The Hearts and Minds of Pakistan's Displaced Posted by David Shorr

An important alarm bell today from the Times' Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah, who report on Islamic aid groups providing displaced Pakistanis with assistance -- and a heaping helping of anti-American, anti-government political indoctrination to go with. Any of us who are concerned about popular sentiment toward the US will be disturbed to learn that the IDPs resist any aid coming from us, especially after the Pakistani goodwill resulting from America's post-earthquake relief efforts there four years ago. But anti-American sentiment is the least of the problem here.

You can get the details on the current humanitarian need and response from Refugees International. I want to make sure we keep sight of the stakes here. Never mind the United States, the question uppermost for the displaced population is whether their own government cares about them and will cushion the blow after their lives have been turned upside down. Of course the US should do whatever it can to help. We just need to be mindful that if the displaced are left to scrape by in open-ended limbo, a huge hearts and minds battle will have been lost. The relevant grafs from the Times report:

Signs of the organizational strength and robust coffers of Islamist charities were easy to see around the camps, often in contrast to the lack of services offered by the government.

For example, Al Khidmat, Mr. Hassan’s group, arranged to bring in eye surgeons from Punjab to staff a free eye clinic for the displaced, offering cataract operations and eyeglasses.

“Government hospitals are nonexistent here, and we are able to treat not only the displaced but the whole community,” said one of the surgeons, Dr. Khalid Jamal.

Refugees and those displaced within their own countries classically tend, over time, to fade as a focus and a priority. Indeed, they pose challenges much easier to ignore than tackle. How do you help rebuild productive lives for two million people who suddently find themselves somewhere new? Regardless of the problem's difficulty, though, the people affected are bound to see it as a test of the responsiveness and true intentions of their government. Whether the IDPs settle in their new locations or manage to return home, the faith and allegiance of an entire Pakistani region are up for grabs.

Process versus Politics: Conservatives confused about Honduran Coup Posted by The Editors

This post is by NSN intern Luis Vertiz

The recent military coup in Honduras presents another thorny situation for President Obama to deal with. Conservatives at the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Examiner, however, have already pounced on him by demanding that he reverse his support for Honduran President Manuel Zelaya’s reinstatement to office following the military coup that exiled him to Costa Rica. Here is Mary Anastasia O’Grady from the Wall Street Journal:

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo [Chavez] himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

The problem with this statement is two-fold. One, O’Grady is clearly taking sides in this Honduran crisis – harking back to the Cold War legacy of American interference in the region. While the details of the coup are beginning to emerge, she has already chosen to shower the military’s coup with laudatory language. Clearly, despite Zelaya’s democratic election to office, O’Grady believes it’s more important that Chavez’s brand of Bolivarian socialism be rooted out rather than foster stronger democratic norms. Someone has to remind me again why supporting democratically-elected leaders, no matter their political persuasion, puts American values and interests at risk more than acquiescing to military coups. Latin America has a history of military coups and strongmen, yet the past two decades have shown an impressive dedication to democratic governance. With the region warming up to Obama, despite our history of American interference in Latin American countries, why turn our back on 20-plus years of democratic governance in Latin America now by allowing this intervention? Turning a blind-eye to the abrogation of the rule of law – the foundation of any democracy – will only serve to further weaken democracy and increases the prospects for increased military interference in democratic politics in the region.

The secondary problem with arguments like O’Grady’s is, while there is genuine concern that President Zelaya was blatantly pushing forth constitutional reforms for self-preservation, the loci of her concern was the personal politics of the President Zelaya, rather than the process by which he was removed from office. Process in a democracy matters. No one applauds the authoritarian leanings of Zelaya’s inspiration: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Yet Chavez isn’t the man in charge of Honduras’ politics. News reports suggest President Zelaya was alone in Honduras in pushing for constitutional reforms similar to what Chavez has done in Venezuela. The Honduran Congress, their Supreme Court, the country’s Attorney General and even members of Zelaya’s own party were all against the President’s plans for a referendum. Zelaya was increasingly isolated. It is a shame the military felt it necessary to physically remove him from power. The Washington Examiner’s conservative editorial board wrote: “These [coup] actions were also affirmed by the Honduran Supreme Court. In other words, as was said over and over here after Watergate, ‘the system worked.’” No, the system clearly didn’t work. Democratic governance was not set up to be periodically tamed by military coups.

O’Grady at the Wall Street Journal ironically writes: “The struggle against chavismo has never been about left-right politics. It is about defending the independence of institutions that keep presidents from becoming dictators.” How does O’Grady believe that the independence of Honduran democratic institutions are best served when the military takes power by force? Because the general in charge of the Honduran military felt he needed to compel the President to obey the ruling of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling preventing a referendum on constitutional reform, Honduras clearly has a civil-military relations problem as much as it has a governance problem. Instead of reflexively supporting the military’s coup, why can’t conservatives ask why Honduras’ domestic institutions seemed scared of Zelaya’s referendum, when he had no legal authority to hold one? Why not merely wait until after the illegal vote and then assess the options? Conservatives like O’Grady and the Washington Examiner Editorial Board don’t help Honduran democrats [with a small d] if they enthusiastically latch onto an opportunistic coups.

Should the Burqa be Banned? Posted by Shadi Hamid

The issue of the burqa (or the niqab) is one that I've struggled with because it forces us to choose between competing goods. It cuts to fundamental questions of the limits of tolerance and free speech. Mona Eltahawy is a courageous advocate for women's equality and I enjoy her columns a great deal, but I find her most recent piece for the New York Times somewhat perplexity. She advocates a burqa ban because the burqa violates women's rights. I agree with almost everything she says regarding the burqa, that it, in effect, "erases women from society." Agreed. As an American-Muslim, it both bothers and offends me to see women in major American cities with only their eyes showing. The niqab is an affront to the values I grew up with, but, then again, so are so many other things. I do not enjoy the right to not be offended.

Eltahawy also references Soad Saleh, an Islamic law professor who says that the burqa has "nothing to do with Islam" and is, rather, a cultural tradition. Again, I fully agree.

French President Nicholas Sarkozy said recently, "The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.” Again, I agree with the first sentence but I'm not sure how the second sentence follows from the first. You cannot justify a ban on something simply by saying that it is a sign of the submission of women. There have to be legal and/or constitutional grounds for implementing such a ban, and, in this case, such grounds do not appear to exist. You could presumably institute or execute laws that prevent men from forcing their wives to do things against their will, but if the burqa is something some women choose to do voluntarily then such injunctions would not be germane.

What is interesting, and rather puzzling, about Eltahawy's article is that it does not attempt to make any real argument for banning the burqa, even though is presumably the intent of her piece. The idea that we can or should ban things we don't agree with is dangerous because it can easily be applied - as it often is - in reverse situations. For example, there have been attempts in Muslim-majority countries to silence minority opinions on the exact same grounds - that a form of expression must be banned because it is an affront to a certain set of norms and values that the majority holds dear.

On such grounds, anything that hints of criticism of Islam in Muslim-majority countries, even those that are supposedly secular, can be made punishable by law. Scholars and commentators have been charged with apostasy and, in some extreme cases, forced into exile for supposedly undermining the Islamic faith (see for instance the case of Nasr Hamed Abu Zayd). The reasoning here operates in parallel to Eltahawy's: Voluntary expressions of speech or faith must be restricted because they come into conflict with societal perceptions of what is "right." It sets a dangerous precedent, then, to go down this path, whether in the name of one set of ideals or another - even if we are convinced, as may very well be, that the one set of ideals is better than the other.

That said, I am more than willing to be convinced that there are indeed reasonable legal and constitutional grounds for banning the niqab, but I have trouble seeing how those might take precedence over the higher principle and constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech and expression.

Afghanistan Mission Creep Watch Posted by Michael Cohen

In today's edition of Afghanistan Mission Creep Watch we see a mismatch between operations and the strategy laid out by the President (or at least an overemphasis on building up the Afghan government's credibility) and a complete lack of resources to do population-centric counter-insurgency, particularly when it comes to Afghan troops. If we don't have civilian development and post-conflict reconstruction experts or indigenous Afghan soldiers then how exactly are we supposed to maximize any security gains made in Afghanistan?

President Barack Obama, March 27th, 2009, describing the new US strategy for Afghanistan/Pakistan

We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future . . .I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal:  to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.  That's the goal that must be achieved.

Soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border.

From today's Washington Post about the Marine counter-insurgency currently taking place in Helmand Province in Afghanistan.

Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson, said his Marines will focus their efforts on protecting civilians from the Taliban and on restoring Afghan government services, instead of mounting a series of hunt-and-kill missions against the insurgents.

"Our focus is not the Taliban," Nicholson told his officers. "Our focus must be on getting this government back up on its feet."

President Barack Obama, March 27th, 2009, describing his plans for a civilian surge in Afghanistan:

And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground.  At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort.  But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future.  These investments relieve the burden on our troops.  They contribute directly to security.  They make the American people safer.  And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run -- because it's far cheaper to train a policeman to secure his or her own village than to help a farmer seed a crop -- or to help a farmer seed a crop than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility.

Today's Washington Post:

The Marines have also been vexed by a lack of Afghan security forces and a near-total absence of additional U.S. civilian reconstruction personnel. Nicholson had hoped that his brigade, which has about 11,000 Marines and sailors, would be able to conduct operations with a similar number of Afghan soldiers. But thus far, the Marines have been allotted only about 500 Afghan soldiers, which he deems "a critical vulnerability."

State has added only two officers in Helmand since the Marines arrived. State has promised to have a dozen more diplomats and reconstruction experts working with the Marines, but only by the end of the summer.

NSN Daily Update: 7/1/09 Posted by The National Security Network

For today's complete Daily Update, click here.

What We’re Reading

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asserted that his electoral victory represented the failure of his enemies’ attempts at a “soft overthrow.” Iran’s chief of staff, Hassan Firouzabadi, was quoted as saying that European countries are not qualified to participate in nuclear talks until they apologize for “interference” in post-election riots. The Iranian authorities temporarily shut down the newspaper run by failed presidential contender Mahdi Barroubi, as part of an effort to contain and silence the opposition movement.

The Organization of American States gave Honduras three days to reinstate the deposed president, Manuel Zelaya. The newly appointed interim president, Roberto Micheletti, threatened to arrest Zelaya if he returns to Honduras.

The U.S. Treasury and State Departments announced actions against two North Korean companies in an effort to curtail North Korea’s ability to finance trade in missiles and nuclear materials. A U.N. official reported that food aid to North Korea has dried up in the wake of its May nuclear test, although its people’s need is acute as ever.

In China, the buying and selling of make-believe currency in online games like World of Warcraft has become so widespread that Chinese authorities are fearing it will affect the real economy.

According to an opinion poll released Wednesday, the vast majority of Pakistanis view the Taliban as a threat. Islamic fundamentalists in the country have begun targeting fruit juice bars, which are considered dens of immorality.

Commentary of the Day

Carlos Alberto Montaner argues that the coup in Honduras reflects a conflict between two ways of understanding the role of the state.

Glenn Garvin claims there is nothing shocking about the coup, and faults “new-found defenders of Honduran democracy.”

Contributors at the New York Times celebrate Canada Day.

The LA Times applauds the return of Iraq to Iraqis

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Is Right Posted by Michael Cohen

I'm not exactly sure what to make of Bob Woodward's piece in yesterday's Washington Post about Afghanistan, but I will say that it doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. Of particular note is Woodward's recounting of this meeting between National Security Advisor Jim Jones and US generals in Afghanistan:

Suppose you're the president, Jones told them, and the requests come into the White House for yet more force. How do you think Obama might look at this? Jones asked, casting his eyes around the colonels. How do you think he might feel? Jones let the question hang in the air-conditioned, fluorescent-lighted room. Nicholson and the colonels said nothing.

Well, Jones went on, after all those additional troops, 17,000 plus 4,000 more, if there were new requests for force now, the president would quite likely have "a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment." Everyone in the room caught the phonetic reference to WTF -- which in the military and elsewhere means "What the [expletive]?" Nicholson and his colonels -- all or nearly all veterans of Iraq -- seemed to blanch at the unambiguous message that this might be all the troops they were going to get.

Ok, fair enough, the President doesn't want to send more troops to Afghanistan. It's a point that he elaborated on in public recently, "My strong view is that we are not going to succeed simply by piling on more and more troops." But here's the problem, Obama and Jones want the US military to undertake a counter-insurgency mission that is fairly ambitious and troop intensive: "security; economic development and reconstruction; and governance by the Afghans under the rule of law." Yet at the same time you have the generals making fairly clear that they don't have enough troops to complete this mission:

The question of the force level for Afghanistan, however, is not settled and will probably be hotly debated over the next year. One senior military officer said privately that the United States would have to deploy a force of more than 100,000 to execute the counterinsurgency strategy of holding areas and towns after clearing out the Taliban insurgents. That is at least 32,000 more than the 68,000 currently authorized.

During the briefing, Nicholson (Marine Brig. Gen. Lawrence D. Nicholson) had told Jones that he was "a little light," more than hinting that he could use more forces, probably thousands more. "We don't have enough force to go everywhere," Nicholson said.

This comes on the heels of recent statements by General McCrystal that ""We've got to ruthlessly prioritize, because we don't have enough forces to do everything, everywhere." So basically what you have here is the Administration signing off on an ambitious counter-insurgency mission, but refusing (it would appear for political reasons) to give the generals the troops they need to finish the job. This makes absolutely no sense. (And while I know that Bob Woodward has a sacred responsibility to keep his sources happy, perhaps this is the sort of glaring contradiction that merits a follow-up question).

And I'm pleased to see that my old friends at abu muqawama agree with me:

So if we are committed to our current strategy in Afghanistan, it seems pretty darn important that we're confident we have the force levels necessary to establish that minimum level of security.  Otherwise our "civilian surge" and reconstruction initiatives seem likely to be DOA.  That's not a call for the administration to reflexively throw in more troops without a rigorous analysis of strategic costs and benefits, but it does suggest that it needs to double-check to ensure that its ends, ways, and means in Afghanistan are are all aligned.

If I had my druthers the President would conduct just such a cost benefit analysis and come to the right conclusion that the currently stated mission in Afghanistan is worth neither the blood nor treasure that are needed for it to be successfully achieved. Instead he has chosen a muddled course that pretty much guarantees the US won't achieve his goals for Afghanistan. Personally, I think fighting a counter-insurgency in Afghanistan is the modern equivalent of fighting a land war in Asia, but if that's the mission you decide upon then you have to give the military the resources to actually do it.

The President can't have it both ways. Either you fight the war in Afghanistan to achieve the mission you've laid out, or you don't. There isn't really a middle ground here. History provides a pretty good road map for how that usually works out.

In the end, this whole situation reminds me of another old military expression: FUBAR

NSN Daily Update: 6/30/09 Posted by The Editors

For today's complete Daily Update, click here.

What We're Reading

US troops have withdrawn from Iraqi cities six years after the invasion, having formally handed over security responsibilities in cities to Iraqi forces. Four US soldiers were killed just before the pullout was completed. Iraq now begins to auction off oil and gas licenses, with China as a key bidder.

The ousted Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, has said he will return home this Thursday, after being forced into exile on Sunday. Pro-Zelaya protestors clashed with Honduran police and soldiers yesterday. The coup invokes ghosts of past U.S. policies towards Latin America.

North Korea is going ahead with plans to enrich uranium, a possible step to making a nuclear weapon, South Korean Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee has said. The Obama administration is preparing to wield broad financial pressure to try to force North Korea to dial back its weapons program.

Iran’s Guardian Council formally certified the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a second four-year term Monday night, saying there was no validity to charges of voting fraud. Five out of nine local staff from the UK embassy detained in Tehran have been released, Iranian officials say.

A wing of the Taliban based in a North Waziristan say they have abandoned a peace deal with the Pakistani government. A reputed drug lord described as one of the biggest heroin suppliers in eastern Afghanistan -- with suspected ties to the Taliban -- appeared in federal court in Washington Monday, where he was ordered detained pending his expected drug trial.

Israel has dispatched its defense minister, Ehud Barak, to the US as relations with the White House deteriorate over Israel's refusal to end settlement building in occupied territories.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will visit Myanmar at the end of the week for talks that will include the 13-year detention of opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, the United Nations said.

Néstor Kirchner, the former president of Argentina, resigned his post as leader of the Peronist Party on Monday, a day after he and his supporters suffered a crushing defeat in national congressional elections.

China has agreed to loan Zimbabwe $950m to help it revive its fledgling economy, Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai has said.

Commentary of the Day

Jawad Al Bolani, Iraqi Interior Minister, expounds on the anticipated instability within his country. 

Bob Herbert criticizes the Obama administration’s continued, unlawful incarceration of an Afghan detainee. 

Alvaro Vargas Llosa discusses Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez’s role in the Honduran coup.

Richard Cohen urges President Obama to end the US military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Con Coughlin analyzes current tensions between Iran and the UK

Something You Don't See Everyday Posted by Adam Blickstein

An entire 13-story building in Shanghai (under construction--so unoccupied) literally fell over. From Gizmodo:

This is what progressive foreign policy looks like Posted by The National Security Network

From NSN intern Rodrigo Seira

Compare the Bush administration’s reaction:

“Less than a day after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez was overthrown in what later turned out to be an unsuccessful military-backed coup d'etat, Otto Reich, the assistant secretary of state for Latin America, summoned senior Latin American diplomats… Reich began by handing out copies of a State Department press release that blamed Chavez's overthrow on Chavez himself and denied that any coup had even occurred. Reich then gave a tortured reading of the Venezuelan constitution in an attempt to illustrate that Chavez's apparent military overthrow really wasn't unconstitutional at all -- an explanation some diplomats at the meeting thought could only have been rationalized by the coup plotters themselves. Neither Reich nor other State Department officials would comment on the meeting.” [Saloon, 4/17/2002]

With Secretary Clinton’s remarks:

“I want to start with yesterday’s unfortunate events in Honduras, which were a test of the inter-American system’s ability to support and defend democracy and constitutional order in our hemisphere. The United States has been working with our partners in the OAS to fashion a strong consensus condemning the detention and expulsion of President Zelaya and calling for the full restoration of democratic order in Honduras. Our immediate priority is to restore full democratic and constitutional order in that country.” [Dep. Of State, 6/29/09]

American People Smarter on Iran than Neocons Posted by Adam Blickstein

But that won't stop them from writing Op-Eds, blowing hot air on TV, freaking out on the floor of the Senate and House, or demanding the U.S. impose sanctions against Iran at such a fragile time for its people. From CNN:

A new national poll suggests that that nearly three out of four Americans don't want the U.S. directly intervene in the election crisis in Iran even though most Americans are upset by how the Iranian government has dealt with protests over controversial election results.

Most Americans approve of how President Obama's handled the situation. And 74 percent think the U.S. government should not directly intervene in the post-election crisis, with one out of four feeling that Washington should openly support the demonstrators who are protesting the election results.

Since Congress obviously always does what the American people desire (especially in regards to the public option for health care, which members of Congress are clamoring for after polls show 72% of Americans back this option), I assume the Kirk amendment will immediately and emphatically be dropped from the pending Foreign Operations appropriations bill, in accordance with the vast majority of Americans and to do what's right for the Iranian people. Another nugget from the poll:

"Interestingly, older Americans are more likely to be outraged. They may have bitter memories of the American hostages held by Iran for more than a year in 1979 and 1980," said CNN Senior Political Analyst Bill Schneider.

I don't think it's due to their bitter memories from 1979. Old people are just attached to old ideas, and the only people perpetuating these anachronistic and antiquated ideas on Iran and foreign policy are the graybearded neocons. So the generation gap makes complete sense.

My What Cute Iraqis You Are Posted by Michael Cohen

The piece by John Hannah ( former National Security Advisor for Dick Cheney) in today's LA Times is really quite a whopper. This glossed up history of the Iraq surge I found particularly enjoyable:

Bush's decision to double-down rather than retreat sent friend and foe alike a powerful message that the U.S. had no intention of abandoning Iraq. Reassured, Iraqis were galvanized in their efforts to confront Al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias, and recommitted themselves to building an independent, pluralist democracy.

Of course the thrust of Hannah's op-ed is not oriented toward re-fighting the last war, but instead to attack President Obama for losing the current one. He claims that for the President "withdrawal, not victory, is his highest priority." You know Mr. Hannah might want to consult the Status of Forces Agreement signed by President Bush that MANDATES A WITHDRAWAL OF US TROOPS FROM IRAQ by 2011 and the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraqi cities by the end of this month. (Check out Article 24).

Yet, this doesn't stop him from blaming the Obama Administration for the fact that Iraqis are "accommodating themselves to the agenda of the coming Iranian hegemony rather than their departing American liberators." And what exactly is the solution to this problem: "offsetting withdrawal" with "high-level diplomatic and economic engagement. That, however, will require the president spending far less time signaling his eagerness to get out of Iraq and more time working with Iraqis to figure out how best we can stay."

Now here's the thing I don't understand; if the goal of the surge was to create a "successful, modernizing democracy" in the Middle East then doesn't the turnover of security to Iraq's government represent a sort of, "Mission Accomplished?" John Hannah claims that he is speaking to Iraqis on a regular basis, but I guess he missed the fact that the upcoming withdrawal date from Iraqi cities is being heralded in Iraq as a national holiday and great victory for Iraq.

Hannah just seems oblivious to the fact that the Iraqis want us out of Iraq. Considering that the US supposedly initiated the surge to ensure that Iraq would have some future as a democratic country don't there views merit at least some consideration?

Militarizing Domestic Policy Watch Posted by Michael Cohen

There is a really fascinating article in today's Washington Post about the simmering dispute between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense over border security. DHS wants more National Guard troops on the border and the Pentagon is warning of mission creep and larding on more responsibilities for the military that civilian agencies should be handling.

This is a tricky issue. I'm sympathetic to DHS and the border governors who are dealing with rising violence and it is the job of the military to, at least theoretically, protect the homeland. But, I think Gen. Victor Reunart head of U.S. Northern Command hits the nail on the head:

"It should not be that we always rely on the Department of Defense to fulfill some need," said Renuart, who is responsible for defending the continental United States.

Border law enforcement agencies should have adequate funds to do their job, he said. If the Guard is tapped, it should be for capabilities "that do not exist elsewhere in government," Renuart said.

The process that Renuart describes is one that has been constantly repeated over the past 15 years. The US lacks civilian capacity to do effective development work - call the military. The President calls for a civilian surge in Afghanistan, but doesn't have enough civilians to do the job - let's have the military do it.  AID is a hollow shell - rely on the military to not only do development but dole out foreign assistance.  The simple fact is that, whether it’s waging the war on terror or the war on drugs; nation-building in post-conflict environments; development, democracy promotion or diplomacy; fighting cyber-criminals or training foreign armies the global face of the United States today is most likely to be that of a uniformed solider.

So yes there is real danger of continuing this dangerous process by giving the military even more to do here at home. This dispute also highlights a key element of causality in this ongoing militarization of what should be civilian responsibilities: it's often the fault of civilians. In their recent excellent report on civil-military relations Sarah Sewall and John White at the Carr Center make this point quite nicely:

If civilians abdicate responsibility for the tough choices, or fail to resource or support civilian agencies, they effectively push the military into decisions and activities that belong primarily in the civilian space.

The military is not some magic Swiss Army knife that can solve every problem; at some point the civilian agencies like the Border Guard and others need to do their job - or Congress needs to appropriate the funds so they can do their job.

Confused About Afghanistan Posted by Michael Cohen

I'm really confused about what's going on with US policy in Afghanistan. First, there is this recent guidance from General McCrystal to US troops:

Success will be defined by the Afghan people's freedom to choose their future--freedom from coercion, extremists, malign foreign influence, or abusive government actions.

I feel like I'm sort of beating a dead horse on this one, but here again is what President Obama said in March about US goals for Afghanistan:

We are not in Afghanistan to control that country OR TO DICTATE ITS FUTURE.  We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and our allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists. So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal:  to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.  That's the goal that must be achieved.

I realize that I'm not an expert on counter-insurgency and there are those who think I have trouble connecting dots, but doesn't what Gen. McCrystal said in his initial guidance to US troops not contradict what President Obama announced in March? Or at the very least, does it not herald a long US mission in Afghanistan?

Now in fairness the President's original statement on Afghanistan was a bit unclear and as several folks have mentioned to me it is certainly open to some interpretation, because the President also does talk about the need to improve governance and local reconciliation. However, this particular passage from the Obama's March speech does seem less ambiguous:

I have already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops . . . These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan Security Forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential election in August.

But then I read this from a WPost interview two weeks back with General McCrystal:

"We are going to look at those parts of the country that are most important -- and those typically, in an insurgency, are the population centers," McChrystal said.

McChrystal's comments suggested that he wanted to pull forces out of some of the more remote, mountainous areas of Afghanistan where few people live and where insurgent fighters may be seeking refuge. In recent months these isolated pockets have been the scene of some of the most intense fighting between U.S. troops and insurgents.

So now we're so focused on protecting civilians in Afghanistan that we're not even going after the enemy, as President Obama insisted we would in March! This is not to mention the fact that perhaps Gen. McCrystal's focus is not in the right place -- a point nicely made by Joshua Foust:

The last army to do an “ink stain” approach to Afghanistan were the Soviets, who felt that the population was in the cities, so if they just controlled the cities the countryside would fall into line. . . .The Taliban are not strongest in the cities, but outside of them: you’ll find the insurgency grinding in the hills above Lashkar Gah, the countryside to the west and north of Kandahar, the plains of Zabul, the Khost bowl, the mountains of Paktya and Paktika, and the narrow valleys from Kapisa to Kunar and Nuristan. None of them are urban, or even sort of urban. I really hope they’ve learned by now that Afghanistan is not urban, that the insurgency—and the people—are scattered into small rural communities throughout the country. Securing the cities has never been the Coalition’s weakness.

Now, even if you believe that engaging in a long-term counter-insurgency and eliminating the Taliban's political influence in Afghanistan will accomplish the President's goals then shouldn't someone in the US government (preferably the President) make that very clear to the American people? This seems particularly important when you have the US commander in Afghanistan also saying this:

The ongoing insurgency must be met with a counterinsurgency campaign adapted to the unique conditions in each area that: Protects the Afghan people--allowing them to choose a future they can be proud of. Provides a secure environment allowing good government and economic development to  undercut the causes and advocates of insurgency

While also admitting this:

"We've got to ruthlessly prioritize, because we don't have enough forces to do everything, everywhere,"

I think everyone would agree that providing a secure environment and allowing for good government (pretty much firsts in the sad history of Afghanistan) will take a very long time to achieve. And maybe this is the absolute right approach to protecting America's interests and ensuring that Afghans enjoy a stable and reasonably prosperous future (although color me deeply skeptical).

But really this isn't about the efficacy of counter-insurgency. It's about, what the hell are we trying to accomplish in Afghanistan? What exactly is our strategy there and what is the end game?  If we don't have "enough forces to do everything" in Afghanistan then why is our top general embarking on an operational approach that under current policy constraints he is unlikely to see to its fruition?

And at a time when we can't agree to spend more than $1 trillion dollars on ensuring every American has access to health care or are reluctant to ask Americans to pay more out of pocket so that we can finally begin to roll back global warming shouldn't we level with the American people about the true costs of a full-fledged counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan? Considering that fact that we've already appropriated approximately $225 billion for the war in Afghanistan it seems like a legitimate conversation for this country to be having.

It's entirely possible that a year or two from now this Administration will decide to declare victory and go home and all my worrying will be for naught. But if 5 years from now we're still in Afghanistan chasing the dream of modernizing and stabilizing a country with little hope of achieving either . . . well I really don't want to be the one to say I told you so.

NSN Daily Update: 6/29/09 Posted by The Editors

For today's completely Daily Update, click here.

What We're Reading

American troops make final preparations to withdrawal from Iraqi cities by the June 30th deadline as Iraqis trepidate over the readiness and professionalism of Iraqi security forces in taking the lead securing their country. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki calls the US withdrawal a “great victory” for the Iraqi people, while Gen. Ray Odierno, Commander of US troops in Iraq, believes Iraqi Security Forces are ready to take the lead away from US troops. Concerns also mount over corruption within Iraq’s judicial system.

The  Pakistani Army continues their initial push into South Waziristan against Taliban and Al-Qaeda havens along the Afghan-Pakistan border as internally-displaced Pakistan begin to go back and rebuilt their damaged homes following the offensives to reclaim the Swat Valley and Burner district.

The military in Honduras removed President Manuel Zelaya following a dispute over a referendum to their constitution. The Honduran military’s moves lead to a rare display of unity amongst countries in the Americas as national leaders across the political spectrum offer a message of condemnation against the removal of a democratically-elected leader.

The Justice Department begins to put together some rules changing the way military commissions would operate, sparking a new debate about rights offered detainees.

Commentary of the Day

Fareed Zakaria explains why the Velvet Revolution is a bad historical example to help explain the unfolding drama in Iran.

Benjamin Wittes and Jack Goldsmith discuss why Obama should work with Congress, and not bypass them, when it comes to developing and implementing a new detainee policy.

Dead Aid is Dead Wrong Posted by Michael Cohen

Matt Yglesias has a good post up on the dangerous anti-aid arguments being made by Dambisa Moyo. In particular, he highlights one of Moyo's many dubious assertions about foreign assistance and the HIV/AIDS crisis in sub-Saharan Africa:

I’m not going to sit here and say the fact that 2 million Africans are on HIV drugs is a bad thing. Of course that’s a good thing. But whose responsibility is it to provide those HIV drugs? American society does not operate by sitting around and waiting for handouts. Why should we as Africans?

As Matt points out, back here in the real world, "obviously the reason Africans find themselves needing to rely on handouts is that the continent is so full of poor people." Moyo's rhetorical arguments sound good, but like much of her book they are built on the shakiest of foundations; and her divorced from reality discussion of humanitarian assistance is an excellent example.  As Moyo must know, most African countries simply lack the capacity, infrastructure and resources to do what she is suggesting

In her book, Moyo cites Botswana as a test case for how rejecting foreign assistance can lead to greener pastures for African countries. She claims the country's economic success is a result of pursuing "market economy options" and weaning itself off foreign aid. But as I argued a few weeks ago in World Politics Review Moyo's argument tends to ignore some fairly crucial evidence:

Only a few years ago, Botswana was so ravaged by HIV-AIDS that it's president spoke of possible national "extinction." Ultimately, outside assistance from the United States, the United Nations, the Gates Foundation and the drug company Merck helped save Botswana from this fate. The Botswana aid came in the form of money and, more importantly, technical assistance, which can often be more effective than resource flows in producing positive development outcomes. Yet, in Moyo's formulation there is only one type of aid -- money, usually bilateral in origin -- and it's bad. Moyo argues that African countries -- not the West -- should be tackling the AIDS crisis, but ignores the fact that her best example of a successful African economy (Botswana) was unable to do just that.

Moyo certainly has a point that foreign aid has not lived up to its promise and that it often enable bad practices as opposed to doing actual good for poor communities. But the solution is not to get rid of foreign aid - as she argues - but to dole it out more effectively. Africa needs better aid, conditioned on good-governance practices, greater transparency and more aid accountability, and it needs better coordination between private and public donors. These are measures that are already occurring, both on a bilateral and a multilateral basis.

Of course, that's a harder argument to make and one that likely won't sell as many books.

What the U.S. Troop Withdrawal from Iraqi Cities Means for the U.S., Iraq Posted by Adam Blickstein

Today, Major Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.), who from 2003-2004 was in charge of training the Iraqi military, Marine Reservist Jonathan Morgenstein, Senior National Security Policy Fellow at Third Way who most recently served as an embedded Military Transition Team advisor to the Iraqi Army, and Lydia Khalil, Council on Foreign Relations fellow and former policy adviser for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad discussed the ramifications of the U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraqi cities (set to be completed next Tuesday) for the U.S. military, America's policies regarding Iraq, as well as how it will impact Iraq's security and political future. Audio of the call can be found here, and below are some quotes from each of the experts:

Major Gen. Paul Eaton (Ret.): When American soldiers pull out of the urban concentrations, will there be there be a logistical tail to support the Iraqi soldier so the Iraq soldier and police have faith in the chain of command that they are going to be resupplied and that if wounded or hurt that they will be evacuated? That I cannot answer. We will see it develop. Does the soldier feel that he is a legitimate actor on behalf of a legitimate government, a legitimate state? Prime Minister al-Maliki has got to convince the Sunnis and the Kurds that it will be an inclusive government, that he will be doing a better job than what I've seen so far and that the Sunnis are not going to perceive themselves as 20% of the country disenfranchised. The Sunni also looks to the Americans as their fail-safe, their final protector to ensure that they're not going to be marginalized. The moral component of the Iraqi soldier and the Iraqi policeman, will they stand up and provide the security of the urban population that has been a joint effort of the Iraqis and the Americans? That's the big question obviously.

Marine Reserve Captain  Jonathan Morgenstein (Jonathan does not speak for the US Marine Corps): This was an Iraqi decision for the Americans to really pull out of the cities. and its what the Iraqis want. It means the Iraqis are taking this situation unto themselves more than we are putting it unto them. When I was there with the Iraqis, with the Iraqi army, not everyone, but a majority of the soldiers and officers I dealt with were telling me they will be sorry to see us go, because they feel they have learned a lot and they've enjoyed serving alongside the Army and Marine Corp. But at the same time, they feel like they have it in hand. That they can handle the situation from now on and they frankly don't need the Americans giving them day to day support. They're happy that they are going to have us in the background ready to come in at any moment if something gets very difficult...but feel pretty confident they can handle it.

Lydia Khalil: The big unanswered question of this withdrawal is that is it too soon? Have we not given it enough time to solidify the gains of the surge?...But really this question it's largely a moot question. It's happening. It's inevitable. And I think both the U.S. and Iraqi sides have been given enough time to come to terms with it. And for quite a while there has been some sense of inevitability about it. It's going to happen. It needs to happen. So there hasn't been too much second guessing about it. Certainly from the Iraqi government's perspective, they're relishing having their sovereignty returned to them. Not just in the legal sense that happened a few years ago, but practically in the most important sense really, that they have the monopoly of use of force in their own country.

NSN Daily Update: 06/26/09 Posted by The National Security Network

For Today's update click here

What We’re Reading

The deaths of three German soldiers in Afghanistan leads German Chancellor Angela Merkel's visit with Obama  in Washington on Friday. Advisors state that the discussions will mostly revolve around the environment, crisis in Iran, and global economy.

As US troops prepare to withdrawal from Iraqi cities by June 30, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki calls the withdrawal of American troops in Iraq a “great victory” goes as far as comparing it to the rebellion against British troops in 1920. U.S military officials are concerned about the safety of American troops and Iraqi civilians. Closing the inner-city bases along with restrictive guidelines  will leave them more venerable, while nine are killed and 25 injured  Friday by suicide bomber on motorcycle in Baghdad.

Nandan M. Nilekani, a founder and former chief executive of Infosys Technologies, takes on a new government project to ensure every citizen of India has an ID card within three years.

Commentary of the Day

Natan Sharansky describes the massive revolt of Iranian citizens and how it has elicited the unmitigated surprise of the free world's army of experts, pundits and commentators.

The Financial Times discusses how the US and UK governments are concerned by one of the 21st century’s biggest security risks: the threat of cyber attacks.

Neocons sound like Anti-American Europeans Posted by Max Bergmann

Gary Schmitt's riff on America's victory over Spain is rightfully getting ripped. What I want to add though is how weird it is that the neocons - the people who are all about invading foreign lands - would adopt such an isolationist view, especially at a time when the world is beginning to freak out at the prospect of the potential rising of America as a soccer power.

What is so bizarre about this is how much the neocons sound like American-hating Europeans. Both  dismiss American talent, American enthusiasm for soccer, and American understanding of the game. Just as neocons - and other soccer-hating sports writers of my parents generation - insist that we don't get soccer and don't care, European soccer writers are right there with them saying that Americans don't get it and don't care.

Take for instance Football 365 a UK soccer site writing in typical British sarcasm: "Perhaps understandably, the three people that care about football in America are quite excited this morning." Gary Schmitt similarly - using the same fact based analysis that got us into Iraq - says that:

Thankfully, Americans are not buying it [soccer]. In spite of the fact that one can drive by an open field on Saturdays and usually see it filled with young boys and girls playing soccer, the game’s popularity has not moved anywhere toward being a major sport here in the United States. It’s grown for sure but not close to where folks once expected it to be given the number of youth that have played the game over the past two decades.

This is what makes being a soccer fan in the U.S. pretty bizarre, on the one hand you are constantly trying to defend the world's game to Americans, while on the other hand you are desperate to stick it to the world and show that the U.S. can beat them at their own game.

Contrary to Schmitt and Football 365, any reasonable observer would expect the U.S. soccer to be exactly where it is today. The US has a league that is rapidly expanding and is gradually expanding its fan base - this may be a shock to some but there are often more people at DC United games then there are Washington Nationals games. The expansion of satellite tv and cable networks has also meant that - unlike when I grew up playing - American kids can watch professional European soccer as well as MLS. Coverage by ESPN - while still pretty poor - has expanded dramatically in the last five years - and American soccer fans rely tremendously on new media for information and commentary.

As for the American team it has more and more players playing in the top European leagues and is becoming more talented and consistent. Just as Mexico - the country with the most direct knowledge of U.S. soccer is practically in national mourning due to the rise of the yanks. Mexico used to be the dominant team in North and Central America - they used to be the team representing the region at tournaments like the Confederations Cup - but not anymore. And they are sick to death about it. As the Reuters UK soccer blog assesses - which is not exactly a bastion for pro-American commentary - "the U.S are at least on a level with the second tier nations in Europe — the Swiss, the Scandinavians." (Contrary to George Vescey's description of the victory over Spain as a "miracle on grass" this was no miracle - a stunning upset, but no miracle. Vescey is still stuck in 90s, in the last ten years the U.S. has evolved into a solid soccering nation. If a country like Sweden (or Mexico) beat Spain it wouldn't be called a miracle.)

Steven Wells - one of my favorite writers who unfortunately tragically passed away of cancer on Tuesday - tracked for years the disturbingly high levels of anti-Americanism in the soccer coverage in Britain. His column on British anti-Americanism in soccer simply nails it. I excerpted a few money graphs (but the whole thing is worth a read:

Alas, Englishmen who live in desperate fear of an American soccer planet are legion... there's no shortage of stuck up limey soccer snobs who still think it's frightfully funny the ghastly Yanks play the round ball game at all. Like most prejudices, this hatred disguises fear. Recently a leading English soccer journalist told me he "really hopes football fails in America". Others are less blatant but they make their loathing plain through sarcasm, satire and snidery...

We - a substantial chunk of us, anyway - are desperately scared that association football will succeed in America. That the USA will become a footballing power. That the yanks will develop a version of the beautiful game as irresistible as jazz, rock'n'roll or the amazing American language (and unless you've checked the English/American phrase books handed out to GIs in 1942, you probably have no idea how much American you speak, limey). Why are we scared? Because as a nation we have a desperate need to feel superior to the vibrant barbarian culture that's replaced us as top global ass-kicker.

Face it, feeling superior to Americans is about all we've got left. But the list of things we actually do better than the Yanks is slim and getting slimmer. Did you know that the bastards even brew decent beer these days? So what have we got left to be smug about? Wensleydale cheese, Ricky Gervais, Theakston Old Peculier and Helen Mirren. And, oh yeah, football. Sorry, the Yanks get it. Not all of them. Not even most of them. But enough of them. Even if Bex bombs. Even if the MLS collapses, American soccer isn't going away. It's time for a new joke.

The Other War Posted by Michael Cohen

With all the attention this week focused on the extraordinary events occurring in Iran, events next door in Iraq are barely registering (in fact Iraq has virtually dropped off the radar screen of the blogosphere). Perhaps folks should be paying attention, because it's a very bloody week and one that does not bode well for the country's future.

First there is the violence. And as is so often the case in Iraq, it's been horrific.Yesterday, a car bomb exploded in Sadr City killing more than 70 people and injuring 135. On Saturday, a massive truck bomb exploded in Northern Iraq killing 68 people and wounding 200. While other scattered bombings might be chalked up to score settling and revenge, these attacks seem intended to undermine the government in Baghdad.

Yet, as terrible as the violence has been in Iraq the even more worrying news may be on the political front. The one thing you often hear from Iraq experts is the potential for sectarian violence, not necessarily between Sunnis and Shias, but between Arabs and Kurds, which makes this news, flagged by Juan Cole, even more disturbing:

Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region hit out at Baghdad on Tuesday, describing oil and gas contracts due to be awarded by the federal government at the end of this month as "unconstitutional". The Iraqi oil ministry and Kurdistan, however, are at loggerheads over how international companies involved in the tapping of the nation's vast energy reserves should be paid. Iraq's decision to award service contracts differs from Kurdistan, where numerous profit-sharing deals have been struck. A statement issued by the Kurdish government said Baghdad's policy was "unconstitutional and against the economic interests of the Iraqi people."

In addition, just yesterday, the autonomous region of Kurdistan passed a new constitution that lays claim to the disputed region of Kirkuk.

These two stories raise even more red flags in light of this piece from the Sunday New York Times:

Popular support for Iraq’s democratic institutions is being undermined steadily by official corruption, yet the country has no comprehensive anticorruption law.  The country’s economy is dependent almost entirely upon oil revenue, but because there is no single law regulating the industry, there is widespread confusion about investment, production and lines of authority.

And parts of northern Iraq continue to be beset by ethnic and sectarian violence that could engulf the rest of the country in a new wave of warfare, but there is little prospect of a political resolution being offered any time soon to settle competing claims in the disputed province of Kirkuk. . .  Also languishing are statutes regarding foreign investment, the environment, elections, price fixing, political corruption, consumer protection, intellectual property rights, building codes and even the design of a new national flag.

Combine this legislative dysfunction with the fact that the Iraqi Parliament has appropriated funds for a national referendum on whether US remain in Iraq until the originally planned departure date - and there is real reason for concern about Iraq's uncertain future. (Oh by the way, US combat troops will be leaving Iraq's urban areas in just six days).

While there are signs of political reconciliation occurring on the local level and across the country there is a real question as to whether Iraq will turn into a stable country or will it turn in a violent and more deadly direction.  While those of us who vehemently opposed this war would like nothing more to be proven wrong - and see a prosperous and stable Iraq rise from the ashes - that possibility is seeming more and more uncertain these days.

So, the next time you hear a commentator talk about the success of the surge or the effectiveness of counter-insurgency tactics or what worked in Iraq can work in Afghanistan or that "the security situation is manageable" in Iraq be very dubious. What we are seeing today in Iraq is pretty compelling evidence that the institutionalized political reconciliation, which was supposed to accompany the US surge in 2007, is not occurring at a pace that inspires confidence.

The U.S. in Iran: "Stop Meddling"? Posted by Shadi Hamid

One of the most oft-cited arguments against taking a “stronger” stand in support of the Iranian protestors has been the “kiss of death” issue – the notion that U.S. support damages those it intends to help. It's not necessarily incorrect, but I worry that it is both overstated and oversimplified. As Hilzoy argues:

I would have thought that speaking out in favor of the protestors would be about as good an idea as Britain's endorsing its favored candidate in our Presidential election in 1808, which is to say: it would be very, very unlikely to help its intended beneficiary.

There is no doubt that U.S. support can backfire. It is worth noting, though, that, despite the bad taste of the Bush years, many reformers, dissidents, and even those who claim to really, really dislike us (i.e. Islamists), have been calling on us to “meddle” and to take a more pro-active approach to supporting democracy in the Middle East. For example, a couple months ago, I was a co-convenor of an open letter to President Obama urging him to make support for democracy a top priority in the region. It has since been signed and supported by hundreds of Arab and Muslim activists and reformers from across the political spectrum – secularists, liberals, leftists, and Islamists (see here and here).

Even Islamist leaders activists – those most concerned with distancing themselves from the U.S.  – regularly call on America to meddle, by putting more pressure on Arab autocrats (see here for an interesting example). Mainstream Islamists also regularly express their desire to engage in dialogue with Americans. Presumably, this would be the ultimate “kiss of death.” And, as I wrote yesterday, the “kiss of death” hypothesis directly contradicts what happened in 2004-5 when the “embrace” of a very unpopular president didn’t seem to hurt the reform movement. If anything, it may have actually helped. Referring to U.S. pressure on the Mubarak regime, Abdel Menem Abul Futouh, one of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood’s leading figures and member of the group’s Guidance Bureau, remarked to me in a 2006 interview: “everyone knows it…we benefited, everyone benefited, and the Egyptian people benefited.”

So, yes, the “stop meddling” impulse is a valid one at times, but it should be noted that Arab and Muslim grievances revolve largely around the fact that we’ve meddled on the wrong side – the side of autocrats, and that we too often meddle by using a lot of pro-democracy rhetoric and then doing nothing to back it up. There are, however, other types of “meddling” that could conceivably be both in accordance with our interests, our ideals, and, just as important, the interests of reformers on the ground. I wish it was as easy as saying, let's "stop meddling" and be "neutral," but this is not very realistic, as 1) silence is, itself, is a form of meddling, 2) no one really has explained what a "non-meddling" US-Mideast policy would look like in practice, 3) we have - whether we like it or not - the ability to influence the outcomes of Middle East conflicts and disputes, and 4) we are, for better and worse, at least partly responsible for many of the said disputes. 

Congressional Attempts to Undermine People of Iran and Obama Continue Unabated Posted by Adam Blickstein

Today, Mahmoud Ahmadinajd emerged after nearly a week of virtual silence with the following blustery and propagandist statement:

In a speech in the port town of Assaluyeh he said: "Do you want to speak [with Iran] with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about? I hope you avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it."

While Ahmadinejad is clearly absurdly twisting Obama's words to serve his own political and repressive objectives, his statement can be viewed as actually justifiable. Not in terms of action or rhetoric coming from the Administration, though, which has been broadly and in a bipartisan fashion praised by Iran experts, members of Congress from both parties, former Secretaries of State and National Security Advisers as well as conservative commentators, Peggy Noonan, Pat Buchanan, and George Will, but in terms of Congress, which remains for the most part largely myopic and oppositional to the Administration in its approach to Iran. It's almost as if they are continually and proactively playing right into Ahmadinejad's hands:

A Republican effort on Tuesday to cut off U.S. loans to some companies doing business with Iran will bring Congress deeper into the fray over the U.S. response to the Iranian elections.

The amendment to the draft fiscal 2010 State and foreign operations appropriations bill will give members their first chance to vote on binding Iran policy since that country’s presidential election June 12.

Rep. Mark Steven Kirk , R-Ill., said the amendment was aimed at Reliance Industries, a large energy company based in India that reportedly has provided Iran with as much as a third of its refined petroleum. He will offer the measure when the House Appropriations Committee takes up the draft bill on Tuesday.

Well, the amendment passed in committee and now is attached to the must pass foreign operations appropriations bill. It's just shocking to me that the committee would allow through such a dangerous amendment. It both undermines President Obama's methodical approach to the situation in Iran and goes far in actually confirming the propaganda coming from Ahmadinejad and the oppressive regime that the U.S. was actively interfering in Iranian affairs and undermining the Iranian people. And this makes the legislation, and rhetoric coming from Kirk, even more insidious:

[Kirk] offered another reason to back his plan: “Our amendment is a go because AIPAC supports it,” he said, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a leading pro-Israel lobby.

So, we have the U.S. Congress, in collusion with AIPAC, passing legislation to cut-off oil supplies to Iran during a major political crisis. This is red meat for Ahmadinejad and the Khameini regime. How can members of congress not see this as anything but a dangerous abrogation of their duties as elected officials, playing right into the hands of the very regime they are despising with rhetoric yet uplifting with legislation? They are not only stifling Obama's ability to steer a properly diligent foreign policy course here, but also going far in actually harming the Iranian people's attempts at reform and change. It's truly baffling and I hope, hope, for the sake of America's strategic positioning and the Iranian people that this is stripped from the final bill when it comes to a vote. But the damage may have already been done, as AIPAC's former top Iran analyst acknowledges:

Keith Weissman, AIPAC’s former top Iran analyst, strenuously disagreed with such initiatives, at least FOR right now. “The best policy now is, ‘Do no harm,’” he said.

Neither sanctions nor diplomatic engagement has meaning now, since the country is in internal turmoil, Weissman explained: “What AIPAC is doing here is hurting the very people the U.S. and the rest of world would like to assist in Iran. Any kind of message like this just proves what the bad guys in Iran have been saying to their people for years. It makes it easier for them to hurt the people Obama is trying to help.

“I hope that when American Jews and the organized community look at it, they will say: ‘Hold on a minute. Let’s wait and see what happens.’”

American Jews might agree with that sentiment, but it's clear there is a concerted effort from the organized community and some members of congress to do not what's right for America and the Iranian people, but what's right for their own, narrow self interests. And sadly, in the end it's the people of Iran who will suffer the most.

In a speech in the port town of Assaluyeh he said: "Do you want to speak [with Iran] with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about? I hope you avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it."

While Ahmadinejad is clearly absurdly twisting Obama's words to serve his own political and repressive objectives, his statement can be viewed as actually justifiable. Not in terms of action or rhetoric coming from the Administration, though, which has been broadly and in a bipartisan fashion praised by Iran experts, members of Congress from both parties, former Secretaries of State and National Security Advisers as well as conservative commentators, Peggy Noonan, Pat Buchanan, and George Will, but in terms of Congress, which remains for the most part largely myopic and oppositional to the Administration in its approach to Iran. It's almost as if they are continually and proactively playing right into Ahmadinejad's hands:

A Republican effort on Tuesday to cut off U.S. loans to some companies doing business with Iran will bring Congress deeper into the fray over the U.S. response to the Iranian elections.

The amendment to the draft fiscal 2010 State and foreign operations appropriations bill will give members their first chance to vote on binding Iran policy since that country’s presidential election June 12.

Rep. Mark Steven Kirk , R-Ill., said the amendment was aimed at Reliance Industries, a large energy company based in India that reportedly has provided Iran with as much as a third of its refined petroleum. He will offer the measure when the House Appropriations Committee takes up the draft bill on Tuesday.

Well, the amendment passed in committee and now is attached to the must pass foreign operations appropriations bill. It's just shocking to me that the committee would allow through such a dangerous amendment. It both undermines President Obama's methodical approach to the situation in Iran and goes far in actually confirming the propaganda coming from Ahmadinejad and the oppressive regime that the U.S. was actively interfering in Iranian affairs and undermining the Iranian people. And this makes the legislation, and rhetoric coming from Kirk, even more insidious:

[Kirk] offered another reason to back his plan: “Our amendment is a go because AIPAC supports it,” he said, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a leading pro-Israel lobby.

So, we have the U.S. Congress, in collusion with AIPAC, passing legislation to cut-off oil supplies to Iran during a major political crisis. This is red meat for Ahmadinejad and the Khameini regime. How can members of congress not see this as anything but a dangerous abrogation of their duties as elected officials, playing right into the hands of the very regime they are despising with rhetoric yet uplifting with legislation? They are not only stifling Obama's ability to steer a properly diligent foreign policy course here, but also going far in actually harming the Iranian people's attempts at reform and change. It's truly baffling and I hope, hope, for the sake of America's strategic positioning and the Iranian people that this is stripped from the final bill when it comes to a vote. But the damage may have already been done, as AIPAC's former top Iran analyst acknowledges:

Keith Weissman, AIPAC’s former top Iran analyst, strenuously disagreed with such initiatives, at least FOR right now. “The best policy now is, ‘Do no harm,’” he said.

Neither sanctions nor diplomatic engagement has meaning now, since the country is in internal turmoil, Weissman explained: “What AIPAC is doing here is hurting the very people the U.S. and the rest of world would like to assist in Iran. Any kind of message like this just proves what the bad guys in Iran have been saying to their people for years. It makes it easier for them to hurt the people Obama is trying to help.

“I hope that when American Jews and the organized community look at it, they will say: ‘Hold on a minute. Let’s wait and see what happens.’”

American Jews might agree with that sentiment, but it's clear there is a concerted effort from the organized community and some members of congress to do not what's right for America and the Iranian people, but what's right for their own, narrow self interests. And sadly, in the end it's the people of Iran who will suffer the most.

The Power of U.S. Democracy Rhetoric (or, learning the wrong lessons from the Bush era) Posted by Shadi Hamid

In watching events in Iran, I keep on getting this sense that the Bush years – particularly as they relate to democracy promotion – are being misunderstood, or perhaps misinterpreted. The chronology (of 2004-6) has become blurred. The idea that U.S. democracy rhetoric is counterproductive is not necessarily wrong, but it certainly seems like an odd lesson to glean from the Bush era.

For a short time, Bush’s pro-democracy rhetoric had a positive effect on reform in general, and on reformers in particular. It is not an accident that President Bush’s short-lived democracy promotion efforts (which lasted for less than a year during late 2004 and part of 2005) coincided with the only “Arab spring” we’ve seen in the Arab world in quite some time. What did these efforts consist of? Not a whole lot. A lot of soaring rhetoric, strong public statements, and some highly public, symbolic gestures, such as Condoleezza Rice canceling a trip to Cairo in March in protest of Ayman Nour’s detention, and, well, not a whole lot else.

The lesson here is that rhetoric – in the short-run – can have a disproportionate (and positive) effect, even if it is not followed by discrete policy changes. The catch is that people have to think you’re serious and - it is hard to remember it now - but many Arabs, including Arab autocrats, started to suspect we were serious. In other words, the power of American rhetoric should not be underestimated.

In the long-run, however, rhetoric has to be backed up by policy, and, but it never was in the case of the Bush administration. The lesson here is that rhetoric is not enough on its own. That’s why I’ve always found it bizarre that some commentators developed a post-Bush aversion to American democracy rhetoric. The problem is not the rhetoric, but, rather, the failure to meet the expectations set by the rhetoric.

Whither AID? Posted by Michael Cohen

I've been crashing a bit this week on a long article, but I would be remiss if I didn't take a moment to highlight Rajiv Chandresekaran's fascinating and depressing article from last week's Washington Post on the many travails of America's development agenda in Afghanistan.

Rajiv highlights an issue that should be foremost in the minds of US policymakers - the ongoing degradation of the US Agency for International Development and its inability to carry out America's development agenda. One line, in particular, jumped out at me:

"The agency no longer has people on its staff who implement development and reconstruction programs -- all of them left in the 1980s and 1990s because of budget cuts -- it turned to contractors."

The quote from Richard Holbrooke about AID's efforts in Afghanistan is even more troubling:

"In my experience of 40-plus years -- I started out working for AID in Vietnam -- this was the single most wasteful, most ineffective program that I had ever seen," he said in a recent interview. "It wasn't just a waste of money. . . . This was actually a benefit to the enemy. We were recruiting Taliban with our tax dollars."

AID has, in the words of Patrick Leahy become little more than a grant-making and check-writing agency for contractors and non-profits. And the failure of AID to carry out crucial development work in Afghanistan over the past 7 years, which Chandresekaran highlights, is the result of this bipartisan hollowing out of America's development agency. As the article makes clear, AID doesn't even the capacity to adequately oversee the contractors who they hire. If AID doesn't have development and reconstruction experts on staff what is the point of having a development agency in the first place?

Relying on the military to take these responsibilities is hardly a long-term answer to the problem, particularly since AID's work must be done in both kinetic and non-kinetic environments. But in general, the Defense Department has no core competency in doing development work; this is work that needs to be done by a development agency. And while efforts to improve AID's performance in Afghanistan are underway the rot starts with the head.

And lest we forget, it's now been 154 days into a new Democratic Administration - and we still have no nominee for the head of USAID. 

Read the whole article here

The Monroe Doctrine Leg of the Appalachian Trail Posted by Adam Blickstein

So apparently, buried deep within the stimulus bill, was the "Monroe Doctrine Provision of Appalachian Trail Expansion," providing funds to expand the reach of the popular hiking trail so that "all Americans, whether North or South, can enjoy the uninterrupted and exotic natural expanses of this great hemisphere, from Mount Katahdin in Maine to the Rio de la Plata in Argentina." This, apparently, is what inspired Governor Sanford's journey south. Note: Red line denotes existing trail. Blue denotes the new so-called "Monroe Doctrine leg":

NSN Daily Update: 6/24/09 Posted by The National Security Network

For today's complete daily update, click here.

What We're Reading

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed that Iran will not yield to protestors “at any cost.” In his speech yesterday, President Obama sharpened his criticism of the Iranian government’s crackdown, saying he was “outraged” and “appalled” by the events of the past few days. Iranian officials reported the arrests of several foreign nationals in connection with the protests.

Former detainees at the U.S.’s Bagram military base in Afghanistan have alleged abuse at the hands of American soldiers.

Missile strikes by a U.S. drone in Pakistan killed at least 43 people.

After a four-year hiatus, Obama is sending an ambassador to Syria, indicating the deepening engagement between the U.S. and the Syrian government.

The former Prime Minister of Kosovo, Agim Ceku, was arrested in Bulgaria on Tuesday. He is wanted for alleged war crimes committed during the 1998-99 war in Kosovo, when he was a commander in the rebel Kosovo Liberation Army.

Commentary of the Day

John Podesta urges Congress to pass the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Thomas Friedman calls on Americans to “end our addiction” to oil in our own “green” revolution.

Robert Cohen argues Iran’s Islamic Republic system has been weakened.

Tim Rutten calls Twitter “tyranny’s new nightmare.