Don’t you just hate it when things don’t go according to plan? Consider Sen. Obama as a case in point. Before he left on his overseas trip assorted pundits and bloviators were predicting that he was about to step into a perilous minefield. 

Supposedly when visiting Iraq Obama was going to be faced with the unpalatable choice of either acknowledging that things are better in Iraq, in part due to the success of the surge which he opposed, or he would refuse to acknowledge that success, which would make him look woefully out of touch with reality. 

Yet, days before Obama visited, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, in an interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel had this to say: 

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business. But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

As Talking Points Memo noted, this was not a mistranslation by Der Speiegel or misunderstanding by Maliki.

Of course, as Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies wrote: (more…)

Yesterday Al Gore made a bold speech that set an ambitous goal for the reduction of greenhouse gases: that all electricity produced in the United States would come from renewable sources within the next 10 years. Finally, it’s time that a leader pushes us to make the dramatic changes that are required to make a significant reduction in our greenhouse gas emission. As I wrote previously, climate change is not just an environmental issue, it’s also a national security issue. So, I applaud Al Gore for setting an ambitious goal. It seems so commonplace these days to set goals that are 20 or 30 years off in the future, particularly when it comes to energy or the environment. It’s easy for politicians to promote such goals since they will certainly be out of office long before we ever reach the deadline they set. Such distant goals serve to delay immediate action. As Gore emphasized, 10 years is about the longest attention span America has for a sustained effort on such an issue. And, as the frequently referenced example of the moon landing shows, we can achieve great things within that time frame if we set our minds to it.

Although Gore’s speech set a bold goal for the future, I felt that the speech, and the campaign he promotes, is missing key components. As I’ve frequently commented on this blog, it’s time that our politicians acknowledge that real financial sacrifices, at least in the short term, are required. It’s up to our leaders to be honest with us. Otherwise, when the sacrifices become evident, there will be an even greater public backlash. Gore spoke very little of the sacrifice that would be required. The main interventions he calls for are for greater support of new technologies. (more…)

A recent piece in The New Yorker aptly entitled Preparing the Battlefield reveals that the U.S. government has recently dedicated significant resources to covert operations within Iran. U.S. Special Operations Forces have been operating cross-border missions since last year, but apparently something bigger and bolder is afoot. According to the article, the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) are now participating in a range of clandestine military activities designed to (1) provide support for groups within Iran thought to be responsive to U.S. interests and (2) gather information about Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. (more…)

Yesterday, Senators Obama and McCain each gave major foreign policy addresses. The speeches have been analyzed and deconstructed by campaign talking heads and experts ad nauseum in the intervening twenty-four hours, and I don’t propose to bore you, dear reader, with more of the same.

Instead, I’d like to offer a tidy catalogue of what you might call “unacknowledged” bipartisan consensus. Here are three examples of surprisingly close agreement between the rival candidates on the state of security in Iraq today, ramping up military and civilian assistance to Afghanistan, and taking the fight to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in their Pakistani “sanctuary”:

(more…)

This afternoon, senators Lieberman and Biden spoke for the Center for U.S. Global Engagement’s “Election ’08: The Global Impact” conference at the Mayflower Hotel. Lieberman spoke as for the McCain campaign, while Biden spoke as a surrogate for Barack Obama. Sadly, the tenor Biden’s address was one of the lower points of the event.

The stated subject purpose of the two speeches was to put forward the policies of each candidate regarding the future of U.S. nonmilitary engagement in the world. The idea was for each of the surrogates to outline their candidate’s position on increasing diplomatic efforts, revitalizing our nation’s moral leadership, and increasing development aid to promote economic growth in LEDCs.

Lieberman was first up. (more…)

This is from a friend on the Hill:

It has become increasingly fashionable in the blog world to take a swipe at John McCain’s wartime service. Personal attacks are unfortunately the currency of modern campaigns, but stupidity is not a virtue. The more people attack John McCain’s record, the more they remind voters what separates McCain from the rest of us. In a world where most of us are never called or tested, he has endured treatment that few of us can even imagine. Simply put he is a great American. While he may not be the right choice for President, his voice may not share the tenor of our times, but few would doubt that he has character.

Unfortunately there is nothing grand about the GOP in this light either. The only thing more repugnant than today’s slights against McCain, are the smears heaped on Max Clelland. The attacks on John Kerry for his service are just another sad chapter in our electoral history. When we honor service only when it suits our political interests and only when heroes share our political affiliation, we debase ourselves and we dishonor our country. If McCain does lose this election, as he might, Democrats and Obama in particular will rue taking the low road. Every nation needs its heroes and needs inspiration, and it comes in all forms, shapes, colors and sizes. In their shadow we see the best of ourselves, and by insulting their service we tear at the very fabric of our society. There is a school that says you have to win at any price, and winner’s remorse is better than losing. But the election is not the end, but the beginning, and the abiding lesson of this administration should be knowing the difference between serving your party and serving the country. Defeat has a price but so does every victory. George HW Bush led a public life of great service, personal grace and distinction. I doubt the ads he ran in 1988 are something he is proud of. If we believe that this country has to heal and come together, we would do well to heed that lesson.

(more…)

This afternoon, at Brookings, Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Quershi of Pakistan gave a speech entitled “Opportunities and Challenges in Pakistan’s Foreign Policy”. The address, perhaps unsurprisingly, focused heavily on the ‘Opportunities’ side of things, with talk of building a new and stronger relationship with the U.S., drawing closer to India, and ameliorating extremism-prone living conditions in the poverty-stricken north of the country. (more…)

When it comes to Iraq Sen. John McCain might as well be the Rev. Jesse Jackson. Every time he speaks on the subject it is a sound bite variation on “keep hope alive.” The U.S. strategy is working, the surge is successful. Every day, in every way, things keep getting better and better. 

Of course, McCain acknowledges that things weren’t always this way. His campaign website says:

At the end of 2006, four years of a badly conceived military strategy that concentrated American troops on large bases brought us near to the point of no return. Sectarian violence in Iraq was spiraling out of control. Al Qaeda in Iraq was on the offensive. Entire provinces were under extremists’ control and were deemed all but lost. At that critical moment, John McCain supported sending reinforcements to Iraq to implement a classic counterinsurgency strategy of securing the population. 

But that was then, this is now.

From June 2007 through March 2008, sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq was reduced by 90 percent. Civilian deaths and deaths of coalition forces fell by 70 percent…

Thanks to the success of the surge, Iraq’s political order is evolving in positive and hopeful ways. Four out of the six laws cited as benchmarks by the U.S. have been passed by the Iraqi legislature. A law on amnesty and a law rolling back some of the harsher restrictions against former employees of the Iraqi government have made it possible for Iraqis to move toward genuine reconciliation. The legislature has devolved greater power to local and provincial authorities, where much of the real work of rebuilding Iraq is taking place. 

Well, who could be unhappy about that?  Nobody, if that is the entire story. But, as his website goes on to say, “It is essential to be honest with the American people about the opportunities and risks that lie ahead. The American people deserve the truth from their leaders. They deserve a candid assessment of the progress made in the last year, of the serious difficulties that remain.” (more…)

On Saturday the Washington Post had an incredibly disturbing expose of the behind the scenes events surrounding Robert Mugabe’s decision to hold on to power and the ensuing reign of terror that his regime perpetrated in the lead up to the recent run-off elections.  This article revealed that in fact after Morgan Tsvangirai’s unexpected show of support during the first round of elections that Mugabe was actually prepared to concede defeat.  However, the military, lead by Gen. Constantine Chiwenga, responded that the choice was not Mugabe’s alone to make.  The article then proceeds to describe the brutal campaign of violence that government supported militias unleashed on the country.  Some opposition members died from crushed genitalia.  Women were beat so viciously that whole sections of flesh were ripped from their bodies. 

This most recent wave of violence is but one more example of the utter disregard this regime has shown towards its own people.  For several years Mugabe has slowly bled this country - a country that had been considered the breadbasket of African just ten years ago.  Independent estimates put the inflation rate at about 4 million percent.  A loaf of bread costs 30 billion Zimbabwe dollars.  Perhaps the only hope to reign in inflation in the country is the recent decision by the German company that prints the Zimbabwe currency, to no longer provide new bills to the country’s government.  If one were to buy a soda from a vending machine, it would literally require billions of coins (retailers did away with soda machines several years ago for obvious reasons).  The ridiculousness of the economic situation and the number of zeros required for even the most minor transactions could provide much material for late night comedians if it were not already so tragic.  (more…)

The new FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is not only an affront to privacy, it is a symptom of the leadership deficit currently afflicting the U.S. Congress. The bill, which passed the House last week by a landslide, makes two drastic changes to our current surveillance laws:

1. First, the bill generously grants telecommunications companies a broad immunity against financial and criminal liability for helping the U.S. government spy on domestic communications without a warrant or probable cause. There’s only one string attached: Telcoms must show that the government asked them to spy on Americans. Translation: Telcoms will get off the hook as long as they can rustle up some evidence that the government actually asked them to violate the law.

2. Second, if the bill is passed by the Senate, citizens will have no effective right to privacy in electronic communications because the government will always be able to claim that calls were intercepted in order to ward off a terrorist threat. Translation: As long as the “target” of the surveillance is reasonably believed by the government to be abroad, under this bill the NSA can intercept communications between that target and U.S. citizens without any form of judicial oversight whatsoever.

(Keep in mind that this second change is less extreme than some critics of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (“New Act”) acknowledge. Under the New Act, it is true that a traditional FISA warrant is not required to spy on a foreign person located abroad - even if that individual is communicating with a U.S. citizen. However, a judicial finding of probable cause will still be required to target an American person located abroad, regardless of whether interception occurs within or outside U.S. borders. This means that the New Act (i) expands the governments ability to (indirectly) spy on U.S. citizens if it can reasonably claim that the true target of the surveillance in question is a foreign party located abroad but (ii) actually restricts the government’s ability to target Americans that happen to be living or working overseas.)

What makes these changes so extreme? Consider our current surveillance regime. (more…)