OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

This is a long read by email standards, but a very interesting one. It
should be of interest to anyone with the slightest interest in
business, the military, society, the war in Iraq, and/or Islamic
radicals. Even though it is from a Reagan staff member, i.e., a
conservative, it is a very good look at four major things impacting
our futures.

It is a presentation by Herbert Meyer. He was the first senior U.S.
Government official to forecast the Soviet Union's collapse. For this,
he awarded the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal,
the highest honor that can be received from within intelligence
community. This presentation was made to a symposium of Chief
Executive Officers of several large international corporations, and as
such, is directed at questions and answers for business. However, the
points he makes are very much in tune with the points being made in
many other discussions in the international political arena, and has
some impact on the Shaping and IW issues. The business and demographic
sections are pretty good.


U.S. Joint Forces Command
Joint Futures Lab

Subject: Four Major Transformations

"Currently, there are four major transformations that are shaping
political, economic and world events. These transformations have
profound implications for American business owners, our culture and
our way of LIFE. "

1. The War in Iraq

There are three major monotheistic religions in the world:
Christianity, Judaism and Islam. In the 16th century, Judaism and
Christianity reconciled with the modern world. The rabbis, priests and
scholars found a way to settle up and pave the way forward. Religion
remained at the center of life, church and state became separate. Rule
of law, idea of economic liberty, individual rights, human rights all
these are defining points of modern Western civilization. These
concepts started with the Greeks but didn't take off until the 15th
and 16th century when Judaism and Christianity found a way to
reconcile with the modern world. When that happened, it unleashed the
scientific revolution and the greatest outpouring of art, literature
and music the world has ever known.

Islam, which developed in the 7th century, counts millions of Moslems
around the world who are normal people. However, there is a radical
streak within Islam. When the radicals are in charge, Islam attacks
Western civilization. Islam first attacked Western civilization in the
7th century, and later in the 16th and 17th centuries.

By 1683, the Moslems (Turks from the Ottoman Empire) were literally at
the gates of Vienna. It was in Vienna that the climatic battle between
Islam and Western civilization took place. The West won and went
forward. Islam lost and went backward. Interestingly, the date of that
battle was September 11. Since them, Islam has not found a way to
reconcile with the modern world.

Today, terrorism is the third attack on Western civilization by
radical Islam. To deal with terrorism, the U.S. is doing two things.
First, units of our armed forces are in 30 countries around the world
hunting down terrorist groups and dealing with them. This gets very
little publicity. Second we are taking military action in Afghanistan
and Iraq. These are covered relentlessly by the media. People can
argue about whether the war in Iraq country-region is right or wrong.

However, the underlying strategy behind the war is to use our military
to remove the radicals from power and give the moderates a chance. Our
hope is that, over time, the moderates will find a way to bring Islam
forward into the 21st century. That's what our involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan i all about.

The lesson of 9/11 is that we live in a world where a small number of
people can kill a large number of people very quickly. They can use
airplanes, bombs, anthrax, chemical weapons or dirty bombs. Even with
a first-rate intelligence service (which the U.S. does not have), you
can't stop every attack. That means our tolerance for political
horseplay has dropped to zero. No longer will we play games with
terrorists or weapons of mass destruction.

Most of the instability and horseplay is coming from the Middle East.
That's why we have thought that if we could knock out the radicals and
give the moderates a chance to hold power; they might find a way to
reconcile Islam with the modern world. So when looking at Afghanistan
or Iraq, it's important to look for any signs that they are
modernizing. For example, women being brought into the workforce and
colleges in Afghanistan is good. The Iraqis stumbling toward a
constitution is good. People can argue about what the U.S. is doing
and how we're doing it, but anything that suggests Islam is finding
its way forward is good.

2. The Emergence of China

In the last 20 years, China has moved 250 million people from the
farms and villages into the cities. Their plan is to move another 300
million in the next 20 years. When you put that many people into the
cities, you have to find work for them. That's why China is addicted
to manufacturing; they have to put all the relocated people to work.
When we decide to manufacture something in the U.S., it's based on
market needs and the opportunity to make a profit. In China, they make
the decision because they want the jobs, which is a very different
calculation.

While China is addicted to manufacturing, Americans are addicted to
low prices. As a result, a unique kind of economic codependency has
developed between the two countries. If we ever stop buying from
China, they will explode politically. If China stops selling to us,
our economy will take a huge hit because prices will jump. We are
subsidizing their economic development; they are subsidizing our
economic growth.

Because of their huge growth in manufacturing, China is hungry for raw
materials, which drive prices up worldwide. China is also thirsty for
oil, which is one reason oil is now at $60 a barrel. By 2020, China
will produce more cars than the U.S. China is also buying its way into
the oil infrastructure around the world. They are doing it in the open
market and paying fair market prices, but millions of barrels of oil
that would have gone to the U.S. are now going to China.

China's quest to assure it has the oil it needs to fuel its economy is
a major factor in world politics and economics. We have our Navy
fleets protecting the sea lines, specifically the ability to get the
tankers through. It won't be long before the Chinese have an aircraft
carrier sitting in the Persian Gulf as well. The question is, will
their aircraft carrier be pointing in the same direction as ours or
against us?

3. Shifting Demographics of Western Civilization

Most countries in the Western world have stopped breeding. For a
civilization obsessed with sex, this is remarkable. Maintaining a
steady population requires a birth rate of 2.1. In Western Europe, the
birth rate currently stands at 1.5, or 30 percent below replacement.
In 30 years there will be 70 to 80 million fewer Europeans than there
are today. The current birth rate in Germany is 1.3. Italy and Spain
are even lower at 1.2. At that rate, the working age population
declines by 30 percent in 20 years, which has a huge impact on the
economy.

When you don't have young workers to replace the older ones, you have
to import them. The European countries are currently importing
Moslems. Today, the Moslems comprise 10 percent of France and Germany,
and the percentage is rising rapidly because they have higher
birthrates. However, the Moslem populations are not being integrated
into the cultures of their host countries, which is a political
catastrophe.

One reason Germany and France don't support the Iraq war is they fear
their Moslem populations will explode on them. By 2020, more than half
of all births in the Netherlands will be non-European.

The huge design flaw in the post-modern secular state is that you need
a traditional religious society birth rate to sustain it. The
Europeans simply don't wish to have children, so they are dying.

In Japan, the birthrate is 1.3. As a result, Japan will lose up to 60
million people over the next 30 years. Because Japan has a very
different society than Europe, they refuse to import workers. Instead,
they are just shutting down. Japan has already closed 2000 schools,
and is closing them down at the rate of 300 per year. Japan is also
aging very rapidly. By 2020, one out of every five Japanese will be at
least 70 years old. Nobody has any idea about how to run an economy
with those demographics.

Europe and Japan, which comprise two of the world's major economic
engines, aren't merely in recession, they're shutting down. This will
have a huge impact on the world economy, and it is already beginning
to happen. Why are the birthrates so low? There is a direct
correlation between abandonment of traditional religious society and a
drop in birth rate, and Christianity in Europe is becoming irrelevant.

The second reason is economic. When the birth rate drops below
replacement, the population ages. With fewer working people to support
more retired people, it puts a crushing tax burden on the smaller
group of working age people. As a result, young people delay marriage
and having a family. Once this trend starts, the downward spiral only
gets worse. These countries have abandoned all the traditions they
formerly held in regards to having families and raising children.

The U.S. birth rate is 2.0, just below replacement. We have an
increase in population because of immigration. When broken down by
ethnicity, the Anglo birth rate is 1.6 (same as France) while the
Hispanic birth rate is 2.7. In the U.S., the baby boomers are starting
to retire in massive numbers. This will push the "elder dependency"
ratio from 19 to 38 over the next 10 to 15 years. This is not as bad
as Europe, but still represents the same kind of trend.

Western civilization seems to have forgotten what every primitive
society understands; you need kids to have a healthy society. Children
are huge consumers. Then they grow up to become taxpayers. That's how
a society works, but the post-modern secular state seems to have
forgotten that. If U.S. birth rates of the past 20 to 30 years had
been the same as post-World War II, there would be no Social Security
or Medicare problems.

The world's most effective birth control device is money. As society
creates a middle class and women move into the workforce, birth rates
drop. Having large families is incompatible with middle class living.
The quickest way to drop the birth rate is through rapid economic
development.

After World War II, the U.S. instituted a $600 tax credit per child.
The idea was to enable mom and dad to have four children without being
troubled by taxes. This led to a baby boom of 22 million kids, which
was a huge consumer market that turned into a huge tax base. However,
to match that incentive in today's dollars would cost $12,000 per
child.

China and India do not have declining populations. However, in both
countries, there is a preference for boys over girls, and we now have
the technology to know which is which before they are born. In China
and India, many families are aborting the girls. As a result, in each
of these countries there are 70 million boys growing up who will never
find wives. When left alone, nature produces 103 boys for every 100
girls. In some provinces, however, the ratio is 128 boys to every 100
girls.

The birth rate in Russia is so low that by 2050 their population will
be smaller than that of Yemen. Russia has one-sixth of the earth's
land surface and much of its oil. You can't control that much area
with such a small population. Immediately to the south, you have China
with 70 million unmarried men - a real potential nightmare scenario
for Russia.

4. Restructuring of American Business

The fourth major transformation is a fundamental restructuring of
American business. Today's business environment is very complex and
competitive. To succeed, you have to be the best, which means having
the highest quality and lowest cost. Whatever your price point, you
must have the best quality and lowest price. To be the best, you have
to concentrate on one thing. You can't be all things to all people and
be the best.

A generation ago, IBM used to make every part of their computer. Now
Intel makes the chips, Microsoft makes the software, and someone else
makes the modems, hard drives, monitors, etc. IBM even outsources
their call center. Because IBM has all these companies supplying goods
and services cheaper and better than they could do it themselves, they
can make a better computer at a lower cost. This is called a
"fracturing" of business. When one company can make a better product
by relying on others to perform functions the business used to do
itself, it creates a complex pyramid of companies that serve and
support each other.

This fracturing of American business is now in its second generation.
The companies who supply IBM are now doing the same thing, outsourcing
many of their core services and production process. As a result, they
can make cheaper, better products. Over time, this pyramid continues
to get bigger and bigger. Just when you think it can't fracture again,
it does. Even very small businesses can have a large pyramid of
corporate entities that perform many of its important functions. One
aspect of this trend is that companies end up with fewer employees and
more independent contractors.

This trend has also created two new words in business, integrator and
complementor. At the top of the pyramid, IBM is the integrator. As you
go down the pyramid, Microsoft, Intel and the other companies that
support IBM are the complementors. However, each of the complementors
is itself an integrator for the complementors underneath it. This has
several implications, the first of which is that we are now getting
false readings on the economy. People who used to be employees are now
independent contractors launching their own businesses. There are many
people working whose work is not listed as a job. As a result, the
economy is perking along better than the numbers are telling us.

Outsourcing also confused the numbers. Suppose a company like General
Motors decides to outsource all its employee cafeteria functions to
Marriott (which it did). It lays off hundreds of cafeteria workers,
who then get hired right back by Marriott. The only thing that has
changed is that these people work for Marriott rather than GM. Yet,
the headlines will scream that America has lost more manufacturing
jobs. All that really happened is that these workers are now
reclassified as service workers. So the old way of counting jobs
contributes to false economic readings. As yet, we haven't figured out
how to make the numbers catch up with the changing realities of the
business world.

Another implication of this massive restructuring is that because
companies are getting rid of units and people that used to work for
them, the entity is smaller. As the companies get smaller and more
efficient, revenues are going down but profits are going up. As a
result, the old notion that "revenues are up and we're doing great"
isn't always the case anymore. Companies are getting smaller but are
becoming more efficient and profitable in the process

Implications Of The Four Transformations:

1. The War in Iraq

In some ways, the war is going very well. Afghanistan and Iraq have
the ' start' of a modern government, which is a huge step forward. The
Saudis are starting to talk about some good things, while Egypt and
Lebanon are beginning to move in a good direction.

A series of revolutions have taken place in countries like Ukraine and
Georgia. There will be more of these revolutions for an interesting
reason. In every revolution, there comes a point where the dictator
turns to the general and says, "Fire into the crowd." If the general
fires into the crowd, it stops the revolution. If the general says
"No," the revolution is over. Increasingly, the generals are saying
"No" because their kids are in the crowd.

Thanks to TV and the Internet, the average 18-year old outside the
U.S. is very savvy about what is going on in the world, especially in
terms of popular culture. There is a huge global consciousness, and
young people around the world want to be a part of it. It is
increasingly apparent to them that the miserable government where they
live is the only thing standing in their way. More and more, it is the
well-educated kids, the children of the generals and the elite, who
are leading the revolutions.

At the same time, not all is well with the war. The level of violence
in Iraq is much worse and doesn't appear to be improving. It's
possible that we're asking too much of Islam all at one time. We're
trying to jolt them from the 7th century to the 21st century all at
once, which may be further than they can go. They might make it and
they might not. Nobody knows for sure. The point is, we don't know how
the war will turn out. Anyone who says they know is just guessing.

The real place to watch is Iran. If they actually obtain nuclear
weapons it will be a terrible situation. There are two ways to deal
with it. The first is a military strike, which will be very difficult.
The Iranians have dispersed their nuclear development facilities and
put them underground. The U.S. has nuclear weapons that can go under
the earth and take out those facilities, but we don't want to do that.

The other way is to separate the radical mullahs from the government,
which is the most likely course of action.

Seventy percent of the Iranian population is under 30. They are Moslem
but not Arab. They are mostly pro-Western. Many experts think the U.S.
should have dealt with Iran before going to war with Iraq. The problem
isn't so much the weapons; it's the people who control them. If Iran
has a moderate government, the weapons become less of a concern.

We don't know if we will win the war in Iraq. We could lose or win.
What we are looking for is any indicator that Islam is moving into the
21st century and stabilizing.

2. China

It may be that pushing 500 million people from farms and villages into
cities is too much too soon. Although it gets almost no publicity,
China is experiencing hundreds of demonstrations around the country,
which is unprecedented. These are not students in Tiananmen Square.
These are average citizens who are angry with the government for
building chemical plants and polluting the water they drink and the
air they breathe.

The Chinese are a smart and industrious people. They may be able to
pull it off and become a very successful economic and military
superpower. If so, we will have to learn to live with it. If they want
to share the responsibility of keeping the world's oil lanes open,
that's a good thing. They currently have eight new nuclear electric
power generators under way and 45 on the books to build. Soon, they
will leave the U.S. way behind in their ability to generate nuclear
power.

What can go wrong with China? For one, you can't move 550 million
people into the cities without major problems. Two, China really wants
Taiwan, not so much for economic reasons, they just want it. The
Chinese know that their system of communism can't survive much longer
in the 21st century. The last thing they want to do before they morph
into some sort of more capitalistic government is to take over Taiwan.
We may wake up one morning and find they have launched an attack on
Taiwan. If so, it will be a mess, both economically and militarily.
The U.S. has committed to the military defense of Taiwan. If China
attacks Taiwan, will we really go to war against them? If the Chinese
generals believe the answer is no, they may attack. If we don't defend
Taiwan, every treaty the U.S. has will be worthless. Hopefully, China
won't do anything stupid.

3. Demographics

Europe and Japan are dying because their populations are aging and
shrinking. These trends can be reversed if the young people start
breeding. However, the birth rates in these areas are so low it will
take two generations to turn things around. No economic model exists
that permits 50 years to turn things around.

Some countries are beginning to offer incentives for people to have
bigger families. For example, Italy is offering tax breaks for having
children. However, it's a lifestyle issue versus a tiny amount of
money. Europeans aren't willing to give up their comfortable
lifestyles in order to have more children.

In general, everyone in Europe just wants it to last a while longer.
Europeans have a real talent for living. They don't want to work very
hard. The average European worker gets 400 more hours of vacation time
per year than Americans. They don't want to work and they don't want
to make any of the changes needed to revive their economies.

The summer after 9/11, France lost 15,000 people in a heat wave. In
August, the country basically shuts down when everyone goes on
vacation. That year, a severe heat wave struck and 15,000 elderly
people living in nursing homes and hospitals died. Their children
didn't even leave the beaches to come back and take care of the
bodies. Institutions had to scramble to find enough refrigeration
units to hold the bodies until people came to claim them. This loss of
life was five times bigger than 9/11 in America, yet it didn't trigger
any change in French society.

When birth rates are so low, it creates a tremendous tax burden on the
young. Under those circumstances, keeping mom and dad alive is not an
attractive option. That's why euthanasia is becoming so popular in
most European countries. The only country that doesn't permit (and
even encourage) euthanasia is Germany, because of all the baggage from
World War II.

The European economy is beginning to fracture. The Euro is down.
Countries like Italy are starting to talk about pulling out of the
European Union because it is killing them. When things get bad
economically in Europe, they tend to get very nasty politically. The
canary in the mine is anti-Semitism. When it goes up, it means trouble
is coming. Current levels of anti-Semitism are higher than ever.
Germany won't launch another war, but Europe will likely get shabbier,
more dangerous and less pleasant to live in.

Japan has a birth rate of 1.3 and they have no intention of bringing
in immigrants. By 2020, one out of every five Japanese will be 70
years old. Property values in Japan have dropped every year for the
past 14 years. The country is simply shutting down.

In the U.S. we also have an aging population. Boomers are starting to
retire at a massive rate. These retirements will have several major
impacts:

* Possible massive sell-off of large four-bedroom houses and a
movement to condos. An enormous drain on the treasury. Boomers vote
and they want their benefits, even if it means putting a crushing tax
burden on their kids to get them. Social Security will be a huge
problem. As this generation ages, it will start to drain the system.
We are the only country in the world where there are no age limits on
medical procedures.

* An enormous drain on the health care system. This will also increase
the tax burden on the young, which will cause them to delay marriage
and having families, which will drive down the birth rate even
further. Although scary, these demographics also present enormous
opportunities for products and services tailored to aging populations.
There will be tremendous demand for caring for older people,
especially those who don't need nursing homes but need some level of
care. Some people will have a business where they take care of three
or four people in their homes. The demand for that type of service and
for products to physically care for aging people will be huge.

Make sure the demographics of your business are attuned to where the
action is. For example, you don't want to be a baby food company in
Europe or Japan. Demographics are much underrated as an indicator of
where the opportunities are. Businesses need customers. Go where the
customers are.

4. Restructuring of American Business

The restructuring of American business means we are coming to the end
of the age of the employer and employee. With all this fracturing of
businesses into different and smaller units, employers can't guarantee
jobs anymore because they don't know what their companies will look
like next year. Everyone is on their way to becoming an independent
contractor. The new workforce contract will be, "Show up at my office
five days a week and do what I want you to do, but you handle your own
insurance, benefits, health care and everything else."

Husbands and wives are becoming economic units. They take different
jobs and work different shifts depending on where they are in their
careers and families. They make tradeoffs to put together a
compensation package to take care of the family. This used to happen
only with highly educated professionals with high incomes. Now it is
happening at the level of the factory floor worker. Couples at all
levels are designing their compensation packages based on their
individual needs. The only way this can work is if everything is
portable and flexible, which requires a huge shift in the American
economy.

The U.S. is in the process of building the world's first 21st century
model economy. The only other countries doing this are U.K. and
Australia. The model is fast, flexible, highly productive and unstable
in that it is always fracturing and re-fracturing. This will increase
the economic gap between the U.S. and everybody else, especially
Europe and Japan.

At the same time, the military gap is increasing. Other than China, we
are the only country that is continuing to put money into their
military. Plus, we are the only military getting on-the-ground
military experience through our war in Iraq. We know which high-tech
weapons are working and which ones aren't. There is almost no one who
can take us on economically or militarily. There has never been a
superpower in this position before.

On the one hand, this makes the U.S. a magnet for bright and ambitious
people. It also makes us a target. We are becoming one of the last
holdouts of the traditional Judeo-Christian culture. There is no
better place in the world to be in business and raise children. The U.
S. is by far the best place to have an idea, form a business and put
it into the marketplace. We take it for granted, but it isn't as
available in other countries of the world.

Ultimately, it's an issue of culture. The only people who can hurt us
are ourselves, by losing our culture. If we give up our
Judeo-Christian culture, we become just like the Europeans. The
culture war is the whole ballgame. If we lose it, there isn't another
America to pull us out.

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

Similar story focusing on Iran.

Move and Countermove: Ahmadinejad and Bush Duel

Dr. George FriedmanIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Aug. 28
that U.S. power in Iraq is rapidly being destroyed. Then he said that
Iran, with the help of regional friends and the Iraqi nation, is ready
to fill the vacuum. Ahmadinejad specifically reached out to Saudi
Arabia, saying the Saudis and Iranians could collaborate in managing
Iraq. Later in the day, U.S. President George W. Bush responded, saying,
"I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these
forces of radicalism and extremism are allowed to drive us out of the
Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that
could imperil the civilized world." He specifically mentioned Iran and
its threat of nuclear weapons.

On Aug. 27, we argued that, given the United States' limited ability to
secure Iraq, the strategic goal must now shift from controlling Iraq to
defending the Arabian Peninsula against any potential Iranian ambitions
in that direction. "Whatever mistakes might have been made in the past,
the current reality is that any withdrawal from Iraq would create a
vacuum, which would rapidly be filled by Iran," we wrote.

Ahmadinejad's statements, made at a two-hour press conference, had
nothing to do with what we wrote, nor did Bush's response. What these
statements do show, though, is how rapidly the thinking in Tehran is
evolving in response to Iranian perceptions of a pending U.S. withdrawal
and a power vacuum in Iraq -- and how the Bush administration is
shifting its focus from the Sunni threat to both the Sunni and Shiite
threats.

The most important thing Ahmadinejad discussed at his press conference
was not the power vacuum, but Saudi Arabia. He reached out to the
Saudis, saying Iran and Saudi Arabia together could fill the vacuum in
Iraq and stabilize the country. The subtext was that not only does Iran
not pose a threat to Saudi Arabia, it would be prepared to enhance Saudi
power by giving it a substantial role in a post-U.S. Iraq.

Iran is saying that Saudi Arabia does not need to defend itself against
Iran, and it certainly does not need the United States to redeploy its
forces along the Saudi-Iraqi border in order to defend itself. While
dangling the carrot of participation in a post-war Iraq, Iran also is
wielding a subtle stick. One of the reasons for al Qaeda's formation was
the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. Radical
Islamists in Saudi Arabia regarded the U.S. presence as sacrilege and
the willingness of the Saudi regime to permit American troops to be
there as blasphemous. After 9/11, the Saudis asked the United States to
withdraw its forces, and following the Iraq invasion they fought a
fairly intense battle against al Qaeda inside the kingdom. Having U.S.
troops defend Saudi Arabia once again -- even if they were stationed
outside its borders -- would inflame passions inside the kingdom, and
potentially destabilize the regime.

The Saudis are in a difficult position. Since the Iranian Revolution,
the Saudi relationship with Iran has ranged from extremely hostile to
uneasy. It is not simply a Sunni and Shiite matter. Iran is more than
just a theocracy. It arose from a very broad popular uprising against
the shah. It linked the idea of a republic to Islam, combining a Western
revolutionary tradition with Shiite political philosophy. Saudi Arabia,
on the other hand, is a monarchy that draws its authority from
traditional clan and tribal structures and Wahhabi Islam in the Arabian
Peninsula. The Saudis felt trapped between the pro-Soviet radicalism of
the Iraqis and Syrians, and of the various factions of the Palestinian
movement on the one side -- and the Islamic Republic in Iran on the
other. Isolated, it had only the United States to depend on, and that
dependency blew up in its face during the 1990-91 war in Kuwait.

But there also is a fundamental geopolitical problem. Saudi Arabia
suffers from a usually fatal disease. It is extraordinarily rich and
militarily weak. It has managed to survive and prosper by having foreign
states such as the United Kingdom and the United States have a stake in
its independence -- and guarantee that independence with their power. If
it isn't going to rely on an outside power to protect it, and it has
limited military resources of its own, then how will it protect itself
against the Iranians? Iran, a country with a large military -- whose
senior officers and noncoms were blooded in the Iran-Iraq war -- does
not have a great military, merely a much larger and experienced one than
the Saudis.

The Saudis have Iran's offer. The problem is that the offer cannot be
guaranteed by Saudi power, but depends on Iran's willingness to honor
it. Absent the United States, any collaboration with Iran would depend
on Iran's will. And the Iranians are profoundly different from the
Saudis and, more important, much poorer. Whatever their intentions might
be today -- and who can tell what the Iranians intend? -- those
intentions might change. If they did, it would leave Saudi Arabia at
risk to Iranian power.

Saudi Arabia is caught between a rock and a hard place and it knows it.
But there might be the beginnings of a solution in Turkey. Ahmadinejad's
offer of collaboration was directed toward regional powers other than
Iran. That includes Turkey. Turkey stayed clear of the U.S. invasion of
Iraq, refusing to let U.S. troops invade Iraq from there. However,
Turkey has some important interests in how the war in Iraq ends. First,
it does not want to see any sort of Kurdish state, fearing Kurdish
secessionism in Turkey as well. Second, it has an interest in oil in
northern Iraq. Both interests could be served by a Turkish occupation of
northern Iraq, under the guise of stabilizing Iraq along with Iran and
Saudi Arabia.

When we say that Iran is now the dominant regional power, we also should
say that is true unless we add Turkey to the mix. Turkey is certainly a
military match for Iran, and more than an economic one. Turkey's economy
is the 18th largest in the world -- larger than Saudi Arabia's -- and it
is growing rapidly. In many ways, Iran needs a good relationship with
Turkey, given its power and economy. If Turkey were to take an interest
in Iraq, that could curb Iran's appetite. While Turkey could not defend
Saudi Arabia, it certainly could threaten Iran's rear if it chose to
move south. And with the threat of Turkish intervention, Iran would have
to be very careful indeed.

But Turkey has been cautious in its regional involvements. It is not
clear whether it will involve itself in Iraq beyond making certain that
Kurdish independence does not go too far. Even if it were to move deeper
into Iraq, it is not clear whether it would be prepared to fight Iran
over Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Turkey does not want to deal with
a powerful Iran -- and if the Iranians did take the Saudi oil fields,
they would be more than a match for Turkey. Turkey's regime is very
different from those in Saudi Arabia and Iran, but geopolitics make
strange bedfellows. Iran could not resist a Turkish intervention in
northern Iraq, nor could it be sure what Turkey would do if Iran turned
south. That uncertainty might restrain Iran.

And that is the thin reed on which Saudi national security would rest if
it rejected an American presence to its north. The United States could
impose itself anyway, but being sandwiched between a hostile Iran and
hostile Saudi Arabia would not be prudent, to say the least. Therefore,
the Saudis could scuttle a U.S. blocking force if they wished. If the
Saudis did this and joined the Iranian-led stabilization program in
Iraq, they would then be forced to rely on a Turkish presence in
northern Iraq to constrain any future Iranian designs on Arabia. That is
not necessarily a safe bet as it assumes that the Turks would be
interested in balancing Iran at a time when Russian power is returning
to the Caucasus, Greek power is growing in the Balkans, and the Turkish
economy is requiring ever more attention from Ankara. Put simply, Turkey
has a lot of brands in the fire, and the Saudis betting on the Iranian
brand having priority is a long shot.

The Iranian position is becoming more complex as Tehran tries to forge a
post-war coalition to manage Iraq -- and to assure the coalition that
Iran doesn't plan to swallow some of its members. The United States, in
the meantime, appears to be trying to simplify its position, by once
again focusing on the question of nuclear weapons.

Bush's speech followed this logic. First, according to Bush, the
Iranians are now to be seen as a threat equal to the jihadists. In other
words, the Iranian clerical regime and al Qaeda are equal threats. That
is the reason the administration is signaling that the Iranian
Republican Guards are to be named a terrorist group. A withdrawal from
Iraq, therefore, would be turning Iraq over to Iran, and that, in turn,
would transform the region. But rather than discussing the geopolitical
questions we have been grappling with, Bush has focused on Iran's
nuclear capability.

Iran is developing nuclear weapons, though we have consistently argued
that Tehran does not expect to actually achieve a deliverable nuclear
device. In the first place, that is because the process of building a
device small enough and rugged enough to be useful is quite complex.
There is quite a leap between testing a device and having a workable
weapon. Also, and far more important, Iran fully expects the United
States or Israel to destroy its nuclear facilities before a weapon is
complete. The Iranians are using their nuclear program as a bargaining chip.

The problem is that the negotiations have ended. The prospect of Iran
trading its nuclear program for U.S. concessions in Iraq has disappeared
along with the negotiations. Bush, therefore, has emphasized that there
is no reason for the United States to be restrained about the Iranian
nuclear program. Iran might not be close to having a deliverable device,
but the risk is too great to let it continue developing one. Therefore,
the heart of Bush's speech was that withdrawing would vastly increase
Iran's power, and an Iranian nuclear weapon would be catastrophic.

From this, one would think the United States is considering attacking
Iran. Indeed, the French warning against such an attack indicates that
Paris might have picked something up as well. Certainly, Washington is
signaling that, given the situation in Iraq and Iran's assertion that it
will be filling the vacuum, the United States is being forced to face
the possibility of an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities.

There are two problems here. The first is the technical question of
whether a conventional strike could take out all of Iran's nuclear
facilities. We don't know the answer, but we do know that Iran has been
aware of the probability of such an attack and is likely to have taken
precautions, from creating uncertainty as to the location of sites to
hardening them. The second problem is the more serious one.

Assume that the United States attacked and destroyed Iran's nuclear
facilities. The essential geopolitical problem would not change. The
U.S. position in Iraq would remain extremely difficult, the three
options we discussed Aug. 27 would remain in place, and in due course
Iran would fill the vacuum left by the United States. The destruction of
Iran's nuclear facilities would not address any of those problems.

Therefore, implicit in Bush's speech is the possibility of broader
measures against Iran. These could include a broad air campaign against
Iranian infrastructure -- military and economic -- and a blockade of its
ports. The measures could not include ground troops because there are no
substantial forces available and redeploying all the troops in Iraq to
surge into Iran, logistical issues aside, would put 150,000 troops in a
very large country.

The United States can certainly conduct an air campaign against Iran,
but we are reminded of the oldest lesson of air power -- one learned by
the Israeli air force against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006: Air power
is enormously successful in concert with a combined arms operation, but
has severe limitations when applied on its own. The idea that nations
will capitulate because of the pain of an air campaign has little
historical basis. It doesn't usually happen. Unlike Hezbollah, however,
Iran is a real state with real infrastructure, economic interests,
military assets and critical port facilities -- all with known locations
that can be pummeled with air power. The United States might not be able
to impose its will on the ground, but it can certainly impose a great
deal of pain. Of course, an all-out air war would cripple Iran in a way
that would send global oil prices through the roof -- since Iran remains
the world's fourth-largest oil exporter.

A blockade, however, also would be problematic. It is easy to prevent
Iranian ships from moving in and out of port -- and, unlike Iraq, Iran
has no simple options to divert its maritime energy trade to land routes
-- but what would the United States do if a Russian, Chinese or French
vessel sailed in? Would it seize it? Sink it? Obviously either is
possible. But just how broad an array of enemies does the United States
want to deal with at one time? And remember that, with ports sealed,
Iran's land neighbors would have to participate in blocking the movement
of goods. We doubt they would be that cooperative.

Finally, and most important, Iran has the ability to counter any U.S.
moves. It has assets in Iraq that could surge U.S. casualties
dramatically if ordered to do so. Iran also has terrorism capabilities
that are not trivial. We would say that Iran's capabilities are
substantially greater than al Qaeda's. Under a sustained air campaign,
they would use them.

Bush's threat to strike nuclear weapons makes sense only in the context
of a broader air and naval campaign against Iran. Leaving aside the
domestic political ramifications and the international diplomatic
blowback, the fundamental problem is that Iran is a very large country
where a lot of targets would have to be hit. That would take many months
to achieve, and during that time Iran would likely strike back in Iraq
and perhaps in the United States as well. An air campaign would not
bring Iran to its knees quickly, unless it was nuclear -- and we simply
do not think the United States will break the nuclear taboo first.

The United States is also in a tough place. While it makes sense to make
threats in response to Iranian threats -- to keep Tehran off balance --
the real task for the United States is to convince Saudi Arabia to stick
to its belief that collaboration with Iran is too dangerous, and
convince Turkey to follow its instincts in northern Iraq without
collaborating with the Iranians. The Turks are not fools and will not
simply play the American game, but the more active Turkey is, the more
cautious Iran must be.

The latest statement from Ahmadinejad convinces us that Iran sees its
opening. However, the United States, even if it is not bluffing about an
attack against Iran, would find such an attack less effective than it
might hope. In the end, even after an extended air campaign, it will
come down to that. In the end, no matter how many moves are made, the
United States is going to have to define a post-Iraq strategy and that
strategy must focus on preventing Iran from threatening the Arabian
Peninsula. Even after an extended air campaign, it will come down to
that. In case of war, the only "safe" location for a U.S. land force to
hedge against an Iranian move against the Arabian Peninsula would be
Kuwait, a country lacking the strategic depth to serve as an effective
counter.

Ahmadinejad has made his rhetorical move. Bush has responded. Now the
regional diplomacy intensifies as the report from the top U.S. commander
in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is prepared for presentation to Congress
on Sept. 15.



George Friedman

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:50:44 -0500, Rex wrote:

Similar story focusing on Iran.

Move and Countermove: Ahmadinejad and Bush Duel

Dr. George FriedmanIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Aug. 28
that U.S. power in Iraq is rapidly being destroyed. Then he said that
Iran, with the help of regional friends and the Iraqi nation, is ready
to fill the vacuum. Ahmadinejad specifically reached out to Saudi
Arabia, saying the Saudis and Iranians could collaborate in managing
Iraq. Later in the day, U.S. President George W. Bush responded, saying,
"I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these
forces of radicalism and extremism are allowed to drive us out of the
Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that
could imperil the civilized world." He specifically mentioned Iran and
its threat of nuclear weapons.


When the Frogs are showing concern about Irans plans...things are
bad.

http://euronews.net/index.php?page=i...e=439453&lng=1


Gunner

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:50:44 -0500, Rex
wrote:
snip
The United States can certainly conduct an air campaign against Iran,
but we are reminded of the oldest lesson of air power -- one learned by
the Israeli air force against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006: Air power
is enormously successful in concert with a combined arms operation, but
has severe limitations when applied on its own. The idea that nations
will capitulate because of the pain of an air campaign has little
historical basis. It doesn't usually happen. Unlike Hezbollah, however,
Iran is a real state with real infrastructure, economic interests,
military assets and critical port facilities -- all with known locations
that can be pummeled with air power. The United States might not be able
to impose its will on the ground, but it can certainly impose a great
deal of pain. Of course, an all-out air war would cripple Iran in a way
that would send global oil prices through the roof -- since Iran remains
the world's fourth-largest oil exporter.
snip
Iran has already said it will use "the oil weapon" if attacked.

A large percent of the world's oil passes through the Strait of
Hormuz [Ormuz] which is about 30 miles wide at its narrowest
point.

Iran is known to have purchased a number of Silkworm
anti-shipping missiles from the PRC and it would be like shooting
fish in a barrel to kill oil tankers in this strait.

You do not require purpose built ships to lay mines either. I
don't think that a row boat is up to the job, but a fishing boat
should be ample, possibly with the mine hung underneath and thus
not visible from the air. Long range artillery fire is another
option, particurarly if the mines force the tankers into narrow
shipping lanes near the Iran coast.

Note that it is not be necessary to destroy every tanker as a
loss rate of 1 in 20 to 1 in 10 would be sufficient to cause the
insurance rates to become excessive [compared to how much you can
make carrying oil].

Suicide speedboats packed with a ton or two of explosives are
another option. An inflatable boat packed with explosives nearly
sank one of our [US] destroyers in port.

Iran is also know to have purchased Diesel submarines from
Germany, and possibly more from China or Russia, allowing then to
attack oil tankers anywhere in the world.

Just as the US lacks the forces for a ground operation against
Iran, we do not have the air power for a 24 hour CAP over the
strait not the naval power for escorts for tanker convoys all
over the world.

We could of course nuke Iran "until it glowed," but this is
highly likely to result in every country in the world, other than
possibly Israel, turning against us, especially if this is a
preemptive unilateral strike, raising the question "who is next
on the US hit list?"

Thus the oil loss will be far more than just what Iran produces.
A serious complication is that the oil that would be lost is not
just the oil to the US [we still import considerable oil from
western hemishpere nations AFAIK none from Iran] but is also the
major suplies of oil to Japan, China and India, and the other
Asian countries who are unlikely to passively allow their
economies to be crippled.

It is also unclear when we refer to a "country" in the Middle
East, if we are referring to a geographical area or a nation in
the European sense and (even in Europe this can be a problem e.g.
Belgium, and the UK-England/Scotland). In many cases the
"countries" of the ME exist solely because the administrators of
the defunct Ottoman empire, sat down with a crayola and a map,
drew some lines, and told the local cappos they were now the
Kings, Emirs, etc. and that they should "pacify" their new
states. To be specific, when we refer to Saudi Arabia, are we
talking about an area on a map in a different color, the House of
Saud, or a group of people who regard themselves as a nation?

They told him "cheer-up, things could be worse," so he cheered up
and sure enough things got worse....

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:50:44 -0500, Rex
wrote:
snip
The United States can certainly conduct an air campaign against Iran,
but we are reminded of the oldest lesson of air power -- one learned by
the Israeli air force against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006: Air power
is enormously successful in concert with a combined arms operation, but
has severe limitations when applied on its own. The idea that nations
will capitulate because of the pain of an air campaign has little
historical basis. It doesn't usually happen. Unlike Hezbollah, however,
Iran is a real state with real infrastructure, economic interests,
military assets and critical port facilities -- all with known locations
that can be pummeled with air power. The United States might not be able
to impose its will on the ground, but it can certainly impose a great
deal of pain. Of course, an all-out air war would cripple Iran in a way
that would send global oil prices through the roof -- since Iran remains
the world's fourth-largest oil exporter.
snip
Iran has already said it will use "the oil weapon" if attacked.

A large percent of the world's oil passes through the Strait of
Hormuz [Ormuz] which is about 30 miles wide at its narrowest
point.

Iran is known to have purchased a number of Silkworm
anti-shipping missiles from the PRC and it would be like shooting
fish in a barrel to kill oil tankers in this strait.

You do not require purpose built ships to lay mines either. I
don't think that a row boat is up to the job, but a fishing boat
should be ample, possibly with the mine hung underneath and thus
not visible from the air. Long range artillery fire is another
option, particurarly if the mines force the tankers into narrow
shipping lanes near the Iran coast.

Actually, during a previous dustup, there were a few big oil tankers
that were hit with Exocet missiles. Nothing happened. The warhead
explosion was smothered by all that crude oil, the consistency of tar.
In at least one case, the crew didn't realize that they had been hit,
and the truth came out only when they notices the small leak caused by
the entrance wound. Not clear that Silkworms will do any better.

Joe Gwinn

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

Gunner wrote:

When the Frogs are showing concern about Irans plans...things are
bad.

http://euronews.net/index.php?page=i...e=439453&lng=1


Considering how their constitution allows anyone from a former French colony
to immigrate and achieve citizenship, their concerns about anything Muslim
related is likely higher than ours. Unfortuantly for them, they have a lot
more of them in their country than we do.

At least ours seem to have integrated into our society and economics fairly
well. Many of theirs are living at the lower levels of French society and
economics which tends to breed discontent.


Wes

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:11:46 -0400, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
F. George McDuffee wrote:

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:50:44 -0500, Rex
wrote:
snip
The United States can certainly conduct an air campaign against Iran,
but we are reminded of the oldest lesson of air power -- one learned by
the Israeli air force against Hezbollah in the summer of 2006: Air power
is enormously successful in concert with a combined arms operation, but
has severe limitations when applied on its own. The idea that nations
will capitulate because of the pain of an air campaign has little
historical basis. It doesn't usually happen. Unlike Hezbollah, however,
Iran is a real state with real infrastructure, economic interests,
military assets and critical port facilities -- all with known locations
that can be pummeled with air power. The United States might not be able
to impose its will on the ground, but it can certainly impose a great
deal of pain. Of course, an all-out air war would cripple Iran in a way
that would send global oil prices through the roof -- since Iran remains
the world's fourth-largest oil exporter.
snip
Iran has already said it will use "the oil weapon" if attacked.

A large percent of the world's oil passes through the Strait of
Hormuz [Ormuz] which is about 30 miles wide at its narrowest
point.

Iran is known to have purchased a number of Silkworm
anti-shipping missiles from the PRC and it would be like shooting
fish in a barrel to kill oil tankers in this strait.

You do not require purpose built ships to lay mines either. I
don't think that a row boat is up to the job, but a fishing boat
should be ample, possibly with the mine hung underneath and thus
not visible from the air. Long range artillery fire is another
option, particurarly if the mines force the tankers into narrow
shipping lanes near the Iran coast.

Actually, during a previous dustup, there were a few big oil tankers
that were hit with Exocet missiles. Nothing happened. The warhead
explosion was smothered by all that crude oil, the consistency of tar.
In at least one case, the crew didn't realize that they had been hit,
and the truth came out only when they notices the small leak caused by
the entrance wound. Not clear that Silkworms will do any better.

Joe Gwinn

Indeed

And once the mad dwarf fires up the Straights...all bets are off.

I suspect the US (and every other nation who gets their oil from the
region will give Iran one (1) warning. If its ignored...Tehran..the
Paris of the Middle East..will resemble the Berlin of 1945

Gunner

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 23:26:22 -0700, Gunner
wrote:

Indeed

And once the mad dwarf fires up the Straights...all bets are off.

I suspect the US (and every other nation who gets their oil from the
region will give Iran one (1) warning. If its ignored...Tehran..the
Paris of the Middle East..will resemble the Berlin of 1945

Gunner
=========
We would do well to remember that even through Berlin and the
other major German cities such as Dresden were reduce to rubble
and ashes, the Third Reich fought on for many months and it still
required the combined power of the US and USSR *ON THE GROUND* to
at last put an end to it.

Because Russia is now a major oil exporting country it is highly
doubtful they would join in any operations, as they would be
getting rich and even more powerful in the geo-political/economic
sense as a result of a closure of the straits.

Given the very widespread Arab/Moslem perception of a new [9th]
Crusade by the west, it is likely that the huge majority of the
MidEast would support Iran, and will regard any preemptive strike
as additional proof. Attempts by their elites to support the
west will quite likely result in their violent overthrow and
imposition of Islamic republics more than likely closely allied
with Iran.

It is also likely that some oil sources in the western hemisphere
such as Veneszula will embargo oil shipments to the US and divert
this oil to Eurpe and Asia, while others such as Brasil will sell
to the highest bidders and/or preferred trading partners such as
the EEC, paying in Euros and Yen, not the rapidly depreciating
dollar. This may well include Mexico.

China has already secured much oil in Africa and is rapidly
moving to secure more and expand their trade/influence. The
model of China as an authoritian state with rapidly expanding
economic and military power is also very appealing to the African
elite, espically s their diplomats do not continually drone on
about 'human rights" and "free markets."

Any major reduction in oil shipments will spell disaster for the
Wests' economies, and even if Iran is removed as a player it is
unlikely to restore the free flow of oil to antebellum
conditions, based on our experience in Iraq. Indeed, as oil will
be seen as the reason for the crusade/occupation, and as each
barrel pumped and shipped will be seen as a theft from the nation
(or tribe) under which it is being pumped, every effort will be
made to sabotage its production and transportation, and it is
impossible to effectively guard pipelines.

You are correct when you observe
And once the mad dwarf fires up the Straights...all bets are off.

Not all problems have solutions, and this may well be one of
them.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

On Aug 31, 8:11 pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
...
Actually, during a previous dustup, there were a few big oil tankers
that were hit with Exocet missiles. Nothing happened. The warhead
explosion was smothered by all that crude oil, the consistency of tar.
In at least one case, the crew didn't realize that they had been hit,
and the truth came out only when they notices the small leak caused by
the entrance wound. Not clear that Silkworms will do any better.

Joe Gwinn-

Several US and German WWII submariners discussed this in their
memoirs. Tankers were prime targets and the ones carrying gasoline
went up spectacularly but ones carrying heavy crude could be very
difficult to sink or sometimes even to slow down.

jw

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

I've been hearing about this for 15 years ? More ?

What's to be done ?

There's no leadership.

The West seems doped on drugs, materialism, too much food, PC....?

You can't get the average "Western" man excited about nothing except
football or Nascar.

Even I've become apathetic.

Should we blow up something ? A couple guys tried that and it
amounted to zip.

The 20th century the "West" was without peer....now the whole lot of
us can't seem to wait to die off and disappear.

Weirdest thing I've ever heard of.

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

On Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:36:48 -0700, GatherNoMoss
wrote:

snip

The 20th century the "West" was without peer....now the whole lot of
us can't seem to wait to die off and disappear.

Weirdest thing I've ever heard of.
=========
deep subject for AMC...

In many ways it is an admission by the people, albeit tacit,
subliminal and unconscious, that the state and its bureaucracy
have won. What the state and its functionaries fail to realize
is that they have won in exactly the same way that a cancer wins,
and in winning they just committed suicide.

As in far too many cases, the reactionaries/conservatives/torys,
secure in their gated communities and private clubs, remain
totally unaware of the rapidly growing problems, thus almost all
of the investigation and writing on this problem is being done by
the liberals and far left, with their well-known blind-spots and
biases.

Review the wikipedia link below for a fairly comprehensive
review. It may well be that the west after a 500 year run is
just "out of Schlitz." The foundation of western society/culture
is the nation state and as this foundation is abolished it is not
surprising that the society/culture is also collapsing, or at
least morphing into something alien.

click on
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse
http://www.compassionatespirit.com/Collapse.htm
{I have the first book and it is an easy read, glib answers but
has some good insights}
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/tiberg/Po...ff-Polanyi.htm
http://www.springerlink.com/index/2X83616686KP75Q3.pdf
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0268-540X(199006)6%3A3%3C18%3AAATEO'%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=152...3E2.0.CO%3B2-K
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?do...4&brand=eschol


interesting, but...
http://groups.msn.com/news/general.m...37433815128836

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

OT-Interesting read on the status of the world today
 

"GatherNoMoss" wrote in message
ups.com...
I've been hearing about this for 15 years ? More ?

What's to be done ?

There's no leadership.

The West seems doped on drugs, materialism, too much food, PC....?

You can't get the average "Western" man excited about nothing except
football or Nascar.

We Easterners also get excited about baseball.


Even I've become apathetic.

No baseball, I'll bet.


Should we blow up something ? A couple guys tried that and it
amounted to zip.

Have you ever seen a chipmunk strapped to a lit M80? Now, *that's*
entertainment.


The 20th century the "West" was without peer....now the whole lot of
us can't seem to wait to die off and disappear.

Speak for yourself.


Weirdest thing I've ever heard of.

Ha! Then you haven't seen previews for the new reality shows.

--
Ed Huntress