Obama's First 100 Days Posted by Heather Hurlburt

At the 100-day mark, the Obama administration has many things on its plate and even more challenges ahead.  With policy reviews and staffing incomplete and some choices not yet made, evaluations at this date are at best artificial – yet the Obama administration has produced a remarkable body of early actions.  NSN offers five themes that define and give shape to the Administration’s broad range of action – and point the way toward the future.  The Administration has moved aggressively to regain US prestige, reject failed ideas, put in place comprehensive strategies, bring 21st century approaches to bear on 21st century problems and signal continued US strength.  These five approaches have laid a solid foundation for the heavy lifting that now begins to reshape America’s place in the world and ultimately sculpt an “Obama Doctrine.”

21st Century Threats - UPDATED Posted by Michael Cohen

There is a really important/fascinating article in the New York Times today on the threat of cyberwarfare - and the need for the US to consider offensive cyber operations in targeting malicious hackers

Just as the invention of the atomic bomb changed warfare and deterrence 64 years ago, a new international race has begun to develop cyberweapons and systems to protect against them.

Thousands of daily attacks on federal and private computer systems in the United States — many from China and Russia, some malicious and some testing chinks in the patchwork of American firewalls — have prompted the Obama administration to review American strategy.

President Obama is expected to propose a far larger defensive effort in coming days, including an expansion of the $17 billion, five-year program that Congress approved last year, the appointment of a White House official to coordinate the effort, and an end to a running bureaucratic battle over who is responsible for defending against cyberattacks.

But Mr. Obama is expected to say little or nothing about the nation’s offensive capabilities, on which the military and the nation’s intelligence agencies have been spending billions. In interviews over the past several months, a range of military and intelligence officials, as well as outside experts, have described a huge increase in the sophistication of American cyberwarfare capabilities.

One of the interesting takeaways from the piece is that "“The fortress model simply will not work for cyber . . Someone will always get in," which means that sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Sound familiar.

Whatever the strategies involved, however, one thing is clear - while Washington is pulling it hair out over the future of a combat aircraft that is largely useless against the greatest security threats facing the United States; far greater challenges to our security are not receiving the public attention they deserve.  Not only does the country need to beef up its cyberdefenses, but as the article suggests, there are a host of legal issues that need to be addressed as well.

Whether its cyberwarfare or health pandemics (like the swine flu issue we are seeing today) this is the future: a globalized world where power is defused, borders are porous and information technology is potentially shifting the balance of power toward transnational and non-state actors.

Read the piece though. It won't be the last on this issue, I can assure you.

UPDATED - There is one worthwhile addendum to make to this post - this little nugget of information:

So far, however, there are no broad authorizations for American forces to engage in cyberwar. The invasion of the Qaeda computer in Iraq several years ago and the covert activity in Iran were each individually authorized by Mr. Bush. When he issued a set of classified presidential orders in January 2008 to organize and improve America’s online defenses, the administration could not agree on how to write the authorization.

A principal architect of that order said the issue had been passed on to the next president, in part because of the complexities of cyberwar operations that, by necessity, would most likely be conducted on both domestic and foreign Internet sites. After the controversy surrounding domestic spying, Mr. Bush’s aides concluded, the Bush White House did not have the credibility or the political capital to deal with the subject.

Just a reminder that executive branch law-breaking . . .  has consequences.

NSN Daily Update 4/28/09 Posted by The Editors

What We’re Reading

The swine flu continues to spread, leading to border closures and threatening global economic crisis recovery efforts.  The Senate is expected to confirm Kathleen Sebelius as Health Secretary today, spurred by the swine flu outbreak after weeks of delay.

Pakistan launches airstrikes against the Taliban as part of their intensified campaign against encroachment near Islamabad.  Pakistan’s offensive puts the Swat truce on shaky ground.  Pakistan worries about its image abroad.

Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari said that Pakistani intelligence believes Osama bin Laden may be dead but have no proof.

The New York Times examines how a 2007 ABC interview tilted the debate on torture.

The EU’s top court ruled that a Greek Cypriot can reclaim land in a Turkish-controlled area of Cyprus.

The U.S. steps up its digital defenses.

Commentary of the Day

Anne Applebaum discusses the role of the WHO in the swine flu outbreak.

Abdel Monem Said Aly looks at how Egypt’s desire for Middle East peace threatens Iran.

The former prosecutor for Yugoslavia at the International Criminal Tribunal says America must prosecute those responsible for torture.

"Maybe you'd sneak into the top 10..." Posted by Patrick Barry

One pretty conspicuous, but unsurprising absence from Stephen Walt's 'Top 10 Foreign Policy Movies' is Battle of Algiers.  It's conspicuous, because perhaps more than any other film, Algiers best portended the challenges that a great power like the U.S. could face from popular resistance movements and insurgencies. The Pentagon even screened it prior to the invasion of Iraq, and though no one seemed to have gotten the message initially, it remains required viewing for anyone interested in the concepts of insurgency and counterinsurgency, which are currently so in vogue. 

But Algiers absence is also unsurprising. As my colleague Max Bergmann - who studied the film, its context, and its implications during grad school - points out, while Algiers deals with concepts like political violence and asymmetric warfare directed at an occupying power, it's not really a movie about relations among nation-states.  For a consummate realist like Walt to leave it out is therefore not at all shocking, but it does suggest realism's shortcomings in explaining power dynamics between large states and the non-state actors that challenge their supremacy. 

Runner-up: James Lamond picks Rocky IV.  If you disagree, "I must break you."

Thawing U.S./Syrian Relations Means... Posted by Adam Blickstein

...that American diplomats, politicians, administration officials and members of the media no longer have to avoid Syrian airspace when traveling across the Middle East on official business. A small but important nugget from Andrea Mitchel this morning:

MITCHELL: One very telling point. We're flying to Beirut from Kuwait early yesterday morning and suddenly Matt Lee the AP Correspondent of the State Department looks at the display, the digital display and sees we're flying over Syrian airspace. This hasn't happened. We used to take a crazy detour. You know the distance between Tel Aviv and Beirut, to go to Beirut from Tel Aviv with Colin Powell or Condi Rice we used to go all the way around over the Mediterranean to avoid going over Syrian airspace with a military jet. You have to get permission. They wouldn't have granted it. So now we're flying the direct route. And so he asked "what's up here," and it took a couple of hours to find out yes they had gotten permission from the Syrian military for an Air Force jet to fly over. I'm not saying its the first time cause we used to have diplomatic visits there, but we are going to be exchanging ambassadors, the assistant secretary Jeff Feltman is going to be going back in 10 days to Damascus. Stuff is happening.

Syria used to be on the periphery of the Axis of Evil. Now they are allowing American military planes with the Secretary of State to fly over their airspace, avoiding a pretty long and pretty unnecessary detour. Real diplomacy in action. Video is here, pertinent portion around 7 minutes in.

NSN Daily Update 4/27/09 Posted by The Editors

See today’s complete daily update here.

What We're Reading

The Obama administration declared a public health emergency as US officials try to respond to an outbreak of Swine Flu. Governments around the world have instituted travel restrictions to the region. The failure of the Senate to confirm Health and Human Services Secretary nominee Kathleen Sebelius has hampered coordination efforts.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is upset over a US raid resulting in two Iraqi deaths that he may push for the prosecution of US soldiers.

The United States plans to begin informal contacts with the Cuba government. Survey shows Cuba Americans more willing to support ending the embargo.

Tamil Tigers call for a cease fire with the Sri Lankan government. The international community pressured the Sri Lankan government to comply, but the government has rejected the cease fire offer but won’t use air strikes or heavy artillery in their remaining military operations.

Putin party candidate wins mayoral election in Sochi, Russia, site of 2014 Winter Olympics. Gary Kasparov rallies voters in protest of Russian political interference. Candidate wins election in St. Petersburg and then denounces his fraudulent victory.

Commentary of the Day

Gordon Crovitz of the Wall Street Journal expounds on the role of immigrants in the U.S.’s economic recovery.

Arthur Silverstein, a professional immunologist, reviews some history of influenza outbreaks and finds grounds for optimism about the global public health system’s preparations for the swine flu outbreak.

Jim Arkedis discusses the escalating costs of supporting US military personnel.

When Swine Flu Hits Israel Posted by Adam Blickstein

Unkosher? Perhaps, but dangerous by any name:

Ultra-Orthodox Deputy Health Minister Yakov Litzman on Monday declared that Israel would call the new potentially deadly disease that has already struck two continents 'Mexico Flu,' rather than 'Swine Flu, as pigs are not kosher.

"We will call it Mexico flu. We won't call it swine flu," Litzman told a news conference on Monday, assuring the Israeli public that authorities were prepared to handle any cases.

Not sure how urgent arguing about nomenclature is compared to actually, you know, preventing a pandemic disaster. I guess it's all about priorities, but needless to say that after Israel reported two cases of the globetrotting virus, the Health minister should really focus on the disease instead of trying to semantically placate Israel's ultra religious faction.

Extreme Sheepherding Posted by Adam Blickstein

Courtesy of Wales:

Why Speaking Honestly Is Not All It's Cracked Up To Be Posted by Michael Cohen

Forgive me DA readers for going a bit afield today, but it's Friday and I need to get something off my chest.

For those of you who don't only read political and foreign policy blogs the big story over the past few days has been one Carrie Prejean, the runner-up in the Miss USA contest. Miss Prejean was asked by the openly gay celebrity blogger, Perez Hilton, for her views on the issue of gay marriage and responded that "a marriage should be between a man and a woman." Afterward, there was great speculation that she lost the competition because of her "politically incorrect" answer.

Not surprisingly, Miss Prejean has become a conservative darling; punished for expressing her true feelings and speaking honestly about the issue of gay marriage. For example, at Red State, Mark Impomeni said, “Miss California Carrie Prejean’s act of courage - in the face of tremendous pressure to spout the liberal line - serves as a fine example for young and more seasoned conservative politicians . . be true to your beliefs, and let the chips fall where they may.”

Then there was this from TownHall: "this was a travesty of justice and she is being punished for answering honestly -- and standing up for what she believes in."

Ok, here's the thing; just because you "answer honestly" doesn't automatically end any criticism of what you have said. For example, if Miss Prejean had been asked, "Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States. Do you really think that the country can trust an African-American in the nation's highest office?" And let's say Miss Prejean answered, "my personal view is that black people are inferior  and do not deserve the same rights as white people. I'm sorry if anyone is offended, but that's just what I believe."

Do you think that anyone - outside the KKK - would be rushing to her defense?

Now of course you hear the argument that Miss Prejean was just expressing her religious view - she even went so far as to say that she would rather be "biblically correct" than "politically correct." Later she was quoted as saying, "I knew there were secular judges, but I felt I needed to express my passion for the Lord.” (Apparently expressing intolerance toward homosexuals is a sign of religious devotion.)

So again, if Miss Prejean said that because of her well-established religious beliefs she believes that Christians should fly planes into the Grand Mosque in Mecca and should kill Jews and Arabs whenever they have the opportunity that would apparently be ok because she is "being true to her beliefs."

The simple fact is that Miss Prejean offered an opinion about gay marriage that no matter how "sincere" or "honest" is based on intolerance and leads to the denial of civil rights for an entire group of Americans.  While obviously Miss Prejean has the right to her opinion; the rest of us have a right to judge her harshly for it.  And well we should. Quite simply, no one has the right to hide behind their "beliefs" when they are expressing fundamentally intolerant views.

NSN Daily Update 4/24/2009 Posted by The Editors

See today’s complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

Following a FOIA lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the Obama administration will release photographs of alleged abuse in U.S. prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan. The New York Times looks at the decision-making behind the release of the torture memos.

Problems have arisen in efforts to move a large group of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Yemen, where Obama administration officials are skeptical of rehabilitation and security efforts.

Two days of bombings in Iraq have killed more than 135.

Taliban militants leave the Buner district in northwest Pakistan the day after Pakistani politicians and American officials “question the government’s willingness to deal with insurgents.”

Head of the United Nations nuclear agency Mohamed ElBaradei announced that North Korea is a “fully fledged nuclear power.” Meanwhile, North Korea will try American journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee for allegedly entering the country illegally and committing “hostile acts.”

International donors in Brussels pledge more than $250 million to Somalia to help with “law enforcement, humanitarian aid and possibly a coast guard,” as Kenya emerges as a possible location for a piracy criminal court.

US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice will serve as the keynote speaker for an international summit on Malaria, to take place on the eve of World Malaria Day, committing the US to becoming “a global leader in ending deaths from malaria by 2015.”

Commentary of the Day

Phillip Zelikow explains why torture may work, but also outlines the drawbacks.

Paul Krugman give his take on why the torture debate is about much more than national security policy.

The Washington Post discussed the trade offs of prosecuting crimes versus maintaining a tradition of not recriminating previous presidential administration’s policies.

The Financial Times explain why the memos justifying torture gave a victory to terrorists and how President Obama ought to fix the situation.