National Security Policy

2011-12-16T01:02:00.001-05:00

A couple days ago, Pakistan floated the idea of charging millions of dollars in taxes to allow NATO supply trucks to cross Pakistan in order to resupply troops in Afghanistan. This is in relation to the NATO bombing of a Pakistani post that resulted in the deaths of Pakistani soldiers.

This move is in some ways understandable from the Pakistani point of view. The US is unpopular among the population, and the NATO bombing makes it hard for the government of Pakistan to be seen to support the US. Asking the US to pay high taxes for shipping supplies through Pakistan is a move which will gain favor with the Pakistani population. However, this also just a move to try to get more money out of the US, money used by the Pakistani security services.

Since 2002 the US has given Pakistan over 20 billion US dollars in aid, much of this going to the security services. While this is supposed to be used by Pakistan to aid in the War on Terror, it is thought that much of it goes to groups in Kashmir or to support the army guarding against India. The payment of this has been brought into question since the discovery of Osama bin Laden. Pakistan knows how important the supply routes through its territory are to the US. They feel they can either get more money, or get the security money that the US might withhold.

Currently, the US is stuck in a security trap with Pakistan. Pakistan needs the US money, and the US is worried that if Pakistan can’t afford to secure itself, it might be taken over by extremists or that Pakistan will not be able to protect its nuclear weapons. Pakistan knows this. Should the new taxes be demanded, they could be accepted but deducted from what the US gives in aid to Pakistan. Pakistan should also be reminded that the US is due to pull out of Pakistan in a few years. While Pakistani security will remain a concern to the US, the supply routes will no longer be needed. The supply routes will cease to be a bargaining chip.

The US should continue its drone actions and anti-terror actions in Pakistan. Pakistan should be notified that if it cannot control its territory, the US will. The US should let Pakistan know that it cannot continue to pick the good and bad terrorists. More money should be offered if they can capture and provide intelligence on more terrorists.

In the long run, it looks like the US will have to remain in this relationship with Pakistan. The US needs Pakistan to not give in to its radicals, and Pakistan wants the money. The challenge will be how to incentivize Pakistan to see its radicals as its threat rather than India.

Can we have our drone back, please?

2011-12-15T20:11:00.000-05:00

Earlier, Iran declared that it had brought down an American spy drone. The US first acknowledged that a drone sent over western Afghanistan was missing. Iranian television showed that the drone, confirmed by the US as a RQ-170 drone, a secret stealth drone. The drone shown on Iranian television appears to be intact. What’s more, China, among others have asked to examine the drone. While this situation is not good, what does it really mean?

First, it confirms that the US is spying on Iran. This will come as no shock to anyone, least of all the Iranians (though it might shock some of the Republican Presidential Candidates, who have called for covert action against Iran and seem to believe that there has been none). So it will show to the US public that the Obama administration has been engaging in at least some action against Iran. However, physical evidence of US espionage on Iran will serve as a uniting factor in Iran to bring citizens together against the US.

It also means, obviously that Iran holds highly classified US technology. The Iranians will now take apart and analyze the drone in order to attempt to build one of their own. However, assuming that they can build a copy, this will take time. It also means that what they can build is a copy or near copy of the US drone, the vulnerabilities of which the US presumably already knows. The problem with a system built on copying is that you are almost always behind and at most just caught up, never ahead.

The drone is also valuable to the Iranians as an asset in itself. It will probably make deals with China and maybe others to examine the drone in exchange for something else. However, one must question how likely it is that Iran, after achieving this major coup, will be to show highly classified US technology with others. Will they share everything, or will the only share part of the technology? It is not certain that the Iranians would share everything with the Chinese or others. Even if they do, the same applies. It will take a while for them to fully analyze and replicate it.

The US should focus on finding out how the Iranians brought down the drone, and how to improve the drones so that they do not happen again. If possible, covert action should be taken to destroy the drone. The US should be careful however to not take too drastic action. We should not give the Iranians reason to escalate actions.

Marine Medal of Honor Shrouded in Controversy

2011-12-15T07:46:00.002-05:00

News is coming to light that the Medal of Honor awarded to Marine Dakota Meyer might not be as much of an open and shut case as was thought. As many news agencies are reporting, it seems as though the account of Meyer's actions as given by the Marine Corps are, at the very least, exaggerated. Why would this be the case?

There are two main reasons. The first reason is that Congress has tried to award more medals, and particularly higher profile medals, in the waning days of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. There have been only ten Medals of Honor awarded during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and only three of those have gone to living soldiers. The rush to award Medals of Honor was therefore present on the civilian side, and the second reason is that the rush was also on the military side. The Marine Corps also wanted to have one of their own awarded the Medal of Honor, feeling that they deserved more recognition due to their role in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Of the nine previous Medals of Honor awarded since 2001, 1 went to a Marine, 2 went to members of the Navy, and the remaining six all went to members of the Army. For a proud organization that has, in many ways, stepped outside its intention in the last decade, some more recognition would obviously be expected.

Meyer's fellow Marines that were with him during the battle for which he was later awarded the Medal of Honor say that he did indeed deserve it. While the official count given by the Marine Corps may prove to be inaccurate, the Washington Post reports that at least seven others present at the battle backed the decision to nominate Meyer for the Medal of Honor. This would seem to indicate that even if the story on the Marine Corps website is somewhat embellished, it doesn't mean that this Medal of Honor is tainted.

Another, and perhaps the most interesting aspect of this story is the timing. As I believe has been mentioned on this blog, Meyer has filed suit against BAE Systems, a contracting company and his former employer. According to Meyer, he was shown the door after protesting an arms deal BAE was in the process of making. Not only was he shown the door at BAE, but he claims he was also blacklisted from other potential employers. At the time of the suit in late November, BAE made statements suggesting that, although they would be fighting the lawsuit, they wouldn't go into personal attacks against Meyer. These two facts-the controversy over Meyer's Medal of Honor and his lawsuit against BAE Systems-raise some questions. Is this simply bad timing for Meyer, or could BAE Systems have leaked the news regarding the possible misrepresentation of Meyer's actions in an attempt to discredit him? While that could be too big of a conspiracy theory stretch, it will be interesting to see how Meyer's legal actions play out with BAE Systems.

Narco-Persians Strike Again

2011-12-14T14:50:00.000-05:00

The US accusations of an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US were met with a certain degree of skepticism from the International community when they were made several months ago. Now another link between these two seemingly disparate groups is being suggested by Propublica's Sebastian Rotella who reports that US Federal prosecutors are accusing Hezbollah financier Ayman Joumaa of laundering cocaine money for Mexico's infamous Zetas.

For those not up on their 21st century drug lords, Joumaa's was named a Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker this January. After receiving his new appellation, Joumaa also received what has become the de facto treatment of anything the Iranian that the US government dislikes: his US assets were frozen and all American entities were forbade from conducting business with him. In this case however, these acts were all in accordance with the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act.

Aside from money laundering, Hezbollah is also known to raise funds through drug-dealing and arms smuggling. Since money laundering and arms smuggling are easier to document and leave a clearer paper trail that seen in the assassination accusations, it is likely that this narco-Persian connection will become the next round of actions taken against Iran by the US.

Israeli settlers attack Israeli military base

2011-12-14T11:40:00.000-05:00

On Tuesday, a group of Jewish settlers launched an attack on an Army base. The attack was spurred by a rumor that a few Israeli military outposts would be closed in the West Bank. The assault included damage to vehicles, setting fires, and throwing rocks. This type of attack is not new; over the last few years, groups of Israeli settlers have preformed similar acts. The movement has been labeled “price tag”. The attacks are reactions to policies from the government that they do not agree with. They have channeled their anger against both Palestinian citizens and Israeli army forces. The movement has led to personal injury to citizens and troops as well as extensive property damage.

Resent attacks have also included an increase of violence against Palestinian citizens in the West Bank and destruction of their homes. Additionally, only hours before the attack on the Israeli security force base, there was a violent protest on the border with Jordan. The protesters opposed the Jordanian government’s attempt to work with Israel to stop the closure of a certain bridge which allowed non-Muslims on pilgrimage to reach the holy sites of Jerusalem. The protesters went through an area which had been closed by the military, occupied a structure close to a sacred Christian holy site, and had to be forcibly removed by Israeli troops.

Leaders in the West Bank have stressed their extreme disapproval of these groups. They worry that these attacks are threatening the future of Israeli settlers in the West Bank. The situation has caused a rift between the Israeli military forces and Israeli settlers. This rift is increasing with each attack. Support of the military is crucial, particularly because they are there to protect the Israeli settlers. The fact that announcements of dismantling some military outposts has caused for attacks on Israeli military bases only further incentivizes the removal of Israeli security forces.

Meanwhile, these instances are even more important because talks began in Israel on Tuesday with the “quartet” representatives (the United Nations, the United States, Russia, and the European Union). The meetings are about reinvigorating negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The attacks by Israeli settlers not only alienate them from the government, but also increase focus on the plight of Palestinians living in the West Bank. Israeli officials referred to these groups as extremist criminals who were engaging in “homegrown terror”. Government officials stressed that they would be dealt with severely. Furthermore, the international media has been showing more attention to reports by aid workers in the West Bank. Historically, Palestinians have been portrayed by many as the perpetrators of violence in Israel and the occupied territories. The attacks by settlers have caused for intensifying reports of Palestinian citizens as victims of violence. If this trend continues it could lead to added support for the Palestinian cause and increased pressure on Israel to move forward on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

India Currys Favor with the US

2011-12-13T11:44:00.002-05:00

Over the past ten year, the United States has crafted a closer diplomatic and military relationship with India. As part of the new US “pivot” of strategic focus to the Pacific region, India is an excellent choice for several reasons. There are many benefits for both parties in this relationship, but also some areas of concern.

For the US, India is a great choice for a partner for geographic, demographic, and financial reasons. It is estimated that by the year 2020, India will become the most populous nation on Earth, overtaking China. Friendly relations with the most populous nation, especially one that is in the process of building up a substantial middle class, puts dollar signs in the eyes of US businessmen. Gaining access to markets full of newly elevated middle-class Indians is good for the US economy trade deficits.

In addition to new markets, India’s population unwittingly plays another role in for the US. It stands as a symbol to China, which shares a border with India, that the massive Chinese population isn’t as significant a factor as they would like it to be. Chairman Mao used to speak of the power of his massive population being more powerful than nuclear bombs. To Mao, having the largest population was a source of security and pride for China. As the relationship between the US and India grows, the relative strength of China’s population will diminish.

The strategic picture for the US in the Pacific looks a bit like a cordon around China. The US is forging deep economic and military ties with India, will be stationing Marines in Australia, already has navy bases in Japan, and maintains a sizeable force in South Korea. As China’s navy continues to modernize and China continues to assert itself as “protector” of the Strait of Malacca and the South China Sea, the US and India will see a rise in requests for assistance in countering the Chinese presence.

Countering Chinese ambitions in the region is only one strategic benefit to the US. The US also stands to gain from having a large ally in South Asia as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan wind down. India may stand to gain more from a Afghanistan than the US due to their geographic proximity. Continued mil-to-mil cooperation between the US and India will allow for the US to have a presence in the region and a capable partner in the region in the battle against Islamic extremists. Soon the US will leave Afghanistan and deteriorating relations with Pakistan may render much of the US effort there moot. Indian cooperation with counter terrorism operations will become increasingly important as the US presence in the region transforms.

The US isn’t the only one to gain from this relationship. Due to its proven record of nuclear responsibility, the US has concluded a civil-nuclear deal with India and secured approval for the deal through the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG). India is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) even though it possesses nuclear weapons and a civilian nuclear program. Having the approval of the NSG allows India to engage in nuclear commerce, which can be highly lucrative. This perk was part of a deal concluded between the US and India in which India promised to separate all of its civilian nuclear facilities from its nuclear weapons facilities and to bring all of its civilian nuclear facilities under full IAEA safeguards. This is a win for everyone, but India gets the privilege of being the only nation possessing nuclear weapons that is not a signatory to the NPT to be able to conduct nuclear commerce.

As with any strategic relationship, there are areas of concern. First and foremost is the possibility of being dragged into a conflict with Pakistan. India and Pakistan are both nuclear weapon states that share a contested border and have opposing ideologies. Mumbai has been the sight of many terrorist attacks thought to be perpetrated by members of Pakistani state-sponsored terrorist organizations. Should the terrorists get it right one day and deal a devastating blow, India may be forced to retaliate and the US’s strength as a strategic partner will be tested.

Second, increasing military relations with India, while attempting to balance the rise of China, may ultimately lead to destabilizing the region by forcing China to escalate its posture in response. Diplomatic and economic relations with China will be strained punishing the civilian populations of all countries involved with rising prices of goods and higher costs for doing business.

Finally, India may prove not to be the partner the US anticipates it to be. India may gain its nuclear concessions, half-heartedly assist the US in counter-terrorism efforts, and seek to gain stronger relations with China in an attempt to ease security concerns through economic interconnectedness of the two most populous nations in the world. India is in a position to benefit greatly with a close relationship with the US, but it historically prefers to be a non-aligned nation, acting in its best interest and not being committed to another nation’s agenda.

I believe that India wants to proceed with working with the US. The strategic partnership will be beneficial to both parties, but expect India to push back on many US requests as the Indian leadership attempts to maintain the veneer of non-alignment for its domestic population and the other members of the non-aligned movement. With it’s strategic location, dense population, and high technology sector, India will be a coveted ally for the US to maintain for quite a long time.

Final Exam

2011-12-13T09:46:00.000-05:00

National Security Policy
Fall 2011
Final Exam

Answer one of the following three questions. Your exam is due at 12:15pm today.

1. Over the past ten years, the United States has substantially expanded and improved upon its diplomatic and military relationship with India. What are the American goals for this relationship? What do the Indians get out of it? Is the expanded commitment to India a good idea, or are there unforeseen pitfalls?

2. International relations theorist Kenneth Waltz wrote “To say that militarily strong states are feeble because they cannot easily bring order to minor states is like saying that a pneumatic hammer is weak because it is not suitable for drilling decayed teeth.” Discuss.

3. Since 2001, the United States has taken several steps to reorganize and modernize its national security apparatus. Has this effort gone far enough, or too far? What additional steps would you recommend in order to reform the US national security establishment to face the threats of the post-Cold War world?

Obama and the Generals: It's Complicated

2011-12-12T22:35:00.003-05:00

The national jobs crisis and Republican primary circus have dominated the news cycle for the past couple of weeks, but with American troops poised to return from Iraq by Christmas President Obama's security policy is also receiving some important scrutiny.

It's no secret that the President's overall approval ratings are bleak, with his foreign policy performance and certain personality characteristics providing bright spots. But anyway, the people they poll for those numbers base their opinions on gut feelings and 24-hour cable news blather. What are experts saying about Obama and his management of Big Issues like Iraq and Afghanistan?

They're saying that it's awkward. In a strange turn of events, Obama has been heeding his military commanders' advice about diplomatic relations with Pakistan in the wake of the recent Pakistan-Afghanistan border strike, while choosing to disregard many of their recommendations about the upcoming withdrawal from Iraq. As commander-in-chief the President clearly has a fine line to walk in terms of balancing expert advice on strategy with domestic political considerations. Few people believe that accepting generals' input at face value is itself a helpful strategy, as Jon Huntsman pointed out in a recent debate using Vietnam as a (less-than-perfect) comparison.

The problem isn't that Obama selectively declines to follow recommendations put forth by his generals, as he has on the issues of when and how many troops to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, the worry is over how frequently Obama has ignored the input from those he selected to lead, or continue leading, the country's military in these two major engagements. By repeatedly overruling the generals' decisions, President Obama not only undermines their authority but also his own. Whether or not this is the case, it suggests that either his judgment of character failed to place the correct people in charge, or the people he chose in good faith fail repeatedly to convince him of their authority. Both options present a bleak insight into how top-level security decisions might be made. It's disconcerting to think that David Petraeus, Lloyd Austin, and Stanley McChrystal could be incompetent enough to repeatedly misunderstand the President's objectives or fail to develop adequate courses of action in this, their area of expertise.

Between Obama's complicated relationship with his military leaders, deteriorating relations with Pakistan and Iran, uncertainty in Russia, drug violence on the Mexican border, and a supposed new focus on East Asia (among a host of other security issues), the President's fourth year in office looks to have a major focus security policy. While this means that the President is likely to be 100% grey-haired by 2013, at least it will provide ample fodder for presidential debates.

Iraq Civil War?

2011-12-12T21:43:00.001-05:00

After eight years and over a trillion dollars later, President Obama has announced that US all US troops will be pulled out of Iraq by mid- December. While Obama had promised in his campaign to bring the troops home, it is still being seen by some (Senator John McCain and others) as partly a failure on the part of the Obama administration. It was seen as the intention of the US to leave some troops in Iraq to continue with training of Iraqi security forces and to help keep the country secure instead of a full withdrawal. This is not happening according to them because of the Obama’s administrations failure to negotiate immunity from Iraqi law for US troops.
While the US public is weary of the Iraq War and the US is no longer in a position to afford to continue its involvement at its current level, one must wonder how ready Iraq is to go it alone. With anti-American cleric Muqtada Al-Sadr waiting in the wings, how long after the US pullout will he wait to attempt to overthrow the government of Iraq? Will we see a civil war in Iraq in the new year?
Al-Sadr, an extremely popular figure in Iraq, has close ties with Iran. It is not certain whether the present government of Iraq could withstand a Sunni/Shia civil war. But it is almost a sure thing that if a Sunni/Shia civil war should breakout, that Iran would be involved, either in instigating or in supporting it. It would definitely not be in the US interest to have an Iran friendly regime in the region, but it is not certain whether the US government is willing or able to send troops back into Iraq, let alone gaining public support.
However, the US could support Iraq by sending a small number of Special Forces troops, as well as extending the use of drones in the area to support Iraqi government troops. While an Iranian supported civil war in Iraq could possibly distract Iran from its nuclear program, if this scenario were to play out, with Iran supporting a fighters in Iraq and the US supplying Iraq with enough military aid to not lose, it would bring us close to the days of the Iran/Iraq war, with shades of the Cold War, by having the US fighting a proxy war with Iran in Iraq. As bad as this sounds, would it be worse than having an Iran friendly government in the Middle East, or in the end as bad as keeping a few troops in Iraq without immunity?

The Pakistani Rumor Mill

2011-12-12T15:06:00.001-05:00

So Pakistan is in the news…again. Really, no one’s surprised anymore. They always have something going on that inevitably winds up on the news. Today we have the headline that the CIA has vacated the Shamsi airbase where drone attack where launched. The agency was asked to leave after an air strike killed more than 20 Pakistani soldiers. Fair enough Pakistan. We acknowledged our mistake and got out. So what else is going on?

There is a rumor that the Pakistani government is talking to the Pakistani group Tehrik-i-Taliban (TTP). The government says that they aren’t talking, but the Taliban says they are. Don’t you just love “he said, she said” fights? Some days it feels like no one ever grows up past the age of 13. If the groups are talking, that doesn’t have to be a bad thing. The U.S. has tossed around the idea of negotiating with the Taliban. It’s not like the groups are going away any time soon so they will have to be dealt with. According to one of the leaders of the TTP a peace deal has nearly been reached and 145 members of the group being held in Pakistani prisons have been released. We’ll see if this is true or complete fabrication. Likely it’s somewhere in the murky middle.

Another rumor is that President Asif Ali Zardari will be returning to Pakistan from Dubai within two weeks. As per my last post, I highly doubt this will happen. There is also the report that former Ambassador to the U.S. Husain Haqqani is challenging the Pakistani Supreme Court on investigating ‘Memogate’ as it’s being called and on a potential ban on leaving Pakistan. If the ban is implemented, Haqqani is going to wind up dead on the side of the road. He was exiled under Musharaff’s rule, but came back in a position of power which is the story of civilian politics in Pakistan. I don’t expect the military will take that chance again.

And so with everything going on inside of Pakistan, 2014 really can’t get here soon enough.

http://afpak.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/12/daily_brief_pakistan_denies_talks_with_taliban

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/12/world/asia/cia-leaves-pakistan-base-used-for-drone-strikes.html?_r=1&ref=world

Thoughts on the future of Egypt

2011-12-12T12:03:00.013-05:00

After the results were revealed of this first round of elections in Egypt's new political system, we begin to envision what to government may eventually look like in the future. The fact that Islamists and conservative factions rose to power in the wake of the overthrow of Mubarak is no surprise considering the reaction of the Egyptian people to the Mubarak regime. After the government under Mubarak fell, the Egyptian public and domestic politicians reacted by a huge show of support to any party or candidate that displayed anti-Mubarak views. The Muslim Brotherhood remained an adamant opponent during the Mubarak regime (and were banned by Mubarak to exist as a political party), but still maintained a strong cohesive group despite their expulsion from the Egyptian government. The Brotherhood positioned themselves during the Tahrir protests to sweep in after the fall of Mubarak with a message of strong Egyptian nationalism backed by rule of law dictated through Shariah. They formed the Freedom and Justice party which as we all know now, has won a plurality in the initial parliamentary elections and are expected to maintain that plurality in future parliamentary elections. The Brotherhood have realized their potential influence on the new government of Egypt and have pushed a more moderate Islamist view since the inception of the Freedom and Justice Party. The party has pushed a message of heavy reliance on tourism to boost the struggling economy. In order to regain (or even surpass) levels of tourism to that of the Mubarak era, the Brotherhood must take moderate stances on laws which may be prohibited by Shariah (ex. alcohol use, western dress, male and female public space, music, media, etc.). More moderate stances in these areas will attract western tourists who made up a large proportion of tourists to Egypt in the past. The party has also made a push for inclusion of the Coptic population in parliamentary politics and increasing the roles for women in the party. Not all Islamist movements rising from the recent elections are softening their stance as the Brotherhood has done.

The more radical and ultraconservative parties are winning large proportions of the seats in parliament as well. Some of these groups like the Al-Nour party (pictured left) are pushing for a strict adherence to Shariah dogma and a purge of all western or "modern" influences. Much of the hardcore Islamist support comes from rural voters and so far, the Islamists in general have sealed up 2/3 of the seats up for grabs in the primary elections. The question remains, how will the rise of Islamism affect the future of Egypt?

One main way that the Islamism will affect Egypt's economy will be through tourism. The extent of the implementation of Shariah and the amount of money gained from tourism will be negatively correlated in the coming years. In other words, the more extreme the Islamic rule, the less inclined westerners will be to travel to Egypt. Limitations on western dress and alcohol will be hard to swallow for many travelers and may be a deciding factor to prevent them from visiting the country. Under Mubarak, tourism made up 10-15% of the nation's GDP and if these numbers fall drastically, then the Egyptians will feel the further deterioration of the country's economy.

Other factors will also hinder growth in the economy. For all Mubarak's faults, he was pushing initiatives that were making improvement to the damaged Egyptian economy. These include rising tourism rates, tax reform, reviving public enterprise, and legislation that was improving private-sector growth. GDP in Egypt was growing around 5-7% annually for the last 7 years despite the global economic crisis. Sadly, most of the positive economic initiatives with Mubarak's signature will end up being for domestic political reasons. Anything tied to Mubarak in the new government will eventually be met with contention to the ruling Islamist majority.

It will be interesting to see the Egyptian people's reaction to how the Islamist's handle the new government. If the economy suffers then another season of revolts may be in store. Also, restrictions on personal liberties may be a strong point of contention from the youth of Egypt. The young people of Egypt enjoy the movies of America, the clothes of Europe and music of the West. It will be difficult to ask them to give up these luxuries, especially in urban areas like Cairo and Alexandria. It was the youth of Egypt that ignited the revolts that brought down Mubarak. They now understand the power of protest and if pushed, they may occupy Tahrir square once again.

Adama was Right. Again.

2011-12-11T22:34:00.001-05:00

It is by no means a secret that Iran has downed a unmanned US drone. While we first denied it, the US has admitted that it has lost a drone that was last accounted for more than a hundred miles inside the Iranian border. What is up for speculation, however is the manner of the drone's coming to ground.

At the moment, the US is claiming a malfunction while the Iranians are claiming that they forced it to to ground electronically (after claiming to have shot it down, of course). Given that neither side has managed to pick a story and stick with it, I think that it is not unreasonable to just say that they have our aircraft and are not planning on giving it back.

That being said, the American drone program has had a number of security issues in the recent past. Furthermore, electronic attacks of this nature have been discussed for more than a decade, first coming to prominence in 1999's Unrestricted Warfare. Even if Iran did not actually carry out an electronic attack against a US drone, this remains the most practical type of defense for a less-than-super-power. Anyone can buy a device that can block cell phone signals online for less than $30.00 or even make one for cheaper, assuming that you have access to the right soldering equipment (or buy it here). From there, it is just a matter of increasing the range and honing in on the correct frequencies to block.

Though I sincerely hope that we are using technology more sophisticated than cellular signals to control our drones, waves are waves and have weakness as such. As the use of drones becomes more prevalent worldwide, the value of this type of relatively unsophisticated electronic blocking will become more relevant and likely more widespread. While I am sure that there are those with a significantly greater understanding of these matters than I that are working on this issue, this might be the biggest potential chink in the US's technologically superior armor.

Everybody Gets a Lump of Coal...if they are lucky

2011-12-11T22:07:00.003-05:00

This weekend the South Korean government engaged in “a mean attempt for psychological warfare” against their northern neighbor. In an attempt to reinforce the ideals of freedom of expression and religion, South Korea authorized two Christian groups to string Christmas lights to 30-meter tall towers. The lights, when turned on, form a conic Christmas tree shape. These lights can be seen from the North Korean city of Kaesong.

In previous spats between the two Koreas, the North has accused the South of trying to spread Christianity in the North. Apparently in North Korea, the constitutional right to freedom of religion is merely for show. And as the whole world knows, there is nothing worse than the spread of Christianity. Can you imagine what North Korea would look like if their people had a sense of hope or another god outside of Kim Il Sung? Maybe the Jonger is on to something by being quite angry with the South. It shall be interesting to see what the response is.

According to North Korea’s official website, "The enemy warmongers [...] should be aware that they should be held responsible entirely for any unexpected consequences that may be caused by their scheme." It also threatened to retaliate immediately if the Christmas lights are switched on. I think Kim Jong Il should try and out Christian the South. Lead a propaganda campaign aimed at making it appear as though the North is jolliest bunch of Christians in the East. Unfortunately, he will probably resort to some symbolic strong-arm tactic. The North could benefit from a better PR manager. Maybe concoct a Juche Christ. He is God and man and therefore self-reliant. Actually, that is probably a bad idea, but it is time for some outside the box thinking North of the border.

I welcome the South’s move to poke the bear with a Christmas tree. I look forward to rationalizing the response from the North Korean point of view, because as of right now, I can’t imagine what a reasonable response to 15 days of cone-shaped lights is except to ignore it.

*Quotes are from AFP article on Spacewar.com

Drones over America

2011-12-11T22:01:00.007-05:00

US drones have hovered over Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iran. They've also been used to collect intel over Mexico. We've heard that the military is using them on the US-Mexico border. Now, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that UAVs have been used in North Dakota. No, the drones aren't patrolling our perilous border with Canada; rather, law enforcement sometimes calls in Predator B's to perform run-of-the-mill surveillance. In the North Dakota case, a drone was used to nab cattle thieves.

The L.A. Times report says the FBI and local law enforcement have authorized dozens of domestic drone missions around the country. Some legal and law enforcement officials argue that using drones domestically is a mistake, and warrants vigorous public and legal debate. Do law enforcement officials need a warrant to perform drone surveillance? In the past US courts have allowed law enforcement to operate aerial surveillance without a search warrant. Besides the fact that drones are able to stay airborne for longer periods of time, I'm not sure operating a drone is any different than flying a helicopter. At present, law enforcement is using this precedent to justify drone operations.

Other police officers claim the drones are just a necessary upgrade over surveillance helicopters (I'm sure this will assuage the fears of Black Helicopter conspiracy theorists). In the North Dakota case, the drone's sophisticated instrumentation was able to spot the suspects and verify that they were unarmed, allowing a SWAT team to make an arrest. Officers argue the drone's advanced sensors allow law enforcement officials to gather more complete information.

In general, I am wary of warrantless aerial surveillance, whether performed by drones or helicopters; I readily admit that I am not familiar with the court decisions which allow such actions, and cannot provide a detailed legal argument to defend my suspicions. However, I don't think that the American public will easily accept domestic law enforcement use of drones. First, Americans associate drones with the Middle East and the hunt for terrorists. Using unarmed UAVs over the US interior will likely make many people uncomfortable; bad PR and political pressure may discourage local law enforcement from using drones in the future. Second, because drones carry much more sophisticated surveillance equipment than police helicopters, courts may decide that drones are categorically different than other forms of surveillance. If police departments must receive a warrant before using a drone, officers may be more reluctant to call upon UAVs.

Gingrich reveals questionable stance Palestine in recent debate

2011-12-11T20:47:00.009-05:00

The now Republican Presidential Nominee front-runner, Newt Gingrich had some interesting ideas for the future of Israeli-Palestinian relations. In an interview with the Jewish Channel on Friday, December 9th, Gingrich revealed some questionable views on the Palestinian state and a day later, defended these views in the Republican presidential candidates' debate in Des Moines, Iowa. In this past weekend Gingrich has come out against the peace process between Israel and Palestine, referred to the Palestinians as an "invented" people and were basically a residue of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, and called both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas terrorist organizations. Gingrich is well known for make factually questionable remarks in the past but such a strong shift in a decades long peace process may be the wrong starting point for Newt's foreign policy platform.
In regards to the "invented" Palestinian comment, Newt said, "there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. I think that we’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places." Palestinians are Arabs just as Egyptians, Copts, Syrians, and Iraqis are Arabs. They are a distinct culture within the area of Southern Lebanon, Israel, Sinai, Southwest Syria and Eastern Jordan. Palestine was a state was formed out of the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and became a semi-sovereign entity (within Britain's sphere of influence) after the Sykes Picot treaty of 1916, but the Palestinians have maintained a presence in the area for thousands of years. Middle East support for Palestine and Gaza may be driven more by domestic politic's within each country and may not be entirely genuine, but to the Palestinians, statehood is a very real goal. Gingrich does not believe that we should help facilitate a peace process and that statehood should not be granted to Palestine. This belief held by Newt is opposite to that the majority of Israel and its government under Prime Minister Netanyahu which supports a two-state solution.
If Newt eventually becomes the Republican nominee for president, he will have to further explain to the American public why he believes to the peace process is futile. He must understand that the feelings an Palestinian ambassador to India's opinion on the peace process between Israel and Palestine is much different than Mahmoud Abba's opinion on the topic. Just as he must learn that radical ideas of policy shifts by a ex-Speaker are easier to make with less repercussions than the same remarks as president. If Newt does become president, this stance on Palestine will not only anger much of the Middle East, it may alienate other countries outside the region as well.

Sources:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-transcript-abc-news-iowa-republican-debate/story?id=15134849&page=21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/newt-gingrich-interview-with-jewish-channel-transcript/2011/12/09/gIQAOwXriO_story.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us/politics/gingrich-suggests-a-reversal-of-mideast-policy.html?ref=middleeast

Egypt and Israel

2011-12-11T20:38:00.000-05:00

Since the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in February 2011, the US has worried over the makeup and future foreign policy of Egypt’s new government, especially in terms of its future relations with Israel. Some in the media and the government have voiced concerns that a new non-Mubarak revolutionary government will have a more antagonistic relationship with Israel, and very possibly withdraw its recognition. However, the recent prisoner swap between HAMAS and Israel has shown that while Egypt may become more vocal about its support of the Palestinian cause, it will not abandon its treaty with Israel.
In the 1979 Israel-Egypt Peace treaty Egypt agreed to, among other things, recognize Israel and to agree to not attack it. In exchange, the US would provide economic aid to Egypt. Since then, the US has provided this aid, which now amounts to over 2 billion US dollars a year; 1.3 billion of this is military aid.
The Egyptian military, a powerful force in Egyptian government and society receives most of the aid money that the US sends to Egypt. As well as receiving funds, the officer corps receives training from the US. This arrangement has lead to strong military to military ties between the US and Egypt. The US has also benefited from the deal. Egypt is a purchaser of US military goods, its has protected Israel, a US ally, and has provided US ships with priority access through the Suez Canal.
Clearly it is not in the interest of the Egyptian military to break this arrangement. While they might publicly berate Israel and allow public protests against them (and their embassy), they seem to be continuing to honor the treaty in practice.
First, they have continued to patrol the Sinai border with Gaza. While in May they allowed crossings at Rafah, men between 18-40 still needed to apply for visa and travel permits. While this concession was made to the Palestinians, Egypt has maintained the blockade and does not allow shipments of goods across the border.
The Egyptian military also played a role in negotiating the return of Gilad Shalit in exchange for over 1000 Palestinian prisoners held by Israel. While this deal seems to favor HAMAS, it shows that despite the revolution, Israel trusts Egypt to act as a negotiating partner.
While the final government of Egypt is still uncertain, the military will not allow the new government (assuming that it doesn’t remain a military government) to break the treaty with Israel, despite how close to Palestine the new government appears.

Burmese Triangle

2011-12-11T16:31:00.004-05:00

President Obama's tour of the Pacific Rim in late November, followed by Secretary of State Clinton's historic visit to Burma, could have unofficially kicked off a new phase in the Great Game between the U.S. and China. Though Clinton's high-profile visits with President Thein Sein and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi were widely perceived as upstaging China's presence in the country, Burma is hedging its bets as to which country will come out on top. Odds are that it will benefit the small Southeast Asian nation to keep both the U.S. and China on its hook as long as possible. As this dynamic develops, let's take a look at the relationships among the countries in this new Burmese triangle.

US-Burma: The US has agreed to begin making certain political and economic concessions to assist Burma's government in correcting its recent lack of "democracy and openness," but emphasized that continued support would hinge on progressively more concrete reforms. "We will certainly consider the easing and eliminating of sanctions in this process," Clinton told reporters, while calling for the release of political prisoners and a peaceful resolution to ethnic conflict. She also said any illicit military, nuclear, and ballistic missile cooperations with North Korea must be stopped. Despite the list of demands on the developing country, Clinton insisted that US-Burmese cooperation needn't come in between the entrenched relationship between Burma and China: "We welcome positive and constructive relations between China and her neighbors," she said. "We think that being friends with one doesn't mean not being friends with others."

Burma-China: Relations between China and Burma are alive and well. Just days prior to Clinton's Burma visit, the Burmese military commander-in-Chief visited likely next-Chinese president Xi Jinping in Beijing as a reaffirmation of those two countries' relationship, anticipating that China might bristle at the new US presence in their backyard. China has happily filled the void left in Burma by western countries in recent decades, but mistreatment of both natural resources and the local population has led to discontent within Burma as China's presence accumulated. President Thein is seeking to diversify his country's international relations by recently exploring partnerships with nearby India and Vietnam. In light of Clinton's visit and the recent postponement of a Chinese-sponsored dam, China appears nervous about losing its grip on Burma's dependable economic and military cooperation.

China-US: Both countries publicly agree that a peaceful and engaged Burma is best for the region's interest. Behind the scenes there are certain economic and security concerns. "ASEAN countries' actions to balance China just show that China's influence is growing," writes one Chinese newspaper editor, who goes on to say that China should prepare for US attempts to undermine Chinese interests. "When necessary, we should make the US taste the bitterness." The US, well aware of China's escalating military presence across East and Southeast Asia, would be reassured to count Burma as a strategic partner in President Obama's new Asia-Pacific-focused security initiative that would balance China's influence in the region.

With China and the US saying one thing and thinking another, and Burma likely to enjoy its newfound popularity and international attention, this power struggle is unlikely to end any time soon. As far as US security goes Burma is just one piece in the larger Asian puzzle vis-à-vis China, but China is unhappy to see any infringement at all in the Asian neighborhood. Let the grand strategies unfold...

Russians Against Putin

2011-12-10T20:37:00.001-05:00

With the prospective re-electionof Vladimir Putin on the horizon, the Russian people are out indroves to protest his policies. Many in opposition to Putin'spolicies showed up for the various rallies, numbering more than25,000 people in total by one estimation by the Moscow police, withthousands more around the country. These protesters were flexing thepolitical muscle that is their rights as members of a democraticgovernment. Having such a show of support has helped bolster theconfidence of liberals, nationalists and communists; all parties thatare in opposition of Putin politics.

These protests were the cause oflast week's parliamentary election in Russia, and are meant to putpressure on Putin; specifically on his bid to return to presidency.This vocalization also shows the distaste and animosity that is heldfor one of Russia's most prominent politicians. This was a majorshock because the government felt politically forced to allow thedemonstration to take place, and went so far as to license it. Thismade the demonstration one of the largest to take place since thefall of the Soviet Union. On that note, many there said this rallywas reminiscent of those rallies of the 1990s.

Another major factor in this grassroots demonstration is in the participants. Through the variousarticles, nearly every Russian social group or class are mentioned.There are comments about young Russians holding I-Pads to broadcastthis event, while standing next to businessmen and old ladies. Havingsuch a wide variety of people show support for this cause, presentsmajor possibilities for Russia's future. This has allowed theopposition to grow bolder and make a number of demands, such as therelease of a number of prisoners and the removal of Vladimir Churovwho runs the Central Election Commission.

On top of all of this was themedia coverage received for the demonstrations. With such a hugeundertaking, the Kremlin could not effectively bury it on Russiantelevision. Not only this, but the government-controlled stationsprovided coverage of the rallies; including Boris Nemtsov, thecurrent opposition leader. While the coverage on these stations didnot show Putin in a negative light, there was virtually no mention ofthe demonstrations in a negative light.

This demonstration creates thepossibility for a major shift in Russian politics and power thatneeds to be taken into account for national security. The fact thatthe government of Russia allowed this protest to occur seems to be apositive slant in the direction for the democratic processes of thecountry. One thing that makes this specifically reassuring is thepeaceful manner that this protest was accomplished. While there was apolice and military presence, the government had no cause to use it.This in itself showed a major shift from the assumed crackdown of thegovernment that outside sources promote. Having the possibility of amore democratic government creates the possibility of a bettereconomic and political connection with Russia. The United Statescould benefit from this because it could lead to a lessening ofstrain between the two governments and allow for negotiations forsupply routes through Russian controlled or influenced territory.

While these are a number ofnational security benefits from this action, a number of concernsarise as well. For one, the articles comment about how the communistand nationalist parties are gaining strength and confidence fromthese movements. Concern must be raised, and intelligence taken toevaluate what will happen if these parties gain a strong hold in theRussian government. The questions of a change of policies, or values,must be addressed and accounted for in watching and preparing forfuture American involvement with Russia.

Another problem is the unrest thatsuch demonstrations can cause in the Russian society. So far, Russianprotestors and government officials are using legal, open means of ademocratic government. However, the question needs to be addressedwhat will happen if Russian protestors cause social strife in thefuture; or if the government also cracks down on these politicalfreedoms. Also a national security concern would be the chance thatPutin loses the election, but refuses to turn over power to thevictor. Such an action, while maybe not probable, must be consideredbecause of the world wide implications of such an action.

Sources

NYTimes Russian Demonstration

NYTimes Russian TV Coverage

http://www.businessweek.com

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20111211/169696185.html

Is Oscar Arias Sanchez Right?

2011-12-10T19:58:00.004-05:00

A recent article from the Foreign Policy Blogs website highlighted the desire of Haitian president Michel Martelly to reconstitute the Haitian military. In response to this, former President of Costa Rica Oscar Arias Sanchez, wrote a letter urging President Martelly to abandon these aspirations. He believes that the Haitian people are much better off investing in education, healthcare, technology and communication. He feels that a disciplined police force is all that is needed at this time, considering the state of reconstruction that Haiti is still in following the devastating earthquake. Martelly and others have argued that a national army will provide jobs for young Haitians and bring a sense of national pride to Haiti. One politician said that "there is no sovereignty without an army."

There are several questions brought up by this argument. First of all, does a country need a military to be considered sovereign? Does one of the poorest nations on earth need a military? Should we be looking at these questions on a case by case basis? To answer the first question, I do not believe that a country needs a military to be considered sovereign. This is especially true when those countries have the support of nations like the U.S. or China. The U.S. military acts effectively as the Japanese armed forces. The situation in Haiti is similar. If Venezuela decided to invade Haiti, they would know that they are effectively invading U.S. space and would have to contend with a U.S., not Haitian, response. Likewise, a military does not guarantee that sovereignty will be respected. The special forces incursion into Pakistan by the U.S. to kill Osama Bin Laden was viewed by many Pakistanis as a violation of their sovereignty.

Oscar Arias Sanchez made a valid point when he compared Haiti to Nicaragua and Guatemala. All three have a history of strong military influence within their countries, and all three are ranked lowest on the Human Development Index for the region. Haiti is so poor and without valuable natural resources, there is nothing to defend. The money is much better spent educating and caring for the people of Haiti. This gives them a path toward prosperity. Down the road they may have the luxury of needing a military. Corruption is also an established problem in the region, and a military adds one more bureaucracy looking to extract bribes.

While having a military is an important goal for a country, it is not an absolute necessity, and it is not a top priority when rebuilding a nation from political or natural disaster. The Haitian people will have a military at some point, but they need to address more critical concerns first.

Withdrawal in Afghanistan: True or False

2011-12-10T19:39:00.001-05:00

On Saturday, the U.S. ambassador in Afghanistan stated that American soldiers could remain in Afghanistan past the withdrawal deadline announced by the president. The set withdrawal deadline is 2014. He stated that leaders in the Afghan government had expressed their desire for U.S. soldiers to remain in Afghanistan longer. Ambassador Crocker replied to reporters’ questions by indicating that the Afghan government would need to formally ask for American troops to remain. However, in that case the U.S. would most likely agree.

Some would view the Ambassador Crocker’s claims as contradictory to White House statements. Yet, the White House responded to his remarks by concluding that he was not speaking against the desires of White House officials. They clarified that the president said beginning in 2014 Afghan security would be under the control of the Afghan people. He did not state that all troops would be removed from Afghanistan by 2014. There is a question of what role these remaining troops would play. Many expected if troops were in Afghanistan past the proposed date they would be training and advising Afghan military personnel. The declaration by Ambassador Crocker acknowledges the possibility of combat forces continuing to be in Afghanistan post-2014.

In this situation it is clear to see how the responsibilities of the president and the ambassador conflict. The president is not only the predominate representative of the United States in international affairs, but also he is answerable to the voting public. Many Americans are weary of engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Announcements of troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, beginning in July 2011, were supported by many Americans. The ambassador, on the other hand, has direct contact with leaders in Afghanistan and extensive knowledge of the events on the ground. He is more likely to make statements on the engagements in Afghanistan without American public opinion weighing on his depictions of the status of the mission and the future needs.

Although throughout history presidential elections have not been determined by foreign affairs, they are projected to be incredibly important for the 2012 elections. The involvement of international relations in the elections is crucial because not only due to American public opinion, but U.S. relations abroad. It is very important to chose words carefully so that candidates can appeal to American voters while not compromising U.S. relations abroad.

U-2 over Russia, Drone over Iran

2011-12-10T14:23:00.004-05:00

In May of 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized a secret reconnaissance flight to investigate Soviet nuclear missile capability. Francis Gary Powers, a pilot for the Central Intelligence Agency's U-2 spyplane program, was assigned to survey Soviet missile test sites, particularly an ICBM testing range at Tyuratam (in present-day Kazakhstan). The flight was to begin in Peshewar, with Powers flying northeast over Russia until he landed in Norway. All went well until Powers suffered an engine flameout over the Soviet city of Sverdelovsk, and he was forced to descend. This put him in range of a new Soviet SAM which was able to shoot down his craft. Powers ejected, but was not able to set off the self-destruct charges, leaving the U-2 intact for the Soviets to inspect.

At this point you're probably wondering what in the name of DoD this has to do with national security? Well, unless you're in an underground facility in the Persian desert secretly enriching uranium, you've probably heard that the U.S. supposedly "lost" a drone over Iran. The Iranian government claims it has salvaged the drone and has placed what looks like a drone on display, complete with painted on anti-American slogans and propaganda. What ties this and the U-2 incident together is that they are both examples of cutting edge reconaissance technology falling into the hands of a major adversary, and even with the mission for the same purpose. The design of the "captured" drone is said to contain advanced stealth technology, which made it useful for various operations, including the raid against bin Laden's compound. Like with the Soviets, the "capture" of this drone is a blow to our national security because not only is one of our "covert operations" exposed, but the Iranians will most likely attempt to reverse engineer the technology and/or distribute it to our regional rivals (Russia, China, etc). Both missions were also meant to search for nuclear weapons activity. In fact, the only real difference between these situations is the fact that the United States hasn't been caught in an embarrasing lie regarding the downed aircraft. In Powers' case, the United States had said the flight was related to a malfunctioning weather balloon, but the Soviets showed they had captured Powers and embarrassed America on the national stage. In the drone incident, by contrast, we are just denying that the crash ever happened. While still embarrasing, it might not cause such a blow to credibility.

Regardless, this drone "crash" will most likely hurt our "capability" regarding intelligence gathering in the future, particularly considering the fact that we're already facing criticism for our "drone campaign" in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The fact that it has expanded to Iran will only turn the Middle East against us further because of our use of drones. While still a useful tool, we may face further blowback for their use in the future.

Be Careful What You Wish For

2011-12-10T12:07:00.002-05:00

This has been a rough week for elections as far as the United States is interested. Things in Russia are in a very interesting situation, one that we will not address in detail in this entry. What concerns us here is the situation in Egypt, where recent elections went off seemingly without a hitch. At the very least nothing happened in the voting process that the United States has raised a fuss over. This, of course, is not to say that America is happy about the outcome of the elections.

Unsurprisingly, the moderate Islamists in Egypt won a plurality of the positions that were being contested. However, a more hardline Islamist party also won a considerable number of seats, much to the chagrin of Western observers. Together, the moderate and hardline Islamist parties have enough seats to form a majority if they were to join forces. While the moderates claim this will not happen, this is still a worry for many outsiders.

This week, Secretary of State Clinton stated, "Transitions require fair and inclusive elections, but they also demand the embrace of democratic norms and rules. We expect all democratic actors to uphold universal human rights, including women's rights, to allow free religious practice." That's very nice--it's also very unrealistic. In America, it seems that we do have expectations for what regime change will bring, but we have no basis for these expectations. As we have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not easy to foist democracy upon a society not used to it, and it's certainly unrealistic to expect a complete shift in human rights. Just because the Arab Spring looks to be bringing something different, different isn't always better. The success of these events will be measured in decades, not in months. That being said, what's a potential outcome? Well, look again at Afghanistan. It wasn't too long ago that Secretary Clinton herself spoke in glowing terms about women's rights in Afghanistan; now, we can accept negotiating with the Taliban for a place in the government. In other words, don't hold your breath for universal human rights in Egypt.

Agent.btz

2011-12-09T21:10:00.001-05:00

Those damn Russians. They did it again (to be fair, it was probably the Russians. But it is more fun to blame someone, right?). This time, their hackers infiltrated a U.S. governmental network (one separate from any other network) and stole military secrets. Their secret weapon? A thumb drive. It became infected with malicious malware from the internet and spread to the separate networks from there. To me, that’s pretty crazy. It seems that these hackers are really creative and capable. That, or our governmental computers need a drastic security overhaul (reading stories like this is becoming a frequent occurrence). If you want to read the steps taken by the NSA to counter this threat, click on the article linked above.

Moral of the story: keep your thumb drives safe, kids.

Did the U.S. Give Money to Help Japan Hunt Whales?

2011-12-09T13:58:00.002-05:00

The story emerged this week that Japan was increasing the funding of its annual whale hunt by roughly $29 million. The budget increase was said to be due to the need for increased security for whaling vessels (confrontations with environmentalist groups on the seas have increased over the past few years) and as a way of helping Japanese coastal towns who rely on whale hunting and whose economies were damaged by the March tsunami. While there has been an international moratorium on whale hunting for 25 years Japan has continued to hunt whales because they claim it is for scientific purposes while activists claim it is for commercial enrichment only.

What is interesting is that the increased funding was diverted from Japan’s tsunami reconstruction budget, originally meant to help Japan and its people rebuild after the destruction of their country, not necessarily to help whale hunting. While a country absolutely has the right to spend their money however they deem appropriate, this action may end up hurting U.S. interests.

After the tsunami, American private citizens showed their generosity and compassion and donated over $87 million in the first week alone to help relief efforts, and the U.S. Government gave an additional $32 million. This trend is nothing new; Americans have generally been quick to help those affected by natural disasters around the globe. However, upon hearing the news that Japan diverted money away from reconstruction to help hunt whales, Americans might not agree with Japan that it was a proper use of funds. While it seems that the internationally donated money was used by Japan only for reconstruction efforts and that this diverted money was from a different monetary pool, the conclusion that Americans might reach is that they could have indirectly funded whaling. A U.S. citizen could legitimately ask if their money was going for something many Americans would find repugnant, and even if it was not, why did they donate money to help rebuild a country that obviously has enough to divert money away from reconstruction and use it for whaling?

All of this might lead private American citizens to shy away from donating to future relief efforts around the world. Thus would be dangerous for America’s security, as aid and assistance have always been a powerful tool of goodwill and global stabilization. Programs like the Marshall Plan and USAID, when coupled with private generosity have helped the United States establish positive relations and perceptions internationally. Without the willingness of U.S. citizens to back future international assistance, negative views of the U.S. as being uncaring and unsympathetic to world suffering may lead to full-blown hostility in areas around the globe. Those with negative perceptions of the U.S. may be willing to ally with others hostile to America, endangering the nation, its citizens, and interests.

Time for Pakistan's Next Coup?

2011-12-09T13:07:00.002-05:00

Oh Asif Ali Zardari. You’ve been around Pakistani politics a long enough time to realize when NOT to leave Pakistan. Actually for a civilian leader, there is never a good time to leave Pakistan. Coups have happened a lot historically. You should know that. You know exactly what happened to your father-in-law. And with the Memogate incident barely resolved, now is not the time to show weakness and opportunity to people who, at best, tolerate you. At worst, they want you dead and themselves back in power.

I realize that the stress of constantly worrying about when, where, and how the generals are going to remove you from power is exhausting. No one is surprised by the mild stroke, but really, why are you tempting them? They’re wounded and angry, and you leave for Dubai and may head to London. Your medical recovery could take weeks or months.

You’ve set up the military for a perfect coup situation. Get your family out while you can and lie low in London for a few years.

Trouble in Lebanon

2011-12-09T10:53:00.010-05:00

A bomb exploded in southern Lebanon earlier today near a United Nations convoy. Five peacekeepers were injured in the attack. This attack occurred near the city of Tyre, in Southern Lebanon. This is the third attack in this region this year. In May, six Italian peacekeepers were wounded and in July, six French soldiers were wounded near Tyre. UN forces remained in the region to keep the peace after the brief war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006. This attack is said to have been a product of fear and unease in the country after uprisings in Syria and overall dissent in the Middle East during the Arab Spring.
There is much dispute in Lebanon now over the effects of the Syrian uprisings on the stability of Lebanon's government. The problem of Syrian influence continues to be divisive among the two leading parties in Lebanon, the March 8 movement (lead by Hezbollah) and the March 14 movement (or the Future Movement). Within each of the Lebanese movements feeling towards the Syrian uprising are polarizing attitudes for and against Syria's current government. These attitudes on Syria in both parties stem for Syria's military occupation in 2005.
Fears grow in Lebanon over the possiblity of violence in Syria spilling over the border. The difference of opinion within the two main parties of Lebanon could be the deciding factor in whether or not violence occurs. Another factor that contributes to stability in Lebanon's current political situation is the growing power of Hezbollah. Hezbollah has been steadfast in its support for the Syrian government and continues to gain political power in Lebanon's government. But with growing dissent on the subject within Hezbollah's own political party, Lebanon's future political situation could become unstable.

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/world/middleeast/syrian-uprising-spills-over-into-lebanons-raucous-political-scene.html?_r=1&ref=lebanon
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/world/middleeast/un-peacekeepers-wounded-in-southern-lebanon-attack.html?_r=1&ref=middleeast

Do they mean business?

2011-12-09T09:43:00.001-05:00

On the surface, it looks like Pakistan is serious in its anger about the NATO airstrike that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on November 26^th. Not only has it cut off critical supply routes used by NATO forces, it is also strengthening its air defenses on the Afghan border.

After reading this article, concerns about this development are somewhat calmed. Although these weapons could be used to prevent NATO planes from attacking the enemy’s stronghold in Pakistan, there are parts of the article which indicates that they are for other purposes. A Pakistani Brigadier General noted that “If there is another attack, they [Pakistani soldiers] should have something to defend themselves.” More likely, this move is for domestic purposes. By providing these means for defensive use, leadership of the Pakistani military can appease Pakistani troops’ and citizens’ concern that soldiers will be helpless if a repeat of the event were to occur.

NATO forces should be wary of this development, but also take it in the context mentioned above as well.

The Captured Cream Concoction

2011-12-08T16:36:00.004-05:00

Earlier this week the Iranian regime announced it had downed an American RQ-170 Sentinel unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Shortly after this announcement the U.S. military conceded it had lost communication with a UAV while it was conducting operations in Afghanistan near the Iranian border. The RQ-170 is a high altitude, unarmed reconnaissance fixed-wing aircraft. It is thought to operate at altitudes of 50,000 ft.

There have been mixed reports from the Iranians about what caused the suspected drone to fall out of the sky. The first reports to come out of Iran quote Iranian officials saying that Iran had “shot down” an American drone. Then, the Iran claimed to have “downed” the drone. Now, they are claiming an “electronic ambush” brought down the drone causing minimal damage.

Today, Iranian state TV displayed what it claimed was the RQ-170 electronically ambushed earlier this week. As you can see in the photo, it is in near perfect condition, an odd cream color, and slightly different than other photos readily available of the RQ-170. This attempt to score propaganda points would be more convincing if they had paid attention to detail in their attempts to build a model of a RQ-170.

Unless the Iranians have figured out a way to hack into the U.S. command and control nodes for flight operations of their drone fleet, then it seems very hard to believe that a high-altitude drone would fall to the ground and sustain no visible damage. Also, did the electronic ambush cause the drone to turn cream colored, or did Iran manage to take over controls of the only cream colored drone the in the U.S. fleet?

If the Iranians do have the capability to take over the flight operations of drones in the U.S. fleet, this marks an extreme threat to American forces operating armed drones. It would put the Iranians well above the level of sophistication with which we credit them.

While I do not believe the drone on display is the real drone, I do believe that the Iranians are in possession of the debris from the lost drone. The media spectacle is most likely meant to rally the domestic population in opposition to the U.S. Since they most likely do not possess the necessary level of technology to exploit any of the data that may be recoverable, they will probably try to work out a deal with Russia or China who more likely to be able to reverse engineer some of the technology recovered.

I expect a steep rise in the capability of our military rivals’ UAVs in the near future. Darn you Cyberdyne Systems!

India at a Crossroads

2011-12-07T23:04:00.002-05:00

As India faces significant changes within and gains rising influence on the global stage, the nation stands at a crossroads. India’s population is undergoing systemic and cultural changes, and this has created different attitudes within the citizenry. India’s upper class is seeking to compete with China’s business class in the international market, the rising middle class is becoming fed up with governmental corruption, and the desperate millions aren’t seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. This presents a plethora of challenges for India’s government, as demands from their citizenry could result in a disillusionment with democracy. This, paired with the increased security risks due to further development, presents dilemmas for the country. The Indian government must create effective policies that will meet India’s changing needs and evolving population, since the distant future of India is heavily dependent on how the Indian government handles its current situations in the upcoming months/years. It must determine how it will develop its human capital, how they can sustain energy resources without increasing pressures on its impoverished citizens, and how they will compete with other nations that are also gaining more global influence.
One of the prime examples of how the Indian government must act wisely in a potentially defining time in India’s history is how it will choose to handle increased environmental challenges while not taking away the livelihood of millions of citizens. Gathering the endless amounts of garbage that line the streets of India serve as the only income for an innumerable amount of Indian citizens, but this waste will begin to be burned in order to earn credits under the Kyoto Protocol. This means that the waste workers, earning their familes under $5 a day, will soon find their jobs eradicated. This has resulted in waste workers organizing to protest the United Nations efforts to burn waste in order to produce gas menthane for increasing global energy needs, thus creating more dissention within the nation. This is especially tough for this section of the population because waste workers are the most marginalized, there is no system to train them for another vocation, no alternative ways to make an income, and no regulatory protection. So while environmental standards are striving to be met, Indian citizens are being further plunged into poverty, causing a conundrum for the government to deal with. India, again at a crossroad, is caught between satisfying the growing energy needs of the increasing Indian middle class, and losing the livelihoods of India’s 1.7 million waste workers.
The upcoming months and years will undoubtedly prove to be pivotal for the Indian nation. Escalating tensions between India and China, potential increased economic ties with Pakistan, and countless other unique circumstances will continue to emphasize the point that India is at a crossroads in its history. How the Indian government, and its people, handle these dilemmas and what choices the Indian government makes concerning social, fiscal, environmental, and diplomatic policies will determine how India emerges in the future.

Georgian Elections and the "Snow Revolution"

2011-12-07T16:35:00.001-05:00

World politics 2011: another day, another electoral crisis. The latest ballot-box snafu comes to us courtesy of South Ossetia, which already struggles with Georgia over its desire to be counted as an independent state, and served as the catalyst for the Georgia-Russia war in August 2008.

Held on November 13, the first round of the territory’s presidential elections ended in a tie between Emergency Situations Minister Anatoly Bibliov, a candidate openly supported by the Russian government, and former Education Minister Alla Dzhioyeva. Dzhioyeva received approximately 57% of votes in the November 27 run-off, while Bibliov finished a distant second with a mere 40% of the vote. Two other candidates favored by outgoing President Eduard Kokoity, whose reputation has been marred by accusations of embezzlement from Russian post-conflict reconstruction funds, each received less than 10% of votes during the initial contest, and were thus absent from the run-off ballot.

Like the recent parliamentary elections in Russia, the elections in South Ossetia have been accompanied by allegations of corruption and fraud, public protests and calls for a new vote. In response to Bibliov’s claims that Dzihoyeva supporters used bribes and threats to solicit votes, the region’s Supreme Court declared the election invalid and scheduled a new vote for March 2012. The legality of the Court’s vote has since been called into question, with Dzhioyeva arguing that the election results were verified by the Election Commission, international monitors and representatives from both campaigns, and former Information Minister Irina Gagloyeva claiming that several Court justices refused to participate in the ruling. As many as 3,000 protesters filled the main square in Tskhinvali on November 30 in support of Dzhioyeva, and hundreds continue to occupy the area. This afternoon, the border between South Ossetia and Russia was temporarily closed following the Court’s decision to uphold the earlier nullification and a grenade attack on a court prosecutor.

Since South Ossetia is considered part of Georgian territory by all but a handful of states and other actors, the outcome of the elections themselves is considered irrelevant by many in the international arena. Giga Bokeria, the head of Georgia’s national security council, told reporters that the “conditions of occupation by a foreign country and ethnic cleansing” in the territory render the contest illegitimate, even when interpreted as an element of local representation rather than a show of autonomy from Georgia. Meanwhile, other state governments have taken the opportunity to share their position on Georgian sovereignty. The U.S. State Department has reiterated its support for Georgian territorial integrity, noting that “the United States does not recognize the legitimacy or the outcome of these so-called presidential elections and referendum." Azerbaijan, which has a relationship with Nagorno-Karabahk that echoes the Georgia - South Ossetia sovereignty struggle, has made similar pronouncements.

Nonetheless, both the election’s outcome and the continued unrest in South Ossetia could have relevant security implications for both Russia and Georgia. Despite its recognition of South Ossetian independence, its continued military presence in the territory and its allocation of significant annual subsidies for the territory’s struggling economy, Russia was unable to secure enough support for its chosen candidate, Bibliov, to win the election, even after President Medvedev publicly endorsed him. Dzhioyeva’s victory could serve as an indicator that the influence of Russia’s current leadership is waning in the region, especially in light of the recent domestic elections that brought a significant decline in the number of Duma seats for Prime Minister Putin’s United Russia Party and the ensuing protests over alleged electoral fraud. As for Georgian security: with some South Ossetian protests beginning to exhibit signs of violence, and Kokoity threatening to stamp out any sparks of a revolution in the territory, there are also concerns that the electoral disputes could trigger a broader domestic conflict if the central government becomes involved. Should such a civil conflict occur, it would be interesting to see whether Russia would choose to intervene due to its close ties with South Ossetia, or would instead refrain from intervention in order to focus on its own election-based security issues and avoid a replay of the 2008 conflict. While Arab Spring elections continue to draw headlines, the so-called "Snow Revolution" just may become another issue to watch.

e-Diplomacy: Propaganda to support national security

2011-12-07T01:53:00.000-05:00

Today the State Department announced the launch of a “virtual embassy” for Iran, a website dedicated to “enhancing outreach and dialogue between the American and Iranian people.” It’s available in English and Farsi. It has the same layout as the websites of other U.S. Embassies, except for the modifier “virtual” in its title. It also contains much of the same information as other Embassy websites, with links to sub-pages about visas, U.S. citizen services, news, and how to study in the U.S. One evident difference, however, when compared to other Embassy websites, is a link labeled “Open Societies” where other websites have a link labeled “Resources.” Under this link is a set of sub-pages designed to inform readers about civil society, universal human rights, and the American way of life, among other topics. The website also has links to the official government Facebook, Twitter and YouTube channels specifically for Iran.

The official press statement calls the virtual embassy a “new and exciting engagement opportunity between the peoples of Iran and the United States.” By providing a virtual embassy, State is offering “information and alternative viewpoints to the Iranian people.” This website and the social media feeds provided by State seek “to challenge the Iranian regime’s efforts to place an electronic curtain of surveillance, satellite jamming and online filtering around its people.” In the special briefing held today, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs emphasized the importance of direct engagement with the Iranian people.

There were a couple of interesting questions during the briefing. A reporter asked about the likelihood of this website being blocked by the Iranian government, which the Under Secretary agreed is likely but “we have put resources into training people all around the world in ways to go around jamming.” This made me think of it as a 21^st century form of supplying arms to guerrillas – in this case, technological guerrillas. An interesting consideration, reflecting the importance of access to information technology in today’s “battleground.”

The second interesting question asked if starting a virtual embassy would not make it harder for the U.S. to establish a formal relationship with Tehran. The Under Secretary responded that the U.S. has a “dual-track process…a strategy of both sanctions and, in essence, what one might call coercive diplomacy and engagement with Iran…that we remain open to having serious discussions about their nuclear program if they are indeed serious and ready to have those discussions without preconditions.” I found the leap made by the Under Secretary from a question about formal relations to the issue of nuclear-equipped Iran quite interesting. Of course, she was speaking extemporaneously and with the recent events concerning nuclear capabilities in Iran that is clearly on her mind. However, bringing the issue up in response to a fairly innocuous question makes me take a more critical viewpoint of the virtual embassy.

Naturally, the virtual embassy is a propaganda tool. All embassy websites are, just like all the information access points used by State – their purpose is to paint a positive picture of the U.S. and its actions. In terms of national security though, one must be careful with the use of propaganda. While a nice website isn’t going to change the minds of terrorist group members who already have a firm opinion about the U.S., what kind of effect can it have on everyday people who are not sure how they feel? These people already are bombarded with messages about how evil the U.S. is, so what difference will one website make? This is of course a rhetorical question. A more important question is, how can this one website make a positive difference? I’m no specialist in persuasive rhetoric, but I certainly know condescension when I see it – and so does anyone else, especially someone primed to consider the U.S. as an evil super power. While I think the launch of a virtual embassy for Iran is a good action, I hope the people writing the copy and supplying the “information” for the site are well advised on how to tread lightly. Because the last thing the Iranian people need is more propaganda.

Pick a Republican: Mitt Romney

2011-12-06T17:58:00.004-05:00

So I was somewhat late on Herman Cain. His candidacy was withdrawn on December the 3rd, to the surprise of pretty much nobody. So, on with the show. Let’s look at someone a little less crazy.

The Candidate: Mitt Romney

Brief Bio and Experience: Romney was born on March 12, 1947. He is a married Mormon, with 5 sons. His home state is Michigan, and he received his undergraduate degree from Brigham Young University in 1971, followed by an M.B.A and a law degree from Harvard in 1975. He is the son of a former Michigan governor, and founded an investment firm in 1984. He lost to Edward Kennedy in 1994 in a bid for a seat in the US senate, but was elected governor of Massachusetts in 2003. He attempted to run for the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2008, and was defeated by McCain.

Major Platform Points: Wants to reduce the corporate tax rate by 10%, eliminate the death tax, and introduce a flatter tax rate. Wants to appeal the Health Care Program implemented under Obama. Wants tighter accountability for costs of proposed environmental regulations. Plans to pursue trade with nations with open markets. Supports free trade. Wants to designate China a currency manipulator, and discontinue government procurement from China until they commit to GPA. Supports building a pipeline for Canadian oil, and wants to deregulate shale oil production. Is not supportive of organized labor. Wants to raise visa caps for highly skilled foreign workers coming into the country. Plans to cap federal spending budget at %20 of GDP, and pursue a Balanced Budget Amendment.

Abortion: Previously pro-choice, now pro-life, believes life starts at conception.

Death Penalty: Yes

Gay Marriage: Previously semi-supportive, now supports the anti-homosexual marriage Defense of Marriage Act

Likelihood of Candidacy: Romney gets a lot of press, and while he’s conservative he’s not so far to the right that he’s going to take a drunken stumble into the wall. He’s taken some heat from his competition for having previously been more lenient on certain flash-point issues, but is still coming in 2nd or 3rd place in most major polls. He’s not a long shot, but he might be mid-range.was withdrawn on December the 3rd, to the surprise of pretty much nobody. So, on with omney gets a lot of press, and while he’s conservative he’s not so far to the right that he’s going to take a drunken stumble into the wall. He’s taken some heat from his competition for having previously been more lenient on certain flash-point issues, but is still coming in 2nd or 3rd place in most major polls. He’s not a long shot, but he might be mid-range.

Mo' Money, Mo' Problems

2011-12-06T14:33:00.016-05:00

Sunday's front page of The New York Times featured a story about the DEA laundering Mexican cartel cash. I told myself I wouldn't write about the drug war again on this blog, but the story caught my attention. In a previous post I argued that before the US further militarizes the drug war, it should first look to shut down cartel financial networks. I still stand by that argument, but I would like to explore the matter further in this blog entry.

The Sunday NYT article claims that DEA agents have helped smuggle and launder millions of dollars in profits for Mexican criminal organizations. Cartel members would unknowingly transfer cash to undercover agents who, instead of seizing the money and arresting the drug dealers, would deposit the profits in cartel accounts. Former DEA officials were quoted defending the agency's operations by claiming that the laundering schemes had to lead to concrete results, or else the DEA would potentially be the world's largest money launderer. While I understand the intent of these quote, I think their attempts at mixing frankness and opacity just provides additional fodder to conspiracy theorists who believe the DEA, CIA, and FBI are the world's largest drug cartel. After tweeting the NYT DEA money laundering expose, a drug legalization advocate from Australia responded and assured me that this was all part of a plan to capture drug profits for the US government.

Earlier last week, the L.A. Times published an article highlighting the Mexican government's anti-laundering efforts. Whereas the NYT article estimates that $18-39 billion in drug money travels between Mexico and the U.S. annually, the LAT piece places the amount closer to $50 billion — about 3% of Mexico's legitimate GDP. The LAT argues that Mexico's anti-laundering efforts are ineffective because the majority of cartel profits are laundered in the US and other countries.

To me the DEA operation resembles ATF's now (in)famous "Fast and Furious" operation in which the ATF transferred guns to Mexican cartels and allowed them to walk into Mexico. Both the ATF and DEA operations attempt to crack criminal networks: the DEA watches to see where the money goes, and ATF tried to map arms trafficking networks. Unfortunately for the ATF and innocent people in Mexico, the gun-walking operation did not work. The quotes from former DEA officials imply that the agency would not be allowing money to "walk" if it didn't lead to results, otherwise the DEA would simply be guilty of allowing money to reach the hands of criminals who then purchase guns and pay off Mexican law enforcement. Still, though the former DEA officials imply success, they do not define how they measure favorable outcomes. Blogger James Bosworth of Bloggings by Boz raises some important questions about the cost-benefit analysis which informs the DEA's laundering operations:

"I'd like to know how they run the cost-benefit analysis on these operations. Is it worth laundering $10 million in order to seize a $100 million in drug trafficking assets? I think that's a great ROI and would agree. Would it be worth laundering $10 million in order to arrest five guys and get back the $10 million? I'm not sure. Would it be worth laundering $10 million to make arrests that eventually prevent 100 murders in Mexico? I think that's a good question to ask, but I'm not sure something so complex can be measured clearly."

I agree with Bosworth's assessment of the cost-benefit analysis. At this point, the DEA operation raises more questions than it answers. With news that Congressional Republicans are opening an inquiry into the money laundering operation, we may have more information to judge its worth in the near future.

The recent spotlight on US anti-laundering efforts in the drug war reminded me of an excellent article I read last year about laundering and financial institutions. Wachovia, now owned by Wells Fargo, admitted its negligence for failing to spot laundered money from Mexico. Bloomberg reported that between 2004 and 2007, Wachovia handled nearly $380 billion from Mexico which it failed to properly investigate, amounting to the largest ever violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, a law requiring financial institutions to report money laundering. Wachovia's violations were so blatant that the head of the bank's anti-laundering unit quit in disgust after bank officials ignored the evidence that Mexican cartels were using the bank to transfer funds. The Bloomberg article points out that other US banks are also used to launder money, but that the US government lacks the resources and will to fine and prosecute them. In essence, the article argues, American financial institutions are too-big-to-fine: if the US government were to charge banks for failing to follow anti-laundering procedures and regulations, then it could "cause panic in the financial markets."

While it may look bad to have the DEA launder millions of dollars in cartel revenues, does it really have a choice if US banks continue to ignore their responsibilities under the Bank Secrecy Act? The DEA is far too small to track and confiscate $50 billion in drug profits. Instead, private banks should bare the responsibility for making sure criminal organizations do not launder money through their systems. Though some experts disagree, I maintain that cutting off cartel money supplies would be a major step in weakening Mexico's criminal organizations; however, the US and Mexican governments need the cooperation of global financial institutions. Otherwise, the DEA's small scale money-laundering schemes will be about as effective as trying to plug a leaky dam with your pinky finger.

A Response to the US Compromising on Taiwan

2011-12-06T11:36:00.000-05:00

In a recent post, a blogger expressed his displeasure at the US’s decision to not sell new F-16s to Taiwan and to instead upgrade their existing F-16s. The post also raised issues about the nature of the US-China-Taiwan relationship, arguing that it should not exist and that the US should support Taiwan based on both a moral and historical argument.
However, I would argue that the blogger has misunderstood the history of PRC/ROC relations and that the current move by the US should be viewed with a longer term view of US China policy. As well, the blogger seems to have ignored the current economic and political progress between Taiwan and China, and instead has opted for only a US-centric view of the situation.
From the abdication of the Chinese Emperor and the fall of the Imperial system in China in 1911 until the found of the People’s Republic in 1949, China was ruled by a coalition of warlords and other militia groups, vying for power over the state, eventually somewhat united under Generalissimo Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-Shek). The Republic of China was a military dictatorship ruled by Jiang and his Guomindang party (KMT). It was one party rule. Jiang’s government arrested and tortured those that were suspected of opposing it, even going as far as to using the army to massacre Communist in major Chinese cities after making a unity pact with them.
Even after moving to Taiwan, Jiang continued the system of one party rule. Taiwan was under martial law until the late 1980s, and the first democratic elections for leader of ROC were not held until 1996.
For Josh Lyman to say that ‘Good’ lost is not only not constructive in a policy sense, but makes me wish for an explanation of what his definition of ‘good’ is.
While morality and ethical behavior should not be completely absent for foreign policy, it can not be expected that all countries, including ours, are going to be good all the time or that bad countries can just be ignored.
While China is a country under the rule of a single party that calls itself ‘The Communist Part of China’, it is not in fact communist in the traditional sense, it is a one party authoritarian state. They practice what they call, ‘Socialism with Chinese Charateristics’, whatever that means.
China has shown in the last couple years that it intends to expand its navy and to actively pursue its territorial claims in the South China Sea. The amount of US debt that China holds is also worrying. While this ties our two countries together so that one cannot fail without the other being affected, the amount of debt should be lessened. China will become a rival of the US in the Asia-Pacific region, but that does not mean it is an enemy.
The US has kept its promises to Taiwan (a country that the US does not even recognize). They are provided with weapons to defend themselves as well the promise that America will protect it should the PLA invade.
However, to ignore a country as large (both geographically and demographically) as China is to ignore reality. Engagement with China and allowing the PRC and RoC to work out their issues with each other is the best course. While China can improve, there are many benefits the US can gain from China. Engagement with China is the best way to encourage China to improve.

Mr. Biden goes to Ankara

2011-12-04T21:58:00.003-05:00

After his trip marking the beginning of Iraq and the United States’ postwar relationship, Vice President Joe Biden visited Turkey this weekend to discuss a list of diplomatic and security issues. Violence in neighboring Syria and sanctions on Iran were the top issues on the agenda, though there were also friendly, relationship-building discussions about political freedom and economic power.

Speaking at an international forum for entrepreneurs, Biden told the audience that a free political climate that protects religion, the press, and innovation is the "truest shield" against the type of internal chaos that has swept the Middle East over the past year. He praised Turkey for its recent economic growth, and Turkish deputy prime minister Ali Babacan touted his country as an example of Islam and democracy's peaceful coexistence. A different account of that same meeting, however, paints a different and more awkward account of the interaction: Mr. Babacan over-confidently declared that Turkey's strong government could solve Europe's leadership and financial crises, Vice President Biden edited his speech on the spot to re-assert America's own economic prowess. The incident ended on a friendly note.

The US and Turkey also successfully produced a unified front against President Bashar Al-Assad’s crackdown on his citizens in Syria, both calling for the President to step down and agreeing to impose sanctions on his country as long as the violence continues. Turkish foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu went so far as to propose instituting a safety zone across the Syrian border, though that issue was not officially discussed with Vice President Biden during his visit.

The issue that caused some friction during Biden’s visit was the proposal of tightening sanctions on Iran, as a result of that country’s continued work on its alleged nuclear program. Turkey continues to hold out for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, but the Vice President emphasized that sanctions would, at the minimum, prompt significant and much-needed discussion within Iran. He reiterated that Iran's increased isolation is due to that country's own dubious actions, including the foiled plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington and this week's attack on the British embassy in Tehran.

In all, interactions between Biden and the Turkish leadership were friendly and productive. The same cannot be said for Biden's reception by factions of the Turkish public. In this video from Reuters, Islamist groups protest the Vice President's visit to Turkey and, by extension, US interference in their regional issues. "The US is rising through imperialism and exploitation," one protestor says. "We are telling the US that our hatred is due to its policies. We're calling on the US to return to its continent." That such protests were permitted to be held during the Vice President's visit is perhaps a promising sign for the type of political freedom advocate in his speech. Considering the imminent drawback of troops in Iraq, unity facing the Syria issue, and constructive dialogue on Iranian sanctions, the relationship between Turkey and the US is posed to continue to develop. Turkish and American citizens don't have to agree with everything that happens in Ankara between Washington, as long as our countries' constructive dialogue can continue.

Just not ready for it…

2011-12-04T10:27:00.001-05:00

On Friday, the U.S. transferred control of Camp Victory to Iraqi security forces. This base was once the headquarters of its operations, and now is a symbol of the country’s imminent withdrawal from Iraq.

In the article linked above, U.S. Vice President Biden notes that “Iraqi security forces have been well-trained, prepared, and you are fully capable of meeting the challenges.” However, recent violent attacks in the country raise concern that violence will increase after American troops depart. One such attack targeted either the Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki or the Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Najafi.

One actor leaders are concerned will attempt to take advantage of U.S. departure from Iraq is neighboring Iran. It is believed that Iran is funding and providing arms to Shiite groups in the country. The Islamic Republic would love to have a friendly regime next door. However, if that does not occur, at least by sowing instability in its neighbor, Iran does not have to worry about a repeat of the Iran-Iraq war any time soon.

After nine years, 4,400 U.S. soldiers killed, and over $1 trillion, it would be a shame to see Iraq fall victim to increased violence after the U.S. departed. Iraqi officials must feel the same way. Deals to ensure Iraqi security are currently being discussed. The New York Times Topic page on Iraq notes the potential for some U.S. troops to return in 2012 or under the guise of NATO. However, those people who denounce U.S. presence in Iraq and who see the current U.S. withdrawal as a welcomed end would not be happy with this option. Another possibility is for training of Iraqi security forces to occur, perhaps in a neighboring country or even in the U.S.

Whatever the case, the Iraqi public deserves a better, more secure future. I hope that leaders in the U.S., Iraq, and the rest of the world see that this occurs.

How Much is Enough?

2011-12-04T01:15:00.005-05:00

A recent series of events in the East Asian/South Pacific area have prompted many bloggers, academics, and newspapers to focus their attention on the U.S.-China relationship and what these events mean for U.S. national security. An earlier speech by President Obama promised to "pivot" focus to East Asia, along with a pledge of 2500 Marines based in Australia, a "mere 2500 miles" from Chinese territory. After the Canberra speech by Obama, the foreign policy world was buzzing concerning this "aggressive" move toward China. The United States keeps tens of thousands of troops stationed in Japan and South Korea, right on China's doorstep. It is my opinion that this particular issue has been read into too much. And I agree with a comment Dr. Farley made stating the importance of this for Australia, rather than as an overt signal to China. I doubt the Chinese are getting worked up over the U.S. placing troops almost as far away as Hawaii.

A second event that has garnered attention recently is the renewed diplomatic ties between Myanmar and the U.S. Secretary of State Clinton visited there earlier in the week, the first time in 56 years a U.S. official of such rank has been to the country formerly known as Burma. Just before the Clinton visit, the head of the Myanmar military, Gen. Min Aung Hlaing, met with the Vice-President of China and the head of the Chinese PLA. These visits are a somewhat regular occurrence, seeing as how China is Myanmar's top trading partner. However, as an entire article in the NY Times shows, there are scholars and certainly journalists attaching special significance to both the visit by Secretary Clinton and the visit to China from the head of the Myanmar military. While the visit to Myanmar is important, perhaps it is important strictly for what it is? Maybe seeing it as a play towards Chinese dominance in SE Asia is reading too far into it. The U.S. already has strong allies in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. Maybe the U.S. simply wants to initiate a stronger connection with Myanmar because it would like to see democracy take hold there after so much brutal oppression?

My point with this diatribe is that I believe that we, as students of national security and foreign policy, are bombarded with blogs, news articles, think tanks, and ticker alerts every day, and it would behoove us to be able to sift through it all more effectively by being more critical of opinions and discussion topics that seem to exist simply so someone can have an opinion. In my opinion, and I may be alone, we(academics, bloggers, students) tend to read into things too much. While it is a good idea to view an issue from several angles, I feel that sometimes we get carried away and lose focus. Having said all that, please do not read too deeply into this post, as I tried to leave nothing between the lines.

Threats to U.S. National Security or Windmills?

2011-12-03T23:40:00.001-05:00

As the semester draws to a close and we have discussed many current situations that could be threats to the national security of the United States it bears addressing what could be a U.S. policy of becoming Don Quixote and setting out chasing windmills.

When there truly is a threat to U.S. national security is clearly is the duty of the government to act preferably first in a diplomatic manner and if that approach is unsuccessful then a military approach must be considered. The federal government is given this power by the U.S. Constitution in the preamble as it states that one of the purposes the founding fathers intended when creating the Constitution was “to provide for the common defense”. However the government must act responsibly in its wielding of said power, this is why the founding fathers saw fit to give Congress the power to declare war and after Congress has declared war the President has the power as Commander in Chief, the only manner to alter this procedure is by amendment to the Constitution. The founding fathers intended bringing this country into war and continuing it involvement in a war to be difficult, not simple. Overwhelming circumstances will make it easy for the support required for a declaration of war to be acquired. Why did they make this difficult? Because they knew what would happen if they did not, and what has now happened because the Constitution is not upheld as it should be, rather it is treated as a historical document, not what it is, the supreme law of the land.

After the U.S. entered WWII a buildup occurred in the United States of manufacturers of the goods and weapons required for war. This buildup allowed the U.S. the supply itself and its allies with the materials required to win WWII; however after the victory the buildup did not cease, rather it continued. This high level of capacity to create goods and weapons required for war would become known as the military industrial complex (MIC). The MIC would have its own lobbyist in Washington, D.C. and would continue to fight to supply reasons that would require its existence. Now the MIC not only supplies funding for a Congressional campaign but it also provides employment in the Congressman’s home district, both giving him reasons to resist any defense budget cuts and to brand anyone who dare suggest such cuts as unpatriotic. It is these corporations of the MIC that profit from the act of war, it is in their interest that governments go to and stay at war. These organizations not only supply the goods and weapons required for war, they also supply the funding required for the conflict. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned the country of the MIC, and the warning went mainly unheeded. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

One has to consider the existence of this ability to go to war might increase a country’s willingness to actually go to war. This is why for any war, Congress must be required to fulfill the requirement given to it by the Constitution and declare war or not become involved in a conflict, incidents such as Libya and the combating of the Lord’s Resistance Army are unconstitutional. Our servicemen joined the military to defend the United States against threats to its national security, not against threats to its corporate interests or for the national security of other nations.

One incident where the United States went to war in a conflict that did not present a national security threat to the country was the Vietnam War, which the Gulf of Tonkin incident was responsible for drawing the U.S. into the conflict. However then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara later admitted the Gulf of Tonkin never happened. It was a false flag reason for the U.S. going to war, a war which profited the MIC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HODxnUrFX6k

If this was one incident where the America people were misled into going to war, one must wonder how many other times such an act has occurred? One has to consider if Iraq and its alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were another such event that prompted the U.S. to go to war to profit the MIC. Those WMDs, which were whose “certain presence” was what prompted the U.S. invasion of Iraq, were never found and likely never existed. Now the sabers are once again rattling, this time for an attack on Iran. The question that must be considered is this: Is Iran truly a threat to the U.S. (let other countries worry about their own defense) or is Iran just another windmill to profit the MIC?

Monroe Doctrine Redux

2011-12-03T22:37:00.013-05:00

Because I was traveling for Thanksgiving I missed the CNN/AEI foreign policy debate. I didn't want to spend the a chunk of my vacation time watching the rerun so I had to rely on foreign policy bloggers, like Dan Drezner. Apparently, the questioning was less than desirable. Nevertheless, judging from this recap Latin America — or at least Mexico — received several mentions. Amid the criticisms of Chavez and "militant socialists" rising to power, and concerns about Middle East terrorists operating in the Western Hemisphere, it was Rick Perry's mention of a 21st Century Monroe Doctrine that caught my attention. The Monroe Doctrine states:

The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers....
We owe it, therefore, to candor and to the amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety.

In the early 20th century, Teddy Roosevelt added the "Roosevelt Corollary," which asserts the right of the United States to intervene in the internal affairs of Latin American countries that are engaged in "flagrant and chronic wrongdoing." The Monroe Doctrine served US interests during the 19th century and during the Cold War, but does the US need to re-assert the Monroe Doctrine in 2011? If the US does need a 21st century Monroe Doctrine, should it include the Roosevelt Corollary?

First, I will address some of Governor Perry's concerns. He mentions that outside countries are starting to exert greater influence in Latin America. His primary piece of evidence is that Iran has a large embassy in Venezuela. Frankly, a country placing an embassy in the Western Hemisphere is not a national security threat. Governor Perry — as well as Mr. Romney and Mr. Santorum — also expressed concern about Hezbollah and Hamas operating in Latin America. Politifact graded this claim as "mostly false." Lastly, Gov. Perry and his opponents mentioned Mexican drug organizations and the need to secure the US-Mexico border.

In essence, the majority of the GOP candidates agree that our primary risks in the Western Hemisphere are Iran, terrorists, and drug traffickers. Although Gov. Perry does not say so explicitly, in order to address these threats a 21st century Monroe Doctrine would likely have to include a modified Roosevelt Corollary which would allow the US to intervene in countries deemed a threat.

I disagree that the US needs to re-establish the Monroe Doctrine. First, Iran does not have a threatening military presence in the Western Hemisphere. As mentioned, the mere existence of Iranian embassies is not a threat to US national security. Apart from Iran, no other foreign country is pursuing military interests in the region. Russia did participate in military training exercises with Venezuela in 2008, but it does not maintain any military bases in the hemisphere. China is increasing its commercial ties with Latin America, but this could actually benefit the US by raising living standards and encouraging economic growth, thus making the region a more attractive market for US goods while reducing the incentive to emigrate to the United States.

Second, the over-stated threats of terrorist organizations operating in Latin America and transnational criminal organizations which operate throughout Latin America fall outside the original Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary. In order for the US to directly address these issues, it would have to modify the Roosevelt Corollary to allow the US to intervene in countries where NGOs are involved in "flagrant wrongdoing."

If the US were to follow Gov. Perry's advice and create a 21st century Monroe Doctrine, it would greatly harm our relationships in the Western Hemisphere. Latin America has grown tremendously over the last 200 years. Brazil, Mexico, and Chile are all experiencing strong economic growth: Brazil and Mexico are both included in a new group of emerging markets called the TIMBIs. Reasserting the Monroe Doctrine with a modified Roosevelt Corollary would be deemed a threat to sovereignty in the region and would likely bolster the appeal of Chavez's brand of anti-Americanism. Latin America has grown up, and US policies towards the region should recognize this reality. As Bloggings By Boz argues, this is one aspect of foreign policy where nearly all of the GOP candidates clearly disagree with President Obama; unfortunately for them, however, the President's policy of "equal partnership" is the right way to approach hemispheric affairs. Yet, just because Pres. Obama's rhetoric towards the region strikes the right tone it does not mean that our operational policies in Latin America align with our ideals. The real debate should not be the nature of our relationship with our neighbors; rather, we should be discussing how to make our desire for "equal partnership" and friendship a reality.

Elections in Egypt

2011-12-03T22:09:00.001-05:00

The Muslim Brotherhood has long been a debated part of Egyptian society. Formed in Egypt in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood is an Islamist organization that has involved itself socially, politically, and religiously in Egypt. Since its founding, the Muslim Brotherhood has strove for the adoption of Islamic law in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood was forbidden as early as 1948 under the rule of Prime Minister Nokrashi. They were subject to crackdowns by the government and regarded as a terrorist organization multiple times throughout their history. Chapters of the Muslim Brotherhood have also begun in many different countries. There are also off-shots of the Brotherhood which are regarded as terrorist groups today including HAMAS, al-Jihad, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). However, after the ousting of Mubarak in 2011 the Muslim Brotherhood became legal and formed the Freedom and Justice political party to run for elections.

The rhetoric of the Muslim Brotherhood has been much less fundamentalist than in the past. Instead of calling for a strict adherence to Islamic law, they have encouraged utilizing the overall principles. However, in reality, the Muslim Brotherhood has been quite evasive in discussions of the degree to which Islamic law should be a part of the new Egyptian political system. There has been skepticism to how much the underlying goals of the Muslim Brotherhood have moderated. Some who are apprehensive about the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood to political leadership in Egypt question the sincerity of the Brotherhood’s claims.

Criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood has also come from other Islamist parties. The Salafis is a group of political parties running against the Muslim Brotherhood. Known for their strong, strict Islamist ideology, the Salafis have come out against the Muslim Brotherhood. They have stated that using the main principles of Islamic law is not acceptable. They believe that Egypt should be run according to their strict interpretation of Islamic law. Although many Egyptian citizens view their ideology as extreme, in the first round of elections they have been able to get approximately 25% of the vote. This is alleged to be due to the fact that not only do the Salafis have some people who support their ideas, but also the Salafis candidates are seen as being authentic and having integrity.

The first round of elections leads to an important question for the future of the Egypt. Although the Muslim Brotherhood has had a past of strict Islamic rhetoric, in political campaigns they have depicted a more moderate position. While the devotion of the Muslim Brotherhood to their new position, the rising popularity of the Salafis poses an even greater threat. The election of strictly Islamist political leadership could lead to problems geopolitically. This is likely to cause concern for relations with Israel, the United States, and Europe.

Clear and Present Danger - Part 2

2011-12-03T20:15:00.007-05:00

After reading a timely book review from Small Wars Journal, U.S. Army Special Forces warrant officer, Dennis Castellanos sites that Sylvia Longmire's recently published book provides an essential overview of Mexico’s Drug War and its current impact on the United States’ national security. “Cartel: The coming Invasion of Mexico’s Drug Wars,” details a thorough analysis of the drug violence along our border, within Mexico and explains the consequences of this brewing conflict. She discusses among other things America’s insatiable appetite for drugs, President Calderon’s current strategy to counter cartels, and the transformation of drug trafficking organizations. Drawing from her experience as a senior intelligence analyst of drug trafficking and border violence, Longmire exposes gaps in existing policies of both the United States and Mexico and the spill-over effect of criminal activities that are historically associated with border towns, and are now present in cities like Atlanta; one of many which is evolving into distribution hubs of illegal narcotics.

Small Wars Journal contributor Castellanos makes a great point that "her book makes a great addition to the limited selection, yet necessary contemporary literature on the Mexican drug war" and with the continuous reports of violence, murder and drug busts in Mexico and along the US – Mexico border, you can’t help but wonder why this “Clear and Present Danger” isn’t taken more seriously by the U.S. media, its citizens and our government. It is almost as if the Tom Clancy movie is being played out every day to circumvent the key players –U.S. demand and the drug cartels-, but serious policies needed to counter U.S. demand and undermine the drug cartels’ power are overshadowed in the media by investigations of “covert operations” and Homeland Security budgets and resources allocated to the border and other areas of interest.

Weekly there are horrific reports and embarrassing security discoveries by U.S. border patrols of the clever drug trafficking strategies, operations and techniques carried out by the drug cartels. For example, on November 17 authorities seized more than 17 tons of marijuana after discovery of a major cross-border drug tunnel between Mexico and California near the town of Tijuana. This isn’t some town in the middle of a scarce desert – it’s a heavily populated and patrolled area on the border near San Diego. How can this go unnoticed unless the U.S. side has been infiltrated? And just this past week Reuters reported that Mexican authorities found more than 20 bodies in cars left at a major traffic intersection in the western city of Guadalajara on Thursday –adding to some of the worst attacks since President Felipe Calderon took office in December 2006 and declared war on powerful drug cartels. More than 45,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence since 2006 and it is infiltrating our country.

Supposedly, current and former officials are reporting that as the United States has opened new law enforcement and intelligence outposts across Mexico in recent years, Washington’s networks of informants have grown there as well. They have helped Mexican authorities capture or kill about two dozen high-ranking and midlevel drug traffickers, and sometimes have given American counter-narcotics agents access to the top leaders of the cartels they are trying to dismantle. But as in the Tom Clancy movie, if the U.S. realized that the drug war isn’t just a Homeland Security issue but a “Clear and Present Danger” to National Security issue then maybe more would be done and an all-inclusive series of policies would be implemented.

And although Longmire holds that the drug war will never be won and that it can only be managed and contained, I cannot help but wonder why this war is not taken more seriously by our citizens and media compared to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? There isn’t an ocean separating us from this war, Congress discusses policies weekly to address concerns, and it IS claiming the lives of U.S. citizens daily, both officially through direct border confrontation and unofficially by U.S. “consumers” of illegal drugs.

I hope Longmire’s book will be added to the National Security curriculum in the future. And maybe if social media outlets would prioritize and “share” this conflict with each other – then more citizens would be made aware of its effect on their local society and discuss in depth what level of violence is acceptable and ask, “Does this conflict have to claim the lives of someone you know before you take it seriously?”

This Week's OTHER Elections: the DRC Presidential Race

2011-12-03T18:14:00.001-05:00

Photo by Jerome Delay/Associated Press

As Egyptian voters headed to the polls in record numbers on November 28, voters in the DRC queued up at the ballot box for a historic election of their own. Monday’s national elections were only the second such democratic contest in Congolese history and the first to be run primarily by the state government rather than the UN, which provided significant logistical support during the DRC’s inaugural elections in 2006. The key players in the Presidential race: incumbent Joseph Kabila and 78-year-old Etienne Tshisekedi, the state’s most popular opposition figure.

In light of officials’ electoral inexperience and the DRC’s bloody political history, reports of rampant chaos and corruption during this week’s elections were not particularly surprising. Many polling stations were woefully disorganized or unprepared for voter check-in, leaving people unable to locate their names on their towns’ voting lists. Stations also struggled with ballot processing and security issues, with loose ballots left unattended in offices and entire collections of ballots disappearing from facilities altogether. Election Commission president Daniel Ngoy Mulunda’s friendship with Kabila has led to allegations of fraud and cronyism among opposition parties’ supporters. The process has also been stained by numerous reports of violent conflict, with state military forces coercing voters into supporting Kabila and opposition supporters burning down several voting stations in West Kasai Province.

Kabila’s increasingly-repressive policies and intense unpopularity among many Congolese voters, coupled with the numerous public allegations of electoral fraud, could lead to violent public uprisings if the election is decided in his favor. Three of Kabila’s ten opponents have already called for an electoral annulment after initial results showed him leading with 52% of the vote. Meanwhile, numerous Tshisekedi supporters have shared their intentions to “flood the streets” in protest if Kabila emerges victorious. Members of the growing anti-Kabila movement have already proven their willingness to resort to violence, both through their destruction of polling stations and accounts of election-day brutality against electoral officials thought to be rigging the election in Kabila’s favor. With even massive non-violent protests vulnerable to violence from the pro-Kabila Republican Guard, destructive public action by Kabila regime opponents would likely trigger an escalated military response that could result in significant civilian deaths.

A victory for Tshisekedi, however, would likely lead to an even bloodier reaction from the Kabila regime. According to reports from Human Rights Watch, at least 14 people were killed in a government crackdown against a crowd of ten thousand or more Tshisekedi supporters, who had gathered to welcome him at Kinshasa Airport after his final campaign tour. HRW has also reported that more than 18 Congolese have been killed and over 100 injured during clashes between Kabilia’s military supporters and Tshisekedi loyalists over the past week. Armed Republican Guard forces have patrolled the streets of Kinshasa in military vehicles, in an overt and threatening show of support for their current President. News of a Kabila defeat could lead the state’s military forces to retaliate against civilian celebrators and political supporters of the new regime, with or without direct orders from Kabila himself. In an even more dire scenario, Kabila could declare the results null and void, use the military to forcibly retain control of his leadership post, and even order the execution of opposition leaders like Tshisekedi.

Where does the international community stand on this issue? The UN Security Council has already condemned the recent electoral violence, and has called on both the candidates and their supporters to avoid future bloodshed. However, a Tshisekedi-led DRC may not be the preferred choice for some members of the international community, particularly Western states. Concerned about the nature of Kabila’s response to an electoral loss and the DRC’s possible plunge into even greater political instability, states will likely feel that even the current levels of economic and political corruption are preferable to renewed civil war or anarchy, especially given current levels of concern about Middle East regimes’ stability. Tshisekedi’s history of public anti-Western sentiment, as well as “loose cannon” actions like unilaterally declaring himself president in November, haven’t exactly endeared the candidate himself to the Western world, either.

As previously noted, preliminary election results indicate that Kabila is winning with 52% of the vote, while Tshisekedi is currently in second place with 34%. Regardless of the victor, however, the DRC could well be poised to write a new chapter in its decades-long book of civil conflicts.

Painted into a Corner of Crazy

2011-12-03T12:54:00.004-05:00

In the past couple of weeks, Iran and the West have widened the gulf that separates them. After Britain moved to increase sanctions against the Iranian regime over their suspect nuclear program, the British Embassy in Tehran was sacked. An angry mob stormed the embassy compound, burnt British flags, smashed windows, and destroyed documents. In response, the British government expelled the Iranian Ambassador to the U.K. and all of its staff. Also, Britain
recalled all of their embassy staff in Tehran. As a show of disdain for the complicity of the Iranian regime for this act other Western nations have recalled their ambassadors.

Tehran’s reaction to this incident is quite curious. They are pleading that other nations not get involved in the tiff between Iran and Britain and to continue business as usual. The curious part of their argument is the absence of any recognition that allowing a mob to sack an embassy concerns every member of the diplomatic community. If Iran really wanted the West to let their hackles down, they need to address the culture of extreme reactions to international events and take less extreme tones in their rhetoric.

Deep concern on the part of Western diplomatic missions over the reaction to the sacking of the British embassy is fueled by chants of “Death to England”, aggressive acts toward British symbols, and the burning of an effigy of President Obama. Every one of these acts, which seem to be common place in the region whenever there is a disagreement with a foreign actor, constrains the ability of diplomats to have over-lapping win-sets. The Iranian negotiators are domestically constrained to act in an extreme manner in order to appease domestic expectations. And these constraints have been placed on themselves through setting the example of extreme rhetoric and positions since the revolution of 1979. It is hard to negotiate with someone who has painted themselves into a corner of crazy.

In order to widen the win-sets and to allow for progress to be made, the Iranian governments needs to tone down its rhetoric and show its population that cooperation with Western governments or adhering to international norms does not make one a traitor to Iran or Islam. Conversely, Western diplomats need to swallow their pride and create an avenue for the Iranian government to appear to have won concessions and therefore save face with the domestic population. This is a long process of slow change, but one that is necessary in order to diffuse tensions leading toward to losing situation for all parties involved.

Strike on Iran by toppling Bashar-Al-Assad

2011-12-02T19:36:00.015-05:00

Problem: As U.S. troops are in the process of withdrawing from Iraq by the end of 2011, there is a serious concern in Washington regarding the growing influence of Iran in Baghdad. Some analysts have even attributed the failure of talks between Baghdad and Washington regarding U.S. military presence in the country after 2011 to Iran. Moreover, Iran is trying to take advantage of the Arab Spring, which has provided Tehran with an opportunity to reset its relations with the newly established regimes in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. There is a growing concern among western strategists of the high possibility of Islamist governance coming to power in these countries; indeed, Tunisia has already brought to power such a ruling elite. Hence, with such regimes coming to power and with Tehran emphasizing that this is a continuation of their Islamic revolutions, these newly established regimes may be more receptive of Tehran than their predecessors. Thus, the balance of power in the Middle East may change, leading to the rise of a powerful Iran that could undermine U.S. national interests in the region.

The minority Alawite sect has dominated the Syrian Government since the 1970s. The Alawites are a heterodox Muslim sect, an offshoot of the Shia branch of Islam, and make up about 7 percent of the population, which is primarily Sunni. For years now, the Iranian Islamist regime gave the Syrian secular regime protection from the Shiite fundamentalists in Lebanon. The Iranians also supported Syria in its external adventures in Lebanon, and more importantly, in its suppression of Syria’s Sunni majority. Iran and Syria therefore entered into a long-term if not altogether stable alliance that has lasted to this day. With the U.S. and other Western countries opposing Bashar al-Assad in the current Syrian unrest, Iran is the only country that still wants Bashar al-Assad to remain in power, because its influence on al-Assad will increase if he maintains power with Tehran’s support. A surviving Syrian government, beholden to Iran, will lose its equal stature with Iran and will be more receptive of Iranian authority and influence. If this should happen, Iran will have an important victory against Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Arab League and the U.S. This will be a dangerous outcomes, which will be a serious blow to U.S. and its allies interests in the region.

Solution: Topple Bashar al-Assad: Those frightened with such an outcome described above, in particular the United States, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, must counter any growth of Iran’s influence in the region. However, this countering will not happen in Iraq where Iran already has an upper hand; not with sanctions, to which Iran has adapted; not with terrorist allegations, which no one would believe; not with an IAEA report, which would discredit IAEA rather than Iran; and not with threatening to attack Iranian nuclear sites, which no one dares to risk. Instead, I suggest employing every possible means that the U.S. and its allies can employ in the region to bring down the Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad.

At this moment the U.S. has only three choices related to tackling Iranian influence. First, accept the evolution of Iranian influence and try to live with it. Second, attempt to make a deal with Iran, which is dependent on if Iran wants to deal or not as well as requiring compromise by the U.S. Third, go to war with Iran either directly or through Israel, which depends on having enough power to wage a war and to absorb Iran’s retaliatory strikes in the region. All of these options are costly and unacceptable to Washington. Hence what I propose is to strike Iran obliquely, by toppling Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Such an action would be a critical move to contain Iranian influence in the region; it would change the game and place momentum in the regional politics in favor of the U.S. and its allies against Iran.

Means: Support the Free Syrian Army: With U.S. and its allies hesitent of military intervention in Syria, the Free Syrian Army, consisting of Sunni defectors from the Syrian Army, is already on the ground, battling to protect the civilians against the oppression of the Syrian regime and attacking several strategic government compounds. They have been widely supported among Sunni majority of Syria, with opposition leaders and sunni businessmen providing arms and munitions to their increasingly growing Free Syrian Army. There is a unique opportunity for the U.S. and its allies to equip the Free Syrian Army with weapons and munitions that will ensure they have the ability to defeat Bashar al-Assad’s regime. This armed assistance could be channeled covertly through Turkey and Jordan, which will definitely empower the Free Syrian Army and would enable them to topple the minority supported regime of Assad. While mounting a secret campaign to topple the regime would be challenging for the U.S. and its allies, it seems that it is the best option they have in order to bring down Bashar al-Assad’s regime, and strike at Iran’s growing influence in the region.

Result: Hence, supporting Free Syrian Army beside other means such as sanctions by U.S., Turkey, EU and Arab League employed against Bashar-al-Assad’s regime must be coordinated in a fashion that could lead to toppling of Assad’s regime which would surely be a major blow to Iranian influence not only in Syria but even in Labenon. With Syrian opposition leaders already discussing about an ultimate change in Iranian-Syrian and Labenon-Syrian relationship once in power, it means toppling of Assad's Regime could result in restoring balancing power in Middle East in favor of U.S. and its regional allies against growing Iranian influence in the region.

Pick a Republican: Newt Gingrich

2011-12-02T14:52:00.003-05:00

It’s almost time for the traditional four-year American regime change, and contenders are lining up for months of mud-slinging, half-truth telling, promises-they-can’t-keep making, and plastic smiling in front of thousands of cameras for the chance to sit for a while in an oddly shaped office. That’s right; it’s almost time for the Primaries, the first of which will happen on January 3^rd in Iowa. With only about a month left to obsess about things that will happen next year, and a month, moreover, where we’ll be distracted by bright lights on conifers or spinning candle tops, (or whatever it is you do with your December,) now might be a good time to take a look at some of the Republican contenders for the title of Most Powerful Non-Gender-Specific-Noun In the World.

The Candidate: Newt Gingrich

Brief Bio and Experience: Born on July 17, 1943, Gingrich has a penchant for history, having received a Ph.D. in the subject earned at Tulane. He was a history professor at West Georgia College before finally being elected to congress in 1978 after two failed attempts. He served as speaker of the house from 1995-99, and was a Representative for the state of Georgia for 20 years. He is a Catholic, and has been married three times.

Major Platform Points: Young Americans should have the option of putting a portion of social security payments into private accounts of their choosing. Medicare recipients could choose to have private insurance rather than public. He wants to eliminate the capital gains tax. Ha favors a 15% flat tax rate for all Americans. He advocates teaching American Exceptionalism in schools. He welcomes immigration, and wants to create a way to sponsor citizenship for illegal immigrants with deep ties in America, but deport those without. He is in favor of replacing the EPA and modernizing the FDA.

Abortion: Pro-life.

Death Penalty: Yes.

Gay Marriage: Takes a “hate the sin, not the sinner approach.” In favor of some legal rights for homosexual couples, but nothing recognizable as marriage, possibly including civil unions.

Likelihood of Candidacy: Well, he's cheated on previous wives twice, each time divorcing his then current wife and remarrying his mistress. It’s kind of hard to take a moral stance against anything with at least two known affairs to your name, and Republicans tend to be just a bit uptight about that. On the plus side, his mistakes may have given him some useful perspective on human nature. On the downside, I’m pretty sure there’s a universal law somewhere that says if a person sounds reasonable, they just won’t be able to make themselves heard over the lunatic ramblings of the people who wouldn’t recognize reasonableness if it said something rude at their Tea Party. Newt Gingrich, in spite of his past mistakes, comes off as a level-headed guy. A lot may depend on his getting the attention of a media that’s more focused on keeping a running tally of Herman Cain’s own personal Monica Lewinskis. But then again, with his own less-than-perfect fidelity record, maybe he can just fight fire with fire.

And speaking of lunatics and misogyny, tune in next time. We’re going to jump on the Cain wagon while we can, before the oxen die crossing the stream.

You Can Dig, But You Can't Hide

2011-12-02T00:06:00.003-05:00

For the past three years a small group of students at Georgetown University, guided by their former Pentagon employed professor, have obsessively studied the underground Chinese tunnels used to hide the expanding Chinese missile and nuclear arsenal. The tunnels, known as the “Underground Great Wall” were created by the secretive branch of the Chinese Military that controls the deployment and protection of Chinese ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons- the Second Artillery Corps. They extend over 3000 square miles of land, and have bases deep enough to withstand multiple nuclear attacks. The tunnels, an open secret among Chinese nuclear arms experts, had no official public reports issued on them. The students took to analyzing publicly available Chinese sources that became more available as the government began an effort to become more transparent- documents, satellite imagery, restricted Chinese military documents, and online data.
The Students, as a result of their tedious efforts, have created the largest amount of public knowledge about the tunnels in existence. The report has not yet been released, but has already sparked a Congressional hearing. This is mainly due to the part of the students’ findings that has inspired the most controversy and anxiety: the conclusion that China’s nuclear arsenal could be substantially larger than arms control experts have estimated. This has not been regarded as a shock by any means, but having such substantive evidence could have global repercussions. Nonproliferation experts are especially concerned because this study could encourage maintaining, and even building, nuclear weapon stock piles in the midst of a global nuclear crackdown.
There has obviously been critique of these findings. The avenues through which the students found their information has been criticized, with experts saying that blogs, military journals, and Google Earth are not credible sources that should be cited in a report that could have an extensive impact on policy making world wide. Critics also claim that the students even used a fictionalized TV drama in their research, although this has yet to be verified.
So I guess foreign policy should not be created around the findings of a few grad students. Shocking. However, it should not be brushed aside as insignificant. The students spent an ungodly amount of time pouring over thousands of documents, so their findings are understatedly well researched and should at least reviewed and considered by policy makers, defense analysts, etc.
Next step: have Patterson one up Georgetown. Who’s with me?

Islamists Looking Strong in Egyptian Elections

2011-12-01T21:56:00.007-05:00

In the first free elections in Egypt since the post-revolutionary elections of 1952, record numbers of Egyptians came out to cast their vote in hopes of change and progress after the overthrow of ex-dictator Hosni Mubarak. The recent election was one of three to be held by January 2012, in order to fill seats in the lower house of Parliament. The upper house Parliament elections will follow shortly after this round of three is over. Although no official results have been released at this time, the Muslim Brotherhood-backed Freedom and Justice Party are predicted to win up to 40% and a plurality of the seats in Parliament. The Al-Nour party, an ultraconservative Islamist party, is predicted to take up to 20% of the seats when all is said and done. This will mean that the majority of Egypt's newly formed Parliament will be led by Islamic parties that are pushing for Shariah Law and more conservative, non-secular leadership.
It is difficult to predict how this majority will affect Egypt. The majority of protesters in Tahrir Square throughout this year have supported ideals such as civil liberties, secularism, and democracy, while those in power in the future will probably stand for just the opposite. The crowds in Tahrir do not necessarily represent the feelings and aspirations of all Egyptians, but they play an important role in the formation of the new government. The protesters now realize the power they wield in Egypt. Their protests in Tahrir draw international attention, they push foreign heads of state to take positions on difficult issues, and they force the heads of the Egyptian government to take immediate action on important issues. If the newly elected government of Egypt is led by these conservative parties, they must realize the power the protesters of Cairo possess.
There has been some speculation that the Freedom and Justice Party and the Al-Nour may join forces in order to maintain a solid majority, and not just a plurality, in Parliament and to counter more liberal parties like that of the Egyptian Bloc. The idea of the FJP and the Al-Nour parties joining frightens many people of Egypt and leaders abroad. Ultraconservatives in the Al-Nour party have publicy announced plans to ban alcohol, western clothing, and western media (movies, music). The Muslim Brotherhood have announced that they have no plans to implement bans on alcohol or western attire and if the parties are kept separate, this is probably the more realistic outcome. The problem if the parties join would be possible ultraconservative leadership, then implementation of such laws. If these laws (or laws like these) pass then Egypt will be hard pressed to reach tourism levels equal to that of Mubarak. Laws like these will repel western tourists from traveling to Egypt, and in turn, hurt the already struggling economy.
It seems for now, there are no solid plans for the two parties' merger. For the sake of another year of angry Cairenes occupying Tahrir Square, let's hope it stays that way.

New Zealand Takes the Prize...

2011-12-01T21:31:00.004-05:00

On Wednesday Transparency International, a nonprofit organization that seeks to highlight global corruption and fight against it, released their rankings of the cleanest and most corrupt governments in the world. New Zealand took the top sport as the government that was most free of corruption, followed by Finland, Denmark, Sweden, Singapore, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland, and Canada. These countries were rated the best at enforcing anti-corruption laws, providing free access to government information, and a number of other criteria related to corruption. Receiving the not so pleasant distinction of ranking at the bottom of the list were Somalia and North Korea, with Myanmar, Afghanistan, Sudan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan coming in just ahead of them.

What is immediately striking about the list is the security situations of each of the countries at the top and at the bottom. All of the countries rated as being the least corrupt are in relatively secure and peaceful international positions. Whether it is the European countries, those in the Pacific basin, or Canada, each is located in an area that is relatively stabile and without imminent and observable threats to their survival. These are areas that are not watching revolutions in their neighbors’ areas or are faced with significant domestic upheaval.

The opposite is true though of the countries at the bottom of the list. They can be characterized as being far more insecure, with North Korea and Myanmar acting as suspicious, authoritarian regimes, Somalia, Afghanistan, and Sudan plagued with insurgencies, wars, and fighting within their borders, and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan living in the growing shadow of Russia and concerned with developments in Iran and Afghanistan.

What is interesting is to compare the rankings on the corruption list and the CIA rankings by military expenditures as a percentage of GDP. The ranking by military expenditure of those countries deemed as being the least corrupt is an average of 89.4 (out of 172) with an average of 1.93% of their GDP spent on the military. The average ranking of the countries labeled as being the most corrupt is 64.8, with an expenditure of 2.58% of GDP. (North Korea and Afghanistan were not ranked by the CIA because of a lack of data). If you take out Somalia which has a very weak government and has had difficulty maintaining control of its territory, the average ranking by military spending rises to 45.25 with an expenditure of 3% of GDP.

While there are many factors that need to be considered in addition to those listed here and without getting into a deeper statistical analysis, there does seem to be a connection of sorts between corruption and a country’s security situation, as well as a connection between corruption and military expenditures. Is there an inherent relationship between security, military spending, and dishonesty? Are government contracts and dishonest officials more prevalent in insecure environments? Is there just a culture of corruption in less secure nations? I am not sure, but it is an interesting thought to consider.

In case you were wondering, the United States ranks as the 24^th cleanest country and as the 24^th in military spending as a percentage of GDP.

Embassy Siege 2: Electric Boogaloo

2011-12-01T18:10:00.002-05:00

Unless you've been living under a rock for the past few days, you've probably heard that a mob of Iranians (mostly from the Basij Militia), has attacked the British embassy in Iran. Unlike with the attack on the American Embassy in 1979, no hostages were taken.

Instead, they just trashed up the place. In response to this, the British government has recalled its diplomatic personnel from Iran and asked for the closing of the Iranian embassy in London. News sources say that this attack was carried out because of Great Britain ordering the cessation of all business dealings by U.K financial institutions against their Iranian counterparts, including the Iranian Central Bank.

One source I read said that this cessation of deals with the Central Bank was "much more effective than U.S. sanctions." On that point they may be correct in that it is a much more straightforward option than setting up a sanctions regime, but regardless, the pressure is mounting on Iran to stop its nuclear ambitions. Take into account the various explosions in Iran with unattributable cause, and Iran is naturally going to get more violent toward the West. However, who would expect that they still don't understand the most basic of diplomatic protocols?

All this is going to do is cause the West to take further actions against Iran, now that they have gotten their attention. What I really want to know is what does Iran have to gain from this apart from some domestic political points? The rest of the Arab world isn't likely to come quickly to Iran's aid, either because they view it as a rival regional power or are too busy with fallout from the Arab Spring. Are they trying to distract attention from Syria? Whatever the reason, the bonehead who authorized this move has not done Iran any favors.

The End of Spring?

2011-12-01T17:28:00.001-05:00

After the first of three rounds of voting held in Egypt this week, candidates associated with the much maligned Muslim Brotherhood won a not-so-surprising 40 percent of the vote. What was surprising, however, was that another 25 percent was carried by candidates more conservative than those belonging to the Brotherhood. While these results are not yet official and only include a third of the country, they pose a significant question to the US: if the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party is the party that we love to hate, what does that make those that are more fundamentalist?

Some of the policies espoused by the more conservative Salafist candidates have a decidedly theocratic tone to US ears, especially the creation of council to advise the parliament on the compatibility of legislation with Islamic law. While it does seem reasonable that propositions such as these will be moderated somewhat through the give-and-take that characterizes a functioning democracy, no one is sure where the lines of compromise will be drawn. The FJP is running primarily on an anti-military rule platform and pledges to work toward this end while seeking to preserve the individual freedoms of the electorate.

It is unknown where this new government will fall on the issues that are important to the US, or even what exactly those issues will be. While its opinion on Israel will without a doubt be critical, there are likely to be a number of other issues that will arise in the next four months that will cause the US to see the new Egypt as either a friend or foe in the region and formulate an appropriate policy.

Durban And You

2011-12-01T12:14:00.004-05:00

The most recent UN Climate Conference began this week in Durban, South Africa. Representatives from across the globe came to Durban hoping to do...something. As is often the case at conferences, especially those dealing with the climate, different groups of countries want different things. Some of these issues have the potential to affect geopolitics in both the short- and long-term.

The first issue of concern, and one of the early sticking points of the conference is the Green Climate Fund. This is a fund consisting of a whopping $100 billion dollars that will be used to support green projects and programs in developing nations. You can probably see the flaw in this plan; $100 billion is a lot of money. The Green Climate Fund has been tentatively in the works for a number of years, but now that developing countries are actually pressing for the Fund, opposition is growing. As you might expect, the United States is balking at this amount of money (we are in a bit of a pickle), as are the Europeans (they had a solvent currency when this plan was first discussed).

More interesting are the other countries that are opposing the fund. These countries include Venezuela, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Canada. What do these countries have in common? Of course, they are all large producers/exporters of oil and other fossil fuels. Canada in fact is one of the more belligerent countries at Durban, claiming that not only will they not agree to a second phase of the Kyoto Protocol (which expires at the end of the year), they may very well pull out from their original commitment. One has to wonder if this is tied to Canada's plans to export increasing amounts of oil from their tar sands, Keystone or no Keystone.

The other major issue at Durban is the conflict over binding emissions cuts from developed vs. developing nations. During the negotiations for Kyoto in 1997, developed countries accounted for two-thirds of carbon emissions in the world. Because of this, Kyoto took a two-tiered approach in which developed countries that signed and ratified the treaty (not us) had binding emission reduction targets placed upon them. However, things have changed now. Currently, developing countries like Brazil, China, and India account fro half of total emissions, and that percentage is expected to rise to around 65% by 2020. Therefore, these countries are realizing that they too should be subject to binding reductions. Just kidding! These countries are saying that they are still developing, and so the current model should apply.

So basically, Durban has three camps: the developed countries led by the US that won't do anything until China et. al. agree to binding emissions, the "developing" countries like China, Brazil and India that don't want binding emission reductions applied to them, and real developing countries that want the money from the Green Climate Fund. Any potential emission reductions agreed to at this meeting would of course have serious implications for American interests vis-a-vis energy prices and potential supply disruptions, but it doesn't look like binding reductions have a chance at Durban. What will be interesting is if the Green Climate Fund doesn't get any money. Would China be willing, as it has already done in parts of Africa, to invest even further in developing nations? That would have the potential to bring more developing countries into the China camp, and unless one believes China would invest in green industries in these countries, it could also further delay meaningful progress on emissions reduction.

Education Insanity – Bold Policy Needed!

2011-11-30T22:02:00.004-05:00

Education may not at first appear to be a topic for national security, but affordable education is an underlying source of American power. The United States’ ability to prepare future generations for security issues in the 21st century is being challenged by poor educational performance and education costs that appear to have no limit; trends that have everyone on every level concerned about whether the U.S. can sustain a healthy economy based on America’s current workforce.

Though the U.S. has the best universities and spends more on education than other countries, Americans take on more debt in pursuit of their education than any of their international counterparts. America’s young and future workforce is questioning whether to sustain large amounts of education debt in return for uncertain earnings potential and uncertain employment opportunities, while experts in the public and private sectors continue to draft policy recommendations that appear to stay on the “whiteboard”.

Current popular policies address job creation and employment opportunities, but fail to fully address the earnings potential of the U.S. workforce. Add this failure to the questions America’s young and future workforce are asking and it is not unthinkable that the incentive to obtain a higher degree of education, such as undergraduate and post graduate degrees may decrease. Thus young American’s are in the initial stages of opting for short-term technical degrees valued to provide immediate employment opportunities without the hardship of taking on large amounts of long-term debt. The absence of affordable education in the baccalaureate studies causes great concern for sustainable long-term growth in U.S. workforce wages; concern for the technical expertise of our domestic workforce; and concern for the overall long-term health of the U.S. domestic economy.

One think tank -the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) -has launched a special project in connection with its 90th anniversary titled “Renewing America” that focuses on six major domestic challenges facing the U.S. global power: debt and deficits; infrastructure; education and human capital; corporate regulation and taxation; innovation; and international trade and investment. Under its selected resources on education and human capital the CFR provides links to experts who’s proposed policies spell out ways of making improvements to an education system beset by falling student performance and a flawed immigration system that threatens U.S. capacity to develop a competitive workforce. But with all its great anniversary efforts – it is doubtful that these policies will gain traction. Instead, it’s as if we are stuck in a U.S. education insane asylum - education experts continue to recommend various changes, but never address the real problem – ergo they are recommending / implementing more or less the same policies year after year – expecting change – isn’t that education insanity?

According to UNESCO the U.S. has the second largest number of higher education institutions in the world and the second highest number of higher education students in the world. Though these figures are impressive, it still doesn’t dispel the growing employment and financial concerns that many young Americans have.

As mentioned above, affordable education is contributing to a concerning trend in the U.S. workforce. Thus, to prevent a domestic economic decline would it not be better for policy makers to address the real hindrance in education –its affordability and availability- through a robust reformation of the current U.S. higher education system up through baccalaureate studies; where tax dollars allocated to the Department of Education would provide free education up through undergraduate studies. Other western countries do this for their youth –some even provide a stipend to everyone older than 18 that are matriculated. Why can’t THE superpower of the world do the same? Understanding that the allocation of state and federal funds for this is daunting, affordable education is a circuitous element of power for America’s hegemonic unipolar status. I wonder if this topic will be addressed satisfactorily during the presidential debates.

I'm just a bill...

2011-11-30T00:41:00.000-05:00

If you haven't seen the video...

Every year, Congress has to pass a bill to fund our nation's military. This bill is called the National Defense Authorization Act, and it is slated for voting in the Senate this week under Senate Bill 1867 (this will open the bill in PDF in a new window). This matters for two reasons. One, it lays out the exact means by which the Department of Defense will acquire and spend its money. In and of itself, this is pretty important. And two, there is usually some tidbit buried in it that causes great uproar on the Hill, if not necessarily anywhere - even though it probably should. This year, the tidbit has to do with detaining suspected terrorists.

When was the last time you read 682 pages of legislative bill? Yeah, me too. However, with the wonders of technology - aka the word search feature in Adobe Reader - you can jump straight to the sections of the bill that are being debated: Section 1031-1032. Section 1031 is titled "Affirmation of Authority of the Armed Forces of the United States to Detain Covered Persons Pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force." In a nutshell, this section gives authority to the President under the AUMF to detain "covered persons" until they are dealt with according to the law of war. A "covered person" is basically anyone who had anything to do with 9/11 attacks and anyone who has anything to do with al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban (subsection b). The options for dealing with a detained "covered person" include detention without trial until the cessation of hostilities (which, this being a war on terror, will never happen), trial in a military court, transfer to a different yet appropriate court, or transfer to custody of a foreign country. So, this subsection would appear to give unqualified power to the President to detain and hold indefinitely, without trial, anyone anywhere who has been or is involved with al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban. Including, perhaps, Americans.

And this is what has the ACLU, other human rights organizations and the blogosphere in general all worked up: Americans could be detained, anywhere, at any time, if they are suspected of being involved with al-Qaeda and/or the Taliban. Even in your OWN BACKYARD!! Yes, the U.S. Military doesn't have anything else to do, so they'll be cruising your neighborhood. Other news sources have picked up on this angle and are fomenting fright of the totalitarian police state - just do a Google News search for "S.1867" and see for yourself.

All the furor in the media and blogosphere is stemming from the changes to these sections that occurred between Senate Bill 1867 and the earlier version from June, Senate Bill 1253 (this will also open in PDF, so you can do the text search). In S.1253, Section 1031 specifically stated that the authority to detain a person does not extend to U.S. citizens on U.S. territory, except to extent permitted by the Constitution. The current bill, S.1867, no longer has that text in Section 1031. What happened to it?

According to Senator Carl Levin, the primary author of S.1867, the current Administration requested the language excluding U.S. citizens in Section 1031 of S.1253 be deleted. However, he did not provide any evidence of the request, nor could I find any Statement on Administration Policy concerning S.1253. An SAP was issued for HR.1540, the House Bill that became S.1867, and while this SAP did address detainee matters, they did not concern the detention of U.S. citizens. Later, the Administration issued an S AP concerning S.1867, saying that the language in Section 1031 may open “a whole new series of legal questions” concerning detention authority. So, it would appear that the White House wants any language concerning detention to be withdrawn from the bill, and has threatened to veto if it is not done. Although Senator Udall tried to do so in his amendment, the Senate did not approve it.

So where does that leave us? With a 682-page bill to appropriate funds for our nation’s military possibly vetoed over wording in a half-page long section. Granted, a critical issue is at point here – the extent of power to detain suspects – but might not the other 681.5 pages be important enough to be signed into law?

Russia launches new missile defense to cover Atlantic

2011-11-29T22:03:00.000-05:00

“Tango is a dance for two and there is no intention from the Russian side to bring the 'reset' to a close”.

For the last several weeks, President Dmitry Medvedev and most of the senior Russian officials have tensely been promising to reveal which measures Moscow will take if Europe deploys a missile defense system. "The possibility of local armed conflicts virtually along the entire perimeter of the border has grown dramatically," General Nikolai Makarov said. “I cannot rule out that, in certain circumstances, local and regional armed conflicts could grow into a large-scale war, possibly even with nuclear weapons” were probably the most alarming statements by the Russian administration.

Finally, on November 29^th, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered to operate the newest radar system that protects from missile attacks and covers all of Europe and the Atlantic. Medvedev personally arrived in the westernmost exclave of Kaliningrad to see the opening of the operation. At the ceremony, the Russian President claimed that the radar launch was a sign to the Western partners that Russia was ready to promptly respond to threats that arise with the start of the European missile defense. "I expect that this step will be regarded by Western partners as the first signal of our country's readiness to appropriately respond to the threats posed by the missile defense system to our strategic nuclear forces," argued Medvedev.

Most of the western experts have been guessing whether Russia was trying to scare the West with some type of new weapon. However, after the press conference held last week, when President Dmitry Medvedev announced Russia’s response to missile defense talks with the US, everyone breathed a sigh of relief. Western anxieties were calmed concerning the supposed “threat” from the Russian president for these following reasons:

First: One of Medvedev’s most used arguments was that Russia had developed the necessary means to disrupt the information and control systems of Western missile defense installations if necessary. This does not refer to nuclear missile attacks on those systems, but to the need for Russia’s military to develop the capacity for a cyber attack against U.S. missile defense systems. However, considering Russia’s extremely modest achievements in the field of information technology, it seems unlikely that they would be able to carry out such an attack. Also, a U.S./NATO counterattack along the same lines could be devastating and would probably deter such Russian intentions.

Second: The Russian administration has threatened and today indeed deployed the most modern attack systems, Iskander missile systems, in the Kaliningrad district. However, if Russia decides not to violate the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (as it announced earlier) the Iskander will not be able to fly further than 500 kilometers. In that case, the missiles could only reach part of Poland but none of Romania (where one of the NATO defenses missile systems is deployed). Moreover, the best single way to destroy missile defense systems is with a preemptive strike. That means Medvedev is threatening the possibility of starting a war against NATO, which is highly unbelievable.

Thus, all of Medvedev’s statements have no relationship to any real military threat or to Russia’s current capabilities. So far the question why NATO, which claims that the new missile defense is built against the threat from rogue states, can not provided such guarantees to Russia, has no an official answer….

With Liberty and Justice For All!

2011-11-28T14:27:00.003-05:00

After reviewing the recent GOP National Security Debate it was alarming how easily the majority of the candidates would continue to give up liberty to attempt to increase their security. One of the most interesting topics was the Patriot Act and the views each candidate held on it.

Just how much liberty are people willing to trade in to be secure, or maybe more accurately, to allow themselves the illusion they are more secure? Maybe we need to ask ourselves how secure do we want to be in our privacy? Regardless of a person’s view it must be remembered by all that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the law, any law (or act) that violates it is null and void, including the Patriot Act.

Several of the candidates supported the idea that criminal acts and domestic warfare acts are separate. They need to be reminded that the Constitution does not say the rights it protects are only for U.S. citizens; rather it was intended to protect the rights of everyone on U.S. soil. Rights are not given to us by the government, they are given to us by our Creator and it is the duty of the government to secure those rights, not trade them in for “protection”. To say we are at war and that is grounds to violate the Constitution is ludicrous! The War on Terror is a war that is vague enough to encompass whatever the government wishes it to, it could be said to be similar to the War on Drugs. Does that mean to combat drug use we should ignore the Constitution for drug related crimes? (After all it would help law enforcement eliminate drug crimes.) Of course not!

With the exception of the honorable Ron Paul, each of the candidates have made it clear that it is acceptable to trade in liberty for security; and our current President is no different. Any politician who suggests you do not need *THAT* much liberty and attempts to convince you to give it up because after all you want to be safe is not to be trusted. The Declaration of Independence states:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Notice how the founding fathers took care enough to specifically name liberty as an unalienable right and how liberty is actually related to true safety instead of one being traded for the other. Only when a society has liberty is it truly safe.

Power, once given to the government, is never reclaimed. The government will continue to provide a reason (or supposed threat) which supports its retaining of that power, and it will likely claim anyone who would suggest the government lay down those powers is a threat to the nation itself. The risk associated in having a truly free society is outweighed by the benefits of liberty, if we are “fighting for our freedom” and in order to fight we must give up our freedom, then the very act of fighting results in our defeat. Again if we temporarily give up our liberty now, we will never reclaim it. Supposedly the terrorist hate our freedom, well because we fear them so much we ourselves are eliminating our freedom, all they have to do is watch.

Economic Sanctions and the Threat of Force in Syria

2011-11-28T07:02:00.005-05:00

The Arab League agreed today to impose economic sanctions against the Syrian government. According to this article, the sanctions ban travel by governmental officials, freeze Syrian assets, ban financial transactions with the Syrian central bank, and end commercial exchanges with the government. These efforts join those by the U.S. and the E.U., who have already imposed sanctions on Syria.

The debate is still out on the effectiveness of economic sanctions. One idea regarding effective sanctions is that the threat of greater action must be present. According to Daniel Drezner’s Conflict Expectations Model, sanctions backed by the real threat of force (and with a wide gap in costs; I know, this isn’t Econ Statecraft, but it is important) can produce at least moderate concessions. Of course, this must be tempered. If the adversary believes force is inevitable, he or she may not see the need in conceding anything. It could even lead to a preemptive strike in some situations.

The actual goal of a sanction is important. Sanctions can compel, deter, or signal a regime. For example, in regards to Syria, they are not ‘intended’ to compel al-Assad to step down. Instead, their purpose is to coerce the Syrian government into abiding by the peace agreement it signed on November 2.

These ideas are similar to Schelling’s “compellence” argument. With Schelling, the goal of the threat of force is to reveal to the enemy what that force can do to him if he does not comply. The idea is to leave the enemy with something more to lose. If you don’t, the enemy has no reason to accept your demands, and war could be inevitable. It seems that economic sanctions perform a similar function: the costs they incur are intended to be so great as to force concessions from a government. In both cases, simply acquiescing would remove the pressure placed on the regime. I guess the similarities between the use of force and the use of sanctions are why it’s considered economic warfare.

To some, it seems that economic sanctions are a way to avoid costly and difficult military solutions to problems. To others, economic sanctions are a useful tool to ratchet up pressure on a regime before more forceful actions are taken. I tend to fall into the latter category. But knowing when to make the transition to force is difficult; there will always be those who claim that other measures should be taken before resorting to war.

In Syria’s case, perhaps it is already too late. Perhaps the regime believes that, at this point, it will collapse if it abides by the peace agreement mentioned above. But that is the reality that Assad brought on himself when he chose to quell the rebellion instead of initiating reforms. By doing that, he turned what started out as a request for reforms into an outright call for his removal from power.

Live Blogs Defining Success in National Security?

2011-11-27T22:30:00.012-05:00

After reading several blogs discussing topics from the Republican Party presidential debates, it is interesting to deliberate on the topic of National Security and evaluate the Administration’s ability to show strength in National Security. One of the blogs covering the live debate entitled “Political Intelligence” written by Glen Johnson of The Boston Globe commented on President Obama’s ability to show strength in National Security by “killing Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaida leaders”. When talking about showing strength in National Security – are we really only talking about killing the enemy –i.e. the killing of Osama bin Laden? Or is there more we should be looking at to adequately evaluate the strength of our Nation and its leaders in meeting National Security requirements?

Consider the opening section of the National Security Strategy (NSS) focusing on American leadership starting at home to enable renewed projection of strength abroad by rebuilding our economy and infrastructure and empowering its population through education. Undoubtedly, the government has attempted investments focused on this agenda, but either it is too early to really evaluate the results or quantitative analysis shows an unsatisfactory trend. Instead of relying on the mere act of killing someone to define in National Security, we should be asking questions like the following:

How is the United States strengthening its long-term partnership with the Iraqi Government and people? Our NSS highlights that we will counter “bankrupt agendas of extremism and murder with hope and opportunity”. How are we doing this and how do you measure advancements? Our NSS mentions shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time…by engaging countries with shared interest and values, but then goes on to state that international institutions should more effectively represent the world in the 21st century. How are we pursuing this and how do we hold those countries accountable that break the rules of these institutions and their agreements? Yes, the U.S. should take the lead on these endeavors, but have we been fulfilling this role?

Hopefully future live blog coverage of presidential debates the answers to the above questions will be considered; instead of equating one objective out of many from the NSS as a sign of strength.

You're Tearing me Apart Ahmadinejad

2011-11-27T21:01:00.001-05:00

Over the past year, the Iranian government has decided that it has a traitor in its midst. In much the same fashion as a number of pundits in the US, the state of Iran feels that its political leadership is not only to blame for the country's state but that it is also actively trying to sabotage the state. While this started as a personal disagreement between Ahmadinejad and Khamenei over the place of Manouchehr Mottaki as foreign minister, it has blossomed into an all out turf war over the hearts and minds of the political elite.

In the past week this schism has expressed itself in the form of a SWAT-style armed raid on a newspaper office to arrest a media adviser to Ahmadinejad, Ali Akbar Javanfekr who was sentenced today. While to my knowledge using tear gas during an official press conference is something of an unprecedented action, this all begs a bigger question: why?

While I have often found humor in the press releases of the Iranian media, this step hints that the division is somewhat deeper than the previous "conflict" let on. Rather than a conflict over who holds power and is in favor at the moment, this arrest either means that the Government is questioning its own narrative of events or that it is trying to send a message to someone. The most likely reason is the later, as the Uskowi article mentions, and that the intended recipient is President Ahmadinejad himself. As Javanfekr was one of the few advisers that has remained close to Ahmadinejad in recent months this arrest can be seen not so much as a message to "shape-up," but more as a message that the end is near for the country's current political leader.

Security in Post-Saleh Yemen

2011-11-27T17:47:00.003-05:00

Earlier this past week the President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, signed an agreement in Saudi Arabia officially transferring power to his vice-president. This came after 30 years of autocratic rule and months of protests by civilians, a renegade general, and tribal dissidence. President Saleh was a staunch ally of the U.S., allowing U.S. drone strikes in Yemen, such as the one that took out Anwar Al-Awlaki. Initially the U.S. did not push for the removal of Saleh, however, after months of protests and the increasingly volatile situation, the U.S. now supports Saleh resigning power.

The question then, is how will Saleh's departure from the office of the president affect the U.S. national security situation in Yemen? My answer is that not much will change over the next several months or years. In fact the situation may get worse before it gets better. Yemen will become even more unstable as various factions and opposition groups grapple for power. Yemeni security and intelligence forces may be too overwhelmed keeping track of the domestic issues to thoroughly fight Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

However, the security situation is not as bad as it sounds. Saudi Arabia has no interest in seeing democracy flourish south of the border and the reality is that a relatively hardline government will emerge once again. In addition, a son and three nephews retain powerful posts in the military and intelligence service, and will no doubt continue to work with the U.S. to fight terrorists as President Saleh did. Drone strikes and intelligence gathering on Yemeni soil are likely to continue as normal.

Are we on the edge of more violence in the Middle East?

2011-11-27T12:34:00.002-05:00

The Arab world has seen a lot of upsets in the past year or so. Zine ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak have been removed from power and Muammar al Gaddhafi lies dead. Other nations such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain have been able to launch successful counter-revolutions to maintain their grip on power. These usually involved both military suppression and government concessions. Now, while there is still unrest, the overall level of violence has dropped.

However this may simply be the calm before the storm. Egypt's military government has been facing continued protests in Tahrir Square calling upon them to give up power. Even though the government has resigned and legislative elections are scheduled for Monday, this may still not be enough to the people, who may seek quicker change and a military with a less integral role in Egyptian politics. In that case, more violence is likely to erupt, or even a second revolution against the military government.

Syria is also becoming more dangerous, with Assad now an international pariah. Many middle-eastern nations have called for him to step down, including Turkey and Saudi Arabia, and the Arab League has levied economic sanctions against Syria for Asad continuing the crackdown against his own people. Here the future is much less certain. Perhaps Assad may actually cease the crackdown if the economic sanction damage Syria's economy (though this is unlikely because several nations, such as Iraq are ignoring the sanctions). There is also the possibility that the Syrian opposition may morph into a full-fledged rebellion, like in Libya. However, unlike with Gaddafi, who was a pariah even among other Arab nations, there is likely to be much less support for international intervention, particularly if it risks upsetting the regional power dynamic with Iran.

The one thing for certain is that this is not the end of the Arab Spring. The United States should be prepared to deal with further outbreaks of violence, and more shifting power dynamics in North Africa and the Arabian Penninsula.