Global Strategies

Advantage to diplomats; they speak Arabic

Military analyst and correspondent Tom Ricks blogs his concerns of the decaying relationship between the top two US commanders in Iraq: General Raymond Odierno and Ambassador Christopher Hill in his post “Iraq, the unraveling (XXIV): U.S. embassy vs U.S. military, again” (here). What caught my attention, given my blog’s postulated relationship of education to foreign language skills to foreign policy, is the following paragraph from Ricks’ post (emphasis added):

What I am hearing is that Odierno is profoundly frustrated with Hill, who despite knowing almost nothing about Iraq has decided after a short time there that it is time to stand back andstop influencing the behavior of Iraqi officials on a daily basis. In addition, I am told, the ambassador believes the war is an Iraqi problem, not something that

really concerns Americans anymore, despite the presence of 125,000 American soldiers. On the other hand, the diplomats respond, the military guys believe they have good relationships with Iraqi officials, but, the dips add, how would the soldiers really know? Because unlike Hill's posse, they don't speak Arabic. Which brings to mind my favorite saying of Warren Buffett, that if you've been playing poker for half an hour and you don't know who the patsy at the table is, you're the patsy. 

 To repeat, the military does not speak Arabic. Would it be a different war if they did:?

Portland Fashion Synergy targets China’s big market, or “Portland is famous in Henan now"

Portland Fashion Synergy gets it: China is an enormous market, forecast to be twice the size of the US market in 2050. And show that Portland can sell both our services (fashion design) and fashion goods (high end clothes) there. Kristi Turnquist writes in her Oregonian article “Portland looks to lure a newly fashionable China and its manufacturing muscle” (here):

 

Portland could export high-end fashions to Chinese consumers willing to pay for cutting-edge, made-in-America design. China could tap Portland's creative juices, adding an element missing from their well-established manufacturing muscle.

The nearly 20 visitors who leave today after almost a week are from the Henan Province, a leader in apparel manufacturing.   Henan is famous for women's pants, accounting for roughly half of those made in China -- and sold mainly there. Thousands of factories in Henan employ more than a million workers.

The visitors – including factory owners, educators and designers – were invited by Portland Fashion Synergy,   a non-profit that bolsters education, training and business opportunities for the city's growing apparel industry.

 

Note: there is a China fashion show video with Turnquist’s article on the Oregonian link. Further note: Portland Fashion Synergy is online here.

 

Finally, there is an Oregon business group getting serious and organized about selling in China. Good for them! Maybe they’ll support more Mandarin in Oregon’s schools and sending more high school students to study there. Maybe the idea of selling in China will spread to more business groups. Maybe more politicians and educators will get involved. Maybe Portland will seize the economic opportunities a growing China presents.

 

Close Boardman or Eliminate Its Carbon Emissions

The Boardman coal fired power plant should be closed or its carbon emissions cut to near zero.

Portland General Electric is in the process of submitting its long term resource strategy to Oregon’s Public Utility Commission for approval. The big controversy in their strategy is what to do with Boardman, as Ted Sickinger explains in his Oregonian article “Activist want PGE to rethink Boardman” ( or online version titled “Pressure grows for PGE to shutter Boardman coal plant” here):

 PGE's controversial proposal includes two new gas-fired power plants and the installation of more than a half billion dollars worth of pollution control equipment to keep the company's workhorse coal plant in northeast Oregon compliant with federal haze reduction rules while cranking out cheap electricity for the next three decades.

While required to keep the plant running, the pollution controls do nothing to reduce the plant's output of carbon dioxide, the main man-made culprit in global warming. Boardman, the state's only coal plant, is the largest stationary source of pollution and CO2 in Oregon.

Ratepayer and environmental advocates think the utility is squandering a golden opportunity to shut down the plant, while underestimating the risks of future carbon taxes on the plant's viability. PGE's analysis, they insist, shows that the utility could replace Boardman's output without a meaningful difference in reliability or cost.

Bottom line, the advocates believe it's too risky to invest $560 million in pollution controls and still face a possible early closure of the plant. 

My thoughts:

(1)   I don’t see the alternative of eliminating the carbon emissions from the Boardman plant among those under consideration. It should be. It would be expensive and largely untested, but it should be under consideration. (I can’t confirm its non-consideration because the online version of the PGE strategy will not download for me.) It is, in my opinion, also possible for Oregon to get a federal grant to clean the carbon out of Boardman’s emissions. Lots of federal dollars are poised to flow that way. So where’s our congressional delegation on this.

(2)   Clean coal technology needs lots of research and investment because no mater what we do in Oregon, or the US, China and India are still building lots of coal plants. The technology needs development support to clean them up. Perhaps Oregon should develop an Oregon-China-India institute on developing clean coal power.

(3)   That said, if we can’t clean it up (little or no carbon emissions), we should close Boardman down.

      (4) As Bob Jenks, director of the Citizens’ Utility Board of Oregon is quoted saying:

              "The worst outcome is to make the Boardman upgrades, then have to shut it down."

“Too many of our politicians are still trapped in their own dumb-as-we-wanna-be bubble”

Tom Friedman could have been thinking of Oregon in writing “too many of our politicians are still trapped in their own dumb-as-we-wanna-be bubble.”  China, he reports, is poised to leap ahead in green technology, as it also grows its economy to be twice the size of the US economy by 2050. Oregon’s political and educational leaders, “in their own dumb-as-we-wanna-be bubble,” ignored calls during the 2009 session to send more Oregon students to study abroad in China and to have more Mandarin in the Oregon schools.

Tom Friedman writes in his NY Times op-ed “The New Sputnik” (here):

If we can continue stumbling out of this economic crisis, I believe future historians may well conclude that the most important thing to happen in the last 18 months was that Red China decided to become Green China.

Yes, China’s leaders have decided to go green — out of necessity because too many of their people can’t breathe, can’t swim, can’t fish, can’t farm and can’t drink thanks to pollution from its coal- and oil-based manufacturing growth engine. And, therefore, unless China powers its development with cleaner energy systems, and more knowledge-intensive businesses without smokestacks, China will die of its own development.

What do we know about necessity? It is the mother of invention. And when China decides it has to go green out of necessity, watch out. You will not just be buying your toys from China. You will buy your next electric car, solar panels, batteries and energy-efficiency software from China.

I believe this Chinese decision to go green is the 21st-century equivalent of the Soviet Union’s 1957 launch of Sputnik — the world’s first Earth-orbiting satellite. That launch stunned us, convinced President Eisenhower that the U.S. was falling behind in missile technology and spurred America to make massive investments in science, education, infrastructure and networking — one eventual byproduct of which was the Internet.

 

Slide Photos: The China Stimulus Package

Photos of slides from presentation on China Stimulus Package and Oregon/China trade.

Von Schlegell's Higher Ed Recommendations: No Interim Committee Airing

The Oregon Senate Interim Committee of Education and General Government meets on September 29^th  and the Oregon House Interim Committee on Education meets on September 30^th. See here for agendas. Both agendas seem busy, but not with priority issues.

Neither is going to take up, as they should, the issues raised in and by the letter John von Schlegell, who recently step down from the Board of Higher Education, wrote to the Governor (here) with a list of eight recommendations to improve higher education in Oregon.

I had a letter to the editor published in the Oregonian suggesting that the education legislative interim committees were the appropriate place to air Schlegell’s recommenations. Now, it seems, we get no airing.

I've previously blogged on this issue (here) and also placed the following comment in the online Oregonian (here):

First, Mr. Schlegell does not explain why all the issues he raises and proposals he makes could not have been considered by the existing Board of Higher Education. The Board has or had a long range, strategic planning process. Mr. Schlegell participated in that process in 2006, I believe. He, or someone, needs to articulate what it is with the current organizational structure that prevents the proposals he makes from being considered. I do not understand.

Second, since the summer of 2006, I have been trying to get the Board of Higher Ed to expand the number of OUS students studying Mandarin and to expand the number of students studying abroad, especially in China. (This is a big strategic issue for the US: how to respond to the rise of China). I have written and spoken to most of the Board members. They are all intelligent, friendly, and concerned, but nothing has been done. They could, I think, easily have requested a report on the current status of Mandarin programs. They could have solicited ideas on how to get more students studying Mandarin (I had some). They could have put the issues on their agenda and had a process for considering it. They did nothing. Ditto for the study abroad issue. I cannot explain why not.

Third, I tend to think the OUS model of residential universities faces an existential threat from the development of online universities. There are existing online universities and more are developing. Some propose to have costs/fees that are next to nothing. The OUS will have increasing difficulty defending it costs, and it allocations from the State of Oregon, in the face of these less costly alternatives. Why should Oregon support the OUS when it could send its students to online universities for much less. Note: the US Department of Education just published a report finding that online courses can be more effective than in class courses.

Fourth, IMHO, some fundamental rethinking of the OUS model does need to take place. Everything needs to be on the table including privatization, higher ed vouchers for students, reorganizing the research component, sending many more students to study abroad, and creating a four year (or more) online university.

And fifth, of course, Oregon's economic future rests on the attainment of its citizens. And given: having state-of-the-art research programs in Oregon significantly aids Oregon's economy. So we need some form of higher education, but what form, and why can't the Board of Higher Ed be the place for those discussions?

 

"There are now 703 million cellphone users in China."

FYI: The following email was sent to all 90 Oregon legislators on 9/12/09.

Dear Senator/ Representative

In the coming February special session, I urge you to support expanding Mandarin programs, especially immersion programs, and to support creating a Go Global High School Study Abroad Program to pay for sending Oregon high school students to study in China and elsewhere abroad.

China continues on its rapid growth pace to have an economy as large as the US economy in 2035 and twice as large in 2050. Consider this from the People’s Daily Online:

According to a telecommunications industry operational report released by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, between January and July, the number of telephone users in China rose by 48.99 million to 1.03 billion, of which the number of fixed telephone users dropped by 12.42 million to 328 million, and the number of mobile phone users rose by 61.41 million to 703 million, exceeding 700 million for the first time.

So, there are now 703 million cellphone users in China, a figure more than double the US population and a growth of 61 million in six months. And, as China Law Blog puts it:

The way I see it, if someone can afford a mobile phone, they are a legitimate potential buyer of Western products and a legitimate potential customer for Western retailers.

Other states are responding. New Yorkers are trying to move ahead in developing more Mandarin programs. A New York Task Force on Chinese Language and Culture Initiatives recently issued a report “Developing Global Competence for a Changing World: Learning Chinese in New York Schools.” They found:

High on the list of global competencies is facility in world languages – an area about which Americans have traditionally been notoriously casual. Only half of all American high school students take even one year of a foreign language, and for the past fifty years the choices have remained the same commonly taught European languages. Important languages such as Mandarin Chinese, the most widely spoken language in the world, Arabic, Persian, Hindi, and

Korean have rarely been taught. A 2007 report from the National Academy of Sciences warned, “The pervasive lack of knowledge of foreign cultures and languages threatens the security of the United States as well as its ability to compete in the global marketplace and produce an informed citizenry.” 

Again, make expanding Mandarin and high school study abroad opportunities priorities for the 2010 special legislative session. Failure to do so, as the 2007 National Academy of Sciences reported warned, “threatens the security of the United States as well as its ability to compete in the global marketplace.”

Thank you – Dave Porter

 

I’m now with Biden on Afghanistan

I’m with Vice President Biden on Afghanistan. It time to scale back and find another strategy. We are not going to get enough troops from other countries to provide security to most of the people of Afghanistan, so we need to rethink and scale back. I am for continuing, to the extent it is possible and safe, nation-building and reconstruction efforts. We need to settle in for long term development efforts, with priority at home here in Oregon and elsewhere on training more students in the languages of the Afghan-Pakistan region, and sending many more students to study abroad in the region, again, to the extent possible. And, of course, we need to get serious about a gas tax.

According to the NY Times article “Obama Considers Strategy Shift in Afghan War” (here):

President Obama is exploring alternatives to a major troop increase in Afghanistan, including a plan advocated by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to scale back American forces and focus more on rooting out Al Qaeda there and in Pakistan, officials said Tuesday…..

….Among the alternatives being presented to Mr. Obama is Mr. Biden’s suggestion to revamp the strategy altogether. Instead of increasing troops, officials said, Mr. Biden proposed scaling back the overall American military presence. Rather than trying

to protect the Afghan population from the Taliban. American forces would concentrate on strikes against Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan, using special forces, Predator missile attacks and other surgical tactics.

The Americans would accelerate training of Afghan forces and provide support as they took the lead against the Taliban. But the emphasis would shift to Pakistan. Mr. Biden has often said that the United States spends something like $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 in Pakistan, even though in his view the main threat to American national security interests is in Pakistan….

I urge Obama takes Biden’s advice.

McChrystal's report: "A Road Too Far"

The Oregonian editorial “McChrystal speaks – now what?” is right to be cautious about General McChrystal’s call for more troops (here):

It is possible to believe that the general is right about what is required to prevail in Afghanistan but to doubt the wisdom of continuing the fight. And it is impossible not to regret the long, inconclusive slog that today requires the United States and its allies to rethink and recommit to the fight in Afghanistan.

This may just be a bridge too far for the United States.

It is, indeed, a bridge too far!

General McChrystral’s assessment of the situation in Afghanistan has been published by the Washington Post (here): In sum he finds:

The situation in Afghanistan is serious; neither success nor failure can be taken for granted. Although considerable effort and sacrifice have resulted in some progress, many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating. We face not only a resilient and growing insurgency; there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans -- in both their government and the international community - that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents. Further, a perception that our resolve is uncertain makes Afghans reluctant to align with us against the insurgents.

Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or "doubling down" on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant.change to our strategy and the way that we think and operate.

Although it is clear from the report that McChrystal intends to ask for more troops, he does not give a number.

My thoughts are:

(1)   I’m in general agreement with McChrystal on his counterinsurgency strategy. If we are going to make any kind fight for nation-building or development, he’s heading down the right road. But maybe that’s not what we should be doing, and, most certainly, we do not have enough boots on the ground in Afghanistan to do it right.

(2)   Unfortunately, McChrystal has nowhere near enough troops for this task, and won’t, no matter how many more the US puts up. We probably need over 500,000 coalition troops (plus Afghan forces), just to throw out a big number, to pacify Afghanistan and protect the population. It’s just too big a country. The only way we can get that many troops is to broaden the coalition of countries fighting. And to do that we need to get some of the countries with large armies, like China and Turkey, to contribute significant numbers of troops. This is not going to happen, at least not soon. It’s a “bridge too far.”

(3)   His report overlooks Pakistan. Because of its nuclear weapons, it is our major concern in the region. And as the Oregonian editorial says:

The scope of the question is much broader than the military strategy McChrystal proposes. His approach, for example, does not address the havens that insurgents and terrorists have found in northern Pakistan. If the fight in Afghanistan is hard and complicated, it is even more so in Pakistan, where U.S. troops don't officially operate.

Then there are two dimension to this struggle that are not in McChrystal’s report: a gas tax to reduce Al Qaida’s funding and upping language training so soldiers and civilian can really work with the population.

(4)   A maximum effort to go after Al-Qaida should go after their funding not just from poppies but from oil. We’re not doing that. We need a gas tax. As David J. Rothkopf says (here):

Afghanistan may have been the "good war" when compared to Iraq. But both were waged in pursuit of the same goal: to make America more secure and to defeat avowed enemies of the United States. There is only one best way to do that. And it's not being done either in Iraq or Afghanistan. It can't be done there. It has to be done here at home. It's reducing our dependence on oil from the region and cutting into the flows of that oil money that support bad actors. 

(5) Our counterinsurgency in Afghanistan efforts will fail unless we train a lot more soldiers in the languages of Afghanistan. McChrystal’s assessment touches on this issue in two places (emphasis added)

As formidable as the threat may be, we make the problem harder. ISAF is a conventional force that is poorly configured for COIN, inexperienced in local languages and culture, and struggling with challenges inherent to coalition warfare. These intrinsic disadvantages are exacerbated by our current operational culture and how we operate….

And later:

Key personnel in ISAF must receive training in local languages.

Training just “key personnel” would not be enough.

I previously suggested what Congressman Wu, as a member of the House Education and Labor Committee, could do to aid the effort in the Afghan-Pakistan region (here):

  (1)   Holding hearings on current K-16 efforts in the US to teach the languages of the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, and then propose legislation to increase the number of US students studying those languages.

 (2)   Holding hearings on current K-16 study abroad opportunities in Pakistan, and then propose legislation to increase significantly the number of US students, both K-12 and university, studying in Pakistan.

(3)   Proposing federal legislation that would give incentives to state to develop Go Global High School Study Abroad Program.

I think Oregon on its own could hold such hearing. Clearly, Oregon could offer online course in Pasto, Urdu and other regional languages, could offer summer intensive course in those languages, and could send high school students to study abroad in the region (if there are safe places to send them).

 

 

No gas tax for chest-thumping wimps.

Tom Friedman gets it right in his op-ed “Real Men Tax Gas.” We are nation, and a state (Oregon), of chest-thumping wimps. Congress is full of politicians, playing to the public mood rather than leading, calling for more troops in Afghanistan and for keeping the anti-missile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, but those moves are not smart strategy. A gas tax is smart strategy. Yet it is not even mentioned. Certainly not in the Oregon legislature. Friedman writes (here):

And us? When it comes to raising gasoline taxes or carbon taxes — at a perfect time like this when prices are already low — our politicians tell us it is simply “off the table.” So I repeat, who is the real tough guy here?

“The first rule of warfare is: ‘Take the high ground.’ Even the simplest Taliban fighter knows that,” said David Rothkopf, energy consultant and author of “Superclass.” “The strategic high ground in the world — whether it is in the Middle East or vis-à-vis difficult countries like Russia and Venezuela — is to be less dependent on oil. And yet, we simply refuse to seize it.”

We need a substantial, revenue-neutral, phased-in gas tax, preferably national, if not, then in Oregon.