America’s War with Iran Escalates

The U.S. campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran has a long history dating back to the founding of the Islamic Republic when the Carter administration imposed unilateral sanctions following the hostage crisis in 1979. Over time the sanctions regime has expanded as the U.S.has attempted to deal with what it saw as Iranian challenges to U.S. interests in the region. The U.S. overthrow of the regime of Sadaam Hussein in Iraq enhanced the Iranian position and in response President George W. Bush, in 2007, initiated a program of covert military action against the Islamic Republic.

President Obama, after campaigning on a policy of dialogue, has enhanced the sanctions regime and lobbied and coerced other countries to enhance their sanctions. The practical effect of the sanctions has been modest. The World Bank estimates that the Iranian economy grew at a rate of 3% in 2010. This is not to say that the Iranian economy doesn’t have its problems. Years of inconsistent and incompetent management by the theocratic regime have resulted in sub-par economic performance. Sanctions have negatively impacted privately owned enterprises leaving more of the economy in the hands of government enterprises.

Dissatisfaction with economic performance has led to political conflict within the regime. The Iranian system of government is similar to the U.S. system with separation of powers and checks and balances. As in the U.S., this leads to political power struggles and gridlock. There is one thing that could unite the squabbling leadership and that is the rise of an existential outside threat. This appears to be on the horizon.

President Obama has not only enhanced sanctions, but has escalated the covert military campaign. Over the last year, several Iranian nuclear and electronic warfare scientists have been assassinated. The Stuxnet virus has been unleashed against Iranian nuclear facilities. Deadly explosions have occurred at military and other facilities near the major cities of Tehran and Isfahan. Support for ethnic terrorist groups such as MEK, PJAK and Jundallah has continued. Some analysts claim that there have been attempts to assassinate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. (See here).

In reaction, Iran appears to have escalated its own responses. In past months, Iran, in conjunction with Hezbollah, has unraveled a CIA spy ring in Lebanon and Iran, arresting over thirty operatives. In October, U.S. authorities accused Iran of orchestrating a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador in a popular Washington, DC restaurant. If true, this represents a major escalation on the part of the Iranian regime and a major shift in their tolerance for risk. Two weeks ago Iran displayed an American drone aircraft, claiming that they had hacked into its GPS guidance system and guided it to an intact landing. (An interesting account of how they did it is here.) Iranian officials have also claimed that they will soon display other U.S. and Israeli drones that they have shot down or hijacked.

This week, Iran announced that they will soon conduct a “military maneuver on how to close the Strait of Hormuz” through which 17% of the world’s oil flows. This announcement alone caused oil prices to jump $3 a barrel. As we continue down this path of confrontation with no vehicle to prevent or defuse miscalculation, the danger of unintended conflict increases.

(Photo from Iran Revolutionary Guard website)

Technorati Tags: Iran,Drones,CIA

Middle East Policy Newt Gingrich Style

This week Republican Presidential candidates (except for Ron Paul who was not invited because of his “misguided and extreme views”) paraded before a conference of the Republican Jewish Coalition to express their undying loyalty to the State of Israel. Newt Gingrich, the current front runner for the Republican nomination, stood out from the crowd by signaling his intention to overturn long standing US policies on the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Among other things he promised to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, a step that has long been opposed by almost all of the international community. However, his most interesting comments occurred in an interview with The Jewish Channel which was posted on-line on Friday.
In this interview he said, "Remember, there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and who were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places.” This statement has been interpreted by many as questioning long standing US policy supporting a two state solution to the situation. The two state solution has been sustained since the early 1990’s by both Republican and Democratic administrations despite growing evidence that facts on the ground make it no longer viable.
Many historians trace the concept of Palestinian national identity to the 1800’s when the Palestinians revolted against their Ottoman Turkish overlords. Clearly there is now a strong sense of Palestinian national identity created by the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. The whole debate harkens back to a 1969 statement by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian”.
It is, however, the implications for the two state solution policy that make this discussion interesting. If there is “no such thing as a Palestinian”, is there any need for a Palestinian state? If there is no Palestinian State, will there be a bi-national state for all residents of historical Palestine? If Palestinians can “go many places”, should they be forced out of a Jewish State in Palestine? Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel and Director of the pro-Israel think tank, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, recognized the consequences of these positions when he said if Mr. Gingrich believes the positions “as implied in his language, then he's not pro-Israel at all."
While being a “front runner” in the Republican primary race is a precarious position, if Mr. Gingrich can maintain this position, it should provoke an interesting, and much needed debate about U.S. Middle East policy.
(Photo from Al Jazeera English)

Technorati Tags: Newt Gingrich,Israel,Palestine

The Syrian Dilemma

One question I am frequently asked these days is what is the U.S. policy in Syria and why are we acting differently in Syria than we did in Libya. In considering these questions I am reminded of the words of a Middle East expert who when asked about U.S. Middle East policy responded, “We don't have a policy in the Middle East, but that's just as well because, if we did, it would be the wrong one”. Before discussing Syria, it would be useful to examine the Libyan situation.

The Brotherly Leader of Libya, Muammar Qaddafi was an easy target for international military support for a revolution. In addition to his eccentric antics, he had managed, through his words and policies over the years, to make enemies of nearly everybody, the western powers, fellow Arab leaders (especially in the wealthy, autocratic Gulf States) and his own people. When, following the approval of UN Resolution 1973 authorizing “all necessary actions to protect civilians”, the western powers, interpreting the resolution very liberally, embarked on a policy of regime change, no one came to Qaddafi’s defense. The situation in Syria is quite different.

While Libya was isolated politically, diplomatically and geographically, Syria sits in the middle of the volatile Levant region bordering Iraq, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and Israel. It is a major player in the so-called axis of resistance along with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Any western intervention in Syria would likely bring its allies into the conflict with serious regional consequences.

The divisions in Libyan society are largely tribal in nature. On the other hand, in Syria, tribal rivalries are overlaid with sectarian divisions. The Christian and Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam) minorities are generally part of and supportive of the regime, whereas the majority Sunni Muslims see themselves as oppressed.

Faced with these complicating factors and an overriding concern about the rise of Iran and a possible threat to Israel, the U.S. is attempting to create its own version of the Great Game between Russia and Britain in Central Asia in the 19^th Century. The U.S. is attempting to mobilize and co-opt regional players such as Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, to confront the resistance axis and orchestrate regime change in Syria. This effort, well financed by the wealthy Gulf States, appears to be turning the uprising against the Assad regime into a low grade civil war.

The conservative Gulf monarchies have long despised the secular Assad regime in Syria. Among their Sunni proxies in Syria are a large number of Salafist groups including many jihadist fighters who were kicked out of Iraq and who have set up shop in Syria. Orchestrating a Syria/Iran game as part the effort to remake the New Middle East, utilizing allies with different agendas, is risky business and may come back to haunt the U.S. and its allies.

Technorati Tags: Libya,Syria,Axis of Resistance,Middle East

The U.S.–Iran Standoff

This week the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its much ballyhooed report on Iran’s nuclear program. The release of the report has been accompanied by a great deal of hype and alarmist rhetoric by western governments and media. Upon close inspection, however, the document appears to be “much ado about nothing”. Almost all of the information on Iran’s nuclear weapons program in the report is historical, dating to 2002, and has been known by most observers for some time. In its summary, the IAEA concludes that it “continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement”. The report complains that Iran has failed to live up to its obligations under the Additional Protocol, neglecting to mention that Iran signed, but never ratified this protocol.

The new material on weaponization efforts sites as its source undisclosed intelligence information from Member States, presumably U.S, Israel and other western intelligence agencies. This information primarily alleges that Iran is conducting research on weapons systems that could lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. The report gives no hard evidence supporting this allegation. Even if all of the allegations are true, the report neglects to point out that, as a signatory to the NPT, Iran has obligated itself not to “manufacture or acquire” nuclear weapons {there is no mention of weapons research) and, therefore, is not in violation of the NPT.

There are, however, some useful understandings in this report. First, the IAEA has become much more political under its current head, Yukiya Amano, than it was under his predecessor, Nobel laureate Mohamed ElBaradei. Most of the intelligence information included in this report was available to ElBaradei, but he did not deem it credible enough to include in previous reports. Amano, who owes his position to strong U.S. lobbying, has taken the agency in a new direction and, as described in a State Dept. cable released by Wikileaks, is “solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision”.

The second understanding is that U.S. policies toward the Islamic Republic are a complete failure. Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, albeit more slowly than it might have hoped. The so called crippling sanctions have done nothing to affect Iranian policy. Iran has been able to maintain its oil production at about 4 mm bpd and with a budget based on an oil price of $65 and current prices hovering around $100 they are not in financial straits. They have been able to get around many financial restrictions by taking payments from India and China in local currency and leaving the currency in place to pay for imports. They have also been forced to put their currency reserves in gold. (Not a bad investment.)

The U.S. has finally been forced to back down and to acknowledge that stricter sanctions or military conflict would have very serious negative consequences for the struggling western economies. Now might be a good time to reconsider the policies. Unfortunately, this is not a likely occurrence.

Technorati Tags: Iran. IAEA

America’s Declining Influence

This week Palestine was admitted as a full member of UNESCO, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Despite strong U.S. and Israeli lobbying against the resolution the vote in favor was overwhelmingly positive: 107 for, 14 against and 52 abstentions. It appears that, besides the U.S. and Israel, only 12 states support the Zionist enterprise. As can be seen from this video, the result was enormously popular among conference members and was enthusiastically received despite the potential financial problems that will be created for the organization. The larger implication is for U.S, global influence.

Immediately after the UNESCO result was announced, the U.S. announced that it was withholding its payment of its $80mm contribution to UNESCO which amounts to 22% of the agency’s budget. Should the U.S. continue in arrears for two years, it will lose its voting membership and join such luminaries as Somalia and Libya in being in arrears on its UNESCO dues. While the funding deficit is serious, it could easily be made up by countries such as Russia, China or Saudi Arabia who voted yes and for whom $80mm is pocket change. A similar outcome can be expected if Palestine continues to take its statehood case to other UN agencies such as IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), WHO (World Health Organization) and 12 other agencies who have similar rules. This will have important implications for U.S. national interest in issues such as Iran’s nuclear program and global health among others.

This is only the latest in a series of events which have highlighted U.S. declining influence in the Middle East. When the U.S demanded that Israel halt construction of settlements in occupied Palestine, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was completely comfortable in ignoring the wishes of his strongest ally and continuing construction. Despite U.S. threats to cut off funding to the Palestinian Authority and to veto the statehood resolution at the UN, President Abbas ignored the U.S. threats and proceeded to the UN Security Council.

The decline in U.S. influence in the region and the concurrent rise in Iranian influence began with the U.S invasion of Iraq. This has had significant consequences for U.S. regional policy. In Iraq, Iran’s political allies have been able to prevent the U.S. from retaining a significant military force on the ground. In Bahrain, the U.S. has had to back away from its support of the democracy movements for fear of Iranian influence among Bahrain’s Shia majority. When I recently asked a senior State Department official about this, his reply was, “This is an extremely difficult problem”.

Absent a significant change in policy approach, it is likely that America’s influence with friend and foe alike will continue to decline. The decline will have major implications for America’s foreign policy objectives. Other countries will certainly fill the vacuum. Whether this will be positive or negative remains to be seen.

That said this quote from Amb. Charles Freeman at the recent NCUSAR (National Council on U.S. Arab Relations) Conference is applicable, “I want to close by affirming my faith in the adaptability and resilience of the United States.  With all the problems we have made for ourselves and our friends in the Middle East, we have just about run out of alternatives to doing the right things.  Now we may get around to actually doing them.”

Iran-A Land of Limited Options

Last week U.S. government officials announced the indictment of a former used car salesman in Corpus Christi, Texas on charges of being the coordinator between the Iranian government and a Mexican drug cartel in a plot to kill the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., blow up Jewish synagogues and cause other attacks. As information on the alleged plot begins to trickle out, the whole event begins to sound more like an episode from the 1960’s spy genre spoof Get Smart than a serious threat. Unfortunately Manssor Arbabsiar, the alleged perpetrator, does not appear to have had his own Agent 99 to keep him organized. It looks to me as though this is another one of those “dangerous plots” that is announced with great fanfare and then gradually fades from media coverage and is dismissed for lack of credible evidence.

Whatever the outcome of this case, let’s assume that all of the allegations are true and this was a serious effort, controlled at the very top of the Iranian government, designed to result in a major attack on the U.S. and provoke a regional war with the western powers. What are the options for a U.S. response? To me, they appear pretty limited. President Obama has threatened additional sanctions. However, because of the U.S. led sanctions regime currently in place, Iran is already among the most isolated countries in the world. This state of affairs suits the hardliners in the Iranian government just fine as they have no interest in engaging with the west. The isolation also tends to insulate Iran from the financial contagion that is plaguing countries linked to the western financial system.

The hardline hawks, both within and outside of the U.S. government, who advocate military action have escalated their saber rattling, “all options are on the table” rhetoric following the announcement of the indictment. It is my view, however, that the Iranian strategy of asymmetrical deterrence is fairly effective. Rather than relying on conventional military capability for deterrence, Iran has engaged regional allies including political parties/militias such as Hezbollah and Hamas to threaten Israel and American troops deployed to the region They have succeeded in arming Hezbollah and Hamas to the extent that they pose a significant threat to Israel’s population centers. Pressure from Iran’s allies in Iraq has forced the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Iran’s relationship with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance poses a similar threat to U.S forces in Afghanistan. The Quds Force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, “responsible for extraterritorial activities” is also deployed around the world.

President Obama is now in campaign mode and it is very unlikely that he will want to instigate another disastrous Middle East conflict just as he is trying to focus attention on domestic economic issues. That said, in this part of the world, anything is possible.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Manssor Arbabsiar

The Palestinian’s Desperate UN Gamble

Last week the Palestinian Authority’s nominal president Mahmoud Abbas defied U.S. and Israeli pressure and submitted an application to the United Nations to become a Member State of the international organization. Many people on both sides of the Israel/Palestine situation have questioned why Abbas has chosen to make this move.

The 1993 Oslo Accords established the Palestinian Authority (PA) and initiated the peace process which was envisioned to lead to a Palestinian state within five years. Instead the Oslo process has led to two decades of alternating negotiations and violence. Instead of a Palestinian state, the Oslo process has led to continued Israeli occupation, construction of a wall that divides families and confiscates land, increased blockades and road closures, more Jewish settlements on the West Bank and further Israeli land annexation

In 2008, faced with an interminable process that was going nowhere, Abbas and his nominal prime minister, Salam Fayyad, embarked on a new strategy which included the building of state institutions before sovereignty. This approach assumed that, once state institutions were in place, international pressure would force Israel to recognize Palestinian rights. This has proved to be a false hope.

Abbas and Fayyad have realized that the U.S. and Israel are satisfied with the status quo and that Obama is now in full campaign mode and unlikely to do anything that would have domestic political consequences. With the Arab Awakening going on all around him, Abbas has become desperate to change the political landscape. The move to the UN was the outcome. It is a desperate gamble with uncertain consequences

With the U.S. certain to veto the Member State application in the Security Council, the recognition of Palestine as a non-member state in the General Assembly is the most likely result. Unless the PA leadership has a strategy (strategic thinking is not their strong suit) to follow up with actions at the International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice and to capitalize on the United States’ weakened and isolated position to break the U.S. stranglehold on the peace process, they may end up with the provisional state that Netanyahu has frequently broached. This outcome will have little effect in improving the situation on the ground for ordinary Palestinians.

In the end, the outcome may rest in the hands of the Palestinian people themselves. The Arab Awakening which started in Tunisia and Egypt and has spread across the region has demonstrated the ability of the people to rise up and say “enough is enough” and overthrow their unelected leaders and demand their rights. The Arab Spring may eventually arrive in Palestine.

{Photo by UN News Center)

Technorati Tags: Palestinian Authority,UN,Palestinian State

Mission Accomplished in Libya?

As British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy take a victory lap in Libya, it may be premature to declare victory. The number of nations that that have formally recognized the Transitional National Council (TNC) as the legitimate government of Libya grows every day. Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the chairman of the TNC presents a moderate face to the world which plays well in the western media. Behind the scenes of moderation and unity there are many unresolved issues that will be difficult for even the best intentioned leaders to address.

In contrast with Tunisia and Egypt where the revolutions were largely peaceful and where institutions such as political parties, NGO’s, labor unions, etc. were in place, Libya’s revolution was protracted and violent and civil society institutions had been destroyed by Qaddafi and his cronies. There are, therefore, few building blocks upon which to construct a new government structure.

We are already seeing all the societal divisions, which had been suppressed under Qaddafi, reappear even within the TNC. The most visible division is between the Islamists and the secularists. Under Qaddafi the secular elites have been the most prominent both within Libya and in the exile community. However, during the revolution, the Islamists have commanded the bulk of the fighters and the weapons. The Islamist forces are the most experienced fighters who fought in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq and the Balkans. They, therefore, have assumed leadership positions. Abdul Jalil of the TNC has attempted to bridge these divides by calling for a moderate Islamic regime with a legal system based on Sharia. Within the TNC there is also rivalry between the Benghazi and Tripoli factions.

The TNC, however, is not completely in charge. Qaddafi is gone, but where is unclear. Many of his supporters have fled across the southern deserts to Niger and Chad. Will they now become the insurgents? Most of the focus has been on the populous coastal region. The huge sparsely populated desert regions of the south have long been havens for bandits and militias. It will now be an ideal place from which an insurgency of Qaddafi loyalists can operate.

Tribal factions are also competing for power and influence. Many cities were a captured from Qaddafi’s forces by local tribal militias with no allegiance to the TNC. These armed groups will need to be integrated into the new government structure.

Many of Qaddafi’s weapons stockpiles have disappeared. These included not only light weapons and machine guns, but also surface to air missiles. With al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) right across the porous border with Algeria, this raises the threat of attacks on passenger planes.

President Obama was wise to allow the British and French to be the face of the NATO operations and to avoid a premature “mission accomplished moment”. Obama said at the onset of hostilities, “Libya is not Iraq.” It does, however, look a lot like Afghanistan. It ain’t over til it’s over.

(Photo by John Moore/AP)

Technorati Tags: Libya,Qadaffi,al Qaeda,NATO

America’s Covert War with Iran

After several years of “no options are off the table” saber rattling against Iran, U.S./Israel appear to have decided that another major war in the Middle East is not politically or financially sustainable. Faced with Iran’s determination to continue its nuclear program U.S./Israel have reverted to a covert program of assassination, cyber-attacks and support of terrorist insurgent groups.

Shahram Amiri, an Iranian nuclear scientist at Malek Ashtar University, an institution affiliated with the Revolutionary Guards, was kidnapped in June 2009 and transferred to the US. In January 2010, Massoud Ali- Mohammadi, a particle physicist, was killed by a remote-controlled bomb. Recently, Majid Jamali-Fashi confessed to having been trained by the Mossad in Israel and paid $120,000 to carry out this and five other terrorist attacks. In November 2010 Majid Sahriyari, a nuclear scientist, was killed and Fereidoun Abbasi-Davini, Iran’s current nuclear chief, and his wife were wounded in similar attacks. (These stories are here and here)

In 2010 centrifuges in Iran’s nuclear program were attacked by a malware program, the so-called Stuxnet Virus. This attack damaged the centrifuges and undoubtedly delayed Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Most experts believe that this kind of sophisticated attack could only have been accomplished with “nation state support”. In interviews with media organizations, the U.S. and Israel have tacitly acknowledged their involvement. Now that Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor is operating, one wonders whether the US/Israel are willing to risk a nuclear disaster by attacking this facility.

For a number of years, under a program initiated in the George W. Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration, the U.S. has supported The Party of Free Life of Kurdistan (PJAK), a Kurdish separatist group, Jundallah, a Sunni fundamentalist insurgent group in Baluchistan in Pakistan and southern Iran and The People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), a Iranian group, now based in Iraq. These groups have been designated as terrorist groups by most western countries, including the U.S. (This story is here)

It is unclear what effect these covert efforts are having in achieving U.S. objectives in the Middle East, but one thing is clear: they are not helping relations with the Islamic Republic. When I have talked with Iranians about U.S. – Iran relations they immediately bring up the U.S overthrow of democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mosaddegh, in 1953. It is plain that Iranians have a long memory. They also have a history of not getting mad, but getting even.

Even weak countries have a limited tolerance for ongoing U.S. efforts to assassinate their leaders and to overthrow their governments. At some point the “chickens come home to roost” and they respond. One only needs to think back to conspiracy theories of involvement of Castro’s Cuba in the assassination of John F. Kennedy to see an example. (The latest version is here

Technorati Tags: Iran Nuclear Program

)

Israel’s Masada Syndrome

In 72 AD the Jewish rebels of Israel, besieged by the Roman legions in their fortress refuge at Masada, determined to commit suicide rather than submit to defeat and Roman rule. This siege mentality seems to be reappearing in the Israel of today.

Last year, when a flotilla of ships carrying international activists attempted to enter Gaza to deliver relief supplies to the blockaded territory, Israel attacked the flotilla. The attack resulted in the deaths of nine activists including one American and was a public relations nightmare for Israel. The response of the Israeli government was to launch a massive propaganda campaign and to attack any action that they saw as an attempt to delegitimize Israel.

This response has reached a new level in recent weeks. Israel’s reaction to an attempt to organize a new Gaza flotilla was to mount a diplomatic blitzkrieg which persuaded an economically weakened Greek government, which was in no position to resist the pressure, to prevent the flotilla from sailing. The activists also allege that Israeli forces sabotaged some of the ships.

This week a so-called flytilla, in which over 200, primarily European, activists, attempted to fly to Tel Aviv and travel to the West Bank in support of Palestinian rights, was met with a massive security presence at Ben-Gurion airport. Some people were immediately deported and others were detained under what they claim were poor conditions including being crammed into roach invested prison vans for up to five hours.

Also this week the Israeli Knesset passed a law making any call for boycotting Israel economically, culturally or academically a crime. Any NGO calling for a boycott can lose its operating license. This questionable law follows the passage of the so-called Nakba law, which forbids any commemoration of the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians during the founding of Israel.

Israel’s foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, who grew up in the former Soviet Union, has long claimed that he did not believe that democracy was the most appropriate form of government for a country in the Middle East. This point of view in many ways merely reflects the current political reality in Israel. Recent polls show that a significant majority of Israeli young people prefer a strong leader to the rule of law and in cases where state security and democratic values conflict, security should come first.

As Arab countries move toward democracy, Israel increasingly is hunkering down behind diplomatic, legal and physical walls. The Israeli claim to be the only democracy in the Middle East may soon be called into question.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Gaza,Gaza Flotilla

The Politics of Afghanistan

When I was visiting the Persian Gulf region a few months ago, I had a conversation with a senior Middle East analyst at the State Department. I asked him why it is that when the professionals in the State Department understand the realities on the ground that United States policy in the region is so disconnected from reality. He replied that the job of the professionals was to provide analysis of the situation and policy recommendations, however, the policy makers are political appointees and therefore, policy decisions are generally based on domestic political considerations rather than reality on the ground. We have seen this dynamic play out in this week’s announcement of US policy in Afghanistan.

President Obama in his policy speech described the success of American counter-terrorism efforts and said that he planned to continue them. He said, “al Qaeda is under more pressure than at any time since 9/11”, “al Qaeda is under enormous strain”, and “we have put al Qaeda on a path to defeat and we will not relent…” Prior to the speech a senior administration official said that the government had not seen a “terrorist threat” from Afghanistan in seven or eight years. He also said that only 50 to 75 al Qaeda members remain in Afghanistan.

Obama also disavowed a counter- insurgency and nation building strategy saying, “We will not try to make Afghanistan a perfect place. We will not police its streets or patrol its mountains…That is the responsibility of the Afghan government…”

Given his counter-terrorism strategy, the extended withdrawal timeframe (extending at least through 2014) makes little sense tactically. A counter-terrorism approach could be implemented with drones and Special Forces, allowing an immediate large scale withdrawal. Politically, however, it makes a lot of sense. A significant withdrawal will occur right before the 2012 elections and the remaining withdrawals are extended over years. By walking the middle ground, as is his penchant, Obama inoculates himself against attacks by the doves who want a quick withdrawal and the hawks who want a continuation of a major military presence.

It remains to be seen how the Taliban will react. They operate on a long time horizon. I once heard author Greg Mortenson describe a Taliban plan to recruit the best and brightest young children from Afghan villages, indoctrinate them in Pakistani madrassas, send them back to the villages to marry four wives and have as many children as they can. That is a really long range plan. The Taliban use a saying, “You have the watch. We have the time.”

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan,al Qaeda,Taliban,Obama speech

Memos from the Mountans: The Book

My new book of essays is available here:

A Palestinian Plan B

The ongoing uprisings throughout the Arab world during the last six months have largely removed the Arab/Israeli conflict from the pages of the western media. This changed last week when Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu came to Washington to meet with President Obama, speak to AIPAC and speak to a joint session of the US Congress. The depth of the stalemate in place in the so called “peace process” was vividly on display throughout the week as Netanyahu and Obama each struggled to set the agenda. The Palestinian leadership watching from afar as Netanyahu articulated the three “no’s”: no 1967 borders, no refugees and no Jerusalem, concluded that the negotiation process was completely dead. As they watched the US Congress jump up and down like puppets on AIPAC strings during Netanyahu’s speech, they also realized that Obama has no ability to influence events.

Shortly after watching this circus in Washington, Palestinian President Abbas announced that they would proceed, despite US warnings to the contrary, with their effort to obtain recognition by the UN in September. The Arab League quickly endorsed this effort and so it is unlikely that Abbas will back down regardless of strong US pressure.

This week Netanyahu told an Israeli audience that there was no way that Israel could prevent UN General Assembly recognition of Palestine, but he was comfortable that a resolution would never be approved by the Security Council. Read here “the US will veto any resolution and that will be the end of it”.

However, it may not be the end of it after all. In 1950, when the Soviet Union was vetoing everything in sight and stalemating the Security Council, the US orchestrated the passage of UN General Assembly resolution 377. In this so called “Uniting for Peace” resolution the General Assembly:

"Resolves that if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in any case where there appears to be a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to Members for collective measures, including in the case of a breach of the peace or act of aggression the use of armed force when necessary, to maintain or restore international peace and security."

Under this resolution the General Assembly essentially acts as a Security Council of the whole with the power to approve Palestinian membership and impose sanctions on Israel as an occupying power of a UN member. If 377 is invoked, the game may not be over until it is over.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Netanyahu

The Changing Face of the GCC

The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was founded in 1981 as a cultural and economic union of six Persian Gulf states: Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar. The founding purposes of the group, economic integration and cooperation, defense cooperation, and strengthened private sector cooperation were similar to those of the European Economic Community and its successor the European Union. The founding countries have much in common culturally, governmentally and economically. They are all Persian Gulf states with small, predominately Sunni Muslim, Bedouin indigenous populations. All are relatively wealthy with large petroleum resources. They are governed by Sunni Muslim absolute monarchs.
The pro-democracy uprisings that have spread across North Africa and the Middle East have completely changed the political landscape in this area. The GCC countries have not been able to completely immunize themselves from the spreading democracy virus. Oil wealth has allowed leaders the economic flexibility to “buy off” the protestors. (Sultan Qaboos of Oman responded to protests by doubling the minimum wage and creating 50,000 new jobs.) The Sunni al Khalifa ruling family in Bahrain, faced with uprisings led by the majority Shia population, was not as successful in co-opting the demonstrations and the GCC was forced to deploy its joint armed forces (The Peninsula Shield Force) to brutally suppress the pro-democracy movement.
The ruling families in these oil rich sheikdoms are now looking over their shoulders and have started to take action to protect their privileged positions. The GCC has invited Jordan and Morocco to become members. Neither of these countries have oil wealth or geography in common with the founding members. What they do have in common is Sunni absolute monarchies and they have strong western trained military establishments. The GCC is morphing into an association of western oriented Sunni autocrats positioning themselves to confront the so called “Shia crescent”, Iran and its allies in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
The varying outcomes of the pro-democracy uprisings have shown that just having a strong military is not enough to suppress determined demonstrators. In order to succeed the military must be willing to shoot its own citizens. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak fell because the military would not shoot their fellow Egyptians. In Bahrain and Libya the non-violent protests failed because the military, largely composed of foreign mercenaries, was willing to shoot. Learning this lesson, the UAE has hired the founder of the American private security firm, Blackwater Worldwide, and other Americans to set up an internal security battalion of foreign troops. Although Blackwater, a major US contractor in Iraq and Afghanistan, has a well-deserved reputation for brutality, the US has supported this project. We may be in for some ugly times in the future.

The “Arab Spring” brings policy challenges for the US.

As the pro-democracy uprisings have spread across the Middle East and North Africa sweeping from power US supported authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt and threatening other regimes, US policy makers are facing a number of new challenges. The new governments that are coming to power and reflecting the views of their citizens are not going to be as supportive of US policies as the previous regimes.

For several years the US has expressed tepid support for efforts by Egypt under Hosni Mubarak and his intelligence chief Omar Suleiman to achieve reconciliation between the rival Palestinian Hamas and Fatah factions. This effort was never successful because Egypt was never an “honest broker” and never genuinely wanted reconciliation. Mubarak was afraid of a successful Palestinian government in which Hamas (an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood) participated would inspire his own Muslim Brotherhood opposition. The US and Israel were perfectly happy with the status quo that divided the Palestinians.

It didn’t take long for the new Egyptian government to change the landscape. Last week, after several weeks of secret negotiations, the parties announced a reconciliation agreement which is to be signed on Wednesday. Most observers, myself included, felt that the new Egyptian government, in which the Muslim Brotherhood plays a role, would change the negotiating dynamic. What did surprise me, however, is how fast the agreement happened. While it is still possible that the agreement will fall apart over details of implementation, so far it appears to be on track.

A Palestinian unity government with Hamas as a participant creates big policy dilemmas for the US and Israel. Israel has immediately condemned the agreement, called on Fatah to back out and stopped transfer of tax revenues which they collect for the Palestinian Authority (PA). The US has issued its pro-forma statement calling Hamas a terrorist organization and repeating well-worn preconditions.

There are several possible outcomes to this state of affairs. One is that the US and Israel will succeed in pressuring the PA and Egypt to abandon the deal. While possible, it seems unlikely as Egypt has already announced that it will completely open the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Another, although unlikely, outcome is that the US will recognize that Hamas is an essential player in any agreement and deal with the unity government. The most likely outcome is that Israel and the US Congress will cut off all tax and aid payments to the PA. The result of the cutoff of aid will either be a collapse of the PA or someone else filling the gap.

The collapse of the PA would not be all bad as it would throw the whole mess back on the Israelis, further straining their resources. Iran is a good candidate for filling the breach as it would further enhance their influence. It is unlikely that Saudi Arabia would allow Iran to accomplish this and, therefore, they will be forced to back the PA. Whatever the outcome, the US influence in the region will decline further.

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Israel,Palestine,Arab Spring,Egypt

Al Qaeda’s Plans Realized?

In October of 2006, I wrote an article about Al Qaeda’s seven step plan documenting their strategy designed to create an Islamic caliphate by 2020. (The whole article is here) This strategy as outlined in an article by Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein in the German periodical Der Speigel, was first implemented on September 11, 2001 with the attack on the World Trade Center. Mr. Hussein in known for his contacts with senior Al Qaeda leaders and his ability to have them be open with him. Therefore, he has some credibility on this subject.

Although, events have not played out exactly as Al Qaeda leaders predicted, the plan is reasonably on schedule. We have now arrived at the fourth phase. Mr. Hussein writes that, between 2010 and 2013, Al Qaeda will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaeda."

As I have pointed out previously, the 9/11attack was a Saudi civil war being fought on American soil. The 9/11attack was designed to punish the US for its support of the hated Saudi regime and to draw the US into a prolonged Middle East war where they could be defeated. As one watches the events of the “Arab Spring” unfold, one can see Al Qaeda’s goal of the collapse of US supported Middle East authoritarian regimes being realized. While these regime changes are being accomplished by largely peaceful and secular uprisings and not through the leadership of Al Qaeda, the results are still the same.

Of the countries experiencing uprisings against authoritarian governments, Libya and Yemen have the greatest possibility of ending up in the chaos of failed states which will leave space for the strengthening of Al Qaeda. US administration leaders have expressed this concern. Senator John McCain also expressed concern following his visit to Libya in support of the rebel forces. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and Al Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQM) are two of the strongest Al Qaeda “franchises”. Any outcome that provides them space to operate cannot be good news.

The US policy of supporting corrupt, authoritarian regimes in the name of regional stability may have short term appeal, but it has helped to create a vacuum in civil society. Now that these regimes are suddenly collapsing, Al Qaeda may be in a position to be more dangerous.

Technorati Tags: Al Qaeda,Libya,Yemen.Middle East

The Al Jazeera Effect

As the wave of unrest which has pitted pro-democracy demonstrators against the entrenched autocrats that are common in the Middle East has spread across the region, the role of Al Jazeera in facilitating the uprisings is hard to overstate. Al Jazeera first appeared on the scene in 1996 when the Emir of Qatar founded a 24hr Arabic language news network to compete with the state controlled media. Until Al Jazeera arrived, citizens of countries in the Middle East received their news through state controlled media who restricted their coverage to talking heads who presented nothing controversial. Al Jazeera changed the game and rapidly became the most watched network in the region. In 2006 Al Jazeera English began broadcasting and is now widely available around the world except in the US. (US availability is restricted to Toledo, Ohio, Burlington, Vermont and Washington, DC.)

When the initial uprisings began in Tunisia, Al Jazeera was a little slow on the uptake, but once they realized the significance of the story they grabbed it and ran. Their impact was particularly important in Egypt where ordinary Egyptians were able to follow the demonstrations in real time and were inspired to join. The Mubarak regime rapidly realized that unfettered information was their worst enemy and attempted to shut Al Jazeera down. Al Jazeera responded by broadcasting satellite coordinates showing where to train your satellite in order to continue to receive the channel.

As the uprisings spread, the autocratic regimes severely restricted Al Jazeera’s coverage by shutting down it’s bureaus and arresting it’s correspondents. In Libya, Al Jazeera responded by asking ordinary citizens to send their pictures and stories which were then posted. They, thereby, created thousands of freelance amateur journalists. Since Al Jazeera was the only news agency with images, they took the unusual step of offering their images to other news agencies free of charge with the caveat that Al Jazeera received credit. (CNN declined the offer. They would rather have no images than Al Jazeera images.)

Their effective coverage of, not only the Middle East, but also of the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, has produced demand for increased availability in the US. (President Obama used Al Jazeera to follow events in Egypt.) Al Jazeera is now in carriage discussions with Comcast Cable. The idea that Americans would have access to a network whose motto is “If it is newsworthy, it airs; whether it is Bush or bin Laden.” seems to have frightened some on the political right. At a recent conference at the National Press Club Cliff Kincaid of American Survival called for hearings by the Homeland Security Committee on the security risk of Al Jazeera’s expansion into American cable markets. Right wing blogger Pamela Geller called for Al Jazeera to be designated a terrorist organization.

When Al Jazeera English began broadcasting, Comcast, Dish Network and DirecTV had plans to carry the network. They changed their minds, however, when the Bush administration applied pressure. It is one thing for the US to support these undemocratic regimes, but is another thing altogether to imitate them.

(If would like to have access to Al Jazeera English go here.)

Technorati Tags: Al Jazeera,Middle East

Mission Creep

As the Libyan uprising against the regime of Muammar Qaddafi enters its sixth week and the military intervention by the US and its allies enters its third week, the inevitable “mission creep” that is so typical of this kind of operation is becoming more and more evident. What started out as a peaceful uprising by the oppressed people of Libya has deteriorated into a brutal civil war between ragtag groups of armed young rebels against the largely mercenary army loyal to Qaddafi.
Responding to Qaddafi’s rants about massacring all who opposed him, the UN Security Council passed resolutions 1970 and 1973 authorizing, among other things, an arms embargo and a “no fly zone” and military action as necessary to enforce it. The language is pretty clear.
The UNSC “decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians”.
The UNSC “authorizes Member States…to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights”.
The “coalition of the willing”, however quickly realized that a “no fly zone” was not going to protect civilians and unilaterally declared a “no drive zone” that allowed them to attack Qaddafi’s tanks and vehicles. This step has also become problematic. Today a coalition aircraft mistakenly attacked rebel vehicles killing at least 7 rebel fighters. (All white pickup trucks look the same from the air) It is becoming clear that for coalition aircraft to effectively provide close air support to the rebels, ground observers are required. Although President Obama has said that he has no intention of putting “American boots on the ground”, he has already deployed CIA operatives to coordinate with the rebels and provide targeting information for allied aircraft. (Perhaps they are wearing Chinese sandals.)
Discussion has now begun about the wisdom of arming and resupplying the rebel forces. The language of UNSC Res. 1970 clearly bans such action. The language here is also straight forward.
The UNSC “decides that all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from or through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types…”
Any violation of this prohibition by the US and its allies would fracture the alliance and make the military mission a US and European action.
What few have acknowledged is that in order to protect civilians Qaddafi must go. President Obama has specifically ruled out regime change and overthrowing the regime by force. The only way out of this morass is a political solution in which Qaddafi and his cronies choose to leave. Hopefully it happens sooner rather than later.

Technorati Tags: Libya,Qaddafi

The Libya Mess

As the military intervention in Libya by the “coalition of the willing” led by Britain, France and the US moves towards its second week, all of the divisive issues inherent in such an adventure are starting to appear. The support (however tepid) from the Arab League and the UN Security Council, which was garnered through diplomatic groundwork by the US and its western allies, is starting to splinter. This was eminently predictable as no amount of war planning survives the first contact with the enemy.
The Obama administration was clearly reluctant to resort to military intervention in support of the rebel factions allied against Muammar Qaddafi and his nasty regime. They were wrestling with legitimate and difficult questions about the availability of resources, the reaction of the Arab and Islamic world to another western attack on an Arab/Muslim country, the effectiveness of a “no fly zone” and the possibility that even a successful military campaign would result in a positive political outcome. In Washington the political pressure to “do something” (In this case fanned by the same neo-conservative hawks who got us into the Iraq mess.) is intense. Faced with this growing pressure Obama decided to move forward with the military option.
As the initial “shock and awe” campaign rapidly devolves into a stalemate, these questions, so far unanswered, still remain. The US is attempting to resolve the resource problem by rapidly turning the lead responsibility over to Britain and France. They, however, have grown used to the US bailing them out and are quickly getting cold feet. As civilian casualties (real and manufactured) are mounting, the Arab and Muslim support is fading.
The “no fly zone” appears to have hampered Qaddafi’s military capability and reenergized the rebels allowing them to make up some lost ground. There is no sign, however, that they will be able to defeat Qaddafi’s forces and drive him from power if he is determined to remain. Absent the coalition committing substantial ground forces to the conflict, it appears that we are in for a long ugly mess.
One possibility for resolving this is to persuade Qaddafi that he has stolen enough money from the Libyan people and can go off to a comfortable retirement. He could even take his female bodyguards, his five star Bedouin tent and his personnel masseuse with him. Even this outcome is problematic as Qaddafi has destroyed all Libyan civil society and will leave behind no institutions capable of filling the power vacuum. As a result, all of the tribal, sectarian and ethnic rivalries will come to the surface.
As the Obama administration considered their policy options they forgot, or chose to ignore, the fact that these interventions are a lot easier to get into than they are to get out of.

Photo by Al Jazeera English

Technorati Tags: Libya,Middle East

Wave of Change II

As the democracy movement moves like a tsunami wave across the Middle East and North Africa, observers of the regional dynamics are asking themselves “Where next”. While I was traveling through the Arabian Gulf region over the past 2 ½ weeks, this question was particularly relevant. The answers impacted our travel plans as stops in Bahrain and Salalah, Oman were canceled as a result of unrest and pirate activity.
To understand the dynamics influencing these dramatic changes, it is helpful to look at the common factors that are driving the uprising and they are many. The most identifiable factors are:
· Large youthful populations
· High unemployment – particularly among the youth
· Corrupt, autocratic governments
· Controlled press with no freedom of expression
· Harassment of opposition leaders and fraudulent elections.
As these youthful populations have finally said “enough is enough” and risen up to demand change, the autocrats have reacted in similar ways to the challenges to their entrenched regimes.
Step one – Ignore the protests
Step two – Send in thugs
Step three – Crack down on media
Step four – Make ridiculous concessions
Step five - Blame outside forces
Step six – Leave
In an effort to balance support for democracy (which will lead to governments unfriendly to US policy) with support of so called “moderate” Arab autocratic governments, the US has also reacted in similar ways to the uprisings.
Step one – Call for both sides to be peaceful
Step two – Call for dialogue
Step three – Call for reform
Step four – Call for peaceful transition
Step five – The dictator must leave
This balancing act has succeeded in making everybody mad. There have been two early indicators of this change in attitude toward US policies in the region. Shortly after the military government took power in Egypt and attempted to respond to the demands of the protesters, Iran asked for permission for warships to transit the Suez Canal. Under the Mubarak regime, Egypt would have responded to US/Israel labeling this request “provocative” by denying permission. The new government promptly approved it. A week later, the Palestinian Authority submitted a resolution to the UN Security Council condemning Israeli settlement building. In the past the US would have asked its friendly autocrats to quietly withdraw the resolution and not force the US to be embarrassed by vetoing its own policy. The Arabs refused and the US was forced to veto the resolution in a 14-1 vote. These indicators show that, whatever the outcome of the uprisings, life will be more difficult for US policy makers.
(Photo courtesy of Al Jazeera)

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Egypt

Traveling to the Middle East

I will be leaving next week for a three week trip to the Persian Gulf region. When a number of my friends heard about this trip, their responses were, “How can you go there now? It’s too dangerous.” This response is not unusual when one is preparing for a trip to the Middle East. However, the recent uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have spread to other countries in the region and have raised the level of concern.

These popular uprisings started as economic based movements, but quickly changed into political movements demanding radical regime change. There has been a rise of a cultural sense of empowerment among the youth. The wall of fear of the repressive regimes has fallen and the movements have been transformed into formidable forces threatening previously entrenched governments.

This is particularly true in the case of Egypt which is a cornerstone of US Middle East foreign policy. Regardless of whether a true democracy, representative of all Egyptians, emerges or whether the US and its Western allies are able to orchestrate a “faux democracy” controlled by the army and regime loyalists, the risk reward calculations of authoritarian regimes in the region have changed dramatically. Over past decades regimes trying to decide whether to anger their citizens by supporting unpopular US policies or to anger their western patrons, have chosen to anger their citizens. This choice will now be much more difficult.

The situation in the oil rich Persian Gulf countries that I will be visiting, UAE, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, is considerably different from that in their neighbors in North Africa and the Levant. Oil revenues have allowed their small indigenous populations to be relatively wealthy. The working class is largely made up of migrant workers from places such as India and the Philippines who, if they are upset with their economic circumstances don’t take to the street, but merely go home.

Of these states Oman and Bahrain are most exposed to catching the “Tunisian virus”. Oman is ruled by 71 year old Sultan Qaboos bin Said who came to power in 1970 in a “palace coup” which overthrew his father. He has been an effective leader resolving decade’s long violence between nomadic desert tribes and coastal merchants and bringing economic prosperity. He is, however, unmarried with no children and no obvious successor. Whether or not tribal leaders will be able to peacefully orchestrate succession remains to be seen.

The situation in Bahrain, home to a large US Navy base, is more similar to that in Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia than to the other Gulf States. Although the Muslim population of Bahrain is 2/3 Shia, the country is ruled by the Sunni al Khalifa royal family. Recent elections have been marred by violence and repression. Bahrain’s proximity to Iran gives the Iranians significant influence in the Shia community.

It will be a fascinating time to be in the region. For those who are interested, as internet access and circumstances permit, I will be posting my observations and thoughts here and here.

Technorati Tags: Egypt,Oman,Bahrain,Middle East

A Wave of Change in the Middle East

As the Middle East, literally, goes up in flames the Obama administration is struggling with how to react to the inevitable outcome of decades of failed Middle East policies. Nowhere was this struggle more evident than during an embarrassing performance by VP Joe Biden throughout an interview on the PBS Newshour. (The whole interview is here) The normally voluble Biden, who rarely has his brain engaged when he opens his mouth, was parsing every word and trying his best not to say anything quotable. This effort failed when he declared that Hosni Mubarak, who, with US backing, has ruled Egypt as the sole center of power for over 30 years, was not a dictator.

The demonstrations against undemocratic authoritarian regimes, that have been propped up by billions of dollars of US aid have spread across North Africa and the Middle East. Starting in Tunisia, the uprisings have spread to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Palestine and Yemen. The decades long policy of supporting these unpopular regimes as a buffer against resistance groups who oppose US/Israeli dominance in the region and as an ally in the “global war on terror”, has made the US extremely unpopular with the man on the street. 85% of respondents to a recent poll had an unfavorable or very unfavorable view of the US and over 60% see US policy toward Israel/Palestine as the most disappointing.

It is, therefore, inevitable that any representative government in the region is going to oppose US policy of unquestioned support for Israel. Egypt and Jordan are the key players here as they have peace treaties with Israel and have aided the US/Israel blockade of Gaza and occupation of the West Bank. If the current regimes are replaced by representative governments, this game is over. Trying to defend the indefensible is recipe for disaster for US strategic interests in the region.

It is long past time for the US to seek new approaches and new partners. The US needs to listen to Turkey with its policy of “zero problems with its neighbors”, reverse its policy of confrontation with Iran and engage with non-state players like Hamas and Hezbollah. Creative, out of the box thinking is required by administration officials. Unfortunately, long careers inside the beltway are not conducive to this kind of thinking. We will probably defend these regimes to the bitter end, just as we did with the Shah of Iran, with similar outcomes.

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Egypt,Biden

A US Foreign Policy Success?

As the referendum on the separation of South Sudan from the north appears to be reaching a relatively peaceful conclusion after years of unrest and civil war, we may be witnessing a rare US foreign policy success. The conflict between the central government of Sudan and the tribal regions in the south and west is long standing and dates to British colonial rule. The British colonial authorities concentrated power in Khartoum and disadvantaged the outlying areas. This pattern continued after independence.

Shortly after taking office in 2009, President Obama appointed, with much fanfare, a number of “special envoys” with responsibility for managing specific foreign policy issues. These included the late Richard Holbrooke in Afghanistan and Pakistan, George Mitchell in Israel/Palestine and Dennis Ross in Iran. Without much fanfare he also appointed General J. Scott Gratian as special envoy to Sudan.

At the time, some of us asked the question, what circumstances and qualities need to be in place for a special envoy to be successful? I concluded that in order to have any possibility of success there needs to be the right situation, the right envoy and support at the top. None of these were in place for Holbrooke, Mitchell and Ross. However, in the case of General Gratian we had a low key envoy who was willing to work with all parties to find a solution. The situation in Sudan was relatively isolated from outside influences and General Gratian appears to have had the support of both Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama.

As Gratian and his fellow diplomats assigned to this issue, Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson and special envoy Princeton Lyman, worked to forge compromises among the Sudanese and to persuade the influential Chinese that it was in their interest to have a peaceful and stable outcome, Clinton and Obama had his back. This allowed him to fend off attacks by UN Ambassador Susan Rice and the Save Darfur activists who seemed to want to blow up the whole deal by attacking Sudan.

While there seems to be good will emerging on all sides, a peaceful outcome is clearly not a done deal. The Abyei border region between north and south is a volatile mixture of oil, long standing tribal animosities and nomadic versus settled lifestyle. Finding a peaceful, workable solution in an area in which everybody has a weapon will be a difficult task. If Gratian and his team can accomplish this, I would nominate them for the Nobel Prize. As opposed to most recent prize winners, they will have actually accomplished something for the cause of peace.

Technorati Tags: Sudan

Have we been “snookered”.

As I began to read the recently released book, Washington Rules – America’s Path to Permanent War, I became immediately engaged. The author Andrew Bacevich, a retired US Army Colonel and professor of history and international relations at Boston University, had taken the same journey of discovery that I had taken. Although his journey started in a different place and at a different time we ended up at the same destination.

We both can define specifically when this journey began. Professor Bacevich started his journey in 1990 when, as an active duty Army officer, he visited the German Democratic Republic and observed a Soviet military exercise. He noted that the trucks were 1950’s vintage and one of their battle tanks suddenly belched smoke and burst into flames. My journey began in 1994 in St. Petersburg, Russia when I consulted with a Russian grocery store chain. During a meeting with the VP of distribution about his vehicle acquisition practices, he told me that he could buy a Russian made truck for 15,000 USD or a Volvo or Mercedes Benz (MB) for 45,000 USD. He bought the Volvo or MB every time because it “would actually run and not break down every week”.

Like Professor Bacevich I had been indoctrinated during my military career that we were faced off against the vaunted Soviet military which posed an existential threat to the US and its allies and required enormous expenditures for personnel, armaments and foreign bases. I asked myself; how did I miss the fact that the Soviet Union was a paper tiger? Was I not paying attention or had I been “snookered”?

In the last 15 years as I have traveled to countries that are classified by the US government as existential threats and met with militant groups that are said to require invasion and occupation of countries around the world, I have concluded that we have been “snookered”. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US government continues to try and persuade us the “world’s only superpower” has an obligation to project power around the globe in order to make the world a safer and more peaceful place.

As we consider our policies in places like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine and North Korea it would be well to remember some of the wise remarks of Senator William Fulbright of Arkansas during the Vietnam War that were quoted by Bacevich.

“What I do question is the ability of the United States …to go into a small, alien, undeveloped Asian nation and create stability where there is chaos…democracy where there is no tradition of it and honest government where corruption is almost a way of life.”

“Any people setting out upon self-appointed missions to police the world, to defeat all tyranny, to make their fellow man rich, happy and free were less likely to advance the cause of world peace than to bring misery to their beneficiaries and destruction upon themselves.”

“I think that the world has endured about all it can of high-minded men bent on the regeneration of the human race.”