Afghanistan is a riddle wrapped in an enigma for the U.S.

By Carol Gee

Afghanistan is grabbing its share of headlines this week. Multiple intense meetings are taking place at the White House. Various of the key players have come down publicly on one side or the other about what to do next. Violence continues in "Af-Pak," as it became known early in the Obama administration. Defining who the primary adversaries are in the region has not been settled. Friction is being between the military and civilian elements within the governments of both the U.S. and Pakistan. And everybody is weighing in with opinions. Today's post is my attempt to clarify the basic elements of the current situation.

A suicide car bomb killing at least 12 people was intended for the Indian embassy in Kabul, according to the New York Times (10/8/09). The previous day the same paper published an analysis by Peter Baker and Eric Schmitt that explains that the Afghan war debate now leans towards a plan to focus on a campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan. It is not known whether this view is accepted by the entire Obama war cabinet.

The central debate question seems to hinge on the nature of the current relationship between the Taliban and Al Queda. The administration pointed out to the Times in an anonymous interview that there are fewer than 100 Al Qaeda fighters left in Afghanistan. Recent successes with surgical strikes against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan may make that country less central to U.S. strategy. Another anonymous official characterizes the strategy as one of viewing the Taliban, militants local to Afghanistan and jihadist Al Qaeda as very different. President Obama has reiterated that his goal is to protect the United States and to prevent the jihadis from getting safe haven. Mark Knoller reported on Twitter that "a WH official says Obama received a 'comprehensive intelligence and counterterrorism assessment' on political & diplomatic situation in Pakistan." The unpredictability of the future of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan has to eventually be settled by the President.

President Obama requested an early look at General McChrystal's troop request from Defense Secretary Gates, according to McClatchy on Wednesday. The President wanted to read it before the top military officials reviewed it so that it would not be leaked to reporters as was McChrystal's Afghanistan assessment. This may suggest friction between the military and the commander in chief. And there has certainly been friction between General McChrystal and his superiors because of his public stances, and because of the leak -- source unknown.

Pakistan's army has similarly objected publicly to the conditions in the $1.5 billion U.S. (Kerry-Lugar) aid package still to be signed by the President, McClatchy reported. The objection, according to McClatchy, caught the administration by surprise and comes at a time just prior to a planned offensive towards militants in the border region of Waziristan. And it pits the military "against the fragile civilian government of the Pakistan Peoples Party, which has championed the U.S. assistance deal," as well as against the opposition in parliament. The bill has a number of requirements including, "monitoring and certification of Pakistan's action against terrorism. . . requires the country to work to prevent nuclear proliferation and to show that its military isn't interfering in Pakistani politics." Pakistan's Foreign minister, on a trip to Washington, played down concerns over the bill, while acknowledging that the language could have been more sensitive to Pakistan's sovereignty. Marc Ambinder posted this on Twitter:

"RT @nickschifrin: Is the Pakistani military statement of doubt about the Kerry-Lugar bill in #Pakistan a game changer?" It was linked to a related BBC News story explaining more about the nature of the Pakistani military's objections.

Finally, many of us remember Charlie Wilson's War. Huffingington Post reports that Wilson now thinks that we ought to consider a new strategy regarding the war in Afghanistan. "I'd probably shut it down, rather than lose a lot of soldiers and treasure," noting the President's "very tough situation." See the interview at the Scranton Times-Tribune.

Afghanistan is a very difficult region of conflict, with no simple answers for the U.S. Pakistan, and even India, are all parts of one puzzle. Pakistan's weak government will probably not fall over its own internal dissension, and the Waziristan campaign will probably begin. The President is not going to withdraw troops from Afghanistan or aid from Pakistan. His plans for a strategy will emerge in the next few weeks. It will almost certainly be a very complicated plan, as it should in these enigmatic circumstances.

References:
"Gross: Massive Fraud in Afghanistan Election," is by Nasrine Gross at Juan Cole's Informed Comment (10/7/09).

"Robert Kaplan on the Regional Dimensions of Afghanistan," is from Steve Clemons' The Washington Note (10/7/09).

"Guest Post by Michael Cohen: The Trouble with Counter-Insurgency," is from Steve Clemons' The Washington Note (4/1/09).

"Battle of Books rages in Afghan debate," is from The Wall Street Journal at Memeorandum (10/7/09). Regards Lessons in Disaster and A Better War.

" 'Code Pink' rethinks its call for Afghanistan pullout," is from the Christian Science Monitor at Memeorandum (10/7/09).

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

A bit of perspective on Iran --

By Carol Gee


Today's post is a compilation of news items from mostly foreign sources covering the Iranian government's presidential election crisis. It begins with how things were before Iran's world turned upside down. I conclude with a bit of perspective on U.S. national security, that reminds us of how lucky we are to have our solid new president around when the Middle East's beset by chaos.

How fast things changed after the election -- On June 15th, Russia's Ria Novosti reported that "the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said on Monday he welcomed the U.S. initiative to begin direct talks with Iran without any preconditions and on the basis of mutual respect."

Violence escalates -- This rare information is from The Washington Note, "Guest Blog: Dispatches from Tehran," (6/22/09). Steve Clemons introduces the blogger: "An anonymous student in Tehran who has been writing and speaking in the media under the name, "Shane M." has just sent in some more dispatches." The BBC News of 6/22/09 says that details are emerging about how "hi-tech helped Iranian monitoring" of its citizens during the protests, with the help of Nokia Siemens. The world was galvanized on 6/23/09: Memeorandum headlined, "Family, friends mourn Iranian woman whose death was caught on video," taken from Borzou Daragahi of the LA Times In summary: "Neda Agha-Soltan, 26, ‘was a beam of light’ and not an activist, friends say. The video footage of her bleeding to death on the street has turned her into an international symbol of the protest movement." Next "Fresh street clashes in Tehran" outside of parliament were examined by the Financial Times on 6/24/09.

World leaders responded -- The 6/23/09 BBC News reports that the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was "urging Iran to end the violence." Summarizing: "United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon expressed his "dismay" at the use of force against civilians in the wake of Iran's disputed election." The Financial Times of London is of the opinion that President Obama "toughened his stance on Iran" after Monday, June 22. The BBC News (6/23/09) says that President Obama strongly condemned "unjust" violence of Iran clamping down on election protests, saying he respects Iran's sovereignty and that it was "patently false" of Iran to say the West was fomenting the unrest.

Calming worries -- President Obama's handling of the Iranian crisis has been right on point, in my opinion. His "heart broke" along with ours as young women, students and others who want freedom were murdered, beaten and imprisoned. But the deep unrest that might indicate a growing instability in the country is just that. It does not mean we confront a nuclear cloud as might have been the case in a Bush administration. David Morrison, who writes CQ Behind the Lines (6/25/09) said, to quote:

In pondering a nuclear-armed Iran, “no plausible scenarios come to mind where terrorism comes into play, or where Tehran ever would have any reason to share nuclear capability with a terrorist client,” an ex-CIA analyst writes in National Journal.

References -- from Tom Head who writes the About.com Civil Liberties Guide:

• Human Rights in Iran - Iranian Human Rights Abuses


• Shirin Ebadi - Iran's leading advocate for human rights


• Complete Guide to Iranian Politics, Elections and Government

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Staying the course

By Mustang Bobby

Paul Wolfowitz, who was deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005, has an op-ed in the Washington Post wherein he joins the chorus of those trying to push President Obama into saying something about what's going on in Iran:

President Obama's first response to the protests in Iran was silence, followed by a cautious, almost neutral stance designed to avoid "meddling" in Iranian affairs. I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's initially neutral response to the crisis following the Philippine election of 1986, and of George H.W. Bush's initially neutral response to the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. Both Reagan and Bush were able to abandon their mistaken neutrality in time to make a difference. It's not too late for Obama to do the same.

The difference, of course, between those situations and this one is that the United States had substantial relationships with both the Philippines and the Soviet Union. We don't even have diplomatic relations with Iran, and that country has used the United States as a scapegoat for all of their problems; I wouldn't put it past them to blame earthquakes on The Great Satan.

The other obvious point is that in both 1986 and 1991, the United States' reputation abroad was considerably more well-respected than it is now. After eight years of faux-butch "bring 'em on" behavior on the part of the Bush administration -- and executed by Mr. Wolfowitz -- the credibility of our good and democratic intentions for other countries is rightly suspect by the rest of the world. And after being labeled as part of the "Axis of Evil," does Mr. Wolfowitz seriously think that the rulers in Iran, whoever they are, are going to either give a rat's ass what we say or not try to turn it to their advantage in their campaign of oppression?

Mr. Wolfowitz would probably do well to listen to Henry Kissinger, who knows a little something about foreign policy, diplomacy, and the consequences of meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

President Obama lays out Middle East strategy

By Carol Gee

President Barack Obama laid out U.S. foreign policy for areas of the Middle East in a speech Friday morning. The transcript can be seen in its entirety on Swampland at Time Magazine, "Obama goes to war,"by Michael Scherer. HT Twitter. The speech will be analyzed in a dozen different languages all over the world. Here is my take in English from Texas:

Troop levels -- To train Afghan security forces, the U.S. will deploy 4,000 troops to Afghanistan. These forces will join the 17,000 additional troops sent to fight in the south and east earlier this year. Training the Afghan military and police forces will be "for the first time fully resourced." That is a relatively limited military build-up in the overall scope of our military presence in the region. To quote:

Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan Army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 – and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward.

Civilians on the ground -- The remainder of U.S. effort in Afghanistan will involve a substantial increase in the nonmilitary effort. It will include "agricultural specialists and educators; engineers and lawyers, to "develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs." Secretary Clinton will "seek support from partners and allies next week in the Hague." The President emphasized the primacy of a civilian effort, an investment in the future of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, explaining,

That is why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. 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 is far cheaper to train a policeman to secure their village 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.

The speech was comprehensive and wide ranging. Much of it was to explain why the strategies were chosen. It was, at its core, a speech for everyone laying out plans and expectations for all who will be participating. A variety of things that went wrong in the past were addressed: lack of accountability for spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction will be remedied with "increase[d] funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction." Specifics to combat corruption in Afghanistan were mentioned, such as benchmarks that will insure that international assistance goes to the Afghan people. The President pledged to set metrics for our own government "to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable."

President Obama also discussed his ideas about the Taliban movement at some length, differentiating between those who are "irreconcilable" and those who are not. There was a plan for reconciliation that specified, as the President put it,

There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who have taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. That is why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans – including women and girls.

Nations all over the world will be asked to join the U.S. in the Afghanistan war against al Qaeda. That is how it is being billed. Major increases in nation building for both Afghanistan and Pakistan is an important aspect of the administration's strategy. Alliance building will be a major part of the U.S strategy. Other nations must see that their security interests are at stake unless there is a clearly concerted effort by any nation vulnerable to an attack from the border area between Pakistan and Afghanistan. To quote the President,

But this is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it – too – is likely to have ties to al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake.

When the President travels abroad next week he will be asking for specifics from other nations:

From our partners and NATO allies, we seek not simply troops, but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan Security Forces, and a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people. For the United Nations, we seek greater progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and assistance, and to strengthen Afghan institutions.

And finally, together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region – our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China. None of these nations benefit from a base for al Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos. All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development.

The futures of both Pakistan and Afghanistan are clearly linked in the President's mind. Each is vulnerable to what goes wrong within its neighbor's borders, all having a shared responsibility for security. A "standing, trilateral dialog" with regular meetings among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates will lead the effort that will be marked by "enhanced intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border, while addressing issues of common concern like trade, energy, and economic development." The President emphasized over and over that solutions are not merely military. To quote:

To enhance the military, governance, and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support. And to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan – which is why I've appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke to serve as Special Representative for both countries, and to work closely with General David Petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts.

Pakistan's needs for assistance have a very high priority with the President, who also expects the country to meet certain responsibilities. This is what he said, in no uncertain terms,

The terrorists within Pakistan's borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan – they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within. It is important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al Qaeda.

. . . That is why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists. And after years of mixed results, we will not provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken – one way or another – when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets.

President Obama then expressed support for Congressional action to assist Pakistan with "resources that will build schools, roads, and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy." To quote further:

I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years . . . I'm also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Maria Cantwell, Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border region to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued by violence. And we will ask our friends and allies to do their part – including at the donors conference in Tokyo next month.

All in all it it is an impressive plan. It is a rather large departure from that of the previous administration. The key elements appear to be redirecting the policy from Iraq to Afghanistan/Pakistan, minimizing the number of additional troops committed to Afghanistan, changing the military-only strategy to diplomacy, nation building, development, and accountability. In the end the biggest thing is that the President fully intends to engage everyone around the world who is willing to help end the conflict, though there was no time line included. It is too bad that the incursion into Iraq, costing over 4000 U.S. military casualties, set us back all those years and dollars. Not to mention the thousands and thousands of Iraqi lives lost. President Obama's only alternative, it seems was to start over with a very different strategy.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Focus on U.S. Russian relations

By Carol Gee

"What to look for?" In U.S. and Russian foreign relations small gains could make a difference. A small missed translation could have helped break the ice during Secretary of State Clinton's visit to Geneva where she met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Russian media teased our Secretary because of her gift to Lavrov. According to the BBC News article,

Hillary Clinton gave Sergei Lavrov a mock "reset" button, symbolising US hopes to mend frayed ties with Moscow.

But he said the word the Americans chose, "peregruzka", meant "overloaded" or "overcharged", rather than "reset". Daily newspaper Kommersant declared on its front page: "Sergei Lavrov and Hillary Clinton push the wrong button."

. . . Despite the embarrassment, the two made light of the moment in front of the cameras and pushed the button together to signify a shared hope for better relations. At a joint news conference after two hours of talks, both joked about the error.

"We reached an agreement on how 'reset' is spelled in both Russian and English - we have no differences between us any more," Mr Lavrov said through an interpreter.

Mrs Clinton put it this way: "The minister corrected our word choice. But in a way, the word that was on the button turns out to be also true. We are resetting, and because we are resetting, the minister and I have an 'overload' of work."

"Necessity pushed U.S. and Russia Closer," is another BBC headline. The story is a good analysis of why it is in both countries' interests to get along better. Reasons include the fact that the Obama administration wants things to be better. We need the railroad supply route through Russia to Afghanistan. Russia does not want a U.S. failure in Afghanistan. (Russia and Germany are discussing using the supply route, as well, according to RIA Novosti). And Russia wants the U.S. to scrap its planned missile defense system in Central Europe, and may be willing to apply pressure to Iran to scrap its long range missile program. In addition the economic recession had hit the Eurozone and Russia very hard, so they have a lot on their plate, just a we do.

The Russian paper, Pravda, reported on March 4 that "USA may keep its airbase in Kyrgyzstan after Obama's letter to Russia's Medvedev." To quote:

Media outlets published numerous reports about the secret letter, which President Obama supposedly sent to his Russian counterpart. In the letter (if the reports are true, of course), Obama particularly set out a hope that Moscow would not encourage the exclusion of US servicemen from Kyrgyzstan. The US administration tends to believe that the former Soviet republic made the decision under the pressure of the Kremlin, although the latter repeatedly affirmed that it was a sovereign decision of Kyrgyzstan.

If Obama sent the secret letter to Medvedev indeed, it may mean that Russia (and Kyrgyzstan) took US hopes into consideration.

RIA Novosti (3/3/09) also reported that President Medvedev denied an Iran-Missile shield tradeoff with the U.S. And The Asia Times published a very interesting analysis of Russia's rejuvenation of its sphere of influence in Central Asia, headlined, "Russia's 'virtual cold war' in Central Asia." It regards the Feb. 3 meeting in Moscow of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) forming a CSTO rapid reaction force the,

Russian President Dimitri Medvedev claimed will not be less capable than its NATO counterpart.

It seems clear that there is much to gain for both nations by cooperating. All it will take is toughness, intelligent strategy and being able to reach out. The Obama administration has shown the capacity to do that in other areas. Why not with Russia?

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Who has the President-elect's foreign policy ear?

By Carol Gee

Liberal Washington think tanks assume they will have finally have influence with the advent of a new Democratic administration. And others with a more rightist bent will certainly not give up their 8 years of being influential easily. Today's post explores a few news items that cover a bit of the jockeying to get the new president's ear on foreign affairs, and will give clues as to possible directions the next administration might be taking.

Center for American Progress? -- Recommendations from a group of national security experts regarding how to quickly get a handle on national security issues, are published in this transition manual [30-pg. pdf]. The Center for American Progress’s president, John Podesta, is heading Obama’s transition effort. Michael Signer, who headed of the homeland security transition initiative, said he "expects the Obama administration’s homeland security apparatus to be less ideological and more transparent in its dealings with the public." The story is here: "Note to Self? Check Out Terror Prep Advice Given to Transition Chief" from CQ Politics - In Transition blog 0f 11/17. To quote:

The Obama transition team is said to be considering at least three of the proposals. One would be to have top officials conduct a simulated terror attack - known as a “tabletop exercise” - soon after taking office in January that would help them identify overlapping agency responsibilities and get acquainted with the minute-by-minute decisions necessary to respond to a single catastrophic event or coordinated series of attacks. A second proposal would be to make the Secretary of Homeland Security one of the president’s first Cabinet appointments. This action would reinforce that domestic security remains a top priority, even though the economy and war in Iraq received have received far more attention.

The more controversial action would involve dissolving the Bush administration’s Homeland Security Council - an internal brain trust within the White House - and fold its responsibilities into the National Security Council. Critics of the current arrangement say the two councils have overlapping functions, making it difficult to envision where homeland security ends and national security begins. However, dissolving the homeland security panel might signal a less vigilant stance on the part of the new administration and overload the NSC with extra responsibilities, such as overseeing state and local counter terroism efforts. The Bush administration set up the Homeland Security Council in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 terror attacks, initially to blunt calls for the creation of a stand-alone, Cabinet-level Homeland Security Department.

Brookings Institution? -- The story, from CQ Politics: "Obama Readies Shifts From Bush’s National Security Policies" (12/2/08) is a great analysis of what changes might be implemented. To quote:

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama spoke about using diplomacy, nation-building and other non-military approaches to promote U.S. interests abroad. According to this world view, advancing living standards abroad could enhance security at home.

Yet Obama also displayed a willingness to use force to deal with militants along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and other hot spots. This apparent embrace of counterinsurgency efforts and “small wars” raised questions about how different Obama’s views really were from those of President Bush.

If the unveiling of Obama’s national security team on Monday didn’t exactly answer those questions, it at least signalled that the president-elect is willing to engage in internal debates over hard power and soft power.

. . . Some clues about how the Obama administration might proceed can be found in a recently published Brookings Institution paper on diplomacy in the 21st century that incorporated the views of Jones, the incoming national security adviser, and former Clinton administration State Department counselor Wendy R. Sherman, an adviser to Obama’s transition team.

Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), and other hardline think tanks such as AIPAC, AEI, BPC, and UANI are still very much wanting to remain in the influence mix. Explore that whole scene via this obscure news source. The story, "Neocons still preparing for an Iran attack"# came from the Asia Times (12/4/08). Author Robert Dreyfuss' conclusion, about what is going on behind the scenes, raises some interesting questions:

Obama has, of course, repeatedly declared his intention to embark on a different path by opening talks with Iran. He's insisted that diplomacy, not military action, will be at the core of his approach to Tehran. During the election campaign, however, he also stated no less repeatedly that he will not take the threat of military action "off the table".

Organizations like WINEP, AIPAC, AEI, BPC, and UANI see it as their mission to push the United States toward a showdown with Iran. Don't sell them short. Those who believe that such a confrontation would be inconceivable under president Obama ought to ask Tony Lake, Susan Rice, Dennis Ross, Tom Daschle and Richard Holbrooke whether they agree - and, if so, why they're still palling around with neo-conservative hardliners.

Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism -- This commission was established by Congress. I am not sure if its leaders have the clout to take it very far as a mechanism of influence. President-elect Obama, however, already has an abiding interest in the field of nuclear nonproliferation. So he might pick up on the report: "Commission Warns Threat of Biological, Nuclear Attack Growing," from CQ Politics (12/2/08). To quote:

The report, set for official release Wednesday, contains a sharp critique of domestic and foreign policy, coupled with wide-ranging recommendations on controlling biological agents and containing nuclear proliferation. It also has many recommendations for Congress, including consolidating homeland security oversight and creating a new appropriations subcommittee.

“U.S. policy and strategy have made progress, but have not kept pace with the growing risks,” wrote the panel, formally known as the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. “The terrorists have been active too, and in our judgment America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing.”

Several of the commissioners have advised the Obama campaign or transition, and several recommendations square with Obama’s policy views. Among the panel members, Wendy Sherman is a national security “team leader” in Obama’s transition, and Richard Verma serves on his defense transition team.

It is clear that Washington's think tanks, study groups, commissions of grey-beards, academics, pundits and experts all have ideas to which they want our next president to listen. And that leaves out all the ideas and requests of his million+ grass roots supporters. A coalition of grass roots organizers met in Washington this week and Valerie Jarrett, head of domestic policy, was in attendance. She has had the ear of the president-elect for 20 years.

HHS Secretary-designate Gov. Janet Napolitano, or members of her team, could surely benefit from watching the C-SPAN videos of Wednesday's day-long series of expert panels, "A Path Forward: Constitutional Protections in Homeland Security." The meetings came out of the House Homeland Security Committee, chaired by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS). It was one of the most interesting recent efforts to educate the public (to me as a civil libertarian).

National Security News References from CQ's David C. Morrison:

1. Department of Homeland Security Secretary-designate? -- CQ Homeland Security - "Behind the Lines," (12/3/08). To quote:
   
   

   Napolitano Bonaparte: . . . DHS chief-designate Janet Napolitano’s gubernatorial experience seemingly makes her a natural. . . As DHS chief, Napolitano would direct the Real ID program, which she opposed as Arizona’s governor, The New York Times’ Matthew L. Wald points out. “Napolitano must be ready to discuss what's working and what isn't,” The Washington Post editorializes this morning.



2. "In Transition" regarding Intel -- CQ Homeland Security(12/4/08). To quote:
   
   

   Obama’s foreign policy brain trust needs “a coherent intellectual framework - and a winning battle plan - for the globe-spanning asymmetrical conflict that George W. Bush calls the ‘war on terror,’” the Post’s Eugene Robinson rumbles. Having lambasted its terror-war tactics on the hustings, taking control of the CIA is one of “the more treacherous patches” of Obama’s transition to governance, the Times’ Mark Mazetti and Scott Shane survey. A dozen retired generals met with Obama’s top legal advisers Wednesday to urge overturning certain Bush administration terror-fighting policies, The Associated Press’ Pamela Hess reports.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are betmo* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted 12/4/08 at South by Southwest.)

Other nations and security

By Carol Gee

Since September's growing awareness that the planet was in financial trouble, it has become more and more clear that human beings are connected to each other. As global financial sectors cascaded downwards in value, all of us came to understand the reality* of globalization and interdependence. And as we watched terrorists attack Mumbai, India, we were reminded of our own vulnerability as the drama played out in real time or video clips broadcast over and over. We in the U.S. had a few 9/11 flashbacks. People in the United Kingdom and Spain probably flashed back to their own terrorism experiences.
In another era it would have taken people weeks, months or years to understand the gravity of the fiscal and national security situations. Fiber optics and satellites changed the way we perceive earth's realities, however, both in speed and in actuality of form. The past few months' meltdown and terror news got into our heads and our guts very rapidly as we watched TV, read the papers and surfed the Internet. Not long after that, it also got into our mailboxes as the consequences of the financial meltdown got more close and personal. And it entered our phones as friends and relatives learned of their losses in India.

We have no idea what it was actually like to the players on this global stage. But we got a lot of hints. In our guts, we pick up on clear signs of fear, anxiety, panic, anger, and confusion. The resultant clouded thinking was apparent in both the fiscal and security realms. And that still goes on to this day. We can see it all play out as our government and other governments try to get on top of their various crises. For Germany it meant fiscal hunkering down, for Canada it meant Parliament going home until the end of January. For India it meant dealing with their old Pakistani enemies without going nuclear. For the United States it has meant a leadership vacuum that has a lot of worried people watching it play out.

As with all crises, things eventually calm down. Crisis theory tells us that is usually about six weeks. Failure to exercise appropriate leadership happens when people in authority are still overly anxious and confused, or when they completely zone out. Successful leaders either get on top of their emotions and more rational thinking takes over, or they turn it over to someone who can exercise rational decision making. And in all Democracies the decisions must be taken under the rule of law.

India, Germany, Pakistan,* Canada# and the United States are all forms of democracy* at one level or another. Post-colonial India's long-standing democratic government is relatively weak as contrasted with the strength of their technology sector. Post-war Germany is a democracy fused from East and West Germany as well an an integral part of the emerging European Union. Pakistan is a brand new democracy born out of a military strong-man, a recent assassination, privation, tribalism and lawyer protest marches. Canada's parlimentary democracy emerged from British colonialism, and still struggles to keep its ethnic cohorts together and exercise power under Great Britain's Queen's Governor General. And, finally, the United States' constitutional and electoral processes dictate presidential lame-duck-dom for almost three months following the elections.

Yes, it always comes back to leadership within and between whatever forms the democratic governments take. We can only watch as foreign and domestic leaders react to the demands of the crises and of their own laws. It is messy and convoluted and frustrating to the citizens of all the nations mentioned. But the alternative is even messier. Leaders employ guns and bombs, threats, lies, rigidity and stubbornness, piracy, financial anarchy and partisanship. Those tactics or automatic reactions come out of real or perceived crisis, of failed dogma, of greed and contempt for the rule of law. Each gets in the way of leaders managing the crises. We are all left to chill and watch it play out, keeping our own feelings of fear, anxiety and helplessness under control.

What else helps? India must remain cooperative within the world community who stands ready to provide help and support. For example the U.S. diplomatic and national security initiatives appear to be working at the moment. Germany's Angela Merkel might regain rationality and a sense of the benefits of interdependence. Pakistan, with a few successes, may grow to see itself as more a part of the solution to terrorism than a willing safe haven for terrorists. Canada will sort out its leadership challenges, celebrate the holidays and take a breather. And we in the United States, through rational thinking and faith in the democratic process, messy as it is, will get through this recession and presidential transition. We must support our President-elect's leadership within the rule of law. And we must as a nation eventually hold the leaders who have not been rational officials operating within the rule of law accountable. We must stand back and be wise, trust the process and just chill. Have some eggnog, save some money, put up mistletoe, turn off the TV, and let your Senator or Congressperson know it would be OK to be decent and generous to blue collar as well as white collar American workers. Mark January 20th, 2009 on your calendars. We have 44 more days of this; then the grownups get to be in charge again.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are betmo* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Military stays dominant in the field -- or not?

By Carol Gee

Conflicts large and small are going on around the world. The United States is underrepresented in some of them, and over represented in others. What is deemed to be in the national security interest will, in all likelihood, change with the Obama administration. However, just because the United States will have a new president in a couple of months, that does not necessarily mean much will change right away on the war fronts. The advice of military commanders will be heavily weighted in the decision making until the President gains his confidence and footing. What would happen if the new President and his advisers, with the help of thinkers who have studied jihadis closely and rationally, reevaluated the conventional wisdom about relative terrorist threats around the world, and redeployed our military forces based on new information?

If President-elect Obama sticks to his promise of getting out of Iraq, that may or not mean leaving completely. Criteria for troop draw-downs will probably depend on the degree of stability at the battlefronts. The definition of "stability" varies widely among the various stakeholders. It will depend on the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement, and whether a new administration has any flexibility to modify it. And it depends on what is going on at the benchmark times as they occur, in other words, the conditions on the ground. The commanders need to be able to withdraw the forces safely, both personnel and materiel. What if we took the Iraqis at their word that they would just handle whatever happened? And what if we were to declare victory there and move on to peace-making between the Israelis and Palestinians?

If President-elect Obama sticks to his promise of refocusing U.S. military operations into Afghanistan and the border areas of Pakistan, that probably means a trip to that theater for a lot of the soldiers, rather than a trip home. And it is doubtful that war fighting expenditures will go down appreciably in the near future. What is the new government of Pakistan came to believe that they had better clean up the tribal areas soon, or the United States would do it for them? What if the United States made an authentic and significant effort to substitute alternative cash crops for Afghan farmers in place of opium poppies?

And what if the balance of power between the influence of the Defense Department and the State Department with the President were to be adjusted for more soft power and less hard power. Would Hillary Clinton have the strength and wisdom to make such a fight within the administration? What if the rejuvenation of our alliances meant that there were much better uses of the United Nations and NATO? What would happen if our new President took a fresh look at Africa, seeing it as a large source of instability and of possibility. And what if AFRICOM were split into the separate elements of military and diplomatic/aid forces, and we put more of our money into non-kinetic helpers and teachers and aid workers?

If our next president is as good as I think he is, he should be able to energize a new and sophisticated effort to rebalance the relative influence away from the military-industrial complex in the direction of smarter and tougher diplomatic interventions in trouble spots. What if the United States tried to become a true example of a free and open society, with a strong Middle Class whose children could, once again, hope to do better than their parents? Who knows what might happen to the millions now consigned to hopelessness around the world. Do I dream too much?

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

The Defense of the Nation

By Carol Gee

It will be assured by a well-executed presidential transition plan. The American people are curious about whether current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates will be staying on after President-elect Obama takes the oath of office. It looks like there is some possibility that he will, based on these news items: Gates and Danzig? -- A former Navy secretary praises the man whom he might eventually replace. "Obama Mulls Plan to Keep Gates at Pentagon," from the 11/11/08 CQ Politics. To quote:

President-elect Obama is strongly considering keeping Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates in that post for a limited time in the new administration, several sources close to the discussions said Tuesday.

Under the still-tentative plan, former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig would become deputy secretary and take over the job when Gates departs, perhaps after up to one year. Gates has not formally been asked to stay, sources close to the Pentagon and the transition team said. A source close to Gates said he is reluctant but willing to stay on in the short term.

The general in charge of the Missile defense program is leaving his post soon and has prepared a briefing for President-elect Obama, should he want it. Obama has not said what his final views on the subject are, though he has not ruled it out. The story, "General Warns Obama on Missile Defense," is from the 11/12/08 CBS News. To quote the piece's sub-head, "Head Of Missile Defense Agency Says U.S. Would Be "Severely Hurt" If Plan Is Abandoned; Russia Rejects More U.S. Proposals." As for the Middle East war situation, "Obama faces major challenge in Afghanistan/Pakistan," from Juan Cole's (11/12/08) Informed Comment, is one of the very best available current background readings on the subject.

Public Diplomacy as an element of national security has been an abysmal failure under the Bush administration. Here is an example: "USC Study of Alhurra Withheld from Public; Inquiries of Network's Operation Deepen" from the 11/4/08 ProPublica. To quote:

The government board that oversees the US-funded Arabic satellite channel Alhurra has refused to make public an independent study commissioned last year to review the network’s content.

People who have read the study, which was completed in July, described it as highly critical of Alhurra, a four-year-old government broadcasting effort begun by President Bush that has cost U.S. taxpayers $500 million and has been shrouded in controversy.

Bush’s public diplomacy efforts have been widely criticized by Democrats and even within his own party and corners of his administration. It is likely that his successor will review some of the most expensive efforts such as Alhurra which was designed to promote a positive image of U.S. policies in the Muslim world.

Defense acquisition will need an enormous amount of revamping if the following two examples are any indication of how wrong-headed it has been under the Bush administration:

1. "Army Orders Pain Ray Trucks; New Report Shows 'Potential for Death'," is from the 10/10/08 Wired: Danger Room. To quote:
   
   

   After years of testing, the Active Denial System -- the pain ray which drives off rioters with a microwave-like beam -- could finally have its day. The Army is buying five of the truck-mounted systems for $25 million. But the energy weapon may face new hurdles, before it's shipped off to the battlefield; a new report details how the supposedly non-lethal blaster could be turned into a flesh-frying killer.

   The contract for the pain ray trucks is "expected to be awarded by year's end," Aviation Week notes. "A year after the contract is signed, the combination vehicle/weapons will start be fielded at the rate of one per month."

2. "Packs of robots will hunt down uncooperative humans"* comes from the 10/22/08 Short Sharp Science. To quote:
   
   

   The latest request from the Pentagon jars the senses. At least, it did mine. They are looking for contractors to provide a "Multi-Robot Pursuit System" that will let packs of robots "search for and detect a non-cooperative human".
   
   One thing that really bugs defence chiefs is having their troops diverted from other duties to control robots. So having a pack of them controlled by one person makes logistical sense. But I'm concerned about where this technology will end up.
   
   Given that iRobot last year struck a deal with Taser International to mount stun weapons on its military robots, how long before we see packs of droids hunting down pesky demonstrators with paralysing weapons? Or could the packs even be lethally armed?

In conclusion, as Commander in Chief, President-elect Obama will be challenged to restore and repair the U.S. military to full effectiveness. Our professional military has not been well-served by the current Commander in Chief. You can be assured that President-elect Obama would have an entirely different "take" on the last three stories in this post than our current president would have. Though Obama is a "techie," he would likely look askance at deploying pain ray trucks and pursuit robots. And because he is so bright, he would read with fascination my last story: "Scientists Identify Brain's 'Hate Circuit'"* from the 10/29/08 Yahoo! News. To quote:

British researchers say they've identified a "hate circuit" in the brain.

This hate circuit shares part of the brain associated with aggression, but is distinct from areas related to emotions such as fear, threat, and danger, said researchers Professor Semir Zeki and John Romaya, of University College London's laboratory of neurobiology.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Pessimistic, realistic or optimistic about new leadership?

By Carol Gee

There is nothing like a world-wide economic crisis to galvanize America's attention, this last full week of campaigning before the presidential election. I have wondered whether it is "the beginning of another 1929."# With Wall Street -- and the world -- in meltdown, our next president will come into one of the most difficult situations in several decades. Two wars, a weak congress, soaring deficits, and a leftover imperial presidency are just a few of the huge issues he will have to face. Even President Bush said a couple of weeks ago that there is a lot of work to do in his final 100 days. He has set up a transition team to help his successor.

The two candidates' campaigns are good auditions for leadership at which voters might look as they choose our next leader. A lot of good people are thinking and writing optimistically about the leadership issue. Writing in Politico.com (10/27/08), John Podesta, whom I predict will have an important role in an Obama administration, left an open message with a good, simple leadership plan for the next president, "44: Prosperity," on today's Politico.com. In the same issue, Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, writes the new president a "booster-ish" message, "Dear 44: A can-do nation." To quote:

The next few years will present a critical test for our country, our institutions, and our leaders. We have to rediscover the identity of our nation. Do we still have it in us to act big and act boldly when the chips are down? Do we have the vision and the drive to act before confronted with a crisis? Is America still a can-do country? Can we plan smartly to build for America’s future success? Are we ready, willing and able to lead in this century the way we did in the last?

America will not remain a leader simply because we’ve always been a leader. We have achieved great things, but the world in which we achieved them has fundamentally changed. There are other great societies in the game now. To a large extent, they have us to thank! We told them how to build economies, train their work force and open markets. We put them in the game, and now they are competing against us.

Today, it is the United States that must regain its speed, execution and drive to be the best. We must throw off the cloak of entitlement. We need real leaders in government — leaders who can take a different approach, obtain the facts, formulate a solution, communicate it, sell it, and get it done. And if it doesn’t work, try something else. That’s what business does every day.

. . . After the election, we have another choice to make. Do we lead or do we follow? Do we continue our legacy and build a can-do future based on growth, hard work, entrepreneurship and reward? Or do we rest on our laurels and continue to sink into the swamp of can’t-do, enjoying small comforts in equitable mediocrity.

What will our next president be leading? According to Time Magazine, in it's very realistic article, "America: The Lost Leader," both presidential candidates agree that "the performance of the U.S. in its leadership role has been less impressive of late than it was following World War II. . . you cannot be a leader without followers." The article adds that, fundamentally, people just want security. And they want justice, an even older idea than democracy. To quote more extensively:

Now, with the end of the Cold War, and in the messy world that has taken shape in its aftermath, it is time for America to show leadership again. . . The Bush Administration, . . has not been good at multilateralism or institution-building.

. . . This record of unilateral action and standoffishness has borne bitter fruit in terms of America's reputation overseas. The polls don't lie; even among its staunch allies, the U.S is seen as untrustworthy and dangerous.

. . . The American domination — economic, social, cultural, political — that was such a feature of the post-1945 world is missing now. Plainly, there are material aspects of modern American life that still inspire admiration from overseas, and features of American innovation that nobody else can match. . .

Beyond anything else, though, it is the shift of the world's economic center of gravity from the Atlantic to the Pacific that has changed the environment. . . It is that sense of pride — quite palpable throughout Asia today — that provides the demand for respect, for influence, for the nations that have achieved such economic success to receive their just deserts. . . But though modern Chinese will often ask for understanding, they will always ask for respect. They think they've earned it. And they're right. This self-confidence of modern China, and other Asian societies, too, has had profound implications.

. . . The end of America's monopoly on modernity, coupled with the pride that other nations and cultures take in their own versions of modernity, has changed the game. What the U.S. faces in the world now is not a crisis of leadership so much as one of followership. . . the conditions which created leadership and followership in the post-1945 world are gone, and they're not coming back.

. . . America [could be] one that does not claim a monopoly of wisdom; one that recognizes that the world has changed; one that does not argue that simply because America was founded on a great idea 232 years ago, it has a moral superiority over everyone else today — is an America to which others would listen. We will soon know if such an America is taking shape.

Many, many others have a more pessimistic view. As an example, this cautionary note comes from Survival Acres (10/26/08) titled, "Olduvai Theory And Our Response."* To quote:

Unless a massive energy source is found and developed, industrial civilization will collapse in upon itself, leaving behind a unbelievable garbage dump of useless artifacts spread across the entire globe. . . The “answer” to all of this has always remained the same. Humans must embrace a new ethic and a new level of existence if they are to survive much longer on this planet.

Pessimism, realism or optimism -- I am optimistic that Barack Obama sees the world relatively realistically, despite his emphasis on hope. After all, his main message is "change," which would not be needed if our leadership had been adequate these past few years. It will take a young, energetic, smart and inspirational leader to finally get us back on an appropriate 21st century track. McCain does not qualify, in my opinion.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are betmo* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Russia -- we need to listen.

By Carol Gee

Section 1 -- What should we hear?

Russia and the United States are exchanging growls. How dangerous is it between the two powers? Will the Russian bear really bite? Today's post explores that question.

First we learn that Russia will cut all military ties with NATO. To quote a bit of insight from Survival Acres -- One step closer to war* (9/18/08):

The truth is, Russia is in a great position for all of Europe, who will come to heavily depend upon Russian oil to keep from freezing to death. But the US keeps acting like it can dictate whatever it wants to whoever it wants, despite it’s own gross violations of human rights and national sovereignty.

"Visiting Georgia, Dick Cheney assails Russia" -- The U.S. growler-in-chief, Vice President Dick Cheney made a trip to Georgia on Thursday, the LA Times reported. The U.S is set to provide $1 billion in nonmilitary aid, but has not yet committed to rebuilding Georgia's army. To quote:

Cheney's visit to Tbilisi was the highlight of a quick swing through the Western-friendly nations of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine, all former Soviet republics. The trip apparently was designed to shore up the morale of national leaders rattled by Russia's rout of U.S.-trained Georgian forces. . . In Washington, the White House said the conflict had strengthened U.S. determination to bring Georgia and Ukraine into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Cheney's visit, said Georgian political expert Alexander Rondeli, demonstrated "the United States' full support of Georgia and its president.

"The vice president marked the big importance of the energy corridor that runs on the Georgian territory," he said, "and the corridor remains in the sphere of interests of America and Western countries."

"Defense Secretary Robert Gates urges middle ground with Russia," was the LA Times headline this morning. We can be grateful that cooler heads are prevailing over mere growling. Gates did not directly address the issue extending membership in NATO to Georgia, but did talk about lessons learned after World War I. And he said the West should not enter alliances lightly, but also emphasized that the U.S. would live up to its NATO obligation. Listen to this:

As NATO ministers disagree on Georgia, Gates says the next U.S. administration needs a balanced approach to contain Russian aggression without resorting to military force.

. . . By seeking a middle ground in relations with Russia, Gates appeared to be sounding a warning to politicians such as Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who have pushed for the United States to isolate Russia after its military confrontation with Georgia, and back the small former Soviet republic at all costs.

. . . McCain has pushed hard for the United States to support Georgia and other "struggling democracies" in their conflicts with Russia, and has turned to the much-used 1938 analogy. In an op-ed article that ran a week after the Russian invasion of Georgia, McCain wrote that "the world has learned at great cost the price of allowing aggression against free nations to go unchecked."

[Gates concluded] . . . "For much of the past century, Western psychology, rhetoric and policymaking on matters of war and peace has been framed by, and often lurched between, these two poles: between excessive pressures to take military action and excessive restraint, between a too eager embrace of the use of military force and an extreme aversion to it," Gates said.

We must listen to this old friend -- "Mikhail Gorbachev harshly criticizes Condoleezza Rice for her political rudeness," from Pravda, 9/19/08. To quote:

The ex-president of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, stated that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should “use more caution in her call for the West to stand up against Russia, which she said has become "increasingly authoritarian at home and aggressive abroad."

"I believe that the secretary of state should be more careful and should show greater calm and responsibility for her judgment in calling for the West to unite against Russia," Gorbachev said through an interpreter at a press conference held before the Liberty Medal ceremony at the National Constitution Center, the AP reports. . .

Gorbachev received the Liberty Medal, which comes with a $100,000 prize, from former President George H.W. Bush, who was commander in chief at the time of the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991. . . The Liberty Medal was established in 1988 to honor individuals and organizations whose actions represent the founding principles of the United States.

"Russia says trade with U.S. must not depend on politics," is the statement from an authoritative voice of Russia, RIA Novosti -- 9/20/08. A Russian deputy said that, "ties with the U.S. have been "among Russia's major priorities irrespective of the political weather." To quote further:

Political squabbles between Russia and the United States should not affect their trade, Russia's deputy foreign minister said on Saturday.

Speaking at a roundtable meeting with American businessmen on the sidelines of an investment forum in the Black Sea resort Sochi, Andrei Denisov said: "We hope the pragmatism and common sense of the current and future U.S. administrations will prevail, and we will continue cooperation in all areas."

Relations between the two former Cold War foes strained over the Georgia conflict last month. Washington said it might scrap a civil nuclear deal with Russia as punishment for its invasion of Georgia and recognition of breakaway South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"Hydrocarbons - the formula of war" is an analytical piece by military commentator Ilya Kramnik from RIA Novosti -- 9/19/08. Hear his closing words; they are some from which we can learn a great deal. "Energy is not only a great divider, it is also a gap bridger." To quote what led to his conclusion:

Hydrocarbon prices, new nuclear and hydro-power plants, oil blackmail - energy is now one of the central issues discussed in the world. Even the defense sector is not immune: many analysts tend to view most 20th century wars as wars for energy. . . . Control over energy production was not the ultimate goal for Germany, Italy or Japan - the aggressor countries in World War II - but it was one of the overriding objectives.

. . . The situation did not change much after the war. Oil-bearing regions have become the scene of rivalry between leading nations of the world which rushed to seek allies with the holders of the black stuff. The attractiveness of oil among other energy resources is easy to explain: it is a very calorie-rich fuel (a small amount yields a large volume of energy), its production, transportation and storage are simpler than that of other resources, and it is these advantages that have ultimately led oil and petroleum products to become the main resource of our machine-based civilization. Soon natural gas joined oil to become a near ideal source of energy for thermal power plants.

. . . Within the next few years, the Arctic is likely to become another area of conflict in the drive for energy. Global warming, which is opening up long-term access to the Arctic shelf, combined with large proven hydrocarbon resources, is bound to make the leading world powers challenge neighbors' rights to some parts of the shelf.

. . . Awareness of these factors lends to one's understanding as to why the European countries worry over fuel supplies from Russia. The hydrocarbons from the North Sea, the Persian Gulf and elsewhere are running out and cannot meet the needs of the European economy. Such interdependence of the sides works well in bringing them closer together and softening their stance over disputes - regardless of the fine words in which politicians and diplomats couch the description of the process.

It is easy to bluster -- It is harder to listen in an authentic and engaged way. Communications between nations are carried on between actual people, or with written words. It is the communicator's responsibility to be understood. It is the listener's responsibility to try to hear and act in good faith.

Section 2 -- Bonus read

"Insight: Who runs Russia?" is an article by Bridget Kendall in the 9/15/08 BBC News. The first key question is - who is really in charge? The first key message is that neither is willing to compromise with the West. The second message was that any move to extend NATO to Russia's borders by seeking to incorporate Georgia or Ukraine - is Russia's red line that still stands. The third message was that Russia would like to think a major East-West confrontation can still be avoided. To quote rather extensively from this fascinating in-depth piece:

The standard answer is President Medvedev as Commander in Chief. He, and only he, ordered Russian troops across the border to hit back when Georgia attacked on South Ossetia. But presidential power is now the tip of an iceberg. What murky currents swirl beneath the surface is less clear. . . . what about Russia's ex-president, now his prime minister, who was also at the conference?

"However much authority I have, whoever I may be talking to, none of the troops or tanks would have moved an inch until President Medvedev's order," was Vladimir Putin's attempt to deny his own importance when we asked about his role, thereby indicating that his clout and involvement were considerable.

. . . All to signal, perhaps, that their status is equal - a dual leadership exercising power in tandem. . . The aim, it seemed, was to send a signal to the West that Dmitry Medvedev is indeed more flexible and reformist than Putin himself - and was forced to act tough because the crisis left him no option.

. . . So what, then, at this juncture does Russia want from the West? The first message is that the Russian government is in no mood to compromise. . . That conviction was echoed from top to bottom in our discussions with government officials, mainstream academics and journalists, all of them insisting Russia had no choice but to respond militarily and take South Ossetia and Abkhazia under its wing. Any suspicion that Russia cunningly laid a trap that Georgia rashly walked into was dismissed as an outrageous lie.

. . . Curiously both Mr Putin and President Medvedev were carefully respectful when it came to President Bush.

"He's a good politician, I think I have a better opinion of George than most Americans," said Mr Putin, at the same time complaining that he had twice tried to get the US president to intervene.

Instead it was Vice-President Cheney and the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, with their Soviet expertise, who were targeted as villains, suspected of fuelling anti-Russian sentiment in the US administration and egging Georgia on.

. . . So the hints of a threat, but not exactly - and that is interesting. [other causes] . . . They denied that the loss of nearly 50% of Russia's stock market value from its all time high in May had much to do with the Georgia crisis. A far more likely cause, they argued - with some justification, given what is happening on Wall Street - was the impact of global financial instability.

[Conclusion] But behind all the moral outrage, I felt there was also a nervousness, a worry that if Russia's bluff is called and further tensions with the West ensue, it might force a stand-off from which neither side could back down.

"There is a chill in the air and a loss of trust," said Dmitry Medvedev, "but I don't think this is a corner turn that will lead to a long confrontation. This is not what we want. And it's not what you want either."

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributor of links to leads: "betmo*".

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Unrest in the world -- a Bush Legacy

By Carol Gee

U.S. in push for foreign arms deals: report," a story from Reuters (9/14/08), lays out a very unpleasant reality. The Bush Doctrine is at the center of a "military-industrial complex" that seems to have no boundaries. Eight years after the terrorist attacks on the United States, this administration seems to know only conflict, military arms and business as usual. Rather that focusing on peace, the budget goes largely for an interminable war. Congress and the president prop up military contractors, who often manufacture cold war systems. And diplomatic gross ineptitude results in uneasy relationships with countries all around the world. To quote:

The Bush administration is pushing through a wide range of foreign weapons deals in a bid to rearm Iraq and Afghanistan and contain North Korea and Iran, The New York Times reported.

The deals range from tanks, helicopters and fighter jets to missiles, remotely piloted aircraft and warships, the Times said in its Sunday editions. The weapons and other military equipment foreign sales have totaled more than $32 billion this year, compared with $12 billion in 2005.

While the focus has been on the Middle East, sales extend to northern Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and Canada, the Times said.

"This is not about being gunrunners," the Times quoted Bruce Lemkin, the Air Force deputy undersecretary who has coordinated many of the largest sales, as saying. "This is about building a more secure world."

The reality is that since 9/11/01, terrorism has been on the rise. And the unfortunate myopic Middle East regional bias means neglect of other places where the U.S. might be helpful. India for example has a large problem, of which we are seemingly unaware. About all that interests the U.S. regarding India right now is a questionable nuclear deal. Another Reuters article details: "India police raid slums, relatives angry after bombs," (9/14/08). To quote: "The National Counterterrorism Centre in Washington says 3,674 people had been killed in militant attacks in India between January 2004 and March 2007, a death toll second only to that in Iraq."

Meanwhile much of the world does not have enough to eat. Global warming is on the rise, threatening farming, particularly in Africa. A recent e-mail from David Lane from One.org, reminded me that the unpleasant reality of starvation is, at times, the direct result of lack of a decent U.S. development effort, conflict and war. Again, the U.S. budget figures attest to administration priorities. To quote:

High food and fuel prices continue to have a catastrophic impact on the world's poorest people and threaten to roll back some of the great progress we've made alleviating poverty in areas including AIDS, malaria, and education.

Later this month, world leaders are going to the United Nations in NYC. They’ll be discussing the world's progress toward the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs)—critical issues like health, education and water. They must also act on the food and hunger crisis. There are 30 countries in immediate need of emergency food assistance and essential seeds and fertilizer. These countries have created specific plans to feed the hungry and prevent future crises by enabling people to provide for themselves. Meeting these emergency needs requires $1 billion in funding by the end of this year.

Here is where you can sign a petition, the letter reads: "As world leaders come together for the United Nations summit, please ask them to close the book on the hunger crisis. Please click the link to add your name to our petition asking them to do so:" Petition link The petition reads:

Please provide life-saving food and essential seeds and fertilizer to the 30 countries that need it most by filling the 2008 food and agriculture funding gap of $1 billion without delay.

Condi travels to Libya for a historic meeting, as well as several other places abroad. The definition of enemy has undergone an amazing transformation under the Bush administration. They are able to have a set of conflicting standards for who is favored or unfavored. Syria is still out of favor. The "Damascus Spring" in Syria has faded into memory, according to the Financial Times. To quote [regarding Syria]:

. . . activists point to other Middle East states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which have poor human rights records but enjoy strong ties with the west – even adding Libya to the list after Condoleezza Rice’s visit to the north African state last week – to argue that international relations are one thing, internal reform another.

"What Is Condeleeza Rice REALLY Doing Over There?" asks my regular contributor, "betmo," who sent me this link to Bluebloggin (9/7/08) Security was very high. Dick Cheney was traveling in other parts. A good deal of it has to do with AFRICACOM, the strange strategic hybrid of military melded with diplomacy. To quote:

Rice arrived in (staunch US ally) Morocco late on Saturday after visiting Algeria and Tunisia and holding a historic meeting with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli.

Rice’s visit is her first as secretary of state to this region of increasing strategic importance in terms of oil resources, emigration and terrorism.

The Bush Doctrine had no meaning for Republican Veep candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, until it was explained to Palin incorrectly by ABC's Charles Gibson, during their interview. The doctrine of preventive war is at the center of a Bush-military-industrial complex that has no boundaries. Bush business as usual means an interminable "preventive" war in Iraq, certainly a contradiction in terms. Uneasy relationships all around the world -- what a legacy!

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)