Who Benefits?

As the U.S. and its allies move on what appears to be an inevitable march toward war in Syria, it seems that it might be useful to examine what Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called the known knowns, the known unknowns and unknown unknowns. After all the blustery rhetoric from the western powers over the last days, it appears unlikely that they can now back away from war without politically “appearing weak”.

As I write this, it seems that the known knowns are that a horrific chemical attack occurred outside of Damascus last week which resulted in the deaths of many people including women and children. Among the many known unknowns are who in fact initiated this attack and what they expected to gain from it. Phyllis Bennis writes a cogent analysis of this issue on commondreams.org (the whole post is here) which I excerpt below.

“But who benefits is a little more complicated.

It’s certainly not impossible that the Syrian regime, known to have had a chemical weapons arsenal, used such a weapon. If so, why? Despite remaining under pressure from sanctions and facing increasing international isolation, Damascus has been seeing some success on the battlefield. It’s certainly possible a mid-level Syrian officer, worried about some past defeat and desperately afraid of being held accountable for it, might have chosen to use such a weapon to gain a gruesome battlefield victory despite the increase in the threat of direct military intervention. But it is very unlikely the regime’s leadership would have made such a choice. Not because they “wouldn’t kill their own people,” they’ve been doing just that. But because they stood to lose far more than any potential gain. It’s not impossible. But as brutal as this regime is, it isn’t crazy. It’s unlikely.

Then there’s the other side, the diverse opposition whose strongest fighters are those claiming allegiance to al Qaeda and similar extremist organizations. Those who benefit from this attack, are those eager for greater US and western military intervention against the Assad regime in Damascus. Further, al Qaeda and its offshoots have always been eager to get the US military—troops, warplanes, ships, bases, whatever—into their territory. It makes it so much easier to attack them there. Politically it remains what US counter-intelligence agents long ago called a “recruitment tool” for al Qaeda. They loved the Iraq war for that reason. They would love the Syrian war all the more if US targets were brought in. All the debate about “red lines,” the domestic and international political pressure to “do something,” the threats to the UN inspectors on the ground—who inside Syria do we think is cheering that on?

(And as for the opposition’s capacity and/or willingness to use such weapons…we should also remember that the opposition includes some defectors. Who knows what skills and weapons access they brought with them? And do we really doubt that al Qaeda wanna-be extremists, many of them not even Syrians, would hesitate to kill civilians in a suburb of Damascus?)”

The unknown unknowns are what the consequences of a military strike will be. No war plan survives the first contact with the enemy. As I drove home today, I saw a sign saying “War used to be the name of a card game”. Oh for those simpler days.

 

Technorati Tags: Syria,Chemical weapons

The Death of Sykes-Picot

Following WW I (the “war to end all wars”) British Diplomat Sir Mark Sykes and his French counterpart François Georges-Picot negotiated the now infamous Sykes-Picot Agreement, which was intended to divide up the remnants of the Ottoman Empire into British and French spheres of influence. The resulting hodgepodge of artificial entities controlled by London and Paris was a recipe for conflict from the start. The borders and installed governments largely ignored tribal, ethnic, sectarian and geographic realities in establishing the entities. As David Fromkin points out in his seminal book “A Peace to End All Peace”, “It (the agreement) showed that Sir Mark Sykes and his colleagues had adopted policies for the Middle East without first considering whether, in existing conditions, they could feasibly be implemented…and suggested the extent to which the British government did not know what it was getting into when it decided to supersede the Ottoman Empire in Asia…” Now, after almost 100 years of ongoing turmoil, we are witnessing the violent collapse of the ill-conceived political structure in the region.

Of the entities that remained after Sykes – Picot, only Egypt and Iran had any semblance of the characteristics of a nation-state. While Iran is home to numerous ethnic groups, it is united by its overwhelming Shia Muslim character. As the recent Iranian election of Hassan Rowhani with high voter turnout demonstrates, Iran’s system of integrating Islamic governance and participatory politics continues to have the support of most Iranians living in the country. Iran is emerging as a more confident and cohesive state. Egypt on the other hand is falling apart before our eyes.

The overthrow of the democratically elected, Muslim Brotherhood led government by the Egyptian military and its co-conspirators in the Egyptian deep state seems to herald the end of the brief Egyptian experiment with democracy. As a result the Muslim Brotherhood’s mode of coming to power by nonviolently, incrementally invading the centers of governance has been discredited. The al Qaeda “idea” of creating an atmosphere of strife and civil disorder as a vehicle for allowing local Islamic groups to come to power through the collapse of the nation-state has gained more credibility. As western democracies tire of the ongoing strife, the resulting “emirates” will be able to throw off the remnants of western hegemony. Al Qaeda can now plausibly say “I told you so”.

The Syrian civil war is likely to result in the breakup of the Syrian state which will spill over into Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey. The ethnic Kurds whose nation-state aspirations were ignored by Sykes – Picot will probably reassert themselves in Syria, Turkey, Iraq and possibly Iran. The autocratic Gulf Monarchies of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE and Saudi Arabia and their partner in Jordan are torn between the need to support their Sunni “takfiri” co-religionists among the Syrian rebels with the possibility of jihadist blowback among their own dissidents and their hatred for Shia Iran. They seem to have decided to double down in Syria while repressing dissent at home.

Whatever the final outcome, it seems certain that the Sykes-Picot construct, which never evolved into a social contract between governments and governed, is doomed to collapse. U.S. policy makers have no good options and little influence. Intervention will likely make a bad situation worse. It won’t be pretty.

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Egypt,Syria

Kicking the Can Again

This week, after six trips to the Middle East and several bouts of shuttle diplomacy, Secretary of State John Kerry announced a new round of Israeli/Palestinian “peace talks”. He stated at the kick off, “I firmly believe that these leaders can make peace.” This was accomplished at great personnel sacrifice as his wife Teresa is seriously ill. My reaction upon hearing this news was “What is he thinking?” What has changed during the last four years of stalemate to make it worthwhile to expend so much personal effort and political capital on a process that has almost no chance of success?

The same regional players are still in place. The Palestinians are still divided between the Fatah led Palestinian Authority (PA) government in Ramallah and the Hamas led government in the Gaza strip. The PA is still run by the same dysfunctional, corrupt, unelected, unrepresentative old men who have been in place since the western powers overthrew the elected Hamas government in 2006. Hamas, which represents 1.4 mm Palestinians in the Gaza strip, is not invited to the party.

On the Israeli side the same Netanyahu led right wing, settler dominated government is still in place. If anything it has become even more right wing since the last elections with the addition of the Jewish Home Party to the governing coalition. JHP’s leader Naftali Bennett was recently quoted as advocating killing suspected militants rather than bringing them to trial; saying “If you catch terrorists, you have to simply kill them” and “I’ve killed lots of Arabs in my life – and there’s no problem with that.” (See here and here)

The Obama administration, in a move seemingly designed to insure failure, appointed former Ambassador to Israel, former AIPAC executive, former Executive Director of the pro-Israel think tank Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Martin Indyk as its Middle East mediator. Indyk makes former mediator Dennis Ross (frequently called “Israel’s lawyer”) look positively unbiased in contrast. In a presentation that I heard by Indyk a few years ago, he couldn’t use the word “Palestinian” without appending the word “terrorist” to it.

The only possible objective that I can see for this declared 9 month negotiation process is to move the process past this year’s United Nations session. The U.S. can claim that the Palestinian State should not join the International Criminal Court (Israel’s worst nightmare) since there is an ongoing American sponsored negotiation process. This would be in line with the strategy (such as it is) of kicking the can down the road and hoping for the best. In general talking is better than shooting. In this case, failed talks may result in shooting.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Peace Process,John Kerry

The Hezbollah Conundrum

Last week, the European Union succumbed to U.S./Israel pressure and designated the so called “military wing” of the Lebanese political party/social organization/militia , Hezbollah, as a “terrorist organization”. The decision made by politicians in Brussels has left the EU professional diplomats and legal experts with a major mess to try and sort out. The problems were immediately evident. While an EU spokesperson in Brussels was acclaiming the important consequences of this action, the EU Ambassador to Lebanon, Angeline Eichhorst, was meeting with Hezbollah and other Lebanese leaders in Beirut to explain that this action would have no impact on EU relations with Hezbollah or Lebanon. My reaction was “have they lost it?”

Among the problems that this ill-considered action creates is “who exactly is being blacklisted?” There is no clearly defined line between the “military wing” of Hezbollah and its political and social activities. This was demonstrated during the 2006 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah members abandoned their positions as dentists, political figures, farmers etc., reclaimed their AK-47s and grenade launchers from their closets or under their beds and joined the fight against the invader. While there is a professional component to the Hezbollah militia, by and large it is the consummate citizen army.

The U.S. gets around this problem by blacklisting all of Hezbollah. During my last visit to Beirut, I was treated to one of the bizarre consequences of this position when a U.S. diplomat responsible for non-military aid to Lebanon told me that she could not meet with the government minister responsible for disseminating this aid because he was a member of Hezbollah. She had to rely on the Swiss to coordinate with the Lebanese government.

Everyone is puzzled about how the EU will distinguish between the “Civil Wing” and the “Military Wing” of Hezbollah. My friend Franklin Lamb, an American writer and researcher based in Beirut, describes the issues in a recent article.

“According to a lawyer at the American Society of International Law in Washington DC, the EU decision was a big mistake from an international law standpoint and could be an international lawyer’s worst nightmare or a dream come true. Which would depend if the lawyer was representing the EU in trying to unravel the civil-military conundrum or advising thousands of EU member states businesses and agencies wanting to continue any business with the Lebanese government, UNIFIL, or countless NGO’s who regularly interact with Hezbollah. (sic)

‘It’s a real legal mess!’ the ASIL source explained, as he described the legal confusion the EU action caused. ‘The best thing for EU credibility and international relations right now on this subject would be for the EU to forget what it did and to desist from any implementation whatsoever. And then let the designation be removed after the six months trial period as provided by EU regulations. Otherwise, their decision will swamp courtrooms and complicate Middle East-European political and economic relations with challenges from all points on the compass with uncertain outcomes to say the least’.” (The whole article is here.)

(Photos from al Manar)

Technorati Tags: Lebanon,European Union,Hezbollah

Egypt: Can Collapse be Prevented?

 

As Egypt rapidly descends into chaos and as the likelihood of a brutal crackdown by the army on disaffected Islamists increases, the U.S. is struggling to find a path forward which is politically palatable and which supports American interests. American national interest has traditionally been defined as a stable environment that protects Israel, provides low cost energy and allows free access to the Suez Canal. In a 2005 speech at American University in Cairo Secretary of State Condi Rice forcefully articulated a new approach for American policy in the Middle East saying, “The US pursuit of stability in the Middle East at the expense of democracy had achieved neither. Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people." This new approach lasted less than a year. In January 2006 Hamas won a free and fair election in Palestine and the U.S, promptly cut off aid and isolated the Palestinian Authority. Since then, support for democracy has largely taken a back seat to other considerations.

Many have praised the Obama administration’s pragmatic approach to the “Arab Awakening”. The U.S. has supported democracy movements in Tunisia and Egypt and violent revolutions in Libya and Syria, while at the same time supporting brutal suppression of opposition movements in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. There is, however, a fine line between a pragmatic, tactical approach and having no strategy.

The lack of a strategic approach has led to verbal gymnastics by administration spokespersons in order avoid calling the Egyptian Army’s overthrow of the democratically elected government a coup which would trigger a cut off of aid to the government. (See here.) While the Morsi government was certainly guilty of incompetence and a majoritarian approach, fortunately for U.S. democracy, these are not fatal sins justifying a coup. As the old saw goes, “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.” The U.S. government has little ability to influence the outcome in Egypt, but its failure to take any position has alienated all sides. Today the Egyptian state media blamed the current unrest on U.S. Ambassador Anne Paterson.

If the U.S. is to have any ability to prevent Egypt from driving over a cliff, it must make clear to the military that it rejects a return to “Mubarakism without Mubarak” and a return to “emergency law” in the name of the “War on Terror”. It must also insist on the release of Muslim Brotherhood leaders, opening of shuttered media outlets and prompt free and fair elections with all parties participating. It must be clear that U.S. military aid depends on their actions.

 

Technorati Tags: Egypt,Muslim Botherhood,Egyptian Coup

Egypt’s Political Collapse

Following the ouster of Egypt’s democratically elected President Mohammed Morsi by the Egyptian Army and the arrest of many Muslim Brotherhood (MB) leaders and the shuttering of pro-MB media outlets, the Obama administration has struggled to decide how to react to the fast moving events on the ground. Obama’s advisors differ on whether to support the democratically elected government or to back the Egyptian military that has a history of being supportive of U.S. policies in the Middle East. The end result has been a series of bland statements calling for peaceful resolution.

In its effort to formulate a coherent policy, the administration has had no shortage of free advice. New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote an opinion piece (See here) in which he supported the military’s action essentially arguing that a military coup is justified if it overthrows a government that he doesn’t like.
I received an email from an Egyptian friend who supported the military’s action saying:
“Please explain to all your families and friends and deliver to the media that the Egyptian army is protecting the will of the Egyptians to get rid of the Terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, 33 million Egyptians went out in the streets, our army is protecting us Morsy is calling for a civil war, we are asking for an early presidential elections to stop the deterioration of our country and economy. This man and his group are traitors”.
Others have argued that the removal of a democratically elected Islamist government by the military echoes events in Algeria which led to a bloody civil war. (See here and here) The message to political Islam is that you cannot trust democracy. You won’t be allowed to win. The message from the Arab Awakening was that al Qaeda was wrong; an Islamic government can be established through a democratic process. After Egypt, al Qaeda will say, “I told you so.”
I come down on the side that the road to political change in a democracy is through the ballot box and not through confrontation in the street. Sometimes in a democracy, the guy you don’t like wins. Get over it. Change it in the next election. As an Arab friend once said to me, “We can forgive you for electing George W. Bush the first time. Everybody makes mistakes. But the second time, what were you thinking?”
Following today’s massacre of over 40 MB supporters by security forces and the defense of it by Egypt’s so called “liberals”, it is hard to see how this can end happily for Egypt. The choices are stark. Either the military has to cave in and restore Morsi to power (an unlikely event) or the MB has to quietly go away. (Also an unlikely event) Even quick elections that are free, fair and open are unlikely to heal the huge political divisions in Egypt The MB would probably win free and fair elections as the opposition is a fractious coalition of Salafists, liberals, and remnants of the Mubarak regime that is already falling apart and probably would not survive the political process. We are then back to square one. This is a sad time for Egypt and its people.
Photo by Getty Images

Technorati Tags: Egypt,Muslim Brotherhood

Is there a Syrian Strategy?

Last week, after much debate and hand ringing, the Obama administration announced that the U.S. would begin to directly arm the Syrian rebel forces. The announcement was made in such a manner that it obscured more that clarified U.S. policy with respect to this bloody two year conflict. It remains vague what sort of weapons will be supplied, who will receive them, how they will be supplied and what is the expected outcome of this step. It appears that the announcement is mostly a political move by the administration to counter the barrage of criticism that it has received from friend and foe for failing to be more aggressive in supporting the rebels. The announcement focused exclusively on tactics and did nothing to clarify U.S. strategy.

The Assad regime and its supporters, however, appear to have a clear strategy. It is evident that Hezbollah and Iran see the collapse of the Assad government and its replacement by an unfriendly government dominated by radical Sunni fundamentalists as an existential threat. Iran relies on Hezbollah to provide a deterrent force to prevent an Israeli attack and Hezbollah relies on a continuing flow of arms from Iran through Syria to enable them to prevent an Israeli attack on Lebanon. They, therefore, appear committed to doing everything possible to prevent the fall of Assad. Iran is providing arms and advisors and Hezbollah is providing leadership and well trained and effective urban fighters. Their strategy is to recapture critical roads, junctions and population centers in order to prevent the flow of arms and fighters to the rebel armies. In this they have been quite successful.

In the face of this progress by the Assad forces, it unclear how the U.S. arms policy can have much effect. The fundamentalist Gulf monarchies, led by Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have been supplying arms and fighters for months with little to show for it. Assad and his allies have succeeded in cutting supply routes from Jordan and Lebanon. The only remaining route is through Turkey and Turkey is facing own political upheaval and the AKP government’s support for the rebels is increasing unpopular as the fighting spills over into Turkish territory. The rebel’s efforts have been reduced to conducting terrorist attacks in Syrian cities.

If this modest step by Obama has little or no effect, the pressure will increase to “do more”. If the strategy is to overthrow Assad, success will require increasing military intervention, which will risk entering a quagmire or a potential confrontation with Iran, Hezbollah and possibly Russia. If the strategy is to bleed Iran and Hezbollah until they are too weak to resist the U.S./Israel, we need to be prepared for more stories of bloodshed and refugees over a long period of time. If we are looking for a negotiated settlement, we will need to include Iran in the negotiations and be prepared for a settlement that leaves a government acceptable to Iran in power. Whatever the strategy, the American people deserve to know what it is and the consequences of that choice.

Photo by ibtimes.co.uk

Technorati Tags: Syria Civil War,U.S. Foreign Policy,Middle East

Iran’s Election is a Contest

 

Most western pundits portray Iranian elections as a sham orchestrated by the Supreme leader to reach a desired outcome. (See here and here) I, however, find the rough and tumble political contests among Iran’s many factions to be fascinating. Tomorrow’s first round of the Iranian Presidential election is shaping up to be an interesting race; perhaps more interesting than the usual U.S. election which generally boils down to two candidates, selected by the big money donors, who are undifferentiated with respect to their foreign policy.

The most recent polling data that I have seen shows the following:

Prediction of voter turnout:                     71%.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf                  23%

Mohsen Rezaei                                         14%

Hassan Rowhani                                       13%

Saeed Jalili                                                10%

Ali Akbar Velayati                                       8%

Mohammad Reza Aref                               6%

Mohammad Gharazi                                  2%

Gholam Ali Haddad Adel                            2%

Hassan Rowhani, the only cleric in the group, and Mohammad Aref represent the more moderate wing of Iranian politics. Since this polling, Aref has dropped out of the contest in order avoid splitting the “moderate vote”. This change, combined with the endorsement of Rowhani by former presidents Mohammad Khatami and Hashemi Rafsanjani seems to have given the secular liberal population a new dose of enthusiasm. With the remaining candidates splitting the “conservative” vote, it is plausible that Mohammad Ghalibaf and Rowhani could end up in the June 21 runoff election.

Ghalibaf, the pragmatic Mayor of Tehran, is a strong and popular candidate. For a large metropolitan area Tehran is a livable city, if you can get by the life threatening experience of Tehran traffic. Tehranis tend to love their mayors. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a former Tehran mayor. While the projected turnout may be overstated, it is certain to be greater than the U.S. 58%.

Whatever the outcome, any change in Iran’s foreign policy is unlikely. A large majority of Iranians support the nuclear program and changing position on this is in the hands of the Supreme Leader and politically is a non-starter. If the outcome results in better management of the Iranian economy it will make a difference for the ordinary Iranian and that’s what counts for them.

(Another commentary on Iran’s election is here)

Technorati Tags: Iran Election

Droning On: Obama’s Targeting Killing Justification

Last month, President Obama delivered a major speech at the National Defense University in which he addressed the U.S. policy on drone attacks. (The full text is here.) The tactic of targeted assassinations of individuals suspected of threatening the U.S. originated during the George W. Bush administration. This tactic has been dramatically expanded under the Obama administration and has become the primary tactic utilized in the “War on Terror”. Not only has the frequency of drone strikes increased, but the geography has also expanded from the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan to include non-war zones, such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The potential target list has also expanded to include American citizens suspected of posing a threat.

In describing the source of this threat, Mr. Obama offered the “conflict of civilizations” argument saying, “Most, though not all, of the terrorism we faced is fueled by a common ideology — a belief by some extremists that Islam is in conflict with the United States and the West, and that violence against Western targets, including civilians, is justified in pursuit of a larger cause.” In making this argument, he neglected to mention the U.S. invasions of Muslim lands, overall U.S. Middle East policy and previous targeted killings which tend to create more enemies than they eliminate. (Before the targeted killings began in Yemen there were estimated to be less than 100 al Qaeda sympathizers; today the estimate is over 1200)

In his justification for his use of targeted assassinations Mr. Obama said, “…we act against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people, and when there are no other governments capable of effectively addressing the threat.” and “…despite our strong preference for the detention and prosecution of terrorists, sometimes this approach is foreclosed.”

These arguments, while nuanced and carefully framed, are arguments that could easily been made by Vladimir Putin when he was accused of orchestrating the assassination of former KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 in London or by Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet after the car bomb assassination of former Chilean Ambassador Orlando Letelier in Washington D.C. in 1976. Letelier’s American assistant, Ronnie Moffit, was simply “collateral damage”.

Right now the U.S. has a technological advantage in the production of drones, but this is unlikely to last long. Legitimizing a policy of extrajudicial execution of suspected threats in non-war zones is setting a precedent for other governments who might not be as inclined to take the precautions that Obama has outlined. As Georgetown University Professor of International Law, Rosa Brooks, pointed out in her testimony before Congress, “…the United States is effectively handing China, Russia, and every other repressive state a playbook for how to foment instability and -literally -- get away with murder."

The law of unintended consequences has not been repealed.

Technorati Tags: Obama,Drones

Tom Friedman’s Pipe Dream

This week NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman published an op-ed piece in which he bemoaned the fact that Israel was increasingly becoming an isolated pariah state. His example of the trend of “international delegitimization closing in on Israel” was the decision by Stephen Hawking, a renowned British physicist, cosmologist and author, to refuse to attend the fifth annual Israeli Presidential Conference “based on advice from Palestinian academics that he should respect the boycott” of Israel because of the West Bank occupation.
His recommended solution was for Israel to partner with the current illegitimate Palestinian government in Ramallah to create a Palestinian state by ceding “most of the West Bank and Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem” while “keeping its forces on the Jordan River.
It is ironic that on the same day that Mr. Friedman published his recommendation, the Israeli public expressed their opinion through a Jerusalem Post poll. The Post reported that “74% say they reject the idea of a Palestinian capital in any portion of Jerusalem, with the implication being that they prefer a united Jerusalem. Only 15% say they would support a divided plan for the city, whereby Israel would relinquish sovereignty over some eastern portions of the city to allow for a Palestinian capital there.” From the perspective of the average Israeli citizen, Mt. Friedman’s proposal is dead on arrival. Remember, Israel is a democracy and the voters get to call the shots.
It is also ironic that on the same day a Palestinian friend of mine posted an updated map of the West Bank showing settlements, barriers and closed military zones. If anybody can create a Palestinian state out of this, they are smarter than I am.
Good luck to Secretary of State John Kerry in his quest for a two state solution.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Tom Friedman

The Cuban Connection

During my recent trip to Cuba I had the opportunity to meet with Johana Tablada, the Deputy Director of the North American Department of the Cuban Foreign Ministry. Ms. Tablada had served in the Cuban Interest Section in Washington, D.C. for a number of years and with her youth, engaging personality and fluent, slangy American English; she was a popular figure on the lecture circuit around the U.S. and an effective public relations spokesperson for Cuba. The right wing Cuban émigré community testified to her effectiveness by accusing her of being a Cuban spy. (See here)

Ms. Tablada explained that she had had two largely sleepless days as she had tried to unravel the messy case of Joshua and Sharyn Hakken, who had kidnapped their two children from their maternal grandparents in Florida, who had legal custody, and fled on a small sailboat. After encountering bad weather in the Florida Strait, the boat ended up docked at Marina Hemingway outside of Havana. Needless to say, the arrival in Cuba of a boat from the U.S. attracted the attention of Cuban Security who immediately put the couple under surveillance.

In cases like this, the default position for the Cuban government is to respect the rights of the parents. However, as Ms. Tablada explained, for Cubans, the welfare of the children trumps everything. She explained that she understood that American family law is complicated and it took some time to receive the appropriate documents from U.S. authorities in order insure that the grandparents had legal custody. Once this hurdle was crossed arrangements were made to return the family to authorities in Florida. There was, however, one glitch. The children wouldn’t leave without their dog. Ms. Tablada said “I have spent the last six hours looking for the dog. The good news is that we found the dog and everybody parents, kids and dog are on their way back to Miami.”

While the U.S and Cuba have no formal relations, there is a lot of cooperation on issues such as immigration, counter-terrorism, drug interdiction and search and rescue. Hopefully, this episode can be a small step toward normalizing U.S. relations with our neighbor to the south. The odds are slim, however, as demonstrated by Florida Cuban-American Congresswoman, Ileana Ross-Lehtinen who issued her usual helpful statement:

"Unfortunately, these parents and these poor children, these innocent ones, will now be in a country where there are no laws, there is no redress, and that has been a refuge for fugitives and wanted criminals for many years,"

Technorati Tags: Cuba,Joshua Hakken

When Will We Ever Learn

A recent article written by Franklin Lamb, an American journalist and researcher based in Lebanon commenting on the anniversary of the tragic bombing of the U.S Embassy in Beirut. He puts this event in larger perspective.

Beirut -- This observer has no idea if the American Ambassador here in Beirut, Maura Connelly or Secretary of State John Kerry has ever listened to Marlene Dietrich’s classic October 1965 performance of Pete Seeger’s “Where Have All The Flowers Gone,” still stunning, deeply moving and available on the Internet. (here)

But on this 30th anniversary of the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut I found myself near the old embassy site on the sea front for personal reasons, and stepped down the block below the American University of Beirut to meet a friend at Starbucks. When I entered, maybe the 5th time in my life

I have been to a Starbucks since I don’t drink coffee and for political reasons tend to avoid the chain, I noticed someone was playing Dietrich’s classic.

Having just read reports in the Lebanese media concerning the American Ambassador and Secretary of State’s political comments on the embassy events, three decades on, Marlene’s enchanting, deep voiced, “When will they ever learn,?” numbed me.

Kerry slammed Hezbollah in the Lebanese media, saying “On this 30th anniversary of the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, the United States celebrates 30 years of close cooperation with the people of Lebanon that proves the enemies of democracy failed,” he said from

Washington, "especially at the people-to-people level, and this proves the terrorists' goals were not achieved.”

For her part, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly said the bombing opened a new chapter in America’s history in the Middle East. Connelly said the explosion taught Americans that “peaceful intentions were not enough to protect us from those who would use terror to achieve their aims in the Middle East.”

What both officials avoid mentioning is the subject of who was committing the terrorism in Lebanon when these events, including the US Marine Barracks and the Embassy again in 1984, occurred.

Regarding Hezbollah, which would not be a formed organization ready to announce itself publicly until 1985, CIA operative Robert Baer and his team assigned to investigate the Embassy bombing concluded there was not enough reliable evidence to support the theory that the Party of God was responsible. Among the more than three dozen militias of various persuasions operating in Beirut alone in the early 1980’s, only Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

The American officials also failed to take into consideration the fact, never denied by Washington, that at that time the US Embassy had the largest contingent of CIA agents working out of the Embassy and performing command and control functions for the US Marine base in South Beirut, more in fact than in any other capital city except Moscow. When the US Embassy became a command post, by the terms of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic relations it lost its protected status.

The US Marines as a hostile military force in Lebanon never had adequate protection, and by targeting civilians, its base near the airport became a legitimate target. Contrary to the political spin put on the event, there was no terrorism involved in the operation.

The reason is because, despite Reagan administration claims, and this week's assertion by Ambassador Connelly, the US forces were not “a neutral peacekeeping unit” as hyped. Rather, they were enemy combatants fighting and killing on one side of a civil war conflict. When the battleship New Jersey's shells killed hundreds of people, mostly Shiites and Druze, that fact was clear. It's not surprising that in his memoir, General Colin Powell, at the time an assistant to Caspar Weinberger noted that "When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides."

Some examples. On 14 December, 1983 the New Jersey fired 11 projectiles from three of her 16 inch (406 mm) guns at the rate of three per minute each at positions inland of Beirut. These were the first 16 inch shells fired for effect anywhere in the world since New Jersey ended her time on the gun line in Vietnam in 1969.

According to news accounts by reporters in Beirut at the time, the New Jersey bombardment sometimes began at 1:25 P.M. and ended at 11 P.M. followed by American fighter-bombers which could be heard flying over Beirut in search of targets.

On September 19, 1983, the New Jersey and other US warships began shelling Druze, Syrian and Palestinian positions in the Chouf Mountains outside Beirut. The battleship New Jersey with its 2,700 pound shells ("flying Volkswagens") led the action. And on 8 February 1984, the New Jersey fired almost 300 shells at Druze and Shi'ite positions in the hills overlooking Beirut. More of the massive projectiles rained down on the Bekaa valley east of Beirut and constituted the heaviest shore bombardment since the Korean War.

The inaccuracy of New Jersey's guns was a scandal in US government circles and was consistently called into question. An investigation, led by Marine colonel Don Price, into New Jersey's gunfire effectiveness in Lebanon found that many of the ship's shells had missed their targets by as much as 10,000 yards (9,144 meters) and therefore may have inadvertently killed civilians. Records and oral hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the matter could not be clearer, and Secretary Kerry and Ambassador Connelly know this. Tim McNulty, a correspondent for the Chicago Tribune based in Lebanon at the time wrote: "Everybody loved the New Jersey until she fired her guns. Once she fired, it was obvious she couldn't hit anything,” Well, as the citizens of Lebanon know, it did indeed hit things mainly innocent civilians, their property and Lebanon’s infrastructure.

As Secretary of State Kerrey knows well from his nearly three decades in the US Senate and his four years (2009-2013) as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee the actions of the USS New Jersey itself was arguably terrorism and some experts in the International Law Bureau of the Pentagon have said as much.

This observer lived for more than a year in the Chouf village of Choueifat, a beautiful place set high above the remains of the US marine barracks, the Beirut airport and the Mediterranean Sea where the USS Jersey and other US Sixth fleet warships are normally positioned when they come calling on Lebanon.

Neighbors still recall what some here call, “the terror days of USS New Jersey” and its shelling with both 26 inch and 19 inch shells, the former weighing up to 2,700 pounds. Clearly visible around Choueifat and dozens of other smaller towns, are the remains of houses and buildings not yet repaired from the devastation caused by the intense shelling. Also visible at various locations are indications that unexploded shells even now remain imbedded in the ground.

One wonders if as part of the "special enduring friendship between the United States and Lebanon on a people to people level” that the president might order the Pentagon to defuse and remove these huge unexploded bombs. If so he would distinguish his administration from that of the occupiers of Palestine who for more than three decades have targeted various parts of Lebanon with American supplied and US taxpayer-paid weapons, including literally millions of US-made cluster bombs during the 33 day Israeli aggression in 2006.

It is certainly appropriate to honor the victims of the 1983, but it is no less appropriate to honor the other tragedies in Lebanon during this period under review that precipitated it. In her closing remarks this week, Ambassador Connelly noted that in her opinion, “the bombing of the US Embassy taught us the stakes of involvement in this region.”

Has it?

As we contemplate another “neutral peacekeeping presence” being planned in Washington for Syria, we gravely doubt that it has.

When will we ever learn?

Recognizing a New Reality

Having recently returned from three weeks in Israel/Palestine I am struck by the changes on the ground since I last visited. The Jewish settlements have become much more ubiquitous and are now built alongside and between Arab towns. The Jewish settlements that were once only a group of caravans with no services and utilities have now developed into fully functional towns. The major settlement blocs have expanded to the point that they border and surround Palestinian towns. As a result of this development and expansion Jews and Arabs now live alongside each other in separate communities behind walls and barbwire fences. This intermingling of Jewish settlements and Arab towns now means that Israelis and Palestinians use many of the same roads. There are no longer enough bypass roads to completely separate Jews and Arabs. The result has been that many of the roads in the West Bank have been upgraded and many of the checkpoints are no longer manned. In Palestinian cities such as Jenin and Nablus one sees, despite the ominous warnings on the

red signs, a number Arab Israeli shoppers. Some tours are now being offered for Israeli Jews to visit the Ramallah, the seat of government for the Palestinian Authority.

Despite the efforts of the Israeli government to maintain an apartheid state, the reality on the ground may be gradually breaking this down. I found Jews and Arabs on both sides of the wall beginning to recognize that the “two state solution” is no longer possible and that it is now becoming OK to talk about a bi-national state in polite company. Whether this state is “Palreal” or “Isrestine”, it is becoming the way forward. Even western media outlets are beginning to examine this option. (See here)

As usual the politicians are late to recognize the reality on the ground. The first step in addressing any problem is to recognize the brutal reality. Denying this reality will get us nowhere. Government leaders on all sides need to begin to prepare their citizens for the fact that they will need to learn to live alongside their neighbors in peace. Will the Jews who now have a privileged position like this reality? No! Did the whites in South Africa want to give up their privileged position? No! Did the whites in the American South want to give up “Jim Crow”? No! The changes just had to happen.

Currently leaders are prone to say that the “two state solution” is on “life support”. What they fail to recognize is that the patient is already dead. Leaders need to emphasize what brings Palestinians and Jews together, language, culture and religious traditions, rather than what divides them. The brutal reality is that Zionism has to go and be replaced by justice, democracy and equal rights.
Photo by Brooks Cato

Egypt’s Messy Politics Get Worse

Two years ago Tunisia, Egypt and Libya led the way for the so called “Arab Spring” by successfully ousting long entrenched authoritarian regimes. Tunisia accomplished this with a relatively peaceful series of demonstrations that forced President Ali to leave. Egypt’s overthrow of President Mubarak was more violent, but still relatively peaceful. Libya on the other hand endured months of civil war in order to force Muammar Gaddafi from power. I thought at the time that Libya would have the most difficult time in transitioning to a democratic system. Gaddafi had destroyed all of Libya’s civil society institutions and the country had a history of, sometimes violent, tribal rivalries. Despite these problems, Libya has managed a relatively successful transition and the IMF predicts that the economy will grow at a rate of 116% in 2012.

On the other hand, Egypt, the so called “leader of the Arab world”, has allowed its political issues to deteriorate into one big street brawl with opposing political groups shooting at each other. In order to understand how we got into this state of affairs, it is useful to examine the history of the Egyptian electoral process and how the results were read differently by the various parties.

The process began when the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) assumed power following Mubarak’s ouster. SCAF decided to hold elections before drafting a new constitution. The rapid timetable for Parliamentary elections favored the more organized Islamist parties. Following a convoluted series of elections and an even more obscure system of allocating seats, the Islamist parties emerged with 65% of the votes and 70% of the seats. Unsurprisingly, the Constituent Assembly, tasked by Parliament with writing the Constitution, was dominated by Islamists.

The Presidential elections were held in two stages. In the first stage, which determined who would move to the second round, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) candidate Mohammed Morsi (25%) edged out Ahmed Shafiq, a remnant (falool) of the Mubarak regime (23%). The remaining moderate and secular parties could not agree on a common candidate and split the vote resulting in Morsi and Shafiq facing off in the second round. In this round Morsi won a narrow victory (52% to 48%) with many voters voting against the MB rather than for Shafiq. All this said, however, it should be pointed out that, however convoluted the process, Mohammed Morsi is the most democratically elected president in Egypt’s history.

The MB looked at the parliamentary results and concluded that they had an overwhelming mandate to govern. This conclusion has led to governing overreach. The opposition looked at the presidential results and concluded that a majority of Egyptians oppose the MB. The secularist and falool parties, who couldn’t agree on anything during the elections, have formed an odd coalition, The National Salvation Front (NSF). They have called the “regime” illegitimate, called for its overthrow and vowed that they “will not allow the constitutional referendum to go forward”. The tanks are back in the streets again. As Jason Brownlee points out in a recent article, by banking on military intervention and “courting a coup against Morsi or prolonging Egypt’s transition (the NSF) risks erasing the great strides made toward popular sovereignty and civilian control over the state.” Reza Aslan’s pithy Tweet sums it up, “For God's sake Egypt. The world is watching. Throwing rocks at each other is not politics. Get your shit together!”

Technorati Tags: Egypt Election,Egypt Unrest

Crisis in Egypt?

Shortly after Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi succeeded in mediating a ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, for which he received international acclaim, Morsi stunned both Egyptians and Western leaders by declaring that, until the new Egyptian constitution was ratified, his decisions were not reviewable by the Judicial courts. The U.S. State Dept. issued a statement saying, “The decisions and declarations announced on Nov 22 raise concerns for many Egyptians and for the international community.” Opposition figures in Egypt decried the decree as a blatant power grab. Western media breathlessly reported on street demonstrations in Egypt by comparing them with the million person demonstrations that led to the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak. (See here) I think that the reality is much more nuanced.

We should remember that Morsi has previously used this tactic. Shortly after his election, there was much concern that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) would refuse to relinquish power. Morsi aggressively stripped SCAF of political power and eliminated its influence over the constitutional assembly. In the end he compromised and allowed the military leaders to gracefully retire.

In the case of the judiciary, Morsi was faced with much the same problem. The judiciary is largely made up of holdovers from the Mubarak regime. Some are well respected legal figures, but many are Mubarak era political hacks who would like nothing better than return to the “good old days”. The have previously disbanded the elected Parliament and the Constituent Assembly tasked with writing a new Constitution. Morsi seems determined to get a Constitution ratified, to get Parliament elected and to move on. He has compromised with the judiciary while at the same time moving aggressively to bring the new Constitution to a vote. While not everyone likes the result of constitutional process, the people will get a chance to speak.

An examination of the street demonstrations shows that they are nothing like the 2011 demonstrations which represented all segments of society. The current demonstrators are protesting Morsi’s power grab and the Islamist tone of the Constitution. Peter Hessler, the New Yorker Cairo correspondent who interviewed many demonstrators, describes them as including “a large number of affluent and educated people; it was common to see women whose heads were not covered.” Many “were as practiced as an army—a group of kids whose education has been shaped largely by the violence around Tahrir.”

In the Parliamentary elections, the Islamist parties received 75% of the vote and the secular liberals less than 10%. It seems to me that the secular liberals are trying to win in the streets what they couldn’t win at the ballot box. I expect that the Constitution will be quickly ratified and a new Parliament elected so that Egypt can move forward in addressing its problems. If not, there will be a real crisis.

Technorati Tags: Egypt,Mohammed Morsi

Gaza: Winners and Losers

As of today the ceasefire agreement between Hamas and Israel, negotiated by Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, appears to be holding. (The only violation has been the killing of a Gazan farmer by an Israeli soldier. Hamas reaction was relatively muted. They seem to want to give peace a chance.) As in any armed conflict, it is difficult to say that anybody won when almost 200 people were killed on both sides. That said, it is possible to point out some winners and losers.
Winners:
Hamas: In any conflict such as this in which the power equation is so unbalanced, the weaker side wins by not losing and the stronger side loses by not winning. Hamas in Gaza was able to absorb over 1500 airstrikes and live to fight another day. Hamas’ popularity, both in Gaza and the West Bank has soared. Their strategic objectives of stopping the bombing raids, stopping the targeted killings and easing the blockade of Gaza have been agreed to in the cease fire agreement. It remains to be seen whether or not Israel will implement the agreement. If not, we may be back in the same mess a few weeks from now. Hamas’ political capital in the region has also been enhanced by statements of support and by numerous visits by ranking Arab officials.
Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi: Morsi’s key role in brokering the ceasefire agreement has raised his personal status and as well as that of Egypt.
Iran: Iran’s game changing supply of longer range weapons and missile technology to Hamas has helped to cement this relationship. In addition, Iran had a chance to watch the much vaunted Israeli “Iron Dome” missile defense system in action and to better assess its strengths and weaknesses. In the event of an Iran-Israel conflict, this information will certainly be helpful to the Iranian military.
Losers:
Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu: The last thing that Netanyahu needed two months before an election was to have his arm twisted into agreeing to a ceasefire agreement that is enormously unpopular with the Israeli population. A snap poll conducted shortly after the cease fire was announced showed that 70% of the respondents disagreed with the decision to sign the cease fire agreement and supported a ground war in Gaza.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas: The U.S. supported Abbas was completely sidelined during whole process. His standing among Palestinians, already low has plummeted.
To be determined:
President Obama and Hilary Clinton: While this is based on speculation on my part, it is hard for me to imagine that Netanyahu would have agreed to this ceasefire without some serious pressure from the U.S. Obama’s adroit handling of the relationship with Morsi and Clinton’s persuasion of Netanyahu (I would love to know what she said.) may bode well for U.S. relationships in the Middle East. Time will tell.

Technorati Tags: Gaza Conflict,Middle East

After the Election:What Now?

After months of campaign wrangling, the presidential election is now behind us and we are left with the question: What will US Middle East policy look like going forward? Since the election campaign was largely devoid of any discussion or debate on policy options, pundits are left to speculate based on a combination of hope, realities and educated guesses. Some things are clear. The major winner from the election outcome was Nate Silver, the NY Times statistics blogger, (See here) who got the results exactly right. (Close, but never in doubt.) The major loser was Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who bet big time on the wrong horse. On everything else we can only speculate and wait and see what will happen. In general, not much is likely to change.

The Syrian civil war drags on with the death toll on all sides rising with each passing day. Obama has little choice but to support the rebels rhetorically and with some modest aid, while relying on the wealthy Gulf States to do the heavy lifting of arming the rebels. There is no mood in the US to get entangled in another Middle East ground conflict. Iran and its allies will continue to support the Assad regime. Any negotiated settlement would require engagement with Iran. This would acknowledge Iran’s role as a regional player and is an anathema to Washington’s foreign policy wizards. The biggest losers will be the Syrian people.

The so called “Arab Awakening” will likely continue on its own path with the US having little influence on the outcomes. The road to functioning democracies in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya will be bumpy with an ending that is not likely to be friendly to US ambitions for regional control. There is not much that the US can do to influence the ending except to continue to support them and hope for the best. Hopefully, Congress will not mess it up.

As the “Arab Awakening” spreads to authoritarian US allies in the Gulf region and Jordan, the US will face some uncomfortable choices. With US bases in place and the US requiring Arab support for its anti-Iran policies, the policy has been to offer soft encouragement for reform, but no direct regime criticism. As the regimes crack down more aggressively on dissidents, (See here and here) this policy may become more untenable. Again, I expect that the US will continue current policies and hope for the best.

In Israel/Palestine, Prime Minister Netanyahu has lost all credibility with the Obama administration. His antics have left him on the outside looking in. However, I believe that Obama has realized that a “two state solution” is no longer possible. Given Israeli intransigence and control of Congress, and Palestinian divisions, there is not much that he can do to change the situation. Again, he will continue to be disengaged and hope for the best.

Iran probably offers the best opportunity for improvement. The Iranians have signaled their willingness to compromise by softening their rhetoric, transferring some of their 20% enriched uranium to civilian uses and offering to suspend enrichment to higher levels. (See here) If the US responds in-kind, the upcoming talks may bear some fruit. The Iranians, however, will not move without some reduction in sanctions. Given that Congress controls the sanctions regime, Obama will have little ability to negotiate in good faith on sanctions. Promising to consider reducing sanctions at some time in the future will not cut it.

All of this ignoring the problems and hoping for the best, reminds me of the Bill Clinton administration when President Clinton told a State Department official that he was not particularly interested in foreign policy issues because none of his voters were interested. The response was “Sometimes, Mr. President, foreign policy issues find you.” Usually at the most inopportune time.

 

Technorati Tags: Middle East,Election,Obama

Iran Policy: Morally and Effectively Bankrupt

During the campaign debates between the major party presidential candidates, the two candidates essentially agreed on almost every subject. Romney claimed that Obama’s policies had failed and then announced that he would follow the same failed policies. On Iran the only disagreement was who would be the tougher president. Under Obama, the U.S. has engaged in economic warfare by imposing a unilateral sanctions regime and has strong armed other countries into abiding by the sanctions. The resulting economic dislocation, aggravated by mismanagement by the Iranian government, has had a significant impact on the economy. Oil exports have plummeted, contributing to a precipitous decline in the value of the rial. This decline, along with financial restrictions on marine insurance and funds transfer , have contributed to rising inflation and have made it difficult to import even essential goods such as medical equipment and drugs.

Despite all of the political noise, there has been almost no discussion about whether or not the sanctions policy is being effective in achieving its objectives and no discussion about the morality of economic warfare on the Iranian people.

Following the First Gulf War, the U.S. and its allies imposed draconian sanctions on Iraq designed to “punish the Iraqi people”. These sanctions destroyed the Iraqi healthcare and educational systems and resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary Iraqi deaths. (See here) Madeleine Albright (then US UN ambassador) declared on 60 Minutes that “the price is worth it”. In 1998 Denis Halliday, the UN administrator of the oil-for-food program, resigned to protest the sanctions saying, “We are in the process of destroying an entire country” and calling them “nothing less than genocide’. His replacement, Hans von Sponeck, resigned in 2000 denouncing the sanctions as “criminal policy”. (See here) As we head down the same path in Iran, the same descriptions apply.

The stated objectives behind the sanctions on Iran have been variously stated to be: to force Iran to abandon or change its nuclear program or to provoke civil unrest resulting in the overthrow of the Iranian government. The decade long enhanced sanctions regime has accomplished neither of these objectives. In the past decade, Iran has gone from a small number of centrifuges creating a small amount of low enriched uranium to thousands of centrifuges creating a large amount of 20% enriched uranium. The regime has withstood the large demonstrations surrounding the 2009 elections.

While accurate polling in Iran by western pollsters is difficult, it is not impossible. Recent polls show that there is little appetite for regime change. 85% of Iranians say it is important for Iran to have a civilian nuclear program. 65% blamed the worsening economy on western sanctions and only 11% on government mismanagement. 76% have an unfavorable view of the US. These and other results (See here) show that the theory that, if pressured enough, Iranians will rise against their government is wrong. Secondly, the more Iranians suffer, the more they blame those imposing the sanctions and not their own government.

It is time for our political leaders, whoever they may be, to rethink the Iran policy on which they so much agree.

Technorati Tags: Iran,Iran Sanctions

Peace Not Apartheid

In 2006 Former President Jimmy Carter published a book on the situation in Israel/Palestine entitled “Peace Not Apartheid”. In the book Carter argued that all parties to the situation in Israel/Palestine must take immediate steps to implement the Oslo Process designed to create two states living alongside each other in peace. Failing this, he argued, the result would be a land completely controlled by Israel with limited or no rights for its Palestinian residents. Carter’s use of the dreaded “A” word in the title caused considerable controversy at the time. As time has passed, with no progress towards a viable “two state solution”, Carter is beginning to look prescient.

Many observers, this one included, for a number of years have said that the day of the “two state solution” had come and gone. (See here) With over 500,000 Jews living on the Palestinian side of the green line and 1.5 mm Palestinians living on the Israeli side of the green line, it is impossible to unscramble the egg. The location of settlements and Jewish only roads on the West Bank make a viable Palestinian state impossible. As the situation has worsened over the years, the concept of a single state is becoming a more mainstream position. Veteran Israeli journalist Nahum Barnea recently wrote, “Everybody knows how this will end. There will be a bi-national [state]”. The only remaining question is, what kind of a state it will be. Will it be a bi-national state with equal rights for all of its citizens? Will it be a state ethnically cleansed of its Palestinian citizens? Or will it be an apartheid state where only Jewish citizens have complete rights of citizenship?

Some on the far right fringe in Israel advocate for an ethnically cleansed state. They say “Jordan is the Palestinian state”. It is unlikely that even Israel’s most ardent backers in the U.S. could support this outcome.

What appears to be more acceptable, at least in Israel, is an apartheid state. A recent poll commissioned by the Israeli paper Haaretz (See here) reported that 58% of Israeli Jews believe that Israel already practices apartheid against Palestinians. Two thirds believe that the 2.5 mm Palestinians living on the West Bank should be denied the right to vote. 33% say Palestinians living within Israel proper should be denied the right to vote. 75% are in favor of segregated roads. 60% say Jews should be given preference in government jobs and 50% say Jewish citizens should be treated better than Arabs.

Since Israel is a democracy, the views of its citizens are generally translated into government policies. It is likely that, in next year’s elections, the current right wing government will be even more solidified and Israel will move even further on the path to a bi-national apartheid state. The question for the Americans will be can they sustain their unbending support for Israeli policies in the face of this outcome.

Technorati Tags: Israel,Palestine,Apartheid

Afghanistan after America

With all the loud and largely fact free debate that is going on during the current presidential campaign, very little has been said about America’s longest war in Afghanistan. Neither candidate wants to talk about it since a reluctant Obama was never really sold on the surge strategy and any position taken by Romney would tie his hands should he be elected. However, whoever wins the election will quickly be faced with some very difficult decisions. With the 2014 deadline for withdrawal of American combat forces and a massive logistical task required to implement an orderly withdrawal, decisions will need to be made quickly. Since the press is preoccupied with campaign non-events, it might be useful to look at where we are and what the future might bring.

At a recent conference on the subject which I attended, Ryan Crocker, recently retired ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and four other Middle East countries, expressed his view that the surge had been relatively successful. Since Ambassador Crocker is no Pollyanna, (He was sarcastically dubbed “sunshine” by President Bush for ongoing pessimistic reports on the on the situation in Iraq) his assessment should be taken seriously.

While poorly conceived, planned and implemented the surge has accomplished some of its objectives. The surge forces have gained control of major population centers and the roads connecting them. While it might been more useful to train fewer forces better, 350,000 Afghan security forces have been partially trained and they may be capable of sustaining some control of the population centers once U.S. forces have departed. Some economic development projects have been completed. However, the vast majority of Afghan GDP is still directly tied to western aid and the presence of thousands of foreign troops and civilian workers. All this has been achieved in the face of rampant corruption, incompetence and bureaucratic infighting between the Dept. of State and the Pentagon, within the armed services and between allies. No small accomplishment. It is possible that we might just muddle through.

Nonetheless, everything must go right over the next few years for this to work out OK and not be a complete disaster. Some of the factors we have some control over and some we do not. It should be noted that Murphy probably developed his law after observing Afghanistan. Some of the factors to watch for are:

• · Are the Afghan security forces as good as Crocker thinks they are?
• · The Afghan political situation is fragile. Will Hamid Karzai step down at the end of his term? Who will succeed him?
• · What will Iran do? In the current circumstance, Iran is incentivized to maintain managed chaos.
• · What will Pakistan do? Pakistan will not allow an Indian client state on its western border. The good news on this front is that the Pakistani public no longer sees India as the major threat. America has assumed this position.
• · Will economically stressed western countries be able to deliver on their promised aid?
• · Will al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban be able to reconstitute themselves and regain their position as a global threat?

Ambassador Crocker articulated his primary rules for international relations. “Be very concerned about the unintended consequences of any decision that you make. Be very careful before you get in. Be very careful how you get out.”

So far we have violated the first two in Afghanistan. I hope that we don’t go 3 for 3. The last time we were involved in Afghanistan, we declared victory and walked away. We ended up with al Qaeda.