Karzai Agrees to a Runoff

On August 20, 2009, Afghans went to the polls for their country's second election since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Soon after the election was held, accusations of fraud emerged which contested the validity of the election's results which had shown commanding lead for incumbent President Hamid Karzai. Forms of fraud included illegitimate voter cards, bribes, armed coercion, and the closure of many polling stations due to violence threats. One UN official declared that as many as one in five votes for Karzai may have been illegal. In addition, fear held many voters away from the polls as only an estimated 30% per cent of the public participated in the elections.

These figures prompted Abdullah Abdullah to challenge the election results. Since that time the UN-backed Electoral Complaints Commission has investigated the claims of fraud and miscalculation. The investigation led to the belief that support for Karzai had fallen below 50%, a mark which if not met requires a run-off election. After relentless pressure from Western politicians to accept the ECC's findings, Karzai has agreed to a run-off election set to take place on November 7, 2009.

Karzai has said before that this Western pressure actually has negative effects for his country. As early as September 7, Karzai argued in a French magazine, Le Figaro, that the US was attacking him to make him more tractable. He followed by saying, "It is in no one's interest to have an Afghan president who has become an American puppet."

Despite the possibility of giving the appearance of Karzai as a Western puppet, the US has continued to apply pressure to Karzai to agree to a run-off election. The reason US officials continued to pressure Karzai to accept a run-off is because they need his government to be perceived as legitimate and accepted by the Afghan people. If it is not perceived as legitimate, the US fears that there will not be public support for the government. Our efforts to fight the Taliban and al Qaeda rely on public support for our troops. The Afghan people and its government must be united, otherwise, the US will end up fighting for a government that it not wanted by its people, and the people may end up resisting the government and US troops.

Therefore, Karzai's acceptance for a run-off election is a major step in the right direction for the US war efforts in Afghanistan. On November 7th, the world will witness the emergence of a legitimate leader of Afghanistan. Let's hope that the run-off elections will have a less controversial outcome.

Ocean's Fourteen: A New Role for the New Iraqi Army

The New Iraqi Army, created in 2003 (and has since undergone many alterations, disbandings, reforms, etc), is charged with the mission of protecting Iraq from internal and external threats. However, the New Army is taking on another role, perhaps better suited to the chaps at Interpol: reclaiming stolen art and artifacts. According to Major General Abdul al-Zaidi, "the duty of Iraqi army is not only to chase the terrorists but also to protect state treasures." After the 2003 invasion, the National Museum of Baghdad was completely looted. The museum held thousands of valuable artifacts dating back to the Mesopotamian era (roughly 7 millennia ago). For any art and archaeology buff, this event was an absolute tragedy, though it was far down on the list of concerns of the Iraqi people.

This attitude has now turned. The Iraqi Army is on a hunt for these lost and stolen antiquities and those who seek to sell them on the black market. Antiquities dealing is a lucrative business since these artifacts are worth billions. Such pursuits may be on the decline, however, with the Army's apprehension of 3 men attempting to sell Sumerian antiquities to an undercover intelligence officer.

Perhaps this new role for the Iraqi Army is a good stepping stone, providing experience in intelligence and operations which could help them in future pursuits against terrorists. Art and antiquities dealers operate in a highly clandestine manner, much like terrorists; an acumen in seeking out off-the-radar operations may prove a vital skill in the future. Though amateur peddlers of ancient artifacts are usually less armed than terrorists or insurgents, you have to start somewhere.

Russia May be Playing Hard Ball

I may have spoke too soon yesterday about Russian co-operation. Here's an article from Danger Room. Apparently the secretary of the Kremlin's security council is proposing a doctrine that advocates the use of nuclear weapons in preventative strikes against opponents (even opponents that are conventionally armed).

Detente Part Two

Kommersant has reported that Washington will drop its public criticism of Russian human rights problems. According to the article, the United States would only discuss human rights with Russia in intergovernmental forums. This revelation, of course, comes as talks with Iran are underway and after Washington agreed to scrap its missile defense programs in Poland and the Czech Republic. Secretary of State Clinton is in Moscow today and spoke about an agreement between Russia and the United States to co-operate on a range of issues including Afghanistan, Iran and arms reduction. She is also expected to announce a joint missile defense program between the US and Russia.

The Obama administration is backing up its rhetoric and actually engaging Russia on some of its own terms. Russia, for its part, has agreed to work with the United States on confronting Iran, but has remained skeptical of sanctions.

Co-operation between the United States and Russia is still in its infancy. The only real political exchange between Washington and Moscow was the trading of a non-existing missile defense program for non-existing sanctions. Regardless of the triviality of this agreement, it is still indicative of a much better relationship between the US and Russia than during the Bush years when relations steadily deteriorated.

Most importantly, the events of the past few weeks indicate that the Obama administration is willing to give Russia something that it has been seeking since the collapse of the Soviet Union: respect. By negotiating with Russia and yielding to a few of their requests, the US is telling the Kremlin that it is a significant geopolitical power. Secretary of State Clinton even said that the ties between Washington and Moscow were now based on "mutual respect".

The Obama administration is following through with its rhetoric on engaging the rest of the world and using diplomacy as a means of affecting its foreign policy objectives. Unfortunately, this may happen at the expense of Russia’s human rights record. Hopefully the Kremlin will warm up enough to the White House for some significant foreign policy actions to take place and make this trade worthwhile.

The Forgotten Continent?

I get it. President Obama has more than a full plate of foreign affairs that he is dealing with and trying to manage. From Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Copenhagen, missile defense systems in Europe and working with Russia, and now a trip to Oslo, our President's attention is in high demand. So maybe it makes sense that South America isn't at the forefront of concerns as far as foreign policy goes.

BUT.....

there are legitimate concerns and issues that should be addressed and not overlooked.

While the US has is focusing on pressuring Russia to pressure Iran, Venezuela's president is strategically making moves and alliances with those two countries. Chavez is focusing on making arms deals with Russia to acquire guns, jets, tanks, and helicopters while at the same time making friends with almost anyone who America doesn't like or vice versa. Such a move got little notice in the news except for Secretary of State Clinton stating the obvious that it is a "seriously challenge to stability" (The Economist, "Venezuela's Foreign Policy", September 17, 2009). Of course, I realize that Venezuela isn't as worrisome as a nuclear Iran and that it makes sense to be focusing on the more pressing issues. But simply for energy security regions, perhaps its not in America's interest for Venezuela, Russia, Iran, and other oil producing nations to be closely tied while America ignores it.

Furthermore, the coup in Honduras was a 'serious challenge to democracy' and, I believe, should have received more attention and criticism from the United States. Also, I think that most of Latin America finds it insulting that the only interest we have in Cuba is torturing terrorists there. Despite President's Obama to shut down Guantanamo within a year of taking office, no serous efforts have been made.

It's a precarious time in the world and a lot of serious demands on foreign policy. However, the US would do well to take a more vested interest in it's neighbors political environments rather than strictly focusing on the Middle East and Europe.

At least, South America can hope for the US's attention in 2016.

Sovereignty & the Nuclear Threat

“Iran might be creating nuclear weapons; what are we going to do about it?” If this question has been debated once in the past month it’s been done thousands of times. In a venture into the hypothetical that most readers will find frivolous and some will find irrelevant, it remains important to discuss and keep in focus why this is a question at all. It has become clear that the goal of current global leadership is to halt or undermine any attempt by the Iranian government to use nuclear power to create weapons, and with good reason. Ahmadinejad’s administration has proved oppressive domestically and reckless abroad. What is viewed as Western meddling in the affairs of her neighbors has made Iran wary of allowing the domineering, overreaching powers to have a hand in any of its affairs. Acts such as the September 27 missile launch are likely designed to act as proof that, if you’ll excuse the expression, Iran’s colors don’t run; she won’t be dissuaded by harsh words from Uncle Sam. It follows then, that such demonstrations of Irani determination will likely continue if the West doesn’t back off (which we all know is not going to happen any time soon).

At this point, I think it’s important to play a little devil’s advocate and look at the situation with stark objectivity. What most policy makers, journalists, and observers have chosen to overlook is the issue of Iran’s national sovereignty. To many, such a concept seems archaic; the notion that a state can be openly hostile to most of the rest of the planet but remain untouched by other players because of its sovereignty seems like an argument from two centuries past. It is relevant today, however, because that sovereignty is exactly what Iran is struggling to maintain in a world of states with their noses in everybody else’s business. Iran has watched outside powers come into her neighborhood, do all kinds of damage, and radically alter the status quo. Realizing that those same powers are now increasingly wary of her own potential threat, Iran’s leaders are desperate to prove that they will not lay down and accept the same treatment that has been allowed to occur in the past.

Thus, we arrive at the discussion of Irani nuclear weaponry. At present, the United States and friends are devising the best way to “deal” with the Irani threat; in essence, how can they force Ahmadinejad to stop creating nuclear weapons (assuming he is) and prevent him from doing it in the future? This premise, however, ignores Iran’s basic necessity for sovereignty. According to the accepted notion of what constitutes a state and her areas of sovereignty, Iran’s government should have the freedom to use their nuclear capabilities in any way they see fit to benefit the nation. In such a case, what right do other states have to prevent her from defending her borders and her people? No nation desires to be bullied, and certainly not one like Iran with such a strong sense of historical pride.

In short, while the rest of the world certainly has justified cause for concern regarding a nuclear Iran, when dealing with her, leaders must be cautious. Treating Iran like a deeply mischievous child and slapping punishments on with barely concealed contempt and condescension will hardly solve the problem; in fact, it is more likely to make the situation worse. Iran must be treated like the sovereign nation she is, and discussions must appear to be balanced if progress is to be made. Only when she receives respect will she respect in return and be more likely to openly discuss efforts put forth by international parties.

Sending Messages

Last week’s class emphasized the idea that sending messages and understanding an adversary's "language" is essential for national security strategies. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad certainly doesn't need a lesson in sending messages, but perhaps an approach for the Obama administration (and no less, policymakers in Israel) is to ensure itself that it understands Ahmadinejad's messages to the extent that it won't err in any reply. Namely, can we view the Iranian regime as a rational actor - in which case Drezner optimistically summarizes the first round of P5 + 1 negotiations under the realism view - perhaps with a grand strategy that exploits previous American mistakes, or do Ahmadinejad and friends exemplify crazy behavior (as user 0--0 implied in commenting to the previous post)? I would argue that whether or not Iran is rational is certainly not the only factor in determining the West's approach toward and forthcoming relationships with Iran, but it is nevertheless significant, especially as messages emanating from Tehran are often complex and conflicting.

The question posed is one that perhaps Mr. Ahmadinejad himself is unable to answer; in a recent interview with Newsweek, he asked many more questions than did the interviewer (when the interviewer posits that Stalin's crimes were equally atrocious as the Holocaust in order to elicit a response, Ahmadinejad replies with 10 consecutive questions and finally a statement about embargoes in Gaza). However, if Iran is indeed a rational actor, it may have incentives to hide or misrepresent its capabilities in the name of deterrence and to send certain mixed messages. For instance, does the highly-publicized enrichment facility in Qom further Iran's scientific goals in medicine, as its leader and equally ambiguously-spoken former Iranian IAEA representative proclaim, or is it and many other clandestine facilities part of a nuclear weapon-making scheme of which at least one report claims Iran is capable? And do Ahmadinejad's vitriolic statements against Jews represent a true hatred, or is this behavior meant to distance himself from his ostensibly Jewish past in an Islamic state? I'm not convinced that Ahmadinejad reads more American press than Iranian press, which he claims: "I don't read the [Iranian] press, so I would not know," among many other there's-no-way-that's-true statements.

These unanswerable questions, alongside many others analyzed by leaders in the West won't help to understand Ahmadinejad's true motives or rationality as an actor on the international stage. Instead, by considering the mixed messages and their implications of a rational or irrational Iran, the West (and particularly P5 +1 + Israel) can more carefully approach the negotiations table and the nuclear issue. While the U.S. may not bring much credibility in the eyes of Iran as a result of certain unsuccessful campaigns in the middle east, it is certainly obvious to the West how much Iran values its nuclear-related facilities. As Iran continually demonstrates its missile and nuclear capabilities, the West and its allies have to focus on what these messages (and the unsent ones) mean for diplomacy and security interests in the region.

Iran Tests Missiles

On Sunday, Iran's Revolutionary Guard tested three short-range missiles, with a range of 90-120 miles. Today, Iran tested its Shahab-3 and Sajjil rockets, which have a range of up to 1,240 miles. Analysts claim that these latest missiles could threaten both Israel and US forces in the Gulf. In fact, a Revolutionary Guard official has stated, “Iranian missiles are able to target any place that threatens Iran."

As we discussed in class, one of the reasons that negotiated settlements aren't available between rational actors is because countries often misrepresent their capabilities. With the first direct talks between the U.S. and Iran set for Thursday in Geneva, it could very well be that Iran is trying to appear more capable than it really is. However, last week we were given an example of how Iran also conceals its capabilities when Iran revealed to the world that it had a second plant for uranimum enrichment. Accurate intelligence on the true capabilities of Iran would provide greater insight into Iran's intentions and is necessary for the proper development of a US security strategy against Iran.

The Turning Point in Afghanistan?

There is presently a total lack of policy direction in Afghanistan. Congress is focused almost entirely on healthcare and President Obama has so much on his plate right now that he seems to be sidetracked when it comes to putting together the administration’s policy for Afghanistan. We are at a critical point in the War in Afghanistan and no one seems to know what the official policy is. On the one had General McChrystal has called for more troops in order to run a counterinsurgency campaign that would better secure the population. This is a strategy advocated in “The Accidental Guerrilla” by David Kilcullen and other counterinsurgency experts. The Karzai government has also made the case for additional troops. On the other hand Vice President Biden has been vocally opposed to a troop increase, even calling for troop reductions. He wants to focus on small Special Forces and aerial attacks in order to kill the bad guys. For many, this seems to be an easier alternative to troop increases- but it would not be effective. The ongoing drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan have surely killed terrorists; however, they create a lot more collateral damage than soldiers on the ground. This raiding mentality contributes to the accidental guerrilla problem that Kilcullen writes about. The only way to really win in Afghanistan is by securing the population from the Taliban and Al Qaeda by having troops on the ground in the local communities.

The U.S. has had eight years to figure out the best counterinsurgency strategy, but it could be too late to implement it. Troop levels were kept low in order to wage war in Iraq and now that additional troops are needed for a surge in Afghanistan it is questionable whether that will happen. According to an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, our NATO allies have much lower public opinion for troop increases than the U.S. does. Only a third of Americans want to reduce or withdraw troops; that number is over fifty percent in the other major NATO countries. Our NATO allies are in a holding pattern waiting for a coherent U.S. policy on Afghanistan. They would jump at the chance to reduce their presence in Afghanistan if the U.S. did so as well. If a troop increase is going to happen, it needs to happen now under U.S. leadership. If we do not give McChrystal what he needs then we are risking leaving Afghanistan even worse than we found it.

Iran Admits to Having a Secret, Underground Nuclear Facility

So let’s talk about Iran. On Monday Iran admitted that it has a secret, underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz (pretty cool, right?). The timeline for events in the past week seems to be:

(1) Iran admitting to the IAEA that it has been building an enrichment facility for several years (though it isn’t clear if all of the equipment is installed or if the plant has actually been “turned on”),

(2) Shock and outrage in the international community that Iran would do such a thing,

(3) President Obama and other leaders of the G-20 (which is meeting today) condemned Iran for their illegal facility and demanding that international inspectors be allowed access. Nicolas Sarkozy and Gordon Brown both echoed Obama’s statements and even Dmitri Medvedev made some noises to that affect (though Medvedev’s tone was a quite a bit more conciliatory).

What’s interesting about all this is not the fact the United States has known about the facility for years (the internet is abuzz with such chatter and debates about who knew what and when), but that the United States is not saying that Iran has to be a nuclear free country. President Obama has even said that Iran has the right to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes. The peaceful use of nuclear energy has been in the US’s rhetoric for a long time, but the fact that the President is using this language right now, right after Iran admitted to having the facility and right before dialogue on the subject begins next week, makes it sound like the US is warming up a little bit to the notion of an Iranian nuclear program. Granted, the US still wants lots of multinational inspectors and restrictions so that the facility can only refine uranium up to 5% (weapons grade nuclear programs require 90%), but still the US is inching closer to conciliation.

The time is ripe for some diplomacy: the missile programs in Eastern Europe have been scrapped so Russia might actually help this time, and the US refrained from excessively harsh rhetoric during the Iranian election scandal so Ahmadinejad and his government are still willing to come to the table. The US has made quite a few sacrifices for these talks, lets hope they go somewhere.

Are we there yet?

With the release of General McChrystal’s report, asking for 50,000 more pairs of boots in Afghanistan, the somewhat forgotten, back-burnered war has come back to the front pages. However, it seems that the American people disagree with McChrystal: a recent USA Today/Gallup poll reported that about half of Americans (give or take 4%) oppose a troop surge in Afghanistan. This comes as a dramatic shift in opinion, as almost 65% of Americans supported upping our numbers in the country earlier this year. As a campaign promise made by both Senator McCain and President Obama in the 2008 election, I absolutely expected a rise in troops and support of such a move. Although I’m certain every American would be positively ecstatic to wash his or her hands of continued conflict in the Middle East (are we there yet?)something has to be done to “fix” the Afghan problem, at least for now. Unfortunately, the long-awaited elections did not go as smoothly as planned (or hoped), leaving increased stability and an independently functioning democracy in the dust for the time being.


It seems the best option, and what is proposed in amalgam by Republicans and Democrats alike, is a surge en masse: troops, aid, you name it. If it is well planned (the eternal problem) with a concrete vision (another obvious barrier to success in any operation and one emphasized by Senator John Kerry – something I actually agree with the man on), such an all-encompassing surge could work (and should work). If all components of the surge are sent in and a concrete expectation and plan are set, significant change will hopefully be in sight.

To Nuke or Not to Nuke…

To continue class discussion a bit, I wanted to advocate an idea that was introduced in the scenario of China bombing Sydney. The idea was brought up that the U.S. should carry out a nuclear strike on a comparable city (or cities) in China. I did not introduce the idea, but I think that this would be the way to go.

The first and probably the most obvious reason being that there should be some sort of punitive response on behalf of Sydney. After all, they did just lose over 4 million people. I don’t see much difference regarding where the bomb comes from (U.S., Japan or Australia) since the U.S. would be the source of it anyway, and the Chinese would recognize us as the culprits regardless.

The second reason to bomb a city rather than a strictly military facility is that it would make the Chinese government much more accountable to its people. I realize that this sounds callus, but I believe that the Chinese government would be more reluctant to continue the game of retaliation if it lost citizens (and would continue to do so) and not just military personnel. I also realize that this would be a HUGE gamble, since it could quite possibly lead to a nuclear holocaust, but I believe that if the U.S. demonstrated that it was willing to retaliate in this manor, that it would be a sufficient deterrent.

The third reason to intervene on the behalf of Australia (and Taiwan as well) is that if we decided not to do anything, then the idea of allies becomes nullified. The U.S. would become a global pariah. Militaristically, we would only be able to act unilaterally because we would not be able to count on the loyalty of our allies, and understandably so.

This strategy would allow the U.S. to honor its responsibilities, punish China for its actions, and hopefully prevent further nuclear strikes on U.S. allies. Ideally, Taiwan could then go about its day and become independent. But this is 2012 we’re talking about here, so maybe we’re all doomed anyway…

No Boom For You

There have been plenty of responses to Obama’s decision to change the 2006 Missile Defense plans in Eastern Europe. The Russians are happy, the Poles and Czechs aren’t (the rest of the Euros are), and the NeoCons are well… On Thursday Gates and Obama announced their decision to cancel building both the radar system in the Czech Republic and the long-range interceptors in Poland. Putin and Medvedev want to take credit for a win, renigging on their own plans for short range missiles pointed west. Of course Obama and Gates are quick to explain Russian posturing had nothing to do with the changes in policy. For them the changes come from both a mixture of new intelligence and, what Obama might view as, another fixing of leftovers from Bush.

According to the new intelligence, Iranian development is still far off potential ICBM capabilities but increasingly developing middle and short range technologies. In response the new plan will downgrade the land-based radar and (untested) long-range interceptors to off-shore detectors and proven middle-to-short range interceptor technology, with phased plans for expansion to land-based defenses through, potentially, 2020.

Rasmussen, NATO’s newly appointed Secretary General, wants to take these moves to the next level, bringing Russia, NATO, and the US into a united front of missile defense against potential threats. Good luck. This is an interesting move for Gates though, and given the upcoming P5+1 talks with Iran this could possibly help water the withered relationships between the US and Russia, but it’s not likely.

The criticism from the NeoCons was weak and only helped support the fear-mongering persona that they are known for. The Poles, wounded and feeling abandoned, will be compensated, and the Czechs will probably just be in the wind.

Overall, it was a good call from Obama and Gates, compensating for asymmetrical plans of defense based on interceptor technology that has not even been tested; PLUS maintaining commitment to Eastern Europeans (even if somewhat disgruntled), keeping a defense against potential threats in Iran and beyond, and opening potential for some multilateral diplomacy.

Unintelligent Intelligence

There have recently been demands for an investigation and prosecution of C.I.A. interrogators who enacted "enhanced interrogation techniques". Former Vice President Dick Cheney kept a low profile from the media while in office, but has recently become more outspoken in defending the administration's policies. While I certainly have my disagreements with the former administration and the policies that were implemented, I find it hard to argue Cheney's main point - there has been no other terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. I think that this is a central topic to U.S. national security and is worth some discussion and debate. I'd like to propose some initial thoughts I have on the subject and welcome comments and disagreements.

First of all, there seems to be an attitude of repulsiveness to the idea that America would torture terrorist. Other Western democracies certainly have participated in such practices in defense of their national interests, why is America held to a different standard? Certainly there can be the argument of whether or not the U.S. SHOULD waterboard, torture, etc. I find it interesting that Americans themselves say "The U.S. does not torture." Do we really think we are that different from most other nations and wouldn't resort to similar tactics to protect our citizens?

Second of all, public opinion seem to be a poor venue for discussing intelligence matters. Isn't that why some of these things are supposed to be classified? Certain aspects are not pretty, but that's why a few, as opposed to all, Americans are privy to the information. I think it erodes the effectiveness of intelligence to be constantly under the scrutiny of the public opinion, which is fickle at best. Immediately following 9/11, there was such a pervasive attitude to do whatever was necessary to prevent this from happening again. But as we approach the eight anniversary, the public opinion pendulum has shifted against such methods. If the U.S. were to suffer another terrorist attack, would the public overlook such enhanced techniques? Indeed, the intelligence officers could be criticized for not doing enough to keep America safe. Personally, it seems like a poor idea to determine intelligence procedures by the ever-changing public opinion.

My third and last point: Why is there an outrage for the torturing of terrorists, but little attention on the innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan who are killed by military operations. It's becoming far too common to read about the NATO Allies expressing a "sincere apology" for the death of innocent civilians when bombing suspected terrorist sites. To me, it seems embarrassingly hypocritical.

Like I said before, I hope that this is a topic that is fiercely debated because I don't think there are easy answers. I don't like the idea of torturing people at all, but I'm also trying to understand that I have a limited perspective on the situation.

Choice or Necessity – Ongoing Assessment for Obama

While President Obama no doubt embraces safety of the U.S. population as a value worth preserving, he is weighing the marginal value of sending additional troops to Afghanistan against the value of public opinion regarding continued/increased U.S. involvement in Afghanistan, and subsequently his approval rating. The rubric for decision-making in Afghanistan should be much clearer.

In two recent NYTimes articles, Peter Baker identifies this dilemma in conjunction with recent struggles among military advisors and strategists in defining what ultimate success in Afghanistan looks like. With regard to this success, in his August 22nd article Baker quotes Obama’s special representative to Afghanistan Richard Holbrooke as stating, “We’ll know it when we see it.” The apparent struggle highlights a worrisome pattern within U.S. military involvement over the past 6 years. While there are definite motivations for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan—stability until election results are final (as valid or invalid as they may be), maintaining semblance of peace while Pakistan knocks on the door, and preventing Afghan leadership from laying out a welcome mat for terrorists, motivation and strategy are quite different.

Without a formalized strategy containing clearly defined objectives, it will be impossible for U.S. forces to effectively accomplish anything in Afghanistan, or to maintain support for our involvement among the U.S. population. If a definite strategy can be set forth, decisions to send additional troops can be measured objectively against specific strategic needs; the “choice vs. necessity” debate then gives way to a “necessary for success” argument. Congressional leaders and the U.S. population are likely to respond with greater support when a clear vision guides action.

Fall 2008 Final Exam

Final Exam
DIP 600: National Security Policy
December 16, 2008


Please answer one of the following three questions. Submit your exam by e-mail to Dr. Farley by 10:15am today.

1. Do pirates represent a threat to the national security of the United States? Why or why not? What kind of resources (military and diplomatic) should the United States marshal in the fight against piracy, if any?
2. In the face of an expected Taliban winter offensive, the United States military has begun to retrench around the Afghan capitol of Kabul. Should the US and the Afghan government consider direct talks with the Taliban? Why or why not?
3. The Mumbai attacks may provide what Joe Biden called an early “test” for President Obama. What US national security interests are at stake in the dispute over the attacks? What diplomatic and military resources can the United States use in order to effect a positive outcome?

Mugabe to the rescue

We can all rest easy now, Robert Mugabe has officially declared Zimbabwe's crisis with cholera over. All those people dying from cholera like symptoms? Must be a coincidence. In another example of Mugabe's slipping hold on power and reality he announced Thursday that the cholera problem in his country was not a concern anymore. This despite the fact that 800 people have died from this epidemic and around 16000 are estimated to be infected. This is just the official numbers and the actually infection and death rate may be much much higher. Zimbabwe is a country that is prime for strong intervention. The US, France, and UK have all called for Mugabe to not only share power (as was the idea after the disputed elections) but now to simply leave office (according to an AP story from msnbc.com). Whether it be a last legacy act by Bush or a sign that Obama is strong and concerned about the rest of the world, intervention needs to be taken to remove Mugabe from power. No better time than now exists. He has lost allies in Africa, Western Nations agree in calling for his resignation, and his long time allies in South Africa's ruling ANC party are now divided on how to deal with him. Either through direct pressure or through having South Africa apply economic and political pressure, the US needs to step up. If even more drastic actions (covert operations, CIA/US supported coup etc.) one can expect for a coup to be relatively easy and bloodless (well ,relative for Zimbabwe) given the strong opposition to Mugabe domestically, and the simple fact the country can hardly go downhill any more. In order to show the world that the US understands the sovereignty of other nations and importance of multilateral actions, the government needs to act in a way that is widely supported and viewed as responsible and ethical (i.e. world support for removing Mugabe is high). The transition would be as easy as can be hoped for, and the country deserves a better chance to break out of its rock bottom situation.

Sewellian Tippy-Top Gunned Down

In a provocative presentation delivered in the International Intelligence class, we were introduced to the idea of a Sewellian Tippy-Top tax. While the topic is creative, there are several key problems that should have BrenTom rethinking their plans.

They suggest a minimum price of gas at $2.30 forcing citizens to pay more at the pump when the market price is lower. And who really wants that? The tax also creates a burden for those with lower incomes because it is a regressive tax so more percentage of their income goes to gas.

BrenTom’s plan was delivered yesterday to President-Elect Barack Obama. But let’s be honest…any president approving this proposal commits political suicide. How often do the American people trust the government with their tax money? Moreover, they suggested that the money earned from the tax should go to infrastructure. This could easily be money wasted. Take Lexington, for example. The city has this beautiful new infrastructure for the World Equestrian Games but how does that benefit anyone 5 or 10 years from now?

The Sewellian Tippy-Top tax plan also injures oil producers in the United States. The tax would keep the oil prices artificially low because the higher price will reduce domestic consumption. Therefore, a higher price and a lower demand.

So, while I have the greatest respect for the founders of BrenTom, I think it’s time for them to go back to the drawing board and deliver something to Obama that he can believe in.

Getting to the Root of Somali Piracy

While many may make jokes about piracy or even celebrate International Talk like a Pirate Day, piracy in the Horn of Africa is no laughing matter. This Fall has seen a tremendous spike in pirate attacks in and around the Horn of Africa. In addition, pirates have become much more daring in their targets, seizing a Ukrainian ship laden with Russian-made T-72 tanks as well as a Saudi oil tanker, the Sirius Star with its 2 million barrels of oil, nearly a fourth of Saudia Arabia's daily output. The attack on the Saudi oil tanker was particularly brazen, as the attacks occured some 450 miles off the coast, far out of the range of more "traditional" pirates. As a result, these waters have been buffered with a much stronger international naval presence. This November the Indian Navy announced that it had sunk a pirate "mother ship", a larger ship that helps extend the range of pirates by towing fast, maneuverable speed boats far out to sea. An increased naval presence will certainly test the resolve of pirates and pose a threat to their livelihood, but occasional sinkings of pirate ships will not be enough to discourage the Somali pirates. To combat piracy off the coast of Somalia, the international community will first have to deal with the root cause: the failed state of Somalia.

Since 1991, Somalia has possessed at most times a government that could be called nominal at best and non-existent at worst. Since the collapse of Siad Barre's dictatorship, Somalia has suffered through a nearly endless amount of civil war and factionalism. In the early 1990s, the United Nations attempted a peacekeeping mission to bring order to war-torn Somalia. A spike of violence in October 2003, popularized by the movie Black Hawk Down, brought the deaths of 18 Americans and nearly 1000 Somalis, and essentially killed international support for intervention in Somalia. Despite this earlier failure, a military intervention today must not be made a self-fulfilling prophesy doomed to a similar fate. Obviously a military intervention in Somalia would be highly unpopular and the United States is over-streteched and ill-poised to meet the troop demand for such an operation. Nevertheless, the West will have to act, or it will continue to see Somali piracy hurt commerce in the geopolitically important Horn of Africa. These pirates are simply hungry, desperate Somalis trying to make a living through very unsavory means. By no means am I condoning piracy, but killing and/or prosecuting pirates will do nothing to protect them until the greater attention is paid to the failed state that harbors them and allows them to thrive.

The “Change” of Intelligence: FISA

Barack Obama has promised change to the American people, but when it comes to matters of National Security, how much change will we really see? One huge issue is that of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Towards the beginning of the campaign, Obama was an opponent to FISA, claiming it infringed on the civil liberties of American citizens. So mid-way through the campaign his stance on FISA would have strongly impacted United States intelligence and potential security. At the time, his position reflected that of the liberal fringe and he was applauded by many of his supporters. He claimed the US had the ability to track down terrorists without violating the law of rights and liberties.

Although FISA does invade the privacy of American nationals, what would be the implications for national security? Opposing FISA would strongly affect America’s abilities to track terrorists on American soil and abroad. Later, Obama did realize that opposing the Act would limit intelligence gathering methods and endangering human lives. That being said, as of June 2008, Obama reversed his decision and voted for FISA even though the amendments he supported were voted down.

Many will be opposed to his “giving in” to previous policies. And although it invades the privacy of American citizens and foreign nationals, accepting the Act commits stronger values in supporting the security of the United States. Obama believes the bill is for the greater good but has pledged to carefully monitor the program. But will the public be accepting of this or resent him for not standing a firmer ground?....only time will tell.

A “War of the Willing” is waning

Through the short history of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration and US military has worked hard to convey to the American population the extent to which the war has been a multilateral effort. Reports show that, at one point, as many as 34 countries made contributions to the military effort.

There are now as few as 7 countries supporting the efforts with the recently announced discontinued support of Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Moldova, Estonia, Tonga, South Korea, Romania and the Czech Republic as of the end of 2008. Great Britain recently announced its plans to drastically reduce its troop levels to 400 by June of 2009. This could be brushed off as another loss, as the American forces can soak up the loss of only a couple hundred soldiers. Britains made up more than 15% of the original invasion’s force, and still have a stake of around 4000 troops in the country.

It is fair to admit that our country hasn’t done a great job of rallying the nations of the world behind our plunge into the “Middle East’s” front on terror, Iraq. Foreign and domestic criticism has been drawn during the Bush administration. One would suggest that it would be in the US interest to attract as much help as possible in the fight against terror. Unfortunately for our case, we are experiencing a modern day exodus of the willing.

To worsen the world’s view of our handling of the war in Iraq, Blackwater has decided that undermining the developing American-Iraqi relationship is a good idea. Six Americans working for Blackwater have recently been indicted in the killing of 17 innocent Iraqi citizens. Blackwater’s refusal to be tried in Iraqi courts has led to a security pact going into affect on January 1, allowing Iraq to prosecute private contractors. But the deed has already been done. And this was not the first occurrence of the like. With the number of privately contracted troops now outnumbering Alliance troops in the country, the frequency is sure to increase.

Why would democracies of the world want to sacrifice their youth, if the US can pay top dollar to private contractors flying high above the law? No wonder the Iraqi government still struggles to make strong gains towards autonomy from the US.

The Price of Security?

(This is an excerpt of something I wrote in 2005 -which supports elements of the civil liberties post below)
________________________

“As the price of security, Americans must be prepared to cashier some freedoms, much treasure, and many lives.” These words were published in the United States Naval Institute Journal in 2001. The author continued, “Anticipating retaliation to current military actions, the West must be prepared to institutionalize a passport society, suffer racial profiling, federalize security for airlines, expand search and seizure, and permit extremes in the interrogation of suspected terrorists. Later, it may be necessary to militarize labor, the borders, and civil society in general, and to practice armed retaliation against suspected terrorists and their safe havens.” It is hard to imagine these things taking place in America, yet the pieces are in place for at least four of those things. Search and seizure has been expanded under the Patriot Act. No warrant is necessary now.

The Supreme Court, in the landmark case Terry v. Ohio, (1968), ruled that law enforcement officials could stop someone as long as their was reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is taking place. From this ruling, the concept of racial profiling arose. These ‘objective’ stops were being targeted at disproportionate numbers of black and brown people. When investigating the 9/11 attacks in the days that followed, law enforcement could not deny the fact that the crime was committed by men of middle-eastern descent. The prime suspects, therefore, were individuals with a specific national origin and ethnic background. Later, the religion (Islam) was a factor used to narrow the search.

Has the United States permitted extremes in investigating suspected terrorists? The release of the “torture memos” in 2004 is ample evidence that the government overlooked known torturous activity taking place in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at Guantanomo Bay. Harvard’s champion for human rights, Allen Dershowitz proposed a “torture warrant”. He argued that when you have the lives of millions on the line and a terrorist in custody that could prevent it, then torture becomes a matter of law. We have to choose the “lesser evil”, he says.

Are we moving toward a passport society? First consider the history of our I.D. cards. Driver’s licenses were originally intended to prove mental and physical capacity to drive. Now they are used as a definite form of identification. Social Security numbers were intended to provide access to a government sponsored retirement system. Now you have to have one to conduct banking activities, rent an apartment, and file taxes.

In the wake of 9/11, Oracle’s Larry Ellison, along with Dershowitz, proposed a national
I.D. card required for travel from state to state. Ellison even offered to manufacture the cards for the government. These I.D. cards would be called a ‘smart card’. An identification card with a small computer chip embedded in it. This chip would contain your financial information, medical records, criminal history, and even have a stored value used to replace paper currency. These systems are beginning to be put in place in the UK and other European countries.

_________________________________

That was April 2005. Now we have xray body searches at airports, congress voting on a national id act, and the 'torture memos' I alluded to turning into a full blown national debate.

Where Have Our Civil Liberties Gone?

During this holiday season Americans increase their travel via airplanes to see loved ones across our nation or overseas. During the screening process at airports, we are subjected to several inspections that infringe on our civil liberties that we hold dear in this country. Granted that I don’t have a ton of experience flying, but when I have traveled through airport security it seems that the federal government is creating more and more ways to overstep my civil liberties granted by the Constitution. At what point will Americans say enough is enough and stop letting the government infringe on their rights.

As an American, should I not be able to take a gun or knife on a plane with me if I want to? Isn’t our country founded on the principles of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights? Why does the government have the right to prevent me from doing these things?

In the current world that we live in with the Global War on Terror, Americans have seemed very willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to be more secure from terrorist attacks. At airports, passengers are randomly pulled aside and subjected to a process that often involves taking off one’s clothes down to their under garments. Granted that this is done behind closed doors, why should we let the government humiliate us in this manner? Americans have also accepted the consequences of the Patriot Act, which allowed federal agents to wiretap phone lines of people that had suspected ties to terrorists. What gives the government the right to listen to my private conversations?

When Americans feel threatened they are often willing to sacrifice things that they hold dear in order to be secure. However, what will Americans do if one day the government tells them that they can no longer own guns or that magazines and newspapers can’t publish articles that criticize the government? The line has to be drawn somewhere. Maybe it’s with no new airport security measures or now new laws prohibiting how guns can be used or carried. If we don’t, then the government will continue placing more restrictions on Americans’ civil liberties during times of crisis and then not remove them later.

Strange Bedfellows parting ways?

To many it may seem to be ironic, even counterproductive that the country that is the target of many terrorist attacks and aggression, would partner with the country where most of these terrorist organizations were based. This would seem an opportunity to help stem the problem at its base right? Well not so much if the intelligence services that have power in that country are well known to have ties to the very organizations the US is trying to hunt down. Well strange as it may sound we all know that this is the truth about the relationship between the US and Pakistan. Over the past few years the US has courted heavily the government of Pakistan in an attempt to gain insight on terrorist activities. Increasing distrust of the Pakistani government by the public, an increasingly uncooperative Pakistani administration, and now Pakistani intelligence connection/cover-up / link to the Mumbai terror attacks. Yesterday the government of Pakistan announced it had put suspected terrorist leader Mashood Azhar under house arrest. This token action just drew scoffs from US and Indian leaders, this is the second time Azhar has been "arrested" and the evidence linking him to the 2001 Indian Parliament bombing. In addition to this non-committal act, Pakistan was quick to condemn the attacks, but has shown considerable foot dragging in working with India in investigating the attacks. This is just the latest in a series of catch and release actions that the Pakistani government does with suspected terrorist leaders. This is also just the last in a long line of actions that show that Pakistan is simply not the ally that the US once thought it was. It is not turning over key suspects to investigation, has forbade the US from conducting action on its soil, and has ISI officers with deep connections to the terrorist themselves. The US government should stop now in supporting and funding a nation that is an ally of the US in image only. Whether from deliberate deceit of the US or simply the result of a government that has lost control of its people, Pakistan is no longer the help we once hoped it would be.

Senate seat, get your Senate seat!!

It seems that not even the good ol' U S of A is free from political corruption, as we've seen in the recent scandal involving Illinois Governor Rob Blagojevich. Governor Blagojevich was arrested for allegedly trying to trade or sell President-elect Barrack Obama's soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. This is certainly not something to be taken lightly, as several high-profile Senate seats will soon be filled, with Senators Obama, Biden and Clinton all leaving in January 2009. The dilemma is clear- do we want seats in our Senate to be open to the highest bidder, as merely political prizes that are capable of being bought? Do we then want these men (and women) to be making important decisions in the national security arena?? Obviously, the answer is no.

This scandal calls into question, however, the very long-held practice of allowing state governors to appoint interim Senators to fill part or all of an unexpired term. Some states, like Oregon and Wisconsin, do not allow the governor to make an appointment and instead hold general elections to fill any unexpired term. Five other states-Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Wyoming and Utah- place some restrictions on the governor's power to appoint an interim Senator. Perhaps all states, however, should follow the lead of Oregon and Wisconsin and remove the power of appointing interim Senators from the governor. Although elections are certainly not free from corruption, especially in Illinois (see 1960 Presidential elections), they are certainly more democratic and more difficult to influence than simply paying off a state governor.

One good sign, however, from all of this is the fact that corruption in the United States, while certainly existent, is not nearly as bad as in other countries. Unlike some countries, like Russia or Angola, corruption in America is not endemic and viewed as simply part of doing business. Transparency International's 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index ranks the United States 18th out of 180 surveyed countries with a score of 7.3, out of 10. While certainly not the worst, the United States must certainly approve. Putting a price on a Senate seat and offering it to the highest bidder rather than the most qualified, is a dangerous bet to make, when one considers the importance of the Senate to our national security. Governor Blagojevich should be dealt with swiftly, so other governors can be warned that an indiscretion of this magnitude is simply not acceptable.

On Terrorists and Monsters

"We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."

So went the Bush Administration's refrain for justifying the Iraq war for most of its second term.
General Richard Clarke nicely critiqued this theory when he called for Bush's "Puppy-dog theory of terrorism" to be put to sleep. He said:

Does the President think terrorists are puppy dogs? He keeps saying that terrorists will "follow us home" like lost dogs. This will only happen, however, he says, if we "lose" in Iraq.

The puppy dog theory is the corollary to earlier sloganeering that proved the President had never studied logic: "We are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we will not have to face them and fight them in the streets of our own cities."

Remarkably, in his attempt to embrace the failed Iraqi adventure even more than the President, Sen. John McCain is now parroting the line. "We lose this war and come home, they'll follow us home," he says.

What's truly odd is how this three year-old's theory about monsters matches precisely with Bush's theory of terrorism. "If he gonna come in here....he will kick my ass....so I'm gonna kick his ass!"

An Agent of Change = A Prime Target

In the United States, the concept of national security is often thought of in terms of borders, bombs, and the balance of power. Government and civic officials spend countless hours and enormous sums of money on the protection and security of the citizens of the United States of America, and rightfully so. It is not often, however, that we equate national security with the safety of one man. For many different reasons, the election of Barack Obama has incited concern about the wellbeing of the president-elect and the future of the United States. The worrisome logic is as follows: How safe can America be if we cannot ensure the safety of our Commander and Chief? If our leader is vulnerable, then aren’t we as well?

This may be true, but the government is doing the most that is humanly possible to shield Obama from any looming danger. In fact, Barack Obama has been surrounded by several Secret Service agents since May 3, 2007, the earliest any candidate has been provided this type of protection in American history. With his growing popularity and his constant exposure to the public, president-elect Obama, or Renegade, is under the constant surveillance of the security guards, police, and the Secret Service. In fact, media officials and photographers have “complained about the aggressive tactics of Mr. Obama’s protectors” claiming that [they] “flank him at every stop, making photographs difficult.” During the campaign, several people standing in chairs to take pictures of the presidential candidate were ordered to get down, because their height posed a security threat to Mr. Obama.

Even more precautionary measures were taken after Obama won the presidential election. While Obama wooed the crowd with his acceptance speech, he was shielded by bullet-proof plexiglass. Nonetheless, anxieties still abound, as 500 threats against Obama’s life have already been investigated by the Secret Service. Some of the more serious threats include a gun-toting group of men from Denver and two skinheads from Tennessee who plotted to assassinate Senator Obama and kill black children while they were at school.

Though it is true that Barack Obama does face serious dangers, are they really any different than the risks taken by any other president? An attempted assassination was made on former president Ronald Reagan, without regard to the color of his skin. Can the increased vulnerability be correlated with race, or is it something else about Obama? Of course, as the first African-American president, racism will cast a shadow on his presidency. On the day after the election, stormfront.org, a popular white supremacist web site added over 2,000 members. The website has currently been shut down in order to manage the overwhelming amount of activity it received after Election Day. One Stormfront representative stated, “"I want the SOB laid out in a box to see how 'messiahs' come to rest. God has abandoned us, this country is doomed." No wonder people are worried.

Speaking of God and doomsday, the infamous Westboro Baptist Church suggests another reason why Obama is different from all former presidents: he’s the Antichrist. From a recent sermon comes the quote,”Woe unto Antichrist Obama ! Woe unto his henchmen comprising his campaign team, his so-called transition team, his administration, and the doomed nation that elected him!” It is not surprising, therefore, that some fanatical people think that he needs to go, since he will ultimately destroy the world.

One final theory appears to be the most logical; people are afraid of change. Yes, Obama is black, but, more than anything, he is different. He is “The Other.” People often have a hard time accepting “agents of change,” as Obama has declared himself. Former Secret Service agent, Joseph Funk, proposes that “in the security world, anything “new” can trigger hostility.” So, even though Obama’s skin color does rub some people the wrong way, it is possible that threats and Internet chatter have more to do with the “new” element than the race factor. But race is certainly an issue. Ask the KKK.

What's Happening in Greece and What's in Store for the Karamanlis Government?

It is hard to escape the widespread media coverage of the Greek riots that have been carrying on for days. Greek civilians, mainly youths, have been violently protesting against the police force and government ever since the police shooting and killing of fifteen year old Alexandros. Protestors have resorted to burning stores and cars, throwing stones at policemen, rioting in the streets, and using the media as an outlet to publicize their outrage concerning the situation. According an article in Time magazine, “Some 320 stores, 50 banks, and a number of civilian buildings have been damaged or destroyed in Athens.” Among these buildings was Foreign Ministry’s Diplomatic Academy and the Hellenic Parliament Foundation. Some sources reveal that an augmentation of the protests is nowhere in sight.

As an American outsider, viewing this display of outrage and disapproval being carried out by the Greek citizenry seems absurd. It makes it difficult to even analyze the situation and even more so to choose a side to sympathize with. On the one side, there are the policemen who were involved in the shooting. They claim that they were alarmed when nearly 30 youths attacked their patrol car, and out of self defense, they fired warning shots to scare the youngsters. Moreover, they say that shooting the boy was unintentional and that he was unknowingly targeted.

On the other hand, there are thousands of vexed Greeks who share a different story, one that highlights their dissatisfaction with the police. They emphasize police inadequacies of reducing high rates of crime and in the police’s refusal to answer emergency calls; furthermore, they accused the police of being corrupt. After all, this is not the first time conflicts have erupted between the two groups. In the city where the boy was shot, clashes between the police force and anarchic groups are evidently a frequent occurrence. So what has erupted into—from what an outside perceives—as an exaggerated violent episode appears to be the result of an ongoing battle.

The question posed now is how far will these youths go to get what they want, and really, what is it that they want? After all, Prime Minister Karamanlis has already promised investigations and a fair trial and the policemen involved in the situation have been taken into custody. But even though he made these statements clear on the day of the outbreak of protests, it has done little to appease the unhappy Greeks. Is it farfetched to think that maybe the protestors are pushing for a change in government? George Papandreou, leader of the center-left opposition, ridiculed Karamanlis for his government’s inability to control the situation and suggested that his government step down. Is it unlikely that Karamanlis’s government will step down? It is hard to say, but I wouldn’t exclude this as an option. Not only is Karamanlis’s government faced with these violent riots but Greek unions have staged a strike in protest against the government’s economic policies. It looks as though Karamanlis has a lot of social unrest to deal with and how he and his government plan to do so is uncertain.

Food For Thought

Appropriate for the holiday season as we gorge ourselves, two weeks ago, the Daewoo Logistics Corporation of South Korea announced it had set up an agreement with the government of Madagascar to lease 1.3 million hectares (thats the measurement used in regards to fields and crops, in this case its about half the size of Belgium) for 99 years to plant corn and palm oil fields. This food and biofuel is to be exclusively repatriated back to Korea (3/4 of the land will be corn). What does this have to do with national security? Agriculture and food is the quintessential necessary industrial to support a stable government, effective military, and workforce population. In the US our food industries are so well developed we hardly consider the effect a war/natural disaster/ect. would have on our food supply. We are hardly affected by the ongoing world food price crisis but from Haiti to Egypt riots and violence are spreading. Korea is attempting to avoid this issue but unlike the US is not blessed with an incredibly productive climate and land system suitable for farming. In leasing this land (which will be ran and managed by Koreans but worked by people from Madagascar) some fear Korea is jump starting a neo-colonialism idea. Several Middle-Eastern countries have done this on a smaller scale in other African countries already. The people of Madagascar would benefit more from effective government assistance and land reform that allowed them to grow their own food (starvation is rampant in the country) then the meager wages they will receive. The lease is giving more than one third of Madagascar's arable land to another nation. This is simply modern Tenet farming and that practice has been abandoned as corrupt and unfair in developed countries. The governments of these poor countries are quick to court these types of deals since like any natural resource boom (or trap, as the Bottom Billion book suggests) is sure to swell the pockets of those in power. Also, in the worst case scenarios, Korea may be forced to station troops in Madagascar to protect its property and vital national interests, something that clearly has the potential to create tensions and all out conflict in the future.
While this idea may seem like a great idea for Korea, the benefits to the other countries involved are so minor it borders (or fits well into) the definition of national exploitation, something that no responsible government should condone.

Article originally posted in the Financial Times, November 22, by Javier Blas

Again! dem Chinese.

As you may already know, the growing strength of China continues to generate new and evermore serious threats to U.S. national interests. According to al Jazeera we have one more reason to worry. The pertinent article, titled, "China 'winning cyber war' US told" expounds on a recently released congressional report which details the reality and strength of Chinese cyber-intelligence operations aimed at the United States. Unsurprisingly, the conclusion of the report enumerates the significant security and economic concerns precipitated by the success of Chinese operations and the exposure of U.S. interests.

To begin, the report examines the staggering exposure of sensitive information vital to U.S. interests. Chinese hacker have successfully penetrated the websites and networks operated by the U.S. government, defense contractors, and private businesses. Obviously, this situation undermines the effective synthesis of intelligence, the successful execution of U.S. intelligence operations, and places the intelligence network and private firms in a strategically weaker position.

Having acknowledged this scenario, the reality of an asymetric advantage for the Chinese becomes ever-larger. With no effective defense in place, and theoretcially all essential/sensitive networks compromised, the United States is in danger of meekly surrendering invaluable strength and influence through a leaking pipe. This loss of control and containment in turn jeopardizes the strength and capabilities of the military, economic, and diplomatic operations of the United States.

In addition, the report contemplates the possibility of U.S. conventional forces being weakened by the effective conduct of Chinese-originated cyber-warfare operations. Porous communication lines as well as compromised schematic and strategic plans would likely mean the loss of effective force projection, mobilization, and implementation. This scenario would be indescribably dangerous to U.S. interests.

In conclusion, the reality of Chinese cyber-warfare capabilities - and their obvious and unabashed commitment to expanding such capabilities - places the U.S. in a critical zone of strategic decision. The U.S. must obviously alter its approach to dealing with this new and increasingly dangerous Chinese capability. However, the challenge is determining whether to devote resources to offense or defense. Does the U.S. attempt to secure an already compromised communication network (which has become indispensable in speed and integration) or does it increase its own capabilities to penetrate Chinese networks, gather intelligence, and perhaps disrupt operations on the other end of the spectrum.

Sweet and Sour China?

Last week, The Wall Street Journal published an article on the impact the global financial crisis is having on migrant workers in China. According to the article, migrants in China's urban centers are losing jobs quickly as employers seek to let them go due to the decline in demand for Chinese goods. Many of these workers are returning to their homes in China's rural areas, but this mass migration from the urban to rural areas is having an impact on issues from food security to social unrest.

Migrant workers returning to their farms in the rural areas face issues of food insecurity because they no longer have an income level that allows them to provide for their families. They also face problems resulting from and inability to farm lands either because the lands have been leased to cooperatives, or because migrants do not know how to grow food. Some do not even have the necessary resources to produce enough food to subsist. With a rise in migration from the cities to rural areas, China faces major issues of instability.

Stability in China is a major issue for the Chinese government. As long as the global financial crisis continues, Chinese workers will worry about having jobs. As world demand for cheap Chinese goods falls, China risks continued unrest due to unemployment and migration. As unemployment rises, maintaining stability becomes more difficult. Perry Link, professor of East Asian Studies at Princeton, in an interview for Harper's Magazine in August 2008, notes that "Anger over the growing gap between rich and poor is a fundamental cause of instability in China." As migrants return home, they may become increasingly resentful toward the wealthier middle class.

The individuals currently facing unemployment in China are predominantly the rural poor. The key to stability in China is the satisfaction of the middle class, and as long as the Chinese government can protect the middle class from the unrest and dissatisfaction of the rural poor, it will be able to maintain stability. If not, then China may face a new domestic crisis, which might force China's government to turn toward its own problems and away from its foreign policy emphases. This could have implications for China's actions in Africa.

Ian Taylor's work on China's engagement in Africa in the 1990s suggests that prior to the Tiananmen Square incident in China in 1989, Chinese aid to Africa had declined rapidly through the 1980s as China began to focus more on domestic growth in relation to the United States and Japan. Due to the current financial crisis, African nations could see a repeat of this policy. In the last several years, Chinese aid to Africa has increased dramatically. China's increased need for natural resources, especially oil, has pushed the policy for investment in Africa. China currently supports many autocratic regimes on the continent, and these regimes receive a lot of their financial support from China. If China has to focus on preventing a domestic uprising, it may opt to decrease or even end its emphasis on aid in Africa. China's problems at home could contribute to global instability if the country cannot continue to assist Africa's poor as well.

Western aid to Africa has already seen a decline as Western nations are consumed with preventing complete financial meltdown at home. Should China cease financial aid to Africa as well, there could be serious repercussions as African leaders and nations face a potential shortfall of financial resources. There are perhaps other consequences for Chinese economic decline. Already China is facing a sharp decline in economic growth for at least the next year. Continued decline for one of the most important manufacturing economies could have further implications on escaping the current financial crisis, not just in China, but around the world.

Is AIDS still really an issue?

We couldn't let World AIDS Day pass without having some sort of HIV/AIDS post, could we?

Does anyone else remember how rocked the world was when Magic Johnson announced on November 7, 1991 that he was HIV positive? It was the first celebrity that had been diagnosed with the virus that causes AIDS and was viewed as a death sentence. Most people believed that Magic would be dead before the year 2000. So here we are 17 years later and no one ever connects(at least publicly) Magic Johnson and AIDS anymore. How did that happen?

A lot has changed in the world since 1991 on the AIDS front. While there is still currently no cure for HIV, potent drug cocktails and lifestyle changes can push the disease into remission. This has caused many doctors and other experts to wonder as to whether or not HIV is the disease it was all cracked up to be.

In 1991, the question was for the quality of life for AIDS patients. Can they lead semi-normal lives? In 2008, the question has vastly changed. Now the question is if we spend too much on AIDS prevention and research.

HIV/AIDS has been, at least, contained in much of the world. True, it remains rampant in parts of Africa but the vast majority of the world has the spread of the disease under control. Couple that with the drug cocktails and those afflicted are leading very normal, long lives. No longer is the disease a death sentence. These developments have driven many to believe that too many dollars are allocated to AIDS. "AIDS is a terrible humanitarian tragedy, but it's just one of many terrible humanitarian tragedies," said Jeremy Shiffman, who studies health spending at Syracuse University. In fact, donations from the West for AIDS in Africa routinely outstrip the health budgets for countries like Uganda and Rwanda. This may seem all well and good, but then you must know that diarrhea kills 5 times as many people as HIV/AIDS in Africa. At last check, we didn't celebrate World Diarrhea Day. I would imagine we'd use a brown ribbon to commemorate that.

We should be proud of our accomplishments. We've taken a once-deadly disease and effectively neutralized it in a majority of the world. But has the time come to withdraw and reallocate some resources when it comes to the fight against AIDS? The red ribbon cause continues to be one of the sexiest out there, but at this point are we allowing more people to die because we're too fixated on AIDS?