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

For today's completely Daily Update, click here.

What We're Reading

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

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

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

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

Commentary of the Day

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

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

Dead Aid is Dead Wrong Posted by Michael Cohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Today's update click here

What We’re Reading

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

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

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

Commentary of the Day

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

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

Neocons sound like Anti-American Europeans Posted by Max Bergmann

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Other War Posted by Michael Cohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whither AID? Posted by Michael Cohen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the whole article here