I still remember that it's about 3 years since when I had the idea to go through Vietnam from North to South on the Ho Chi Minh trail then come back on the National Road 1A by motorcycle. At that time, it's not only my dream but also my closest friends'. We planned to make it together but due to different reasons, we still haven't had a chance to make it come true. Luckily, I had an opportunity to carry out another much bigger plan in my adventurous life: A trip around Indochina by motorcycle. The idea just popped up after I had decided the topic of my thesis. I need to go around to collect information and this winter vacation was perfect for a long journey like that. So..."Adventure is out there!" Then a journey which's full of surprises was waiting for us ahead.

Actually I didn't have much time to prepare, just about 2 weeks to research destinations, plan the routes and 10 days to repair my old bike and buy stuff needed for the trip. 10 days in Ha Noi was too short for me especially this's the first time I have driven a Minsk, the So-Viet bike I took from a high-school friend. Thank God that everything's alright till the day I and my partner left Ha Noi.

Here is the list of our rest stops during the trip:

Ha Noi - Muong Khen - Son La - Dien Bien (3 days) - Muong Mai - Udom Xai - Luang Phrabang - Vang Vieng - Vientiane - Paksan - Savanakhet - Pakse - Si Phan Don (Don Det) (11 days) - Stung Treng - Kratie - Kampong Thom - Siem Reap - Battambang - Phnom Penh (8 days) - Ho Chi Minh City - Phan Thiet - Nha Trang - Quy Nhon - Da Nang - Ha Noi (8 days).

So we, 2 persons, traveled about 5000Km across the Indochina with 40 Kilograms of stuff on an old two stroke 125cc So-Viet motorcycle and 750Km by train for 30 days.

But the most special thing here is that this's the first time I have gone traveling as an (amateur) eco-poli man, not only as a backpacker as usual. I want to give a big thank to Prof. Zhang who guided me how to understand Eco and Poli of a country within a few days. This really helped me alot during the trip.

PS: This first article of the serie about what I got from this Indochina trip is only an overview. More articles will be released soon.

The president Obama just announced the plan for the war in Afghanistan. He convinced people that he needs to add more 30,000 troops to Afghanistan and begin withdrawing in July 2011 (completely withdraw by 2013). There are many critics to this plan and most focus on two problems:

• How to pay additional $30B for the first year of the plan when US is still in recession and having many domestic problems.
• How to make sure about the timetable for a successful withdrawing.

Actually, I see what Obama trying to do as an answer for the question: "how to withdraw as soon as possible without being looked as a failure?". He chose 2013 to completly withdraw as a year which is not too late for both US and himself but this answer seems to be not good enough.

Not too hard to understand the reasons behind Obama's plan. He wants to win both in international and domestic stage. He can not let the world looks US as a loser in this war because it proves US's weakness. He also can not solve domestic problems when US is being bogged down in the war in Afghanistan, a war all US people feel that's too enough. If he can win both, that's not only the double winning for US but also the best ticket for him to be re-elected next term.

But is that too much for "a change we can believe in"?

In my opinion, US government should admit, although not easy at all, that:

• You can not defeat Taliban and other Terroist groups ultimately by self with only military force.
• US's power is weaker and weaker, even not to lose the war in Afghanistan.

Terrorism is an international issue and US should find another better way for this "long" war. I still haven't seen any really good solution for this but I think the way US doing is not good enough, for both US and the world.

About US's power, just see how Russia and China sitting around and saying. And even Europe, the best US's ally, just see how Europe reactions to the war. At this time, all countries just focus on eco and I can say, US's power is less than anytime before.

Once US government admits these facts, I think, it will be easier to focus on solving domestic problems that can help to solve others sustainably. Actually, I think, this's too hard for them but now it's a right time for a real change or too late. Obama also does not need to worry when there is nobody can solve all these problems better than him obviously, he still has a chance to be re-elected next term even his plan fails.

So is there any better strategy for all these problems?

I have one for short run. In term of strategy, my strategy is not so different but I see a better way of implement, maybe not the perfect way but it's the way, I think, is most suitable at the moment. He needs to withdraw but withdraw without being looked as a failure, right? How? Just find a reason, a reason nobody can complain. A referendum may be good. And if US people vote for withdrawing as soon as possible, it will be the best reason for him to withdraw, even much sooner than 2011. Because it's US people's will then nobody can say bad things for him and the US. After that, focus on fixing domestic problems especially the economy. In foreign affair, re-tie allies by eco, not by force (and maybe find some new good allies for US's long-term strategy). At the same time, instead paying $30B for additional troops, just use a small piece of it to improve homeland security.

All these are just very first steps which I think are better for a long journey with full of difficulties ahead for US. I know, it never sounds easy like this but what I mean is if I was Obama I would base more on the US people and make them feel listened and protected. Anw, I really hope that he can drive the country out of this severe recession successfully.

• Why does US make war everywhere? Why does Japan invest a lot to Vietnam? Why does US put an economic embargo on Cuba?
• Why is English taught at every school? Why has China established hundreds of Confucius instutes in nearly 100 countries? Why do people say Globalization is the same as Amaricanization?

The answers for both two kinds of questions above are all related to one term: "power". In the last article, I argued that "money" and "power" are two most important factors in Politics. In this article I will clarfy the idea behind "power".

So what is "power"?

When you're at school, you can see very clearly that leaders of school clubs are allowed to administrate clubs' resource and assign work to members. It's also the same with Politicians. They want to become leaders of states because it allows them to administrate some or all public resources, including labour, and wealth. In international relations, the objects of influence may be states, events, actors and issues so at this level, one country often considers victory in conflict or ability to control over resource and capabilities.

In general, we can say "power" is the ability to influence others to get the outcomes one wants.

How to affect behavior of others?

There are three main ways:

• Coerce them with threats.
• Induce them with payments.
• Attract or co-opt them.

In other words, with the two first ways, you can use force (stick) or money (carrot) to influence others (rabbit). This's called Hard Power.

But sometimes you can affect others behavior without commanding it, without both of force and money. If someone believes that your objectives are legitimate, you may be able to persuade him (a rabbit) without threats or inducements (by a sexy doe). This is called Soft Power.

This also explains why some radical Muslims may be attracted to support Osama Bin Laden's actions. It's not because of payments or threats, but because they believe in the legitimacy of his objectives. This kind of power also appears through spreading of language and popular culture. For example: a company wants to join global market, it can not use its local language or even French, German but English. Or you can see many teenagers go crazy by Japanese culture or Korean movies.

In modern world, Soft Power is associated with the rise of globalization. Compared with making a war that costs a lot of money (and life, which much more valuable), it seems to be more effective. Simply because Soft Power not only brings back what one wants through a "less money" way but also makes people to give more money in the progress of its spreading.

Money and Power

Again, you can see clearly that money and power have a very closed relationship like I argued in the last article. Do you remember the story of an entrepreneur who wants to startup? He has to face a problem where he can not do what he wants because he doesn't have enough money and he can not earn more when he doesn't sit on the top chair. Simply, the relationship can be described as below:

You can have power if you have enough money, and you can have more money if you have power.

Therefore we can say Soft Power vs Hard Power is not different with Money vs Much Money (in term of cost).

Now, don't ask why many countries trying a lot to spread their culture. But sometimes Soft Power usage is not as peaceful as it sounds because it causes much of cultural conflicts that may be the reason for a war.

After all, we can come to a simple conclusion but we should always remember:

Money and Power can kill everybody and everybody can be killed by greed of Money and Power.

Look at Political events, you can see there are many conflicts. Hardly you can find a policy or a plan from Gov "looks" good for all although that's what Gov wants people to believe. Usually it only brings benefits for some specific groups and that's why many people criticize almost every policy or plan from Gov. By "2 eyes", we know that nothing is completely right or completely wrong. Every political acts have their own reasons and they're actually reasonable somehow. But not too hard to realize that (at least through newspaper if you can) most policies, plans and even people's reactions aim to have more economic benefits for someone. Again, a good eco-poli man must have the ability to find out the truth behind this kind of events, by "2 eyes", of course. And we can say that "money" is a basic reason behind political events.

But we also can not say "money" rules all political events. To make it clear, I have a simple example about three founder scenarios in real life from Noam Wasserman.

1. You have an idea for a great product and want to start a company. Do you start it yourself (and keep all of the equity) or do you find a good co-founder (with whom you have to split the equity 50/50)?

2. You have 2 similar offers from potential investors. However, one is from angels (who want one board seat out of 3, leaving you in control of the board) and the other is from VCs (who want 2 of 3 board seats). Which do you take?

3. You have been doing a good job as a founder-CEO, and have really enjoyed being able to control major decisions and being able to "put my stamp on my company." However, you are starting to feel that a more experienced CEO would be able to grow a more valuable company than you could. Should you keep your CEO seat, or should you offer to step down (into a "ceremonial CTO" role) and find a better CEO to take over your "baby"?

Answer these three questions you will realize that people always consider "rich" vs. "king" (as Noam said) or "money" vs. "power". Yes, it's true. Many people say they don't need money but almost everybody wants to be successful and their success can "influence" others. And who want to "influence" others most? Politicians, of course. That "influence" is "power" and "power" is the other basic reason of Politics.

With "money" and "power" as "2 eyes", eco-poli man can explain every political events.

(My next article may be "Soft Power vs. Hard Power" to make the relationship between "money" and "power" more clear.)

"2 eyes and 1 face" is my first lesson I have learned from Prof. Prajit Dutta in Politics. What does the quote mean and how did it become one of the most important things to consider whenever I look at every problems?

Since I was a kid, I have been in many debates. Usually, I would protect the idea I think that makes sense and refuse the other one, even try to find a way to turn it down. Badly, sometimes, I did used to attack on who have different ideas instead of using strong arguments to prove that I was right. It's also very nature that we want to win in every fights, right? But wait, just to look back and answer the question: "Have you ever tried to find out what's exactly behind the ideas you have refused?". Sometimes we fight blindly, like a crying child without thinking carefully. How could we win if we don't really understand what we are fighting with?

So first of all, try to runderstand clearly and find out the truth behind any idea. Always think twice before starting any fight.

Another popular case is when I see two persons stucking in a debate. It is so popular that the debate often creates two group of people fighting for very different ideas. When I was small, I usually protected the idea I thought that it makes sense or even just protected my friends and didn't care about any idea. That's an one-way thought and sometimes brought me to meaningless and unending fights. Again, the lesson is before protecting or fighting for any idea, try to understand clearly but understand clearly both of two ideas. That's the meaning of "2 eyes".

We have 2 eyes and 2 ears to look and listen, don't just use one and leave the other useless.

What about "1 face"? After looking with "2 eyes" and understanding clearly both, just only one is acceptable. You can not agree with every ideas. Usually, each idea has its own reasons. We can not say which is completely right and also hardly to find one completely wrong. The one you accept may be one of the two ideas you are looking, may be not but you can have your own idea by understanding other ideas clearly and using "2 eyes" to shape your own unique world view.

Simply we should not have "2 faces", just keep our only true faces everytime.

In Politics, we can see clearly that there are many groups of people fighting for very different ideas. A true Econ-Poli man must use "2 eyes" effectively to find out the truth behind and never forget he only has "1 face".

I have been learning a lot from Columbia with the best professors in both of two fields: Economics and Politiccal Science. Prof. Robert Jervis suggested me that I should have a blog about what I have learned here. It would be a great way to review my knowledge, shape my world view and share my thought about real life.

Why is the blog named "True Lies"? I thought of Econ-Poli, Econ-Poli man, 2 eyes 1 face,...but finally I chose "True Lies" due to its simplicity and short length. The name is kind of two sides of everything. You can see the good in the bad, the truth in the lies and again. This blog will be directed to that way.

So, I will look at Economics and Politics (and maybe other things) with 2 eyes to understand clearly then write shortly and simply in this blog.