NSN Daily Update: 6/11/09 Posted by The National Security Network

For today's daily update click here.

What We’re Reading

Political rallies crowd Tehran’s streets ahead of tomorrow’s election.

A draft resolution that condemns North Korea’s recent underground nuclear test and would impose greater sanctions on the rogue nation was approved at the United Nations.

The World Health Organization is set to declare the Swine Flu a pandemic, the first such declaration in over 40 years.

Ahead of next month’s summit, Russia is closely exploring a proposal to host a portion of U.S. missile defense on Russian territory, which would represent a significant thaw in tensions over the contentious issue.

Commentary of the Day

Roger Cohen is on the ground in Tehran previewing tomorrow’s elections, taking the opportunity to lambast “the foolishness of anti-Iran hawks.” Nobel Prize winner Shirin Ebadi calls the election a moment where Iranian human rights are also at stake.

David Ignatius explores the growing turf war between DNI Dennis Blair and CIA Director Leon Panetta over which agency decides America’s overseas intelligence chiefs, saying broadly that the “CIA should run operations; the DNI should run analysis and intelligence community coordination.”

David vs. Goliath Posted by Michael Cohen

Before the day escapes me I must take this opportunity to share with DA readers this nugget from Michael O'Hanlon's plea in today's Washington Post for more defense spending:

The administration is right to propose increasing resources for the State Department and aid programs. But it is unwise politics and unwise strategy to put these key elements of foreign policy in direct competition with each other, as appears to be the case in the new budget.

This has to be a joke. The budget for the Pentagon is approximately $650 billion. The budget for the State Department - around $54 billion. How under any measurement is that a competition?  This isn't a question of taking money from DoD and giving it to State; it's a question of giving to the State Department whatever is left over after the Pentagon takes every bite it wants out of the apple.

O'Hanlon, however, is concerned that the vast increases in the international affairs budget will do damage to the Pentagon, which under Obama's budget will be forced to subsist on a minimal spending increase:

The base budget (the part that does not include war costs, which are too unpredictable to include in this analysis) is to grow 2 percent a year over the next five years. But with the inflation rate expected to average over 1.5 percent, the net effect is essentially no real growth. Cumulatively, that would leave us about $150 billion short of actual funding requirements through 2014.

So if I understand this correctly O'Hanlon is saying that we must increase defense spending because if we don't then we'll have to cut defense programs . . . and the problem is? His is an argument in defense of military spending for the sake of military spending devoid of any strategic rationale for why this defense spending is even necessary. (Say that ten times fast).

Perhaps the better question for Michael O'Hanlon to have asked is whether there might be $150 billion in the defense budget worthy of being cut, as opposed to taking more money from civilian agencies, domestic spending priorities or borrowing it from overseas. It seems to me that after years of atrophy it is America's civilian agencies that need the most possible support not a bloated defense budget chock full of weapons systems intended to fight global rivals that no longer exist or are unlike to arise.

Here's one suggestion. Today there are plans to increase the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops, which is estimated to cost $110 billion. Considering that we are drawing down troops in Iraq and the chances of a major conventional conflict on the horizon seem slim maybe we could make a cut there. It's not as if we don't have an armed forces that already dwarfs every other military in the world and then some.

Look, I don't mean to sound like some lefty agitator, but in an era of tightening budgets and economic downturn, maybe the time has come for the United States to recognize that our big military, which takes up more than half of the budget's discretionary spending, needs to have a moment of reckoning. Maybe the time has come for us to figure out how we can do more with less or maybe reduce our security commitments around the world so that we have enough money in the budget to provide Americans with health care or a strong social safety net or maintain a diplomatic and development agency with the capacity to further US interests. Maybe we should think about the amount of money we spend on defense in terms of what we actually want and need our military to do.

But of course I'm being silly; in America we make tradeoffs for every public institution except for the military.

Church of Tommy Franks Posted by Patrick Barry

Nothing I could say could add to the glory of Andrew Exum's discovery:

 

Oh wait - check out these photos from the opening!

NSN Daily Update: 6/10/09 Posted by The National Security Network

Today, the National Security Network released a letter from retired generals and flag officers stating their support for President Obama and Secretary Gates' budget. See the full letter here.

What We’re Reading

The United States won an agreement to transfer up to 17 Chinese Muslim Uighurs currently held at the prison at Guantanamo Bay to the island nation of Palau. Palau is expected to receive $200 million in aid in return.

Only a few days before the presidential election, former Iranian President Akbar Rafsanjani accused current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of “insults, lies and false allegations” and, in a very rare move, criticized the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for remaining silent on the issue.

Terror suspects won a landmark detainee rights lawsuit in Britain when nine Law Lords ruled that individuals cannot be held in ignorance of the case against them.

Humanitarian agencies warned that climate change could displace up to 200 million people.

Commentary of the Day

Tom Friedman comments on the election results in Lebanon.

The LA Times calls the two American journalists convicted of illegally entering North Korea as “pawns of Pyongyang.”

Hooman Majd examines the wave of optimism and hope sweeping through Iran on the eve of elections.

Oh its on... USA vs. Iran in October Posted by Max Bergmann

Reports out of Iran indicate that the U.S. and Iranian soccer federations have agreed to play two friendlies - one in Tehran in October and one in LA in November. Apparently, the head of the US soccer federation and his Iranian counterpart agreed to the games at a FIFA conference in the Bahamas. But one assumes that there is no way that they made the agreement without talking to their governments first.

The game in Tehran raises a number of interesting questions. Will American fans be able to travel to Tehran for the game? (Last year - in one of the dumbest effects of the Cuban embargo - American fans were not legally allowed to root for the US team in a world cup qualifier against Cuba.) Will the U.S. send a high-level government official to watch the game - hmm Hilary perhaps? Will the Iranian president - whomever that may be - attend with them? It will be very interesting to watch how Iran approaches all the atmospherics around the game. Is it a love fest - with the players taking on the role of diplomats and lots of expressions of mutual friendship. Or is it more chilly and nationalistic - with symbolic expressions of Iranian power? Most interestingly is how the Iranian fans - likely 100,000 of them - will react, especially during the U.S. national anthem... symbolism galore!

The follow on game in Los Angeles  will also have a number of interesting subplots. Iran's coach - presuming he still has the job in November since it is looking less likely Iran will qualify for the World Cup after the 0-0 draw in the Axis of Evil bowl with North Korea - Afshin Ghotbi is an Iranian-American and went to UCLA, along with many of the American players. There is a large Iranian population in LA and their reaction will also be interesting to watch - will there be protests? who will Iranian-Americans root for? Will the U.S. government invite an Iranian official to attend?

Should be facinating.

The Issue That Won't Stop Speaking Its Name Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Of all the national security isues that the advocacy community would like to raise higher on the Obama Administration's agenda -- global poverty, Law of the Sea, reform of international institutions, the International Criminal Court to name a few -- who would have predicted that repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell would be the one that draws the high-level coverage and takes on a life of its own?  Yet today's NY Times editorial calling on Obama to use an executive order to suspend the policy is only the latest in a steady drumbeat of public commentary.  Three reasons this is happening tell you a great deal about what's changed in advocacy politics over the last decade:

1.  Smart and well-organized advocacy.  My friends at the Palm Center have been doing pioneering work on the issue for a decade -- combining serious research, extensive recruitment of credible military spokespeople, and good old-fashioned advocacy -- and now a community of DADT-specific advocacy, supported by major civil rights organizations, has grown up and come of age, which a number of multi-issue national security organizations like NSN are proud to partner with.

2.  Generational transition.  We've had a flood of young veterans into public service and politics in the last four years, and a new energy from younger activists in progressive politics in general.  True to these generational stereotypes, these folks see the repeal of DADT as a no-brainer, perfectly compatible with patriotism -- and they don't really see why we over-40 types keep telling them to be patient and wait.  After all, if a gay, black Iraq vet can run for Congress, why can't he serve?    

3.  Great Expectations.  Quite a few communities are struggling with how to manage the gap between the enormous expectations Obama's stirring rhetoric and substantial victory created and the cold reality of priorities and politics that confronts a sitting president.  The fact that discharges under DADT have continued  -- at a moment that marriage and civil rights issues are movign forward in a piecemeal way in the states -- has certainly galvanized activists and veterans alike.  (Apparently there are parallel repeal and don't-repeal petitions circulating among senior retired officers.)   The President's enormous personal popularity and credibility creates this problem -- we all believe he wants gay servicemembers to serve, right -- and prevents its solution.  Because where are all the repeal advocates going to go?  Michael Steele's "big hat" GOP?

Bombing in Peshawar Posted by Patrick Barry

Major news outlets are reporting an organized attack and bombing of the Pearl Hotel in Peshawar.  The New York Times describes the scene:

A powerful explosion Friday outside a five-star hotel in the northwestern city of Peshawar killed at least five people and wounded 25, Pakistani officials.

The blast was powerful enough to be heard for miles, witnesses said, and television images showed wounded people, with blood stained clothes, being helped out of the smoke filled lobby of the hotel, the Pearl Continental, which is one of the few major hotels in the city that cater to Western visitors.

The Times points out that the bombing could be the latest in a string of insurgent attacks in response to Pakistan's military offensive in Swat, as it bears strong resemblance to last month's highly coordinated strike on a Pakistani intelligence office last month.  After that incident, Reuters reported this warning from Beitullah Mehsud deputy Hakimillah Mehsud: "We [The Pakistani Taliban] want the people of Lahore, Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Multan to leave those cities as we plan major attacks against government facilities in coming days and weeks."

It seems equally possible however that this attack was also meant to convey a message to Western audiences.  Not only is the Pearl Hotel popular among westerners, but McClatchy story last month reported a State department official describing U.S. plans to purchase the hotel and convert it to a super consulate that would serve as a base for "intelligence gathering," and "expanded U.S. aid programs."  Under this line of thinking, the Peshawar bombing would represent the most significant attempt by the insurgents in the post-Swat offensive period to drive a wedge between the Pakistani government and their U.S. backers

Press in Frenzy over Iranian Elections Posted by Patrick Barry

In a battle royal of narratives, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post duke it this morning out over the Iranian Presidential elections. Reading Farnaz Fassihi's piece in Journal gives you the impression that Iranians are positively bubbling in their support for reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi:

Tens of thousands of demonstrators formed a 12-mile human chain across Iran's capital city Monday, chanting for change, in scenes reminiscent of the 1979 revolution.

The crowd had come out in support of Mir Hossein Mousavi, a reformist former prime minister who is seen as the strongest rival to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Friday's presidential election.

But wait, Thomas Erdbrink says na-nay-no to the Post's readership:

More than 100,000 backers of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gathered in traditional fashion at a central mosque, arriving in buses organized by members of the baseej, Iran's voluntary paramilitary force. The crowds were so dense that Ahmadinejad's vehicle was unable to reach the stage.

Neither piece says much about the opposing candidate's supporters.

Two articles, two different portrayals of the Iranian political landscape.  One illustration of why it's prudent to treat coverage of Iran's Presidentian elections with a dose of skepticism. 

NSN Daily Update 6/9/2009 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

The first Guantanamo detainee to be tried in U.S. courts arrived in New York.

U.S. officials found that troops committed errors when fighting Taliban forces early last month, resulting in Afghan civilian casualties.

Huge campaign rallies supporting President Mahmoud Ahmadinjad and challenger Mir Hussein Moussavi snarled traffic for hours in Tehran.  Time Magazine looks at how the obstacles to marriage in Iran might damage President Ahmadinejad’s re-election chances.

Commentary of the Day

Gideon Rachman reacts to the European parliamentary elections.

Eugene Robinson ponders whether President Obama in fact underestimated the impact of his unique personal story.

A group of Russian intellectuals argue that the Obama administration’s Russia policy should take an entirely new approach and should seek to understand the Russian people, not just their government.

I hope you brought your towel… Posted by James Lamond

… because today is World Ocean’s Day.

 And this means it's a great opportunity to discuss the Law of the Seas Treaty. 

United Nation Law of the Seas Convention is one of rare no-brainers in the policy world where basically everyone agrees.  It is supported by just about every interest group there is, which has created the most unthinkable alliance. As Spencer  Boyer and Don Kraus write, “Fortunately, there are benefits in this treaty for just about everyone -- including environmentalists, business associations, oil, shipping, and fishing companies, and the military - who all support ratification. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers are largely in favor.”

In addition, since 1983, by President Reagan’s order, the United States has been voluntarily operating under the regulations of the treaty. So ratification would not alter American foreign or domestic policy.  

So if everyone loves the treaty, and it would not force any change in policy for the U.S why hasn’t it been ratified?

CFR explains:

On July 29, 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the Agreement on the Implementation of Part XI of the convention on the Law of the Sea. He sent the agreement, along with the 1982 convention, to the Senate on October 7, 1994 (Appendix II). The following month, Republicans won control of the Senate, and in January 1995, Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) became chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Worried that the convention had not been fixed and that it sacrificed U.S. sovereignty, Senator Helms refused to hold committee hearings.

In 2003, Senator Richard Lugar succeeded Helms as chairman and, with the encouragement of the Bush administration, put the convention on the SFRC agenda. Senator Lugar held hearings, beginning with public witnesses and followed by government and industry witnesses a week later. In 2004, additional public hearings were held by the Armed Services Committee and the Committee on Environment and Public Works. A closed hearing was held by the Select Committee on Intelligence, which determined that joining the convention would not adversely affect U.S. intelligence activities. The SFRC prepared a draft resolution of advice and consent, and recommended Senate approval by a unanimous recommendation. The convention was sent to the full Senate, only to be delayed when then Senate majority leader William Frist (R-TN) did not bring it to the floor for a vote.

Senator Frist declined to run for reelection in 2006, and the Democrats won a majority in the midterm elections. With Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) as majority leader and Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) taking over as chair of the SFRC, prospects for approval of the convention brightened. Letters of support from National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and President Bush gave further impetus (see Appendix II). However, Chairman Biden and the next ranking committee member, Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), were actively campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, and little progress was made during the early 2007 session of Congress. Eventually, testimony was taken during fall hearings, and the SFRC received letters from the chair and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence, reaffirming their prior support of the convention. On October 31, 2007, the SFRC again approved the convention by a vote of 17–4, and the official report and recommendation for approval were submitted to the full Senate in December.

By the late autumn of 2007, the convention had become a small but notable issue in the Republican presidential campaign. Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who had a decadelong history of supporting the treaty, changed his position and opposed the convention. By early 2008, the heat of the presidential campaign brought progress on the convention to a halt. Then, following the election, the Senate’s attention was taken by the growing economic crisis, precluding consideration of the convention during the lame-duck session.

So, basically the treaty, which has been supported by environmentalists, business interests, the military,  Democrats and (most) Republicans, has been hijacked several times by ideologically driven conservatives. 

Today, as certain challenges emerge- such as a growing Chinese navy, the rise in maritime piracy off the coast of Somalia, increasing environmental problems, and the opening of the Arctic shelf for mineral extraction and shipping- internaitonal agreements to govern truly international territory, which the oceans are, becomes more pragmatic and important than ever.  Hopefully, if the treaty comes before the Senate again sometime soon, a select few right wing ideologues will not hold the entire country back.