In the National Interest a weekly online publication from The National Interest just ran an article I wrote, "The MBA as Arab Reformer" .

Inspired by the work of Tarek Heggy a leading Egyptian writer and reformer, I argue that the habits and virtues necessary to running a modern enterprise are the same as those underpinning civil society and democracy. Management homilies of teamwork, delegation, and empowerment may seem trite to us - but in fact they are profound. The prevailing organizational culture in the Middle East is quite different. Bosses seek to protect themselves from challenges to their authority, and consequently discourage initiative and criticism. It is no accident that the non-petroleum exports of the Arab world are less than those of Finland.

Tarek Heggy, it should be noted, is also a business executive who had a long career with a major international petroleum company, so when he argues that Egypt's biggest problem is "management" he is not just being witty. This is not the only issue he discusses either - he is thoughtful and passionate on the how to counter radical Islam, the need for political reform in the Arab world, and the abysmal Arab media. His hero is Anwar Sadat and he urges the entire Arab world to follow Sadat's path and make peace with Israel.

In one specific sense my article is a touch misleading, Tarek Heggy is not actually an MBA.

While in the City of Angels I read the local daily the Los Angeles Times and the international paper the Financial Times. The LA Times was alright. But on Sunday, June 13, they ran a pair of formative anti-Bush stories. The story about the 26 retired diplomats and military officers (none exactly household names) urging the American people to replace Bush is definitely newsworthy - but frontpage? Financial Times had the same story on page 4. Nonetheless, I would not have thought much about the placement except that next to it was a story on how Bush's support in the religious community was being weakened by the war in Iraq. But the bellwether community profiled in the story is a wealthy suburb of Minneapolis which has been evenly split in recent Presidential elections. I am no expert on polling, but somehow a comfortable community in Minnesota (where the men are strong, the women are good-looking, the children are above average, and the Republicans are moderate) may not be the place to discover the national pulse. Two stories that if not slanted were at least a bit tilted on the front page.

Meanwhile the Financial Times was a pleasure. Short, fact-filled articles, lot's of intenational coverage. No comics though.

The TerrorBlog has been on a bit of hiatus - although not for lack of news (unfortunately.) But I've been backed up and was visiting LA (more on that anon.)

But first order of business must be to praise John Kerry. He did two things I like. First, he called for a major expansion of the Army - 40,000 more troops. He is right on this one, we are at war and we need a bigger army. That is not to say that the troops should necessarily go to Iraq. In Commentary, Victor Davis Hanson persuasively argues (really saying VDH argues persuasively is a bit redundant - whatever one thinks of his politics he is a fine, fine writer) that we may have enough troops in Iraq we just need to make better use of them. But we are stressed to keep them there and fulfill our other commitments around the world. This means we do not have a free hand to tangle with Iran or Syria, or any other crisis that comes up. Also, Hanson may be right on Iraq - but we almost certainly could use more troops in Afghanistan where the Taliban are regrouping, warlordism is rampant, and the poppy fields are blooming. We have about 20,000 troops there now plus a 6,500 person NATO contingent. As a side note if all the NATO allies can muster for Afghanistan - where NATO completely supported American actions is 6,500 troops the costs vs. benefits of more NATO troops in Iraq should be weighed very carefully. Surrendering our international freedom of action for 1800 troops in a peaceful part of Iraq is probably not a terrific deal.

On the other hand, Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker says the Army does not need to be bigger it just needs to "wring [inefficiency] out of the system right now. Of course the real concern is that Congress will authorize troops but not provide the funding increases necessary in future years to pay them. (Congress only appropriates money one year at a time, while additional troops would be with the Army for several years.) Yes, the Army needs to be squeezed more - but we are at war and our enemies around the world need to know that there is always more where "that" came from. The money shouldn't be an issue either - we are, after all, at war. On the other hand, the Army always needs to be watched carefully lest they start trying to buy some heavy metal to stop the Russians in the Fulda Gap.

Anyway, the other thing Kerry did that I liked is cease campaign activity after Reagan's death. It was a good classy move - and also a smart one since nothing Kerry could possibly have said would have come off well.