zenpundit.com

Eminent British-American strategist  Colin S. Gray gambles on the Sino-American War in the 21st century (hat tip SWJ Blog)

PARAMETERS –  The 21st Century Security Environment and the Future of War

How the two great powers are going to afford to fight each other, as war would destroy their interdependent economic condition, is left unsaid. As is the rationale for fighting such a war beyond “balancing” and “fear, honor, interest” or any explanation as to why nuclear weapons would not be a constraining factor on such a war breaking out though Gray does not appear to believe that Russia and the US aspire to nuclear armageddon.

Despite some nostalgia for the the halcyon days of the Sino-Soviet alliance, an interesting an often cautionary article by a noted scholar of war.

The Threat Closer to Home: Hugo Chavez and the War Against America by Douglas E. Schoen and Michael Rowan

I just received a review copy of The Threat Closer to Home courtesy of FSB Associates ( hat tip to Julie H. ) and the two authors have done some spadework on the “Bolivarian” regime of crypto-Communist, plebiscitary strongman, President Hugo Chavez. Dr. Schoen is a biographer and a longtime political and communication consultant to the Democratic Party as well as a former adviser to President Bill Clinton and is a member of the Board of Trustees for the International Crisis Group. Mr. Rowan is a a regular columnist for El Universal and Veneconomia of Venezuela and is also a political consultant for the Democratic Party and an array of overseas clients ranging from politicians to economic development programs. This is Rowan’s second book on Hugo Chavez and he is currently researching political economy issues in Latin America.

I have not read the book yet but thumbing through the pages I see numerous topics of interest, including Chavez support for FARC, alliance building with rogue states, ties to Hezbollah and known terrorists on the Treasury Department’s list of figures banned from conducting business within the United States. The authors have keyed into Chavez’s autarkic strategy of state managed commodity exports (oil) to both fund his regime and leverage foreign policy advantages – a historic  economic policy for aggressive, authoritarian, regimes. The book jacket carries blurbs by heavyweights in the foreign policy establishment including Congressmen Connie Mack ( R- Florida) and Ike Skelton (D-Missouri) as well as Richard Holbrooke and CFR’s Leslie Gelb.

I’m going to give this a close read and then perhaps try to schedule a short interview with Rowan and Schoen for Pajamas Media or another platform.

Tom’s new book Great Powers: America and the World After Bush is not out yet but I have read two different versions. A first draft, chapter by chapter more or less as fast as Dr. Barnett was able to write it and then a near finished but yet to be finally edited penultimate version. The second incarnation I read had significant structural differences from the first draft manuscript, as it should when an author works with a professional editor and publisher on a major book.

Tom has just released some of the material that had been cut during the editing process and it’s worth a look. It’s interesting and it gives you an idea of thoughts in process for writing a large work even if ultimately, these sections received the axe:

GP: the lost chapters

Remember when Tom wrote that the deleted chapters from Great Powers would appear online? Two are now up on International Relations and Security Nework.

The original Chapter One is now Creed of an American Grand Strategist: I am a great power. And so can you!

The subtitle was Mark Warren’s idea (an obvious link to Colbert’s book), which Tom thought was pretty funny.

The original Chapter Two, ‘A-to-Z of American Grand Strategy’ is now broken into four parts:

+ A lexicon deconstructed: A-G
+ A lexicon deconstructed: H-M
+ A lexicon deconstructed: N-S
+ A lexicon deconstructed: T-Z

For now, we’re just linking to ISN. We’ll be reprinting both of these lost chapters in their entirety later in the month.

Having been both writer and an editor on a small scale, I think the natural tendency of every writer is to cling to every word. Frequently though, in making an important point, less really is more to the reader. A good editor clears away the clutter and let’s the writer’s best shine through with clarity.

Dave Schuler of the Glittering Eye is involved in a formal debate at Outside the Beltway with Dr. Bernard Finel over the role of the United States in the Mideast. Dr. Finel is arguing for a grand bug-out, or at least a serious reduction in “footprint” and “fingerprint”, and Dave is going to argue the negative.

Here is the introduction by Dave:

Pulling Out: Debating Middle East Disengagement (Intro)

One of my common patterns of thought is to frame any given proposition as a debate proposal, I did so in this specific context, and said as much in the comments to the post. Dr Finel was kind of enough to respond to my comment with enthusiasm, welcoming a debate with me on the subject.

Over the next week or so we’ll be debating the following proposition:

Resolved: that the United States should disengage from the Middle East

Dr. Finel will make the affirmative case; I will provide the negative.

Dr. Finel’s affirmative case will be posted in the next day or so; it will be followed by my cross-examination; I’ll state my negative case; Dr. Finel will cross-examine me; and so on.

Debating is a form seen only occasionally in the blogosphere and I think this is an exciting project. The longer format, extending over multiple posts, will enable us to explore the subject in more detail than is usually found in the hit-and-run blog post. It’s an important topic and, regardless of the immediate situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, is worthy of substantial reflection, rarely seen as a consequence of the poverty of our public discourse which is mainly limited to headlines, op-eds, and sound bites and is often enmeshed in partisan squabbling.

Dr. Finel, who is a senior fellow at the American Security Project, has opened with the following post:

Pulling Out: Debating Middle East Disengagement (Affirmative)

….The second issue is oil. The U.S. presence in the Middle East does serve to reduce some of the risks associated with the Western world’s reliances on Middle Eastern oil. It does not lower the cost necessarily, but it may reduce some potential for volatility in supply. But the cost of this risk mitigation is tremendous. We pay for lowering the supply risk with increased risk of terrorist attacks, greater hostility from the Arab population, and the costs of men and materiel associated with military commitments. Are there other ways to reduce those risks? Of course there are. They include investments in alternative energy, oil exporation at home, better fuel efficiency from cars. Certainly those are costly measures in the short-run, but so is deep involvement in a volatile region. In the long-run, the calculus is easy. Energy independence is a strategic imperative.

This excerpt shortchanges the breadth of Finel’s argument, which you should read in full here.

First, I’d like to commend both gentlemen for making use of the formal debate method. Construction of a reasoned argument in a civil debate is the blogosphere at it’s best. I intend to follow this debate as it evolves.

I know Dave to be a deeply thoughtful, well informed and even tempered commentator. I do not know Dr. Finel, though his c.v. seems impressive to me and he probably has a number of interesting things to say on terrorism policy. As a strategist however, he is not winning me over, though in terms of tactics, he accurately identifies many points of irritation that traditional U.S. policy has for the Arab World. The answer for that irritant is not amputation.

The thesis that regions of the world will move to a better state of polity with an absence of American presence or influence is not “counterintuitive” as Finel suggests – it’s a position lacking in real world evidence. The world’s absolute worst regimes have the least interaction with the United States or with globalization and movements like Islamism have intrinsic drivers, not simple Act-React mechanisms.

Alternate energy sources are a long term – a very long term – solution. In terms of technological application with immediate policy effect, it is the equivalent of Edward Teller’s vision of SDI in 1987. By all means, invest in alternative energy but even throwing $ 100 billion at the problem in fiscal year 2009 is not going to disconnect the United States, much less the West, from oil in 2010 or even 2020. Any reduction in our own oil consumption by the use of alternate energy sources in coming decades will more than be made up by rising Asian demand and the Gulf will increase, rather than decrease, in importance as a geopolitical “choke point”.

More than that, but it is a sign of changing times and the mainstreaming of blogging.

Mona Sutphen, a former diplomat, Clinton NSC aide and Rahm Emanuel’s Chief of Staff, has been named White House Deputy Chief of Staff – a powerful, albeit very “insider”, post. Until last February, Sutphen was also briefly a foreign policy blogger at The Next American Century , which was a short-lived vehicle to promote  The Next American Century: How the U.S. Can Thrive as Other Powers Rise
 a book Sutphen co-authored with Nina Hachigian.

I have not read their book ( nor heard of it  before today, to be frank) but from listening to Sutphen and Hachigan opine on their infomercial video (see below) The Next American Century sounds more or less as a breezy and happy version of the themes in Thomas P. M. Barnett’s yet to be released Great Powers: America and the World After Bush that I’m reading, minus the sharp elbows thrown by Tom and the latter book’s deep dive into historical and strategic drivers for the 21st century. Otherwise, there’s a lot of big picture congruency going on – no wonder Tom’s so happy about the incoming Obama administration; it seems like it will have at least some personnel in high places who are predisposed toward his strategic views.

Be interesting if anyone out there has a copy of the Sutphen-Hachigan book to see if they cited PNM or BFA in the footnotes or index.

A final point, that Obama is moving such relatively young faces, like Mona Sutphen, to high posts is a good sign. Regardless of how my more liberal readers and fellow FP/mil/Intel/security bloggers may feel, the Democratic bench in these areas range from fair to decidely weak with a shortage of “stars” in the critical late 40’s to middle 50’s age band that normally fill the first through second tier appointive posts (of course, that deficit partly comes from liberal activist hostility toward more conservative Democrats like Sam Nunn or Lee Hamilton who are always shortlisted but never appointed). Normally, you need a talent pool at least 2-3 deep at each position to handle the burnout, transience and delay in confirmation hearings that every administration faces. The Democrats have to build up that pool instead of relying on ancient Carter and aging Boomer, Clinton retreads ( even so, look to seeing a lot of familiar GOP faces seatwarming in the first year in the bureaucracy, unless the Senate rushes through every Obama appointment in record time).