Back in August I highlighted an op-ed that explored a strategy meant for the Cold War that could be applied usefully to our current War on Terrorism. The op-ed author was Nick Thompson from Wired's Danger Room and the Cold war strategy (featured in the popular X-Article) is now known tho be the work of George 'X' Kennan. I should reiterate here once again that this this op-ed, the article I'm going to mention briefly, this post or the post from August is advocating a "wait them out" strategy but rather a strategy that uses inherent weaknesses of extremist ideology against them rather than using policies that strengthen their ranks and confirm their propaganda.

This brings us to the 'return' of this policy prescription; this time in next months Foreign Affairs journal (via the WSJ). The author, the centrist Brookings Institutions senior US foreign policy wonk, Philip H. Gordon argues (much like Thompson and Kennan; summarized by WSJ's Robin Moroney)

...Islamic extremists will lose the way the U.S.S.R. did, with their ideology and tactics discredited and their erstwhile supporters deserting them. Mr. Gordon says this will occur as a result of disgust at Islamic militants’ use of violence against other Muslims, the economic failures of extreme Islamic regimes and a fear in the Islamic world, evidenced in polls, of having al Qaeda-led governments.
...
Focusing on completely eradicating terrorism rather than fostering its slow demise would drag the U.S. into precisely the costly wars abroad that Osama bin Laden wants the U.S. to fight. Mr. bin Laden and his ilk are unlikely to win in the long term in any case, says Mr. Gordon, but the war in Iraq will prolong the conflict as an effective recruiting tool for al Qaeda. The U.S. should instead focus on exploiting extremist Islam’s weak points as an ideology, using diplomacy, economic development and imprisoning terrorist leaders to bring about Islamic terrorism’s slow death.

Sound, rational, logical strategy the presidential contenders should consider and a market improvement to the neocon destabilization and paranoia campaign. Of course if your platform is running on the coattails of 9/11 then you might surround yourself with discredited pseudo-scholars. Right Mr. Giuliani?

Labels: al Qaeda, counter terrorism, foreign affairs, foreign policy, FP, Osama bin Laden, terrorism, UBL

On 7 September, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) predicted that "[w]ithin the next weeks, not months, there will be a major breakthrough on the benchmarks regarding political reconciliation" in Iraq. This encouraging pronouncement was made at a friendly gathering at the American Enterprise Institute.

Days later while questioning General Petraeus, Senator Graham laid out sobering reality in American blood and treasure the stay the course strategy would cost.

So you're saying to the Congress that you know that at least 60 soldiers, airmen and Marines are likely to be killed every month from now to July, that we're going to spend $9 billion a month of American taxpayer dollars, and when it's all said and done, we'll still have 100,000 people there.

In the wake of the Petraeus testimony earlier this month, Senator Graham backtracked from "weeks, not months" to multiple months declaring that if the Iraqis "can't do it in 90 days ... it means the major players don't want to."

Since Senator Graham's first prediction of imminent progress on 7 September, few steps forward have been taken while setbacks have filled the narrative. The Iraq oil law, a major benchmark in the reconciliation process, appears to be collapsing. A high-profile Sunni tribal leader central to the "Anbar Awakening" strategy was assassinated just ten days after meeting with President Bush in Anbar province. A pentagon report highlights a "notable turn for the worse" in Southern Iraq. The deteriorating conditions may force the British troops to return to the strategic southern city of Basra. The goal to hand over security in all 18 provinces to Iraqis (originally set for this November but in June was pushed back to next March) has been postponed again until next July. A recent Shiite-Sunni reconciliation meeting of top leaders was interrupted by suicide bomber leaving at least 25 dead and 40 wounded. In a recent meeting between President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minster Nouri al-Maliki, benchmark legislation like the new oil law and tempered de-Ba’athification measures were replaced with questions of Iraqi sovereignty relating to the actions of private military contractor Blackwater USA and the "illegal" detention of an Iranian national in Northern Iraq.

While what Lindsey Grahams crystal ball predicted in terms of political reconciliation was erroneous, he was right about two things: there have been 59 US military fatalities so far this month and the latest budget requests for funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the largest since the 'war on terror' began six years ago.

Labels: foreign affairs, foreign policy, Lindsey Graham, politics, reconciliation, Republican, surge

The LA Times reveled some insight on what we can expect mid-September in the report on the presidents "surge" in Iraq. It also reminded anyone remotely paying attention that the mid-September report--misleadingly referred to as the Petraeus-Crocker report--will be a political document written for, and only for, misleading the US audience into a continuation of failed policy.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

One would hope that the frame "Petraeus-Crocker" would disappear, but it won't. One would hope people will see through this report, but they won't. For a quick reminder, here is what the President said, and has been saying of the much anticipated mid-September report. This is from his July assessment of "progress" in Iraq:

I will repeat, as the Commander-in-Chief of a great military who has supported this military and will continue to support this military, not only with my -- with insisting that we get resources to them, but with -- by respecting the command structure, I'm going to wait for David to come back -- David Petraeus to come back and give us the report on what he sees. And then we'll use that data, that -- his report to work with the rest of the military chain of command, and members of Congress, to make another decision, if need be.

That frame should end as well. This is not David's--David Petraeus' report, it is this administrations spin of Petraeus' mid-September briefing.

If you think back, the July "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report" that claimed that "satisfactory performance" on nearly half of the proposed benchmarks was so fundamentally flawed that I doubt the White House can flaw it any more this time around. They set a fake bar, way too high, and now they won't be able to reach past it while still seeming realistic. They may have burned themselves (why they did this is a mystery, as they stated repeatedly that the July report came "a little less than a month after the full complement of troops arrived" in Iraq). Still, the bottom-line remains as plain as day. The premise was to "surge" in order to clear, hold and build. In that time political reconciliation and momentum was to be generated. We've done some of the former, but none of the latter. Prospects of this changing are slim to nil.

This Presidents mid-September report will be a farce. The LA Times cites internal debate as such:

"There were some in the drafting of the report that said, 'Well, we can claim progress,'" the administration official said. "There were others who said: 'Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it's not credible to ... just neglect the fact that it's had no effect on the ground.'"

Another tactic they are considering is to make Petraeus and Crocker visit Congress in a private congressional briefing and having Secretary Rice and Gates talk to the full Congress in the public domain. It's going to be all spin. An alternative to the Presidents mid-September report on his "surge" is the early September report carried out by the Government Accountability Office that will be apolitical and pragmatic not political and misleading.

Labels: foreign affairs, foreign policy, Iraq, surge, WoT

Continuing on my post from last night on Giulian's foreign policy essay, the wonks at Democracy Arsenal have some fun at Rudy's expense. Apparently it's not so serious yet seeing that he's so far away from even being considered a candidate and even further away from scaring the hell out of everyone and then playing Mayor of US during the '08 election. Here are some clippings...

Parts of Iraq would undoubtedly fall under the sway of our enemies, particularly Iran, which would use its influence to direct even more terror at U.S. interests and U.S. allies than it does today. (Irony alert: Iran's growing influence is a direct result of our invasion or Iraq. But more to the point, would Iran be directing terror at the US if we weren't in Iraq today? This is a self-defeating argument. Rudy is saying we can't leave Iraq because it will embolden Iran, and yet it's our very presence, which has emboldened them in the first place. Ugh, my head hurts, I need a cold beverage.)

Our allies would conclude that we cannot back up our commitments with sustained action. (Boy, it sure seems that Iraq and Afghanistan has proved that point rather nicely. Tora Bora ring any bells.)

Our enemies -- both terrorists and rogue states -- would be emboldened. (Where do I even start? How about the July NIE report on AQ, "TThe National Intelligence Estimate assessment indicates that the Islamic terrorist organization's rise has been bolstered by the Iraq war and the failure to counter extremism in Pakistan's tribal areas." What was that part about backing up our commitments with sustained action?

That's just one graf! On and on it goes. Here's another graf that is astounding:

Another step in rebuilding a strong diplomacy will be to make changes in the State Department and the Foreign Service. The time has come to refine the diplomats' mission down to their core purpose: presenting U.S. policy to the rest of the world.

Our ambassadors must clearly understand and clearly advocate for U.S. policies and be judged on the results. Too many people denounce our country or our policies simply because they are confident that they will not hear any serious refutation from our representatives. The American ideals of freedom and democracy deserve stronger advocacy. And the era of cost-free anti-Americanism must end.

That's right, people are angry at America, not because of our policies, but because they know they can criticize us with impunity. And this nugget is featured in a section titled "Determined Diplomacy."

and...

"The Terrorists’ War on Us.” When I read this, I almost started laughing. Is he serious? I had read that Giuliani was starting to use this odd-sounding phrase, but he is apparently intent on trademarking it, and using it all the freaking time. As Matt points out, this enough is reason to hope to God he is defeated.

“Peace through Strength”: Orwellian prose alert. If a Democrat said this, I’d be cool, but it really does sound ominous coming from someone who has Normon Podheretz on his foreign policy team.

“The next U.S president must also press ahead with building a national missile defense system.” Oh God, why are conservatives obsessed with this?

Btw, I was surprised to see that this article had a somewhat lumbering prose. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but the writing style doesn’t quite seem right. For example, “the lesson is never talk for the sake of talking and never accept a bad deal for the sake of making a deal.” What the heck is that? UPDATE: Good, it's not just me. Apparently Kevin Drum feels the same way. He seems to think that a 9-year old wrote the essay. It is possible.

“It is better to give people a hand up than a handout.” Good job advisor #4.

Labels: counter terrorism, diplomacy, foreign affairs, foreign policy

So I just read Republican presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani's new foreign policy thesis in Foreign Affairs and I just have to share a few comments before I retire for the night.

[UPDATE] Fixed link to go to main story not the print page.

First his new lexicon is "terrorists' war on global order" and "on us" so get used to that. This phrase arises in Rudy's reference to the "three key foreign policy challenges" facing the next president, which are:

• Victory in the "terrorists' war on global order."


• Strengthen that global order (a.k.a. the "international system").


• As security spreads, ensure that the international system is there to welcome liberated peoples and/or nations.

This will be done by, among other things, finding a balance between "realism and idealism in our foreign policy." To Rudy, idealism is our ultimate goal and realism is our means to getting there. the goal? "Preserving and extending American ideals..." pursued "...through realistic means."

So my reading is that we should impose our interpretation of the world populations desired ends, by any "realistic" means necessary, to those populations. Like we are doing in Iraq guess...

Now here's where he loses me. After stating that we need to use our ideology as a guide, governed by realism. He writes:

We cannot afford to indulge any illusions about the enemies we face. The Terrorists' War on Us was encouraged by unrealistic and inconsistent actions taken in response to terrorist attacks in the past. A realistic peace can only be achieved through strength.

So it wasn't our policies (support for corrupt regimes, support for Israel, military presence in the Muslim Holy Land, and US foreign policy in general) that caused terrorism against western nations. No, it was our reaction to terrorist's attacks prior to 9/11. I suppose that's a vague shot at Clinton (but also H.W. Bush and Reagan, et cetera). Still, how can anyone who is trying to put forward a new approach to foreign policy in the post-9/11 world say that previous responses to terrorism are the nexus of our problems? This ignores, outright, the preeminent causes of terrorism currently. To ignore the effects of the occupation of Iraq or our actions on the world stage (Gitmo, abu Ghraib) in a new foreign policy doctrine is approaching, if not the definition of, intellectual nadir. Rudy's prescription is basically the status quo. It's not a long-term battle he's planning for it's more of the same. Short-term reactions to current events. This is just treating the symptoms not the cause. It's ridiculous.

To make this even worse, Rudy's first step is to understand the enemy's "violent ideology." But rather than incorporate a plan for addressing this ideology--which is in many ways fueled by our ideology that says everyone ought to be like us--Rudy blames the American people for not 'staying the course' in Vietnam, creating an analogy to Iraq. It's all nation building here, no public relations. It's like putting a band-aid on a gaping wound.

When Rudy transitions into diplomacy he starts to some signs that he is aware of the current reality.

It is clear that we need to do a better job of explaining America's message and mission to the rest of the world, not by imposing our ideas on others but by appealing to their enlightened self-interest. To this end, the Voice of America program must be significantly strengthened and broadened. Its surrogate stations, such as Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, which were so effective at inspiring grass-roots dissidents during the Cold War, must be expanded as well. Our entire approach to public diplomacy and strategic communications must be upgraded and extended, with a greater focus on new media such as the Internet. We confront multifaceted challenges in the Middle East, the Pacific region, Africa, and Latin America. In all these places, effective communication can be a powerful way of advancing our interests. We will not shy away from any debate. And armed with honest advocacy, America will win the war of ideas.

And there's the key, the war of ideas. But he offers nothing (though he didn't backtrack and do as Newt Gingrich [Foreign Policy, July/August 2003] would and make these tools of public diplomacy nothing more than tools for propaganda.) This further exemplifies the inability of Rudy and many Republicans to understand that fighting a long war is only possible with robust efforts at strategic but genuine public diplomacy in compliment to "reasonable" use of force. Military force has a role but the belligerent use of this force can have a long-term detrimental effect. Earlier in this essay, Rudy calls for increasing the size of our military, expanding intelligence and survalience and finding a missile defense system that will work. This is pretty obvious. But other than strengthening, broadening, upgrading and extending our public diplomacy there are no legitimate policy prescriptions, despite stating correctly that "America has been most successful as a world leader when it has used strength and diplomacy hand in hand." Rudy's doctrine here is hardly "hand in hand." Perhaps a revision with some dollar signs or incorporating some scholarly research Mayor? I guess those don't emit fear quite as well as other subjects (this essay is full of his trade mark fear-mongering coupled with his fatherly leadership in the face of terror).

All in all the documents pretty much advocating for the status quo. It offered nothing groundbreaking and a lot of poor advise for a country on the verge of transitioning from under one of the wost foreign policy performances ever. In the last section Rudy writes "America's next president must also craft polices to fit the needs of the decade ahead...". Well with foreign policy, a president elected in '08 will only be leading till January 2013.

Labels: diplomacy, foreign affairs, foreign policy