Atlantic Sentinel

Category: Analysis

  • Inside Hamas’ Negotiating Strategy

    While the Americans negotiators try to fend off a complete collapse of the one month old Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, other players in the conflict are hedging their bets and trying to predict what will happen next.

    As of now, Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank has resumed, prompting colonists and far-right members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition to celebrate with open arms. Settler organizations are launching the resumption of building with a symbolic victory parade, releasing 2,000 balloons into the air to represent the 2,000 new apartment blocks that will be erected in the foreseeable future.

    And all the while, Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas is shamefully figuring out what to do next. He will go before the Arab League on Sunday to try to gain political cover for continuing the negotiations.

    But there is another important Palestinian faction hedging its bets and preparing for its next move, despite the fact that the group is technically not a part of the negotiations. Hamas, which remains isolated from the peace talks despite its control of 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, is in fact embracing an “all hands on deck” strategy.

    A few weeks ago, I suggested that the killing of four Israeli settlers in the West Bank town of Hebron was a way for Hamas to remind the United States that it was a party to the conflict. Indeed, I stand by that judgment, however controversial it may be. But it also appears that the Hamas leadership is more than willing to play the nationalist card; Khaled Mashal, Hamas’ political leader, declared that it was high time for all Palestinian groups to come together.

    Quoting the DPA story:

    Mashal argued that internal reconciliation would make the Palestinians more powerful in negotiations, calling it a national necessity and the best way to react to the “Zionist intransigence.”

    At first, Mashal’s comments seem to warrant a positive response. Abbas’ Fatah movement and the Islamist Hamas have been at each other’s throats for the past four years. The humiliating electoral defeat at the hands of Hamas still leaves a bad taste in the mouths of Fatah officials and the internal conflict between the two groups only worsened after Abbas’ forces were routed from the Gaza Strip.

    In addition to the human calamity of Palestinian infighting, the lack of a unified movement leaves Palestinian negotiators in a very weak position vis-à-vis Israel. On one side of the table sits a strong prime minister, supported by the whole of the Israeli cabinet. On the other side, a weakened president who only governs around 65 percent of the Palestinian people. The odds aren’t good for any negotiator faced with a situation of such magnitude.

    It is because of this unbalanced negotiating environment that American and Western negotiators have devised a new strategy. Rather than continue with the same old divide-and-conquer approach, the United States may find it necessary to get off its “high horse” by extending an “unclenched fist” toward the Hamas delegation.

    Such a proposition is extremely hard to swallow for pro-Israel lobbyists and Washington insiders who have continued to evaluate Hamas exclusively through the prism of terrorism. Indeed, Hamas has perpetuated horrific crimes against innocent Israelis over the years and continues to do so. But refusing to draw Hamas into the peace process — or worse, discouraging Palestinian reconciliation — will prove to be far more detrimental to Israel, Palestine and the United States in the long run than any rocket attack.

    No solution to the Middle East dispute will be sustainable unless all Palestinians are represented, Hamas included. Glancing at Daniel Byman’s latest essay in Foreign Affairs could perhaps serve as a working blueprint.

  • Why Was the S-300 Canceled?

    The recent decree signed by President Dmitri Medvedev canceling the sale of the S-300 surface to air missiles has raised some questions about decisionmaking in the Russian government about arms exports. Analysts who spend their time looking for tensions in the Russian “tandemocracy” have suggested that this decision is a sign that President Medvedev was able to get his way on this issue against the wishes of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Other interpretations indicated that Iranian behavior in recent years or months led Putin to change his mind on the sale, which he supported since the initial decision was made several years ago. In this interpretation, in signing the decree Medvedev was simply doing what he was told by his “superior.”

    I don’t think these are the only two options. I have always been skeptical of interpretations that depend on finding disagreements between Medvedev and Putin. At the same time, I don’t think Medvedev is Putin’s puppet. My interpretation of the Russian top leadership is that decisions are made largely by consensus among the four or five top people, with Putin acting as first among equals and in some ways the arbitrator or final decisionmaker. This was true when he was president and hasn’t changed much in the current environment. In this light, Putin doesn’t have to have completely changed his mind, nor did he get rolled by Medvedev. Perhaps his view became less strong and the views of enough other players changed that the consensus moved in a different direction. Obviously I don’t have evidence that this is how decisions are made in the Kremlin right now, but there is some reasonable evidence that this is how it was done back in 2007. I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to believe that much has changed.

    As far as the specifics of the S-300 decision, I don’t think the Russian leaders were ever all that strongly committed to selling the S-300 to Iran. I think that to some extent, it was always partially a bargaining chip that was used against the United States in moments when relations were problematic. So from that point of view, it’s possible that Putin didn’t change his mind at all, rather the balance between Russia’s bilateral relationships with the United States and its relations with Iran changed sufficiently for it became worthwhile to publicly shift positions on this sale. This would mean that American policies toward Russia were bearing fruit.

    This interpretation is supported by the breadth of the presidential decree, which prohibits the sale of virtually all military technology to Iran. Russian analysts estimate the total cost to Russian arms exporters of leaving the Iranian market to be around 11-13 billion dollars, of which the S-300 sale was just $800 million. If Russia just wanted to make a gesture toward the US, it would have been sufficient to ban the sale of the missiles while leaving other military cooperation intact. The fact that all military sales were banned implies that this is more than a gesture — it implies that Russian leaders have decided that they need to have much better relations with the United States and also with Israel.

    One possibility is that they hope that this change in policy will remove any remaining roadblocks to the Russian purchase of sensitive military technologies from the West. The Mistral deal with France is undoubtedly part of this calculus, but so is the purchase of more advanced UAVs from Israel.

    This story first appeared on Russian Military Reform, September 27, 2010.

  • The Roller Coaster Decade

    When historians begin to look back at the first pivotal decade of the twenty-first century, what will they see? What types of words will they use to describe the 2000-2010 years, and how will those words hold up to other decades in terms of prosperity, popular culture, and innovation?

    These questions seem out of the blue, given our ever changing environment. But these queries need to be answered, or at least pondered to some degree. Every single decade of the twentieth century has been labeled to some degree or another, usually with unique events in mind.  The 1920s came to known as the “Roaring Twenties,” the 1930s saw the “Great Depression,” and the 1980s were considered to be the time of “the me generation” (whatever that means). Of course, the 1960s and 70s were both regarded as decades of immense cultural ferment in the United States, as social and political issues previously hidden or suppressed demanded their rightful place on the public agenda.

    The verdict for the 2000-2010 period is still up in the air, and not without good reason; it takes generations before scholars can accurately analyze a time period in its full dimension. After all, it has only been seven months since the decade came to a close. But it’s interesting to start speculating, both because we have all experienced the tumult of those years and because the world changed drastically in a number of areas.

    On its merits, the first decade of this century doesn’t appear to have been a particularly happy time for mankind. In the United States, it started with a terrible financial scandal at a huge corporation (Enron), where thousands of employees lost their hard earned livelihoods as a consequence of corrupt business executives. Of course, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 killed some 3,000 innocent civilians and gave birth a dark cloud that continues to hover over us up to this day. Hurricane Katrina, the Asian tsunami, the Haitian earthquake, and the SARS outbreak in China all demonstrated that humans are still unable to control everything, despite their technology and brainpower. Fighting erupted around the globe, from Afghanistan to Iraq, and from the Sudan to the Caucasus.

    Despite all of these disasters and catastrophes, there were also tremendous achievements throughout the last ten years. According to Charles Kenny of the New America Foundation, literacy rates across the world rose to 80 percent of the human population. In Africa, the most destitute continent, two-thirds of people can now read and write, perhaps paving the way for a new era in African development. People are being paid more, with an average global annual income of over $10,000. Agricultural yields have increased in the developing world, and the low price of grains over the last decade enabled more families to afford food and provide for their children. The number of children that have died from measles (a preventable disease) has dropped by 60 percent due to the widening availability of immunizations. And child mortality has declined by 17 percent, which could potentially help poor countries beef up their economic productivity.

    From where we stand now, the last ten years seem like a mixed bag. Terrorism and violence crept into areas that were previously quiet, but intelligence services have responded with improvement. The global economy is still struggling to get out of the hole, but families are bringing more money into the household. In other words, the decade has witnessed a lot of balance, with pros butting heads against cons and solutions creating even more problems. One year, you’re at the top of the game, and the next, you’re at the bottom of the pile.

    How about “the roller coaster decade?”

  • India Catching Up with China in Africa

    While both China and India are attempting to extend their sphere of influence into Africa, Beijing is clearly ahead of New Delhi, not just because it’s economically superior rather because it has pursued an astute realpolitik in its foreign relations.

    Economically, China does have a significant edge with trade relations with different African countries set to top $100 billion this year compared with about a third of that between India and Africa in 2009.

    Part of the reason for India’s falling behind is its reactive nature to events unfolding nearby whereas China has been proactive abroad. Since 2000 China has attended regular summits of the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation as have numerous African heads of state. India has tried to do the same thing but the only India-Africa Forum Summit to date, in April 2008, saw just fourteen African countries attend. (more…)

  • Bob Woodward’s Bombshell

    Robert Woodward may be one of the most astounding journalists that the United States has to offer. The man uncovered the biggest instance of presidential corruption in American history (the Watergate scandal), has authored numerous articles that have stoked debate in the public discourse, and has written books galore about the hot political topics of the day. His latest three books about the war in Iraq were particularly satisfying to the gossip hungry reader (In a span of three volumes, Woodward digs into the lower bowels of the Bush Administration in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. He engages in a great deal of political psychology, using President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell as his case studies.)

    His most recent project however has generated far more buzz. Obama’s Wars, a detailed account of President Barack Obama’s numerous battles both inside Afghanistan and inside his own administration, is due to be released next week. And while the piece is narrative in tone and easy for the average reader to follow (which is typical of Woodward), this account is anything but unsubstantiated. According to The Washington Post, Woodward bases all of his assertions on thousands of documents, interviews with key White House officials, internal conversations, as well as notes from confidential staff meetings that took place in the Oval Office. In other words, the book is both sourced to the brink and interesting to read.

    Similar to Woodward’s series about President Bush, this project is likely to hit Obama’s staff hard. Some of the revelations that are uncovered are none too flattering, and the work paints the Obama Administration as a bunch of egotistical personalities who cannot stand one another’s company. Take a look at these juicy pieces, courtesy of Blake Hounshell of Foreign Policy.

    1) The administration’s civilian point man in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, doesn’t think the current strategy makes much sense. Vice President Joe Biden evidently hates Holbrooke’s guts. According to Biden, Holbrooke is “the most egotistical bastard [he’s] ever met.” Not much of an endorsement by any stretch of the imagination.

    2) Throughout the administration’s three month-long Afghan strategy review, the president was deeply annoyed with his military commanders for recommending an increase in the ; a proposal that ran contrary to his own personal beliefs about the war.

    3) Afghan President Hamid Karzai is a manic depressive who is sporadic in taking his medication. It will be interesting to see whether this description ends up damaging the American counterinsurgency mission in Afghanistan. It may not, but a revelation of this kind won’t help bring Karzai closer into the American orbit — an essential ingredient for a successful counterinsurgency approach.

    4) President Obama tells Woodward that the United States will be able to “absorb a terrorist attack.” From a political standpoint, this is a remarkably stupid thing to say to a reporter. But from a strategic standpoint, the president is probably right. The threat of terrorism has been ingrained in the minds of Americans for close to a decade, so another hit on American soil will be less shocking than the 9/11 attacks were.

    5) General David Petraeus, the man now running American and NATO operations in Afghanistan, wants the White House to stay out of his way so he can run the war free of distraction.

    6) The CIA is bankrolling and training an elite Afghan paramilitary force with the purpose of capturing or killing senior Taliban and Al Qaeda members. There are around 3,000 members in this top secret team, and the intelligence agency has given them discretion to pursue militants into Pakistan if necessary. This, however, is not really an ulcer in the belly of Obama when comparing it to the rest of the list. The CIA is tasked to gather intelligence and protect American interests around the world. While human rights lawyers won’t like it, killing or arresting terrorists is an integral part of that job description.

    These are just a few of the bullets in Woodward’s book but readers will undoubtedly find more when they preorder it online. And in addition to being an entertaining read, the book may also strengthen the historical record and perhaps contribute to the Obama legacy. Much like life, politics is a frustrating game where arguments of policy can quickly turn personal.

    (I commend Obama’s advisors for not going into a self-defense mode. Rahm Emanuel in particular has played it smart so far. “Despite difficult circumstances, the president brings a consistently tough, determined and clear eyed strategic focus to these crises,” he said.)

  • Is Iraq Already Forgotten?

    Iraq is no longer a popular topic in the American media. When I started writing on the subject two and half years ago, there was no lack of articles, blogs and magazines about the war. Now, The New York Times no longer devotes a link in their Middle East news to Iraq. It’s understandable: this is a war that the American people would rather forget. There was no good reason to go in and no good way to get out. But unfortunately, whether we want to admit it or not, the war in Iraq will likely have repercussions for years to come.

    Now that the withdrawal is underway, many think tanks, government agencies and reporters are surveying the damage. Everyone seems to have a different opinion of what will happen in the future. Some are far-fetched; others are viable — and a little scary.

    Even after the recent drawdown of American combat forces from Iraq and plans for a full withdrawal in the next year, many Middle Easterners don’t believe that American influence in Iraq will end. Steven Lee Myers of the The New York Times supports this theory by pointing out that in spite of the withdrawal, US Special Operations have not changed in size or role. Middle Easterners still see American interests pervading in Iraqi economic, political and security concerns as efforts to continue to control the country.

    Whether this is true or not, certain issues lend themselves to the United States maintaining a presence in Iraq. But the last thing it wants to do is look like oil jockeying cowboys of yesteryear.

    Another issue causing concern among Iraqis, Middle Easterners and probably many other people around the world is the violence that continues to cruelly wreck Baghdad and other urban centers in Iraq. The Washington Post reported on Sunday that six car bombs across Baghdad and one suicide bomber near Fallujah killed 37 people and injured over one hundred. This may not seem like a special news story coming out of Iraq, but the reality is that with the official drawdown, militant forces are taking advantage of the still weak government security structure. These attacks are meant to prove a point — that Iraq cannot protect itself.

    This attempt at portraying a lack of order and security can prove to be the scariest issue currently addressing Iraq. Whoever is trying to make this point most likely has a greater objective. Theories from both the Middle East and the United States include Iran making a power play in Iraq — if it hasn’t done so already.

    The Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses in India is studying this topic. Prasanta Kumar Pradhan published an article on September 9 that argued that a power vacuum has resulted from the lack of a powerful American military presence. He believes that Iran stands to benefit from the American withdrawal. Because of the time and opportunity allotted to them while Iraq was in the process of reconstruction, Pradhan fears that Iran has already infiltrated the politics of Iraq. He adds that because of this potential influence, Saudi Arabia is nervous about sectarian strife spilling over into the Gulf states, possibly inciting Shia uprisings. Turkey is still wary of the lack of control in Iraq with respect to the Kurds and would like to see a stable country without sectarian violence. And many continue to dread that Syria is sponsoring Sunni terrorist groups and acts in Iraq, causing further strife and conflict.

    Of course, this will all have an effect on future American foreign relations. Greater Iranian influence in Iraq might eventually spur another religious revolution. Political strife in Saudi Arabia, one of America’s closest allies in the region, would have economic ramifications for the United States and possibly the entire world — not to mention raise the specter of drawing the United States into another Middle East war. Syrian-sponsored terrorism, finally, puts everyone at risk, especially the Iraqis who risk being killed in regular car bombings.

    Many worry that instability in Iraq will enhance instability in the region, with further terrorist groups popping up, sectarian violence worsening and the possibility of interstate war looming. As it was from the start, this is a tough issue to solve. But maintaining stability in the Middle East is in the interest of all actors involved and this should not be forgotten.

  • Obama’s Grand Strategy of Sanction Regimes

    When President Barack Obama signed into law the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act last June, he envisaged the path of sanctions being integrated into a grand strategy aimed at making hostile countries fall in line. Iran is the first subject of this strategy.

    The sanctions regime imposed upon Iran largely targets its petroleum industry; the mainstay of Iran’s economy. The aim is to squeeze the Islamic Republic’s fuel imports and enhance its international isolation.

    Obama decided to take a tougher stand on Iran’s nuclear program after the country failed to reciprocate his attempt at détente early in his presidency. As a candidate, Obama promised to hold unconditional talks with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and when riots erupted in Tehran and other Iranian cities in the wake of Ahmadinejad’s disputed reelection last year, Washington did not interfere. The administration hardly intended to engineer a regime change in Iran as it did in 1953 when then Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh was overthrown in favor of the shah with the support of the CIA. (more…)

  • Sino-Indian Rivalry Heating Up

    The two Asian giants are gearing up for a showdown almost similar to that of the Cold War. China and India are growing at an incredible pace and with Western influence fading, both are increasingly gaining footholds in distant corners of the world through bilateral trade, investment and security relations.

    In this classic great power rivalry, China intends to keep India’s ambitions at bay by denying permission, for instance, to a lieutenant general posted in Jammu and Kashmir to visit China. The officer was planning to travel abroad in August of this year to attend a high level defense exchange between the countries.

    Policymakers in New Delhi meanwhile are fretting about reports that 7,000 to 11,000 Chinese troops may be present in or near the city of Gilgit in Pakistani occupied Kashmir. The government of India is attempting to verify these rumors which Pakistan’s envoy to Beijing has persistently denied.

    Supposedly, the Chinese soldiers in Gilgit-Baltistan are to work on the construction of railroads as well as the extension of the Karakoram Highway. Such infrastructure projects could connect China more directly with Afghanistan and beyond; parts of the world which the resource hungry Chinese economy is anxious to reach.

    Other reports indicate that the commander of the militant United Liberation Front of Assam in northeast India, Paresh Baruah, has received a six month visa to visit China. In response to what appears to a posturing more aggressive than usual, Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh summoned a meeting of the Cabinet Committee of Security in Delhi. India’s ambassador to Beijing, S. Jaishankar briefed the committee on the current state of India-China relations during which the prime minister is supposed to have bursted that China intends to keep India at a “low level equilibrium.”

    With the United States’ newfound policy of strategic reassurance evidently failing and the current administration unwilling to contain China, Beijing appears to have decided that it can have a free go throughout the world. To make that happen, it first has to establish a firm foothold in its own region from where to spread its “sphere of interest” to Africa and Latin America.

    India challenges China’s predominance in South and East Asia. With a population of more than one billion, an economy that is rapidly expanding, a workforce that is likely to remain vast for generations to come and a subtle latent power, India is as much as Asian superpower as China is. What’s more, India is a natural leader in the geopolitics of South Asia and it has amplified its influence in the east in recent years. Countries as Japan and South Korea, searching for active strategic partnerships, are ready to cooperate with India.

    Beyond the region, India has promoted diplomatic and economic ties within both the Indo-African Business Forum and the Pacific Islands Forum. It is engaging expatriates in service of India’s interests; the Indo-American civilian nuclear agreement of 2005 probably wouldn’t have happened without the active lobbying of Indian Americans. This has pushed India to initiate a “forward policy” in its foreign relations.

    Beijing has been irritated with this relatively new activity from India’s side. It understands that in order to clip the wings of spreading India, it has to box it in in South Asia first. That is why China continues to support Pakistan. With India distracted in the west, China can quickly gain influence in the east.

    On the whole, India hasn’t been similarly proactive in attempting to counterbalance China’s rise. Part of the reason is that the political class in India is not too concerned with international relations. Foreign policy finds very little emphasis in the contours of day to day politics in New Delhi. Manmohan Singh has been something of an exception but even his statesmanship cannot prevent the system from largely looking inward.

    Iran is a case in point. While the United States were trying to engage with Iran, in part through China, India, a traditional Iranian ally, was left in the dark.

    With India’s politicos largely indifferent or incompetent in the realm of foreign relations, the military has assumed responsibility for a significant chunk of the country’s external policy. It is understood that China and India are both continental as well as naval powers. In order to challenge China’s “string of pearls” strategy, India is developing a naval diplomacy of its own.

    Evidence of China’s intentions can be seen in Sri Lanka where it is constructing a deepwater port in the once sleepy fishing town of Hambantota, as well as in Pakistan, where it developed the Gwadar harbor. China is also courting the littoral states in the Indian Ocean including the Maldives, Mauritius and the Seychelles and has helped them with funds to boost their economy. In return, China expect to build more bases.

    India, on the other hand, is regularly dispatching naval officers to these countries to participate in exchanges. It is also helping the Maldives in establishing a network of radars that will benefit the island nation which does not have a navy of its own.

    The Sino-Indian rivalry is the story of the first part of the twenty-first century much like the rivalry between Germany and the United Kingdom defined the first half of the twentieth. As John Mearsheimer explained in The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), “Great powers behave aggressively not because they want to or because they possess some inner drive to dominate, but because they have to seek more power if they want to maximize their odds of survival.” Such realism has dictated China’s conduct on the world stage for decades.

    India’s foreign policy by contrast has always flirted with moralistic notions. Only with the start of this century did it appreciate the importance of realpolitik. India’s politicians are well trained in this regard when it comes to domestic affairs. Now they need to show similar genius in the field of international relations. If they can, India may stand up to China’s rapid ascend.

  • India Racing Ahead of China

    As the world prepares for the second decade of the twenty-first century it is increasingly clear that the now subtle rivalry between China and India is only likely to exasperate.

    China, though formally a Communist nation with a mixed market economy, has been able to achieve economic superiority compared with India which is trying to catch up by stressing its democratic politics, civil society and peaceful intentions.

    The approach most suitable to India’s character and ambitions is one of “soft power,” a term coined by Harvard international relations scholar Professor Joseph Nye. Nye argued that “power is the ability to alter the behavior of others to get what you want, and there are three ways to do that: coercion (sticks), payments (carrots) and attraction (soft power). If you are able to attract others,” he explained, “you can economize on the sticks and carrots.”

    In his book, The Paradox of American Power (2002), Nye took the analysis of soft power beyond the United States. Other nations too, he suggested, could acquire it. In today’s information era there are three types of countries likely to gain soft power and so succeed:

    Those whose dominant cultures and ideals are closer to prevailing global norms (which now emphasize liberalism, pluralism, autonomy); those with the most access to multiple channels of communication and thus more influence over how issues are framed; and those whose credibility is enhanced by their domestic and international performance.

    Though a country’s respect and prestige on the world stage is very much determined by its latent military power, it must also be supplemented with soft power. Otherwise in plain terms the former could be understood as arrogance.

    Nye had a point in explaining the need of soft power in any nation’s overall impact on the world. With the United States struggling with two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the world views the superpower in negative terms. To improve that image abroad, Joseph Nye advocated the projection of soft power.

    In India’s case, a soft power approach could be the trump card. To start, apart from democracy, India has the ability to be an information power. Many students from Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia are interested in studying in India at much cheaper rates. India should implement a better infrastructure of absolving them. In that regard, the passage of the Nalanda University Bill by parliament may indicate that India is preparing to unleash its soft power onto Asia and the world. This perception is reinforced by the efficient completion of the South Asian University project under the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation’s header and India’s decision to open up its higher education sector to global inputs and competition.

    Moreover, there aren’t many countries in the world which resent India’s growing power. This is another main factor. From Singapore to the Sudan, from Angola to Afghanistan, from Australia to Argentina countries regard India with respect, not fear. What this means is that there is no need for a any power outside Eurasia to initiate a classic balance of power with or against India. This is certainly not the case with China.

    China has actually a very limited ability to boost its soft power credentials. Its foreign policy has little regard for human rights and democracy while supportive of regimes that China does business with. The islands of Fiji are a case in point. It is very much because of the security umbrella provided by China that Fiji’s military dictator is able to withhold democratic elections. India doesn’t have any such constrains.

    In the short run, India may not be able to match China’s three trillion dollar currency reserve nor, indeed, its robust industrial growth, but it can project a more favorable image of itself to the world through a policy of soft power. That may well, in the long run, turn out to be much more beneficial to its economy as well as its people.

  • Ditch Nation Building and Go After Al Qaeda

    You don’t need to be genius to recognize that the war in Afghanistan is going much worse than people would have predicted a year ago. At a time of immense economic trouble at home, more and more Americans are wondering whether the fight was even worth it in the first place. A remarkable question as we pass the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks.

    Afghans themselves aren’t particularly pleased with foreign troops on their soil either. A recent poll study shows that 68 percent of Afghans in Helmand and Kandahar provinces don’t think NATO is protecting the population. 70 percent in the Taliban heartland blame American and NATO armed forces for making the lives of Afghans worse. An astounding 99 percent in Marjah are equally convinced that the foreign military presence is contributing to instability. Those aren’t good numbers when the whole essence of NATO strategy is to gradually wean Afghans away from the Taliban.

    But if you don’t need to be a genius to figure this, you don’t necessarily need to be smart to recommend a change in US strategy either. Just ask any of the pundits on television and they will tell you that America is heading for failure in Afghanistan. But ask them what exactly the White House should do to change course, they get a little starry eyed and resort to the same “Obama doesn’t get it” argument.

    So it’s refreshing to see that some people are actually working hard to conduct an alternative strategy. A report (PDF) from the Afghanistan Study Group is a worthy illustration. Granted, the report is long and the content can get a bit overwhelming, but each recommendation is well founded and based on facts instead of mere assumptions. (If you don’t care to read the entire thing, do be sure to read the summary.)

    Without getting into the details of the report, the authors essentially make the argument that Washington can no longer afford to sustain a fully resourced counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan. It costs $100 billion a year just to fund it; it claims the lives of dozens of American soldiers (66 in July alone), and it is increasingly transforming into a twenty-first version of Vietnam. Or, to put it in the words of the report itself, “Prospects for success are dim. The 2010 spring offensive in Marjah was inconclusive, and a supposedly ‘decisive’ summer offensive in Kandahar has been delayed and the expectations downgraded. American and allied casualties reached an all time high in July, and several NATO allies have announced plans to withdraw their own forces.” Doesn’t sound very good, does it?

    Instead, the authors believe that the president should reverse course and ditch the entire concept of counterinsurgency altogether. If defeating Al Qaeda is America’s central objective in Afghanistan, then why try to prop up a national government in a country that is predisposed to localized politics? Why try to “win the hearts and minds” of the Afghan people if eliminating terrorists is the priority? But more importantly, why continue to sacrifice American blood and why continue to overextend military resources when the enemy you are trying to crush is just a few hundred hardcore fighters?

    Counterterrorism should the overarching strategy for NATO, say the authors, not building schools or digging irrigation ditches. After nine years of war, the best that America and its allies can do is bring the stakeholders in Afghanistan together (Iran, India, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Central Asian states, etc.), hash out a political compromise between the main factions (the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras) and keep persistent pressure on Al Qaeda training facilities.

    Whether or not the strategy will work, of course, is anyone’s guess. Critics of the report cite that its authors are neglecting the symbolic importance of a American withdrawal, and how “cutting and running” would be celebrated as a victory by the insurgents. Advocates, on the other hand, are arguing that a counterinsurgency strategy would require a substantial American presence for at least another five to ten years (American troops are supposed to start withdrawing next summer). Others yet are on the fence, completely baffled with Afghanistan to begin with.

    In the end, the policy report may be just that — a report. The Obama Administration may not even pay attention to its findings when it reviews its war policy this December. Or, the report may generate media coverage and begin to sway public opinion. But whatever the final outcome, the Afghanistan Study Group’s research contributes to the debate. And at a time when the United States are themselves confused about where their grand strategy is going, anything that helps to shed light onto an increasingly puzzling subject may be a significant contribution.

  • India’s Woodrow Wislon

    “A week is a long time in politics,” said British prime minister and statesman Harold Wilson once. In the case of India’s prime minister, he may add humbly, “And a year is much too long a time to think ahead in politics.”

    Nothing illustrates the problem of being Dr Manmohan Singh in Indian politics than the fact that he has never won an election in his life. Just 1 percent of the Indian population fancy him as the prime minister, according to a survey recently held by India Today. But at the same time the majority doesn’t mind having him in power.

    A strange equation evolves where we have a competent person of unquestionable intellect like Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister of India while his popularity is soaring below. How did this happen?

    The answer to the question is complicated. The nature of Indian politics, which is interesting but mystique, must first be considered.

    Heading Manmohan Singh’s party is Sonia Gandhi who owes her position largely to the Gandhi surname. Although she steered the Congress Party to victory in 2004, Gandhi didn’t ascend to the prime ministership because of her foreign birth. She does continue to helm the affairs of the party however to ensure that another Gandhi, her son Rahul, may once day become candidate for the highest office. The India Today poll identified him as heir apparent and one of the most promising politicians in the country.

    With Gandhi, in 2004, out of the picture however, India needed another leader, one able to protect its interest in a fast changing world where India is evermore pivotal to international trade. Singh, with his vast experience in academia and governance, seemed an obvious choice and most of the world’s leaders respect him as a senior statesman. Not without reason did Newsweek describe him as “the leader other leaders love.”

    But back home, with Naxal violence mounting, the state of Kashmir plunged into chaos once again, China’s posture increasingly assertive, Pakistan’s ability to find “strategic depth” in Afghanistan by elbowing out India, and the United States reluctant to embrace the country as expected so that the prices of commodities are moving up, Singh’s position is anything but admirable.

    This is where the prime minister has been most lacking. Had he been a professional politician, Sing would have known how to play to the gallery like his predecessor from the conservative Bharatiya Janata party, Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Like Vajpayee, Singh commands respect and awe but unlike him, Singh lacks the charisma and ability to understand the nitty gritty of realpolitik which is very much an essential ingredient of leadership.

    Manmohan Singh is a statesman of the highest order. There is no doubt that he was the one who steered India out of the woods of socialism with his policies of liberalization just as India became part of a globalized world economy. It has made India what it is today — a huge, growing economic power sitting at the most important tables of world affairs. However, Singh doesn’t appear to understand that all statesmen are politicians before anything else. In fact, that’s the problem of being a statesman. Many are despised during their lifetime as people can’t share their vision. As Winston Churchill pointed out, “Politicians think about the next elections, statesmen thinks about the next generation.” Manmohan Singh needs to understand this right now because most Indians, living in their liberalized economy, find it hard to think beyond the next day.

    In conclusion, though Manmohan Singh’s strength isn’t history there is a lot that he can learn from the failures of Woodrow Wilson, president of the United States during the World War I. Wilson had a vision of a new world order, creating the League of Nations which earned him respect all over the world but not at home. He couldn’t convince Americans to even join his international organization, which left the president heartbroken and desolate.

    Wilson’s Assistant Secretary of Navy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, understood how to balance statesmanship and domestic politics. He went on to handle two major crises: an economic depression and another world war. Wilson’s portrait hung in Roosevelt’s office as a constant reminder of the need to consider public opinion.

    Roosevelt managed to mobilize the nation to enact the policies he wanted and knew how to speak to the people directly. He was idealistic in his goals but pragmatic about his means. Manmohan Singh is no FDR but could fail very much like Wilson did. Both are from academic backgrounds and both had a vision of the world that was idealistic, perhaps naive. Both, moreover, lacked the political craftiness to make such visions come true. The future will tell whether Singh indeed goes on to be remembered as India’s Woodrow Wilson.

  • Hamas: “Pay Attention To Us”

    Throughout the history of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, opponents of reconciliation have often invoked violence and incitement in order to derail the very notion of progress.

    Such was the case during the first ten years of serious negotiations, when radicals on both sides proved to be quite successful at killing off the prospects of an accord. After the historic Oslo Agreement in 1993, Palestinian militants in the West Banka and Gaza launched a devastating wave of terrorist attacks against Israel proper, which resulted not only in the deaths of over 1,000 Israelis but the virtual termination of goodwill between Jews and Palestinians. The historic concessions that were made by the compassionate Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 cost him his life at the hands of a far-right Israeli assassin. And of course, who can forget the Camp David Summit hosted by former President Bill Clinton in 2000, which seemed so close to an agreement but was in reality so far away. (You might remember that the only thing that these talks produced was another intifada.)

    Yet despite all of that history, people seemed somewhat surprised when violence broke out in the West Bank a few days ago. The incident was reported as a drive-by shooting against Israeli civilians near the town of Hebron. Hamas quickly claimed responsibility for the attack (which left four Israeli citizens dead) as a violent signal of protest to the ongoing discussions between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

    The response to the attack has been predictable. Israelis are downright appalled that violence has once again struck at the center of innocence. Yet surely they expected something like this to happen?

    Abbas is a bit embarrassed, for the West Bank is usually described as a newly minted success story. Indeed, the territory has been routinely quiet over the past three years, in stark contrast to the 1990s, when terrorists would flood into Israel from camps in the West Bank.

    And Americans are just as upset as the Israelis, issuing a White House statement condemning the attack in the harshest terms. Meanwhile, the Palestinian security forces have begun a crackdown on Hamas operatives inside the West Bank.

    The good news so far is that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been smart enough to press ahead with the talks as planned. He no doubt recognizes that his negotiating partner has absolutely no control over the activities of Hamas, and is therefore willing to give him a pass on this latest incident. The question is whether he will continue to give Abbas a pass if these types of attacks continue. I suspect that the current niceties would soon blow away if Hamas steps up its operations, in which case we might as well pack up and go home.

    Thankfully, we haven’t come to that point yet. But Hamas isn’t a dumb organization. They fully recognize that time is on their side, and they also recognize that just the right amount of terrorism will sabotage the participants’ will for a complete resolution. Spoilers have been doing this for years, and Hamas is no different.

    But perhaps Hamas is signaling something else through these shootings. Conventional wisdom would tell you that Hamas is completely opposed to direct talks with Israel in any form and they may be still firmly committed to that line. But perhaps this is Hamas’ not-so-subtle-way of reminding Abbas and Netanyahu that they too are a major player in this conflict.

    Thus far, the United States, Europe, Israel, and some members of Fatah have written off Hamas as a partner and refused to reach out to their representatives. Hamas has been in the dark ever since its victorious 2006 parliamentary elections, totally isolated from the international community and virtually delegitimized in the mainstream Arab world as a political force.

    This shooting, especially gruesome, changes this entire calculus at least for the short term. Indeed, the killings quickly received the attention of the international media. And more importantly, it solicited a response from both the United States and Israel.

    Hamas is back on the map. And in its own perverse way, may be trying to play ball.

  • Is the GOP Leaderless?

    On a recent episode of NBC’s Meet the Press President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign manager David Plouffe professed that the Republican Party today is actually led by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin. In part, he’s right.

    I have never spoken or heard anyone in person or through blogs speak of the current Republican Party in a positive light. Even those who believe in the GOP in principle agree that it needs some drastic changes to go in the right direction. No matter how rich, charismatic, intelligent, or talented you are you cannot lead people if they do not wish to follow and the Republicans have gotten wildly off track.

    That being said, Limbaugh, Beck and Palin don’t really lead the GOP. They are leaders each in a slightly different way, but their relationship to the American people is direct and not filtered through a political party. Glenn Beck in particular is not about politics at all, rather about virtuous principles and good government. Republicans are extremely sluggish in responding to the current drift of American opinion and indeed seem to spend all their time chasing what they perceive to be the politically expedient rather than the principled path. The GOP appears without position and is, in any event, notoriously poor at explaining it or adhering to it for any length of time.

    It is interesting to note that when Plouffe named Limbaugh, Beck and Palin as the Republican leadership he was making an effort to marginalize the party. That may not be the best tactic since all three are gaining in popularity almost every day. It’s hard to convincingly claim that a majority of Americans are on the fringes for a majority does agree with at least a significant part of the message being spread by the three.

    While government is formed for the organization of society and the protection of life and property, politics is the effort of individuals and groups to use government for their own gain in power over others. The GOP is about politics as much as the Democratic Party is. Each wants power. Beck and Palin at least are dedicated to promoting proper government. Limbaugh walks the line between good principles and power, desiring a strong GOP that follows good principles. It is the principles of good government the people of America are responding to just now. The Democrats have been hemorrhaging supporters and losing leadership at an alarming rate as well, though the full extent of this problem won’t be evident until after the November elections for Congress. It is parties and leadership the Americans have become disillusioned with. For the moment, politics is disgusting to all and freedom becoming palatable again.

  • High Noon in the Maldives

    Two years after the Maldives attainted the Wilsonian democracy, it’s witnessing a classic test of democratic ideals with a political struggle emerging between President Mohamed Nasheed and the opposition dominated parliament which has given Islamic terrorism a foothold in the young nation. The struggle has “invited” regional mediation from Sri Lanka with the countries as China, India and Pakistan wanting to have a crack at solving the problem as well. The United States, meanwhile, have urged Malé to accept international (i.e., not regional) mediation.

    Now, what worries India and the United States the most is that with the Maldives struggling with its infant democracy, there is every chance of the political chaos being used by jihadi extremists to use the island nation as a springboard for terrorism. Indian intelligence was alerted recently from Western sources that the internationally banned terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), which is based in Pakistan, had been trying to set up base in isolated islands of the Maldives. The group may well use the Maldives, which has largely a Sunni Muslim population, to launch attacks throughout South Asia.

    One instance when Islamic militancy raised its head was on September 29, 2007 when the Sultan Park bombing in Malé took place; the first ever Islamist terror strike in the Maldives. Though Islamic militancy isn’t entirely new to the Maldives — this started in the early 1980s under President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom — what is new is the clash between Salafi Sunni traditions versus the Shāfi’ī Sunni traditions. The latter is a culmination of the indigenous Maldivian culture whereas the former was imported through the return of students from the Arab world and Pakistan. Many of the “hardcored” Islamic motivated students are located in the southern atolls of the Maldives. They call themselves Super Salafis.

    Small scale insurgency attacks started in the Maldives after it was believed that President Gayoom, who came to power in 1978 by citing his Islamic credentials polished at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt, ditched his Islamic agenda. Now with the more Western liberal Oxford educated President Nasheed in power, the fissures between the Salafis and the ruling establishment has only increased. It’s particularly evident in the southern atolls. Precisely for this reason, the Maldives’ government is engaging with India to set up underground radars on all of its 26 atolls.

    There are reports which also suggest that there’s an increase in the number of tourists from Pakistan to the Maldives. Annually, the islands hosts about 700,000 tourists, most of them from Europe and the United States which is part of the reason why Western governments are so concerned that jihadists might imitate the 2002 bombing that occurred in Bali, Indonesia.

    Politically in the Maldives the government and opposition started a dialogue to ease tension on the advice of US Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs, Robert Blake Jr. Blake traveled to Malé to mediate between the opposition and president while Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse visited the capital on July 7 on invitation from his Maldivian counterpart to help him out of the matrix that is the current political predicament. It’s to be noted that Rajapakse has political capital in the Maldives for successfully annihilating the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam last year.

    As the great American poet Mark Twain observed, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.” In the case of the Maldives that sounds perfectly apt as the islands descend into a political chaos much like it did twenty years ago. At the time, in November 1988, Abdullah Luthufi and some eighty armed mercenaries of the Sri Lankan People’s Liberation Organization of Tamil Eelam (PLOTE) attempted to overthrow the Maldivian government but failed when Indian forces intervened with some 1,600 troops send by air to restore order. This act helped seal Indo-Maldives relations and it was a classic example of the application of India’s Monroe Doctrine.

    The present situation has not gone unnoticed in the capitals of today’s Asian giants. India considers the Maldives within the ambit of its Monroe Doctrine. In August 2009 a defense pact was signed between India and the Maldives. The last thing New Delhi wants is to have the islands succumb to internal power struggle with Islamic militancy on the rise around the Indian Ocean. China has active trade relations with the Maldives and it’s watching the ongoing political fiasco in Malé with great interest.

    The seeds of the present discord in the Maldives go back to the 2009 parliamentary election when the Dhivehi Rayyithunge Party (DRP) led by Maumoon Abdul Gayoom managed to get only a simple majority in parliament with the help of the People’s Alliance (PA) and some independents. President Nasheed’s Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP) has 28 representatives and the support of four independents in the 77 seat parliament.

    The Maldives function under a multiparty system with the president assembling a cabinet with parliamentary approval. Parliament also has the power to remove a minister with a motion of non confidence. Though DRP gained control of the legislature it fell short of the twothirds majority needed to impeach the president. At the same time, President Nasheed can’t dismiss the assembly until it completes its full five year term. The outcome has been a political deadlock.

    The crisis reached its height in June when thirteen members of Nasheed’s cabinet resigned. The reason cited was somewhat new in any parliamentary democracy: they claimed to have “working problems” with parliament. Though the ministers were reappointed at the insistence of Sri Lankan President Rajapaksa who undertook a one day goodwill tour to the Maldives on July 7 and managed to get the government and the opposition to agree to form a committee to address the political problem in the Maldives, the fissure is bound to last.

    Historically, the Maldives had their first constitution in 1932. Since, the country was ruled as a constitutional monarchy. A republic was established in January 1953 but it was short lived and the monarchy was restored in August of that same year. A second republic was proclaimed in November 1968. Maumoon Abdul Gayoom became the second president of the republic in 1978 and held power till the decisive October 2008 elections when Nasheed secured the presidency.

    The problem with the Maldives’ politics is multiplied by the paradox of its constitution. The constitution, which was adopted in August 2008, establishes a presidential system of government though vests significant power with parliament. It is a classic example of decentralization with extended checks and balances. This becomes problematic in case parliament is controlled by the opposition as is the case in the Maldives today. The opposition is then able to obstruct the core functions of the executive, such as raising taxes and providing subsidies.

    The escalating political rift in the Maldives casts doubt upon Malé’s ability to host the 17th South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation Summit next year. The Maldives were supposed to host the 16th SAARC summit in July 2008 which the government was unable to facilitate because of preparations for the October elections.

    Those elections led Mohamed Nasheed to victory against then President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom. Gayoom was considered an oppressive ruler with a record of being Asia’s longest serving head of state; Gayoom was in power for thirty consecutive years.

    In many ways, President Nasheed was thought of as the Maldives’s Barack Obama. Just like Obama won the November 2008 elections in the United States on a message of hope and change, Nasheed was able to overthrow Gayoom’s “regime” campaigning on a message of “audacity of hope.” Like Obama, in many ways, Nasheed comes off far too liberal in a conservative society as the Maldives however which is populated by 300,000 Sunni Muslims. It remains to be seen whether President Nasheed will be able to bring his dissents and opposition together in the young democratic nation.

    In conclusion it must be noted that the Maldives are in great strategic location in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Traditionally, all great powers that aspired to control the sea have sought to establish a base there — Portugal, the Netherlands, Britain, the United States and more recently, the Soviet Union. The southernmost island of the Maldives, the Gan Island in the Seenu Atoll, served as a base for the British Royal Navy during World War II.

    The last thing anyone wants is for the Maldives to become a safe haven for Islamic insurgents which why leaders as President Mahinda Rajapakse and Assistant Secretary of State Robert Blake had undertaken a “shuttle diplomacy” to ease the tension.

  • CIA Versus the White House in Afghanistan

    The end of summer is fast approaching and by the beginning of next month, the full contingent of the surge that President Barack Obamas promised last winter will be arriving in Afghanistan. With violence at an all time high and Taliban insurgents expanding their area of operations in different parts of the country (like a recent attack on Afghanistan’s northern border with Tajikistan), American and NATO forces need all the boots they can get to turn the tide.

    Yet at this point, there seems to be little difference between success and failure. Whatever happens on the ground, critics and officials still resort to the same old questions about the mission. 1) Is it actually possible for the United States to stem the Taliban’s momentum? 2) Can NATO achieve its security objectives if Afghan government corruption continues to push the civilian population away? But more importantly: 3) Should the White House minimize its goals of rebuilding Afghan society to tracking down and killing international terrorists? (more…)