“High Stakes South of the Border”

Two of the many benefits of subscribing to Stratfor are (1) its reporting on geopolitical trends not yet visible to the mainstream media, and (2) it provides a window into the thinking of America’s elites (Stratfor’s customers, senior business and government officials with whom it must stay in synch).

We get both in a new report:  “High Stakes South of the Border.”  This continues their excellent reporting during the past few years on the disintegration of Mexico’s polity — another “decline of the state” in progress.  Just as interesting, Stratfor’s conclusion shows its (and our) assumption of America’s unlimited power and resources.

U.S. forces are largely preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan. While it would take a great deal to tip the scale toward a U.S. military intervention in Mexico, we may now be at a point where that has to be considered given what is at stake.

“War With Iran Might Be Closer Than You Think”

Philip Giraldi warns of an immanent strike by the US at Iran, in a post on 9 May 2008 at The American Conservative blog. For your convenience, it is printed in full below — along with his somewhat similar warning dated 1 August 2005, from The American Conservative magazine. Such warnings have circulated for several years, in various forms.

That they have been consistently wrong does not mean that they will never prove correct. Perhaps the excitement with which some folks greet each new rumor is undeserved. Instead we should rejoice that the rumors concern small strikes at training camps, not strikes at Iran’s best-guarded strategic industrial sites.

Warning #1

There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation.

A snapshot of our engines of innovation, as they develop new energy sources

Here are six of the dozens of new companies working to develop one type of new energy source (biofuels). This does not mean that we can ignore peak oil. It does mean that we can avoid planning for peak oil.  It does not even mean that than any of these projects will achieve commercial success on a meaningful scale.

This collection of articles about biofuels over a two week period shows our powerful engines of innvation at work.  It just means that we have tools and options.  To make use of these tools, we need to do research about our use of energy and available sources, to build models that provide a sound foundation for large-scale crash programs. We are on the clock, as peak will likely coming while we are still preparing for it.

1. “Are Backyard Ethanol Brewers an Answer to High-Priced Gas?“, Scientific American (9 May 2008)
2. “Corvallis Cellulosic Ethanol Start-Up Receives Energy Grant“, Daily Journal of Commerce (8 May 2008)
3. “Swiss yeast developer Butalco gets financial boost” Ethanol Producer Magazine (6 May 2008)
4. “G.M. Invests in Second Ethanol Process“, New York Times (1 May 2008)
5. “BlueFire to Break Ground“, GreenTech Media (8 May 2008)
6. “Sweet New Fuel“, Forbes (23 April 2008)

Contents, with excepts

Is Iraq like “Groundhog Day” or “whack a mole”?

On of the great questions about the Iraq War concerns finding the right metaphor.  Is it the movie “Groundhog Day”, in which Bill Murray repeats the same day endlessly — until he achieves enlightenment?  Or is it the Long Game, round after round of whack-a-mole?  Compare and contrast these news stories, highlighted today by Juan Cole at Informed Comment.   Mosul is Iraq’s second largest city.  Which story is dated January and which May?  How do they differ?  Post your verdict in the comments.

I.  “Iraq moves troops and tanks to Mosul“, Reuters — Excerpt:

Iraqi troop reinforcements will arrive in the northern city of Mosul on Sunday while tanks and helicopters are being sent for a big operation against al Qaeda militants, security officials said.  Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced on Friday that Iraqi security forces were preparing for a final offensive against al Qaeda in Iraq to push the Sunni Islamist militants out of their last major urban stronghold.

Your COIN at work

 I love reading about our awesome new COIN tactics.  Sophisticated info ops, winning hearts and minds of the locals – so unlike our Vietnam era tactics of

1. intensive use of air power, 
2. sweeps (search and destroy or clear), and
3. training popular front militia.

So we turn to this week’s news stories to see COIN done right.

I.  “Residents says Iraqi soldiers warn them to leave Sadr City“, AP  (8 May 2008) — “Residents say Iraqi soldiers warning them to leave homes in Sadr City for security reasons. … go to Sadr City to go to nearby soccer stadiums {for how long?, in what conditions?}.”

II.  “resource tradeoffs and the war on ideas“, March Lynch posted at Abu Aardvark (9 May 2008) — “the US government is cutting loose one of its best analysts of al-Qaeda’s use of the internet in order to save money which doesn’t even amount to a rounding error in the Pentagons budget.”

The articles and excerpts 

Weekend Reading; see how the world changed last week

Contents

I.  “The Trillion-Dollar War“, Reason (May 2008) – “The War on Terror is now more expensive than Vietnam or World War I—but the dishonest way Washington is paying for it may prove costliest of all.”

II.  “The Uneven Playing Field“, New York Times Magazine  (11 May 2008) – An illustration of the militarization of our culture.  Warriors without a war.

III.  ”My ‘Racial Harassment’ Nightmare“, New York Post ( 9 May 2008) — Freedom slips away quietly, in incidents like this.

IV.  ”‘Deafening’ silence on analyst story“, Politico (8 may 208) — Pity those of our fellow-citizens who rely on the major TV networks for their news, as they learn all the news that is “fit to see.”  We are forutnate to have so many information media; this is an important bulwark of our freedom.

V.  ”Taking the War to the Mexican State, 4GW Style“, Zenpundit  (9 May 2008) — Excellent analysis of ominous trends in our southern neighbor.

VI.  “Taking stock of the dollar’s global role“, Brad Setser, RGE Monitor  (11 May 2008) — The role of the US dollar is imo one of the central geopolitical questions of our time, like the fate of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was before WWI. 

VI.  “The de facto nationalization of the global financial system“, Brad Setser  (8 May 2008) — Wave bye-bye to the global free market system.  This is imo one of the great under-covered stories of the decade.

The articles and excerpts

America takes another step towards the “Long War”

Summary:  This report is just a sketch, some thoughts that hopefully spark discussion about America’s rush to war. It proposes the following:

1. There is as yet insufficient evidence that America is threatened sufficiently to justify the large-scale mobilization of citizens that we call “war.”
2. There is insufficient public evidence that al Qaeda or Islamic jihadists are so serious a threat.
3. The war was begun in Iraq and Afghanistan with inadequate analysis and planning, and those errors continue to this day.
4. Even if this threat is of sufficient magnitude, war is not necessarily the solution.
5. To the extent that force is required, at present we are not equipped to employ it in the manner needed. A scimitar makes a fine weapon, but a poor scalpel.

Introduction

Indeed, the safest road to Hell is the gradual one - the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.
The Screwtape Letters, C. S. Lewis, Chapter 12 (1959)

The flood of information and commentary available today can obscure events of the greatest significance. We see that today, as America takes another step towards the long war. Without thought or reflection, without debate by our elected officials, without our consent. In many ways just like the Cold War.

If the US starts a new long war, it is our war - for good or ill. Congress and the President are our agents no matter how they conduct our affairs. As bin Laden reminds us, following our leaders does not relieve us of responsibility.  Wars put all that we that we have, all that we are, on the table to be won or lost. Before we enlist ourselves and our children in a new war, let’s think. Is the wager worthwhile? Are the odds in our favor? Are there alternatives other than war?

In the past we have neglected these questions to our sorrow.

Repeating history

US entered the Cold War with the sending of the “Long Telegram” in February 1946 by George F. Kennan, the State Department’s Minister-Counselor at the Moscow Embassy. In this and later works he presented evidence that the Soviet Union considered itself an enemy of the US, and that our best response was a long-term policy of containment (largely economic in nature).  The American people learned of their government’s decision to confront the USSR only in July 1947, when Kennan pseudonymous published “The Sources of Soviet Conduct” in Foreign Affairs.

Similarly, today the US government may have enlisted America in to another long war. Cited here are a variety of official documents, but this paper focuses on a recent work by David J. Kilcullen. Officer in the Australian Army, anthropologist, top expert in counter-insurgency. (See the appendix for a brief biography.)

{ more }

Good news about the 21st century, a counterbalance to the doomsters

As a breath of fresh air after the previous post, I recommend reading this aritcle.  I strongly recommend reading this article.  A brief excerpt gives the flavor of the contents.

“In the Air - Who says big ideas are rare?“, Malcolm Gladwell, The New Yorker  (12 May 2008)

Nathan Myhrvold met Jack Horner on the set of the “Jurassic Park” sequel in 1996. Horner is an eminent paleontologist, and was a consultant on the movie. Myhrvold was there because he really likes dinosaurs. Between takes, the two men got to talking, and Horner asked Myhrvold if he was interested in funding dinosaur expeditions.

… In Montana, which is prime dinosaur country, people had been hiking around and looking for bones for at least a hundred years. But Horner wanted to keep trying. So he and Myhrvold put together a number of teams, totalling as many as fifty people. They crossed the Fort Peck reservoir in boats, and began to explore the Montana badlands in earnest. They went out for weeks at a time, several times a year. They flew equipment in on helicopters. They mapped the full dinosaur ecology-bringing in specialists from other disciplines. And they found dinosaur bones by the truckload.

… People weren’t finding dinosaur bones, and they assumed that it was because they were rare. But-and almost everything that Myhrvold has been up to during the past half decade follows from this fact-it was our fault. We didn’t look hard enough. … “Our expeditions have found more T. rex than anyone else in the world,” Myhrvold said. “From 1909 to 1999, the world found eighteen T. rex specimens. From 1999 until now, we’ve found nine more.”

Spreading the news: the end is nigh!

Peak Oil as end of civilization is a hot meme.  Its spread illustrates how ideas propagate though our society.

“Why I hope the search for extraterrestrial life finds nothing“, Tim Bostrom, Technology Review (May/June 2008) – This is a long and subtle analysis of the Fermi Paradox.  One section of the essay discusses end-time scenarios:

The other possibility is that the Great Filter is still ahead of us. This would mean that some great improbability prevents almost all civilizations at our current stage of technological development from progressing to the point where they engage in large-scale space colonization. For example, it might be that any sufficiently advanced civilization discovers some tech­nology–perhaps some very powerful weapons tech­nology–that causes its extinction.

In “Fermi’s Paradox and the End of Cheap Oil“, Tim O’Reilly focuses on this section, connecting it to a trendy doomster movie:

Peak Oil Doomsters debunked, end of civilization called off

Summary: a brief analysis of Matt Savinar’s Life After the Oil Crash. Are we doomed? Probably not. My title is, of course, fun but absurd. Peak oil is too vast a subject, the range of expert opinion too wide, for any blog post to pose as more than a introduction — showing one perspective of the many possible. Still, I believe this makes a good case for betting that peak oil will not result in depression and war. Please see the conclusion at the end for caveats, and the links at the end for more information.

“Are We ‘Running Out’? I Thought There Was 40 Years of the Stuff Left”

Oil will not just “run out” because all oil production follows a bell curve. This is true whether we’re talking about an individual field, a country, or on the planet as a whole.

Oil is increasingly plentiful on the upslope of the bell curve, increasingly scarce and expensive on the down slope. The peak of the curve coincides with the point at which the endowment of oil has been 50 percent depleted. Once the peak is passed, oil production begins to go down while cost begins to go up.

In practical and considerably oversimplified terms, this means that if 2005 was the year of global Peak Oil, worldwide oil production in the year 2030 will be the same as it was in 1980. However, the world’s population in 2030 will be both much larger (approximately twice) and much more industrialized (oil-dependent) than it was in 1980. Consequently, worldwide demand for oil will outpace worldwide production of oil by a significant margin. As a result, the price will skyrocket, oil dependant economies will crumble, and resource wars will explode.

The issue is not one of “running out” so much as it is not having enough to keep our economy running. In this regard, the ramifications of Peak Oil for our civilization are similar to the ramifications of dehydration for the human body. … A loss of as little as 10-15 pounds of water may be enough to kill him. In a similar sense, an oil based economy such as ours doesn’t need to deplete its entire reserve of oil before it begins to collapse. A shortfall between demand and supply as little as 10 to 15 percent is enough to wholly shatter an oil-dependent economy and reduce its citizenry to poverty. …

Before booking flights to New Zealand or Tasmania, let’s consider this carefully.

I. These forecasts seem very confident. Are they credible?

Does Savinar subscribe to the Psychic Hotline? Energy forecasts — esp. those warning of Peak Oil — have been notoriously wrong for many decades. Has the future suddenly become clear as glass? Let us parse the third paragraph on this home page.

Quotes of the day, helping us better see our world

Contents

I.  See the seeds of inflation sprout and grow!

II.  Blood libel of the week

III.  A statement by General Petaeus  of the seldom said but blindingly obvious about occupying foreign nations

The quotes and links

I.  See the seeds of inflation sprout and grow!

Another step towards war with Iran?

Summary:  The Bush Administration has authorized covert offensives against Iran, taking another step towards war.  Or so we are told.  Again.  The Bush Administration and US military officers have long waged a campaign of words against Iran, firing salvos of heated rhetoric.  But the Left has done its part to fan fears with waves of rumors during the past 3 years about covert ops, cut cables as a prelude to war, and annoucements that routine movements of carriers and expeditionary forces signal that the dogs of war have been unleashed. 

The most recent “hot” news is “Secret Bush “Finding” Widens War on Iran“, Andrew Cockburn, Counterpunch (2 May 2008) — “Democrats Okay Funds for Covert Ops”   Opening:

Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, “unprecedented in its scope.”

I was wrong about SecDef Gates - here is a more accurate view of him

I apologize to those of you who read yesterday’s post about Secretary of Defense Gates.  I read his recent speeches with my mind closed.  Fortunately Tom Engelhardt sees what the rest of us overlook.  Consider Gates’ 4 April speech at West Point.

Last year I read Partners in Command, a book by Mark Perry. It is an account of the unique relationship between Eisenhower and General George Marshall … one of the things I found compelling is how they were both influenced by another senior Army officer who is not nearly as well-known and in fact, as a reader of history, I had never heard of.

His name is Fox Conner, a tutor and mentor to both Eisenhower and Marshall. … From Conner, Marshall and Eisenhower learned much about leadership and the conduct of war. Conner had three principles of war for a democracy that he imparted to Eisenhower and Marshall. They were:

• Never fight unless you have to;
• Never fight alone;
• And never fight for long.

All things being equal, these principles are pretty straightforward and strategically sound. We’ve heard variants of them in the decades since, perhaps most recently in the Powell doctrine.

But of course, all things are not equal, particularly when you think about the range and complexity of the threats facing America today, from the wars we are in to the conflicts we are most likely to fight. So tonight I’d like to discuss with you how you should think about applying Fox Conner’s three axioms to the security challenges of the 21st century, the challenges where you will be on the front lines.

Gates then explains that we will no longer follow these principles — and will do the opposite.  This is the build-up to the heart of the speech (bold emphasis added):

A militant America, ready for war with Iran

Who Stopped the Talks?“, posted at Abu Muqawama (6 May 2008) — Opening:

Dr. iRack took note of some big news today: the Iranians have decided to halt talks with the United States over the security situation in Iraq until American forces stop their assault on Sadr City.  According to the New York Times:…

Typically terse and excellent analysis from Abu Muqawama, about an important subject, and well worth reading.  This news brings to mind — again – America’s objectives in the Middle East.  Bush and his officials appear to believe that we can talk or bully Iran into allowing us to reshape Iraq into a giant forward operating base.  Like so many others, I wonder how strongly we would resist Iran’s efforts to do the same with Mexico or Canada.  Making the almost impossible a key foreign policy objective guarantees interesting times for America.

Also fascinating on this and similar sites are the frequent recommendations in the comments section to unleash the dogs of war — usually without objection from others.  Without mention of costs (money or blood), odds of success, risks, or potential adverse consequences.  Not that different from the sabre-rattling of the Bush Administration.

Mocking the “culture clash” reporting about the Iraq War

Spencer Ackerman makes a valid observation.

Is this really such a culture clash?

“Blackwater shooting highlights a U.S., Iraq culture clash“, LA Times (4 may 2008) — Excerpt:

U.S. officials painstakingly examine evidence and laws while attempting to satisfy victims’ claims through cash compensation.

But traditional Arab society values honor and decorum above all. If a man kills or badly injures someone in an accident, both families convene a tribal summit. The perpetrator admits responsibility, commiserates with the victim, pays medical expenses and other compensation, all over glasses of tea in a tribal tent.

“Our system is so different from theirs,” said David Mack, a former U.S. diplomat who has served in American embassies in Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates. “An honor settlement has to be both financial and it has to have the right symbolism. We would never accept their way of doing things, and they don’t accept ours.”

If an unaccountable band of politically-connected soldiers-of-fortune shot my mother as she was trying to flee from a traffic circle, and the State Department offered me $5,000 in order to make the incident go away, I would not only be angry, I would be exploring my options for revenge. You don’t have to be an Iraqi to understand this.

In ”Culture Clash” Matthew Yglesias goes one more step with this analysis. – Excerpt:

Secretary Gates would be a hero - if speeches could reform DoD

Secretary of Defense Gates has received praise from some worthy analysts. It would be deserved, if speeches alone could reform DoD.  It would be heroic, if we had any signs that Gates was even trying.

The Zenpundit (25 April 2008):

On a related matter I’m very, very happy with Robert Gates. I think he just gave a ’shape up or ship out’ warning to the senior brass. What he said the other day to the cadets regarding John Boyd was akin to a Soviet General-Secretary giving a speech to the Supreme Soviet on the virtues of Milton Friedman. Or Pope Benedict praising Martin Luther.

Fred Kaplan: “Gates Celebrates Dissent“, Slate (23 April 2008) — Opening:

An effective rebuttal to warnings about Peak Oil?

Summary: A common rebuttal to “peak oil” is to show that we are not running out of oil. While true and comforting, this is irrelevant and can blind us to the serious danger of declining oil production. Things will certainly work out in the long run, but that will not offset pain during our lives — and our children’s.

The Four Horsemen of the Energy Apocalypse Caused This Oil Mess“, the Rush Limbaugh radio show (29 April 2008) –Excerpt:

Have you seen these stories, these scaremongering, fear-oriented stories? Some people predicting $200 a barrel per oil. Somebody out there saying $10 a gallon gasoline. Now, let’s not get carried away here and pile on the panic, but for heaven’s sake, can we look at the real world? Not at the windmill wackos and how they would like us to see the real world.

Let me give you some reality, and this is from Bloomberg: “Brazil may be pumping ’several million’ barrels of crude daily by 2020, vaulting the nation into the ranks of the world’s seven biggest producers.” Several million barrels of crude daily by 2020. They’re talking about pumping oil 12 years from now, folks. How can that be if we’re running out?

That stupid question that Bush got about we’re reaching our peak, asinine. Absolute BS, undiluted, pure stinky BS! They’re pumping billions of dollars into developing the Caspian Sea for oil 20 years from now. We are not running out.

Limbaugh is the mass-market voice of the “we are not running out” rebuttal to Peak Oil. He finds support from many sources. Their optimism comes in several forms.

Fabius Maximus, reference librarian

On the right menu bar the top section is ”Information you might find of interest.” This contains some reference libararies. Just to name a few: Links to the declassificed National Intelligence Estimates, Reports about the Amry’s greatest threat, and archives of online articles by important writers about modern warfare.

This last page provides links to archives of links to online works of major players in modern military theory and practice. Needless to say, this is a work in progress, as there are so many excellent people in these fields

The Essential 4GW reading list: Martin van Creveld — the Clausewitz of our time. Links to 25 of his online articles — from serious essays to newspaper op-eds.

The Essential 4GW reading list: Donald Vandergriff — perhaps the west’s most significant COIN theorist. Links to 35 articles by or about Kilcullen, 2 backgrounders to his work, and 7 mainstream media articles about him

The Essential 4GW reading list: David Kilcullen — one of our few people working on effective solutions to 4GW — solutions of the third kind. Links to 15 of his online articles.

Please comment on any articles missing from the list; or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com {this is the spam-protected form of the address, to fool bots}.

Fusion energy, too risky a bet for America (we prefer to rely on war)

Summary:  The polywell is one of the most promising of fusion technologies.  This post describes its history and potential.  But the significant lesson from this is America’s irrational policy for investing in its future.

The Polywell has come up in the comments several times, so perhaps deserves an update.  The polywell is the last work of that giant in the world of physics, Robert W. Bussard (who passed over in October 2007). This is the Polywell.

The Polywell, excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:

The Polywell is a plasma confinement concept that combines elements of inertial electrostatic confinement and magnetic confinement fusion, intended ultimately to produce fusion power. The geometry is a polyhedral configuration of electromagnets, within which the magnetic fields confine a cloud of electrons. The “quasi-spherical” negative electric potential well created by the electrons is in turn used to accelerate and confine ions, which will then undergo nuclear fusion. It was developed by Robert Bussardunder a US Navy research contract as an improvement of the Farnsworth-Hirsch fusor.

Some interesting reading for your weekend

Contents

1. “John McCain’s “100 Years” — putting the controversy to rest“, Moira Whelan, posted at Democracy Arsenal (30 April 2008) –  This gives McCain’s actual words on the war, at various times and places. 
2. “In France, Prisons Filled With Muslims“, Washington Post (29 April 2008) — Another decline of the State special report. 
3. “Bluff and Bloodshed“, Christopher Dickey, Newsweek  (1 May 2008) — “The Persian Gulf is more dangerous than ever. Will the U.S. and Iran go to war at sea?”
4. “Barack in Iraq“, Michael Crowley, The New Republic” (7 May 2008) — “Can he really end the war?” 
5. “At least we know how the US financed its trade deficit in April (and March too)“, Brad Setser, RGE Monitor (2 May 2008) — “Record central bank financing continues.”
6. Four important new articles about the food crisis, including one about about Wheat Leaf Rust appearing in the US.

Also — The government did not inflect African-Americans with Syphilis in the Tuskegee study.  See the Wikipedia entry for details.  How astonishing that this pernicious lie is so widely believed!

The articles, with excerpts