“The President-Elect and I believe that foreign policy must be based on a marriage of principles and pragmatism, not rigid ideology. On facts and evidence, not emotion or prejudice. Our security, our vitality, and our ability to lead in today’s world oblige us to recognize the overwhelming fact of our interdependence.” - Hillary Clinton, testifying before Congress today.

That was, of course, well-received, but there were signs today the ride might be a bit bumpier than she’d like.

To which I say: good.

Marc Ambinder has her full opening statement & more analysis.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Hey, remember the Iraq war? Sure you do!

Good thing it’s about wrapped up, right? You can go on & pay attention to other things, right?

Wrong.

Thomas Ricks, author of one of the best books on the beginnings of the Iraq fiasco, has two predictions about the immediate future of the conflict that in my view are dead-on, & they’re not what Obama or his legions of fans likely want to hear:

“1. Obama’s first year in Iraq is going to be tougher than Bush’s last year. Three reasons for that: First, three rounds of elections are scheduled in 2009, and those tend to be violent in Iraq. Second, the easy U.S. troop withdrawals have been made, and the pullouts at the end of this year will be riskier. Finally, none of the basic existential problems facing Iraq have been answered-the power relationships between groups, leadership of the Shiites, the sharing of oil revenue, the status of the disputed city of Kirkuk, to name just the most pressing ones. Compounding the problem will be the incorrect perception of many Americans that the Iraq was all but over when Obama took office.

2. Despite the conventional wisdom that the war is nearly over, Obama’s war in Iraq may last longer than Bush’s, which clocks in at a robust 5 years and 10 months. “So now you back in the trap–just that, trapped,” to quote Big Boi and Dre. My best guess is that we will have at least 35,000 troops there in 2015, as Obama’s likely second term is winding down.”

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Photo: Uriel Sinai/Getty

5 different takes on what’s going on, after the jump.

Marvin Hier in the Wall Street Journal (h/t my Dad):

“Red Cross officials are all over the Gaza crisis, describing it as a full-blown humanitarian nightmare. Where were they during the seven months when tens of thousands of Israeli families could not sleep for fear of a rocket attack? Where were their trauma experts to decry that humanitarian crisis?

There have been hundreds of articles and reports written from the Erez border crossing falsely accusing Israel of blocking humanitarian supplies from reaching beleaguered Palestinians in Gaza. (In fact, over 520 truck loads of humanitarian aid have been delivered through Israeli crossings since the beginning of the Israeli counterattack.) But how many news articles, NGO reports and special U.N. commissions have investigated Hamas’s policy of deliberately placing rocket launchers near schools, mosques and homes in order to use innocent Palestinians as human shields?”

Writing in the Washington Post, former President Jimmy Carter says the conflict could have been avoided, based on his experiences visiting the region last year:

“We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.

After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.

Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel’s withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).

We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel’s unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza.”

In a piece in today’s New York Times, Rashid Khalidi (like Marvin Hier above) tries to point out inaccuracies in the media about Israel’s role:

This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about “restoring Israel’s deterrence,” as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”

Ross Douthat’s thoughtful examination of the conflict nearly leads him to throw up his hands:

“The answer is simultaneously simple and impossible: In the midst of a hotly-contested domestic political scene, they need to balance their short-term security concerns (all those rockets flying out of Gaza, in this case) against a twofold long-term goal - the need to incentivize Palestinians to stay within hailing distance of the negotiating table (which is awfully hard to do when you’re smashing through their cities in pursuit of Hamas rocketeers), and the need to act unilaterally, in the absence of a plausible negotiating partner, to preserve their state’s long-term viability in the face of the looming demographic time bomb (which is awfully hard to do, as Israel has discovered in the wake of the Gaza pull-out, without compromising your short-term security). And it’s the Kobayashi Maru-style impossibility of all this that makes something like the Gaza incursion so hard to analyze: It seems like a bad idea, but within the constraints that Israeli leaders operate under it’s possible that it’s the worst option except for all the others.”

& finally, Matt Yglesias tries to put this conflict in the context of all conflicts:

“…something I’ve heard from fans of this attack is rhetorical questions along the lines of “what would the United States do if we were being attacked by rockets from Mexico or Canada?” Of course with such hypotheticals, it’s always hard to specify the issue correctly. I assume if someone shot a rocket across the Canadian border in the general direction of Seattle that the Canadian government would arrest the guy. But you actually don’t need to get very hypothetical to ask what the United States would do if people felt themselves threatened by foreign killers — we’d do exactly what we did in 2002-2003, namely engage in a panicky, counterproductive, and immoral overreaction driven more by emotion, ego, and politics than by sound thinking about the situation. So I don’t really find it surprising that Israel is reacting in this way.

By somewhat the same token, I do read in the comments section what I would regard as a disproportionate level of shock and appalledness from some quarters about Israeli activities as if this action is some kind of unprecedented outrage in human history. The real outrage is how common and banal, how unsurprising and thoroughly precedented it is.

Those are just some of a myriad of viewpoints out there on the web.

What are yours? Post a comment!

FURTHER READING: Check out (from Pew) how the Gaza story is sucking up the news hole, even though most reporters aren’t allowed in.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Just like (yet, by definition, not at all like) in Iraq, the key is counterinsurgency.

An absolutely essential read over at Foreign Policy shows how General David Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy can lead to victory, including these so-called “paradoxes:”

Paradox 1: Some of the best weapons do not shoot.

Paradox 2: Sometimes the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be.

Paradox 3: The hosts doing something tolerably is often better than foreigners doing it well.

Paradox 4: Sometimes the more force is used, the less effective it is.

Paradox 5: Sometimes doing nothing is the best reaction.

If you care about victory over terrorism, you need to read this.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

“How did we transform from champions of human dignity and individual rights into a nation of armchair torturers? One word: fear.

Fear is blinding, hateful, and vengeful. It makes the end justify the means. And why not? If torture can stop the next terrorist attack, the next suicide bomber, then what’s wrong with a little waterboarding or electric shock?

The simple answer is the rule of law. Our Constitution defines the rules that guide our nation. It was drafted by those who looked around the world of the eighteenth century and saw persecution, torture, and other crimes against humanity and believed that America could be better than that. This new nation would recognize that every individual has an inherent right to personal dignity, to justice, to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

We have preached these values to the world. We have made clear that there are certain lines Americans will not cross because we respect the dignity of every human being. That pledge was written into the oath of office given to every president, “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.” It’s what is supposed to make our leaders different from every tyrant, dictator, or despot. We are sworn to govern by the rule of law, not by brute force.

We cannot simply suspend these beliefs in the name of national security. Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don’t. There is no middle ground.

We cannot and we must not use torture under any circumstances. We are better than that.”

-Leon Panetta, the man chosen by Barack Obama to head the CIA, writing in Washington Monthly last year.

As someone put it today, “This is a good day for America’s soul.”

FURTHER READING: Marc Ambinder on Panetta’s greatest challenges.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

(I don’t know whom to credit for this heart-rending picture - it wasn’t credited where I found it. I also don’t know if this is an Israeli or a Palestinian. But in terms of what this post is about, it won’t - & shouldn’t - matter)

One of the best bloggers in the business, Glenn Greenwald, warns us all against the dangers of one way to take sides in the Gaza conflict:

“If you see Palestinians as something less than civilized human beings:  as “barbarians” — just as if you see Americans as infidels warring with God or Jews as sub-human rats — then it naturally follows that civilian deaths are irrelevant, perhaps even something to cheer.  For people who think that way, arguments about “proportionality” won’t even begin to resonate — such concepts can’t even be understood — because the core premise, that excessive civilian deaths are horrible and should be avoided at all costs, isn’t accepted.  Why should a superior, civilized, peaceful society allow the welfare of violent, hateful barbarians to interfere with its objectives?  How can the deaths or suffering of thousands of barbarians ever be weighed against the death of even a single civilized person?

So many of these conflicts — one might say almost all of them — end up shaped by the same virtually universal deficiency:  excessive tribalistic identification (i.e.:  the group with which I was trained to identify is right and good and just and my group’s enemy is bad and wrong and violent), which causes people to view the world only from the perspective of their side, to believe that X is good when they do it and evil when it’s done to them.  X can be torture, or the killing of civilians in order to “send a message” (i.e., Terrorism), or invading and occupying other people’s land, or using massive lethal force against defenseless populations, or seeing one’s own side as composed of real humans and the other side as sub-human, evil barbarians.

…

For those who evaluate moral questions from that blindingly self-regarding perspective, anything and everything becomes easily justifiable.”

I would caution anyone from looking at this as a black-&-white issue. & I explained why I think this is important here, in this post from April 2nd.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Longtime Vote08 commenter Chuck Waller responds to yesterday’s post on the Gaza situation:

“Where was the rage ten days ago when Hamas rockets were killing Israeli  women and children?  The Israeli government kept asking, begging, and finally telling Hamas to stop or else.  They didn’t and now they are getting what they asked for.  Yes, they actually wanted this.  They can’t beat Israel, so they want the world to condemn Israel and come to the aid of the Arab terrorists.  This is exactly what was prophesied in the Bible, but, that’s not going to pull Israel down.  At this point, it would be good for all Americans to read the Old Testament book of Zechariah.  No one has seen rage yet.  That’s coming soon.  Thank you.  By the way, I’m a Christian, not a Jew.”

As always, thanks for your input, Chuck!

So let’s talk a little Zechariah, shall we?

At left: Michelangelo’s rendering of him on the Sistine Chapel.

Here’s the book’s Wikipedia entry.

The Book of Zechariah can be classified as prophecy. It was written after the fall of Jerusalem in the 6th Century BC.

Zechariah had a series of visions that gave comfort to Israelites who were looking to regain their homeland & be victorious over their enemies.

A sampling (from 14:12-16):

“This is the plague with which the Lord will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths. On that day men will be stricken by the Lord with great panic. Each man will seize the hand of another, and they will attack each other…Then the survivors from all the nations that have attacked Jerusalem will go up year after year to worship the King, the Lord Almighty, and to celebrate the Feast of Tabernacles*.

So is Zechariah relevant to today’s situation?

I found a post on Tim Walker’s blog that echoes the concerns Chuck expressed above:

“In this case, is not defending yourself well within the context of acting righteously? To do anything less would be considered wicked and cowardly. Let’s see what else the Lord God might say in his word about Jerusalem;

Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling to all the peoples all around, and it shall also be against Judah in the siege against Jerusalem. And in that day I will make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all peoples. All who lift it shall be slashed, and all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. (Zechariah 12:2-3 MKJV) [emphasis mine]

Would you consider the conflict between Israel and the entire Arab world a “burdensome stone”, and just how are the surrounding nations reacting? It is obvious once again that the stage appears to be being set for God’s final chapter of human history to begin, and most assuredly Israel will be involved.”

I would caution that using scripture (any scripture, from any religion) to justify violence is a dangerous road, not to mention that it exhibits somewhat of a hubristic presumption of what God’s plan is.

Rabbi (& blogger) Arthur Waskow, the founder & director of the Shalom Center, who contributes to the Newsweek/Washington Post blog “On Faith,” finds a way (with the help of Zechariah) out of this conundrum:

“The alternative for Hamas would have been to multiply the approach of the nonviolent boatloads of people who were in the last month bringing supplies to Gaza, ignoring or violating the Israeli blockade. This approach was building support in much of the world. Of course it was not enough to feed the whole people or heal them of disease, but it was pointing out the injustice and violence of the blockade. Instead of canceling the cease-fire and aiming rockets once again, they could have turned those boats into a multitude.

(A message to those who blindly support whatever Hamas does because they are the underdog: The teaching of the Prophet Zechariah is not just for Jews. It is about self-restraint when you have greater power, and it is about nonviolence — also a form of self-restraint — when you have lesser power. It is God’s word for everybody.)

The alternative for the Israeli government would be to say: — “Instead of scornfully rejecting the Saudi/ Arab League proposal for a region-wide peace settlement among Israel, all Arab states, and a viable Palestinian state, we encourage it, and encourage its proponents to press Hamas to join in, while making clear that for us the deal must include only very small symbolic numbers of Palestinian refugees returning to Israel itself, and control of the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem. And we encourage, instead of blocking, a Palestinian government of national unity, including Hamas as well as Fatah. We will attend that peace conference tomorrow - tonight!

“And meanwhile, even if we missed the opportunity to do this before, now that we have proved how bloody we can be, now that no one can say we are negotiating from weakness, we seek as much peace as possible with Hamas — if not full recognition, then a 50-year truce (as one Hamas leader had proposed.) . We negotiate openly with Hamas toward ending the blockade, encouraging economic development inside Gaza, welcoming European and Egyptian aid and investment, releasing the members of their parliament we are holding in jail, and in exchange, get an end to the rocket attacks by Hamas and their acceptance of governmental responsibility to control other groups that may try to continue. We will use the checkpoints to prevent terrorist incursions into Israel, rather than preventing delivery of food and medicine to Gaza.

And the alternative for the U.S. government would be to use the disaster of this attack to call for all the above: To insist on a regional Middle East peace conference, to insist that even a Netanyahu government of Israel and even a Hamas leadership of Gaza or Palestine take part and accept a decent deal.”

I find this approach more palatable than one that hunkers down in hopes of getting a ringside seat to Biblical prophecy in action.

But don’t for a second think that the Muslim world is not also grappling with how their holiest book justifies violence.

Check out Madeline Bunting’s questioning of a passage in the Koran that reads “kill them - this is what disbelievers deserve:“

“The phrase above really worries me, I have to be honest.”

I would only add that this is healthy for any person of faith, & should be encouraged, & that it is worth the time & effort to struggle to find a deeper meaning, one which avoids violence altogether.

& it’s my hope that you see all these voices as contributing to a dialogue about how to move forward, & that one shouldn’t view any religion as completely monolithic.

What do you think? Feel free to weigh in with a comment!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

From a comprehensive & even-handed guest-post at the Washington Note by Daniel Levy, on why you should be paying attention to what’s happening in the Middle East this week:

“Bottom line - Arabs and Jews are killing each other - so what’s new?

And why on earth would America want to be involved?

Here’s the bad news folks - America is involved, up to its eyeballs actually. Today, after Israeli air-strikes that killed over 200 Palestinians in Gaza, the Middle East is again seething with rage.

Recruiters to the most radical of causes are again cashing in. If Osama Bin Laden is indeed a cave-dweller these days then U.S. intel should be listening out for a booming echo of laughter. Demonstrations across the Arab world and contributors to the ever-proliferating Arabic language news media and blogosphere hold the U.S., and not just Israel, responsible for what happened today (and that is a position taken, for good reasons, by sensible folk, not hard-liners).”

Levy’s solution:

Today’s events should be ‘exhibit A’ in why the next U.S. Government cannot leave the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to fester or try to ‘manage’ it - as long as it remains unresolved, it has a nasty habit of forcing itself onto the agenda.

That can happen on terms dictated to the U.S. by the region (bad) or the U.S. can seek to set its own terms (far preferable). The new administration needs to embark upon a course of forceful regional diplomacy that breaks fundamentally from past efforts. A consensus of sorts is emerging in the U.S. foreign policy establishment that this conflict needs to be resolved - evidenced in the findings of a recent Brookings/Council of Foreign Relations Report or the powerful statements coming from elder statesmen like Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, themselves building on the findings of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.

It will require tenacity and bold ideas - in framing the solution, bringing in previously excluded actors, creating mechanisms to implement a deal (such as international forces) and utilizing the Saudi-led Arab Peace Initiative - but the alternative is far worse, its what we see today and it guarantees ongoing instability in a region of paramount importance to the United States.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

The enormous challenges remain in Afghanistan; read more about it here, here, & here.

(note: it’s another one of those days, so posts here will be brief)

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

I agree with Ben Katcher…

“Empathy might seem like a foreign concept to policy practitioners used to thinking in terms of the harsh realities of an anarchic international system characterized by realpolitick, the pursuit of self-interest, and ruthless competition. However, the importance of empathy, properly understood as “the capacity to recognize or understand another’s state of mind or emotion,” flows logically from the centrality of self-interest to power politics.

Executing an empathetic foreign policy means both appreciating other countries’ perspectives and understanding how our words and deeds affect their behaviors. In other words, empathy must be part of both our foreign policy development and our approach.

The Bush administration’s greatest failure to empathize in the Turkish context was its inability to appreciate that even a successful overthrow of the Baathist regime in Iraq was likely to result in greater autonomy for Iraqi Kurds and instability along Turkey’s southeastern border. It was this fact, rather than anti-Americanism or weak knees, that was the decisive factor in the Turkish parliament’s decision on March 1, 2003 to prohibit U.S. forces from using its territory to open a northern front against Saddam.”

..& am encouraged by this:

“Obama said the country must take advantage of a unique chance to recalibrate relations around the globe, through a new diplomacy that emphasizes inclusiveness and tolerance as well as an unflinching stand against terrorism.

“The message I want to send is that we will be unyielding in stamping out the terrorist extremism we saw in Mumbai,” Obama said, adding that he plans to give a major address in an Islamic capital as part of his global outreach.”

My pick/guess for that capital (feel free to guess yourself in the comments): Ankara.

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Above: listen to FDR’s speech following the attack on Pearl Harbor, 67 years ago today.

Beth Dempsey of the Schlager Group outlines 5 things you may not realize about this momentous speech:

    1. No speechwriters, please. FDR dictated virtually every word of his
    address to his secretary, Grace Tully. The only exception was the
    next-to-last sentence, the phrasing of which was suggested by his close
    adviser Harry Hopkins.

    2. The facts speak for themselves. With the exception of his dramatic
    reference to "infamy" and one mention of "treachery," FDR never offered a
    personal opinion on the Japanese attacks in his address. Instead, he
    solemnly detailed the facts of the event, relying on listeners to draw
    their own conclusions.

    3. A foreshadow of things to come. FDR's call for "absolute victory"
    presaged the later decision to wage war until the Japanese surrendered
    unconditionally. This grand call for total victory also helps to explain
    why the United States later decided to drop the atomic bomb on Japan.

    4. Short but powerful. The address to Congress contains just 25 sentences,
    fewer than 500 words, and was delivered in about 7 minutes. In that brief
    address, FDR was so persuasive that within 33 minutes, a declaration of
    war passed unanimously in the Senate, and in the House of Representatives
    only one dissenting vote was cast (Jeannette Rankin, a pacifist from
    Montana, the first woman elected to Congress).

    5. Defining a historic moment. "But always will our whole Nation remember
    the character of the onslaught against us," said FDR, positioning the
    attack as a defining event in the country's history. Roosevelt's use of
    the future tense - "always will" - reflected a sense of moral certainty
    that reinforced his role as commander in chief.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

This is part of why I was so perplexed when Sarah Palin mocked ‘community organizing’ in her convention speech last September; does she not realize how it’s leading us down the path to victory around the world?

David Brooks elaborates:

“The 2008 election results did not fundamentally change American foreign policy. The real change began a few years ago in Afghanistan and Iraq.

It began with colonels and captains fighting terror on the ground. They found that they could clear a town of the bad guys, but they had little capacity to establish rule of law or quality of life for the people they were trying to help. They quickly realized that the big challenge in this new era is not killing the enemy, it’s repairing the zones of chaos where enemies grow and breed. They realized, too, that Washington wasn’t providing them with the tools they needed to accomplish their missions.

Their observations and arguments filtered through military channels and back home, producing serious rethinking at the highest levels.

In this new world, she continued, it is impossible to draw neat lines between security, democratization and development efforts. She called for a transformational diplomacy, in which State Department employees would do less negotiating and communiqué-writing. Instead, they’d be out in towns and villages doing broad campaign planning with military colleagues, strengthening local governments and implementing development projects.

Over the past year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has delivered a series of remarkable speeches echoing and advancing Rice’s themes. “In recent years, the lines separating war, peace, diplomacy and development have become more blurred and no longer fit the neat organizational charts of the 20th century,” he said in Washington in July.

Gates does not talk about spreading democracy, at least in the short run. He talks about using integrated federal agencies to help locals improve the quality and responsiveness of governments in trouble spots around the world.

He has developed a way of talking about security and foreign policy that is now the lingua franca in government and think-tank circles. It owes a lot to the lessons of counterinsurgency and uses phrases like “full spectrum operations” to describe multidisciplinary security and development campaigns.”

As I’ve said many times before, the man above, General David Petraeus, deserves a large amount of credit for pushing this change in our strategy. To whatever extent we are succeeding in Iraq, it’s in large part due to him. & the efforts of those low-level ‘colonels & captains’ who see how the advantages of community organizing can lead to a safer America & world.

If you haven’t already, you should print & read Petraeus’ counterinsurgency manual (major-big PDF file)

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

If you’re not paying attention to what’s been going on in India the past week, you should.

This post is an attempt for you to get your feet wet to become a more engaged global citizen.

Let’s start with a quote from Pakistan’s U.S. ambassador, Husain Haqqani, who sounded what I think is the right strategic tone to take yesterday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos:

“The point we must remember is that we should not see this heinous act in the context of India-Pakistan relations. We should see it in the context of international terrorism. There are terrorists that have trained in all countries of the world, secretly. These are non- state actors.

I don’t think that this is the time for India or anybody in India to accuse Pakistan. It’s time to work with Pakistan.

Pakistan is now a democracy. India is a democracy. And as two democracies, we need to strengthen each other, rather than fall into the trap of the terrorists, who want us to fight with each other so that they can get greater strength.”

Walid Phares of the Counterterrorism Blog elaborates:

“At one level, to instill shock and awe worldwide, much like the 9/11 attacks. On the regional level, there may be another motive. Jihadis in Pakistan have been under pressure, especially under the new President (Asif Zardari), because of the ongoing military operations in Waziristan. The jihadis’ strategic objective was to break down the rapprochement between India and Pakistan. If that happens, Pakistan will be forced to pull back units operating against the Taliban and move them to the border with India.
That would ease pressure on the Taliban. Indian citizens are seething with rage, sensing a Pakistani link to the attack. How should India respond to Pakistan’s inability or unwillingness to go after jihadis?
This matter has to be internationalized: if we leave it to India and Pakistan, then anger will take over. The US, Europe and Russia should convene a meeting against the jihadi challenge.

Second, the Pakistan government must send out a strong signal that it will combat terrorism. Perhaps the Pakistan prime minister should visit Mumbai and declare from there that both countries are united in the fight against terrorism. Third, inside Pakistan, terrorist organizations must be given a strong message that ‘any attack on India is an attack on us’.

Blake Hounshell of the Foreign Policy Institute says there are signs the terrorists have already succeeded:

“Cranking up the pressure on Pakistan may fit the public mood in India — and it may be smart politics for Singh and his ruling Congress Party — but it is folly as policy.

Who benefits in Pakistan when tensions with India rise? Precisely the anti-democratic hardliners in the military and intelligence services, and the Islamic hardliners who are their sometime allies, that India should want to see marginalized. As one South Asia analyst told Reuters, “The forces that are threatening the West, the forces that are threatening the civilian democracy in Pakistan and the forces who are acting against India are all interlinked to each other.”

We should pray that Singh has the wisdom and the political acumen to navigate this minefield more skillfully than he has thus far.”

The New Yorker’s Steve Coll:

“It is important, of course, to assume nothing about where the evidence trail in these latest Mumbai attacks will lead; in a forensic and legal sense, only the evidence matters, and there isn’t much of it available yet. Still, even if it turns out that the attackers were all rooted in India, and derived all of their training and supplies from mainland Indian sources (unlikely, but conceivable), this does not absolve Pakistan of responsibility for a foreign and intelligence policy, pursued relentlessly for twenty years, that deliberately sponsors and nurtures terrorist groups. India’s Hindu chauvinists have done their share to stoke Muslim rage within India; it is difficult to imagine, however, that without the proxy war conceived and supplied by Pakistan’s Army that scenes such as those now unfolding in Mumbai would have otherwise occurred.”

The Guardian’s Paul Cruickshank:

“The nature of the attack - something akin to scores of heavily armed terrorists storming the Waldorf Astoria and Ritz Cartlon in New York city and then going on a shooting rampage through Times Square and the Upper East side - suggests months of painstaking logistical and operational planning. Only an established militant group would have had the ability to carry out such an attack. The Deccan Mujahedeen is not such a group.

If capability and track record are anything to go by, it is likely that the attack was either carried out by Indian Mujahedeen, an indigenous Indian militant group or a Kashmiri militant group with ties to al-Qaida such as Lashkar e Toiba, or some combination of the two.”

The Global Americana Institute’s Juan Cole advises the Indian government to not follow the example America set after 9/11:

“Many Americans decided after 9/11 that since 13 of the hijackers were Saudi Wahhabis, there is something evil about Wahhabism and Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia itself was attacked repeatedly by al-Qaeda in 2003-2006 and waged a major national struggle against it. You can’t tar a whole people with the brush of a few nationals that turn to terrorism.

Worse, a whole industry of Islamphobia grew up, with dedicated television programs (0′Reilly, Glen Beck), specialized sermonizers, and political hatchetmen (Giuliani). Persons born in the Middle East or Pakistan were systematically harassed at airports. And the stigmatization of Muslim Americans and Arab Americans was used as a wedge to attack liberals and leftists, as well, however illogical the juxtaposition may seem.”

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates is close to finalizing an agreement to remain at the Pentagon for at least the first year of Barack Obama’s presidency, providing the new commander in chief with a Republican in his Cabinet and continuity for a military waging two wars, according to Democrats familiar with the negotiations.

Some sources described a “rolling transition,” in which Gates would stay on during a phased changeover of key political appointees at the Pentagon. Others said he could stay in the job indefinitely. Under both scenarios, most of the deputies serving under him would be replaced, the sources said.”

We talked about this last week; click here to read reasons why this is a good move.

UPDATE: Steve Clemons of the Washington Note has a hunch as to Gates’ motives:

“…Gates wants a chance to make the kind of leaps in the Middle East I have been writing about for some time. He wants to try and push Iran-US relations into a constructive direction. He wants to change the game in Afghanistan — and the answer will not be a military-dominant strategy. He wants to try and stabilize Iraq in a negotiated, confidence building process that includes Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and other regional forces. And he wants to support a big push on Israel-Palestine peace and reconfigure relations between much of the Arab League and Israel.

This is a big order. And he wants to lurk in the shadows, behind the scenes and away from cameras and let other of Obama’s team get the spotlight and credit.”

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Yesterday I agreed with Shadi Hamid, who celebrated the end of the old “left-right/war-peace” dichotomies.

How pragmatism is forcing ideology to take a back seat.

Now Glenn Greenwald has me scratching my head again:

“If one discards the need for ideology in favor of “pragmatism” and “competence” — as so many people seem so eager to do — then it’s difficult to see how one could form any opinions about questions of this sort beyond a crude risk-benefit analysis (i.e., “pragmatism”). Are there military and economic benefits to be derived for the U.S. from invading Pakistan? Bombing Iran? Lending unquestioning support to Israel? Escalating our occupation of Afghanistan? Remaining indefinitely in Iraq and exploiting their resources? Propping up dictators of all types? Deposing Hugo Chavez? Torturing suspected terrorists for information, or detaining them without process? If so, then those who are heralding “pragmatism” as the supreme value — or at least something that should trump “ideology” — would have no real basis to oppose those actions. It is only ideological beliefs that permit opposition to those polices even if they are “beneficial” to our “national self-interest.”"

&

“”Ideology” is not a bad word. It refers to nothing more than one’s set of political principles and core doctrinal beliefs that exist independent of considerations of utility. It’s nonsensical to try to assess political leaders or policies based solely on “competence” and without regard to “ideology.”

“Competence” is about how technocratically effective of a war plan can be designed, or how accurate one’s predictions are about the effects of economic and tax policies, or how efficiently one can marshall intelligence resources. But “ideology” is what determines whether a war is just and warranted, or what economic outcomes are fair and desirable, or whether the Government is justified in spying on its own citizens without warrants or detaining them without due process.

It’s possible to become too rigid and unyielding in one’s ideological beliefs — to adhere excessively to principles without regard to consequences — but it’s at least just as possible to become so pragmatic that one operates without any core principles. There’s a perception (a dubious one) that the problem of the last eight years has been that our political leaders have been too rigidly ideological (I’d say the Bush administration was quite concerned with outcomes and not particularly concerned with principles). But this perception — accurate or not — has engendered an overcompensating desire to rid ourselves of ideology in the name of pragmatism.”

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

The cartoon above, which appeared in an Egyptian newspaper recently, caused some jitters among Egypt’s ruling elite, according to Palestinian blogger Daoud Kuttab:

“It seems like an appropriate enough cartoon. The depiction of the president elect Barack Obama with the US flag behind him and the bubble quoting Obama as saying the change has come to Washington. Looking up to the Obama depiction was an excited Egyptian woman congratulating the African American senator, reminding him not to forget that people around the world have been hoping and praying for his success. This was followed by the Arabic phrase uqbal inna, meaning “may the same [change] happen to us.” According to the opposition weekly Sawt al Umma, the cartoon appearing the leading Egyptian daily Al Ahram, caused a sense of an emergency among the Egyptian leadership. The independent weekly stated that 150,000 copies of the paper’s first edition were quickly removed from the streets and destroyed and the “troublesome” phrase disappeared from future prints that day.

…

This is certainly not the first time that a political cartoon has caused powers in our region to be worried about losing their powers. But the paranoia of the Mubarak regime is a reflection of the concern by many Arab autocrats about the Obama euphoria empowering those calling for change. Obama’s victory on the change mantra was not lost to people around the world yearning for political reform. Jordan’s leading blogger Mohammad Omar says that the victory of the son of a Kenyan immigrant gives minorities, immigrants and unrepresented groups hope. Imagine a Palestinian who was born in Jordan fifty or sixty years ago and has tried very hard to be part of the political scene looking at the son of an immigrant in America being elected to the top executive position. The winds of hope don’t stop at the American shores, Omar insists.”

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

At long last, a conservative gets at the heart of what we should be debating about when it comes to our nation’s policy on torture (which, in my view, should be summed up in one word: Don’t).

J.L. Wall writes on a (conservative) review of Jane Mayer’s new book, “The Dark Side: The Inside Story on How the War on Terror Turned into a War on the American Ideal:”

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

“In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me.”

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

John Feehery, today:

“Bill Clinton might win a popularity contest if it came to vote of the peoples of the world, but among the world’s leaders, George Bush is more respected.

The first President Bush has largely kept his mouth shut about the performance of his son. His former colleagues, like Brent Scowcroft, have taken to speaking for him, in expressing his displeasure with some of the policies of the George Bush II.

But with Barack Obama now our President, he will have to rely on many different voices to help guide him through the most difficult global economy in seven decades. Obama shouldn’t hesitate to call on George Bush. He is a true patriot and a great resources for the new President.”

David Brooks, May 19th:

“Obama doesn’t broadcast moral disgust when talking about terror groups, but he said that in some ways he’d be tougher than the Bush administration. He said he would do more to arm the Lebanese military and would be tougher on North Korea. “This is not an argument between Democrats and Republicans,” he concluded. “It’s an argument between ideology and foreign-policy realism. I have enormous sympathy for the foreign policy of George H.W. Bush. I don’t have a lot of complaints about their handling of Desert Storm. I don’t have a lot of complaints with their handling of the fall of the Berlin Wall.”

In the early 1990s, the Democrats and the first Bush administration had a series of arguments — about humanitarian interventions, whether to get involved in the former Yugoslavia, and so on. In his heart, Obama talks like the Democrats of that era, viewing foreign policy from the ground up. But in his head, he aligns himself with the realist deal making of the first Bush.”

The New York Sun editorial page, April 18th:

“Another candidate is stepping forward to embrace the legacy of the first President Bush. That candidate is Senator Obama, who said in Wednesday night’s presidential debate, “I think that when you look back at George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy, it was a wise foreign policy. In how we executed the Gulf War, how we managed the transition out of the Cold War, I think it’s an example of how we can get bipartisan agreement.”

Here’s the follow up question that did not get asked: Just what aspect of President George H.W. Bush’s foreign policy did you think was “wise,” senator? Was it the part where Saddam Hussein was left in power after the Gulf War to preside over the mass murder of Iraqi Shiites? The part where the secretary of state, James Baker, told Mr. Bush, “F— the Jews, they don’t vote for us anyway,” and proceeded to conduct a foreign policy toward Israel along those lines? Or the part where Mr. Bush went to Ukraine and counseled the Soviet Republics not to break away from Moscow because it would be too destabilizing?”

& the final argument that Barack Obama could be the next “41:” They have similar bowling skills:

What do you think?

EARLIER ON VOTE08:

Obama is the next..George W. Bush

Obama is the next..Bill Clinton

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

I find myself agreeing strongly with Democracy Arsenal’s Shadi Hamid:

“It’s never really made sense to me to use a left-right spectrum when talking about foreign policy. What does it mean to have a “leftist” foreign policy approach? I assume that people use “leftist” as a proxy for “weak.” But, even the “weak/dove” – “strong/hawk” spectrum is a weird one. I think the last 8 years would indicate that hawks have made us weaker, while doves would have made us stronger. Is a willingness to coddle dictators a sign of weakness or strength? And if it’s the former, then why do so a significant number of “neo-cons” have, contrary to what their ideology would suggest, a particular fondness for “moderate” Arab dictators? If we’re talking about the left’s foreign policy tradition, then a “moralist” concern with supporting human rights and democracy abroad is, I would say, distinctly “leftist.” But then we run into a problem: democracy promotion > leftist foreign policy approach > weak.

What about caring about what other people think about us? If you say something like, “it would be nice if Arab publics liked us,” you’re apparently weak on national security. But it would seem to me that our ability to fight terrorism would be strengthened if we had the support of target populations. The problem is our whole discourse on foreign policy has been, for some time, shaped by the Right, and many of the definitions we use are products of a post-9/11 sensibility. In other words, much of it is distorted.”

& Andrew Sullivan:

“One the worst legacies of the Vietnam boomer syndrome has been turning complex foreign policy decisions - which should ultimately be pragmatic actions in defense of national self-interest - into idiotic left-right, patriot-traitor, soldier-hippie dichotomies. Abandoning that is part of Obama’s promise. So far, so good, Mr Scowcroft.”

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

From “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World” (PDF file):

“Terrorism is unlikely to disappear by 2025, but its appeal could lessen if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorists that are active the diffusion of technologies will put dangerous capabilities within their reach.

Opportunities for mass-casualty terrorist attacks using chemical, biological, or less likely, nuclear weapons will increase as technology diffuses and nuclear power (and possibly weapons) programs expand. The practical and psychological consequences of such attacks will intensify in an increasingly globalized world.”

Read more about the report here.

Read a dissenting view of these predictions here.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Well, it looks like after several days of waffling, Hillary Clinton has decided to accept President-Elect Obama’s offer to be Secretary of State:

Mrs. Clinton came to her decision after additional discussion with President-elect Barack Obama about the nature of her role and his plans for foreign policy, said one of the confidants, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the situation. Mr. Obama’s office told reporters Thursday that the nomination is “on track” but Clinton associates only confirmed Friday afternoon that she has decided.

The good news about this pick: it sends a great signal - & lesson - to world leaders who have rivals & factions & sects of their own. (see LBJ’s famous (& warning: salty) quote to understand the philosophy behind it)

She will be a good “face of the USA” around the world, there’s no question.

But in another respect, you should color me none-too-happy about this development.

Why?

I chose the picture above for a reason:

Click here to view the embedded video.

On St. Patrick’s Day of this year Hillary Clinton made what I consider one of her most stupid, unnecessary blunders of this campaign: claiming she as First Lady arrived in Bosnia in 1996 “under sniper fire,” assuming that the cameras she saw then weren’t rolling on any kind of videotape that could be preserved & replayed in the future.

Her husband Bill followed suit in the foot-in-mouth department in regards to this issue a couple of weeks later.

It was around then (perhaps before, but this incident really solidified it) that my opinion of Hillary Clinton took a severe nose-dive.

How could she have been so blind/stupid?

It was this incident I remembered as talk of her being Secretary of State surfaced late last week.

& don’t forget these other arguments that should cause concern.

As far as the grand scheme of things - staying on message, following Obama’s lead - I think she can do this & won’t be terrible. Certainly better than Rice or Christopher.

But ’sniper fire’ raises red flags for me when it comes to those casual, negotiating behind-closed-doors, seemingly-insignificant moments. It shows she thinks she can get away with peddling b.s., when she can’t. I’m really worried about that.

that & Bill. get the guy a muzzle.

I’ll be watching.

But feel free to disagree with me - what do you think of Clinton as Secretary of State.. or my worries about it?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08