U.S. debt to China and Japan, 2001-2011

The following figures from the Treasury Department indicate the amount of debt owed by the United States to China and Japan. Today each of these countries holds about 7-9% of U.S. debt.  From January 2001 to December 2008 (aka the George W. Bush administration) the amount owed to China grew from $61.5 billion to $727.4 billion, the latter figure nearly 12 times the earlier figure. In the first four years of the GWB presidency, the debt to China increased nearly 4 times. Under President Obama, this has continued, though the growth rate has slowed.  In January 2009 the debt to China was $739.6 billion, rising to $1151.9 billion in December 2011, about 1.5 times the earlier figure.  U.S. debt to Japan doubled in the 8 years of the Bush administration, and under Obama the debt to Japan is nearly double what it was when he took office. 

 In billions of U.S. dollars

           1/01    10/01  12/01   06/02   12/02    12/03    12/04     12/05    12/06   12/07     09/08

China  61.5      72.3   78.6      96.5    118.4    159.0    222.9     310.0    396.9   477.6      618.2

Japan 312.3   314.5 317.9    335.8     378.1   550.8    689.9     670.0    622.9   581.0      617.5

           12/08     01/09      12/09       06/10     12/11

China 727.4     739.6       894.8      1112.1    1151.9
Japan  626.0     634.8      765.7        799.9    1058.0

Recommended: Two Works on Afghanistan

Both on Afghanistan. The first, a clear-eyed assessment of five lessons we should learn from the past decade's adventures in Afghanistan.  Published on American Security Project's website, the Joshua Foust article is found here.

The second is by Major General Michael T. Flynn, USA, Capt. Matt Pottinger, USMC, and Paul D. Batchelor of the Defense Intelligence Agency.  The three have long been steeped in intel in Afghanistan and elsewhere.  The paper, titled Fixing Intel: A Blueprint for Making Intelligence Relevant in Afghanistan, can be found here. It's a strongly worded and very valuable contribution to our understanding of the problems and possibilities for the intelligence community in Afghanistan and in its relations with the IC and policymakers in Washington, DC.

Mapping Afghanistan's Minerals

Very important in analyzing the geopolitical future of Afghanistan and the interests of the US, China, India and Russia.  See BBC report here

Ralph Peters on Redrawing the Borders of the Middle East

In a 2006  Air Force Journal article, "Blood Borders" Ralph Peters thinks outside the map to offer his ideas on what may be happening, and what could and should happen to borders in the 21st century Middle East.  For those not familiar with Peters, he's a former Army officer whose scholarship and commentaries have been praised mostly by conservative hawks. The piece linked here is not a polemic, but a thought-provoking and clear-eyed work

Lobbyists for Kurdistan

I'll have more info soon, but wanted to get these webpages linked.  These companies have been hired by Kurds for representation in the US.

Sanitas

Qorvis

TS Navigations

Recommended Report on Domestic Energy Production

The Energy Security Leadership Council, led by a number of retired general officers of the U.S. armed forces and CEOs of corporations such as Fed-Ex, released this report on expected consequences of increased domestic energy production, particularly through increased drilling for oil and natural gas.  As the report emphasizes, a fundamental problem in the American debate over increased domestic production is the mistaken use of the term "energy independence" and the misunderstanding of what energy security really means.  Additionally, the authors present convincing evidence that the benefits of increased oil/gas supplies will be felt in a reduced trade deficit and increased employment.  However, expected benefits in the form of lower gasoline prices and reduced commitments to volatile geopolitical regions are shown to be quite mistaken.  The following conclusions of the report are worth reproducing:

"As U.S. levels of oil imports continue to fall, the trade deficit will improve, and the transfer of U.S. wealth abroad will decrease. This will help strengthen the dollar and increase investment in the domestic economy, where productive capital tends to have an extremely beneficial impact on growth.
 
Overall employment will benefit as well, with tens-of-thousands of new direct jobs in the oil and gas industry driving creation of many more indirect jobs throughout the economy. In short, the domestic oil industry could be a boon for the U.S. economy at a time when it is struggling to recover from the worst recession in 70 years.
 
But it is important to be clear-eyed about the effect the boom in oil production will have on American energy security. Rising domestic production will not shield consumers from oil price volatility, and it will not lower gasoline prices over the long term. It will also not allow the United States to abdicate its role in the Middle East.

America’s dependence on oil represents one of the most dangerous and pressing national security threats facing the country today. This threat, which is overwhelmingly a function of the importance of oil in the domestic economy, will not be substantially altered by rising levels of domestic oil production and falling imports.The fact is that as long as the United States remains dependent on oil as the primary fuel in our transportation sector, the nation will remain vulnerable to the effects of oil price volatility and debilitating price shocks. Critically, there is little the American policy apparatus can do to minimize the occurrence of volatility in oil prices, as it is primarily driven by events in dozens of consuming and producing countries around the world. The oil market is truly global in nature and scope.

In working to enhance American energy security, policymakers must set aside empty goals and
slogans, like energy independence, and focus on the hard work at hand: continuing to increase the efficiency of the automotive fleet through vehicle fuel-economy standards, investing in the research and development needed to commercialize advanced vehicle drivetrain technologies that greatly reduce or eliminate oil use, and supporting deployment of current-generation non-petroleum transportation fuels such as electricity and natural gas to diversify our energy sources. On all of these fronts, the United States has made some important, initial strides in recent years. With oil markets growing increasingly volatile based on continued demand growth in emerging markets and geopolitical instability in the Middle East, now is the time to redouble our commitment to those strategies. Today, as ever, dramatically reducing our consumption of oil is the surest path to national energy security."

Political & Military Realities in Afghanistan: Two Readings Recommended

The New York Times asks, "Is There a Romney Doctrine?" and proceeds to document the impossibility of arriving at an answer at this point in time.  The article is based largely on unattributed interviews, due to clear statements from the staffers that they would face punitive measures if their participation in the interviews were known (as would be the case in any presidential campaign).  The crux of that and of the article can be found in this excerpt:

'Another adviser, saying he would be “cashiered” if the campaign caught him talking to a reporter without approval, said the real answer was that “Romney doesn’t want to really engage these issues until he is in office”."

Perhaps Mr. Romney figures he'll have more "flexibility" after the election.

In the meantime, most discussion of foreign policy in the popular media reflects the broader ideological landscape of this election, in which each side distorts the views and record of the other side, and knee-jerks itself into automatic reactions to  anything associated with political opponents.  As most everyone acknowledges, even while perpetuating the behavior, the stakes associated with discussing much of foreign policy on the campaign trail are higher than the long-term domestic priorities such as the economy and social services.  The president's use of the raid against bin Laden to promote his candidacy is at the same time questionable in taste and entirely defensible given the opposition's insistence that the president run for re-election on his record.  Of course, they would prefer to focus on less successful aspects of his record, but once the door is open, the consequences are entirely predictable.  In any case, the touting of the bin Laden assassination can backfire for the incumbent, especially with independent voters.  Also, Romney's criticism of President Obama's trip to Afghanistan recently was roundly criticized by all sides, both for symbolic reasons (criticizing the President while he is out of the country) and substantive (the delicate status of the entire Afghanistan situation).  There's little doubt such things will continue, which is par for the democratic course, but are also consequential in the real world beyond campaigning.

It will be interesting to see how Afghanistan is treated in the remainder of the election season given the rapid transitions underway.  There are many aspects that can be subject to political manipulation

 I would like to offer two works that provide proper background and perspective.   The first is a widely respected RAND Corporation document called Afghan Peace Talks: A Primer. Fair warning, it's about 120 pages of text, but contains valuable insight on the current and possible future of efforts to end the war and to pursue U.S. interests through other means.  The very phrase, "peace talks with the Taleban" can be used as a political tool most easily, with charges of appeasement and other misapplied historical lessons.  Understanding reality, as usual, is difficult in the soundbite world of political campaigns, but is vital if we are going to be an informed nation debating a policy in which we have invested so much.  In this publication from the National Defense University, the reader will find very important historical developments that explain how the Taleban arrived at their current status, in which they exercise some political and judicial powers though largely lacking the political legitimacy they seek.  The article can be found here.  It was in 2003 that the Taleban augmented their militant insurgency with a "soft power" type strategy. I cannot help but conclude that the diversion of U.S. attention from Afghanistan to Iraq at this time contributed to the Taleban's limited success in its endeavors.  It is difficult to not wonder what a sustained all out offensive in Afghanistan could have accomplished without the diversion of resources and attention to Iraq.

Because U.S. strategy for Afghanistan is to a large degree dependent on success in the effort to regionalize the problem.  It is difficult to discuss such a complex strategy when the politics of the Central Asian region are very delicate and by no means settled.  Negotiations on pipeline and railroad routes, for example, require the satisfaction of some interests (for example, as a means of tying Afghanistan to the region in a productive, non-narcotic manner) and will result (purposefully in these cases) in the dissatisfaction of others (how might Iran, Russia and China react?).  See my earlier posts for more on this strategy, to which I'll return soon.