More of the Same on Defense Spending Posted by Michael Cohen

I'm a bit late to the game on this one, but Tuesday Robert Kagan had an op-ed in the Washington Post calling for . . . surprise, surprise more money for defense spending.

Kagan employs the same tired rationales that DSZs (defense spending zealots) always seem to fall back on; like our enemies won't fear us if we cut spending and our allies won't trust us. (Right, because the fact that we already spend more on our military than every other major military power in the world combined is not intimidating enough.) 

Kagan also makes the "interesting" argument that Republicans will be unlikely to support foreign aid if they don't see increases in defense spending - so in order to get more money for development and democratization assistance we have to waste billions upon billions of dollars elsewhere. Only in Washington would this be considered a logical argument.

But above all, what is really missing from Kagan's argument is any kind of strategic rationale for why we need more defense spending. Instead of asking the all important question of what we want our military to do or how should the military be constructed to deal with 21st century security challenges, Kagan's answer is the same one we've been hearing for more than a generation: spend, spend, spend. .  

This is not to say, of course, that all defense spending is bad. Far from it. But just once I would like to hear Kagan or others who advocate for more defense spending explain how more money on tanks, planes and ships makes Americans more secure. 

That Wacky, Wacky John McCain Posted by Michael Cohen

During the 2008 Presidential campaign I used to joke that John McCain apparently does not understand the first thing about economics. At the time, I wondered if perhaps it was just political posturing, but if his statement today about the stimulus package is any indication . . . it was not an act.

"The American people are figuring it out," Mr. McCain said. "This is not a stimulus bill; it is a spending bill."

It would be difficult to express in the confines of a DA blog post why this is pretty much the dumbest thing to come out of a politician's mouth in quite some time. I would imagine I could find a college freshman taking a macroeconomic class who understands better than the Republican nominee for President in 2008 why a spending bill IS a stimulus package.

But I will turn instead to the man who defeated Mr. McCain in November to explain it:

Responding to the Republican criticism that it was a big spending bill, the president said: "What do you think a stimulus is? That's the whole point."

Exactly.

Israel's Ralph Nader? Posted by Adam Blickstein

Except the potential spoiler party in Israel is on the polar opposite end of the policy spectrum. The Jerusalem Post has the last polls before Tuesday's election, and it shows Israel's right wing Israel Beiteinu party siphoning votes from Netanyahu's Likud:

Likud's three-seat lead over Kadima is down from six mandates when the last Smith poll was published January 2. While Kadima has remained stagnant since then, Likud has lost three seats to Avigdor Lieberman's resurgent Israel Beiteinu.

Other polls showed similar trends. A Panels poll taken for Channel 2's Web site found that the gap between Likud and Kadima had fallen to only one seat, and a Dialogue poll taken for Ha'aretz put the gap at two. The largest gap between Likud and Kadima is six seats, in a Gal Hadash poll for Israel Hayom.

Lieberman continued to rise in nearly every poll, hitting a peak of 21 seats in a poll taken by the Geocartographic Institute for the Globes newspaper.

If only there was חמש מאות שלושים ושמונה (Five Thirty Eight) in Israel to sort it all out.

Who Knows What Evil Lurks In The Hearts Of Men? Posted by David Shorr

Leon Panetta's exchange with Senator Burr on torture and ticking bomb scenarios at his confirmation hearing the other day brought to mind an excellent December 2005 Andrew Sullivan essay in The New Republic. The more I think about it, the gloves-off, do-whatever-it-takes argument is more than an attempt to make the ends justify the means, and at some level is even more fundamental than the compelling ethical questions involved. When we talk about prying information out of someone's mind, we are fundamentally at odds with what it means to be human. Not as a matter of ideals, but as a matter of definition. Once you accept the premise that information can be extracted from someone's mind against his or her will, you have strayed from any recognizable concept of humans as conscious beings and are presuming a power that no one has over anyone else.

In other words, aside from the other problems with the ticking bomb debate, I don't think we've taken stock of how twisted and bizarre the whole idea is. One passage from the Sullivan essay gets to the heart of the matter:

What you see in the relationship between torturer and tortured is the absolute darkness of totalitarianism. You see one individual granted the most complete power he can ever hold over another. Not just confinement of his mobility--the abolition of his very agency. Torture uses a person's body to remove from his own control his conscience, his thoughts, his faith, his selfhood.

This is totally separate from any other judgments we might make about a person -- the evil of his acts or intentions. Here we are dealing with the basic fact of his being human. Namely, the only access we have to the contents of his mind are via his own decision to disclose them. If you believe in free will, then this barrier between what he knows and what we know cannot be breached forcibly. Skilled interrogators can tell us a lot about manipulation and and the tricks playing off human foibles, but information can only be coaxed, not pried. The way I see it, this renders the entire ticking bomb debate entirely moot.

Golova Moya Kruzhitsa - Part 2 Posted by Patrick Barry

Several excellent analyses out today, which evidence the serious confusion over Russia's priorities in Central Asia regarding the U.S., after Kyrgyzstan's announcement that it plans to close its Manas airbase to the U.S, resulting from pressure from Moscow.  On the one hand, this uncertainty is not unsurprising.  As the New York Times observes, Russia's attitude toward the U.S. has so far been schizophrenic, perhaps indicating an internal Russian political debate.  My own view however, is that the confusion derives primarily from tension between two Russian priorities, which would seem to pull their policy toward the U.S. in opposing directions: checking the growth of Muslim extremism in the region and establishing preeminence over Central Asia.

When it comes to achieving the former, a stronger partnership with the U.S. seems natural, since a Taliban victory in Afghanistan would likely have repercussions within the Muslim communities closer to Russia's borders.  After Chechnya, Russia has no desire to stir up anxieties amongst its own Muslim minorities.  Neither would it desire al-Qaeda to have a base from which to stage operations that could just as easily be directed at Moscow, as London, or New York.  From this perspective, throwing increased support behind the mission in Afghanistan makes total sense.

But when it comes to the latter priority - projecting influence over the Central Asian states - Russia's stance toward the U.S. is much less friendly.  Looking at some of the hot-button issues in the region, and you can see why.  A American military presence in Afghanistan is bad enough, but when you combine that with basing rights in Kyrgyzstan or Uzbekistan, along with the possibility of Georgia and Ukraine's NATO accession, you can see why Russia would be open to a more antagonistic set of options. 

For the time being, it appears as if Russia is trying to have it both ways - tightening its grip over Kyrgyzstan at the expense of the U.S., whilst simultaneously offering to help the U.S.' by offering NATO the use of transit routes through Russian territory to supply the mission in Afghanistan (but even this assistance probably accomplishes an ulterior goal of keeping Georgia from collaborating with NATO - ISAF on this issue)  Whether this mixed approach is feasible in the long-term is unknown, but it seems unlikely. 

NSN Daily Update 2/6/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update here.

What We’re Reading

French President Nicolas Sarkozy disparaged British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s response to the financial crisis, causing diplomatic tension between the two countries.

Kyrgyzstan says its decision to close the U.S. airbase is final.  Russia will allow the United States to transport non-military aid to Afghanistan over its territory.

An anti-Arab Israeli party that advocates expelling Israel’s Arabs citizens is expected to make gains in the elections next week.

The New York Times looks at the failures of Japan’s stimulus plan.

Commentary of the Day

Senator Joseph Lieberman discusses the opportunity in Afghanistan.

A former UK Chief of Defense Staff writes about the failures of enhanced interrogation techniques.

Enough with the Dress Code Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

All this grousing from the Bush administration about the new dress code in the oval office is just emblematic of everything that is wrong with the Bush administration - seriously misplaced priorities.   Here is what Andy Card had to say:

The Oval Office symbolizes...the Constitution, the hopes and dreams, and I'm going to say democracy. And when you have a dress code in the Supreme Court and a dress code on the floor of the Senate, floor of the House, I think it's appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President.

So I guess we should pay respect to the symbolism of the Constitution while we trample all over it?  I'm glad Jon Yoo and David Addington were respecting the constitution by dressing in suits as they recommended torturing detainees and disregarding a justice system that has worked for more than 200 years.  I wonder if prisoners at Abu Gharib were glad that the constitution was being respected by suit wearing men in the oval office?  For the Bush team to claim that not wearing a suit is somehow damaging to our democracy is not just silly.  It is the definition of chutzpa.

The Good News and the Bad News on Iraqi Elections Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

So the good news was really in the South where Maliki and his allies did very well.  Even more important was the fact that ISCI, long considered one of the dominant parties in the South and one with religious platform that is also based on devolving power away from the central government, got creamed.  They are now essentially a 10% party in the South while Maliki dominated.  As Reider Visser explains:

One is that they to some extent mark a rejection of sectarian identity politics... Maliki tried to emphasise Iraqi nationalism; ISCI tried to emphasise sectarian Shiism. Maliki won. Secondly, the results clearly signify the triumph of centralism over pro-federal sentiments. Again, Maliki very explicitly emphasised this contrast between himself as favouring control by Baghdad and ISCI as the party of radical decentralisation.

This seems like a positive step forward in terms of Iraqi politics. Although, it is worth pointing out that the primarily Shi'a south was still voting for a Shi'a candidate.  So, it's not as though sectarianism is dead.  It's also good to see an incumbent party get creamed.  In immature democracies incumbents often have such huge institutional advantages that this type of change in power is rare.  Then again, still important to remember that the non-incumbent party in this case was led by the sitting Prime Minister.  So, it is not quite the underdog story when an incumbent is surprised.

On the other hand the North and Center don't seem to be as promising.  Marc Lynch points out that Sunnis seemed to underachieve in Baghdad getting around 20% of the seats (This from a city that just a few years ago was 65% Sunni).  There is also still a great deal of tension in Anbar where the initial results had the IIP (The religious party) winning big and the some of the tribes threatening war in response.  It now appears that some of the tribal groups may have done better than initially reported and in fact defeated the IIP. The key question is whether all the players in Anbar will accept the election results or will this be the beginning of a new wave of intra-Sunni violence?

NSN Daily Update 2/5/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update, "New Leadership Needed on Intelligence," here.

What We’re Reading

A British High Court ruled that documents pertaining to Binyam Mohamed, a British resident being held at Guantanamo alleging torture, were to be kept secret.  In their ruling, the judges cited American threats to withhold intelligence cooperation with Britain if the papers were released.  David Milliband, the UK Foreign Secretary, denies any such threats occurred.

Iran denied visas for the U.S. women’s badminton team it had invited to compete in a tournament.  The British Council, a cultural office, suspended all work in Iran after intimidation.

President Obama may be taking significant steps to reduce the US nuclear stockpile.

Sweden scrapped their 30-year ban on building new nuclear reactors, joining a growing list of countries who are rethinking nuclear power.

Commentary of the Day

Timothy Garton Ash argues that Moscow’s role in the world is changing, and Europe better get ready.

Roger Cohen writes that military options are “unthinkable” in Iran.  David Ignatius writes about Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft’s views on diplomacy with Iran.

Rosa Brooks looks at what “finishing the job” means in Afghanistan.

President Obama advocates for the stimulus bill in the Washington Post.

Preparing For The 'Next War' Posted by The Editors

This post is by NSN Intern Jennifer Lickteig

There has long been a heated debate within the defense community about whether the current obsession with counterinsurgency is preparing the United States for future military engagements.  For instance, in Tom Rick’s Inbox for the Washington Post this weekend, a Marine Major General Larry Taylor highlighted the importance of being prepared for the “country’s next war” and the danger of making assumptions as to what type of war it will be:

“We had better damn well have the capability to fight the guerrilla and the nation-state, regardless of which of these is more or less likely.”

Considering the plans to send thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan within the next year, it seems almost certainly our next war is the one we have been neglecting for the past seven years. And while we still have yet to see the full terms of the administration’s strategy (Karen DeYoung’s piece in the Washington Post this morning, gave some hints, but also begs additional questions,) there does seem to be a strong consensus behind a set of counterinsurgency principles - a “hearts and minds” approach, summed up with the phrase “you’ve gotta live with the people to protect the people.” While Gen. Taylor is right that our military needs to prepare for all manner of conflicts, we should also first and foremost be prepared for the conflicts we are currently fighting.

The military’s development of its counter-insurgency skills through its adoption of more culturally-sensitive policies on tribal engagement and the deployment of human terrain teams (HTTs) are positive steps that not only apply to the type of warfare the U.S. is facing in Afghanistan but are likely relevant for conflicts that we will face in the future.  More importantly, these principles recognize that in instances when the U.S. is involved in counterinsurgency operations, the military is necessary, but not the only solution.  By institutionalizing the knowledge gained from these conflicts, we can hopefully avoid having to painfully relearn these lessons in another future guerrilla conflict. After all, part of the reason the U.S. has become less prepared for a conventional conflict is that we were woefully unprepared for conflicts of the low intensity variety. 

Iraq's Provincial Elections: Looking Ahead Posted by Shadi Hamid

I've written a short piece for World Politics Review (a great site by the way) on the Iraqi provincial elections and what they mean for future of Iraq's political development. One aspect I focus on is the process of "alternation of power" - and ask whether the losers of the election will accept the results peacefully:

Iraq's provincial elections took place without major incident, leading observers to let out a sigh of relief. Some hailed the elections for what they were -- in Larry Kaplow's words, "orderly, safe, and enthusiastic" -- others for what they weren't -- a vindication of the Iraq war and the subsequent surge. Most assessments thus far have been premature. After all, it is one thing to vote, it is quite another to accept the results.

The real test for Iraq's fledgling democracy will be not Saturday's voting, but rather how the competing parties come to interpret Saturday's meaning. While these were not the first elections since the American invasion, they were the first in which those in power were called upon to give it up according to the preferences of the electorate. It is worth remembering that, with the exception of Lebanon, there are no Arab polities where voters can replace their leaders through the ballot. With the Dawa Party likely to take over governates previously held by the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC), and Sunni Arabs wresting control of Niniveh from the minority Kurdish population, the process of power transfer has begun. It is less clear how it will end, and whether the vanquished will go down without a fight.

Already, in Anbar province, one of Iraq's literal "battleground states," threats of violence abound amid allegations of fraud. Ahmed abu Risha, leader of one of the famed "awakening councils," has said that if the Iraqi Islamic Party, which currently governs the province, ends up winning, Anbar will look like "Darfur." It is an odd analogy for an Arab politician to use, but one that may very well be apt.

You can read the whole thing here.

NSN Daily Update 2/4/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update, "New Challenges with Old Roots," here.

What We’re Reading

Former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi appears to have made gains in the provincial elections.  Iraq will investigate allegations of voter fraud in Anbar province.

Taliban fighters torched 10 trucks returning from Afghanistan that had been stranded by the destroyed bridge.

Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has reportedly decided to run for the presidency again in Iran’s June elections.

The U.S. military knew of safety issues with Humvees since 1994, almost ten years before they were used in Iraq.

Commentary of the Day

Spencer Ackerman takes apart Dick Cheney’s interview in Politico.

George Friedman writes about the challenges of getting supplies to the war in Afghanistan and some strategic implications.

Perry Link looks at the possible benefits of the financial crisis for the Chinese people.

Martin Wolf discusses the importance of U.S. leadership in the financial crisis.

Go Back To Your Undisclosed Location Posted by Adam Blickstein

Spencer has a pretty thorough dissection of Dick Cheney's absurd interview in Politico where the former Vice President pretty much preemptively blames Barack Obama for any future terrorist attack, citing the decision to close Guantanamo Bay and roll back the legal and national security abuses of the past 8 years as his rationale. All of Cheney's reckless bloviation has for the most part been discredited (the "61" number, the danger of incarcerating detainees on American soil), but  if he could, I think Cheney would blame President Obama for 9/11 even though he was a legislator in Springfield, Illinois and teaching conitutional law while Cheney was actually, um, Vice President at the time and preparing to tear the constitution apart. It's blatantly obvious that the neocon community is going to continue wielding Cheney as their point person in attacking the new Administration's national security policies while defending the failed record of the past eight years. Unfortunantly, the media still thinks he's a credible source for substance when all he's become is an avatar of a supermarket tabloid.

Devil Went Down to Georgia Posted by Patrick Barry

It may be time to dispel any notions that the U.S. can waltz into better relations with Russia through cooperation on Afghanistan. If reports turn out to be true, and Kyrgyzstan does intend to shut us out of the vital transport hub at the Manas airbase, then Russia has scored a major diplomatic coup, one with broad and unpleasant ramifications for U.S. policy in Afghanistan.  It will mean that in the span of about two weeks, the Kremlin will have successfully pulled off a two-part maneuver to decisively wrest substantial control over affairs in their strategic orbit away from the U.S.  

Consider the sequencing.  First, you had the announcement late last month that Russia had granted Gen. Petraeus permission to move supplies for Afghanistan through Russian territory. Several commentators greeted this announcement as a sign of warming relations, but a skeptical few theorized the decision had more to do with both the Kremlin's desire to own policy in it's region, and a feeling that alternative transit routes running farther to the south would wind up empowering neighbor Georgia.  Russia may have been motivated by a concern that any supply route passing through Georgia could have eventually become the basis for transiting other commodities.  From that perspective, Russia's offer of assistance in Afghanistan looked a lot less altruistic. 

Then you have today's announcement that Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev plans to close U.S. access to the airbase at Manas, a transport hub for supplying the mission in Afghanistan. Based on the the fact that this announcement came "minutes" after Russia announced its intent to provide Kyrgyzstan with billions in foreign aid, Moscow's involvement seems clear.  This development, coupled with the earlier transit route agreement, means that Russia now wields significant leverage over U.S. Afghanistan policy, controlling a supply artery that seems to grow more vital by the day. Moreover, they appear to have deliberately calibrated their policies to attain that leverage, which makes one wonder what else might be in store.

What implications these events will have on U.S. policy toward Russia going forward is unclear. Speculation that the Obama administration is planning a big nuclear arms reduction initiative demonstrates why a cooperative relationship is in both countries' interests.  However, the developments in Afghanistan show that attaining better relations will not be easy.

Sending the Right Signals Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

This seems like an incredibly sensible thing to do and a clear break with the Bush administration's policy.

The special U.S. envoy for Middle East peace, George Mitchell, has asked to open his own office in the region to deal with day-to-day developments between Israel, the Palestinians and neighboring states, signaling a desire for greater American hands-on involvement in negotiations.

This would be an early signal to everyone involved that the U.S. is serious about getting engaged - something that did not happen over the past eight years.  It's also important to remember that more U.S. engagement is not going to miraculously bring about peace.  Ultimately, the situation has to be resolved by the various parties and is most dependent on their own willingness to take tough steps.  But what is clear is that historically American engagement whether it be Henry Kissinger and the disengagement agreements, Jimmy Carter at Camp David, James Baker organizing Madrid, or Bill Clinton in the 1990s, generally helps.  And while there is broad consensus that the President has a full plate and should not be the  "desk officer" for the Middle East peace process, having a credible representative like George Mitchell with a real staff and presence on the ground sends all the right messages and makes it more likely that things will get done.

NSN Daily Update 2/3/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update, "Conservatives Bankrupt on Defense," here.

What We’re Reading

Taliban forces blew up a bridge in the Kyber Pass region, forcing a halt in the transit of NATO supplies from Pakistan to Afghanistan.

The new leader of the African Union, Muammar al-Qadhafi, seeks a single African state.

The E.U. criticized the “Buy American” clause in the U.S. stimulus bill.

Detainee-informant Yasim Muhammed Basardah poses legal questions.

Commentary of the Day

Paul B. Stares warns the U.S. to prepare for instability in North Korea.

CSM looks at Iran’s “waiting game” with the Obama administration.

Andrew Kuchins and Samuel Charap argue that the economic crisis offers opportunities for better US relations with Russia.

What is Grandiose Rhetoric? Posted by Michael Cohen

To respond to Shadi's point below, perhaps I should have been clearer in my earlier post. I would make the argument that the following is grandiose and overstated rhetoric:

We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

However, I don't think demanding that Egypt adhere to the rule of law and not arresting pro-democracy advocates is grandiose or overstated. But if you are going to demand that Egypt does these things you can't look the other way when the Mubarak regime does the opposite.

As I noted in my first post, "President Obama needs to speak about democracy in more manageable terms. He needs to offer a realistic and less dogmatic policy framework for discussing democracy promotion that takes into account both US interests and values." It's always a challenge to bridge US interests and values but when we make "democracy" the end all-be all, we make the challenge that greater.

Is it Good to Use Good Rhetoric in the Middle East? Posted by Shadi Hamid

Michael Cohen writes in a post last week that

There were many bad elements to President Bush's "Freedom Agenda," but few were worse than the grandiose and overstated rhetoric that he used when talking about democratization. You can't one day deliver a speech in Cairo criticizing the Egyptian government’s lack of adherence to the rule of law and its intimidation of pro-democracy advocates and then later do nothing when an opposition presidential candidate is thrown in prison. Yet, this is precisely what the Bush Administration did.

Unless I’m missing something here, I think Michael’s issue isn’t so much that the Bush rhetoric was grandiose, but, rather, that it was grandiose and Bush failed to back up the rhetoric with action. The problem wasn’t the rhetoric itself, but rather the failure to meet the expectations set by the rhetoric. So, a hypothetical is in order: let’s say X president used grandiose pro-democracy rhetoric, but followed it up with sustained pressure on autocratic regimes to open up their political systems (i.e. through aid conditionality, mobilizing international opinion when opposition leaders are imprisoned, and engaging with nonviolent Islamist groups)? In that circumstance, would we register the same complaints about overblown rhetoric? Some probably would, but then their issue isn’t really the rhetoric, so much as the fact that using such rhetoric binds us to an assertive democracy promotion policy.

In short, when there is a gap between rhetoric and action (i.e. a lot of rhetoric but little action), then there are two ways reduce the gap: either by 1) reducing pro-democracy rhetoric so that rhetoric is congruent with a policy that does not emphasize democracy promotion, or 2) keep pro-democracy rhetoric, but institute an assertive democracy promotion agenda, so that policy becomes congruent with rhetoric.

I suppose one could argue that #2 would be ideal, but that it is not realistic, and that #1 would not be ideal, but is, at least, realistic. This is the kind of conversation the left needs to be having, since, at some point, we will have to figure out what we think about promoting democracy in the Middle East.

Fareed Zakaria Travels to Foggy Afghanistan Posted by Patrick Barry

Fareed Zakaria enters the Afghanistan foray to take a crack at his own version of what the U.S. strategy should be, and in spite of the pretty bad misquote of Admiral Mullen (Hint - "In Afghanistan, we do what we can. In Iraq, we do what we must"), it's worth reading.  I'm not sure you will see anything new here in terms of policy (5 principles - using COIN effectively, bolstering Afghanistan's Gov't, getting the timing right, talking to the Taliban and pressuring Pakistan), but Zakaria has good insights into how these recommendations cohere:

Afghanistan is a complex problem, and progress will be slow and limited. But we need to stabilize the situation, not magically transform one of the poorest, most war-torn countries in the world in the next few years. It will help immeasurably if we keep in mind the basic objective of U.S. policy there. "My own personal view is that our primary goal is to prevent Afghanistan from being used as a base for terrorists and extremists to attack the United States and its allies," said Secretary of Defense Robert Gates last week. That is an admirably clear statement.

It is not that we don't have other goals—education, female literacy, centralized control of government services, drug eradication, liberal democracy. But many of them are objectives that will be realized over very long stretches of time, and should not be measured as part of military campaigns or political cycles. They are also goals that are not best achieved by military force. The U.S. Army is being asked to do enough as it is in Afghanistan. Helping it stay focused on a core mission is neither cramped nor defeatist. It is a realistic plan for success.

One thing that is somewhat absent from Zakaria's analysis is a region-wide diplomatic strategy.  Yes, he sort of gets at it by stating that, difficult as it may be, reducing tensions between India and Pakistan is central to stabilizing Afghanistan.  But the truth is that Afghanistan has come to contain a much broader, and more diverse set of regional challenges than Zakaria's piece acknowledges.  Some examples of this are Iran's activities in the region, especially among the Tajik population, and the evidence that Russia's policy of projecting influence includes taking greater ownership over affairs in the former Soviet satellite states to Afghanistan's north.  If there is any hope for rescuing Afghanistan, it is going to hinge on taking all the regional players, whose agendas up to this point have sharply diverged, and aligning them in support of a common goal.  And that is a very, very tall order.

NSN Daily Update 2/2/09 Posted by The National Security Network

See today's complete daily update, "Provincial Elections a Positive Step but the Key Is Whether they are Viewed as Fair," here.

What We’re Reading

Mexican drug cartels continue to evade American border security.

Johanna Sigurdardottir becomes Iceland’s prime minister and the first openly gay head of state.

Israeli candidates debate the outcome of the Gaza war.

Greek riot police fired tear gas at farmers to stop a tractor demonstration in continuing clashes over financial woes.

China orders efforts to stem potential social unrest after 20 million migrant workers lose their jobs.

Commentary of the Day

Fareed Zakaria lays out the key steps for success in Afghanistan.

Roger Cohen visits Tehran and writes about U.S.-Iranian relations.

Soner Cagaptay discusses modern Turkey.  The Washington Post interviewed Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Don Podesta compares former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s efforts to stifle the Chicago Tribune to “soft censorship” in the developing world.

When Is a Cut Not a Cut? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

Remember "fuzzy math?"  Over at Fox News, they've got an item up under the headine "Defense Official:  Obama Calling for Defense Budget Cuts."

The actual quote: 

     The Obama administration has asked the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff to cut the   Pentagon's budget request for the fiscal year 2010 by more than 10 percent -- about $55 billion -- a senior U.S. defense official tells FOX News.

The trick here:  the Pentagon's budget request was prepared before the change of Administration and not scrutinized by outsiders -- so it contains, as you might imagine, every bell and whistle every service has been dreaming of.  Not surprisingly, the Obama budget gurus told them to cut it back. 

Even less surprisingly, FOX made no effort to report the difference between a departmental budget request and an actual, enacted-into-law, budget.  Sigh.

My understanding is that a $55 billion cut will still leave the request ahead of last year's appropriation, but that's just rumor. 

The Post-Politics Of Military Force Posted by David Shorr

In the last few months I've spoken to local World Affairs Councils in Juneau, Anchorage, Kansas City, and St. Louis (together with DA founder Suzanne Nossel). My main theme has been a reoriented foreign policy of international cooperation aimed at fostering a stronger international community. (My entire spiel, audio and powerpoint, is available through the Alaskan World Affairs Council web site.) I really enjoy these events, each of which has included an excellent set of questions from attendees. Earlier this week in Kansas City, one of the questions seemed to show a way to break out of one of the circular political debates that has hampered constructive policy debate -- i.e. toward the post-politics of foreign policy.

I was really glad when a young servicemember at the Kansas City event pointed out that the oath he had taken did not include a duty to serve the global greater good. The question triggered memories of back-and-forths over whether American forces should (or did) serve under UN or other foreign commanders (e.g. Somalia). From what I recall of the 1990s, that was kind of a polarizing, go-nowhere debate, so I tried to step back and talk more broadly about the nature and extent of American interests.

The way I see it, we serve US international aims through three sets of considerations: national self-interests (security and economic), alliances and alignments (being a dependable friend), and the global spread of peace, prosperity, freedom, and good governance. These categories aren't divided by bright lines, but different actions or policies will serve one or another of these considerations to different degrees. My point is that a foreign policy focused narrowly on the first set (or first two) will not serve American interests or values very well. Or, as Suzanne and I argue, the United States has a "stake in the international system."

What the soldier in Kansas City wanted to know was whether there is a hierarchy of these impulses, and of course defending traditional national and strategic interests is a stronger imperative than the global commonweal. I should quickly add, though, the importance of guarding against over-stretching the concept of national interest. So what did this little colloquy have to do with "post-politics" and the new pragmatism (a hardy perennial here on DA)? Steering our foreign policy with all three of these impulses in mind will hardly result in a Hegelian synthesis devoid of hard choices. But post-politics does offer the chance for those who are more mindful of national interests than global interests -- or vice versa -- to engage in a constructive debate over how to strike the right balance, and perhaps lay the basis for a more effective policy. I expect that similar questions will arise over at TPM Cafe Book Club this week, where a few of us will be discussing Andrew Bacevich's The Limits of Power. 

Green Gold Posted by Adam Blickstein

Who doesn't love Guacamole on Super Bowl Sunday (almost as delicious as the Bacon Explosion)? Especially when, due to a regulation lifted in 2007 allowing all states to important the delicious fruit year round, avocados are cheaper today then they've ever been:

The avocado is a rare bright spot in the free-trade saga between the two countries. Most Mexican farmers view the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as a pact that undercuts them with low-cost US-grown corn, for example. But for NAFTA, the avocado is a success story here.

In the central state of Michoacán, Mexico's avocado belt, exports generated $400 million last year, and it's now the second source of income for the state – after remittances sent from Mexicans living in the US.

Changing of the "Guard" Posted by Michael Cohen

Today the AP confirms the inevitable - Blackwater is out

The State Department will not renew Blackwater Worldwide's contract to protect American diplomats in Iraq when it expires in May, a senior U.S. official said Friday.

Before all the anti-Blackwater folks pop champagne corks it's important to keep in mind that the problems we've seen in Iraq with PSCs are not restricted to Blackwater. They are symptomatic of a culture, both at the Pentagon and at the State Department, that has failed to adjust to the reality of its increased reliance on private contractors. Today, there are more contractors in Iraq than uniformed US military (and the vast majority don't carry guns). Yet, this heightened dependence has not been matched by a commensurate effort to hold these actors accountable and more important, integrate contractors into discussions about force structure and the fulfillment of mission requirements.

While there have been significant improvements in oversight since Nisour Square, there is still much work to be done. We are still awaiting long overdue MEJA expansion legislation in the Congress as well as a clearer sense from the military and State Department that they understand the challenges of integrating contractors. As the most recent State IG report makes clear, the problems in overseeing PSCs in Iraq remain significant.

Kicking out Blackwater will not make these challenges go away. Indeed, Blackwater will simply be replaced by DynCorp and Triple Canopy in Iraq. The problem's with PSCs in Iraq were never about BW; they were about the US Government's abdication of responsibility in overseeing the private companies in their charge.

It's a point that I hope is understood at Foggy Bottom and the Pentagon.

NSN Daily Update 1/30/09 Posted by The National Security Network

Today we released our Memo to the Community: The Way Forward in Iraq, which you can find here.

What We’re Reading

Three Sunni candidates in Iraq’s provincial elections were assassinated today.  The elections face a particular test in Mosul.  Security tightens for the vote.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out of a debate on Gaza with Israeli President Shimon Peres at Davos.

4.8 million Americans are on unemployment, a record high.  U.S. GDP fell 3.8% in the last quarter, however economists had predicted worse.  Exxon Mobile posted record-high profits, for the year despite the decline of oil prices in the fall.

In France, hundreds of thousands of people protest President Nicolas Sarkozy’s economic policies.  British energy workers walk out.

North Korea canceled a nonaggression pact and all other peace agreements with South Korea.

The U.S. military reported a record-high number of suicides this year, for the second year in a row.  The military is also investigating two West Point suicides.  Electric shocks still occurred through 2008 at bases in Iraq.  The Army ordered a recall of defective body armor.

President Obama selected Lt. General Karl W. Eikenberry to be the ambassador to Afghanistan.

The U.S. removed Kashmir from envoy Richard C. Holbrooke’s portfolio, a victory for India.

A Guantanamo judge denied President Obama’s request for a trial delay.

The opposition party in Zimbabwe agreed to a power-sharing plan.

Commentary of the Day

Philip Stephens examines the tasks of President Obama’s special envoys.

P.W. Singer looks at emerging battlefield technology.

Iqbal Z. Quadir proposes that the U.S. should dedicate foreign aid to entrepreneurs instead of to bad governments.