Following the news that the U.S. and Iraqi government have settled on a Status of Forces agreement that could - in theory - have all U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011, Andrew Sullivan writes:

This is important because it removes from the hard right the possibility of playing the Dolchstoss card. The usual suspects - Reynolds, Hanson, Krauthammer, Kagan - will be unable to say that the chaos and mass murder that will almost certainly follow in 2010 and 2011 is Obama's responsibility. It isn't.

They will try to argue that Obama's choice to withdraw has led to a victory for al Qaeda and that the Democrats have stabbed American troops in the back. (You can almost write Palin's primary campaign message three years ahead of time.) But now that the Iraqis themselves have insisted on total US withdrawal by 2011 regardless, the neocons will not be able to play that card - or at leat [sic] play it with any credibility.

Well, color me skeptical. To the extent this card has any credibility will depend on the views of the broader public. But I'm fairly confident that the same people who embraced the "freedom agenda" for the Middle East will play such a card with gusto. In fact, we already see the contours of the new neoconservative argument: the views of the Iraqi government are subordinate to America's interests in the region and therefore, we must stay no matter what they say.

We already saw it happening before the campaign. Here's the American Enterprise Institute's Thomas Donnelly contrasting John McCain's approach to Iraq with Barack Obama's:

It was also revealing to note where the speeches sought sources of authority for their arguments. Senator McCain cited Gen. David Petraeus and “our troops on the ground when they say, as they have on my many trips to Iraq, ‘Let us win. Just let us win.’” Senator Obama noted that Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, has embraced his 16-month withdrawal timetable.

Here's AEI's Danielle Plekta in testimony before Congress:

The question of the extension of the United Nations mandate that governs the allied presence in Iraq has received undue attention, and distracted from the very real question of American interests. Presumably, one's position on the wisdom of the initial decision to topple Saddam Hussein notwithstanding, few responsible American leaders are interested in leaving Iraq if in so doing they create an environment that poses a threat to American security or that of our allies.

The same voices that cried out for "democratizing" the Middle East will smoothly transition into accusing Obama of selling out America's strategic interests to the Iraqis and their Iranian masters. Unlike the "democracy promotion" argument, this one will have the convenience of appealing to "Jacksonian" conservatives who never cared much for the "freedom agenda" in the first place.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 12:21 PM | Email | Print | Permalink |

I wonder how Dave "the Taliban must be annihilated" Dilegge at the Small Wars Journal is taking this news:

Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, said Sunday that he would guarantee the safety of the Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar if Mr. Omar agreed to negotiate for a peaceful settlement of the worsening conflict in the country....

...He added, “If I say I want protection for Mullah Omar, the international community has two choices: remove me, or leave if they disagree.”

How long, precisely, would Karzai survive absent the international community?

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 9:18 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

I stumbled across this interesting map of the imperial history of the Middle East from 3000 B.C. to the present day. Note the overlap of all the various kingdoms:

Pretty neat, huh?

Posted by Stephen Pennartz at 1:47 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

On the heels of the announcement of the Chinese government’s massive stimulus plan, many domestic newspapers weighed in with commentary on the global financial crisis and its potential effect on the nation. The official government newspaper, People’s Daily, sees in the crisis an opportunity to test and strengthen Chinese business enterprises and government officials that survive this crisis. It also sees a vindication of China’s development path:

“Socialism with Chinese characteristics is unprecedented in the history of mankind. We acknowledge that our social structure is not perfect and contains all sorts of inadequacies and problems. However, it does not follow that we should question the path we have taken, nor should we automatically regard the Western model as superior. … We must get past the fallacious notion that ‘all that is Western is advanced,’ and face others with objectivity and rationality. We must be practical and sensible in taking stock of ourselves, forgo superstition, and not blindly follow the crowd.”

Singapore’s leading Chinese-language daily, Lianhe Zaobao, sees China advancing in international stature through this crisis: “In the midst of the bleak outlook surrounding the global economy, the unveiling of Beijing’s market bailout plan has shown that it marches to the beat of a different drummer. China perhaps feels that it needs to let the world know once more that not only is it able to take care of itself, but that the nation’s stability and development is its most concrete contribution to the world economy. Consequently, in the international economic order of the future, China has reason to occupy an important role.”

Meanwhile, Taiwanese society is reverberating from the aftershocks of protests surrounding the November 3rd visit of a Chinese official and last week’s detention of former president Chen Shui-bian on corruption charges. Chen joins seven other current and former government officials, all members of the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), who have either been arrested or detained during the past few months on separate charges, raising suspicions that government prosecutors have been solely targeting opposition figures.

In an editorial, the Apple Daily, a popular tabloid in Taiwan, writes, “It is a fact clearly witnessed by all that the judiciary has only been going after [opposition party members] and ignoring [ruling party members.] Consequently, the judiciary has gained for itself the unsavory reputation of a political hit man. This has seriously affected the independence and dignity of the law. When the law is unable to remain politically neutral, it will deepen social fissures, lead to further polarization, and betray its mission as society’s arbiter.”

While it may be a stretch to conclude that the judiciary is being controlled by the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), it is even more difficult to attribute the one-sidedness of these recent prosecutions to mere coincidence.

Posted by James Chen at 5:23 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

This week, the French newspapers were so full of 'isms' such as 'socialism', 'capitalism' and 'liberalism' that one could have believed to be living the 60s all over again. But in the end, the word that got the most traction is 'socialism', for two main reasons.

First, this week featured the opening of the congress of the Socialist Party (France's main opposition party, left-wing). But we'll get back to that.

Second, President Sarkozy has been criticized heavily by some in his own party and abroad (including the U.S. president) for his promotion of a 'renewed capitalism' in the face of the financial crisis. These critics have pointed out that the Bretton Woods capitalist system has been remarkably successful since the end of World War II and that wealth redistribution and protectionist policies do not offer future safeguards against financial crisis such as the one we are facing right now.

The reason why the reform of capitalism was on the agenda this week has a lot to do with the financial crisis itself, but also with the G20 meeting that occurred to find solutions regarding this very crisis. Regarding the meeting, nothing substantial came out of it. The only point of interest from a French perspective was that it gave an updated view of France's diplomatic power. To that effect, Le Figaro reported on the most difficult and the friendliest relations with foreign countries:

- Difficult relations with: Hu Jintao from China, Angela Merkel from Germany, Dimitri Medvedev from Russia and King Mohamed VI from Morocco.

- Easy relations with: Gordon Brown from the U.K., José Luis Zapatera from Spain, Luiz Ignacio 'Lula' Da Silva from Brazil and Silvio Berlusconi from Italy.

As Mr. Sarkozy was making headlines in international news, his political foes from the opposition Socialist Party were making their own in the domestic front as they gathered in Reims to give their party a new program and renew its leadership. Sign of changing times, the race for the job of Party First Secretary after François Hollande called it quits features two women as the front runners. The first is of course Ségolène Royal, who represented her party in the 2007 race for president. She still has charm, wit and charisma, but she carries her unsuccessful bid for the presidency in 2007 as a weight that is turning off many socialist militants. Also, she has been accused within socialist ranks of 'moving towards the center,' or worse: populism!

Her opponent, Martine Aubry, is not as well known by the general public as Royal. However, she is gaining traction among some socialists by running as a 'true socialist' and criticizing Royal's 'move towards the center.' ... So between a center-left candidate who could not gather enough centrist votes to win two years ago (Ms. Royal) and a pure leftist candidate in a country where there are already at least four other parties who rally extreme leftists, my guess is that the Socialist Party is, despite encouraging results in the last municipal elections, going to continue to marginalize itself in the left corner of French politics.

So as much as he wants to reform capitalism abroad, President Sarkozy does NOT want French socialists to reform themselves, because their moving further to the left only strengthens his grip on the presidency. Of course the presidential election is still three years from now, Mr. Sarkozy thus has plenty of time to make gaffes. But if the Socialist Party of 2012 looks anything like that of 2008, he will prevail, once more.

Posted by Marc Desnoyers at 4:09 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Now that the US election is over, Russian papers are commenting on the daily issues of concern to Moscow, most notably the G20 summit currently taking place in Washington and the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama.

Vgzlyad paper noted one of the first meetings conducted by President-elect Obama's representatives was done with the Russian delegation, represented by the officials from Medvedev's office as well as new Russian Ambassador in the United States, Sergey Kilsyak. The paper also commented on the protests taking place near the summit, as well as citing Venezuelan President Chavez's desire to conduct an alternative summit in his country's capital.

Other papers are actively commenting on the possible makeup of the Obama Administration. Daily Gazeta again reiterated earlier sentiments that Joe Biden will be a hawkish Vice President, reminding its readers that he actively supported "Republican initiative of" Kosovo independence against Russian ally Serbia. The paper also stated that the future Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel is a staunch pro-Israel politician and "an advocate of a harsher line in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," earning the moniker "aggressive Democrat." The same paper also notes Senator Clinton's good chances of beings chosen as the next Secretary of State, quoting her statements that she would like to be a "good partner to President-elect Obama."

Daily Izvestia wrote about Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's desire to be the mediator in US-Russia relations. It cited his fears that the placement of Russian short-range missile in the Kaliningrad region is a "return to the Cold War fears." The paper quoted Berlusconi's statement that he "advised Obama to stop escalation of negative rhetoric towards Russia - I think that is more important than Iraq." Izvestia then commented that it was not clear what was Obama's reaction to that conversation after the Italian PM called Obama a "young, handsome and well-tanned politician."

Nezavisimaya Gazeta wrote that US General Henry Obering is "provoking" President-elect Obama by stating that US strategic interests will be diminished if Obama "freezes the anti-missile defense initiative in Europe. "Obering called on the Democratic administration to ignore Moscow's protests and to realize the radar deployment in the Czech Republic and the interceptors in Poland. The same paper discussed in a different article an idea that America does not fear Russia because the current financial crisis will hit Russian's military the hardest, thus diminishing Moscow's ability to actively compete with the United States.

However, the paper proposed that the Russian government will not change its budget, even in crisis, because to do so would be to first admit that Moscow did not adequately prepare for global financial upheavals (which Kremlin will never do); and second, Russian government is actively and successfully "exporting the ideal of a besieged fortress ... surrounded on all sides by Western allies and their anti-Russian satellites, Russia is now rising in global prominence. ... In these conditions, it is simply unthinkable not to give adequate share of the budget to the Russian military."

Posted by Yevgeny Bendersky at 2:19 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

C.I.A. Director Michael Hayden spoke at the Atlantic Council yesterday. James Joyner was on the scene. He quotes Hayden as saying that he believes "the last year has provided 'clear and mounting evidence' that we're winning here because 'authentic voices' -- respected Muslim leaders -- are speaking out against the "un-Islamic" barbarity of al-Qaeda. The upshot of this is that it "can only subsist beyond the reach of civilization and the rule of law."

I wonder if these voices are speaking out against al-Qaeda barbarity writ large, or against al-Qaeda's violence perpetrated against other Muslims. That's an important distinction. World Public Opinion has some numbers - albeit from April 2007 - that paint a mixed picture. On the one hand, publics in Egypt, Pakistan, Morocco and Indonesia, reject violence against civilians. On the other hand, most endorse al-Qaeda's goals:

Large majorities in all countries (average 70 percent or higher) support such goals as: "stand up to Americans and affirm the dignity of the Islamic people," "push the US to remove its bases and its military forces from all Islamic countries," and "pressure the United States to not favor Israel."

Pew Research also has some numbers from 2008 that similarly offer a reason for both hope and dismay.

We may not be winning the ideological battle per se so much as al-Qaeda is losing it. Again, that's an important distinction, because new leaders could direct the group away from attacks against fellow Muslims and back toward Western targets (which is what Ayman al Zawahiri urged the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to do in Iraq). That, in turn, would improve al-Qaeda's standing in the Muslim world and put the U.S. back on square one.

See also: Patrick Barry.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 9:06 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Here's one way to get your point across:

With Russian tanks only 30 miles from Tbilisi on August 12, Mr Sarkozy told Mr Putin that the world would not accept the overthrow of Georgia’s Government. According to Mr Levitte, the Russian seemed unconcerned by international reaction. “I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls,” Mr Putin declared.

Pleasant.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 8:15 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Mehdi Khalaji on talking to Iran's Supreme Leader:

Based on past experience, as long as the Iranian supreme leader does not see dialogue with the United States as necessary for the survival of the regime, he will be unlikely to make much effort to alter the status quo. Of course, receiving an offer from the next administration for unconditional negotiations will place Khamenei in a difficult position. He has always tried to portray America as responsible for the strains in U.S.-Iranian relations. Asking him to negotiate would undercut this argument and place the burden of responsibility on him for the lack of dialogue.

Khamenei's management model in the past two decades has been to have as much authority as possible with as little responsibility as possible. The first step for dealing directly with the Iranian government is to make its supreme leader responsible. Addressing him directly and publicly with a call to initiate a dialogue will close the exit doors available to him and require him to make a decision. In dealing with the United States, Khamenei's ideal scenario has been "no war, no peace." This strategy has allowed him to continue the nuclear program and minimize the damage associated with it. Given the fact that Iran could well obtain the ability to produce a nuclear bomb in the near future, the United States has to convince him that the "no war, no peace" strategy will no longer work, and that he has to choose either war or peace.

This is indeed the problem with the so-called "Grand Bargain" approach to Iran, as I've mentioned here in the past. The tiny, cultish cabal that runs the Islamic Republic of Iran needs self-imposed isolation in order to rationalize its existence. They resent and loathe "Westoxication," but they more importantly need it in a peripheral sense in order to retain control of their country. It is the yin to their totalitarian yang. The constant threat of Western encroachment is far more valuable to them than its actual defeat. This is why Iranian democrats and human rights activists ask the West to stay out of Iranian affairs -- it only serves to bolster the reactionaries in power.

And it's becoming abundantly obvious that a U.S. president willing to call Tehran's bluff frightens them. Barack Obama presents a legitimate soft-power threat to the Khomeinists, and forces the regime to be either at war or at peace. Iran's happy in-between could soon collapse. No matter the rhetoric, one thing must be understood: Iran doesn't really want to engage in serious, comprehensive negotiations. To do so would undermine their national ideology.

This puts President Obama in a bind. Rapprochement with Iran will cause domestic discontent politically, and it may yield little reciprocation. Should he continue the George Bush/Robert Gates policy of isolation, pressure and carrots, or must President Obama dump more carrots on the table? Which policy path does he choose?

We may soon find out, as President-elect Obama decides whether or not to keep Secretary Gates as a member of his administration.

UPDATE:

Spencer Ackerman offers a false choice on the matter:

All of a sudden, you’re deprived of a method of demagoguery that’s aided your regime for a generation. And if you refuse to negotiate, you’ve just undermined everything you told the international community you wanted, and now appear unreasonable, erratic, and unattractive to foreign capitols. Amazing how the prospects for peace are more destabilizing to the Iranian establishment than any inevitably-counterproductive-and-destructive bombing campaign or war of internal subterfuge.

The latter is debatable (we don't know that American involvement in the Iranian east will end under President Obama, and I don't know that Obama has promised to halt democracy promotion inside the republic's borders), and the former is mostly a manifestation of marginal neoconservative think-tanks and jittery leftists. President Bush categorically denied talk of an Iran attack, and the administration's behavior has been one of international compliance and pressure. They realize that the Iraq campaign has handcuffed them.

The real choice here, as I noted above, is whether or not to demand a halt in uranium enrichment prior to negotiations. The UN has called for it. The IAEA acknowledges that Iran has been uncooperative. If President Obama hopes to restore the validity of the international non-proliferation regime, well, wouldn't Iran be a good start? Does Tehran's disregard for said system bode well for future non-proliferation efforts?

Ed Morrissey shares my cynicism.

Posted by Kevin Sullivan at 9:24 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Ilan Goldenberg laments the "lazy no change stories" that argue that President-elect Obama won't really change much in the realm of foreign policy. He follows that up with a more sustained attack on Newsweek's John Barry for making the "no change argument."

With all due respect, I think Goldenberg is missing the forest for the trees here. Obama will unquestionably change things about U.S. foreign policy. Closing Guantanamo Bay, "surging" into Afghanistan, opening a more sustained and direct dialogue with Tehran - these are all serious, and to my mind, mostly welcome, policy shifts.

But any foreign policy is anchored in something deeper than policy. It is anchored to an understanding of American national security interests and it is here where it is very difficult to discern any major "change" in Obama's approach. Oh sure, there is plenty of rhetoric about "dignity promotion" and the like, but that only underscores the fact that Obama shares his predecessor's capacious view of what America's "vital interests" are.

As I wrote earlier:

The defining feature of America’s post Cold War political debate is that while every campaign pays rhetorical homage to the “new world” we live in, none appear interested in actually pondering its strategic significance. The global defense obligations that America assumed as a direct response to the urgent threat of Soviet communism have morphed into the hubristic conceit that it is incumbent upon the U.S. to be, as former Secretary of State Madeline Albright put it, “the indispensable nation.”

Thus, Obama proclaims that “the mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity.”

Obama wants to change how America leads the world. He has nothing to say on whether this is a proper or sustainable role for a democratic republic. Fair enough, of course. There are certainly circumstances where I think global activism and leadership are warranted.

But it's not enough to wave around serious (although still prospective) policy changes as proof that Obama is a transformative change agent. There's more to "change" than that.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 9:18 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Just when you thought you could stop worrying about energy (at least for a day or so), here comes the International Energy Agency:

A lack of investment in new sources of oil risks a supply crunch worse than the problems that pushed prices to $147 a barrel this summer, the developed world’s energy watchdog said on Wednesday.

The International Energy Agency warned that cuts and delays in investment that were prompted by the fall in oil prices and the credit crunch had put the world “on a bad path”.

Nate Hagens at The Oil Drum says that "this report shatters the global illusion that oil resources magically turn into cheap flow rates." The Oil Drum has a more detailed look at the report here.

Michael Kanellos at Seeking Alpha says "we're on a collision course with ourselves."

What the IEA is calling for is investment to stave off a much larger supply crunch when the global economy eventually rights itself and demand ramps back up. It is asking governments to take the long view.

Good luck with that.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 7:29 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Noam Scheiber over at TNR's The Stump on President-elect Obama's Osama focus:

I'm all for catching the guy, and for shaking up an effort that appears to have stalled out under Bush. On the other hand, as intelligence officials tell the Post, "the decentralized al-Qaeda network would remain a threat without him." On top of which, you have to figure the Bushies were dying to catch bin Laden--it would have been a symbolic victory they could use to divert attention from their many national-security failures. If they weren't able to do it with that motivation, you have to figure it's pretty damn hard. [Emphasis my own. KS]

And here I believe Noam touches upon why it's imperative that President Obama capture or kill Osama bin Laden. While it's true bin Laden's tactical involvement in al-Qaeda remains unclear, it's also pretty clear that his hovering presence over the war on terrorism affects both the tangible and less tangible elements of the conflict. I believe Peter Bergen summarized the former pretty well back in July:

As has always been true in shadowy, borderless wars, measuring the strength of the enemy isn't an exact science. It's true that many of the "leaderless jihadis" have set up operations independently of al-Qaeda, but when they turn to bin Laden's organization, it's not just for inspiration but also for training, assistance and direction — in short, for leadership. Many are able and willing to do bin Laden's bidding; they pay very careful attention to his Internet postings and follow his instructions. And although their targets have generally been close to home, their association with al-Qaeda has tended to take their ambitions beyond their borders. What's more, many of these homegrown wannabes live in the West.

It was al-Qaeda's direct involvement that helped a leaderless group of British jihadis mount the multiple London bombings on July 7, 2005, that killed 52 commuters. Two of the bombers had traveled to Pakistan, met with al-Qaeda commanders and made martyrdom tapes with al-Qaeda's video-production arm there. A year later, British investigators uncovered a plot by another cell of British Pakistanis to bring down seven American and Canadian passenger jets. According to Lieut. General Michael Maples, head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, the plotters received direction from al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Bin Laden's interest in British jihadis didn't end there. Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, said last year that "over the past five years, much of the command, control and inspiration for attack-planning in the U.K. has derived from al-Qaeda's remaining core leadership in the tribal areas of Pakistan."

Implementation aside, bin Laden's interminable presence also does a psychological disservice to America's security endeavors abroad. Tora Bora was widely viewed as a military failure that exposed the apex of America's ability to prosecute those whom do her harm. It was the tip of the American saber, and since then - in both Afghanistan and Iraq - our substantive gains and accomplishments have been mixed.

When you attack the United States, it has been said, you run the risk of awaking a "sleeping giant." That line - often attributed to Japanese admiral Isoroku Yamamoto following the empire's attack on Pearl Harbor - rang true then and continued as such until the Vietnam War.

America faces another ambiguous ending once again in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether we stay or we go, it's pretty obvious that Iran's influence in Iraq is a foregone conclusion. Whether or not we've truly accomplished any of the enumerated goals outlined during the 2003 invasion of Iraq is uncertain. Afghanistan is a failing state in turmoil. How these two fronts have safeguarded the American people from another attack is unclear. Yamamoto's alleged faith in America's retaliatory might stands in question today, as the American superpower seemingly stumbles and swipes at every perceived phantom around the globe.

The nation that won two world wars and destroyed fascism, communism and took the world's reins in the 20th century has been cowered by the aura of a man in a cave. To call this a step backward would be a gross understatement.

In 1998, the unsatisfying campaign in Southeast Asia was perhaps concluded with the equally unsatisfying death of Cambodian Prime Minister Saloth Sar - also known as Pol Pot. The man whose Khmer Rogue militia murdered over a quarter of their fellow Cambodians - only to flee when a victorious and emboldened Vietnam invaded his nation - died quietly that year, perhaps naturally, in a small Cambodian village. The world has often been robbed of the chance to directly redress the actions made by some of its worst wrongdoers. Pol Pot's death - whether it was natural, self induced or internal betrayal - left a lasting and unpleasant taste in the mouths of policy makers. It encapsulated an opportunity lost, and perhaps closed the parenthesis on America's Southeast Asian adventurism.

This is why President Obama must capture, and if necessary, kill Osama bin Laden. Dead or alive, show the world he has been detained or terminated. Make him take the global perp walk if possible, and give Americans the justice often denied the victims of global atrocities. Doing so will not make up for other blunders conducted abroad, but it just might prove once again that the "Sleeping Giant" always gets its man.

Posted by Kevin Sullivan at 10:16 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

It's difficult to say much useful about our military's sacrifices and values in this day and age. Not because superlatives are so difficult to come by, but because they are so easy. So many people have said such true and moving things that it is difficult to add to them. Me, I've spent much of the day reading ruminations* on Armistice Day from Britain - the language and the loss seemed to have met there in a particularly fitting way. In the United States, we are apt to think of the Great War as the debut of our nation in the role of superpower and world-shaper, which is in many ways accurate.

For Britain and France (and Germany and Italy and Austria-Hungary and Russia, actually), the conflict was an end much more than a beginning though - the end of an era, and of an entire generation. For both Britain and France, the scale of bloodshed makes even World War II pale in significance. That, somehow, seems to capture the role of the soldier particularly well - he (or, in modern times at least, she) doesn't know, or really care, what direction the geopolitical situation is shifting. He is defending her homeland and countrymen - and the sacrifice is awe-inspiring, regardless of whether or not the politicians or generals have their heads' screwed on right. Even more amazing when they don't, frankly. It could be the beginning of an empire or the end, the private doesn't know or really care. He cares about home, and the guys next to him.

I don't know what I would have done had I been sent to the trenches, though I've thought about it many times since I first read Wilfred Owen's "Dulce et Decorum Est" in 11th grade English - a poem which I've reread every year, and never ceases to amaze me in its sympathy for the soldier and hatred for war. Reality is, no one would know what they'd do in the trenches until they're there, I guess.

Anyway, it hasn't been my fate to find out, yet, thankfully; I'd be singularly unsuited to military life. I realized this fact with clarity when, in 12th grade, it was pointed out to me by my parents how early soldiers get up and how much they run and how much they have to listen to orders. An early riser I am not, still less a runner. And no one has ever accused me of being too eager to follow orders when I think them stupid, which is often. Maybe always.

But over the years I've come to be good friends with a good many of our sailors, soldiers, and airmen. Other good friends from the past have themselves become servicemen whom I respect and admire and secretly envy for their courage, and for the weighty impact their lives have on those around them.

And today I can at least unabashedly say how much I admire them their courage and their commitment. And say, in a way that I hope none of them will rag on me for the next time we drink together, thanks.

*By Alex Massie, at Culture11. He's too good a writer not to cite by name, but it didn't fit in the flow of the post, hence the unusual footnote.

Posted by Michael H. Cognato at 4:50 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Today is Remembrance Day. So let me just start by honoring all soldiers who died defending their country during war, be them Quebecers, Canadians, Americans, Frenchmen, Japanese or Russians. On a more personal note, I would like to honor my two great grandfathers who served in the Canadian army during the First and Second World War. I am honored by their sacrifice and will forever cherish the freedom that they fought to protect.

But this day is also a good day to reflect upon the apparent changes in Canadian foreign policy since the coming-to-power of the Harper government in 2006. I'm writing this because many progressive Canadians and Quebecers believe that what used to be a peacekeeping Canadian army has, under Harper's leadership, turned into an Americanized, ruthless killing machine. In fact, I think this assertion is wrong: Aside from a surge in spending, there are not that many differences between the way things are right now and what they supposedly were in the "golden age of Canadian peacekeeping."

First of all, a lot of this perception has to do with the Canadian army's presence on Afghan soil. May I remind our readers that it was in 2001, under Jean Chrétien's Liberal government, that Canadian soldiers were sent to Kabul? It was only weeks after the tragedy of 9/11, and most Canadians were at that time eager to serve along their American allies and friends in capturing or killing those responsible for the death of 3,000 innocents. I would also keep in mind that during the last general election campaign that took place just a month ago, the differences between Harper and Stephan Dion on Afghan policy were almost nonexistent. Both agreed on a 2011 withdrawal from combat missions, both draped themselves in Lester B. Pearson's legacy of a peacekeeping and democracy-protecting Canadian army.

Second, under any Canadian government, the Arctic Sea would have been militarized. Paul Martin's government gave such signals in 2004 and 2005, and Harper effectively captured the issue during the 2008 campaign. So here again, not much difference.

Third, does anyone believe that after stretching our army into Afghanistan and suffering a toll of more than 100 casualties, Canadians wold be ready to embark upon dangerous peacekeeping missions in Darfur or Congo? I think not!

I'll just conclude with these words from an op-ed piece in the National Post this morning:

For too long, our politicians, academics and educators have tried to bury or even deny our true military history, insisting we have never been a warrior nation. And while it is true that we have never as a culture glorified war, neither have we backed away.

Lest we forget.

Posted by Marc Desnoyers at 4:47 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |

Shadi Hamid at Democracy Arsenal is an ardent and eloquent proponent of democracy promotion in the Middle East. Not the gun-barrel variety, either.

Still, try as I might, I cannot square this circle:

Committing ourselves to real support for democracy and democrats in the Middle East is urgent for other reasons. Obama has a window of opportunity. Like all windows, this one will close. For the first time in recent memory, Arabs and Muslims are cheering on an American president (and, for that matter, praying for him). One of their longstanding grievances has been American support for dictatorships in the region. This isn’t to say we’re going to stop working with the Egyptian government (we need their cooperation on key national security issues). But it is to say that we should be making clear - not just with rhetoric but through policy changes on the ground - that we care about the state of human rights and political reform in the region.

Can you really have it both ways? I think that you're either serious about democracy promotion (i.e. regime change) or you're serious about cooperating with the existing rulers to advance key national security issues. You are not going to have both. The region's dictators are many things, but they're not foolish. If the U.S. were to truly press them on reform - particularly by making our generous financial and military aid conditional - I suspect that intelligence cooperation would simply dry up. Why should they help the U.S. when the U.S. is intent on subverting their rule?

Fast forward to 2011. You're the National Security Adviser and the Secretary of State and you're appearing before the National Committee for the Investigation of the Terror Attacks on the United States on July 4, 2010. You tell the committee members that cooperation with the Saudi and Egyptian intelligence services atrophied because you had preferred to use the leverage of American aid dollars to empower civil society groups working to undermine their regimes.

I suspect no on in an Obama administration would be willing to make such a trade-off.

Furthermore, as I said earlier, the U.S. is going to be paying increasingly less attention to the internal dynamics of the various Sunni Arab tyrannies as Iran progresses toward a nuclear weapon and we scramble to erect some form of containment regime. I personally believe this is mistake, but I'm also convinced it will happen and it will almost certainly vitiate any serious attempt to press these regimes to open up their politics - after all, it will make them considerably more vulnerable to Iranian-sponsored subversion, particularly in states like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain with large numbers of Shiites.

The great irony here is that we need the cooperation of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to protect us from a movement that is riled up precisely because we cooperate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia (among other grievances, real and imagined). We should spend less time worrying how to finesse their internal politics to bring our favored groups to power and instead spend time figuring out ways to disentangle ourselves from the region.

Posted by Greg Scoblete at 7:52 AM | Email | Print | Permalink |