Zenpundit Channels Orson Wells in War of the Narco-Cartels

Results of ambush by cartel gunman

area of Mexico under cartel control

General Obregon, Pancho Villa, General Pershing, and Lt George Patton. 1916

When I first began to read this post over at Zenpundit, for sentence or two thought I had missed a news flash. Reading further revealed it to be an chilling view of a future that might be just months away. Mark deserves major kudos for breaking the glass in the fire alarm and calling attention to what has been going on in Mexico as President Calderon battles the narco-cartels for what amounts to control of the future of Mexico.

Mark's post begins:

WASHINGTON, DC - Flanked by the embattled President of Mexico, Felipe Calderon and the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, a weary looking President Barack Obama used a press conference to angrily denounce as “Alarmist and inflammatory” a recent report issued by the conservative Heritage Foundation that declared the massive chain of UN administered Mexican Refugee camps in Arizona, New Mexico and Texas as ”a bottomless well for narco-insurgency” and “a threat to the territorial integrity of the United States”. The camps, home to at least 2.5 million Mexican nationals, are dominated by the “Zetas Confederales”, a loose and ultraviolent umbrella militia aligned with the feuding Mexican drug cartels that now control upwards of 80 % of Mexico.

The shocking second paragraph of this bulletin is destined to cause serious thought and reaction across the blogs and hopefully amid the halls of congress. Mark is not one to be flippant in his posts and this one is as serious as any he has ever posted.

Read more: A Mexican Standoff with Reality

I have written posts about the deteriorating conditions just across our southern border and will continue to promote and link information to stimulate action. We are currently engaged in a war against the Taliban in Afghanistan almost 8000 miles around the globe. The war Mexico is waging within itself is our making. The cartels are responding to the United States being the global demand source for drugs.

Mexico needs our help. Kinetic solutions launched from our side of the border will not solve the problem. The United States had a semi militarized border with Mexico from 1846 to 1943. This period ranged from open war (1846) to incursions (1916) and patrols from a line of forts on the border from Brownsville to San Diego. The storied 1st Cavalry Division was organized to preform this task and conducted patrols from 1921 until 1943. A return to those days is something that neither of our nations wants. But, something must be done.

Addressing the demand coming from the United States is a first step to draining the swamp. How we approach that may take the weight of the imaginary events portrayed in Mark's post to finally get traction.

Below are several previous links I have posted about the violence in Mexico.

Bloody Thanksgiving Weekend

World Police Blotter

Drug Wars, Corporate Welfare and Teaching Technê

UPDATE

Several of the regular commentators at Zenpundit have linked their take on Mark's post.

http://pundita.blogspot.com/2009/03/washington-continues-to-plays-ostrich.html

Cartel War Zen « The Committee of Public Safety

Reads For A Saturday Night of Contemplation

Maghreb

14th century dress

William of Ockham

Steve DeAngelis of Enterra Solutions leads off tonight with a trio of posts that show some countries are emerging like the ancient Phoeinx to rise above the swirling fears about a global economic recession

The Emergence of North Africa

For decades, the Maghreb has been best known for being part of the arc of crisis that begins at Gibraltar and ends in Pakistan. Maghreb is an Arabic word meaning "place of sunset" or "western." Traditionally it refers to a region in North Africa that includes Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and, more recently, Libya. At a time when Western suspicions have deepened about Muslim countries because of the activities of radical Islamists, there is a remarkably upbeat report in BusinessWeek about the Maghreb ["The Rise of the Maghreb," by Carol Matlack and Stanley Reed, 16 March 2009 print edition]. Matlack and Reed note that in the immediate post-Cold War period, a number of automotive parts suppliers set up plants in Eastern Europe, but many of those same suppliers are now shifting their facilities to the Maghreb.

China Grows Stronger during Economic Bad Times

The best time to have money is when nobody else does. Head to any foreclosure sale and you'll understand what I mean. Chinese companies, which have amassed fortunes during past couple of decades, are now starting to spend some of that cash looking for bargains ["China Gains Key Assets In Spate of Purchases," by Ariana Eunchung Cha, Washington Post, 17 March 2009]. What's most interesting is where they are looking for those bargains and what they are buying.

Innovations from Emerging Market Economies

As labor costs increased along with infrastructure modernization/replacement costs, economies of scale became less of a differentiator for developed countries -- which is why so much manufacturing has moved to so-called "low cost" countries.

Fabius Maximus never fails to stimulate my brain cells and this post does that along with visiting my favorite subject history.

Fab introduces it this way.

This is the title of a post by Brad Delong (Professor of Economics at Berkeley), about Buying Power of 14th Century Money, posted by Will Mclean at A Commonplace Book — Deeds of Arms and Other Matters Medieval and Otherwise, 3 July 2008. As the economy slides backwards, it is important to remember how far we have come. Almost every American is rich compared to the average person of 1776 — and perhaps even richer than almost everybody in the 14th century.

Read more: The Singularity is in our past

And weighing in or President Obama strategic plan for Afghanistan is abu mugqawama with his always logical manner. Take the time to introduce yourselves to William Ockham courtesy of Abu.

Sharing a car back from the wilds of Virginia yesterday, I had a long conversation with Dave Kilcullen that improbably ranged from Herodotus to William of Ockham to, finally, appropriate metrics in Afghanistan. (Fun fact: Dave's medievalist father is one of the world's leading experts on William of Ockham. Who knew?) As I joked on the blog a few weeks ago, the Marines used rice production as a metric in Vietnam in place of enemy body count, but we can't very well use poppy production as our metric in Afghanistan.

Read more: On Metrics in Afghanistan

Naval Hearings, The Ships, The Crews and The Mission in The 21st Century

Several of my blog friends have posts up commenting on the testimony that Thomas Barnett gave before the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, of the House Armed Services Committee today.

Barnett's opening remark in part:

It is my sense that the current naval leadership views the global environment with great accuracy, understanding its service role to be one of balancing between four strategic tasks: a) sensibly hedging against the slim possibility of great-power war; b) preparing the force for high-end combat operations against a regional rogue power armed with nascent nuclear weapons capacity; c) supporting/conducting ground operations in the struggle against violent extremism; and d) improving maritime governance and security in those regions where today it remains virtually non-existent (e.g., most of Africa's coastline). Using the vernacular of my published works*, I consider the first two tasks (great-power war, war against regional rogues) to fall under the rubric of America's Leviathan** or big-war force, while the latter two tasks (struggle against extremism, extending governance) define the growing portfolio of our nation's System Administrator* or small-wars force.

I will defer to link the previous posts by Mark of Zenpundit who offers this, Barnett in the House!

And from Galrahn of Information Dissemination, who was present to observe the testimony and offer this astute view.HASC Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee Hearing and from his blog collegue, the custodian, HASC Hearing Too.

As this was going on, The Bellum: A Stanford Review Blog. posted this about, Chinese Military Spending: Surprise, Surprise.

Highlights include:

Historian Williamson Murray wrote in Orbis last year: “The great difficulty Americans will face in this century lies in their inability to understand the fundamental drives of those in the external world.” The alarm with which the mainstream media has greeted the release of the Pentagon’s annual report on the Chinese military, which shows increased defense spending and continued investment in “disruptive” technologies, confirms Professor Murray’s thesis on a variety of levels.

The staff of Bellum offer these biting comments.

First, our national economic policy is geared to making China an equal, yet we freak out at the result.

Second, our diplomacy has essentially accepted that Taiwan is part of “one China,” yet we similarly freak out at the result.

Third, spheres of influence may be unfashionable in elite circles, but outside of Europe most of the world powers see things by the old rules.

Finally, no defense analyst should be surprised by the conclusions of the report.

It is worth the timely click to check out this insightful post.

Chinese Military Spending: Surprise, Surprise

It strikes me as more than coincidental that reports like the DOD's surface as hearing are being held to determine the future of the Navies, defense-industrial procurement cycle.

Two Reads on Foreign Policy

G20 Membership

Chinese Congress Hall

Great Powers by Thomas Barnett

The Bellum: A Stanford Review Blog. since it's launch in February has become a must read blog that never fails to raise the level of attention on important issues as diverse as food, Fungi Don’t Know Borders and interviews, John Nagl on the Media and COIN. In this next post they turn their attention to U.S. foreign policy and the direction it should take in the coming meeting of the G20.

They begin by citing:

Esteemed strategist Leslie Gelb’s Sunday editorial, It’s Time to ‘Go to Strength’ on Foreign Policy, recommends that US foreign policy focus on areas of comparative strength, steadily withdrawing from those arenas where regional complexities prevent American force from being a “sure thing”. Gelb’s argument hinges on the idea that US foreign relations require a black-and-white decision—either leaders can focus on hotspots like Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran at the expense of developing “greater power” alliances or they can engage fully in proven modes of diplomacy in a way that avoids unilateral involvement. Parsing this construction, unilateralism is weakness and US-directed multilateralism is strength.

They continue:

Gelb’s underlying thesis– that “this is the worst time to link our fate to crises beyond our control [and] our strategy has to focus on anchors that provide stability”—is well-received.

Bellum then poses this question.

But is the United States’ present choice really equivalent to 1946 as Gelb seems to suggest?

And counters with this opinion.

Bellum takes exception with the implication that international terrorism can be fenced in using the same tools—“containment and deterrence”—that were used against the Soviet Union.

The final analysis from Bellum follows:

It’s understandably unsettling for a man whose career has spanned a period characterized by unquestionably dominant US power, but the financial crisis requires that we sit and wait. Certainly, China’s no Soviet Union and cooperation offers mutual benefits, but it’s not apparent that the US has the flexibility to take charge in a coalition-forming process. Before we can pursue multilateralism, it’s critical that we first ensure our affairs are in order within the G-2. China is likely to multiply its influence through the course of the global economic recovery, but if US policymakers are selectively deferential to Chinese preferences, America can remain at the strategic forefront of geopolitics.

Read more:US Multilateralism: G-2 Must Precede G-20

In a related post Tom Barnett column this week, takes on the the threat of great power war and deftly deflates some of the pressure being pumped up by the big war planners.

While difficult to keep in mind amidst today's economic nationalism, a global middle class of unprecedented size rises in the emerging markets of the East and South. This accomplishment logically ensures the continuation of great-power peace, as America's grand strategy of spreading its liberal trade order reaches its global apogee.

Countering this view is a growing cohort of academics and analysts who insist that such rising consumer demand will inevitably trigger "resource wars" among the world's great powers, with climate change as an unforgiving accelerant.

Barnett's answer to this rhetorical opinion.

A little secret here: A good portion of America's defense establishment desperately needs the long-term specter of resource wars to continue justifying the big-war-centric structure of our armed forces. It needs to sell this vision of future conflict because, without it, the small-wars community will triumph in a looming budgetary battle that will define the Obama administration's legacy in national security affairs.

To find out why read the whole column linked below. Here is Barnett's conclusion based on the evidence that awaits your perusal.

Don't believe me? Imagine a world where there's no Chinese demand for U.S. debt or no U.S. demand for Chinese exports.

Dreaming up future "resource wars" to obviate our military's necessary adjustment to this era's security tasks will not render them moot. Indeed, like Somalia's recent pirate epidemic, they invariably attract the collaborative efforts of other great powers, like China and India, which have no choice but to defend their growing economic networks.

Read more: Barnett: The threat of great power war recedes

Friday Morning Reads

The following are a few worthy reads that I came across this week.

Steve DeAngelis of Enterra Solutions - Trading Up or Trading Down? and What's ahead for the Middle Class?
Looks at free trade and the future of the Middle Class.

The Bellum - The Water Problem
Will water be the next resource war?

Zenpundit - The Somalia Next Door
Has Mexico fallen into the abyss?

Fabius Maximus -The future, always in motion and therefore difficult to see
The future, by examples from the past.

Tom Ricks Foreign Policy - Puzzlements: Why have so few soldiers and Marines deployed?
Over two thirds of our active duty Army and Marines have either never been or only been once to the war zone.

Small Wars Journal - Dirty Windows and Burning Houses
John Nagl and Brian Burton review the state of irregular warfare.

Kings of War - Regular warfare is increasingly irregular
The Hermit Kingdom goes 4GW.

The Underwear Incident Revisited

San Nicholas Island 75 miles west of Los Angeles.

Incident off Hainan Island

The incident last week involving a thinly disguised American spy ship, posing as an oceanographic survey ship and five Chinese spy ships posing as fishing boats, continues to simmer across the blogosphere. The big War crowd cries, "Beware! we told you so! those dirty communists are at it again." While other's are taking a more pragmatic view, by criticizing China for actions more becoming the hermit kingdom than a rising great power. The following is a series of posts from distinguished blogs looking back, after some of the fog has burned off.

A post at the United States Naval Institute Blog by Springbored! offers this advice from the past, regarding the "Underwear Incident."

As Chinese and American warships ships go toe-to-toe in the seas off China, I find myself wishing Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr. was still alive.

The venerable Admiral knew China. In the closing days of World War II, he helped China re-occupy the Yangtze River, and found his wife–a Harbin native–in the chaos of 1945 Shanghai.

Admiral Zumwalt also knew how to confront challenges at sea. As a young captain of the guided-missile frigate Dewey, Admiral Zumwalt kept his cool as Russian vessels charged to within 50 yards of his new command.

Read more:

A Wise Admiral’s Advice To China:

Galhrn the master of Information Dissemination weighs in with these comments.

His concluding words will encourage you to read the whole post.

There has been speculation that China reacted strongly to the Impeccable because the Impeccable was tracking one of the new PLA Navy nuclear submarines out of Sanya. It will be interesting to see how the upcoming US-China military meet and greet goes. Depending upon the results of that meeting, it is possible we may end up with confirmation what the US was doing, and why China decided to react so strongly.

Read more:

China Measures Reaction in South China Sea

And joining the conversation in childing the Chinese and reflecting the direction of the previous post is this from Tom Barnett's weekly column.

China's naval shenanigans

Those aggressive and immature Chinese are at it again: sending their spy ships to harass our spy ship as it conducts submarine-related surveillance in international waters off their coast. Our new director of national intelligence warns that this is the "most serious" military push back we've encountered since 2001, when the Chinese forced down one of our spy planes right off their coast.

Sense a pattern? I'm not a China expert, but it strikes me that Beijing manufactures a new spy crisis every time we field a new president -- like clockwork.

Read more at Thomas Barnett: China’s naval shenanigans: the young and reckless

Checking out what your neighbor owns, has gone on ever since Fred Flintsone spied Barny Rubble bring home dinosaur steaks and threw a fit of anger in to Wilma that Barny wasn't sharing.

Not to make light of this incident, but before we get our underwear in a twist and let either side ramp up what may turn out to be a little emperors syndrome or as Tom Barnett notes, an immature nation testing the resolve of a new American President. If we remember the 2001 incident, it was a lot more provocative, and it passed. Or back in 1999, when NATO bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade during Operation Allied Force, it too passed.

To put the distance from Hainan Island in prospective. The map of the California coastline shows San Nicholas Island off shore in the Santa Barbara Channel. San Nicholas island is 75 miles from Los Angeles, the same distance our ship was operating out side their major naval base on Hainan Island. Freedom of the seas is protected as well as the rules of navigation. A polite request, goes further than juvenile behavior.

Mid-Week Reads

Hump day calls for a pause to refresh one's prospective and take a few minutes to read some of the recommended posts around the blogosphere this week.

Leading off is this summary of the "Underwear Incident" in the South China Sea posted on Information Dissemination.

In the maritime domain, China is best seen as primarily seeking to extend and consolidate its sovereignty, rather than to protect its sovereignty per se, since the likelihood of invasion from the sea probably approaches zero. Its strategy is two-pronged. First, China is actively attempting to extend its authority in areas already under its jurisdiction by recasting the traditional relationship between coastal states and the international community and pressing for enhanced coastal state jurisdiction over traditional international freedoms in coastal waters and air space. Second, China has many claims over islands and sea space that are actively disputed by its neighbors. China is consolidating and defending its historical claims to islands in the East and South China Seas and to the maritime zones that will accrue to whoever gains undisputed sovereignty over them.

Read more: Observing the Incidents Off the Chinese Coast

Staying on a naval centric tack, comes this post on United States Naval Institute Blog. It was reprint of an article in the 1954 edition of the Naval Institute Proceedings Magazine, entitled; NATIONAL POLICY AND THE TRANSOCEANIC NAVY by Samuel P. Huntington.

The introduction:

By almost any measure Harvard Professor Sam Huntington was the preeminent political scientist of his generation. When he was but 27, three years before he wrote The Soldier and the State, the classic on civil-military relations, Professor Huntington authored a May 1954 Proceedings article, ‘National Policy and the Transoceanic Navy’. In this powerful essay, he laid down a challenge to the military services that resonates today even more than it did over 50 years ago: “If a service does not possess a well-defined strategic concept, the public and political leaders will be confused as to the role of the service . . . and apathetic or hostile to the claims made by the service on the resources of society.” And specifically of the Navy, “What function do you perform which obligates society to assume responsibility for your maintenance?”

Tom Wilkerson Major General, USMC (Ret.)
U. S. Naval Institute CEO

Read the whole post.
From Our Archive: NATIONAL POLICY AND THE TRANSOCEANIC NAVY by Samuel P. Huntington


Turning to thoughts on America and the current attempts to navigate out of the shoals of despair caused by greed and Nestbeschmutzers, a word used by a professor friend when he encountered people who ruined their own country. To illustrate this, comes this pair of posts from Fabius Maximus.

Our ruling elites scamper and play while our world burns.
And,
The eternal truths of history can guide us through this crisis.

Finally from Mark at Zenpundit, this review of Thomas Barnett's Great Powers: America and the World After Bush

Great Powers: America and the World After Bush is a book whose influence will be deep and long. It is also a book that will be loved and reviled. Loved because in it, Barnett connects history with strategy and foreign policy and does so with unvarnished, supremely confident, optimism regarding a future of an Americanized Globalization and a globalized America. It will also be bitterly reviled for exactly same reason.

In essence, Great Powers is an intellectual-political Rorschach test.

Read more: Book review: With Great Powers comes Great Responsibilities….

Five Good Reads for a Sunday Afternoon

Shawn of Asia Logistics wrap has begun a series of posts that will address the importance of a secure global supply chain.

Shawn explains his series:

In this series of posts starting with this introduction, I will do the following:

1. Explain Dr. Barnett's "Ten Commandments of Globalization" in the context of Asia-Pacific maritime security and trade.

2. Describe the current, key concerns supply chain managers have in regards to maritime security in the Asia-Pacific.

3. Summarize the potential "flashpoints" that would threaten maritime security and their potential impact on key supply chain nodes in the Asia-Pacific.

4. Comment on the role of security in existing cross-border, government-level discussions of logistics integration in Northeast Asia (China, Korea, and Japan).

5. Speculate on the possibility of a formal, comprehensive maritime security regime coming to fruition in the Asia-Pacific.

Despite the fact that I have no experience in the military, the military-market nexus is intriguing and of strong interest to me in the development of my supply chain knowledge. As a result, I look forward to the process of writing on these topics.

Read more: Maritime Security and Trade in the Asia-Pacific, Introduction

Shawn continues with this post that adds detail to his introduction.
Maritime Security and Trade in the Asia-Pacific, The Ten Commandments of Globalization.

The Bellum: A Stanford Review Blog. makes these observations about North Korea.

The Hermit Kingdom has been getting awfully crabby in recent headlines, and Bellum proposes that it’s time to step back and formulate a recourse to the inevitable: Parallel to intimating that it will shoot down South Korean aircraft that enter its airspace during the course of war games with the United States and that it will confront the “puppet state” on its disputed western sea border, North Korean authorities claim that they will soon launch an innocuous “communications satellite” that it has been preparing since January. Of course, as with most snarky announcements out of DPRK’s state-run Korean Central News Agency, the noise has got analysts up in arms on suspicions that the object-in-question may instead be a malevolent Taepodong-2 missile capable of reaching the western United States (and thereby picking up where Yasuyo Yamazaki left off in 1943, harrying Aleut-Americans just trying to go about their business). Upon further inquiry, NK’s spokesman betrayed juche by responding with a Buddhist coan, legacy of an earlier subjugated age: “One will come to know later what will be launched”. Zen indeed.

Read more:

North Korea: Curbing Missile Diplomacy

And finally China based Shanghaiist has these two posts that add a measure of levity to the weight of confronting the really serious issues of the day.

The Adult Care Expo is in town and we, being the naughty naughty chlidren we are, decided to give it a look see earlier this morning. Was it everything we hoped it would be? Unfortunately, no. As one vendor informatively told us, the expos in Hong Kong and Macau are much bigger and rowdier - the Shanghai market for sex-related goodies just hasn't matured yet. Still, there was plenty to giggle at and we've documented it for those of you too prudish to go yourselves.

Read more:

Photos: Shanghai Sexpo

and for those under eighteen or too prudish to see the humor in the above post:

Pssst, guess what? The six story monolith to America's favorite representation of unattainable beauty standards has now been fully realized! Today, the 3400-square-foot Barbie flagship shop on 555 Huai Hai Zhong Road opened its doors officially and let in the public. The Barbie-adoring masses were greeted with a building that not only contains dolls and their clothes, but a fashion design center, a runway chock full of models dressed up in Barbie clothes, a Barbie day spa, and even a cafe.

Read more:

Barbie megastore now open on Huai Hai Road

Failed States II

This week Pakistan commands our attention alongside Afghanistan as both countries seem to teeter on the brink of an abyss. Last week I wrote about Afghanistan and Failed States, this week we lead off with this column by Thomas Barnett.

In my latest book, "Great Powers," I advance the controversial notion that America's success in spreading our model of globalization around the planet will force us into many compromises with local extremists seeking cultural sanctuary from its revolutionary norms of individual emancipation. My argument is that - as a rule - most such compromises will be generational, for what is "radical" to elders soon becomes "normal" to youth.

But then I'm confronted by the recent political agreement between Pakistan's faltering government and the ascending Taliban in Swat Valley, whereby the latter is granted judicial emancipation from Pakistan's laws to enforce Islamic sharia.

Is not such accommodation a form of national suicide?

Read the whole story:

Tom Barnett: Here's how globalization meets Pakistan.

Offering another view of how Shariah Law would be administered, is this next post from LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT by Anwaar Hussain.

Now that the state of Pakistan has effectively rolled over, paws up, at the feet of the beheaders, it is time to get a glimpse into the abyss the state has brought us onto.

But before that glimpse, the lessons first.

The lesson that other militants draw from the state’s capitulation to the Taliban in Swat; the more brutal, the more ruthless, the more insane your actions against the state and the common citizens, the more concessions you can extract. If the Swat Taliban, essentially only a few hundred unruly Pathans, can bring the government of Pakistan down to its wobbly knees, why can’t the same be done in the heart of Punjab by the sons of the soil? Witness the brazen Lahore attacks.

The lesson that common citizens draw from the shameful debacle; the state is simply incapable of protecting their lives and property therefore safety lies in meekly kowtowing to the people who kill in the name of God. Witness the sad happiness of the poor Swatis after the truce with the militants was announced by the provincial government. These are the same people who, just over a year ago in the election of 2008, had comprehensively booted out religious parties in favour of a liberal, secular party to rule them.

This post is written with a pen that barely contains the rage of the author towards those who in the name of religion, impose a level of barbarity, mostly aimed towards controlling women and the weak.

Read more:

Swat Truce: A Glimpse into the Abyss

Turning our attention back to Afghanistan, this post by Agha Amin, author and former officer in the Pakistani Army comments on a recent pessimistic article by former CIA officer Milton Bearden, entitled, Curse of the Khyber Pass.

1-I am rather disappointed with this article.

2-Milt does not realise that British occupation of Afghanistan was a success story.The brits with about 15 lakh an year controlled Afghanistan's foreign policy and Afghanistan did not harbour any anti British groups with success.

3-Afghanistan's problems are centred in its neighbours.The USSR failed not because the mujahids were more martial butb because the USSR failed to realise that the centre of gravity of the problem was the Pakistani base being used by USA and Saudi Arabia.A simple solution that the USSR could have followed was massive aid to India to mount a conventional invasion of Pakistan.As a matter of fact this if done in 1983-87 would have finished the Afghan problem.

4-Presently the Afghan problem is again centred in its regional neighbours.Now no one including Russia,China,Iran,Saudi Arabia and parts of the powers that matter in Pakistan do not want the USA to succeed in Afghanistan.SEEN IN THIS CONTEXT THE USA ULTIMATELY WILL HAVE TO :

1-Agree on a settlement of Afghanistan in alliance with Russia,India and Central Asian States.

2-Divide Afghanistan into a Northern Alliance led North and a wasteland of Talibans in the south.

3-Maintain air bases to pound targets of opportunity in the region think its a myth to think that Afghanistan cannot be pacified.

.

In 17th century Kabul had a Hindu Rajput Governor and Kandahar and Herat was Persian ruled.

I am surprised that respectable US analysts are so pessimistic.

.

Agha Amin is an outspoken observer who brings a prospective of one seems to know the lay of the land. His observations are sometimes biting and controversial, but always worth the consideration of his point of view.

.

Read more:

What the USA Can do in Afghanistan-Why Milt Bearde...

I realize the photos that accompany this post are disturbing, but I make no apologies for using them. The mistreatment of women is one of the greatest anchors holding back the advancement of a society to raise itself out of the abyss of poverty and disconnectedness.

The point raised by Tom Barnett in his column is that Pakistan can follow the example of how the United States is able to co-exist with the 562 tribal areas inside her borders. First and foremost, those tribal areas are able to exist by conforming to the Constitution of the United States as well as state laws. Pakistan as a nation must have enough power to enforce the barest constitution guarantees of basic civil rights. Without that, we must then accept the fact that parts of this world will forever remain festering sores, that the world avoids and hermetically seals off from transmigration. The course seems clear that the world can not ignore and disengage from confronting this problem. It will take the combined skill and courage of all to use the tools of diplomacy, intelligence, military and most of all economics to help pull these disconnected societies out of an abyss from which for many there seems no escape.

Barnett Describes How Globalization and Intervention Have Led to a Safer World

Fragile States

Conflict States

Mini Atlas of Human Security

If anyone wants more evidence that Thomas Barnett's Great Powers: America and the World After Bush is on the right track in defining our world since the end of the Cold War, they only have to read Barnett's latest column where he summarizes growing evidence that state on state war has declined to the lowest levels in modern history.

Here are some of the highlights

The just-released "Mini Atlas of Human Security," published by the World Bank and Canada's Simon Fraser University, details the pacifying impact of globalization's advance. That globalization is a direct descendant of America's post-World War II international liberal trade order that has been consistently defended by U.S. military forces in the decades since, but at unprecedented high frequency since the early 1990s.

Armed conflicts worldwide have decreased 40 percent since then, with casualties decreasing by a stunning 80 percent.

Civil wars have decreased in frequency by 75 percent from 1992 through 2005, while the internationalized version of the same now stands at its lowest levels since the mid-1970s, a trend described by the report's authors as constituting the "most sustained decline in two centuries."

The Cold War was not a stable period and should not be romanticized as such by those who now try to sell us the image of "perpetual war" and "chaos" caused by some combination of globalization's advance and America's willingness to defend it with military force.

But, as the report highlights, 1992 marked "the beginning of a sharp decline" worldwide, albeit one unevenly divided between those regions with strong connectivity to the global economy and those lacking such stabilizing ties.

Read more:Thomas Barnett: Globalization and American intervention spread peace

Here is the link to the MINI ATLAS OF HUMAN SECURITY. Take a long look, it is filled with data that at first blush makes several countries like the United State, Great Britain, France along with Russia look like the fabled Spartans for participating in the most conflicts. But if one considers that almost all of these were peace keeping missions or interventions in failed states the pattern begins to change.

Some data, is somewhat misleading. The United State is shown to be one of the countries that used child soldiers, giving the impression to someone uninformed on our laws that the United States uses children in combat on the same plane as the infamous "Blood Diamond" wars. The only way someone under 18 can join the U.S. military is if their parents give written permission when they are 17. It might be further noted that no America soldier under 18 has been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Getting past those first maps will reveal the pattern that Barnett has so adeptly argued since introducing his first book, The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century in 2004.

The choice seems clear. We here in the United States have two choices. We can do as the Ming Chinese did in the 15th century when based on the reports brought back from the Treasure Fleets that their empire possessed all that was needed to sustain their cultural and economic superiority and further contact would not be worth the effort. We could wall ourselves off by withdrawing from these trouble spots and erect protectionist tariffs and risk suffering the same fate as China as the rest of the world passed them by in the 19th century.

The rapid growth of globalization would not give us three centuries to see the effect of non-participation take it's toll. The second choice, is to continue to lead in concert with fellow nations, efforts to raise humanity to levels exceeding those already achieved during the past decades as connectivity and economic empowerment has led to more people on the planet living better than any time in human existence.