Raising Water Levels on London and China’s Drought/Grain Problem

As we close 2006 and look to 2007, two global warming major reports - one from Finland and other from China - presents the increasingly dire environmental situation we are facing globally.

And whether or not one believes climate change is chiefly man-made or not, we are both under prepared for the coming climate change and making only small progress in curtailing the pollution contributing to global warming.

The two separate reports suggests that:

• London will be partially submerged: “A sea level rise of a metre or more would be “very bad news” for major coastal cities, greatly increasing the risk of devastating storm surges. Particularly at risk are cities on or close to North Atlantic shores, such as London, according to his study in the journal Science.” (Telegraph, 12/18/2006)
• China will face drought and challenges feeding its growing population: “The official [government, SU’s note] assessment concludes that hotter weather and increased evaporation will outweigh greater rain and snowfall. In the country’s south, heavier rainfalls could trigger more landslides and mudslides, it also warns. Luo indicated that by 2030-2050, China’s potential grain output could fall by 10 percent, unless crop varieties and practices adapt to the increasingly turbulent climate.” (Reuters, 12/27/2006)

What will the US Preparedness Plan and Response Be? Will it be Regional or Global?

Some examples of government response to pollution and climate change:

• China has been increasingly placing focus on environmental issues, as both as a way to undercut protests regarding deteriorating environment in parts of China and ensure the overall sustainability and stability of China.
• The UK has the Thames Estuary 2100 Project, which seeks to help protect London from a raising Thames through 2100.

With the considerable number of US cities on coastal areas - San Francisco, New York, Seattle, Miami etc - when should we expect a co-ordinate state and federal level of long term 20,50,100 years ahead study on risks of the US coastlines?

What studies and plans does the US have to protect the agricultural lands? Investments in agricultural technology? 10, 20, 50 outline of possible changes in fertileness of the land and how it will effect the US internally to feed itself and externally where it sells its food globally and as a diplomatic tool (giving grain as aid, etc).
Will the US take lead regional, globally in preparing and planning? Or at least focusing on specific areas where disruption of usual weather patterns can spark massive drought and with it conflict and war?

This is far too ambitious thinking for the Bush Administration, as it faces issues in Iraq and of a sitting-duck Presidency, but what will the next administration due?

Many should know by the the issue involving White House censorship of the Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann’s New York Times Op-Ed (see image on left).

I have no issue regarding the prepublication review by the CIA’s Publication Review Board to ensure to classified information are directly or indirectly disclosed, but both Leverett and Mann claims that this was not the case.

While many bloggers have covered this issue, there appears to be a lack of discussion on what Leverett and Mann’s recommendation on Iran actual is and also a lack of this discussion from more right-moderate to conservative blogs, which I feel that StrategyUnit (at least in this current political climate) appears to be in. So here’s StrategyUnit’s attempt to address this deficiency…

Comparing Leverett-Mann’s Op-Ed with Abraham D. Sofaer’s WSJ Article

Regardless if the White House needlessly censored the Leverett-Mann Op-Ed or not, the contents of its thought and position on US foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran make for an interesting comparison to Abraham Sofaer’s WSJ article: “A Reagan Strategy: The right way to negotiate with Syria and Iran.” Sofaer is the former legal adviser to the George Shultz under Reagan.

Abraham Sofaer’s Guide on Engaging Iran/Syria based on Soviet Union

• Regime acceptance. No talk of regime change.
• Limited linkage. Minimal linkage on issues of human rights, regional issues etc “enabling negotiations to proceed while the U.S. responded firmly through deeds”
• Rhetorical restraint. To help allow the Soviety “avoid being seen as capitulating to U.S. demands.”
• Self-interest. negotiating based on “convincing the Soviets to act in their own best interests”

Leverett-Mann’s New York Times Op-Ed on Iran

Iran will only cooperate with the United States, whether in Iraq or on the nuclear issue, as part of a broader rapprochement addressing its core security concerns.
…
This requires extension of a United States security guarantee — effectively, an American commitment not to use force to change the borders or form of government of the Islamic Republic — bolstered by the prospect of lifting United States unilateral sanctions and normalizing bilateral relations.

While Abarham Sofaer focuses more on Syria than Iran, both Leverett-Mann’s and Sofaer make the simple point:

Diplomacy and negotiations can potentially work when both parties can compromise and address each other’s security needs and mutually convince and demonstrate the benefit of cooperation. The United States - as far as we know publicly - has not done that with either Iran or Syria.

Another question to consider is, even if the Bush Administration takes head to Sofaer, Leverett and Mann’s recommendations, does the Bush Administration have the mandate in Washington and the Middle East to do so? Or is this a sitting-duck presidency until 2008?

.

Via Thomas Barnett, Daniel Pipes discusses the 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibes (Sensitive Urban zones) demarcated by the French Government, which are “are conveniently listed on one long webpage, complete with street demarcations and map delineations.”

Daniel goes on to state:

What are they? Those places in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.”

Daniel declares that a more apt description for ZUS would be “Dar al-Islam, the place where Muslims rule”, but I feel that’s more of a provocative statement than an accurate one. A more appropriate description for ZUS would be “Gap Societies”.

In early 2005, I wrote a paper title “In the Midst of the Swarm: Reconceptualizing the (Mislabeled) Global War on Terrorism“, which called for a new framework of focus on the GWOT (Global War on Terrorism), looking to take account the swarm-like phenomena covered by John Robb and a social-level interpretation of Thomas Barnett’s Core v. Gap States.

One aspect of the paper defined “Gap Societies” in areas in Europe like ZUS:

Organizations like Al-Qaeda to Hizb ut-Tahrir are not just “terrorist groups” or “Islamist extremist,” but groups that represent a worldwide social movement that transcend nation-states, Core or Gap states or civilization blocks. Thus, there is a need to focus on different social groups inside Core and Gap states that are disconnected from the larger society and how they related to other states and societies globally.

…Borrowing again from Barnett, one may call these alienated segment of the European Muslim diasporas as being “Gap” societies, which are not fully integrated to where the live as locally to the state and globally to the world. In short, a particular segment of Muslims living in “Gap” societies – be it within the Core or Gap states – are the foundation for the militant Islamist social movement.

These Zones Urbaines Sensibes (Sensitive Urban Zones) sound very much like “Gap Societies” that exist outside the fabric of French society, economy and law, while being physically inside France. Just as the United States and other states must take a lead in helping closing the Gap States where they remain, governments must act to close the gaps (connect “Gap Societies”) that exist within their states. This is the best path to succeed in the Long War.

The arrest, part of Operation Suez, is one a specific evidence of fighters in Iraq returning to Europe, perhaps to start sleeper sells or find more recruits for the War in Iraq. Regardless of the exact reasons, there is now more concrete evidence of the Mujahideen network in Europe and Iraq linking up:

The ring that Operation Suez discovered illustrates the extent to which al-Qaeda satellite support rings have established themselves in Europe. This cell went undetected for two years despite Bousbaa’s previous arrest. The arrests lend more credence to pronouncements by Spanish judge Baltazar Garzon, who has led high-level inquiries into al-Qaeda in Spain, and by Pierre de Bousquet, the head of France’s domestic security service, several months ago that implied that foreign fighters in Iraq are already returning to Europe to re-establish or establish new networks to support terrorist operations in Europe.

Ultimately, Operation Suez demonstrates with hard evidence one of the consequences if Iraq slides to a failed (rather than failing) state. How long before another Madrid or London type bombing occurs brought on by groups with “Iraqi field training”?

Iraq’s non-state guerrillas aren’t mere proxies of Iran. Instead, they are largely autonomous.

First, these groups don’t rely upon Iran for their operating income since they can manufacture income through participation in black globalization’s multi-trillion dollar economy. A classic example of this is the decentralized and open source marketplace for the transnational smuggling of gasoline.

Today, New Yorks Times reports on a leaked NSC document with a view that supports Robb’s position:

The report, obtained by The New York Times, estimates that groups responsible for many of the insurgent and terrorist attacks are raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities. It says that $25 million to $100 million of the total comes from oil smuggling and other criminal activity involving the state-owned oil industry aided by “corrupt and complicit” Iraqi officials.

As much as $36 million a year comes from ransoms paid to save hundreds of kidnap victims in Iraq, the report said. It estimates that unnamed foreign governments — previously identified by senior American officials as including France and Italy — paid Iraqi kidnappers $30 million in ransom last year.

Open Source Bazaar and the Sustainable Ecology

Going back to John Robb, one of his themes is the idea of the “Open Source Bazaar“:

The Financiers listed above are Government Insiders, Senior Baathist, Al-Qaida, Tribal Groups and Nation-States - all of them, mostly outsiders or periphary to the Insurgent and Sectarian groups.

This has changed. While outside forces initially strengthened the position and inertia of these groups, we are now seeing a Sustainable Ecology of Iraqi Global Guerrillas
These groups are now trafficking oil and collecting money via kidnappings to sustain and regenerate their operations:

[Jeffery White] said the insurgency had demonstrated tremendous regenerative properties. “The networks fix themselves, they heal themselves,” he said. He pointed to the success of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia to withstand the loss of hundreds of combatants and dozens of major leaders. “They keep coming back,” he said, “and I think the same thing has happened to the financial system.”

The insurgents now have network and regenerative properties in recruiting personnel, leadership structure and in financing. This combined with the easily accessible explosive and weapons in the Middle East is proving very challenging against accomplishing US Objectives in Iraq.

As part of the relaunching and restarting Strategy Unit, we have now moved to the new domain name at www.StrategyUnit.net and have updated our feeds to http://feeds.feedburner.com/strategyunit. So please update your bookmarks and RSS feeds accordingly!

We’re still migrating and updating content, so changes will be frequent but we look forward to settling quickly to the new address and new design.
Please note that as one unfortunate circumstance of the move is that previous postings will show “0 Comments”, when in fact that are comments on the posting. There appears to be no way to easily correct the situation at this time.

Looking forward to contributing back on Global Security Issues.

Cheers,

StrategyUnit

Palestinian Children Gather as Human Shields (Source)

Irregular Warfare: Exploiting Morals and Values of the Enemy 

Recently, Israel was pushed towards deferring launching airstrikes against Hamas, to retailiate against continuing rocket attacks against Israel.

Hamas was able to effectively leverage the use of human shields to deter Israel, as reported by AP in "Palestinians form human shield to protect militant’s home from airstrike":

"Hundreds of Palestinians formed a human shield around the home of a militant in the northern Gaza Strip late Saturday to prevent an Israeli airstrike on the building, residents said.

…

Israel routinely orders occupants out of homes ahead of airstrikes on suspected weapons-storage facilities, saying it wants to avoid casualties. The incident in Beit Lahiya was the first time Palestinians have tried to prevent such an airstrike."

How can a modern military, a miltiary that aims to upholds the Geneva Convention under tight media scrutiny, respond to such tactics?  

Easy Answer: They Can’t. They have to find something else to target.

What happens when more and more groups/states start following suit when risking military strikes by a Western Power? How will the West balance its normative values with the bluring definition and position of the military and civilian space?

Hamas (and Hezbollah): Perfecting the New Actor on the Global Stage

On the global chessboard of world politics, there are the usual players like international governmental bodies, NGOs, transnational gangs and, of course, nation-states. Hamas and Hezbollah brings has created another category, the "Total Social Movement Organizations". "TSMO" is a wordy phrase, but an apt description.

Hamas and Hezbollah function as a network of charities, religious movement, social movement, political movement and military force. Only such an organization can easily enlist the people as human shields at the face of death. I doubt Hamas was using much if any coercisve force to encourage the Human Shields - faith in Hamas and what it represented was enough.

An organization that combines the full spectrum of human activities - from religious to social justice to military force - will be a resilient force compared to the secular (Post?) Nation-State system that exists in the Wetern countries. They will not replace Western style Nation-States, but will be adapt challengers in the world stage.

But with events continue to unfold and grow in importance, StrategyUnit will be returning albeit at a far lighter schedule, maybe 2-3 articles a month.

Looking forward to jumping back into discussions on global security!

Cheers!

Via WindsofChange, in "Treasure in the Waters", Publius Pundit covers the story regarding Devon and Chveron’s recent energy discovery in the Gulf of Mexico:

Treasure was discovered in America’s Gulf of Mexico waters today, black gold so vast and so deep and so surprising and so recoverable that overnight, America’s energy reserves have just increased as much as 50%. Chevron, Norway’s Statoil and deep-sea driller Devon Energy have just discovered as many as 15 billion barrels of previously unknown oil in a vast underwater pool five miles under the floor of the sea. No one even had a clue about this huge oil’s existence up until new high technology of deep sea drilling (cost: $1 billion a pop, and every bit as weird and high-tech as a spaceship) came to the fore.

The Many Inaccuracies of Energy/Oil/Natural Gas Discovery

First off, always be very sceptical of new energy (oil, natural gas) discoveries. If you read closely, you’ll usually find a large amount of speculation and political pressure. Randy Kirk brings a very sobering example here:

[The] announcement is reminiscent of the Mexican "huge oil discovery" announced last year, of a possible 10 billion barrels, which was quietly revised this year to around 43 million barrels, a downward revision of 99.57%. This similar "discovery" was made in Mexico last year a few months before the Mexican parliament was to vote on Pemex (state oil co)’s budget and rights to expand drilling. This illustrates the potential political pressure to announce oil and gas discoveries.

 Political Pressure

"Timing is Everything" so the saying goes. Regarding the recent claims of massive discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, timing seems to be an factor to look at regarding the enormous energy claims:

As news of a huge oil discovery deep in the western Gulf of Mexico unfolded, informal talks began in Congress to break an impasse over competing House and Senate plans to expand offshore oil and natural gas-drilling.

Massive Oil and Natural Gas discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. Right while the Senate battles over opening the Gulf of Mexico to offshore drilling. Coincidental?

Speaking of timing, doesnt the Senate report on the lack of links between Bin Laden and Saddam seem very well timed for the coming anniversary of September 11th?  

Links

• "Clarification of the Huge Chevron Gulf Oil Discovery", Energy Bulletin
• "Offshore-drilling legislation heats up", USA Today

I’ve been abstaining from commenting on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict since so many other bloggers and analysts are providing better coverage. But, the analysis from StratFor is very fitting (from "Special Report: The Ground Offensive" 08/01/06):

As we have said before, the strategy looks more like the way the Japanese defended Pacific islands against the U.S. Marines during World War II than anything else. Hezbollah fighters are defending in depth from interlocking strong points…They are forcing the Israelis to close with the strong points and take them in close combat.

… 

If it can fight a battle of annihilation yet delay and hurt the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Hezbollah might well force a political settlement. If not, it can still gain a political victory by being the first Arab force to force Israel into high attrition combat.

[The Conclusion?]

… 

Time and casualties could turn a military success into a political defeat for Israel. Moreover, if the outcome of the attack is that Israel is forced to occupy Lebanese territory for an extended period of time, then the cost of counterinsurgency operations mount. Israel’s strategy is clear. Move in fast, deal a catastrophic blow to Hezbollah, withdraw leaving the Lebanese army or a European peacekeeping force in its place. Hezbollah has drawn Israel in. It expects a catastrophic blow but its intention is to impose tremendous costs on Israel and then create a situation in which peacekeeping forces will not deploy, forcing Israel into a counterinsurgency.

Conclusion: Hezbollah

Unfortunately, the Israel-Hezbollah conflict may be a casebook example of the superior political and (to a lesser extant) military power of non-state actors against nation-state states. In the coming days and weeks, we may see a Hezbollah victory - be it political and, maybe, militarily, as noted by Daniel Sensing at Winds of Change.

Israel may still be able to inflict great military damage to Hezbollah, but in the end - unless Israel effectively destroys Hezbollah or neuters it - Hezbollah will win the real victory, the political victory.

Let’s remember that Hezbollah’s advantages include:

• Decentralized Network Strucure = Resilience Against Attrition
  - Provides for non-linear approach to warfare (unlike Western approach)No Logistical Tail (as opposed to convention high-tech army like Israel’s)
• Cheaper, Open Source Procurement of Weapons
• No sense of "Casuality Aversion" like Western Militaries
  - Allows Hezbollah to bleed Israel to political victory, despite severe losses on both sides
• Seen as a charity, education and community institution, not just an instrument of war (e.g. IDF)
• Not Bound to "Geneva Conventions" norms of wars that Nation-States are:
  - Media tends to be harsher on violations by nation-states than non-state actors
  - Soliders in Civilians clothing = More Difficult to Detect, Prove to Media as Enemy
  - Place assets (missiles, artillery etc) in civilian heavy areas but not take the blame when civilian deaths occur (e.g. Israel bombing Hebollah artillery and accidentally killing civilians in apartment nearby)

For more in-depth and strategic view, see John Robb at Global Guerrillas’ "The Secrets of Hezbollah’s Success".