Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘nuclear’

“We can’t lose focus” after Bin Laden’s death, said the former Secretary of State, the woman who helped author the most costly loss of focus in the history of America’s fight against terrorism.   Of course, Condi Rice had no earthly idea when she spouted her “mushroom cloud” warning years ago that Saddam Hussein had long given up his nuclear program, that his supposed link with Al Qaeda was a fabrication.  But facts didn’t matter as much back in 2002, when fear-mongering was a powerful tool against a fearful America.  Afghanistan was “pacified” but Bin Laden had slipped away at Tora Bora.  America needed a new target.  Preferably a nation-state that would showcase America’s superior conventional military strength.  Something that had borders and didn’t move, like those pesky, shadowy jihadists who were the ones we were really after.  And so, Iraq became the Bush administration’s Weapon of Mass Distraction from the real objectives of the “War on Terror”: killing and capturing terrorists.  A trillion dollars and 5,000 American lives later, Condi Rice goes on ABC News to warn that we can’t lose focus.

Too late.  Al Qaeda hasn’t been in Afghanistan in sufficient numbers in years.  It’s common knowledge that the organization metastasized long ago into more potent franchises in Iraq, Yemen and North Africa.  Even the top leadership of the Taliban are not in Afghanistan.  The Quetta Shura and Mullah Omar- much like Osama Bin Laden until he was taken out unilaterally- operate under the protection of their government patrons, in Pakistan.  Well then, you ask, why does the West still have 140,000 troops in Afghanistan propping up a Karzai government that is reviled by its own people at a time when corrupt strong men across the Muslim world are being toppled by popular revolutions?  Hmmmm.  Because we’ve already thrown so much blood and treasure at our Afghan investment already?  Because if we withdraw now, the world will think we are weak and unable to finish the job?  Because we don’t want Afghanistan to become a staging ground for terrorist attacks on our country again?

These questions and their very structure are more illuminating than the answers could ever be.  The subject is always “us”, the object, “Afghanistan”, when it should be the other way around if we are looking for viable solutions for, namely, Afghanistan.  Long ago, Afghanistan ceased being about Afghanistan and became more about America and our selfish insecurities as a nation.  The longest war in our nation’s history remains unfocused, unsustainable, and detrimental to our nation’s standing and security in ways that are only now becoming visible.  Only recently, American soldiers have admitted to forming kill teams that have murdered Afghan civilians, claiming body parts as take-home trophies.  It’s tough to reconcile a COIN strategy which emphasizes winning local hearts and minds with testosterone-laden kids who just wanna “get some”, taking matters into their own hands when they can’t do what they were trained to do.  Military and civilian agencies continue to coordinate poorly in an increasingly violent Afghan reconstruction environment and have entirely different plans and priorities for resources.  Mass prison breaks and friendly fire attacks on NATO personnel occur with growing frequency.  The annual cost of the Afghan security forces we are training and equipping dwarfs the entire Afghan national budget.  What part of this is about building a nation that can sustain itself?

All this at a time when the arc of fundamental change in the Muslim world is shifting decisively West, towards the Arab heartland where Al Qaeda’s extremist ideology was born.  This is where the fight against Islamic fundamentalism will be won, in the rejuvenated streets of Cairo, Tunis and Damascus.  Unfortunately, that struggle for the most part is not kinetic warfare but the hard slog of compromise and negotiation between civil societies and political parties.  Therefore, America isn’t interested.  What’s profitable about civic development?  What congressional district will it create jobs for?  What Pentagon weapon system will it support?  Mercy Corps doesn’t make campaign contributions.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

This past weekend I hopped on Interstate 95 and rubbernecked my way along stimulus-inspired construction lanes down to colonial Williamsburg, a time-warp back to the days of British empire in America and its discontents.  A passion-play called “Revolutionary City” was captivating a crowd of tourists along the former colonial capital’s cobblestone avenues, complete with costumed redcoats and town criers on chargers.  American myth-making was unfolding before our eyes: the rights of man, the tyranny of a distant monarch, tea parties and taxation without representation.  Powder-wigged gentlemen made lofty speeches and minutemen- the irregulars of our own insurgency against our motherland some 240 years ago- were called into action.  After visiting a shoemaker, a printer, and the Governor’s Palace, I drove 13 miles down to the battlefield of Yorktown, where 5,000 French troops and the French navy made it possible for Washington to declare victory over Lord Cornwalis.

The French had their own reasons for helping us in our hour of need.  Britain was a long-time rival, and any insurrection in America would clearly benefit French global power.  Ironically, King Louis’ support of American self-determination presaged the revolution that would engulf his own rule, and all of Europe, shortly thereafter.   In hindsight, perhaps no leader in our collective past endured such a swing in judgment- on the right side of history one moment, only to be relegated to its dustbin in short succession.

As the U.S. troop drawdown in Iraq reaches a milestone while the surge peaks in Afghanistan, we might ask ourselves how the American interventions of the early 21st century will be judged decades from now.  After a trillion dollars spent (Stiglitz and Bilmes will tell you it’s more like $3 trillion), will we end up on the right side of history?

(more…)

Read Full Post »

I will not attempt to dissect the spate of reactions and counter-reactions to the Jeffrey Goldberg article on the Iran-Israel conflict in this past week’s Atlantic.  Smarter people who follow this debate every day and have none of Goldberg’s hidden prejudice or agenda have provided some excellent analysis here and here.  I highly recommend this reading for anyone who is truly interested in dispassionately separating out the ground truths of the Iran issue from the sinister ideology masquerading as policy advice that perpetually clouds the beltway’s corridors of power.  And we call ourselves the “rational” West, the “secular-pragmatic” United States, versus the “emotional” East, the “fanatical” Muslim World, where decisions are based on the next world, not this one.

This seems to be the departure point for Goldberg’s one-dimensional caricature of Iran, where millenarian clerics hold sway, old men who have long considered Jews and Christians ritually unclean and a threat to the cohesion of broader Muslim society.   There is indeed this strain of thought in Iran, among a more conservative constituency.  My grandfather was among them for the first part of his life, until he met my Jewish-American mother, until he saw the world changing around him and was forced to change himself.  But to insinuate that this is the only viewpoint or even the dominant one in an Iran whose diverse political culture defies easy classification is perhaps Goldberg’s greatest sin.  It fuels the rush to war much in the same way his writings contributed to a public acceptance of (or acquiescence to) the Iraq debacle.  In both instances the narrative is the same: The Islamic East is a monolith of religious and secular fascists diametrically opposed to the West.  Goldberg fulfills the Al Qaeda wet dream- a civilizational conflict.

The reality is that all nations are full of ignorant people and the politicians who represent them, smearing their anger and vitriol across the airwaves.  Newt Gingrich equates Islam with Nazism.  Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, believes Israel’s long standing citizens of Arab descent should take a loyalty vote or lose their rights.  Goldberg himself goes into great detail about the influence of Ben Zion Netanyahu, the prime minister’s father, whose past statements can only be classified as racist and warmongering.  Orthodox parties in Israel and Christian coalitions across Europe and America increasingly de-humanize the “Islamic” other, brandishing ancient fears and insecurities.  How much of what Gingrich and Lieberman say are what they truly believe and will act upon and how much is idle pandering to their base of support?  No one knows.  But these pundits and their incendiary words are somehow tolerated, perhaps because of the assumption that there is a difference between actions and rhetoric.

Goldberg’s insinuation is that Iran should be held to a different standard.  We should examine public statements in excruciating detail to determine what Iranian leaders will do next.  Ahmadinejad calls for Israel to vanish (this gets parsed into “annihilation” by the mainstream press) and says that the Palestinians shouldn’t be made to suffer for Europe’s original sin of the Holocaust (this becomes “he denied the Holocaust”).  Rafsanjani says Iran can handle nuclear war better than Israel.  Rezai says the Jews won’t have a home one day.  These are worrisome words.  But they are just words, meant to illicit a reaction, appeal to a base, and provoke a response.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Hats off to Bob Gates for being a true patriot.  For realizing that the real threat to our national security isn’t a group of angry beards in a Pakistani cave or a gaggle of rogue nations whose combined defense spending doesn’t approach one-tenth of ours, but rather the waste and cozy corruption within our own country.  Most cabinet secretaries jealously guard their resources and territory, resisting any attempts to trim budgets and curtail authority, to reign in the largesse they hand out to private contractors and corporate interests.  Instead, Gates has made it his personal crusade to cut the fat at the Defense Department and give resources back to Congress.  And Congress has refused him.

Congress has refused him?   Trillion dollar deficits, a national debt approaching levels not seen since World War II, an aging population unable to sustain its dependents, and Congress is refusing savings?  Well, if it’s related to defense dollars, and the jobs and political contributions tied to them, then, yes.  A case in point is the “back-up” engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter- a cool half a billion dollar price tag just in case the primary engine for the plane doesn’t measure up.  Doesn’t measure up?  When the government asks you to build something and it doesn’t measure up, then you either fix it or pay the money back, with interest.  But General Electric and Rolls Royce, the corporations who would like to build the back-up engine, don’t see it that way.  They (and their well paid lobbyists in Washington) think the government should hedge its bets and create some “competition” by giving them a piece of the action.  Gates rightly points out that if they wanted a piece of the action, they should have been more competitive in the original tender for the fighter, which was won by Lockheed Martin and its engine partner, Pratt & Whitney.

But this is not how our defense industry or Congress works.  Peel back the veil of “competitive bids” and “strict contracting standards.”  Dig deep.  If you’re Congress, you need to spread the greenbacks around a bit, to the hundreds of counties, communities and states that manufacture disparate parts for weapon systems that we will largely never use.  (As myself and others have said before, don’t count on getting into any dog fights with Al Qaeda any time soon, not when they can penetrate our defenses with an impoverished teenager wearing loaded underwear).  This is the game board that Gates would like to shake up- the defense industry’s shrewd battle map of key political and economic constituencies across the nation and the federal contracts that keep the money, jobs and profits flowing to them and their representatives.  It’s not about national security at all.  On the contrary, it’s about the political insecurity of our elected men and women and their penchant to put their careers ahead of what’s right for the country.  It’s not surprising that it takes an un-elected official to challenge them.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Elected in no small part due to the backlash against rash Bush administration misadventures abroad, the incoming Obama team  swore to itself it would pursue a more nuanced, collaborative policy towards Iran.  And from the beginning, the president has acted with considerable restraint, even when the mullahs’ brutality against their own people streamed across the globe for all to see.  Instead, Obama instructed his Iran team to patiently build the case among friends and allies for crippling sanctions against the Iranian regime over its nuclear program.  Gone were the days when America would “go it alone.”  We had learned our lesson in Iraq.  The only way to stop a belligerent nation like Iran was with unified, concerted action by the international community.

And after over a year of concessions in Moscow, political capital spent in Beijing, and multiple arm-twistings at the UN, a draft resolution was finally produced.  Except it didn’t matter anymore, because only the day before the mullahs had agreed with Turkey and Brazil to a uranium swap mirroring the one that was proposed by the U.S. months before.  No one will read the fine print that makes this agreement different- that Iran’s stock of enriched uranium is much larger now than it was when the U.S. deal was proposed, that it can still enrich uranium to its hearts desire, that it can cancel the deal whenever it wants (for example, in reaction to a new UN sanctions resolution).

The mullahs have outmaneuvered the Great Satan once again.  How can a country that spends $10 billion a year on its measly military embarrass the greatest military and economic power the world has ever known?  Well, we haven’t made it that hard for them.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

It’s too early to know all the facts in the failed Times Square car bomb, but its looks like at least one US citizen of Pakistani heritage was involved and that the plot emanated at least in part from South Asia. Coinciding with the recent conviction of the lone surviving Mumbai terrorist, also a Pakistani trained and equipped by a Pakistani terrorist group, one wonders if extremism has a more obvious global headquarters than the nuclear state where experts believe Osama Bin Laden and most of the top Al Qaeda leadership have found refuge.   If it turns out to be true that the Pakistani Taliban are indeed involved, as they claim to be, in this latest chapter of the NYC terror saga, then there will undoubtedly be renewed calls for a refocusing of our counter-terror efforts on Pakistan.

This is certainly part of what is needed as experts such as the Pakistani journalist Ahmad Rashid have been arguing for some time.  But the problem with our South Asia counter-terror policy is not resources, but tactics and strategy.  We spend $700 billion on war fighting a year (this does not include classified intelligence budgets).  This dwarves anything our adversaries- nations or terrorist groups- can bring to bear.  Less is often more, particularly in a long war where extremist groups feed off the sympathies of local populations that reel from a heavy-handed foreign presence.   Too often our terror policies in the past have defeated themselves by focusing only on throwing resources at the symptoms of the disease, rather than tackling the root causes.  This has to change unless we want to continue to play defense against a legion of suicide bombers.

While David Ignatius‘  assertion in today’s Washington Post is true – our counter-terror efforts have succeeded in severely degrading Al Qaeda top leadership – it is overshadowed by his ominous conclusion- jihadists are splintering, de-centralizing, and will be harder to target and liquidate.  While drone attacks and military clearing operations should not be abandoned entirely as tools, anyone who has visited northern Pakistan knows that they are not a long term strategy.  On the contrary, there is an accumulating cost to these tactics over time in the heavily tribal, retribution crazy culture of South Asia where blood revenge is a way of life.  If a brother or cousin or uncle is killed, it does not matter if he was helping bad people or doing bad things.  Honor demands a response.  This is a never-ending spiral.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Obama’s nuclear dream seems nice and perhaps in another dimension of reality (paradoxically called Fantasy Land), achievable.  Down here on earth, nations will never give up nuclear capability once they have it because they will never know if their adversaries will develop it today or some time in the future.  (They don’t even know who their adversaries will be sometime in the future).  It is hard to believe that even the occasional anomaly that has publicly disavowed its nuclear weapons program, such as South Africa, has not privately retained the capability just in case.  This is the reality of our international system- beyond the niceties of diplomatic photo-ops, consensus and “free” trade, we still operate in a state of nature where threats must be confronted or deterred.

So lets talk about what this Nuclear Summit, with all of its accompanying motorcades and DC traffic jams, is really about.  Iran is developing the bomb.  Sanctions against the mullahs haven’t worked since their inception 30 years ago.  Negotiations are a maze of prevarication, delay, and hearsay.  Did we expect anything different?  Iran looks at North Korea and learns a valuable lesson: “even if we get that bad (and we wont), as long as we have the bomb they will take us seriously, they will hesitate to take us on because they will always stand to lose more.”  Again, nations don’t willingly give up the instruments of power.  They must be compelled to give them up, by realizing that it is more costly not to.

Hence, Obama’s Nuclear Summit, geared entirely towards increasing the costs to Iran of continuing its nuclear program.  How?  By showing the world, and in particular the two great powers most reluctant to join the embargo against Iran- China and Russia- that America is serious about nuclear proliferation and is taking concrete steps, both domestically and globally, to combat it.   Hence the intensely publicized timeline leading up to and during the Summit: the Nuclear Posture Review concluding that America would not invest in a new generation of warheads and would not use nukes against a non-nuclear threat, the new START reductions agreed with Russia, Ukraine’s unilateral relinquishment of its nuclear stock, a strongly worded suggestion to Benyamin Netanyahu to stay home in Israel and not attend the Summit.

A strongly worded suggestion to Benyamin Netanyahu to stay home in Israel and not attend the Summit?  Is this part of the non-nuclear campaign against Iran?  Well, yes.  America cannot command world public opinion against a nuclear Iran when its closest ally- a nation that has for 30 years thumbed its nose at every international convention against nuclear proliferation and does not even admit that it has them- is the all too visible elephant in the room.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Iran’s cunning leadership has effectively divided the major powers of the world between those willing to engage with it and others who seek to contain or even obliterate it.  Without unity and leadership among these various nations, the idea of outside actors influencing real change in Iranian behavior is dead on arrival.  Iranians themselves are no more united on how they view Iran and its government.  Even within families sitting down for a meal or a cup of amber Persian tea, casual banter often turns emotional and contentious.  This is understandable.  There are few nations in the world, let alone the stagnant Middle East, that have experienced not one, but two popular revolutions in the span of a century (1905 and 1979).  Upheaval on this scale uproots lives and shatters families.  With a proud people such as the Persians and their long history of empire and high culture, the fallout from loss becomes even more acute.

While most Iranians have no love for the current regime, they have widely varying opinions on how to change the system and what should replace it.  Many Iranians, particularly the well-off of a certain age, embellish the old days under the Shah as a golden era when Iran was a model of sophistication and at peace with the world.  Other Iranians are more critical of the past or see sinister players such as America or Israel sabotaging Iranian self-determination at every pivotal point. Getting Iranians, particularly Iranians living outside Iran, to come together is no easy task.  But it could be the key to meaningful change in Iran.

You might be surprised at some of the numbers when it comes to the Iranian diaspora.  Estimated at 3 million strong worldwide, the largest concentration is in the United States, with over a million.  Other large communities exist in the United Arab Emirates, Canada, Germany, the UK and Sweden, to name a few.  Even a sizable community of 48,000 Persian Jews live in Israel.  The Iranian diaspora is one of the most educated, professionally successful groups in the world, worth an astounding $1.3 trillion by one estimate.  This is what happens when violent revolution forces the business elite and professional classes of a large, resource rich economy into exile.  In America and Europe in particular, Iranians have penetrated their adopted societies at every level of industry, academics and government.  While they are content to remain and contribute to their new homes, most Iranians continue to have a strong emotional and cultural connection to their homeland.

This begs the question- why aren’t we doing more to harness this group to agitate for positive change within Iran?  They have the resources, the connections, and the motivation to make an impact.  They want to see their country restored, to see it prosper again and become an integral member of the international community.  They want the same freedoms for Iranians inside Iran that they themselves have enjoyed in the societies they have become a part of.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

One wonders exactly where Pakistani President Asif Zardari was when he first wrote the above headline for his Washington Post Op-Ed that appeared in the print edition this past Friday.  (The Post subsequently changed the headline in the on-line version.  Hmmm…).  Perhaps Zardari was in his villa in Dubai or his chalet in Switzerland.  Maybe he was looking out the window of a penthouse apartment overlooking London.  It’s hard to imagine he was in Pakistan.  At least, not the Pakistan that has teetered between financial insolvency, jihadist implosion, and nuclear exchange for much of its 50 year existence. Crumbling schools, abject poverty and deteriorating infrastructure.  Where are these realities accommodated within the “Greatness” of Zardari’s imagination?  With this disgusting level of denial, one wonders if Zardari has spent even a day of his life in the real Pakistan.  For those of us who count many kind, hardworking Pakistanis as our friends, Zardari’s ridiculous title and self-serving words are the height of insult.

Of course, we are talking about a president who is flailing to remain relevant in a political system that increasingly sees him as the symbol of everything that is wrong with Pakistan.  He will say anything to rehabilitate his image, and if he doesn’t have a domestic audience the next best thing is to reach out for a little love from Pakistan’s primary super-power patron, the United States.  Talking about lofty goals and grand partnerships abroad is a time-tested politician’s strategy to deflect attention from mismanagement and greed at home.  But there is too much sordid history here for even an accomplished swindler like Zardari to overcome.  Long before callously maneuvering himself into the President’s office in the wake of his wife Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, Zardari was known even within his own party as the guy who would trim gravy off the top of any government decision.  Hence his well-deserved nickname during his late wife’s last administration in the 1990s- “Mr. 10%.”

Should we blame the system or the individual?  Those of us who have lived and worked in Pakistan are confident of one thing- long after Zardari is gone corruption will remain a potent force in Pakistani society.  It scares away legitimate investment and opportunity.  It contributes to instability, violent crime and terrorism.  It  enables the more authoritarian figures peppered throughout Pakistan’s volatile history to act with the full sympathy of the population.  For all of the Pakistani military’s issues, it is still regarded as the cleanest, most effective institution in the country.  When there is no viable civilian alternative, as Zardari so aptly demonstrates, the tilt is inevitably toward the generals.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

As Iran’s Summer of Outrage gives way to a sustained Winter of Discontent, those who predicted the protest movement would wither in the face of massive state repression are scrambling to re-evaluate.  Brave Iranians have not backed down, despite rape, murder, torture, and, most recently, indications of targeted killings.  On the contrary,  the bravado of the protest movement has only escalated as we have seen images of crowds taunting and surrounding regime thugs, pulling their helmets off and parading them in the streets.  A more subtle development and considerably more telling- the revolutionary ideology that propelled the mullahs to power in 1979 has been taken from them as increasingly the Green protest movement has appropriated the language and symbolism of political Islam to wage its civil disobedience campaign.  This has divided the ruling elite and turned the guardians of the state against one another.  Hard-liners on both sides of the divide have predictably asserted themselves, reducing any room for compromise.  Are we witnessing the end of the Islamic Republic?

It is certainly clear that things will never be the same between the state and the people in Iran.  As Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi affirms in a recent interview with Foreign Policy Magazine, its nonsense to think of the protest movement as a tiny group of educated elites in Tehran angry about a stolen election.  The discontent has spread from city to hinterland, from students in universities to those studying in religious seminaries.  It is no longer about an electoral debacle- this was only the spark that released pent up dissatisfaction.  Dissatisfaction with  the fundamental nature of the regime itself.

It is no longer a fanciful dream for ordinary Iranians to begin to imagine a different Iran, one where simple freedoms and full acceptance by the global community of nations are a reality.  But what will this new Iran look like?  And how will it act?  The answer is a bit more complicated than one might think.

(more…)

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.