NSN Daily Update 3/24/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

President Barack Obama published an op-ed that appeared in 30 newspapers around the world on the need for a global solution to the economic crisis.

Violence in Iraq killed at least 32 on Monday, including at least 19 at a Kurdish funeral in Diyala Province.  A Kurdish rebel group, the PKK, rejected the calls of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who is Kurdish, to cease fighting against Turkey and leave Iraq. 

Sunni militiamen from the Sons of Iraq are angry at Iraq for not delivering promised jobs.

China urges the creation a new international currency reserve, controlled by the IMF, to replace the dollar.

Commentary of the Day

David Brooks writes from Afghanistan about the Afghan National Army.

Enrique Krauze says that the dire situation in Mexico has been exaggerated and that it is not close to becoming a “failed state.”

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette supports President Obama’s outreach to Iran, but says he needs to “watch his back in Washington.”  The Wall Street Journal looks at the strategic shift implied in President Obama’s New Year’s message to Iran.

Obama's global oped - its prospects and its European limits Posted by Max Bergmann

In what is sure to make all oped writers blush with envy, Obama today had an oped on the global economy published in 30 papers around the world. I believe that maybe the first time that has ever happened.

The oped was a preview of what the U.S. will call for at the G-20 summit next week. Obama argues for a concerted effort on the part of G-20 countries to stimulate their economies and stabilize financial systems. He called for boosting the resources at of the IMF so it can continue to help rescue emerging market countries. Perhaps more noteworthy Obama publicly disavowed protectionism and said other countries should avoid going down that path (I bet Mexico's truckers were amused by that). Only toward the end of the oped Obama pledges to take "coordinated international action" to form a new international framework to regulate financial markets.

It's a good oped and lays out the right points that need to be talked about at the G-20. With Obama's global and European popularity, this oped and its global scope is an aggressive attempt to rally global - and especially European opinion - to sign on to his global economic agenda - most notably the stimulus effort. But the order of priority laid out by Obama in the oped highlights the challenge he is going to face in the summit meeting. With a week to go before the meeting Europe and the U.S. do not see eye-to eye. Mark Mardell of the BBC writes:

If the European Union gets its way the London G20 summit will concentrate on new rules and regulations, not discussing how to further stimulate the world economy.

It is going to be hard for significant coordinated action to occur on the G-20 when Europe is intent on opposing a stimulus. This lack of urgency led to Paul Krugman's exasperation last week, writing that:

to hear anything in America comparable to the know-nothing diatribes of Germany’s finance minister you have to listen to, well, Republicans.

The problem then is that Europe is at the point where it has become integrated to the point where national governments lack the tools to address their economic problems, but Europe is not politically consolidated enough to tackle its problems at the Union level. Combine this structural problem, with a general sense of disillusionment with the European project on the part of the Germans, a wide-spread sapping of popular support for the European project, and a rise in anti-immigrant feelings (ie the French fear of the "polish plumber") and  protectionist outcries ("British jobs for British workers") - sentiments that challenge the openness which is at the heart of the EU - and you have a real problem. This is a crisis both of political will and political mechanisms.

It is therefore probably unrealistic for the Obama administration to expect to go to the G-20 and simply work it out with Europe, since all Europe can agree on right now is that the economic crisis is our fault and that global finance must be regulated. The one area where progress is most possible - unfortunately this is also the least important in the immediate term - is in laying the foundation for an international regulatory framework - which would be quite an accomplishment.

This does not mean that the Administration should simply through up their hands on the stimulus, but the U.S. should perhaps try to view the G-20 as the start of the conversation (particularly with Europe) rather than the end. And over the next few months the U.S.-European diplomatic engagement (particularly between U.S. and Germany) should be ramped up. Making the case for stimulus in Europe is as much about making the case for the European Union, as it is about economics right now.

It's Good For The Flu. It's Good For Asthma . . . Even Umara Composis Posted by Michael Cohen

Since I attended more than 30 Grateful Dead concerts as a teenager and college student I worry that I have even less credibility than most in recommending Aaron Houston's excellent piece on the benefits of legalizing marijuana over at Foreign Policy.com. (Honestly, I went for the music).

This is part of the problem with talking about legalization of pot; there is a general assumption that those making it have a, how shall we say, vested interest.  But as Houston points out the question of legalizing marijuana has serious public policy implications that are rarely considered.

Take the situation in Mexico today, where drug gang violence has led to the deaths of more than 7,000 people since January 2008. Sixty percent of the profits that drive Mexican drug trafficking comes from marijuana. This has nothing to do with the potency of the drug being discussed, but instead the fact that it's simply an enormous, lucrative and highly profitable market. More than 15 million Americans, per month smoke pot. Quite simply, the problem in the drug war is on the demand side; and its a war that the United States has pretty much no hop of winning.

But what I particularly like about Houston's piece is that he makes the market argument for legalization:

Make marijuana a legal, regulated product like alcohol and tobacco are. After all, there's a reason these gangs aren't smuggling wine grapes. When you have a legal, regulated market for a product, the underground market disappears. Indeed, the United States already has an illustrative example from its own history. During the 13 dark years of alcohol prohibition, drinking didn't stop, but gangsters such as Al Capone got rich. When Prohibition ended, the bootleggers -- and the orgy of violence that accompanied them -- went away. By taking marijuana out of the criminal underground and regulating it, Americans can cut the lifeline that gives Mexican drug gangs their power.

There are benefits for the United States, too. For the first time, regulators would have a level of control over marijuana production and distribution, both of which are impossible under today's system. Over time, the domestic marijuana industry would start to look like California's wine business: a responsible industry that adds to the state's prestige, tourism, and tax coffers, rather than a source of violence and instability.

I'm amused by the idea of Napa Valley tours of pot fields, but hey whatever works. Read the whole piece; it makes a pretty compelling argument that marijuana legalization isn't just for Rastafarians anymore!

Also, it's worth reading Misha Glenny's excellent new book, McMafia who makes an even more compelling case for the futility of the current drug war.

NSN Daily Update 3/23/2009 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

A 200 pound truck bomb malfunctioned near a Haifa mall, which if exploded would have been one of the largest attacks in recent years.  Kamal Medhat, a senior Fatah representative, was killed in a bombing outside a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon.  NATO says a senior Taliban leader, Maulawi Hassan, has been killed.

China arrests nearly a hundred Tibetan monks after an attack on a police station and a protest.  China says 89 of the monks turned themselves in.  Apparently bowing to Chinese pressure, South Africa blocks the Dalai Lama from entering the country.

Secretary of State Clinton will travel to Mexico on Wednesday to discuss trade disputes and Mexico’s drug war.  Drug violence spills over into the U.S.

U.S. citizen Naji Hamdan’s arrest by the UAE with alleged U.S. complicity tests detainee policies.

Commentary of the Day

Former US ambassador to Romania Jim Rosapepe examines the current state of the global economy in the run-up to the G-20 summit, saying “today's financial crisis is global. The responses – both for both recovery and reform – need to be global.”

President Obama calls for a new era of service across the United States.

The Times of London previews India’s upcoming elections, arguing that a weak government is a better alternative to one that ranges from “corrupt to the outright criminal.”

George Soros lays out requirements for the upcoming G-20.

Les Gelb writes that it’s time to “go to strength” in U.S. foreign policy.

The Future of the US Military Posted by Michael Cohen

Dr. Steven Metz, who teaches at the Strategic Studies Institute has a really important post at Small Wars Journal about some of the flawed assumptions driving current US military strategy. According to Metz, he was attending a recent DoD symposium and reports that “everyone nodded when a speaker said that the threats of the future will be dispersed, non-state entities, but few seemed to understand that this obviates the very essence of American strategy and the current focus of the military.”

Precisely. Yet, the ongoing debate between what Andrew Bacevich calls Crusaders and Conservatives regarding the future of US military doctrine seems to miss this critical point. On the hand, we have Crusader John Nagl, the new head of CNAS, who argues that the security challenges of the 21st century will require that the U.S. military be positioned "not just to dominate land operations, but to change entire societies." On the other hand we have West Point professor Gian Gentile who argues that the military, "ought to be weighted more heavily toward the requirements of conventional warfare."

But as Metz points out, perhaps both Gentile and Nagl have it wrong. For starters, the enshrining of counter-insurgency doctrine presupposes that these types of conflicts will be “the face of battle in the 21st century.” I find this very hard to swallow. Not only is there a lack of political will in the US to engage in the sort of long-term counter-insurgency that we fought in Iraq, but I'm not so sure why we would want our military to engage in this type of conflict. If the Iraq War has shown us anything it is that counter-insurgency is not the most effective type of war for the US military to be fighting - and that the benefits that might be gleaned from such a conflict would be more than outweighed by the costs. Now some might argue that we have no choice but to fight such a conflict that it will be forced upon us. My response is poppycock. The only reason the US would fight a counter-insurgency is if we choose to; and that's a choice we simply should not make because in part, it is difficult to contemplate any sort of protracted counter-insurgency that will further US interests.

As Bacevich succinctly puts it, "If counterinsurgency is useful chiefly for digging ourselves out of holes we shouldn’t be in, then why not simply avoid the holes? Why play al-Qaeda’s game? Why persist in waging the Long War when that war makes no sense?"

But because Nagl overemphasizes counter-insurgency it does not mean that Gentile's focus on conventional warfare is correct either. First of all, in an era when the control of territory has taken on far less importance in US strategic thinking the term "conventional warfare" may not mean what he have traditionally thought it means. Again Metz is spot-on in his analysis: "If you buy the notion that future threats will not be linked to a particular piece of geography--enemies can mobilize resources and undertake operations from almost anywhere--then seizing and controlling terrain will no longer be the essence of security."

Gentile identifies three possible future conflicts that might entail fighting a conventional war, "A clash between Iranian forces and an American combat brigade in Iraq could erupt in a minute. A North Korean march on Seoul will not be a fight for hearts and minds. Nor will ground fighting on Taiwan in the event of a Chinese assault."  But realistically, each of these conflicts, and in particular the latter two will likely not involve a major conventional engagement. If North Korea marches over the 38th Parallel or China invades Taiwan (and really why would either country do something foolish) the Army is unlikely to play a leading role; instead it will be the Air Force and Navy respectively. Does anyone believe that the US should be fighting another land war in Asia? And what about Iran? Well one would hope that after 6 years and more than 4,000 dead in Iraq we would have learned our lesson in the Middle East as well.

In the end, perhaps the focus of the US military and American foreign policy, writ large, should be to avoid counter-insurgencies -- AND AVOID CONVENTIONAL CONFLICTS.

Where Nagl and Gentile fall short in their analysis of the future of the military - and where I think Metz is on to something - is the confusion of tactics with strategy. Before deciding whether the US should be focusing on counter-insurgency vs. conventional warfare strategies perhaps the better question should be - what are the greatest threats facing America in the 21st century and what kind of military do we need to confront them.

Metz identifies the challenges confronting the US as "dispersed, non-state entities." I would add to that list a host of transnational issues, starting with climate change and moving down the list to health pandemics, global economic instability, vast criminal networks, failing states, the rise of semi-authoritarian governments etc. Guess what? It's not easy to bomb any of these challenges.

The means of best confronting non-state actors or multinational threats is not the sledgehammer of US military force it is instead of confluence of diplomatic engagement, law enforcement tactics, civilian development agencies, democracy and good governance promotion and in some cases, our armed forces. While one could argue that this has always been true, the reality has been quite different. More often than not, we perceive our security threats in military terms and choose to respond in kind. But its about time we recognized that the military is not the primary tool in our arsenal for confronting security challenges, but simply one of many - and in some cases, perhaps the least effective.

Indeed, Metz says at the end of his post, "20 years hence, the U.S. Army’s role in promoting American security will decline precipitously." What I find most surprising about this assertion . .  is that anyone finds this assertion surprising. If I could give one piece of advice to President Obama's national security team that I would hope they would follow, it is to assume that Dr. Metz prediction is correct.

NSN Daily Update Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

President Obama sent a video message to the Iranian people marking the Iranian New Year and offering a “new beginning.”  Iran responded that it expects “fundamental changes” in U.S. policy and will not forget America’s role in past incidents.

The U.S. courts former Afghan warlords in pursuit of stability.

Former U.S. high-level diplomats, including Henry Kissinger and James Baker, meet with Russian officials and President Dmitry Medvedev to try to restore U.S.-Russian relations ahead of important meetings next month.  Russian planes flew close over U.S. ships engaged in exercises with South Korea.

Following the provincial elections, new political alliances emerge in Iraq across sectarian lines.  The jobless rate for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan is at 11.2%.

Commentary of the Day

The New York Times looks at statistics from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iraq veteran Jon Soltz looks at the outlook for Iraq six years after the initial invasion.

The LA Times applauds the fact that Mexico’s drug war is “finally getting Washington’s attention.”

David Brooks explains how the U.S. currently has “perverse cosmic myopia,” an inability to focus on the most important tasks at hand.

Let's Hear It For The Lawyers Posted by Michael Cohen

In the past week a really important story emerged out of Pakistan; the peaceful reinstatement of the Chief Justice of the country's Supreme Court Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry.

Chaudhry had been removed two years ago by then-President Musharraf; and while President Zardari had pledged to reinstate him, for more than a year he dragged his feet. But after peaceful street protests, Zardari was finally forced to return Chaudhry to the Court.

There are many reasons why this is a critically important step for democracy in Pakistan. The group that spearheaded the protests was the same independent lawyer's movement that has been one of the strongest non-Islamic civil society voices in the country. It is one observer put it "perhaps the only liberal, modernist, utterly non-violent, peaceful, tolerant, democratic, plural and hugely popular movement in the history of the entire Islamic world." (H/T to Mike Allen at NED and his excellent Democracy Digest blog)

There is an important lesson here for US policymakers; if they want to get serious about promoting democracy stop looking to the leaders that they think are protecting our interests and instead focus their energy on the civil society voices that are fighting the good fight for democracy. For years, we pumped billions of dollars into Pakistan and propped up President Musharraf with little return on our investment. Pakistan is in an arguably more fragile state now than it was then; Al Qaeda in Pakistan is stronger not weaker and our influence in the country has actually diminished.

Our support for Pakistan and particularly Musharraf in the wake of September 11th reflected short-term strategic thinking; and perhaps in the short-term there might have been some logic to it. But over the long-term relying on benevolent dictators or even benevolent democrats is not a road map for democratic outcomes - supporting local civil society actors and other private groups that are advocating for democratic reform and providing the technical assistance that leads to the establishment of democratic institutions is a far wiser course of action.

Over at Foreign Policy, Dan Twining makes the right point: "U.S. policy toward Pakistan, including assistance programs, should focus on strengthening Pakistan's civic institutions, particularly the educational and judicial systems, to empower the country's moderate majority. It constitutes a better bulwark against Talibanization than any officer with stars on his shoulders."

And we have the tools in our arsenal to do this - there is the National Endowment for Democracy, there is the UN Democracy Fund and there is the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which arguably could be doing more to support local actors, but does have in place a smart NGO consultative element. But above all what is needed is a better understanding, in policy circles, of what drives democratic outcomes; an empowered and energized citizenry and institutions not individuals.

Rhetorically, the Bush Administration voiced these words, but in practice, they tended to rely on individuals and not institutions to shepherd democratic outcomes. And it wasn't completely about supporting bad leaders; there was also the frustrating tendency to look to leaders we think are on our side and assume they have the best democratic intentions in mind. American democracy provides a good example, George Washington may have been a great first president, but the sustainability of American democracy came not from his leadership, but from the Constitution and the democratic institutions established in the wake of independence.

After 25 years of the institutionalization of democracy promotion in USFP we have a far better sense of what works and what doesn't. What happened this week in Pakistan is a good example of what works and who are the key actors in driving democratic outcomes. I hope that folks are paying attention at Foggy Bottom and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

McCain vs. Petraeus Posted by Max Bergmann

One of the real benefits of last year's election was that it dispelled the myth that McCain was a reasonable foreign policy centrist and exposed the fact that he was actually a reckless neocon. For instance, on North Korea, it was discovered that McCain was actually more extreme than Bush and opposed the administration's efforts - led by Chris Hill - to negotiate.

Now Hill has been appointed to replace Ryan Crocker - who departed last month - as U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Yet Hill's appointment has been held up by McCain, Lindsay "mini mac" Graham, and Brownback, because... well...Hill didn't want to bomb North Korea - which in McCain's neocon world makes his North Korea legacy "controversial."

It was always clear that McCain knew how to hold a grudge. But what makes this all the more interesting is that by blocking Hill, McCain is pissing off Petraeus - a man who McCain could not stop praising last year. Laura Rozen at the Cable writes:

Sources tell The Cable that Centcom commander Gen. David Petraeus, top Iraq commander Gen. Raymond Odierno, and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are frustrated by the delay in getting a U.S. ambassador confirmed and into place in Iraq, and support Hill's confirmation proceeding swiftly...Since the previous ambassador, Ryan Crocker, left the job Feb. 13, Odierno has complained of doing double duty: serving as the commanding general and the de facto ambassador.

The power vacuum in Baghdad comes at a critical juncture in Iraq's transition, sources noted. The U.S. mission is becoming increasingly focused on political stabilization and economic development over military missions; Arab-Kurd tensions are rising in the north; struggles for dominance within and across sectarian groups are heating up in the aftermath of January's provincial elections; the Baghdad government is facing tough budget choices due to declining oil prices; and national elections that will determine whether Iraq can consolidate its democracy are due by year's end.

..."This is all about retribution," said one Senate Democratic foreign-policy staffer. Conservatives blame Hill for nudging Bush's second term North Korea policy towards multi-party talks. "They want to give Hill a black eye."

Something has to give here... what will it be: McCain's love for Petraeus or his neocon vindictiveness?

Update: Laura Rozen emails an update to her piece... And it's quite an update. Geoff Morrell the chief military spokesman confirms Rozen's story and adds a swipe at McCain, Graham, and Brownback:

“With regards to members who have issue with him [Hill], I would say this," Morrell added. “We appreciate their steadfast support of the Iraq mission. But you can’t be bullish in support of that mission and not send an ambassador in a timely fashion.”

NSN Daily Update 3/19/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

As the Obama administration works on its strategic review of the war in Afghanistan, the new comprehensive strategy is expected to include strengthening the Afghan security force and sending more diplomats and civilians for non-military projects.

Hundreds of thousands of workers strike across France, protesting President Nicolas Sarkozy’s economic policies.

The dollar falls as its “haven status” slips following the Federal Reserve’s decision to intervene in the U.S. Treasury market, undermining the dollar’s value.  Banks in Austria are highly exposed to Eastern Europe and its financial problems.

Commentary of the Day

Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman say that the “minimalist path” is wrong for Afghanistan, argue that a narrow focus on counterterrorism is not enough.

The New York Times is worried about the Obama administration’s “ambivalence” to trade and the trade spat with Mexico.

The Christian Science Monitor examines how Russia’s proposed arms buildup will actually end up hurting the country’s stagnant economy and will hurt Russia’s bargaining position with the U.S.

Ending Stop-loss Posted by Max Bergmann

It was just announced that the Army will phase out its use of stop-loss. This is great news and is another indication that we are at the beginning of the end of the Iraq war.

Stop-loss came to symbolize the Bush administration's disastrous management of the wars. By invoking stop-loss the Army prevented soldiers who had completed their terms of service from leaving the military. This often meant that soldiers in units who had nearly completed their terms of service would have to serve out the remainder of their units deployments. The policy was blatantly unfair and went against the concept of the all-volunteer military. It was hard for the Bush administration to reconcile its claims to have achieved success in Iraq or of having turned the corner, when they were involuntarily forcing soldiers who had completed their terms of service to continue fighting.

Not only did the Army's invocation of stop-loss clearly demonstrate that Iraq had badly overstretched our forces, but it made it irrefutably clear that the Bush administration had bungled the management and planning of the war.  It also made a mockery of the cries that critics of the Administration did not "support the troops," when the ones carrying the burden of the administration's mistakes in Iraq were the few men and women who had volunteered to serve.