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.”

What now Barack?

Last week the Obama administration announced that it was giving up on its efforts to persuade the Israeli government to temporarily suspend settlement construction in the West Bank. (This story is here.) Faced with Israeli intransigence, despite much groveling and many carrots being offered, the weakened US government, faced with a bi-partisan “pro-Israel” Congress, decided to declare defeat and withdraw. This turn of events has been eloquently described by Jewish-American MIT professor Noam Chomsky.

“Washington’s pathetic capitulation to Israel while pleading for a meaningless three-month freeze on settlement expansion—excluding Arab East Jerusalem—should go down as one of the most humiliating moments in US diplomatic history.”

This leaves us to try and decipher “what now”. Of the options available, there are no good ones. The first and most likely option is the continuation of the status quo of “peace and apartheid”. The Israeli government has successfully separated Jewish and Arab residents of Palestine through a network of housing restrictions, walls, settler only roads and checkpoints. The US has recruited and trained a Palestinian security force that has taken over much of the occupation. Western aid supplies a source of funds which supports the bloated Palestinian Authority (PA) bureaucracy and allows senior figures to line their own pockets. Although some in Israel would like to expel all of the Arabs from Palestine, (The latest efforts are here and here.) the status quo seems to be reasonably stable in the short run. It does not, however, solve the larger problem of providing a fertile recruiting ground for violent radical groups bent on attacking the US and its allies.

One other alternative being discussed is a unilateral declaration of statehood by the PA based on the “1967 Green Line” followed by application for UN membership. There have been some informal moves in this direction as Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have recognized a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. Others will likely follow. This step is largely symbolic as the chances of the super majority required in the UN General Assembly and Security Council for membership being achieved over the objections of the US are small.

A third, and probably most effective, alternative is to disband the illegitimate PA government and turn the whole mess over to the Israelis, forcing them into a violent and expensive direct reoccupation of Palestinian territory. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has long threatened to do this, but it has always proved to be empty rhetoric. The leadership has been unwilling to give up the perks of power. Eventually this change may come about as old age catches up with Abbas with no means to replace him. Hamas is the most likely candidate to fill the power vacuum.

Only time will tell what will happen. It may not be pretty.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Middle East

Wikileaks Strikes Again

This week Wikileaks, the website dedicated to publishing classified documents, began release of thousands of “diplomatic cables” which transmitted information and assessments from US embassies around the world to the State Department. As was the case when Wikileaks published videos of US troops in Iraq killing unarmed civilians and US military battlefield assessments from Afghanistan, the US government reacted with strong language calling the release “ an attack on the international community” and a “reckless and dangerous action” which endangered diplomats, intelligence professionals and people around the world.

Thus far the damage seems to be mostly political and diplomatic. Dispatches from embassy officials which classified foreign leaders as “Robin to Putin’s Batman” (Dmitry Medvedev), “Flabby old chap” (Kim Jong Il), “the crazy old man” (Robert Mugabe) and “penchant for partying” (Silvio Berlusconi) will probably not endear these officials to the leaders that they must interact with.

The general theme that seems to run through the dispatches when they are compared to stated US policy is that if their lips are moving US diplomats and administration officials are probably lying. This is not a new revelation. In his book “A Peace to End All Peace” which the chronicles the efforts of Britain and France to carve up the Ottoman Empire after WW I. David Fromkin describes British diplomat Mark Sykes as “an innocent: he believed people meant what they said.” Everyone in the diplomatic game will now be more skeptical of what they are told.

Media pundits have made a big deal of the dispatches which describe efforts by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, and Bahrain to encourage the US to start a war with Iran. This release will likely cause serious issues for these undemocratic authoritarian regimes whose policies do not reflect the views of their people. While the governments have expressed grave concerns about the threat of a nuclear capable Iran, a recent University of Maryland/Zogby International poll shows that 57% of those polled in these Arab countries believe that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons it would be a positive outcome for the region. 77% of those polled believe the US poses the biggest threat. (Right behind Israel at 88%)

The good news is that, thus far, the Obama administration has resisted these calls for war. Let’s hope that common sense continues to prevail.

Marching Toward Fourth Middle East War

A year ago President Obama announced his so called “surge and exit” plan for the “war of necessity” in Afghanistan. At the time, I opined in this space that, faced with a bunch of bad options, Obama had picked the wrong one. (This post is here.) Obama’s plan was to surge 30,000 troops into Afghanistan for 18 months and then begin a drawdown. I expressed that, faced with the deteriorating situation on the ground, the 18 month timeframe was unrealistic and the most likely outcome was that the military commanders would show enough progress to persuade Obama to deploy more resources and extend the timetable. Unfortunately this prediction has become the reality. This week in Lisbon, Obama will propose extending the NATO combat role until 2014 and, since our NATO allies are reducing their troop commitments, more of the burden will fall on the US.

Now, two years into the Obama presidency, it remains unclear what the strategic objectives in Afghanistan are and what the face of victory looks like. The stated objective is to deny al Qaeda a base of operations in Afghanistan from which to attack US interests. The problem with this plan is that al Qaeda has not been in Afghanistan for nine years. They have moved their base of operations to Pakistan and have opened franchises in Yemen, Somalia and Algeria. Faced with this reality, the US is escalating its attacks and deployments in Pakistan and Yemen (Can Algeria be far behind?) creating a fertile recruiting environment for al Qaeda. (This story is here.)

As if this were not enough, in this month’s midterm elections, the angry American electorate, exhibiting great cognitive dissonance, returned to power the same people who created the problems that made them angry in the first place. Already asserting their newly found power, Republican hawks have begun to propose a package of carrots and sticks to pressure Obama to attack Iran. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has recently said, “If he (Obama) decides to be tough on Iran, beyond sanctions, I think you’re going to see a lot of Republican support for the idea…”. (This story is here.)

All of this has happened far from the view of the American voter. Only 7% of the voters said Afghanistan was important to them in the election. Over the past few decades several phenomenon have contributed to insulating the general public and their political representatives from the consequences of the most important decision that they must make, whether or not to take the country to war. The advent of the professional military means that only a small portion of the population is directly affected by the wars. Increasingly we are seeing the development of a professional military class where son follows father and daughter follows mother. They are isolated from the rest of the population who go about their business unaffected. We have effectively created a fourth branch of government that, backed by their supporters in the military-industrial complex, has enormous influence and is politically unaccountable. This trend is troubling to me.

Technorati Tags: Afghanistan,Iran,Obama

A Modest Proposal for Iraq

During my conversation with Nawef Masawi, then Hezbollah’s Foreign Minister, he described how democracy in Lebanon functioned. He said that Lebanon’s democracy is “not a democracy of figures (individuals) it is a democracy of communities.” (The conversation is here)

In the Taif Agreement of 1989 which ended Lebanon’s long and brutal civil war, power was distributed by a sectarian distribution of offices and seats in Parliament based on a 1932 census. The 128 Parliament seats are allocated 64 to Christians and 64 to Muslims. The President must be a Christian, the Prime Minister a Sunni Muslim and the Speaker of Parliament a Shia Muslim. This distribution reasonably reflected the 1932 demographics, but, as a result of ongoing emigration of Christians, the Christian representation in government far exceeds their proportion of the population. However, nobody wants to reopen the old sores of the civil war and revisit the agreement.

As Masawi points out, the system results in a government based on decision by consensus. When, in 2008, under pressure by the Bush administration, Prime Minister Siniora tried to override the consensus and attempted to curb the power of Hezbollah, major political unrest ensued. The crisis was averted when the Emir of Qatar brokered the Doha Agreement which awarded Hezbollah a ”blocking third” in the cabinet. This effectively gives them veto power on major decisions.

The result of this system is a very weak government in Lebanon which has difficulty getting anything done. However, the system has remained in place for 20 years with little sectarian conflict. No confessional group is incentivized to try to gain complete control as there is no way to increase their number of seats in Parliament. They are limited by the sectarian allocation.

A similar system might work well in Iraq. Allocation of seats and cabinet positions resulting in a distribution of power among Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and Kurds, based on population with major decisions, such as allocation of oil revenues, requiring a super majority, would result in a weak central government forced to govern by consensus. Such a system would probably be acceptable to all of the regional and extra regional players who are trying to influence the outcome.

Since the March 2010 elections, Iraq has experienced political gridlock as no group has been able to establish a coalition to form a government. Outside parties have been exerting pressure to protect their interests and the interests of their client groups. The US has tried to insure that their western oriented Sunni and Kurdish allies come to power and that major US oil and construction interests have the upper hand in future contracts. Iran wants a weak Shia dominated government which will not repeat the Saddam Hussein military adventures and will not allow the US to have a threatening military presence right on their border. Saudi Arabia wants to protect the interests of their Sunni Muslim brothers. Syria and Turkey also have strong national interests in the Iraqi outcome.

Under a consensus system, nobody would get everything that they want, but they might get enough to stop interfering and allow the system to function.

Technorati Tags: Lebanon,Iraq

Soft Power Wins for Iran

Critics of the George W. Bush administration have frequently cited his reliance on “hard power”, particularly military force, to achieve US foreign policy objectives as a major cause of declining US popularity and effectiveness around the world. Although she generally agreed with Bush administration policies, particularly in the Middle East, Hilary Clinton attempted to differentiate herself from the Bush administration policies and Barak Obama’s emphasis on “soft power” during the run up to the 2008 election by coining the phrase “smart power”.
As we have discovered by observing Secretary of State Clinton in action, her definition of “smart power’ is significantly different from “soft power”. For her, “smart power” is an attempt to put a softer face on “hard power”. As she is discovering, it is very hard to put a soft face on drone attacks, “crippling sanctions” and ongoing occupations.
“Soft Power”, on the other hand, consists of persuading others to what you want because they see convergence between your interests and their interests and they understand your respect for their interests and appreciate your assistance in achieving them. We can better see the effective use of “soft power” by observing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s recent visit to Lebanon.
During the visit Ahmadinejad met with Christian President Suleiman, Sunni Prime Minister Hariri as well as Shia leaders of Hezbollah. He toured the country in an open vehicle welcomed by adoring crowds. (Try to duplicate that Barack Obama.)
Western media and leaders have tried to portray the visit as “provocation” and an attempt to subvert the “pro-western” government of Saud Hariri. Former British Intelligence officer and Director of the Beirut based Conflicts Forum paints a different picture in a recent post.
“Iran’s popularity on the streets should not surprise anyone.  It is real, and it is heartfelt – and extends beyond the Shi’i of the south of Beirut.  Having been present here in Beirut throughout the war of 2006, I experienced the almost universal shock at how leaders and so-called ‘friends of Lebanon’ such as Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice tried to fend-off and delay a ceasefire – in order to allow Israel more time to ‘finish the job’, i.e. to destroy more bridges, more infrastructure and impose civilian casualties – as our ‘price’ to be paid for Hizbullah’s seizure of Israeli soldiers. Feelings here are still raw on this point, and all sectors of opinion know that the only real support for Lebanon in those dark hours came from Syria and Iran.  Unsurprisingly, there was a direct element of gratitude in expression to Iran in recent days both for the support then, and its subsequent economic assistance to repair the damage.” (The complete post is here.)
The clear winners in the Iraq war have been Iran and the larger Shia community. By finding common interests with potential allies and working with these allies to achieve their common interests, Iran has effectively exploited this victory and increased its regional influence. The hard liners in Tehran have also been able to exploit US lead sanctions, which are making life difficult for ordinary Iranians, to improve their internal position. Soft power works.