Racking Brains To Ease Iraqi Pains

With 2006 drawing to a close, America's Iraq disaster has turned into a war that even President George W. Bush has finally admitted we're not winning. Looking ahead to the future, historians will ponder and debate over who are the people responsible for this debacle.

• Clearly, Vice President Dick Cheney is going to be remembered as being both the most powerful and the most destructive vice president in U.S. history. His obsession with executive power, his secretive style, his manipulation of intelligence, his fear mongering, his advocacy of torture, his questioning of the patriotism of political foes, all pale by comparison to the role Cheney played that led America into a preemptive war against Iraq.


• Condolezza Rice was an abject failure as national security adviser. She has not performed much better as Secretary of State.


• Rice's hapless predecessor, Colin Powell, allowed himself to be used to support a war he never truly believed in. He understood from the get go that the Iraq war was going to be a huge mistake describing it, as he did, using the Pottery Barn analogy that says "if you break you own it."


• Beyond his enigmatic, obstructionist, and devious personality, Rumsfeld's decision to under-man the Iraqi invasion force essentially cost the U.S. any hope of winning a war against insurgents.


• Finally, there's President Bush, himself, who leaves behind a double-edged legacy. On one side there's a terrible failure of leadership, while on the other there's near total lack of accountability.

It's extremely unlikely that the problems in Iraq are going to be solved militarily. Rather, what's needed are new ideas on how to find political solutions. Obviously, something considerably more is needed beyond what was put forth as recommendations by the Baker-Hamilton commission.

David Apgar, author of "Risk Intelligence: Learning to Manage What We Don't Know." published a fascinating Boston Globe editorial entitled "A two-state solution for Iraq?" He proposes a two-way partition. Below is an edited excerpt describing his proposal:

The new border would run from southwest to northeast roughly through Baghdad's airport. The state to the northwest would include all 5 million Kurds and nearly all 5 million Sunni. It would include all of Baghdad and all the 2 million to 3 million urban and suburban Shi'a in its vicinity. It would also include all of the northern oil fields. In contrast, the state to the southeast would be a purely Shi'ite state, including all the Shi'a of the rural south and Basra and all of the major Shi'ite holy sites. Naturally, it would also include the southern oil fields. But it would include no part of metropolitan Baghdad with the exception of access to the airport. This southeastern state draws together the most-traditional elements of Iraq's Shi'ite community and none of Iraq's least-traditional, Baghdad-based Shi'a, to observe a mild version of sharia law. It would maintain cordial if not intimate relations with Iran, would become very rich from oil, and would function as a sort of Saudi-style guardian of the world's most important Shi'ite holy sites. On the other hand, a polyglot state such as proposed for the northwest, centered in the major metropolitan area of Baghdad, would probably focus on industrializing its agricultural and refining sectors and becoming a trade center for the Middle East. Living in today's Iraq are four major communities -- the southern Shi'a, the Sunni community, the Kurdish community and the metropolitan Shi'a most closely associated with al-Sadr. The most traditional people in Iraq are probably the Shi'a who live south and east of Baghdad, perhaps reflecting their proximity to the Shi'ite holy cities of Najaf and Karbala. These are the people who arguably suffered the greatest hardship under Saddam. A homogeneous state of their own would seem to provide them the widest scope to adjust their government's jurisdiction over religious as well as civil life. It would also seem to provide them the greatest protection from any hostile coalition of less-traditional groups from the north. For Iraq's Sunni community, the establishment of a northwestern state immediately solves two problems. Instead of being a 20 percent minority dominated by a Shi'ite population simmering with understandable resentment toward Sunni rule under Saddam, Iraq's Sunni would find themselves a 40 percent plurality. And instead of questionable access to oil in Shi'ite and Kurdish states under one possible three-way partition, the Sunni community would enjoy shared but uncompromised access to all the reserves of northwestern Iraq. For Iraq's Kurdish community, a northwestern state would solve two big problems. Like the Sunni, Kurds would enjoy shared but uncompromised access to all the oil reserves near Kirkuk in the north. More important, however, is the fact that their state would be largely free from unreasonable threats from Turkey. It is true that Kurds would represent a 40 percent plurality of the new state. Sixty percent of that state, however, would be Arab, which simultaneously eliminates the danger of a purely Kurdish border state from the Turkish perspective -- and ensures political support from other Arab states. Perhaps the most important reason to consider a two-state partition, however, derives from the needs of the urban Shi'a of Baghdad -- and perhaps even the ambitions of al-Sadr himself. A two-state partition arguably offers the best possible development solution for the inhabitants of places such as Sadr City. These Shi'a would comprise 20 percent of the population of the northern state. They would inevitably be the kingmakers of the northwestern state supporting Kurdish and Sunni political parties depending on the attention those parties paid to the development needs of Baghdad's urban poor. More immediately, they would no longer represent the vanguard -- and an easily attacked one, at that -- of a community of 15 million Shi'a threatening the livelihood of Iraq's Sunnis. As a minority of 2 million to 3 million Shi'a in the northwestern state, they would instead be a potential political ally for both Kurds and Sunnis, and might well play a role similar to the minority Shi'ite population of Syria. The reasons insurgents attack them today would be gone. [click here to read entire editorial]

Top Three Trends for 2007

This time of year pundits like me love to make prognostications predicting the forthcoming trends for the upcoming year. Below are my top three picks:

#1. AJAX

AJAX is that part of Web 2.0 that will absolutely, positively have a significant impact on computing in 2007.

Even Microsoft has jumped onto the AJAX bandwagon. For instance, check out how they have drastically redesigned their company's home page www.microsoft.com by using AJAX to load content dynamically when the user clicks on items in the floating menu to the right of the page. Dynamically loaded content gets displayed in a floating panel that appears over the top of the rest of the page, which gets dimmed and cannot be clicked while the panel is visible.

To the user the interface is the system!!!

AJAX provides the rich client behavior that was so predominant before Web browsers became popular. With AJAX, gone is the notion of constantly having to refresh an entire web page for each transaction. With dynamic reloading of portions of web pages, transmitting only a small amount of data to the client, the resulting user experience is faster, richer, and arguably better functionality.

Google has long been an ardent AJAX supporter. For example, see Google Maps which enables users to drag a map to move it in various directions, or Google Suggest which provides suggestions from the server as users type, showing in a drop-down a list of search terms that may be of interest.

Invest in AJAX in 2007. Rich clients are worth it. Display terminals like IBM 3270s displaced keypunch machines. Character-based terminals like DEC VT100s displaced 3270s. Character-based PCs with memory-mapped I/O like MS-DOS displaced VT100s. Graphical user interfaces (GUIs) like Windows displaced MS-DOS. GUI browsers like IE displaced PC-based GUI apps (because web servers were so awesome). The next major user interface revolution is happening now. It's called AJAX!

# 2: Service-Oriented Architecture

Microsoft, IBM, HP, Oracle, SAP, BEA, and just about every other software vendor are all now singing the same exact tune -- that SOA represents their next-generation IT development and deployment strategy. Of course, the $64,000 question still remains "What's a service?"

The software industry has been promising reusable components ever since the invention of subroutines. The problem invariably boils down to the age old dilemma of how does a developer "find" a software module to be reused. If the process of discovery takes as long as creating entirely new software, the developer always opts for the latter, especially if the reusable software is perceived as being unlikely to handle 100% of the requirements for the new task at hand.

Software reuse -- whether we're talking a service, a component, an object, a module, a subroutine, a macro, or whatever, -- is always, in fact, a two-part issue: 1) finding the software to be reused; and 2) being able to modify the software to handle non-generic special cases. The first challenge is one of figuring out how to organize, classify, and categorize the software to be reused so that it can be readily found. The second question involves supporting techniques for either adding new functionality to software to be reused, or overriding existing functionality.

Fundamentally, SOA's success will largely depend on evolutionary advancements that can extend software components beyond SOA's predecessor technology, object-oriented programming. The big breakthrough that SOA delivers is in the way that it uses the Internet's underlying Web infrastructure in place of OO's CORBA and DCOM object request brokers. XML is the key enabling technology that makes all this possible.

One of the keys to building successful SOA-based systems is to exploit the abstract semantic relationship that reflects the continuum between generic and specific. In other words, SOA needs to allow developers to create general-purpose building blocks that can easily be extended to handle special cases. This is accomplished by supporting mechanisms for developers to add new functionality or override existing functionality.

Another critical aspect of SOA pertains to business process modeling. Whereas services represent the core components of SOA, developers still need to be able to find those services in order to reuse them. It just so happens that the most reusable facets of any information system are its business events. A specific business event triggers a business process which itself is a set of distinct steps, some of which must be performed in sequence, others of which may be able to be performed in parallel. Furthermore, some process steps are conditionally performed based on the results of prior activities. One key to SOA's success depends on its ability to organize, classify, and categorize services based around business events (so that those services can be easily discovered).

#3. Cloud Computing

Servers reside in an Internet cloud somewhere and it doesn't matter how you access the cloud whether you have a PC or a Mac or a Blackberry or a cell telephone or whatever. Nowadays this notion of cloud computing is often being referred to as SaaS which stands for Software as a Service.

The pendulum in computing relentlessly swings back and forth between personal and shared machines. The very first computers, such as ENIAC, were single user systems. Those computation workhorses were soon followed by sharable mainframe computers like IBM's System/360. Next came minicomputers from companies like DEC which were, once again, primarily single-user systems. Soon, however, minicomputers became much more powerful enabling them to be shared by multiple different users simultaneously, where each user had his or her own virtual machine, and the shared resources were controlled by a sophisticated operating system such as UNIX or VAX/VMS (or various other derivatives of MIT's Project Multics). Minicomputers, though, soon were obsoleted by personal computers which gave each virtual machine user their own physical machine to control. But, PC users still wanted to share data and resources just as they had previously been able to do on their shared systems. That demand led to the advent of client/server computing. The ultimate winner in the client/server war was the World Wide Web which itself is evolving into cloud computing especially as behemoths such as Google and Microsoft build massive data centers with massive parallel processing capabilities constrained only by their ability to find enough electricity to power their truly amazing infrastructures (see The Information Factories).

That's my list of predictions for 2007. Check back next year to see if I got it right. If you're a gambler, then wager that those who will win big in the upcoming year are IT organizations that bet the ranch on AJAX, SOA, and SaaS.

Happy New Year from the ITscout!

What We Have Here Is a Failure To Communicate

"What we have here is a failure to communicate."

— Paul Newman in "Cool Hand Luke"

Paul Newman might as well have been the spokesperson for Enterprise Architects everywhere!!! At its very core the age old problem plaguing Enterprise Architecture currently is, and always has been, the frustration caused by the inability of business people and IT people to communicate effectively.

Click anywhere on the excerpt below to read Flashmap Systems' just published whitepaper entitled "A Failure to Communicate."

"...ITatlas takes a different approach to EA by recognizing that the presentation of the architectural information to be communicated is as critical to the success of an EA program as its collection and capture. In other words, not only does architectural information need to be available in an appropriate format, but also the delivery of that information needs to be so intuitive that someone with little or no training will feel comfortable accessing it. Getting the right information to the correct person at the proper time often means targeting audiences where individuals have neither the time nor the inclination to attend a training class or read a user manual...."

Read full whitepaper:
http://www.flashmapsystems.com/pdfs/wp_communication.pdf

Prosuming

In 1979, futurist Alvin Toffler coined the term "prosumer" to describe the open source-like phenomenon of people producing what they consume. The term applies to individuals who prefer to be involved in designing the things they purchase. In other words, new products and/or services are created by combining together the roles of producer and consumer.

Prosuming has rapidly grown right along with the explosion of emerging technologies for digitally making and editing music, videos, and photo images. Especially important is the ability to easily share finished products over the Internet.

The hottest new way to prosume comes from a Web 2.0 development called mashups which enable people to seamlessly combine content from more than one source into an integrated experience. And, of course, the granddaddy of prosuming is open source software which allows programmers to read and modify source code for a piece of software thereby improving it, adapting it, as well as fixing bugs.

Prosumers are passionate about the technology they use for their creative pursuits. Money isn't usually the central goal for prosumers. Rather, it's the satisfaction that comes from people learning something from other people.

Bush's Three Strikes and You're Out Legacy

Perhaps because George W. Bush was once part owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team, it's fitting that his presidential administration's legacy will most likely be remembered by the baseball metaphor Three Strikes and You're Out.

Incompetency will be the overriding theme most historians will use to describe George Bush #43.

1. Strike One was the incompetency exhibited during Hurricane Katrina.


2. Strike Two was the incompetency demonstrated by his prosecution of the war in Iraq.


3. Strike Three will be felt most profoundly in the future due to the incompetency manifested by the reckless budget deficits and trade deficits racked up under Bush's watch.

Over time, Strike Two will be seen as far worse than Strike One, and Strike Three will be, by far, the worst of all. The American government simply cannot continue to spend more money than it collects in taxes and the American economy cannot continue to indefinitely import more than it exports.

Under the law, three strikes has come to mean mandatory imprisonment for someone convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. From the purview of history, three strikes means Bush will be remembered as one of the most awful presidents America has ever had. It's hard to imagine that any of his predecessors have either been more incompetent or done more lasting damage.

We Should Have Just "Shocked and Awed"

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group delivered, in stark terms, a broad indictment that U.S. policy in Iraq is not working. The panel, headed by former secretary of state Jim Baker and former Indiana congressman Lee Hamilton, describes our situation there as "grave and deteriorating."


As Homer Simpson might say, "Doh!"

Tell us something we don't already know!

Most people now agree we should never have gotten into this war in the first place. But once our troops did invade Iraq, we should have just stuck with our initial shock and awe warfare strategy. During those early days of the conflict, the ways in which this war was waged were indeed remarkable. American troops reached Baghdad in record-breaking time.

Bush's mistake was not bringing the troops home immediately after he raised the now infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. We should have left Iraq then and there leaving behind the simple message that America can really kick some ass when it wants to.

How in the world did George W. Bush get himself into the business of nation building? I suppose Haliburton might have gotten itself rich, but America has gotten herself into another Vietnam-like quagmire. The main difference is there's no draft this time around.

The problem with asymmetric warfare is that military power doesn't work against an enemy who uses civilians as a shield. How do you prevail against an enemy whose primary objective is anarchy?

During World War II, America was determined to achieve victory at any cost. Military leaders were willing to kill civilians, if necessary. Consider Dresden or Hiroshima. During the Cold War, the U.S. "MAD" strategy of "mutually assured destruction" was premised on countless civilian casualties.

The biggest lesson the military was supposed to have learned from Vietnam was never again to go to war unless we intended to win at any cost. That would mean the American people were fully supportive, willing to make any sacrifice. That would mean rooting out and destroying an enemy even if it meant killing civilians. In other words, never again get into a frivolous military venture.

The United States spends more money on its defense budget than all other nations combined. This has resulted in an impressive array of shock and awe weaponry. What good is all that power if we can't intimidate our enemies with it?

Iran and North Korea, America's biggest current foes, would be behaving very differently today if our troops had come home after Saddam's government was originally toppled. Had that happened, what would Iraq look like today? Who knows? But, I doubt the circumstances could be much worse than what's happening there now. With private Saudi citizens reportedly giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq, Iranians training and arming Shi'ite militias, and who knows what is being done by Syria, the only thing for certain is American soldiers in Iraq are targets to be killed by suicide bombers, improvised explosive device (IED) roadside bombs, and even shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

Imagine that the U.S. withdraws all its troops. What's the worst that could happen? If need be we can always invade Iraq again, can't we?

Meanwhile, what would happen if American shock and awe air and sea power were used to take out Iran's fledgling nuclear weapon-making facilities? I imagine the price of oil might skyrocket to well over $100 per barrel. Tom Friedman of the New York Times thinks that could be good news since it would finally break our addiction to foreign oil. As he says, "the sooner oil reaches $100 per barrel, the sooner it will get back to $20 per barrel."

If American victory means imposing a democratic government onto the people in Iraq, then we need to send the 500,000 soldiers that would be required to oversee a conquered people. On the other hand, if U.S. troops aren't an easy target for Iran, then there's a military option to take out Iranian nuclear weaponry plants if indeed they are a legitimate threat to America.

President Bush should heed the advice of his fellow Republican presidential predecessor, Teddy Roosevelt, who said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." With America's current military relatively small in number and bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush has been guilty of the opposite. His many loud threats are virtually ignored by enemies who perceive America as soft and weak and unwilling to fight.

Technology Laws: Abundance vs Scarcity

Renowned author and high technology futurist George Gilder has developed what he describes as Ten Rules for Tech Investors. Two of these, the Law of Abundance and the Law of Scarcity, are irrefutably correct. Basically, wise entrepreneurs waste what is abundant in order to save what is scarce.

Gilder is sometimes positively brilliant such as when he explains how dumb networks will always prevail over smart networks. With dumb networks, intelligence shifts to the edges of the network.

Other times Gilder's right-wing extremist views sound like the musings of a fanatic, such as his resolute support for "intelligent design" over Darwin's theory of natural selection, his quirky belief that government-run education is to blame for declining American literacy, or that broadcast TV is a failing model because it wastes the consumer's time. In 1974, the National Organization for Women even named Gilder its Male Chauvinist Pig of the Year for his book "Men and Marriage."

Politics aside, even though George Gilder has never managed a business and he's never written a line of computer code, he's obviously done an incredible amount of technical research. He's definitely neck deep in his understanding of science.

Back in 1981, George Gilder wrote a book about supply-side economics called "Wealth & Poverty" which made it to #4 on The New York Times Best Sellers list. Considered "the bible of the Reagan revolution," his book explained how cutting taxes would stimulate entrepreneurship, increasing the taxable base of the economy, thereby raising revenues by cutting taxes.

The classical definition of economics is the study of choice under scarcity. But in Gilder's world, scarcity is only a temporary problem. Through engineering ingenuity things considered to be scarce, such as transitors or bandwidth, unfailingly get "supplied" and become plentiful.

Wired Magazine recently published a fascinating article written by George Gilder called The Information Factories which suggests that the desktop is dead. Long live the Internet cloud! In the brave new world of 21st century computing, we approach a billionth of a cent per byte of storage, and pennies per gigabit per second of bandwidth.

Last century the PC was king. The mainframe was deposed and deceased. The desktop was the data center. Today Google rules a total database of hundreds of petabytes which gets swelled every 24 hours by additional terabytes of new data. As Gilder writes:

In the PC era, the winners were companies that dominated the microcosm of the silicon chip. The new age of petacomputing will be ruled by the masters of the remote data center –- those who optimally manage processing power, electricity, bandwidth, storage, and location. They will leverage the Net to provide not only search, but also the panoply of applications formerly housed on the desktop.

As George Gilder explains, "In every era, the winning companies are those that waste what is abundant -– as signalled by precipitously declining prices -– in order to save what is scarce. Google has been profligate with the surfeits of data storage and backbone bandwidth. Conversely, it has been parsimonious with that most precious of resources, users' patience." Wasting what is abundant to conserve what is scarce, Google has become the supreme entrepreneur of the new millennium.