It seems that we as a nation are beginning to clear debt off our books, at least for individuals, the first time there has been a continued retraction of debt since the Great Depression apparently. That is a good thing. Consider that there is roughly $8,500 personal debt for every man, woman and child in the United States–that is astounding. That basically means if you don’t have any debt the person next to you is $17,000 in the hole! The National debt is atrocious as well. It would behoove us as a nation to cut our debt, both personal and national, to enable us to stand as a healthy nation and act freely in an uncertain world. Yes, it is time to stop living beyond our means.

We are not alone obviously, Mexico’s industrial titan Cemex may be in danger of defaulting and possibly going away completely, only because it took on more debt than it could safely handle. Now, in the midst of global downward demand for concrete, Cemex may not be able to meet its debt obligations and could be forced to liquidate. That is terrible for a company that has a solid foundation and has represented Mexico well globally.

Back to the consumer, the fact that we are paring down debt is unfortunately a two headed monster. While it is a very good thing in the long run, it is crippling now. Consumer consumption accounts for 70% of our GDP, which means if we reduce our debt and start saving, and don’t keep spending, we risk deepening the recession in which we find ourselves. That is short term pain for many if not all of us. For example, GM announced today that it will cut automobile production by 250,000 for first quarter 2009. That makes perfect sense given the glut of cars and trucks sitting on the lots and storage facilities of all the automakers. But that is going to be painful for everyone laid off from GM, and effected by GM, who wont be working and likely not spending.

The fact is, we need a spending and consumption draw down, to increase personal, corporate and national financial health through debt reduction and savings. Only we need a measured draw down, not a spending freeze–that would be a national security risk. We may even need some regulation to keep markets from collapsing altogether. The task at this point should be to reduce debt, increase savings, and continue buying albeit in moderation, but I don’t know if this undefined pace can even be measured, or guided, by government intervention nor the shaken consumer.

Okay, maybe this isn’t a post about national security–or is it. As the big three automakers prepare to woo congress again for a financial bailout, this time requesting an additional 9 billion dollars more than the previously oft-spoken amount of 25 billion dollars, for a total of 34 billion dollars, they keep saying that with out them our economy would fail. I am not convinced but at the same time I am curious to see their strategy plans published. I think it would be nice to see the details given they are requesting public money.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not anti GM, Ford and Chrysler. In fact, to set the record straight. My dad drives a Ford truck, my brother a GM truck. My brother-in-law and father-in-law both drive Dodge trucks. I also drive a Dodge Ram–I have a vested interest in Chrysler’s survival as I would like to get my truck serviced–although I think that if Chrysler did fail some other entity would step in and buy out potential revenue sources like part and service. But I digress, as I listen to these CEOs plead for money and talk of doomsday scenarios for our economy if no one helps, it seems self serving. I think that the big three should be allowed to slide into bankruptcy and do their best to emerge stronger more competitive companies. Nearly all the airlines have had to do so since 9/11, why not the automobile industry.

However, if a bailout is in the works, it seems one of the more practical conditions might be a management shake up. Obviously, all three CEOs have resisted this condition, but if I were President Bush or President elect Obama, I would seriously consider using executive power to appoint professionals like Mitt Romney to take over some of our nation’s ailing giants like GM, or even AIG.

I don’t know if Mitt would even be interested in such a scenario but he has the obvious financial credentials, ran a pretty tight ship in Mass as governor, and pulled off the scandal ridden SLC Olympics a few years back. Securing successful business titans like him, who have the private experience, but could also work with government to ensure direction and oversight, would move to restore public trust, send a message to other industry leaders that government money comes with a price, and maybe even, right a sinking ship and get our money back!

Its official, retired Marine Corps General James Jones is Obama’s National Security Advisor. As I listened to President elect Obama announce his security team, I started to think of President Lyndon Johnson. That is kind of weird I know, and I was to young to remember Johnson first hand, but knowing that his political ambitions to build the “great society” never materialized due to the war in Vietnam that he inherited, I couldn’t help but think of the situation that Obama steps into.

I really believe that the first group Obama will disappoint as president wont be Republicans and conservatives. They are already disappointed, but could take some solace in some of Obama’s picks like James Jones and Sec Def Gates. Rumor had it that Jones would have been tapped for a cabinet position in the next presidency, Republican or Democratic. Instead Obama will alienate the liberal left, that wants the US out of Iraq now among other things. Fact is, once Obama started getting the classified security briefings he probably realized we have a few security messes to sort out that we need to be pragmatic about, regardless of campaign promises. His cabinet choices seem to illustrate that approach.

Bottom line, Obama faces a multitude of international security concerns and an certain economic crisis, which he has already indicated will trump some of his campaign promised economic initiatives. It may be awhile before he can build his own great society. On the other hand inheriting the current situation at home and abroad may be the focus from which great society will come.

The Washington Post is one of several news outlets reporting that retired marine general James L. Jones is in talks to become Barack Obama’s national security adviser. We interviewed General Jones extensively for Launch Pads to Lily Pads in 2005, part of the Beyond the Border series. At the time, Jones was the first marine to serve as head of EUCOM and supreme allied commander for NATO. Arguing that EUCOM’s configuration on sprawling bases in central Europe was a waste of money and firepower, he pushed to recast EUCOM in an expeditionary mold, rotating troops from Europe’s sprawling bases through three tiers of streamlined forward bases–or lily pads–closer to potential areas of operation, including Africa. That emphasis presaged the subsequent creation of the AFRICOM unified command.

I’m interested to see how Jones carries these ideas into the White House. The national security adviser’s main responsibility is to counsel the president on foreign policy from a security perspective. I don’t know that Jones will hold much sway with the department of defense, where Robert Gates is expected to stay on board for at least one year. But his emphasis on the expeditionary model could certainly influence Obama’s decisions, and I wonder if this doesn’t make Jones the logical next-in-line for secretary of defense.

Also, Jones has spent the last year at the head of the US Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. This organization’s plan for “securing America’s energy future” might best be described as non-petroleum-centric, focused on improving energy efficiency and developing alternative energy sources. The Post cites a speech he gave to the National Defense Industry Association calling for the national security council to take a larger role in energy policy. Competition for energy supplies is likely to spark any major global conflicts in the coming decades, and has arguably played roles in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Russia-Georgia conflict. The idea feels unrealistic, but I’m curious to see whether Jones’ philosophical base carries over to Obama’s foreign policy.

I recently heard that a brigade from the 10th Mountain Division, currently in Iraq, is getting a frag order of sorts to depart directly for Afghanistan mid deployment. Man, these are crazy times. But if the soldiers in the 10th Mountain are indicative of other soldiers I have met in the past year, they might be happy about it. I hear grumblings from the rank and file that they are bored in Iraq–no fight to be had. Believe it or not there are still many that join the Army to kick down the door and defeat the enemy.

Nonetheless, the security situation in Iraq is looking remarkably good, fantastic in fact compared to the dark days of 2005-6. Iraq’s Parliament is set to vote on the SOF agreement Monday, the agreement laying out a US withdrawal plan and timetable. Apparently, first moving back to the larger, out of the way, secure bases with restricted and conditional operational guidelines, and finally out of Iraq all together by the end of 2011.

It will be very interesting to see the direction President elect Obama will take the US regarding Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the world. Obama gets a gift if the SOF agreement takes, dodging a bullet so to speak regarding getting the troops out of Iraq. In the end the SOF is what it should be. The US always said it was there to, among other things, remove Saddam and stand up a new government. Apparently the new government feels it is ready to go it on it’s own. In shallah

One might mistake the title for something else, but our office has a small problem. Rather, the building our office is in has a problem. It seems to have a difficult time switching from A/C to HEAT and vice-versa. So, they switched on the heat a few weeks ago as the temp began to drop out side. Snow fell and people were happy with their warm offices.

Well, the cold spell only lasted a week and now its warm out side again and there’s no A/C. We’ve had to improvise with several fans to keep the editing system and hard drive rack cool.

Its working, but in no way is it glamorous.

Did you check the batteries? That was the question on my mind today as I was filming Dodge presenting his keynote at the David M. Kennedy Center. Everything looked good until he started talking and then there was no audio from his wireless. Haven’t figured out what the problem was yet, but I did have a direct line feed from the podium mic as a back up. Always have a back up plan.

His keynote was great–we used Keynote to build and deliver. It as a great presentation app. We’ll throw up some stills and probably a clip on the website shortly. Also, FORA.TV has his last keynote, “Abkhazia: Untold War Story” for viewing.

Military defeat aside, the Georgian government’s push to retake South Ossetia has led to one notable outcome–global awareness of Georgia’s two breakaway regions–Abkhazia and South Ossetia. A month and a half ago relatively few people, even in academia and government, had ever heard of either of these two places. Now, in large thanks due to an increase in Russian military personnel and equipment still deployed in these regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are international stories, and will remain so every day that Russian troops strength is in violation of previous agreements for the number of troops allowable in the regions.

Whether it was Pres Saakashvilli’s intent or not, today more people around the world, first, know where Georgia is, and second, better understands Georgia’s territorial integrity issues. Still, I find that there is a general ignorance regarding these regions; who they are, why they are separatist, what they want, and how did they get to where they are today (history). There is obviously a lot of focus on Georgia - Russia relations but to ignore the Ossetian and Abkhazian position in this struggle for territorial integrity and regional power is a mistake. The assumption that the current crisis can be solved between Georgia and Russia (and maybe the international community) ignores the fact that the Abkhazians and Ossetians have their own positions. It would be wrong to consider these two regions puppets of Moscow. Rather, they are better characterized as sharing mutual interests with Moscow and having a powerful benefactor in Russia.

It has been a bit since I last logged in. Not that I didn’t think about it but we were in Azerbaijan and kept pretty busy. Besides that I wanted to measure the tension in the Azeri capital over the Russian-Georgian-Ossetian conflict–and not comment on it until I had a chance to let everything sit. Bottom line, people I spoke to were obviously concerned but for different reasons. Many did not like what Russia was doing in Georgia and wondered out loud whether Azerbaijan would be next. There was general dismay at the US too, for its seemingly unguided policy in the region, perhaps misleading Saakashvili to conclude war to retake South Ossetia was the immediate answer. Of course I wasn’t officially polling, rather the perceptions noted above were that of taxi drivers, hotel and restaurant staffs, businessmen and even CIS tourists that I happened upon. I would say the most immediate concern was the cut in oil revenue resulting from closed pipelines, a result of Georgian tension. That fear is justifiable in a city that is in complete transformation since my last visit to the region just prior to 9/11, thanks to oil money. New buildings are everywhere, expensive luxery cars intermingle with older Soviet and Russian made Lada models, and designer boutiques abound in the districts near the promenade challenging the shopping districts of any capital in the region if not Europe itself. Baku is prospering, oil and natural gas important, and the position of being next to a very powerful neighbor is a reality, of which the Azeris were very recently reminded.

I should post a few pictures and will, but right now it is very late, I am jetlagged, and I cant bring myself to go get the camera and start uploading images. Maybe tomorrow.

The conflict in Georgia continues to stay interesting. Besides the presence of US naval ships off the southern most port city of Batumi, and Russian units solidifying positions in the port city of Poti, a Georgian train carrying oil blew up and caught on fire yesterday. First reports indicate a landmine and Georgia blames Russia.

But what about the train’s cargo–oil. The biggest pipeline in the region, the Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline was actually closed on August 6th due to an explosion to the pipeline in Turkey. It remains closed and Baku is rightfully concerned. Baku is booming thanks in large part due to revenue from petroleum and the BTC represents about 80% of the oil and and natural gas exports for Azerbaijan (There are two additional pipelines). That amount represents about $70 million a day. So far, that represents a loss of about $500 million in revenue.

Georgia and Turkey also forfeit transit fees that they would otherwise collect from oil and natural gas passing through their territory. Which brings us to the oil train explosion in Georgia yesterday. There are a lot of immediate concerns about Caspian oil and natural gas traversing its long routes through Georgia and Turkey to world markets.

We made a film about just that a couple of years ago. I don’t really like to tout our work so overtly here in blog but the basic story line of the film is currently being realized.