by Daniel Korski | Apr 23, 2008 | Conflict and security, Influence and networks, Middle East and North Africa
Today American Defence Secretary Robert Gates recommended that General David Petraeus be appointed head of US Central Command. Until Admiral William Fallon was sacked earlier in the year, the idea had been for General Petraeus to replace General John Craddock as Supreme Allied Commander and help fix the failing mission in Afghanistan, especially after Paddy Ashdown was nixed as UN chief by the Afghan government.
But with Fallon gone and things not altogether stable in Iraq, Afghanistan will have to wait. In Petraeus’ place will be Lt. General Ray Odierno, a mountain-like soldier who served as Petraeus’ no. 2 in Iraq until he was made Deputy Chief of the Army. The top military slot in Iraq had been rumoured to be reserved for Pete Chiarelli, Robert Gates’ Military Adviser, who was described to me as “possessing Petraeus’ intellect but none of his ego.”
In many ways, Petraeus’ move is an obvious one. Nobody knows the Iraq campaign better than Petraeus and the relationship with Odierno has worked before. Paradoxically, it may help restore the formal chain of command, which sees the Iraq commander reporting to the Centcom commander and then to the President (through the SecDef). This chain was famously disrupted because of the close link between President Bush and General Petraeus, which probably caused much of Fallon’s frustration. But will Odierno be given the freedom Petraeus himself had?
What of the persistent rumours that Petraeus will one day enter the political arena? Well, in Flordia he is closer to Washington (and the TV networks). If John McCain wins in November, he’d be a shoe-in for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. But perhaps the sheen will come off him when he is no longer the sand-covered field commander and everyone will be pilgrimaging to Baghdad to see Odierno. The real loser would seem to be NATO’s Afghan campaign, which would have benefitted from Petraeus’ skills. As Centcom commander he will still oversee the U.S-led, CT-focused Operation Enduring Freedom mission. But the military centre of gravity in Afghanistan is the NATO mission as it’s hard to see how Petraeus can now work his magic from Tampa, Florida.
by Charlie Edwards | Apr 23, 2008 | Influence and networks
Next week the Hudson Institute is holding a seminar on the future of the US defence industry. Before you stifle a yawn take a look at one of the scenarios they will be considering:
‘…hypothetical Chinese aggression towards Taiwan provokes a Sino-U.S. military confrontation. Initially, the technologically superior and network-centric American military is quickly devastated by the Chinese’ ability to activate imbedded programming in small electronic connectors. This process effectively neutralizes the defense, attack, and navigation capabilities within every system on U.S. warships, submarines, and aircraft. Because Beijing controls two-thirds of the world’s supply of these seemingly harmless connective devices, the Chinese are able to deliberately and strategically infiltrate the U.S. military and industrial base and target four of the military’s primary weapons systems programs…
Got your imagination? The invitation goes onto say that the purpose of this scenario is to expose flaws and weaknesses within the current U.S. national security apparatus but I think we can safely say that this is not solely a US problem… our global connectivity presents all of us with issues of system vulnerability (highlighted by the damage to five undersea cables recently).
by Alex Evans | Apr 23, 2008 | Climate and resource scarcity, Conflict and security
On the front of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, via John Robb – a sign of things to come, perhaps:
BOULDER, Colo. — When suburbanites look out their front doors, a lot of them want to see a lush green lawn. Kipp Nash wants to see vegetables, and not all of his neighbors are thrilled. “I’d rather see green grass” than brown dirt patches, says 82-year-old Florence Tatum, who lives in Mr. Nash’s Boulder neighborhood, across the street from a house with a freshly dug manure patch out front. “But those days are slipping away.”
Since 2006, Mr. Nash, 31, has uprooted his backyard and the front or back yards of eight of his Boulder neighbors, turning them into minifarms growing tomatoes, bok choy, garlic and beets. Between May and September, he gives weekly bagfuls of fresh-picked vegetables and herbs to people here who have bought “shares” of his farming operation. Neighbors who lend their yards to the effort are paid in free produce and yard work. A school-bus driver, Mr. Nash rises at 5 a.m. and, after returning from his morning route, spends his days planting, watering and tending his yard farms and the seedlings he stores in a greenhouse behind his house.
Farmers don’t necessarily live in the country anymore. They might just be your next-door neighbor, hoping to turn a dollar satisfying the blooming demand for organic, locally grown foods … “Agriculture is becoming more and more suburban,” says Roxanne Christensen, publisher of Spin-Farming LLC, a Philadelphia company started in 2005 that sells guides and holds seminars teaching a small-scale farming technique that involves selecting high-profit vegetables like kale, carrots and tomatoes to grow, and then quickly replacing crops to reap the most from plots smaller than an acre. “Land is very expensive in the country, so people are saying, ‘why not just start growing in the backyard?’ ”
But for the neighbors, the new face of farming can have a decidedly ugly side. The sight of vegetable gardens — and the occasional whiffs of manure from front-yard minifarms — is not their idea of proper suburban living.
You can see their point. Heavens, they’ll be giving up the SUV next. It’ll be anarchy. Still, it’s a nice counterpoint to last time we heard from John on the subject of the future of the ‘burbs: back then, you’ll recall, he was wondering about armoured suburbs. That said, mind you:
[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ssSZK74fw]
by Alex Evans | Apr 23, 2008 | East Asia and Pacific
Amidst the general swooning over Kevin Rudd (to which even we at Global Dashboard are not immune), the latest convert is David Miliband, who last week penned a blog post that ran thus:
…his travels are now being put to good use as he showed in his speech in London last week, arguing for “creative middle power diplomacy”. Rudd argued that we should shape the global response to global challenges together – us because of the links to Europe, them because of their links to Asia, both of us because of our links to the USA. Now fully part of the climate, terrorism, financial regulation debates, Australia embodies the point that in a small world anyone can carve out a leadership role.
Oh dear. Australia not happy about that last bit there. Over to our friend Sam Roggeveen at The Interpreter – the blog of Australia’s premier foreign policy research centre, the Lowy Institute – who’s not best pleased about this
…rather condescending bit about how anyone can be a global leader, even tiny, insignificant Australia. What are we, The Little Engine That Could? Perhaps the next time Rudd speaks in the UK, he needs to put more emphasis on the ‘middle’ in ‘creative middle power diplomacy’.
Fair point. Let’s not forget that once you adjust for purchasing power parity, Australia has a larger GDP per capita than Britain…
