Kagan's "No Change" Narrative Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

Bob Kagan is the latest to latch on to the idea that Barack Obama's policy is a continuation of George Bush.  This is an easy and intellectually lazy argument to make, mostly because it is physically impossible to turn around and change everything overnight.  And it's not as though Bush was wrong 100% of the time.  He just happened to be wrong about some incredibly important issues - issues, which the Obama team is now trying to repair.  So, obviously there is going to be some continuity, but Kagan seems to ignore some critical issues while mischaracterizing others.  Let's take a closer look.

The media have also reported a dramatic shift in the Obama administration's approach to conducting the Activity Formerly Known as the War on Terror. "Bush's 'War' on Terror Comes to Sudden End," The Post announced on Jan. 23, and subsequent stories have proclaimed a transformation from "hard power" to "soft power," from military action to diplomacy -- even as the Obama administration sends 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, significantly expands Predator drone attacks in Pakistan and agrees to a timetable for drawing down troops in Iraq scarcely distinguishable from what a third Bush administration (with the same defense secretary) might have ordered.

But on this issue public diplomacy and the perception in the Muslim World really does matter.  President Bush early in his term referred to a "crusade" against terrorism essentially convincing much of the Muslim World that the U.S. was at war with Islam.  President Obama used his inaugural address to call for a relationship based on "mutual interests and mutual respect."   This sounds pretty different to me. 

As for Afghanistan, it's worth pointing out that as early as August 2007 Obama was calling for more focus and direct strikes into Pakistan. But the biggest question here is prioritization.  Afghanistan played second fiddle for years during the Bush administration, while Iraq dominated resource allocation and policymakers' time.  As a result, our strategy drifted to the point where no one could clearly answer what American strategic goals were in the Afghanistan-Pakistan region.  After years of rudderless policy, the Bush administration finally commissioned a number of reviews during the end of its term.  But that is very different than an Obama administration that has come in and immediately put together a 60 day review to try and put a strategic focus on the war.

This statement from Kagan also seems off the mark.

So, too, the administration's insistence on linking proposed missile defense installations in Europe to the "threat" posed by Iran, or its offer to negotiate Russia's acquiescence to this plan and even to share missile defense technology. All this is widely celebrated as new. But Defense Secretary Robert Gates began these negotiations with Moscow more than a year ago. On Iran, the emphasis on carrots, in the form of a global political and economic embrace if Tehran stops pursuing nuclear weapons, and sticks, in the form of international sanctions and isolation if it doesn't, is not exactly novel.

First of all, it's true that Gates may have been working on this deal a year ago.  But Kagan conveniently forgets to mention that a very powerful Vice President by the name of Dick Cheney opposed this plan and was doing all he could to obstruct engagement with Russia. Compare this to Vice President Biden who at the Munich conference was the first member of the administration to call for resetting the relationship with Russia.  Gates' views may not have changed but the difference between the Obama and Bush administration is pretty stark.

Then there is Iran.  Yes.  Both Bush and Obama have looked or a combination of economic pressure points and incentives.  But the Bush administration also had this nasty habit of using over the top saber rattling rhetoric to make their points.  This type of language has fueled distrust and made it impossible to move forward on any fronts with Iran.  For example:

Mr Bush said Iran's nuclear programme would cast the Middle East "under a shadow of nuclear holocaust" and said the regime was the "the world's leading supporter of terrorism".

"I will take all actions necessary to protect our troops," he said. "I have authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."

Compare this to Obama's statements on Iran, which can sometimes be tough but do not come close to approaching this level of militancy.  "It is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress."  It's just not the same.

On Iraq, Kagan claims that Obama has gone with "a timetable for drawing down troops in Iraq scarcely distinguishable from what a third Bush administration (with the same defense secretary) might have ordered."  But he seems to forget that Obama has essentially been arguing for this timetable for two years, while Bush began the SOFA negotiations last year thinking that the agreement would solidify a long-term American presence in Iraq.  It was only because of Iraqi push-back that the SOFA eventually became a long-term disengagement agreement.

In the end Kagan's arguments simply don't seem to hold up.  It's very clever and contrarion to argue that Bush and Obama aren't all that different. In fact, it's so clever that there seems to be an op-ed on it in a major paper almost every day.  Unfortunately, it's also a weak argument that isn't supported by the facts.

NSN Daily Update 3/9/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

As the U.S. and South Korea begin military exercises, North Korea shut down the border with South Korea and says that it is prepared to go to war if its planned satellite launch is disrupted.  The satellite launch is thought to be a cover for a missile test.

Former U.S. detainee Binyam Mohammed alleges that the British government actively cooperated with his rendition and torture.

China steps-up patrols in Tibet ahead of the 50th anniversary of the major Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule tomorrow.  Rights activists allege the use of “black houses” to keep protesters out of Beijing.  China’s top legislator said China will never have a western-style democracy.

Gen. David McKiernan says the U.S. is “not winning” the war in Afghanistan.  Coalition deaths from IEDs in Afghanistan rise sharply.

Commentary of the Day

Roger Cohen says that Hezbollah and Hamas are viewed as legitimate political actors in the Middle East and must be included in dialogue and peace efforts.

Islamic reformer and former Egyptian terrorist Tawfik Hamid urges further Quranic study and revision of Shariah law to prove that Islam is a religion of peace.

Iranian academic Mohammad Hassan Khani looks at how the U.S. and Iran can achieve a working relationship.

NSN Daily Update 3/6/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

Mullah Omar calls for a Taliban “surge” in Afghanistan and no attacks in Pakistan on fellow Muslims.  The New York Times looks at how the Swat valley truce is giving more leeway to local Taliban forces.

Kyrgyzstan canceled airbase agreements for members of the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan.  The U.S. seeks strengthen the supply chain to Afghanistan so that it can increase supplies by 50% to support the troop increase.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will meet her Russian counterpart today to discuss improving relations.  Embattled Russian tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky is back in Moscow for a second trial.

Retired intelligence operatives criticize plans to investigate the CIA’s actions under the Bush administration.

Commentary of the Day

Iran’s former ambassador to France says that the U.S. needs an entirely new Iran policy, one that treats Iran as an equal partner.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch looks at an exit strategy for Iraq and argues for redoubled diplomatic efforts to preserve gains made in the war.

Kicking the Contracting Can Down the Road Posted by Michael Cohen

This week, President Obama issued a new presidential memorandum regarding government contracting.While the move has received widespread praise, there is unfortunately less here then meets the eye.

The President has instructed the OMB Director, and various agency heads, to review existing contracts and identify those that are wasteful and inefficient. In addition, Obama is seeking to open up the procurement process and end the practice of sole-source contracting.

This all sounds well and good . . . but what goes unanswered is who is going to carry out the President's orders. What is not included in the President's plan is how he plans on dealing with the crisis in the government contracting workforce. Take the Pentagon for example. 

Over the past several years the "acquisition workforce has dwindled by 25 percent, while the contracting workload has increased by a factor of seven."

In 1997 one auditor was responsible for $642 million in private contracts; today one auditor is responsible for $2 billion in private contracts."

This problem is only going to get worse as more than half of all contract auditors are expected to retire  within the next 10 years. What is needed are not only more contract management officials, but the Pentagon also needs to make this career path an attractive one for career officers so that they are persuaded to stay with it.  

While it may be verboten in Washington to call for more "government bureaucrats" no serious contracting reform effort can occur without a significantly increased acquisition workforce. President Obama has made a fairly big point about identifying some of the challenges with government contracting today, but by failing to tackle the workforce issue I'm not sure how seriously to take it. I fear that the Obama Administration's new contracting rhetoric may be just that . . . talk. 

 

Don't Believe the Hype Posted by Patrick Barry

It's probably unavoidable, but the hyping of U.S. - Iran talks has begun.  Just look at the way the Washington Post frames a story that is ostensibly about an announcement of a regional diplomatic summit on Afghanistan:

"U.S. Pushing for High-Level Afghanistan Meeting That Would Include Iran"

The Obama administration is pushing to convene a high-level meeting on Afghanistan this month that could for first time bring together Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and her Iranian counterpart.

Clinton on Thursday announced the push to hold the meeting during a gathering of NATO foreign ministers, saying it would bring together top diplomats of a broad range of countries including NATO members and "key regional and strategic countries." She said she expected Iran would be invited.

When you really think about it, this is actually a pretty unremarkable development.  Iran is right next door to Afghanistan. Why shouldn't they be invited?  In fact, the one thing that would make the summit remarkable would be if the U.S. shut out Iran, something both unrealistic and unwise, but also an unfortunate reality to which we've grown accustomed thanks to the Bush administration.

Still, there is a real danger in over-hyping the significance of this invitation.  First, too much emphasis risks turning a meeting that matters incredibly to the future of Afghanistan into a side event to the main show of a US - Iranian encounter. If all the coverage is about whether an American diplomat coughs near an Iranian, Afghans are not likely to be pleased. That could also send the wrong message to Afghanistan's other neighboring countries, especially Pakistan, which is really a much higher priority. 

Second, while a summit on Afghanistan is definitely one way for the the U.S. to start dealing with the Iranians, Afghanistan really isn't at the core of the two countries mutual antipathy.  You didn't hear the Leader talk about Karzai, NATO or the Taliban in yesterday's rant, and I would have to expect that the US cares much more about Iran's nuclear program and support for Hamas and Hezbollah than they do for the so far modest Iranian involvement in Afghanistan.  Every Iran expert I talk to emphasizes that Iran only responds when engaged on all fronts, and moreover tends to dismiss discrete entreaties as nothing more than one-offs.  To avoid leaving that impression, the U.S. must take pains to depict any discussions as contained within a broader dialogue, based around core interests.

Secretary Clinton seems to recognize this, emphasizing that Iran's interest in Afghanistan is natural, and that cooperation used to be quite routine.  But reading the Post's coverage, it's unclear whether the U.S. will be able to tamp down expectations so easily going forward.

Britain's making the "special relationship" less relevant Posted by Max Bergmann

The special relationship is losing its luster and it relevance. Contrary, to the UK press, this has little to do with the personal relationship between Obama and Brown or his electoral troubles, but is a byproduct of Iraq and the UK’s growing estrangement with Europe.

On the face of it everything now seems fine. As Brown departed for Washington, there was a lot of British commentary about whether Obama and the U.S. even cared about the “special relationship.” Personal relations between Obama and Brown were interpreted to be frosty and much was made over Obama’s statement prior to Brown’s arrival that called the U.S.-UK alliance a “special partnership,” not a relationship. It was even said that Obama hated the British because they tortured his father.

But in their meeting at the White House, Obama made pains to stress the relationship was special and Gordon Brown’s speech yesterday was so rah rah America it could have been given at CPAC. So everything is right in the relationship, right? Well not really, especially if your British. As the FT noted, Obama is not going to turn down an ally: “The Obama administration wants cordial productive relations with Britain, as with other countries.”

But that does not make the UK particularly relevant to the U.S. right now. Yes over the last eight years the Brits have been with us side by side in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that in some ways is sort of the problem. By backing the Bush administration in Iraq the UK hasn’t exactly enhanced their global clout and their military is now under great stress, which prevents greater assistance in Afghanistan. Furthermore, the UK’s relationship with Europe – never cozy – has become increasingly estranged.

Blair claimed that the UK was a “pivotal” country in world affairs,  due to, as the Economist noted, “Britain's possession of efficient armed forces, together with its twin loyalty to America and the European mainland, give it a unique bridging role.” In the run-up to the Iraq war, Blair leveraged these dual loyalties to America and Europe to make the UK an important international player that was essential to the U.S. The Economist had a great cartoon at the time showing Blair with a foot in both an American row boat and a European row boat that were headed in opposite directions. Bush offered the UK a choice, Europe or the U.S. Having chosen the Atlantic relationship, it was natural that there would be growing estrangement with Europe. But this has been compounded by American disinterest under Bush in rebuilding U.S.-European relations, as well as by the arrival of Brown, who is much more disinterested in Europe then Blair was.

The problem for the “special relationship” is that an increasingly eurosceptic Britain is much less relevant to the U.S. than a Britain that is firmly entrenched as an important player in the EU. So British debates over what’s more important the relationship with Europe or America offer a false choice, especially since the American president is no longer George Bush.  For the UK to maintain its traditional relevance to the U.S., it needs its place in Europe. Without that place in Europe, Britain will no doubt be an important and close ally - just like Canada, Australia, and Japan - but they bring a lot less influence to the table. 

With the possibility of David Cameron unseating Brown – ushering in one of the most eurosceptic governments the UK has had since it joined in 1973 – and overall anti-immigrant and anti-Europe sentiment growing in the UK, the Obama administration should make it clear that we want the UK to play a constructive role in Europe. U.S. pressure could at the very least serve as a check on potential British obstructionism on the Lisbon Treaty, as well as on other efforts to de-link the UK from Europe.

It’s high time we used the special relationship to attempt to influence British behavior in Europe, just as they use it to influence our behavior globally.

NSN Daily Update 3/5/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

A car bomb exploded in a cattle market near Baghdad, killing at least 10. Meanwhile, 31 House Republicans introduced a “Victory in Iraq” bill  to tout America’s “definable victory” there.

China outlines an ambitious stimulus plan and clamps down on Tibet as the fiftieth anniversary of the Tibetan uprising approaches next week.  The government also said they are ready to hold talks with Taiwan and work towards ending hostilities.

A spending bill sparks heated debate on Cuba policy in the Senate.

North Korea threatens the safety of South Korean civilian planes flying near its airspace.

Commentary of the Day

Joe Klein examines the Afghanistan problem and wonders whether we can avoid a quagmire there.

Rosa Brooks tries to find the logic behind the recently-released Bush administration OLC memos.

George Will says Congress should seek a more active role in foreign policy.

The EU's Political Deficit Posted by Max Bergmann

Things are getting bad in Europe, real bad, and the costs of European dithering are increasing. There has been plenty of excellent commentary about the crisis in Europe and the need for European political leaders to step up. (See Matt, Adam, and NSN's piece today). But to put this in a bit larger context, the current dithering is due in no small measure due to the EU's failings over the last decade to consolidate and strengthen its political union, as well as to take adequate action to alleviate the "democratic deficit."

The first problem is that Europe enlarged without modernizing its decision-making structure. The failure to pass an EU constitution as it into Eastern Europe has hampered the EU’s ability to make even simple decisions. Expansion has also meant that the Union is no longer dominated by a pro-European German-French alliance due to enlargement. Consequently, each has lost a feeling of ownership over the project - as seen by the French rejection of the EU constitution in 2005 and current German dithering.

Yet at the same time Europe has failed to adequately enhance its political union, its economic union has intensified. Over the last few decades European countries have become enormously integrated with one another. The true scope of this integration is often under appreciated, but the economic, legal, and administrative fabrics of European countries are now incredibly intermeshed. In short, Europe has become a single market and has developed an elaborate bureaucracy and legal system to monitor and develop this system. But it has done so without a proper over-arching political structure to govern the system. This is all fine when the going is good and top-down political intervention in the economy is largely unnecessary. But when the going gets bad, this is real bad. As Stefan Kornelius, of the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, told the New York Times, “We always said you can’t really have a currency union without a political union, and we don’t have one. There is no joint fiscal policy, no joint tax policy, no joint policy on which industries to subsidize or not. And none of the leaders is strong enough to pull the others out of the mud.” 

The second problem - and this is pretty massive - is that Europeans in general don't understand the EU, don't understand its importance, and don’t care that much about it. (If you ever get in a conversation with a European who rants about how ignorant Americans are about their politics, respond by asking them who is the EU commissioner for external relations? or enlargement? Don’t be surprised to see a blank stare) And so at the moment when leaders need support from European publics to take bold action in support of the European project and the single market, public support in many countries has soured. Instead, nativist slogans like "British jobs, for British workers," and “buy Spanish” are making the rounds. As a result, few political leaders in Europe – at a time when their popularity is sinking and many on the right and left are using the EU as a convenient scapegoat – are willing to go to bat for the EU.

British EU-skeptic Gideon Rachman had an amazing column in the FT where he, after deriding the EU as the FT columnist from Brussels over the last decade, is now really worried that the liberal single market  that is advanced by the EU is starting to unravel. He writes:

I am ready to retire as a eurosceptic. The European Union is in trouble. But rather than smirking – which would be the normal reaction of a sceptic – I am alarmed. 
 
…Arguably, all my darkest suspicions about the European project are about to be vindicated. So it is an odd time to renounce euroscepticism. But it is precisely the threat to the EU that has focused my mind. Plans for a political union in Europe were always crazy. But the four freedoms already established by the EU – free movement of goods, people, services and capital – are huge and tangible achievements. It would be terrible to see them rolled back… If Europe starts rolling back the four freedoms, the implications will stretch well beyond economics. Protectionism and nationalism are close cousins. The principles of consultation, co-operation and open borders within the EU have helped to repress the old, nationalist demons.

In the coming years, the real threat to these freedoms will come from national governments in a panic – not from the dreaded bureaucrats of Brussels. On the contrary, it will be up to an enfeebled European Commission to try to hold the line... Strangely enough, I now feel a certain protective warmth towards the embattled eurocrats in their Brussels skyscrapers. This would have been hard to imagine when I arrived in the city all those years ago. But it has finally happened. I love Big Brother.

The great irony here is that the thing Rachman has opposed – EU bureaucracy and expanded EU federalism – are now the things desperately needed to protect the thing he supports - a liberal open economy.

So where the EU goes from here is anybody’s guess. The worries of collapse are legitimate, but it is likely that the EU will pull together to do just enough to muddle through this crisis. If it is able to get through, the opportunity could be there for the EU to strengthen its political union. The Lisbon Treaty, which is not far from ratification, is no cure all, but it would be an awful important step to improve Europe’s ability to act more decisively.

The late Civil War historian Shelby Foote had a great quote about the impact of the Civil War on the US: “it made us an is,” he said. What he meant was that before the war people thought of the United States as a collection of states and would say “the United States are” a beautiful country. After the War it became “the United States is.” While this crisis could never have the unifying and transformative impact that the Civil War had on the U.S., crises do expose shortcomings and create opportunities to address them. A silver lining perhaps.

NSN Daily Update 3/4/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said that Middle East peace is doomed to fail.

Small, remote outposts are the lynchpin of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.

Chinese party elders press for transparency in the government’s stimulus package.

As the economic crisis continues, public outrage swells in Latvia.

Commentary of the Day

The Washington Post examines the “scary, post 9/11 thinking” of President Bush’s legal team. In light of the memo, the NY Times says the American people deserve truth and accountability about the actions of President Bush’s administration.

The Economist looks at the economic crisis’ consequences for foreign aid to the world’s poor.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari defends Pakistan’s counterterrorism policies and the truce with the Swat valley Taliban.

Stable, Sovereign, Prosperous, Self-Reliant Posted by Adam Blickstein

Spencer flags an important quote from Gen. Ray Odierno buried in a Christian Science Monitor article about reducing American reliance on security contractors in Iraq:

"This initiative supports our desired end state of a stable, sovereign, and prosperous Iraq," General Odierno wrote in a directive dated Jan. 31. "It's the right thing to do, so let's move out."

Notice the date of the directive, January 31. Now look at what Obama said in his speech last Friday on withdrawing American forces from Iraq:

This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.

Ilan noted the shift in tone and rhetoric between Obama's stated goals and those espoused by Bush, whose central pillar was "helping the people of Iraq establish a democracy in the heart of the Middle East." But it is striking that almost a month before Obama's speech that Odierno used nearly the same language as Obama when describing the desired end state in Iraq.

As recently as December 2008, Bush still clung on to the ideal of a democratic Iraq: "There is hope in the eyes of Iraqis' young. This is a future of what we've been fighting for -- a strong and capable democratic Iraq."  This starkly conrasted with what General Petraeus said in April 2008 while he still was commander of troops in Iraq: "We're not after the Holy Grail in Iraq, we're not after Jeffersonian democracy."

A sense of realism has blanketed the idealism of democracy promotion in Iraq in both the political and military circles. And clearly, it's refreshing to finally see both the military commanders and the Commander-in-Chief on the same page whe it comes to Iraq's future.