self sufficient and kept prices among the lowest in Europe. Today, UK gas is the world’s costliest fuel and winter supply will be the tightest in memory.Government ministers are under pressure to explain how one of the world’s richest nations has left its energy policy hostage to the weather and ageing North Sea equipment.

Polish Plumbers: Handsome and Good for the Economy?

From the BBC: The “Polish Plumber” was the catch-phrase of the French “Non” referendum on the constitution, and later became a tongue-in-cheek slogan for the Polish tourist board.

Out of all the arguments against immigration, economic fears - from “natives” losing their jobs to wage depression - seems like one of the more reasonable “anti” arguments, especially when compared other arguments that touch on racism and xenophobia.

Thanks to the recent EU Enlargement, the world had a chance to have a sample lab on immigration: 1) England, Ireland and Sweden who let in EU Central/Eastern Europeans 2) The rest of the EU, fearing “Polish Plumbers”, did not

Via Virginia Postrel, Thomas Fuller of IHT reports on the results so far of the experiment:

It turns out the doomsayers were partly right: Nearly a year and a half after the expansion of the European Union, floods of East Europeans have washed into Britain.

Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians and other Easterners are arriving at an average rate of 16,000 a month, a result of Britain’s decision to allow unlimited access to the citizens of the eight East European countries that joined the EU last year.

They work as bus drivers, farmhands and dentists, as waitresses, builders, and saleswomen; they are transforming parts of London into Slavic and Baltic enclaves where pickles and Polish beer are stacked in delicatessens and Polish can be heard on the streets almost as often as English.

But the doomsayers were also wrong: Multicultural Britain has absorbed these workers like a sponge. Unemployment is still rock-bottom at 4.7 percent, and economic growth continues apace.

Since May 2004, more than 230,000 East Europeans have registered to work in Britain, many more than the government expected, in what is shaping up to be one of the great migrations of recent decades.

Yet the government says it still has shortages of 600,000 workers in fields like nursing and construction.
(more…)

While abating (only 400+ cars burning a night), the Paris Riots continue passing a two-week milestone.

As I have mentioned, the rioters use of blogs and sms-texting for coordination and planning have been a demonstration of “netwar” on a small scale. Many have taken the next logical step and declare the Paris Riots as another example of the “decline of the state”. Indeed, pundits have long been proclaiming that Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) as an excellent example of this, and only made possible by globalization (specifically the proliferation of low-cost technology).

The recent Amman Bombings in Jordan, a state which possesses a strong security apparatus, fell victim to another non-state actor, Al-Zarqawi.

And so, many procliam that very definition of a state (Max Weber’s notion of the legitimate monopoly of force over a given territory) maybe losing some sway and with it withers the nation-state…

But while the monopoly of violence and information seemingly grows less, in the other direction we have been seeing an increasing in regionalization – that is, countries forming in to blocs. These blocs are typically economic (NAFTA) but can take security-related or political dimesions (EU and SCO).

Just yesterday, Prime Minister Dr. Singh of India called for the creation of the South Asian Free Trade Association (SAFTA), which would include India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Maldives. The Prime Minister declared:

Regional economic integration is more about finding an engine of growth rather than just promoting trade. Countries — developed as well as developing — have looked to regional economic integration as a means of strengthening their economic competitiveness and as an engine of economic growth in the recent years. (source, hat tip to Publius Pundit.)

(more…)

StrategyUnit Note: Finally a posting that only mentions France for its take on food, not immigration or riots.
———————————

Source

Introduction

One of my favorite dishes is steak tartar (raw ground beef with raw egg and spices). I know its probably not healthy nor safe - but I accept responsibility for whatever happens. That’s the red-meat Jacksonian self-made man part of me.

But, what happens when one person’s foolishness becomes a nation’s? And creates negative repurcassions on a national level?

Call me crazy, but I am talking about diet and obesity as cross-spectrum national issue for the US (and other states).

Since 1980s, there has been a dramatic increase in obesity in the US. Approximately two-thirds of Americans are said to be overweight or obese and has been correlated with the increase in weight.

Taking a pessimistic view, obesity can translate to: diseases and loss productivity (sick days), less quality manpower for the military, higher energy/transportation cost and with that pollution.

Does this warrant sufficient intervention by the Government? And is there a point when it does?
(more…)

Everyone has this topic covered, so I decided to post this one picture from Iraq The Model’s web site:

“Father and son, post voting.”

Links to check out:
Winds Of Change - “The referendum: the beginning of the end”
Oxblog - “WaPo VS. NYT: WHAT HAPPENED TODAY IN IRAQ?”
Belmont Club: The End of th Beginning