I recently picked up an old friend, a text that I read in the early days of my personal education into realist foreign policy—Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy —and found myself reflecting for several days on this passage in the first chapter.

Theorists of the balance of power often leave the impression that it is the natural form of international relations. In fact, balance-of-power systems have existed only rarely in human history. The Western Hemisphere has never known one, nor as the territory of contemporary China since the end of the period of warring states, over 2,000 years ago. For the greatest part of humanity and the longest periods of history, empire has been the typical mode of government. Empires have no interest in operating within an international system; they aspire to be the international system. Empires have no need for a balance of power. That is how the United States has conducted its foreign policy in the Americas, and China through most of its history in Asia.

Reading about the 19th and early 20th centuries, I found myself wondering—will a healthy and robust balance of power between the US, China, India, Europe, and possibly Russia and Japan, emerge in the 21st century? Empire, and the balance of power, both work well for preserving international order when they function. When they don’t function, the result is often war and disaster.

You may have trouble sending a letter to the United Arab Emirates if you don’t have a post office box. That’s because Dubai has no street addresses, no zip codes or area codes, and no postal delivery service. Somehow, the city manages to not just survive, but thrive as a major regional hub and international center of finance and commerce. How?

The UAE has a postal agency called Emirates Post, which operates the post offices across the country and which has about two dozen branches in Dubai, a city of about 2 million people. These branches hold post office boxes, where mail of all sizes can be delivered, but they do not deliver this mail to the recipients. It is the responsibility of the recipient to contract a post office box and check this to receive mail. (Not surprisingly, this can be a major hassle for anyone who works a full day at work, but fortunately, these post offices are generally open 24 hours a day.)

This means that addresses in Dubai are incredibly basic. If you have a PO box number, the only information you need to get something delivered is:

Mr./Ms. XYZ
P.O. Box #####
Dubai, UAE

Dubai also does not have numbered street addresses, probably because construction is so prevelant and roads are always changing that building numbers would be constantly changing. That provides a different conundrum if you want something delivered by international courier such as FedEx or DHL. The sender must write an address to best describe the place of deliver, typically listing the building name and neighborhood description. For example:

Mr. XYZ
Suite No. 999
XYZ Building
Jebel Ali Freezone, Gate 2, First right after entry
Dubai, UAE

Just make sure you include a reliable phone number so the couriers can ask for directions and confirm delivery time. The same happens when you have things delivered. Stores often include a form for drawing a map to your home to avoid confusion.

How do you survive in environment like this? Actually, it’s amazingly convenient. Because everyone in the UAE has to work somewhere, the solution (for most white collar workers) is to have mail delivered directly to the office, which at this Viceroy’s administrative office is checked diligently twice a day by an office worker. Any mail is personally dropped off at my desk. Interestingly enough, this means that the UAE’s bizarre system of no postal delivery actually makes mail delivery incredibly convenient.

Breaking news, American born AQ member Adam Gadahn caught:

KARACHI, Pakistan – The American-born spokesman for al-Qaida has been arrested by Pakistani intelligence officers in the southern city of Karachi, two officers and a government official said Sunday as video emerged of him urging U.S. Muslims to attack their own country.

The arrest of Adam Gadahn is a major victory in the U.S.-led battle against al-Qaida and will be taken as a sign that Pakistan, criticized in the past for being an untrustworthy ally, is cooperating more fully with Washington. It follows the recent detentions of several Afghan Taliban commanders in Karachi, including the movement’s No. 2 commander.

This is a major victory on top of the string of successful strikes and arrests of AQ and Taliban leaders in Pakistan. The real question we’ll start asking is, since he at least was an American citizen, how he will be treated? POW, enemy combatant, criminal? This debate is going to be started all over again. Considering we’ve intentionally targeted him with UAV strikes in the past, my assumption is he will not be treated as an American citizen, especially since he has publicly renounced his citizenship which makes him legally stateless.

Apparently not. Seems nobody is sure at the moment.

Today, Iraqs go to the polls to elect a national government that will guide the country through the coming years and the probable withdrawal of US troops. Voting has been going on for days, with Iraqis overseas, police and troops having already voted.

The campaign has been a typical democratic affair. In a country tense with all the random violence, all parties are guilty of faning the flames of fear. Several major Shia leaders are pushing their people to vote because of a widespread fear of returning Baathists. Meanwhile, secular party leaders are warning against a Shia-led theocracy that be subservient to their lords and masters in Iran. While this is typical in a democracy, the risk is that this fear-mongering may become a self-fulfilling prophecy, or that when violence inevitably happens, the stage has already been set for the conclusions people will make.

I just got off the phone with a Western colleague who is working in Iraq and who has been there on the ground for almost three straight years, primarily in Erbil, Kurdistan. He has a pretty positive view on the country and on the elections when we spoke today, despite the fact that more than two dozen people have been killed in election violence, and his comment appears in the title of this post. (This guy works at a private company in an operation that is designed to avoid the typical pitfalls of running a business in Iraq. His office in Erbil has its own generator to make sure they can operate through the numerous powercuts in Iraq. They have invested in a direct satellite-to-internet connection so they do not rely on local providers.)

Al Qaeda’s “local affiliate” has pledged to disrupt the voting process with attacks, but voting seems to be going forward and the hope is that these elections will result in less violence. The bodycount has been steadily dropping for the past few years. And we can only hope that it continues, and that these elections provide some stability to a country that was ranked by the Economist as the most “business unfriendly” nation of 2010.

Robert D. Kaplan speaking in New York, 2005. Photo by Younghusband.

In the early autumn of 2005 I took a 12 hour night bus from Ontario Canada to New York City to meet Robert D. Kaplan. It was a harrowing journey. At the border crossing, at about 2AM, all passengers filed off the bus to have their passports checked. It was about a 45 minute operation. I went through with no problems, but the officer looked at me a little funny.

You see, I had just come back from Iran, and had visas for China and Kazakhstan in my passport. When asked why I had visited, I answered honestly, “Recreation.” Upon asking my affiliation I promptly replied, “Royal Military College of Canada”. That must have triggered something.

Once everyone was back on the bus (and in one location, mind), a customs officer with the manner of a doberman boarded and pointed an accusatory finger towards the back of the bus — at me! “You, come with me.” he barked with authority. I grabbed my bag and made my way to the glass holding area beside passport control for questioning. The officer there was actually pretty friendly, and when I told him my business in America it turned out that he too was a Kaplan fan. All was fine and I was out within 10 minutes.

Unfortunately the Glass Cube of Interrogation was in full view of all the passengers on the bus. So once I came back aboard and made my way to my spot near the back of the bus, I received a number of suspicious stares. It seemed that every American around me thought that I was either a spy or a terrorist. Not a relaxing journey.

Anyways, I didn’t mean to bury the lede, but that story needed telling. Once again I will be making a pilgrimage to meet the man himself: Robert Kaplan will be speaking about the Indian Ocean in Tokyo on March 12. I have already made my reservation with the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and will be going up to Tokyo for the day by Shinkansen. I am of course willing to meet up with any readers, or anyone else going to the talk. Feel free to contact me at myname@mydomain (obscure enough?). Or use the contact form.

Finally, there will inevitably be a question and answer period. Dear readers, what do you want me to ask him?

View U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan in a larger map

The New America Foundation has mapped drone strikes in Pakistan over the past 6 years using Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann’s drones database. Their policy paper is here, describing their methodology. Although they estimate the “true civilian fatality rate since 2004” to be “only” 32 percent, they criticize the use of drones as ineffective, and no substitute for a proper strategy in Pakistan. At the same time, “drone attacks in the tribal regions seem to remain the only viable option for the United States to take on the militants based there who threaten the lives of Afghans, Pakistanis, and Westerners alike.”

The drone database is an ongoing project. The latest map update was March 2nd.

Over the past year and a half, readers have surely noticed two trends in my blogging. Firstly, the frequency has decreased compared to when I lived in Germany. Second, my interests are shifting from 90% foreign policy 10% domestic to a more even balance. Moreover, my lack of travel prospects for the near future make domestic issues that much more important to me and they affect my every day life.

My interests in political identity/loyalty, organization, small government and resilient communities are focusing my time and thinking on topics less relevant to Coming Anarchy. So what does this mean?

I’m officially downgrading my status to part-time CA blogger. basically just making ‘official’ what’s already the case. However, I’m starting a new blog, Rethinking the United States where I’ll focus on the domestic stuff. My foreign policy, travel and security related posts will still go there and I’ll crosspost anything else of relevance. I invite you to subscribe and hopefully participate in the discussions. The address is

Charlie Wilson, the quiet Congressional backer of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet War who recently passed away, is known primarily for his work in Afghanistan, popularized through the recent film Charlie Wilson’s War. What is not well known is that, before backing the Mujahadeen, Wilson was a strong supporter of the right-wing government of Nicaragua, President Anastasio “Tachito” Somoza.

The Somoza family ruled Nicaragua from the 1930s until the late 1970s, and Tachito Somoza was effectively leader of the country from 1967. Wilson was a strong supporter of the right-wing Somoza, and felt that his strong anti-Communist regime was being undermined by Jimmy Carter’s wishy-washy human rights-focused foreign policy. In trying to cajoul President Carter into supporting Somoza, he fought in the House appropriations committee, and at one point threatened to wreck President Carter’s Panama Canal Treaty if the U.S. did not resume supporting Somoza.

Wilson’s admiration for Somoza was unaffected by his offer of a large cash bribe to Wilson the first time they met in person (which were unnecessary—Wilson was a true believer). And when Wilson set up a meeting between Somoza and an allegedly former CIA operative, in a small party where the booze-was flowing freely, Somoza was initially delighted at the offer of a 1000-man squad of ex-CIA operatives to fight on Somoza’s behalf. But in a drunken stupor, Somoza made the mistake of fondling Tina Simons, a secretary of Wilson who was also his girlfriend at the time. (It was not Wilson but Somoza’s mistress Dinorah, who was present at the meeting, who went into a rage and ripped Somoza from Tina.) The fiasco embarrassed Somoza, who then lost interest in the squad when he heard about the price tag of US$100 million. Wilson was so embarressed by the situation, and in his awkward attempt to hijack US foreign policy after word of the meeting leaked out, that he abandoned his support for Somoza.

The aftermath? Somoza was ousted and exiled to Paraguay where he was assassinated. Nicaragua fell to a revolution led by the Sandinista National Liberation Front, and President Reagan later authorized the CIA to support the remnants of Somoza’s National Guard, the “contrarrevolucionarios” that became known as the Contras. And Tina Simons ended up testifying against the alleged CIA operative and disappeared into the witness protection program.

Charlie Wilson was embarressed and disgraced by the Somoza fiasco, which left people thinking he was reckless and had terrible judgment. But failure is the mother of success. Wilson learned from this experience: who he should work with in the US government, what was realistic, who he should trust, and the avenues of influence and barriers to success that faced him as he sat in Congress. It was this experience that taught him what to do when going solo on US foreign policy. And that was what lead to Charlie Wilson’s War.

- Part 1 – Part 2 –

Part of the joy of working in Dubai is that 90% of the city is non-Emirati, and you regularly meet and interact with people from all corners of the world, some with very peculiar names. Some colleagues have spent years collecting a list of these peculiar names, and I share a few highlights below (listing nationality in parentheses, where known).

• Fabian Philandrianos: Manager (France)
• Chlorophyl Yip: Lawyer (Hong Kong)
• Superman Chan: Account Manager (Philippines)
• Twinkle Ling: Account Manager (China)
• Thomai Vaginis: IT Manager (Spain)
• Willy Rider: General Counsel (England)
• Peggy Trollio: Secretary (South Africa)
• Nyu Kok: Executive Assistant (Vietnam)
• Arsol Iroshka: Lawyer (Lithuania)
• Christodoulos Christodoulos: Finance officer
• Martha Anus: Manager (Australia)
• Ali G.: Waiter (Lebanon?)
• Cherry Fries: Sales Coordinator
• Alien Yam: Deliveryman
• Amanda Cockhead: Secretary (South Africa)
• Young-suk Kim: Project Manager (Korea)

(As it happens, you can actually find several of these people on facebook and linkedin…)

I won’t bore you by recounting the various, glaring missteps the climate change science community has made recently. I think those discrepancies have been broadly covered, dismissed by the believers and slavered over by the uber-skeptics. Indeed the pundit shit flinging merrily continues unabated months after the breaking of “Climategate,” especially excited by a series of winter storms that put snow on the grounds of 49 American states on the same day.

I will say that the clannish, arrogant nature of the scientists engaged in monitoring and explaining climatology to the world has been their undoing. Proclamations of fact in a science heavily reliant on hypothetical, seemingly malleable computer simulated projections along with a lack of transparency, a rather unscientific element of advocacy and the poisonous nature of their handling of skeptics have lent the concept of climate change an identity more closely related to religious orthodoxy than actual science. The message came to be more important than the method.

It was on the matter of method that the Institute of Physics in the UK addressed the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry. I believe this is the first time a scientific organization has weighed in in such a critical fashion. A snippet:

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

I’ve chosen the first two statements purposefully so as to avoid “cherry picking.” There are additional observations a bit more damning of the CRU’s methods and I’d encourage a full read of the statement. It’ll be interesting to watch where both the science (assuming it’s reformed accordingly) and the politics regarding climate change head in the near future. It’ll also be interesting to see, if transparency and independent review are allowed, how long the current consensus holds together.