marcmalano
06-22-2004, 07:55 PM
You Can't Milk a Chicken - by Warren Pollock
June 22, 2004
<P>
Before I get started, what never reached the mainstream;
<P>
The news and markets ignored the relevance of British patrol boats that were interdicted by Iranian naval forces. Statements in the Arabic press regarding Iranian nuclear and force projection initiatives were also ignored. These were watershed items. The fact that Saudi diplomats were visibly and uncharacteristically shaken after a meeting at/in the White House has been ignored. This too was a important event. Additionally, recent and coordinated Al-Qaeda attacks have also been underreported.
<P>
The noise in the mainstream;
<P>
Talk about the people not the issues, Ronald Regan, Monica Lewinsky, Michal Moore, and Bill Clinton. Editor: This chatter does not address any issue and concern I know of. It does not make us safer it has no value. SPEAK TO THE ISSUE NOT THE PEOPLE.
<P>
Christopher Hitchens blasts M. Moore in that “A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims.” Editor I would agree but again the issue and concern is not addressed or solved.
<P>
WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED THAT the scarce amounts of factual information we are able to get in the United States has become full of “misrepresentation and fraud.” In a “free society” getting good information is becoming more and more difficult. Forget about partisanship, people, filmmakers, politicians, and parties, a country cannot remain intact that relies on spin-noise as the major criteria for its decision making.
<P>
Mid Year Update- July 2004 to June 2005
You Can't Milk a Chicken
<P>
In 1991 I was fortunate enough to work with business executive who was also a part time Major in the French Army. He and I were dining at the Paris Hilton, looking at the Eiffel Tower, when he uttered the unexpected. He thought America was unique because we as a society could unify together to accomplish the “unimaginable.” He was talking about WWII, the marshal plan, and the moon landing.
<P>
With a heavy reliance on planning I felt my French peers were flexibility poor. In our business culture, we are just the opposite. It the United States we tend to plan less and be more flexible. The optimal approach may be in between.
<P>
Through flexibility we are winning some tactical victories. Regarding Iraq, Col Perkin's audacious “thunder run” into Baghdad saved the day.1 We cajoled the Saudis to turn on the spigots, and we got Libya to to roll over. The dollar and markets (bond & stock) are temporarily stabilized and GDP was pumped up in a pool of liquidity. The “Iraqi government” has not evaporated in that only one or two high ranking officials have been assassinated. Our troops are laying low in in “green zones,” while the Iraqi's we train as security forces and policeman are getting blown up (by proxy) at some in indeterminate rate. In the larger picture, several tactical victories have allowed the visible overview to stay net neutral.
<P>
Nobody buys in, we are losing the few allies we have. Spain was lost, the current election in Australia puts that relationship at risk, Italy wavers, and the career of British Prime Minister Tony Blair may be dinged but more likely it has been “totaled.”
<P>
The US lost the initiative in that it continues to react, it does not have a truthful or workable strategy while the other side does. “We are trying to call a chicken a cow, and we expect to get milk?
<P>
The opposing side recognizes that it will lose most of the battles. Over time victory will become an organic condition to culture, history and geography... Strategically this puts the US in a perilous situation of increasing risk that flexibility alone cannot cure. Unified commitment, truth and sacrifice proves the only hope.
<P>
Its simply impossible to accomplish important tasks that are poorly defined. The strategic tasks are poorly defined because the costs are too high to mention. Rather than address the dollar costs lets focus on the political costs. We have deviated so far from fact, The issue of having insufficient political capital transcends political party or candidate.
<P>
What is going on has parallel in Enron but on a national scale. In a context of falsehoods our access to accurate information has become a shell of itself with the loss of our liberty and standard of living soon to follow.
<P>
No middle ground exists regarding fraudulent activity, it either continues forward and compounds or it fails catastrophically.
<P>
Misstatements, omissions, and distortion provide clues as to where risk resides. Its clear that we are going to go forward as far as misinformation can take us before the fraud unravels.
<P>
“ Material Misstatements”
<P>
Material misstatements and fraud occurred because, the costs of addressing the primary issues are too high in relation to the total political capital available.
<P>
Rich in Misstatement, Risk rich.
<P>
In Saudi Arabia the “kowtow effect” caused that country to:
Fund and organize a global terror movement
Subsidize the Pakistani nuclear weapons program
Bless the transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to Iran,
Allow revolutionaries to integrate into the leadership and security apparatus
Form the same set of conditions present in Iran prior to revolution
In the United States, “information management” has become totally pervasive.
When does the mess unravel 4, 6, 12, or 18 months from now?
Iran has effectively won its war with Iraq, the US provided the victory
Hard line elements within Iran are determined to see that nation become a nuclear power
Iran and Saudi Arabia are risk filled and will escalate.
Flow of oil has become totally dependent on deteriorating internal stability within Saudi Arabia, and external relations with Iran.
Contrary to representation, based on a 2003 protest movement, Iranians are not going to overthrow their government. Instead, nuclear capability would solidify and rally the nation as it did in Pakistan. Internal stability of regime will also drive Iran's quest for Nuclear capability
Elements within Iran want to use a full “court press” to intimidate the US Iran will use indirect means via small incidents and asymmetric methods to escalate conflict
A synergy between Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah will be a major threat to US interests. Kidnappings in Iraq are more to the pattern of Hezbollah than Al Qaeda.
The US lacks the military depth to manage Iraq let alone face a crisis in Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, US material and manpower has been exhausted
Other nations will press the US (Venezuela)
Al Qaeda will strike globally and concurrently
Several secondary oil producers are politically unstable
In Pakistan, President Musareff is racing against time to implement an policy of reform. Unfortunately elements within Pakistan don't support his policies. Pakistani nuclear technology have few safeguards. Governmental destabilization and/or political assassination remain large issues and concerns
Economic points of inflection are major terror targets
Unless terrorists want to influence US elections to preserve the status quo, its likely that on a short term basis that attacks will be to allied interests. The UK and Italy come to mind. If nuclear capability exists, The US would still be the primary target with the UK to follow.
OIL Update
<P>
The international oil supply and delivery system can best be described as a daily exercise in perfection with less than a 5% margin of safety slack between supply potential and demand. Oil has to travel through political contention and physical choke points.
<P>
Misinformation and risk is so rampant that in a July 2003 report, the department of energy does not list “Saudi Arabia” as one of the major points “confronting significant economic, political, or other issues that could affect domestic or world oil and gas markets.”
<P>
For short term political reasons, demands were being made for increased supplier output at the same time that stocks were moving out of the danger zone into average range. Saudi Arabia stepped in to moderate the price of oil to American expectation and political objective.
<P>
The politically unpalatable solution resides in letting the “free market” find a price for oil at $45 to $55 a barrel. At $42.50 the market was trying to find that level. A higher base price for oil could provide temporary political stability to suppliers and it would also provide incentive for exploration. Even were we to slowly adjust to that price we will have periods of shortfall as supply needs to catch up to demand. However as the price of oil rises to that level demand will be moderated by decreases in economic activity.
<P>
By 2006 an event will force the price of to rise to extream levels.
$60 to $90 would be an endurable situation for the market to manage
$100 to $140 per barrel would force supplies to be “commanded”
Dollar Costs
Measure the risk, what would it cost to lose a major city?
What would it cost to lose oil supplies?
What percentage of GDP, for how long?
Homeland Security 1-1.5 Trillion?
Military Projection Costs 2-5 Trillion?
1 (This was according to a West Pointer spoke to today, who was from the same class as Perkins, he suggested reading “Thunder Run by David Zucchino )
June 22, 2004
<P>
Before I get started, what never reached the mainstream;
<P>
The news and markets ignored the relevance of British patrol boats that were interdicted by Iranian naval forces. Statements in the Arabic press regarding Iranian nuclear and force projection initiatives were also ignored. These were watershed items. The fact that Saudi diplomats were visibly and uncharacteristically shaken after a meeting at/in the White House has been ignored. This too was a important event. Additionally, recent and coordinated Al-Qaeda attacks have also been underreported.
<P>
The noise in the mainstream;
<P>
Talk about the people not the issues, Ronald Regan, Monica Lewinsky, Michal Moore, and Bill Clinton. Editor: This chatter does not address any issue and concern I know of. It does not make us safer it has no value. SPEAK TO THE ISSUE NOT THE PEOPLE.
<P>
Christopher Hitchens blasts M. Moore in that “A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims.” Editor I would agree but again the issue and concern is not addressed or solved.
<P>
WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED THAT the scarce amounts of factual information we are able to get in the United States has become full of “misrepresentation and fraud.” In a “free society” getting good information is becoming more and more difficult. Forget about partisanship, people, filmmakers, politicians, and parties, a country cannot remain intact that relies on spin-noise as the major criteria for its decision making.
<P>
Mid Year Update- July 2004 to June 2005
You Can't Milk a Chicken
<P>
In 1991 I was fortunate enough to work with business executive who was also a part time Major in the French Army. He and I were dining at the Paris Hilton, looking at the Eiffel Tower, when he uttered the unexpected. He thought America was unique because we as a society could unify together to accomplish the “unimaginable.” He was talking about WWII, the marshal plan, and the moon landing.
<P>
With a heavy reliance on planning I felt my French peers were flexibility poor. In our business culture, we are just the opposite. It the United States we tend to plan less and be more flexible. The optimal approach may be in between.
<P>
Through flexibility we are winning some tactical victories. Regarding Iraq, Col Perkin's audacious “thunder run” into Baghdad saved the day.1 We cajoled the Saudis to turn on the spigots, and we got Libya to to roll over. The dollar and markets (bond & stock) are temporarily stabilized and GDP was pumped up in a pool of liquidity. The “Iraqi government” has not evaporated in that only one or two high ranking officials have been assassinated. Our troops are laying low in in “green zones,” while the Iraqi's we train as security forces and policeman are getting blown up (by proxy) at some in indeterminate rate. In the larger picture, several tactical victories have allowed the visible overview to stay net neutral.
<P>
Nobody buys in, we are losing the few allies we have. Spain was lost, the current election in Australia puts that relationship at risk, Italy wavers, and the career of British Prime Minister Tony Blair may be dinged but more likely it has been “totaled.”
<P>
The US lost the initiative in that it continues to react, it does not have a truthful or workable strategy while the other side does. “We are trying to call a chicken a cow, and we expect to get milk?
<P>
The opposing side recognizes that it will lose most of the battles. Over time victory will become an organic condition to culture, history and geography... Strategically this puts the US in a perilous situation of increasing risk that flexibility alone cannot cure. Unified commitment, truth and sacrifice proves the only hope.
<P>
Its simply impossible to accomplish important tasks that are poorly defined. The strategic tasks are poorly defined because the costs are too high to mention. Rather than address the dollar costs lets focus on the political costs. We have deviated so far from fact, The issue of having insufficient political capital transcends political party or candidate.
<P>
What is going on has parallel in Enron but on a national scale. In a context of falsehoods our access to accurate information has become a shell of itself with the loss of our liberty and standard of living soon to follow.
<P>
No middle ground exists regarding fraudulent activity, it either continues forward and compounds or it fails catastrophically.
<P>
Misstatements, omissions, and distortion provide clues as to where risk resides. Its clear that we are going to go forward as far as misinformation can take us before the fraud unravels.
<P>
“ Material Misstatements”
<P>
Material misstatements and fraud occurred because, the costs of addressing the primary issues are too high in relation to the total political capital available.
<P>
Rich in Misstatement, Risk rich.
<P>
In Saudi Arabia the “kowtow effect” caused that country to:
Fund and organize a global terror movement
Subsidize the Pakistani nuclear weapons program
Bless the transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to Iran,
Allow revolutionaries to integrate into the leadership and security apparatus
Form the same set of conditions present in Iran prior to revolution
In the United States, “information management” has become totally pervasive.
When does the mess unravel 4, 6, 12, or 18 months from now?
Iran has effectively won its war with Iraq, the US provided the victory
Hard line elements within Iran are determined to see that nation become a nuclear power
Iran and Saudi Arabia are risk filled and will escalate.
Flow of oil has become totally dependent on deteriorating internal stability within Saudi Arabia, and external relations with Iran.
Contrary to representation, based on a 2003 protest movement, Iranians are not going to overthrow their government. Instead, nuclear capability would solidify and rally the nation as it did in Pakistan. Internal stability of regime will also drive Iran's quest for Nuclear capability
Elements within Iran want to use a full “court press” to intimidate the US Iran will use indirect means via small incidents and asymmetric methods to escalate conflict
A synergy between Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah will be a major threat to US interests. Kidnappings in Iraq are more to the pattern of Hezbollah than Al Qaeda.
The US lacks the military depth to manage Iraq let alone face a crisis in Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, US material and manpower has been exhausted
Other nations will press the US (Venezuela)
Al Qaeda will strike globally and concurrently
Several secondary oil producers are politically unstable
In Pakistan, President Musareff is racing against time to implement an policy of reform. Unfortunately elements within Pakistan don't support his policies. Pakistani nuclear technology have few safeguards. Governmental destabilization and/or political assassination remain large issues and concerns
Economic points of inflection are major terror targets
Unless terrorists want to influence US elections to preserve the status quo, its likely that on a short term basis that attacks will be to allied interests. The UK and Italy come to mind. If nuclear capability exists, The US would still be the primary target with the UK to follow.
OIL Update
<P>
The international oil supply and delivery system can best be described as a daily exercise in perfection with less than a 5% margin of safety slack between supply potential and demand. Oil has to travel through political contention and physical choke points.
<P>
Misinformation and risk is so rampant that in a July 2003 report, the department of energy does not list “Saudi Arabia” as one of the major points “confronting significant economic, political, or other issues that could affect domestic or world oil and gas markets.”
<P>
For short term political reasons, demands were being made for increased supplier output at the same time that stocks were moving out of the danger zone into average range. Saudi Arabia stepped in to moderate the price of oil to American expectation and political objective.
<P>
The politically unpalatable solution resides in letting the “free market” find a price for oil at $45 to $55 a barrel. At $42.50 the market was trying to find that level. A higher base price for oil could provide temporary political stability to suppliers and it would also provide incentive for exploration. Even were we to slowly adjust to that price we will have periods of shortfall as supply needs to catch up to demand. However as the price of oil rises to that level demand will be moderated by decreases in economic activity.
<P>
By 2006 an event will force the price of to rise to extream levels.
$60 to $90 would be an endurable situation for the market to manage
$100 to $140 per barrel would force supplies to be “commanded”
Dollar Costs
Measure the risk, what would it cost to lose a major city?
What would it cost to lose oil supplies?
What percentage of GDP, for how long?
Homeland Security 1-1.5 Trillion?
Military Projection Costs 2-5 Trillion?
1 (This was according to a West Pointer spoke to today, who was from the same class as Perkins, he suggested reading “Thunder Run by David Zucchino )