Canapés and Kalashnikovshttp://www.good.is/Fellows from the Truman National Security Project on the ongoing struggle for world peace.Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:35:52 -0800CakePHPhourly1en-us <![CDATA[What the Volcano Can Teach Us About Nuclear War]]> http://www.good.is/post/what-the-volcano-can-teach-us-about-nuclear-war/ http://www.good.is/post/what-the-volcano-can-teach-us-about-nuclear-war/


Think the ash cloud was bad? That's nothing compared to what would happen if India and Pakistan exchange just a few nukes.

Thousands of people were stranded across the globe. Perishable foods unable to be transported to Europe were spoiling in Kenyan warehouses. Altruistic Britons organized a flotilla of boats to ferry their stranded compatriots from Calais across the English Chanel to Dover—à la Dunkirk. Sounds like the end of the world, but all the drama and chaos was actually caused by an ash-spewing volcano.

The Icelandic menace whose name we cannot pronounce shut down air travel in Europe, with global consequences. Eyjafjallajökull, for all its volcanic fuming, can hardly even compare to a major disaster. Tsunamis, earthquakes and droughts have all done far worse—and so can we.

Even though “duck and cover” drills have gone the way of the dodo and VHS, people still understand that a nuclear explosion would cause unfathomable death and destruction. What they probably do not realize is that if a nuclear war broke out anywhere, the fallout would have global consequences that would kill millions of people, disrupt climate patterns, and threaten global agricultural collapse. How do we know that would happen? Volcanoes.

The 1815 explosion of Mt. Tambora in Indonesia was the biggest volcanic eruption in the past 500 years. The ash and dust it kicked up spread around the world, blotted out the sun, and cooled global temperatures by five degrees Fahrenheit for a year. The next year, 1816, became known as “The year without a summer” and New England saw crop-killing frosts every month. With crops failing, grain supplies dropped, food prices skyrocketed, and farmers sold animals they could not feed. Widespread famines began setting in.

Climate scientists have applied lessons from volcanic eruptions like Tambora to estimate how nuclear fallout would affect the global climate. The projections aren’t good.

Put aside Cold War ideas of a U.S.-Russian nuclear exchange, India and Pakistan are the world's tensest nuclear rivals. Both nations possess more than 100 nuclear weapons and they have mobilized for nuclear war with each other—twice. The scientists Alan Robock and Owen Brian Toon estimate (pdf) that in even a limited exchange—perhaps 50 nuclear explosions on each side—20 million Indians and Pakistanis would die from the nuclear blasts, fires, and radioactive fallout. But that's just the beginning. The firestorm ignited by the bombs would spread heavy smoke across South Asia and send 5 million tons of particles into the atmosphere. Within 49 days, the particles would “blanket the earth, blocking enough sunlight that skies would look overcast perpetually, everywhere.” With less sun, the global average surface-air temperature would drop by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Precipitation averages would fall and climate patterns would change dramatically.

With shortened and disrupted growing seasons, global agricultural production would be pushed to collapse. These declines in agricultural output would be felt everywhere simultaneously, grinding international markets to a halt. Since most cities or countries only keep enough food on hand for a very short period, hunger would start in a grocery store near you. Scientists estimate that the total grain stored on the planet today would only feed the earth’s population for about two months. After that, the world could start looking like The Road.

The ash cloud from Eyjafjallajökull provided a dramatic example of how fragile our interconnected economy can be. We should remember that when we consider the importance of eliminating nuclear weapons.

Global nuclear stockpiles dropped from a Cold War high of over 70,000 nuclear weapons in 1986 to about 23,000 weapons today—with 96 percent in the United States and Russia alone. But less than half a percent of the existing global stockpile could devastate the globe. Right now nuclear weapons are being sought by terrorists; held by tense military rivals, poised on alert to launch on a moment’s notice; and occasionally lost by the most powerful country in the world. Our only hope for real security is to keep working towards a world without nucear weapons.

Alexandra Bell is the Project Manager at the Ploughshares Fund and a Truman National Security Fellow.  Ben Loehrke is a Research Assistant at the Ploughshares Fund and a graduate student at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.

Illustration by Johana Tran.

 

]]>


Think the ash cloud was bad? That's nothing compared to what would happen if India and Pakistan exchange just a few nukes.

Thousands of people were stranded across the globe. Perishable foods unable to be transported to Europe were spoiling in Kenyan warehouses. Altruistic Britons organized a flotilla of boats to ferry their stranded compatriots from Calais across the English Chanel to Dover—à la Dunkirk. Sounds like the end of the world, but all the drama and chaos was actually caused by an ash-spewing volcano.

The Icelandic menace whose name we cannot pronounce shut down air travel in Europe, with global consequences. Eyjafjallajökull, for all its volcanic fuming, can hardly even compare to a major disaster. Tsunamis, earthquakes and droughts have all done far worse—and so can we.

Even though “duck and cover” drills have gone the way of the dodo and VHS, people still understand that a nuclear explosion would cause unfathomable death and destruction. What they probably do not realize is that if a nuclear war broke out anywhere, the fallout would have global consequences that would kill millions of people, disrupt climate patterns, and threaten global agricultural collapse. How do we know that would happen? Volcanoes.

The 1815 explosion of Mt. Tambora in Indonesia was the biggest volcanic eruption in the past 500 years. The ash and dust it kicked up spread around the world, blotted out the sun, and cooled global temperatures by five degrees Fahrenheit for a year. The next year, 1816, became known as “The year without a summer” and New England saw crop-killing frosts every month. With crops failing, grain supplies dropped, food prices skyrocketed, and farmers sold animals they could not feed. Widespread famines began setting in.

Climate scientists have applied lessons from volcanic eruptions like Tambora to estimate how nuclear fallout would affect the global climate. The projections aren’t good.

Put aside Cold War ideas of a U.S.-Russian nuclear exchange, India and Pakistan are the world's tensest nuclear rivals. Both nations possess more than 100 nuclear weapons and they have mobilized for nuclear war with each other—twice. The scientists Alan Robock and Owen Brian Toon estimate (pdf) that in even a limited exchange—perhaps 50 nuclear explosions on each side—20 million Indians and Pakistanis would die from the nuclear blasts, fires, and radioactive fallout. But that's just the beginning. The firestorm ignited by the bombs would spread heavy smoke across South Asia and send 5 million tons of particles into the atmosphere. Within 49 days, the particles would “blanket the earth, blocking enough sunlight that skies would look overcast perpetually, everywhere.” With less sun, the global average surface-air temperature would drop by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. Precipitation averages would fall and climate patterns would change dramatically.

With shortened and disrupted growing seasons, global agricultural production would be pushed to collapse. These declines in agricultural output would be felt everywhere simultaneously, grinding international markets to a halt. Since most cities or countries only keep enough food on hand for a very short period, hunger would start in a grocery store near you. Scientists estimate that the total grain stored on the planet today would only feed the earth’s population for about two months. After that, the world could start looking like The Road.

The ash cloud from Eyjafjallajökull provided a dramatic example of how fragile our interconnected economy can be. We should remember that when we consider the importance of eliminating nuclear weapons.

Global nuclear stockpiles dropped from a Cold War high of over 70,000 nuclear weapons in 1986 to about 23,000 weapons today—with 96 percent in the United States and Russia alone. But less than half a percent of the existing global stockpile could devastate the globe. Right now nuclear weapons are being sought by terrorists; held by tense military rivals, poised on alert to launch on a moment’s notice; and occasionally lost by the most powerful country in the world. Our only hope for real security is to keep working towards a world without nucear weapons.

Alexandra Bell is the Project Manager at the Ploughshares Fund and a Truman National Security Fellow.  Ben Loehrke is a Research Assistant at the Ploughshares Fund and a graduate student at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy.

Illustration by Johana Tran.

 

]]> Alexandra Bell Fri, 30 Apr 2010 10:20:00 PDT <![CDATA[A New START: How Obama's Treaty with Russia Will Make Us All Safer]]> http://www.good.is/post/a-new-start-how-obama-s-treaty-with-russia-will-make-us-all-safer/ http://www.good.is/post/a-new-start-how-obama-s-treaty-with-russia-will-make-us-all-safer/


The New START treaty on nuclear weapons was a masterful piece of diplomacy.

Unlike other National Guard units in America, the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska is on permanent active duty. Its role? Protecting the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. Yet soldiers in my home state to the north can breathe a little easier this week. Thanks to deft diplomacy by President Obama, we’ve got a new treaty that reduces the likelihood of nuclear war and helps prevent terrorists from getting their mitts on nuclear weapons.

Yesterday, President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty—New START, for short. New START cuts the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals to 1,550 deployable weapons each—that’s an overall cut of 30 percent. It also sets up rigorous verification measures so the American hand can see what the Russian hand is doing, and vice versa.

Reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals is no left-wing fantasy—it has been a Republican goal for decades. Ronald Reagan first pushed the idea in the 1980s, recognizing that the number of nuclear weapons both countries had was more than enough to protect ourselves, and that while we needed enough firepower to safeguard the house, having enough to burn it down did no one any good. George H. W. Bush finished what Reagan started by signing the first START treaty in 1991. The treaty was a major success, leading to an 80 percent reduction in American and Russian nuclear arsenals and easing Cold War tensions. When it expired last year, national security leaders across the political spectrum called for a new treaty.

Preeminent groups of statesmen from both sides of the aisle don’t come together much these days. But New START brought together everyone from Reagan’s Secretary of State to Clinton’s Secretary of Defense for a reason: They agree that we now face a new threat exacerbated by the mere existence of more nukes. Al-Qaeda is hell bent on getting a nuclear weapon, by hook or by crook. Sadly, that might be easier than we’d like to think. In January, a nuclear air base in Belgium—a major NATO partner—was breached by anti-nuclear activists. They spent over an hour in the base before they were detected. If they can do it, so can terrorists.
 
The threat of nuclear terrorism is real, and our country’s top officials are serious about locking down, reducing, and safeguarding nuclear stockpiles. Since 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons are owned by Russia and America, the New START treaty is where the effort begins. As we’ve known for years, Russia’s ability to keep its nuclear material under lock and key hardly inspires confidence. Personnel are untrustworthy, corruption is rife, and nuclear material is unaccounted for. That’s why reducing Russia’s nuclear arsenal is so critical: The less they have to guard, the less terrorists have to steal.

Yet New START is not only a major accomplishment in terms of what it delivers. It’s also a major triumph for American diplomacy. The Russians thought that President Obama would be so starry-eyed for a treaty before his Nobel Prize speech that they could force concessions from him. They were wrong. He held tough and refused to budge. The new treaty reduces the chances of nuclear conflict, but it also gives America a free hand to explore the possibilities of developing a new missile shield. Not a bad way to kill two birds with one stone.
 
Of course, the treaty is not without its critics. New START’s detractors—such as the Heritage Foundation’s Conn Carroll and Baker Spring—argue that it’s nothing more than words on paper. But the fact of the matter is that New START follows Reagan’s dictate to “trust, but verify.” Under the original START treaty, the United States conducted over 600 inspections in Russia and its satellite countries—Russia only conducted 400 on our soil. New START enshrines similar vigilance in a new century.  
 
At the end of the day, the United States and Russia still possess more weapons than the rest of the world combined. The new treaty provides security for our allies, while assuring a credible deterrent against Russia’s weapons and Iran’s ambitions. As an added bonus, it reduces and secures the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world, so that it is more difficult for loose nukes to fall into terrorist hands. That’s a goal we can all agree on, from Alaska to Alabama.

Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld is the CEO of the Truman National Security Project which trains next-generation leaders in national security. She was born and raised in Fairbanks, Alaska.

 

]]>


The New START treaty on nuclear weapons was a masterful piece of diplomacy.

Unlike other National Guard units in America, the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska is on permanent active duty. Its role? Protecting the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. Yet soldiers in my home state to the north can breathe a little easier this week. Thanks to deft diplomacy by President Obama, we’ve got a new treaty that reduces the likelihood of nuclear war and helps prevent terrorists from getting their mitts on nuclear weapons.

Yesterday, President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty—New START, for short. New START cuts the Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenals to 1,550 deployable weapons each—that’s an overall cut of 30 percent. It also sets up rigorous verification measures so the American hand can see what the Russian hand is doing, and vice versa.

Reducing U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals is no left-wing fantasy—it has been a Republican goal for decades. Ronald Reagan first pushed the idea in the 1980s, recognizing that the number of nuclear weapons both countries had was more than enough to protect ourselves, and that while we needed enough firepower to safeguard the house, having enough to burn it down did no one any good. George H. W. Bush finished what Reagan started by signing the first START treaty in 1991. The treaty was a major success, leading to an 80 percent reduction in American and Russian nuclear arsenals and easing Cold War tensions. When it expired last year, national security leaders across the political spectrum called for a new treaty.

Preeminent groups of statesmen from both sides of the aisle don’t come together much these days. But New START brought together everyone from Reagan’s Secretary of State to Clinton’s Secretary of Defense for a reason: They agree that we now face a new threat exacerbated by the mere existence of more nukes. Al-Qaeda is hell bent on getting a nuclear weapon, by hook or by crook. Sadly, that might be easier than we’d like to think. In January, a nuclear air base in Belgium—a major NATO partner—was breached by anti-nuclear activists. They spent over an hour in the base before they were detected. If they can do it, so can terrorists.
 
The threat of nuclear terrorism is real, and our country’s top officials are serious about locking down, reducing, and safeguarding nuclear stockpiles. Since 95 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons are owned by Russia and America, the New START treaty is where the effort begins. As we’ve known for years, Russia’s ability to keep its nuclear material under lock and key hardly inspires confidence. Personnel are untrustworthy, corruption is rife, and nuclear material is unaccounted for. That’s why reducing Russia’s nuclear arsenal is so critical: The less they have to guard, the less terrorists have to steal.

Yet New START is not only a major accomplishment in terms of what it delivers. It’s also a major triumph for American diplomacy. The Russians thought that President Obama would be so starry-eyed for a treaty before his Nobel Prize speech that they could force concessions from him. They were wrong. He held tough and refused to budge. The new treaty reduces the chances of nuclear conflict, but it also gives America a free hand to explore the possibilities of developing a new missile shield. Not a bad way to kill two birds with one stone.
 
Of course, the treaty is not without its critics. New START’s detractors—such as the Heritage Foundation’s Conn Carroll and Baker Spring—argue that it’s nothing more than words on paper. But the fact of the matter is that New START follows Reagan’s dictate to “trust, but verify.” Under the original START treaty, the United States conducted over 600 inspections in Russia and its satellite countries—Russia only conducted 400 on our soil. New START enshrines similar vigilance in a new century.  
 
At the end of the day, the United States and Russia still possess more weapons than the rest of the world combined. The new treaty provides security for our allies, while assuring a credible deterrent against Russia’s weapons and Iran’s ambitions. As an added bonus, it reduces and secures the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world, so that it is more difficult for loose nukes to fall into terrorist hands. That’s a goal we can all agree on, from Alaska to Alabama.

Dr. Rachel Kleinfeld is the CEO of the Truman National Security Project which trains next-generation leaders in national security. She was born and raised in Fairbanks, Alaska.

 

]]> GOOD Sat, 10 Apr 2010 06:31:00 PDT <![CDATA[Fear Itself]]> http://www.good.is/post/fear-itself/ http://www.good.is/post/fear-itself/

How politicians use the psychological effects of fear to twist our perspective, and how we can fight back.



Politico published an article last week about a Republican National Committee PowerPoint presentation on fundraising delivered at a party retreat in Florida in February. The presentation detailed how Republican fundraisers can and should stoke fears and distrust of President Obama in the conservative electorate in order to enrich the RNC's campaign coffers.



The presentation, delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart, encouraged the listeners to capitalize on fear of the President and his policies, and to position the Republican party as the group that will "save the country from trending toward socialism." There is even a slide which depicts the President and the Democratic leadership in Congress as cartoon villains, demonstrating the kind of images Republican fundraisers want to evoke in their pitches.



RNC Chairman Michael Steele has since tried his best to distance both himself and the RNC leadership from the most ridiculous aspects of the presentation, but this is simply the latest example of U.S. political parties using fear to advance their agendas. From the evoking of 9/11 to help justify the policies that followed, to Lyndon Johnson's "Daisy" ad in the 1964 election, using fear to influence voters is a time-honored tradition in American politics. Both Democrats and Republicans continually turn to this strategy for one simple reason: It is very, very effective.



Psychological research has shown that when fear is inserted into political debates, a desire to mitigate that fear and reduce the threat associated with it becomes the dominant policy response. In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen writes:

In 2004, researchers found that asking subjects to think about their own death-or just giving them subliminal reminders of the 9/11 attacks-led to significant increases in support for President Bush and his policies, regardless of political affiliation.


Further political psychological research shows that reminders of one's mortality can trigger disdain for other races, religions, and nations; a preference for charismatic over pragmatic leaders; and a heightened attraction to traditional mores. People deal with existential terror by maintaining faith in cherished norms and beliefs. In short, when someone feels that they or their family are in danger they default to supporting whatever party champions the policies they instinctively feel will most aggressively alleviate that danger, regardless of the moral and/or long-term implications of these policies.



In repeated experiments, mortality reminders and heightened fear not only enhanced the appeal of a more aggressive and confrontational political style and foreign policy, but also deepened and broadened the appeal of conservative social positions-regardless of people's political affiliations.



As the RNC PowerPoint shows, efforts by political parties and organizations to manipulate the public by raising the fear level in order to promote certain policy goals is not happenstance; it is but one example of concerted and coordinated efforts by the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which recognize that a fearful electorate is one that will be more easily convinced to support particular policies and donate to certain candidates.



The U.S. in the World Initiative's Managing the Fear Factor project has focused on studying the use of fear to specifically promote short-sighted and unilateral foreign policies, in an attempt to understand why and how fear has been and remains so effective, and on finding ways to combat this fear. The goal of the project is to figure out how, under the very adverse psychological and cognitive conditions created by fear of the real and perceived dangers in the modern world, to foster a climate of public thinking in which it's possible to maintain and build support for responsible, farsighted approaches to national security and foreign policy.



It is our hope that through a sustained effort, advocates and grassroots leaders will be able to help the American people cope with their fear more constructively and therefore better resist the fear-mongering used to manipulate them. After all, it might be great short-term politics to scare the populace into supporting a cause. But it doesn't make America safer, and it certainly doesn't make us better.



Mike Salamon is a Communications Fellow with the U.S. in the World Initiative and a former program associate with the Truman National Security Project. For more information about the Managing the Fear Factor project you can e-mail him at mike@usintheworld.org.


]]>

How politicians use the psychological effects of fear to twist our perspective, and how we can fight back.



Politico published an article last week about a Republican National Committee PowerPoint presentation on fundraising delivered at a party retreat in Florida in February. The presentation detailed how Republican fundraisers can and should stoke fears and distrust of President Obama in the conservative electorate in order to enrich the RNC's campaign coffers.



The presentation, delivered by RNC Finance Director Rob Bickhart, encouraged the listeners to capitalize on fear of the President and his policies, and to position the Republican party as the group that will "save the country from trending toward socialism." There is even a slide which depicts the President and the Democratic leadership in Congress as cartoon villains, demonstrating the kind of images Republican fundraisers want to evoke in their pitches.



RNC Chairman Michael Steele has since tried his best to distance both himself and the RNC leadership from the most ridiculous aspects of the presentation, but this is simply the latest example of U.S. political parties using fear to advance their agendas. From the evoking of 9/11 to help justify the policies that followed, to Lyndon Johnson's "Daisy" ad in the 1964 election, using fear to influence voters is a time-honored tradition in American politics. Both Democrats and Republicans continually turn to this strategy for one simple reason: It is very, very effective.



Psychological research has shown that when fear is inserted into political debates, a desire to mitigate that fear and reduce the threat associated with it becomes the dominant policy response. In his book The Political Brain, psychologist Drew Westen writes:

In 2004, researchers found that asking subjects to think about their own death-or just giving them subliminal reminders of the 9/11 attacks-led to significant increases in support for President Bush and his policies, regardless of political affiliation.


Further political psychological research shows that reminders of one's mortality can trigger disdain for other races, religions, and nations; a preference for charismatic over pragmatic leaders; and a heightened attraction to traditional mores. People deal with existential terror by maintaining faith in cherished norms and beliefs. In short, when someone feels that they or their family are in danger they default to supporting whatever party champions the policies they instinctively feel will most aggressively alleviate that danger, regardless of the moral and/or long-term implications of these policies.



In repeated experiments, mortality reminders and heightened fear not only enhanced the appeal of a more aggressive and confrontational political style and foreign policy, but also deepened and broadened the appeal of conservative social positions-regardless of people's political affiliations.



As the RNC PowerPoint shows, efforts by political parties and organizations to manipulate the public by raising the fear level in order to promote certain policy goals is not happenstance; it is but one example of concerted and coordinated efforts by the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties, which recognize that a fearful electorate is one that will be more easily convinced to support particular policies and donate to certain candidates.



The U.S. in the World Initiative's Managing the Fear Factor project has focused on studying the use of fear to specifically promote short-sighted and unilateral foreign policies, in an attempt to understand why and how fear has been and remains so effective, and on finding ways to combat this fear. The goal of the project is to figure out how, under the very adverse psychological and cognitive conditions created by fear of the real and perceived dangers in the modern world, to foster a climate of public thinking in which it's possible to maintain and build support for responsible, farsighted approaches to national security and foreign policy.



It is our hope that through a sustained effort, advocates and grassroots leaders will be able to help the American people cope with their fear more constructively and therefore better resist the fear-mongering used to manipulate them. After all, it might be great short-term politics to scare the populace into supporting a cause. But it doesn't make America safer, and it certainly doesn't make us better.



Mike Salamon is a Communications Fellow with the U.S. in the World Initiative and a former program associate with the Truman National Security Project. For more information about the Managing the Fear Factor project you can e-mail him at mike@usintheworld.org.


]]> Mike Salamon Fri, 12 Mar 2010 12:30:16 PST <![CDATA[A Strong Climate Bill Can Save Lives]]> http://www.good.is/post/a-strong-climate-bill-can-save-lives/ http://www.good.is/post/a-strong-climate-bill-can-save-lives/ 1267821813-gaspumptrumanWhy we should pass the climate legislation that's right for America, not easy for the Senate.

If there's any Democrat in Congress who never struggles to find his spine, it's freshman Congressman Tom Perriello from Virginia. Despite winning a narrow election in a Republican-leaning district in 2008, he has cast tough votes in favor of both health care reform and clean energy legislation. And as Washington starts to rumble with the possibility of a new push for climate change legislation, he's calling on the Senate do to the same.

I'm sick of starting with what can we get through the Senate; let's start with what solves the damn problem. Until the Senate gets its head out of its rear end and starts to see the crisis we're in, our country is literally at risk. Our economy is at risk, because these jobs are being created overseas. It should have the same urgency with this problem that it had bailing out Wall Street. We are swearing an oath to do what's necessary to protect this country, not do what's necessary to get a bill through the Senate.


Perriello's call to protect America through clean energy is timely, and it has a cadre of unlikely supporters-veterans. I'm one of them. As part of Operation Free, I'm working with hundreds of veterans around the country to deliver a message to the U.S. Senate: If you want to break America's oil addiction and reduce the flow of petrodollars to unfriendly countries and deadly extremists, then it's time to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation. And if you want to know why veterans are taking the lead in pushing for clean energy, watch the video below:







While the House of Representatives passed energy legislation last summer, the Senate has struggled to follow suit, largely due to the ongoing healthcare debate. Yet there's a glimmer of hope on the horizon.



For the last several months a tripartisan team of Senators-John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)-have been working to put together an energy and climate bill that could get through the Senate with bipartisan support. In October, Kerry and Graham launched an opening salvo in the push for bipartisan legislation, co-penning an op-ed in The New York Times on the need for a clean energy bill.



Their efforts got a shot in the arm in February, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told Kerry that he wants a bill, and soon. Now we know what that bill will look like. After months of playing their cards closely, the three Senators have released a framework for legislative action. It addresses the familiar issues that surround the clean energy debate-jobs and energy independence, coal and nuclear power-but perhaps most importantly, the three Senators are insisting on a bottom line: There must be a market-based solution that puts a price on carbon.



This is good news. As long as oil stays cheap and clean energy remains underdeveloped, America's oil addiction will persist. In the short term, that means we'll continue funding both sides of the wars we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the long term, the effects of climate change will deepen, leading to natural disasters, mass migrations, and uprooted populations where extremists can hide and recruit.



The Pentagon made the point quite simply in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review: "Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment." We hope Congress will take this to heart and do what's right for the country; not what's easy for the Senate.



Jonathan Murray is the Advocacy Director of Operation Free and a Marine Corps veteran.


]]> 1267821813-gaspumptrumanWhy we should pass the climate legislation that's right for America, not easy for the Senate.

If there's any Democrat in Congress who never struggles to find his spine, it's freshman Congressman Tom Perriello from Virginia. Despite winning a narrow election in a Republican-leaning district in 2008, he has cast tough votes in favor of both health care reform and clean energy legislation. And as Washington starts to rumble with the possibility of a new push for climate change legislation, he's calling on the Senate do to the same.

I'm sick of starting with what can we get through the Senate; let's start with what solves the damn problem. Until the Senate gets its head out of its rear end and starts to see the crisis we're in, our country is literally at risk. Our economy is at risk, because these jobs are being created overseas. It should have the same urgency with this problem that it had bailing out Wall Street. We are swearing an oath to do what's necessary to protect this country, not do what's necessary to get a bill through the Senate.


Perriello's call to protect America through clean energy is timely, and it has a cadre of unlikely supporters-veterans. I'm one of them. As part of Operation Free, I'm working with hundreds of veterans around the country to deliver a message to the U.S. Senate: If you want to break America's oil addiction and reduce the flow of petrodollars to unfriendly countries and deadly extremists, then it's time to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation. And if you want to know why veterans are taking the lead in pushing for clean energy, watch the video below:







While the House of Representatives passed energy legislation last summer, the Senate has struggled to follow suit, largely due to the ongoing healthcare debate. Yet there's a glimmer of hope on the horizon.



For the last several months a tripartisan team of Senators-John Kerry (D-MA), Joe Lieberman (I-CT), and Lindsey Graham (R-SC)-have been working to put together an energy and climate bill that could get through the Senate with bipartisan support. In October, Kerry and Graham launched an opening salvo in the push for bipartisan legislation, co-penning an op-ed in The New York Times on the need for a clean energy bill.



Their efforts got a shot in the arm in February, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) told Kerry that he wants a bill, and soon. Now we know what that bill will look like. After months of playing their cards closely, the three Senators have released a framework for legislative action. It addresses the familiar issues that surround the clean energy debate-jobs and energy independence, coal and nuclear power-but perhaps most importantly, the three Senators are insisting on a bottom line: There must be a market-based solution that puts a price on carbon.



This is good news. As long as oil stays cheap and clean energy remains underdeveloped, America's oil addiction will persist. In the short term, that means we'll continue funding both sides of the wars we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the long term, the effects of climate change will deepen, leading to natural disasters, mass migrations, and uprooted populations where extremists can hide and recruit.



The Pentagon made the point quite simply in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review: "Climate change and energy are two key issues that will play a significant role in shaping the future security environment." We hope Congress will take this to heart and do what's right for the country; not what's easy for the Senate.



Jonathan Murray is the Advocacy Director of Operation Free and a Marine Corps veteran.


]]> Jonathan Murray Fri, 5 Mar 2010 13:13:32 PST <![CDATA[Thiessen's Strike on Obama Misses by a Mile]]> http://www.good.is/post/thiessen-s-strike-on-obama-misses-by-a-mile/ http://www.good.is/post/thiessen-s-strike-on-obama-misses-by-a-mile/

When it comes to getting good intelligence, torture is what hurts, not drone strikes.



When hawks on the political right go so far as to condemn killing terrorists as part of their campaign against President Obama, you can't blame yourself for wondering if you woke up in some parallel universe. Since when does the GOP shy away from killin' ‘em all? But reading Marc Thiessen's recent piece on the Obama administration's expanded campaign of drone strikes the fog quickly clears: Thiessen prefers the option of torturing captured terrorists instead. The world makes sense again.



Surely, Thiessen's basic point-killing terrorists prevents us from accessing the valuable intelligence they possess-has merit. But Thiessen wields this truism to accuse Obama of putting the United States at "greater risk of a terrorist attack" by killing violent jihadis as a "substitute" for capturing them. That way, in Thiessen's view, Obama can "appear like he is taking tough action against terrorists when he is really shying away from the hard decisions needed to protect the United States." Here the merit stops and the buffoonery begins.



First of all, Thiessen conveniently neglects to share with us which "hard decisions" he means. Throughout his piece, he makes only vague references to Obama "eliminating … the most important and successful intelligence programs in the war on terror." But given Thiessen's singular claim to fame, that he examined "the most sensitive intelligence" when crafting George W. Bush's 2006 defense of the CIA's enhanced interrogation program, we know exactly what he means: torture.



That Thiessen champions torture as a method for intelligence gathering while condemning the expanded use of drone strikes is, to be charitable, ironic. Indeed, how much less likely is it that terrorists' friends or family would give us information if they knew their loved ones would be tortured? Would Abdul Muttalab's father have given us a call if he knew waterboarding awaited his son? Thiessen should know that prohibiting torture actually enhances our information-gathering efforts. It also prevents the creation of more terrorists that we don't have to kill, capture, or torture.



In a vain effort to support his allegation that Obama's aggressive approach to eliminating al Qaeda operatives denies us critical intel, Thiessen also trots out a quotation from a "high-ranking CIA official." Read for yourself: The quotation only makes the uncontested point that killing senior terrorists can be counterproductive from an intelligence standpoint. The official makes no claim that Obama's drone strikes have cost us valuable information. In any event, where does Thiessen think we're getting the intel to target these guys so accurately in the first place?



Thiessen's view seems to be that we can just as easily capture violent jihadis as kill them. This is absurd. Capturing terrorists requires far more extensive operational prepositioning and host-country cooperation than a stand-off Hellfire missile capability. Attempting to capture terrorists also puts our brave soldiers in harm's way, which should not be done unless absolutely necessary. In any event, many terrorist leaders reside in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where American soldiers and agents can hardly operate at will. And Obama is not about to make Bush's mistake of outsourcing such sensitive missions unless success is assured.



The reality is that several developments have helped push the throttle on drone strikes in the past year. The first is a redeployment of assets, including drones, manpower, and other resources, from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. This has nearly doubled the number of drones now available to the region. American efforts have also benefited from an increased willingness to cooperate from our allies in Pakistan, who have stepped up their information sharing in recent months. The increased use of the Reaper drone, with superior firepower and accuracy, is another factor.



Contrary to Thiessen's bald assertions, there is nothing to suggest that the opportunity cost of Obama's drone campaign can be counted in lost intelligence. Between the lines of Thiessen's article one instead sees an effort to justify feeding Bush the words to defend his use of torture. Given the shodiness of his reasoning, we can only hope that Thiessen's case, like his boss' legacy, is destined for the dust bin.


]]>

When it comes to getting good intelligence, torture is what hurts, not drone strikes.



When hawks on the political right go so far as to condemn killing terrorists as part of their campaign against President Obama, you can't blame yourself for wondering if you woke up in some parallel universe. Since when does the GOP shy away from killin' ‘em all? But reading Marc Thiessen's recent piece on the Obama administration's expanded campaign of drone strikes the fog quickly clears: Thiessen prefers the option of torturing captured terrorists instead. The world makes sense again.



Surely, Thiessen's basic point-killing terrorists prevents us from accessing the valuable intelligence they possess-has merit. But Thiessen wields this truism to accuse Obama of putting the United States at "greater risk of a terrorist attack" by killing violent jihadis as a "substitute" for capturing them. That way, in Thiessen's view, Obama can "appear like he is taking tough action against terrorists when he is really shying away from the hard decisions needed to protect the United States." Here the merit stops and the buffoonery begins.



First of all, Thiessen conveniently neglects to share with us which "hard decisions" he means. Throughout his piece, he makes only vague references to Obama "eliminating … the most important and successful intelligence programs in the war on terror." But given Thiessen's singular claim to fame, that he examined "the most sensitive intelligence" when crafting George W. Bush's 2006 defense of the CIA's enhanced interrogation program, we know exactly what he means: torture.



That Thiessen champions torture as a method for intelligence gathering while condemning the expanded use of drone strikes is, to be charitable, ironic. Indeed, how much less likely is it that terrorists' friends or family would give us information if they knew their loved ones would be tortured? Would Abdul Muttalab's father have given us a call if he knew waterboarding awaited his son? Thiessen should know that prohibiting torture actually enhances our information-gathering efforts. It also prevents the creation of more terrorists that we don't have to kill, capture, or torture.



In a vain effort to support his allegation that Obama's aggressive approach to eliminating al Qaeda operatives denies us critical intel, Thiessen also trots out a quotation from a "high-ranking CIA official." Read for yourself: The quotation only makes the uncontested point that killing senior terrorists can be counterproductive from an intelligence standpoint. The official makes no claim that Obama's drone strikes have cost us valuable information. In any event, where does Thiessen think we're getting the intel to target these guys so accurately in the first place?



Thiessen's view seems to be that we can just as easily capture violent jihadis as kill them. This is absurd. Capturing terrorists requires far more extensive operational prepositioning and host-country cooperation than a stand-off Hellfire missile capability. Attempting to capture terrorists also puts our brave soldiers in harm's way, which should not be done unless absolutely necessary. In any event, many terrorist leaders reside in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where American soldiers and agents can hardly operate at will. And Obama is not about to make Bush's mistake of outsourcing such sensitive missions unless success is assured.



The reality is that several developments have helped push the throttle on drone strikes in the past year. The first is a redeployment of assets, including drones, manpower, and other resources, from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan. This has nearly doubled the number of drones now available to the region. American efforts have also benefited from an increased willingness to cooperate from our allies in Pakistan, who have stepped up their information sharing in recent months. The increased use of the Reaper drone, with superior firepower and accuracy, is another factor.



Contrary to Thiessen's bald assertions, there is nothing to suggest that the opportunity cost of Obama's drone campaign can be counted in lost intelligence. Between the lines of Thiessen's article one instead sees an effort to justify feeding Bush the words to defend his use of torture. Given the shodiness of his reasoning, we can only hope that Thiessen's case, like his boss' legacy, is destined for the dust bin.


]]> Michael M. Lieberman Sat, 13 Feb 2010 07:30:52 PST <![CDATA[From <i>The Hurt Locker</i> to Capitol Hill]]> http://www.good.is/post/from-the-hurt-locker-to-capitol-hill/ http://www.good.is/post/from-the-hurt-locker-to-capitol-hill/ hurt-locker-oscar-olive-green

The Hurt Locker was good, but will our real soldiers get an award?


The Academy Awards wouldn't be the same without a dark horse candidate for Picture of the Year. This year's unexpected hotshot: The Hurt Locker, a thriller of a drama that follows three members of an Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal squad in Iraq. Few military jobs are so dangerous, and the movie does our soldiers great justice in portraying the difficulties they face.

Fortunately, Hollywood isn't the only town picking up on this story. So is Washington. Jerry McNerney, a Democratic Congressman from California, recently introduced legislation that would increase combat and hazardous duty pays. In today's conflicts, our service members deploy several times, spending long periods of time separated from their families, exposed to an unseen and elusive enemy. They more than deserve a few extra bucks.

When I arrived in Al-Anbar Province in September 2006, the operational tempo was extremely high. As a Marine I had been trained to expect that, but the pace and amount of direct action with our enemy was still astonishing. I was only there for six weeks before being sent home on a Medevac. Two weeks after I arrived one of our convoy vehicles was hit by an IED. Two weeks after that I was almost blown up by an IED. Two weeks after that I was shot in the head by a sniper.

After I was shot, a private nonprofit organization, the Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund, paid for my wife's plane ticket to be with me at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. My family only lived 45 minutes away from the hospital, so they could visit regularly. A young friend of mine, a corpsman who had been shot through the face, was not so lucky. His mother rarely visited. She couldn't afford to take the time off and travel from three states away.

To make such stories history, Congressman McNerney has proposed an increase in the family separation allowance from $250 per month to $450. The family separation allowance is intended to help the families of military members who are separated from their dependents for more than 30 days, and compensate them for the added household expenses due to that separation.

Imagine how difficult your life would be, and how much more money you would have to spend, if your husband or wife left home for seven to 15 months at a time. Would you have to pay more often for babysitters, lawn services, and prepared food? Would you have to take extra time off from work to do all those things that usually take two?

Now imagine the stress on you and the rest of your family if your spouse wasn't just gone from home, but in Iraq or Afghanistan, and you spent every day scared to death of a phone call. Or imagine yourself as the deployed service member, trying to focus on the mission in front of you, worrying from afar if your family has enough money to pay for food, rent, and utilities. Isn't it worth $200 more per month to help alleviate the psychological and physical stress, heartache, lack of sleep, and the cost of a missing spouse and parent?

This nation has dedicated tremendous resources to taking care of our service members through advances in armor, medical treatments, and a focus on a successful transition to the private sector at the end of a military career. We now need to show a renewed dedication to the individual service members while they are in harm's way, far from their loved ones. Money can't buy happiness, but it can help a military family avoid crippling debt during a deployment.

Besides, these types of pay have not been raised in years. Most federal employees receive annual pay raises. Members of Congress certainly do. Surely our country's service members deserve the same.

You want to see how rough a deployment can be? Watch The Hurt Locker. Pay attention to the Spartan living conditions; the incredible work schedule; and the sand that gets in every crack, crevice, hole, and container.  Notice the constant vigilance that's required of the soldiers-a type of vigilance that often has adverse psychological effects further down the line. And if all those IEDs in the movie make you anxious, imagine what it's like in real life.

Justin Constantine is a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and the Founder of Iraq and Back]]> hurt-locker-oscar-olive-green

The Hurt Locker was good, but will our real soldiers get an award?


The Academy Awards wouldn't be the same without a dark horse candidate for Picture of the Year. This year's unexpected hotshot: The Hurt Locker, a thriller of a drama that follows three members of an Army Explosive Ordinance Disposal squad in Iraq. Few military jobs are so dangerous, and the movie does our soldiers great justice in portraying the difficulties they face.

Fortunately, Hollywood isn't the only town picking up on this story. So is Washington. Jerry McNerney, a Democratic Congressman from California, recently introduced legislation that would increase combat and hazardous duty pays. In today's conflicts, our service members deploy several times, spending long periods of time separated from their families, exposed to an unseen and elusive enemy. They more than deserve a few extra bucks.

When I arrived in Al-Anbar Province in September 2006, the operational tempo was extremely high. As a Marine I had been trained to expect that, but the pace and amount of direct action with our enemy was still astonishing. I was only there for six weeks before being sent home on a Medevac. Two weeks after I arrived one of our convoy vehicles was hit by an IED. Two weeks after that I was almost blown up by an IED. Two weeks after that I was shot in the head by a sniper.

After I was shot, a private nonprofit organization, the Injured Marine Semper Fi Fund, paid for my wife's plane ticket to be with me at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. My family only lived 45 minutes away from the hospital, so they could visit regularly. A young friend of mine, a corpsman who had been shot through the face, was not so lucky. His mother rarely visited. She couldn't afford to take the time off and travel from three states away.

To make such stories history, Congressman McNerney has proposed an increase in the family separation allowance from $250 per month to $450. The family separation allowance is intended to help the families of military members who are separated from their dependents for more than 30 days, and compensate them for the added household expenses due to that separation.

Imagine how difficult your life would be, and how much more money you would have to spend, if your husband or wife left home for seven to 15 months at a time. Would you have to pay more often for babysitters, lawn services, and prepared food? Would you have to take extra time off from work to do all those things that usually take two?

Now imagine the stress on you and the rest of your family if your spouse wasn't just gone from home, but in Iraq or Afghanistan, and you spent every day scared to death of a phone call. Or imagine yourself as the deployed service member, trying to focus on the mission in front of you, worrying from afar if your family has enough money to pay for food, rent, and utilities. Isn't it worth $200 more per month to help alleviate the psychological and physical stress, heartache, lack of sleep, and the cost of a missing spouse and parent?

This nation has dedicated tremendous resources to taking care of our service members through advances in armor, medical treatments, and a focus on a successful transition to the private sector at the end of a military career. We now need to show a renewed dedication to the individual service members while they are in harm's way, far from their loved ones. Money can't buy happiness, but it can help a military family avoid crippling debt during a deployment.

Besides, these types of pay have not been raised in years. Most federal employees receive annual pay raises. Members of Congress certainly do. Surely our country's service members deserve the same.

You want to see how rough a deployment can be? Watch The Hurt Locker. Pay attention to the Spartan living conditions; the incredible work schedule; and the sand that gets in every crack, crevice, hole, and container.  Notice the constant vigilance that's required of the soldiers-a type of vigilance that often has adverse psychological effects further down the line. And if all those IEDs in the movie make you anxious, imagine what it's like in real life.

Justin Constantine is a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and the Founder of Iraq and Back]]> Justin Constantine Sat, 6 Feb 2010 16:16:53 PST <![CDATA[What You Should Know About Yemen]]> http://www.good.is/post/what-you-should-know-about-yemen/ http://www.good.is/post/what-you-should-know-about-yemen/ yemen-2
How can we fight terrorism in a failing state?

The media frenzy over who’s to blame for allowing a bomber to hop on a flight with explosives sewn into his underwear isn't surprising. But it is distracting us from a much bigger question: What’s the deal with Yemen?

The Christmas bomber—like the Fort Hood shooter before him—had links to militants there. Why, after spending billions of dollars on our “war on terror,” is Al Qaeda still threatening the United States from safe havens in Yemen?

It's not that we have ignored the country. Immediately after 9/11, the Bush Administration worked closely with Yemen on counterterrorism, yielding real results. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Salih arrested scores of suspected terrorists, providing actionable intelligence to the United States.

We reciprocated by dispatching equipment and special operations units to support Yemeni forces. An unmanned CIA aircraft blew up a car in late 2002, killing suspected Al Qaeda operative and U.S.S. Cole attack mastermind Abu Ali al-Harithi. Terrorist activity subsided. Yemen was heralded by many in Washington as a success story in the global struggle against violent extremism. Check please.

Sadly, those gains were short-lived. The reemergence of Al Qaeda in Yemen, which began in 2006, makes it patently clear that a strategy based only on the killing of militants is neither effective nor sustainable. But what can we do differently?

A Failing State

Yemen is a failing state. That term is used so often to describe places like Somalia and Afghanistan that it makes one's eyes glaze over, but it stands for an important idea. President Bush and his administration ignored the consequences of state failure, and this blind spot has cost us dearly.

Consider Yemen’s predicament. There is steep population growth. The country, located in the Arabian Desert, is running out of water (the groundwater source that supplies the capital of Sana and its 2 million inhabitants will be exhausted within 20 years). Ninety percent of the wheat and rice Yemen consumes is imported. Oil revenues finance the cost, but production is dwindling. Food shortages are dire, and climate change is sure to accelerate the water and food crises. Lastly, Yemen has one of the highest poverty rates in the world and 35 percent unemployment.

Then there’s violence. A protracted conflict in Northern Yemen pits minority-Shiite rebels against the Sunni-dominated central government, leading Yemeni President Salih to recruit former Sunni jihadists to bolster his security forces. Militants reportedly staff the government bureaucracy, while shortages of equipment, training, and good intelligence hamper counterterrorism efforts. Outside the capital, militants have a free hand to use Yemeni territory as a launching pad for international attacks.

Social services are no better. The government spends a meager $11 per person on health, compared with $7,000 per capita in America. The very tribal leaders on whom the regime relies for its survival are willing to court extremists. As one tribal leader reports, “we don’t hate our country. We hate our government. It doesn’t take care of us.”

Religious institutions have stepped in to fill the void, making real improvements in health and education. But foot-soldiers in the global jihad have been radicalized and recruited in Yemen’s Islamic schools and mosques. It’s not just the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas bomber. It’s also John Walker Lindh—better known as the “American Taliban”—and Osama bin Laden’s former driver, a Yemeni who confessed that “working as a driver in bin Laden’s motor pool paid better than driving a minibus.”

It’s Not Working

United States policy has yet to adapt to the realities of fighting extremism in a failing state. Since 2000, we have been providing short-term security assistance to help intercept individual terrorists in Yemen. We have launched controversial aerial bombings. We promised to increase foreign assistance, only to withdraw it later. The more the government teeters on the brink, the more we demand, as though articulating an unrealistic desire will deliver a result.

This is not smart strategy. Yemen bears its share of the blame for the threats that are developing within its borders, but that will provide precious little comfort if it becomes a factory for violent extremism. If we want to take Al Qaeda down and keep them down, we need to build state capacity in Yemen through sustained economic assistance and good governance programs. They’re ambitious objectives, especially in a failing state. But if the underwear bomber taught us anything, it’s that the stakes warrant the effort.

Corinne Graff is a Truman National Security Project Fellow and a Fellow at the Brookings Institution, where she has just finished a co-edited book on fragile states titled Confronting Poverty: Weak States and U.S. National Security.

Photo by flickr (cc) user mtsrs

]]> yemen-2
How can we fight terrorism in a failing state?

The media frenzy over who’s to blame for allowing a bomber to hop on a flight with explosives sewn into his underwear isn't surprising. But it is distracting us from a much bigger question: What’s the deal with Yemen?

The Christmas bomber—like the Fort Hood shooter before him—had links to militants there. Why, after spending billions of dollars on our “war on terror,” is Al Qaeda still threatening the United States from safe havens in Yemen?

It's not that we have ignored the country. Immediately after 9/11, the Bush Administration worked closely with Yemen on counterterrorism, yielding real results. Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Salih arrested scores of suspected terrorists, providing actionable intelligence to the United States.

We reciprocated by dispatching equipment and special operations units to support Yemeni forces. An unmanned CIA aircraft blew up a car in late 2002, killing suspected Al Qaeda operative and U.S.S. Cole attack mastermind Abu Ali al-Harithi. Terrorist activity subsided. Yemen was heralded by many in Washington as a success story in the global struggle against violent extremism. Check please.

Sadly, those gains were short-lived. The reemergence of Al Qaeda in Yemen, which began in 2006, makes it patently clear that a strategy based only on the killing of militants is neither effective nor sustainable. But what can we do differently?

A Failing State

Yemen is a failing state. That term is used so often to describe places like Somalia and Afghanistan that it makes one's eyes glaze over, but it stands for an important idea. President Bush and his administration ignored the consequences of state failure, and this blind spot has cost us dearly.

Consider Yemen’s predicament. There is steep population growth. The country, located in the Arabian Desert, is running out of water (the groundwater source that supplies the capital of Sana and its 2 million inhabitants will be exhausted within 20 years). Ninety percent of the wheat and rice Yemen consumes is imported. Oil revenues finance the cost, but production is dwindling. Food shortages are dire, and climate change is sure to accelerate the water and food crises. Lastly, Yemen has one of the highest poverty rates in the world and 35 percent unemployment.

Then there’s violence. A protracted conflict in Northern Yemen pits minority-Shiite rebels against the Sunni-dominated central government, leading Yemeni President Salih to recruit former Sunni jihadists to bolster his security forces. Militants reportedly staff the government bureaucracy, while shortages of equipment, training, and good intelligence hamper counterterrorism efforts. Outside the capital, militants have a free hand to use Yemeni territory as a launching pad for international attacks.

Social services are no better. The government spends a meager $11 per person on health, compared with $7,000 per capita in America. The very tribal leaders on whom the regime relies for its survival are willing to court extremists. As one tribal leader reports, “we don’t hate our country. We hate our government. It doesn’t take care of us.”

Religious institutions have stepped in to fill the void, making real improvements in health and education. But foot-soldiers in the global jihad have been radicalized and recruited in Yemen’s Islamic schools and mosques. It’s not just the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas bomber. It’s also John Walker Lindh—better known as the “American Taliban”—and Osama bin Laden’s former driver, a Yemeni who confessed that “working as a driver in bin Laden’s motor pool paid better than driving a minibus.”

It’s Not Working

United States policy has yet to adapt to the realities of fighting extremism in a failing state. Since 2000, we have been providing short-term security assistance to help intercept individual terrorists in Yemen. We have launched controversial aerial bombings. We promised to increase foreign assistance, only to withdraw it later. The more the government teeters on the brink, the more we demand, as though articulating an unrealistic desire will deliver a result.

This is not smart strategy. Yemen bears its share of the blame for the threats that are developing within its borders, but that will provide precious little comfort if it becomes a factory for violent extremism. If we want to take Al Qaeda down and keep them down, we need to build state capacity in Yemen through sustained economic assistance and good governance programs. They’re ambitious objectives, especially in a failing state. But if the underwear bomber taught us anything, it’s that the stakes warrant the effort.

Corinne Graff is a Truman National Security Project Fellow and a Fellow at the Brookings Institution, where she has just finished a co-edited book on fragile states titled Confronting Poverty: Weak States and U.S. National Security.

Photo by flickr (cc) user mtsrs

]]> Corinne Graff Fri, 8 Jan 2010 11:00:00 PST <![CDATA[Five Lesser-known Countries That Changed the World in 2009]]> http://www.good.is/post/five-lesser-known-countries-that-changed-the-world-in-2009/ http://www.good.is/post/five-lesser-known-countries-that-changed-the-world-in-2009/

China and Afghanistan aren't the only two foreign countries that matter.


You couldn't swing a dead cat in 2009 without hitting headlines about the troop escalation in Afghanistan or the troop withdrawal in Iraq. The same goes for the rise of China and the not-so-democratic presidential "election" in Iran. These were some of the big international attention-getters of the year, and for layman and foreign policy professionals alike, they're stories that most of us have heard about.

But let's be fair. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 countries in world, not just the 10 we hear about on television. Here are five countries that changed the world in 2009-and are largely absent in mainstream American press coverage.

By bringing to light the unique circumstances that are shaping these individual countries, we can also discern trends that are shaping the wider world. Plus, if globalization is going to bring peoples and nations closer together anyway, it can't hurt to know more about the folks we're sharing a planet with.

From Pigs to Politics: Swine flu in Ukraine

The H1N1 influenza pandemic is milder than initially feared-though widespread globally, the impact is comparable to seasonal influenza. But how countries have faced it can reveal their preparedness for more virulent pathogens. As the case of Ukraine makes clear, even a relatively tame virus can cause major social disruption when combined with ineffective governance.

In July, Gallup reported that 4 percent of Ukranians approve of the performance of their country's leadership-the lowest rating it ever recorded anywhere. This likely reflects conflict between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, former allies swept to power with the 2004 Orange Revolution. Both are candidates in the January, 2010, Presidential elections; their bitter rivalry has undermined policymaking while Ukraine's economy has collapsed.

With the first confirmed death from H1N1 in Ukraine, Tymoshenko instituted stringent measures, including banning political rallies (after holding her own, that is). Ukraine has reported about 400 H1N1 deaths and Tymoshenko is widely suspected of exaggerating the danger to assume a hero role and narrow the gap with Presidential frontrunner Viktor Yanukovich. If the rumors are true, the strategy is working. Yushchenko, trailing in polls, was accused of trying to delay elections in the name of a public health emergency.

The media, with new freedoms since the Orange Revolution, amplified public panic. People emptied pharmacies, hoarding medicine and masks. Patients waited days before seeking treatment from a dysfunctional health-care system, leading to severe H1N1 disease and possibly avoidable deaths. They couldn't receive antiviral medication until H1N1 was confirmed by a laboratory in Kiev.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization is investigating changes in the H1N1 virus in Ukraine that might make control more difficult. Influenza viruses mutate readily and the significance of these changes is notoriously difficult to ascertain.

Many countries have ineffective governments and under-resourced health-care systems.  Add an enigmatic pathogen, and conditions are ripe for social upheaval.

Dr. Jean-Paul Chretien is a fellow of the Truman National Security Project and an active duty U.S. military officer. The views expressed here are his own.

A Few Good Yemen: When Everything that can go wrong in a Middle East country, does

Yemen, home of the fabled Queen of Sheba and ancient cradle of civilization... What does it have to do with the 21st Century? Well, pretty much everything.

Roughly the size of Texas, this arid country reaps few benefits from its location on the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula. Far from it. In 2009, Yemen endured nearly every hardship imaginable.

Dwindling oil reserves. A precariously low water supply. Incessant conflict, stoked by meddling archrivals Iran and Saudi Arabia. An ongoing refugee crisis and humanitarian emergency. Piracy. Rising hunger, and the threat of another food crisis.

Yemen's experiences speak volumes. Its fate could well foreshadow that of the broader Middle East, as oil supplies ebb while climate change accelerates desertification. In 2009,Yemen ranked as one of three countries hardest hit by extreme weather.

Yemen's woes also portend new security challenges across the developing world. Having lingered on the margins of the global economy, countries with the world's poorest billion people like Yemen can't pay government workers, secure their borders, provide basic public services, or jump start their economies.

One result: extremists can now operate more freely and idle youths heed their call to arms, as recent evidence demonstrates. Lethal terrorist attacks are increasing in poor countries, where more often, they target the U.S.

Yemen is no exception. This year, al Qaeda established a new hub there. United States intelligence czar Dennis Blair and President Obama both warned Yemen is re-emerging as a jihadist battleground. The country's plight reverberated across the globe on November 5 when a U.S. Army psychiatrist killed 13 people at Fort Hood. The suspect had had repeated contacts with a radical imam in Yemen.

Is an alternative future conceivable for Yemen? Sure, and the call in U.S. Congress for increased support for development and peace in Yemen is a tiny first step in the right direction. But as 2009 turns into 2010, we'd do well to keep taking more steps.

Corinne Graff is a Truman National Security Project Fellow and a Fellow at the Brookings Institution, where she has just finished a co-edited book on fragile states titled Confronting Poverty: Weak States and U.S. National Security.

Not at Home, But not Abroad: Making room for rebels after Sri Lanka's civil war

For much of modern history, Sri Lanka, an island nation located off the southern coast of India, has been synonymous with paradise. British colonialists grew some of the world's finest teas in the tropical climate of the island they formerly called Ceylon.

Sadly, in recent years Sri Lanka has become another in a long list of countries plagued by ethnic strife and terrorism due to a civil war between the mainly Buddhist Sinhalese majority government and the mainly Hindu Tamilese minority rebels. Compounding the tragedy, the island was also devastated by the giant tsunami of 2004, which killed over 30,000 Sri Lankans.

After years of fighting, the Sinhalese government finally defeated the Tamil rebels this year. Unfortunately, since that time Sri Lanka has been grappling with over 260,000 internally displaced persons, a condition affecting an estimated 24.5 million people worldwide and generally deemed to be one of today's most daunting humanitarian challenges.

Efforts to reintegrate the Tamils back into Sri Lankan society have been slow and demonstrations by the Tamil diaspora have taken place around the world. Much of the global community has urged the Sri Lankan government to reconcile with the IDPs but internal politics makes this difficult. Furthermore, Sri Lanka doesn't get much in the way of foreign aid so international pressure holds limited sway.

One potential piece of good news is that Sri Lanka is set to hold a presidential election in the coming months, which means that all Sri Lankans, including the Tamils, will have a role in shaping the new government. In light of this, it seems that the current government is working harder to heal old wounds.

This effort, if successful may provide a useful exemplar for other countries with significant numbers of IDPs, including Sudan, Iraq, and Colombia, to follow in the future. Failure, on the other hand, may lead to more conflict and potential destabilization. Either way, it's an experiment whose results are sure to be worthy of world attention.

Michael McNerney is a Truman Security Fellow and former military officer with nonprofit experience in Sri Lanka. The views expressed here are his own.

Sink or Swim: The Maldives become the world's conscience on climate change


Spread out flat like a thin emerald necklace over a band of the Indian Ocean about the size of Maine, the islands of the Maldives are no longer content to lay low on the world stage. As climate change is causing sea levels to rise, the nation with the world's lowest average elevation has become the first to confront a remarkable choice: stop climate change or face national extinction.

Thanks to the 2008 election of the charismatic President Mohamed Nasheed-the Maldives's first new president in 30 years, who ranks one spot above Barack Obama on one "Hottest Heads of State" list-the Maldives has become the poster child for the effects of climate change in the developing world, and Maldivians themselves have become vocal advocates of radical measures to stop climate change.

Other nations-Bangladesh, Nauru, Chad, Zimbabwe-face costly catastrophe if climate change is not slowed to less than a 2 degree rise in Earth's average temperature. But the Maldives has assumed a mantle of leadership in the Association Of Small Island States, a critical bloc in the international climate negotiations. Because of President Nasheed's activism, and his eye for publicity-in October, his cabinet suited up in scuba gear to stage the world's first underwater bill-signing-the Maldives is changing its image from a sleepy tourist destination into the world's conscience on climate.

The Maldives has led the international charge for adaptation funding-money given by developed countries to help poor developing countries cope with the costs of climate change. The Maldives often compares its request for such aid to the Bush and Obama administrations' bailouts of Wall Street. The hotter it gets, the more President Nasheed's words echo in our ears: Climate change is happening now. Our response is urgent. The Earth is too big to fail.

Eric Maltzer is a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and a specialist on climate issues.

Voting Irregularities: Asia's oldest democracy on the brink


While Americans traveled far and wide to see family for Thanksgiving, a one-time U.S. colony, the Philippines, suffered a brutal massacre that shocked Filipinos and the international community alike.

Fifty-seven civilians, journalists, and lawyers were massacred by members of a private militia on the Philippines' conflict-wracked southern island of Mindanao. The long dominant Amputuan clan, a significant support base for the ruling Arroyo administration, orchestrated the killings to prevent a new challenger from officially filing to run for governor in next May's national elections.

While an extreme case, the Maguindanao Massacre-named for the province in which the killings took place-is hardly the first instance of election-related violence in the Philippines.

Consider the contests of 2004 and 2007. In 2004, 189 people lost their lives. Conditions improved in 2007, but there were still 126 deaths. A spate of extrajudicial killings of leftist activists and party leaders has gone unpunished. The Committee to Protect Journalists now calls the Philippines the world's most dangerous place for members of the press, many of whom cover local politics and corruption cases. The tragedy of political violence-perpetuated by a deeply entrenched culture of impunity-is too familiar.

This year's atrocities were especially worrisome because they exposed the Arroyo administration's support for local militias to defeat the country's Communist and Muslim insurgencies. Moreover, to facilitate arrests-and to the alarm of many Filipinos-the massacre provided the current government with the opportunity to declare martial law.

Despite these challenges, the Philippines has a dynamic Supreme Court, vibrant civil society, and proud tradition of "people power" that make it far from a hopeless case.

In recent years, the state of democracy in Asia's oldest democracy has weakened significantly, making next year's elections critical. The international community would do well to stay tuned beyond this single devastating incident in Maguindanao. The future of human rights in the United States's longest-standing ally in the region and one of the Association of Southeast Asian Nation's best hopes depends on it.

Camille Eiss is Director of Programs for the Truman National Security Project and a Southeast Asia Analyst for Freedom House.]]>

China and Afghanistan aren't the only two foreign countries that matter.


You couldn't swing a dead cat in 2009 without hitting headlines about the troop escalation in Afghanistan or the troop withdrawal in Iraq. The same goes for the rise of China and the not-so-democratic presidential "election" in Iran. These were some of the big international attention-getters of the year, and for layman and foreign policy professionals alike, they're stories that most of us have heard about.

But let's be fair. There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 countries in world, not just the 10 we hear about on television. Here are five countries that changed the world in 2009-and are largely absent in mainstream American press coverage.

By bringing to light the unique circumstances that are shaping these individual countries, we can also discern trends that are shaping the wider world. Plus, if globalization is going to bring peoples and nations closer together anyway, it can't hurt to know more about the folks we're sharing a planet with.

From Pigs to Politics: Swine flu in Ukraine

The H1N1 influenza pandemic is milder than initially feared-though widespread globally, the impact is comparable to seasonal influenza. But how countries have faced it can reveal their preparedness for more virulent pathogens. As the case of Ukraine makes clear, even a relatively tame virus can cause major social disruption when combined with ineffective governance.

In July, Gallup reported that 4 percent of Ukranians approve of the performance of their country's leadership-the lowest rating it ever recorded anywhere. This likely reflects conflict between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, former allies swept to power with the 2004 Orange Revolution. Both are candidates in the January, 2010, Presidential elections; their bitter rivalry has undermined policymaking while Ukraine's economy has collapsed.

With the first confirmed death from H1N1 in Ukraine, Tymoshenko instituted stringent measures, including banning political rallies (after holding her own, that is). Ukraine has reported about 400 H1N1 deaths and Tymoshenko is widely suspected of exaggerating the danger to assume a hero role and narrow the gap with Presidential frontrunner Viktor Yanukovich. If the rumors are true, the strategy is working. Yushchenko, trailing in polls, was accused of trying to delay elections in the name of a public health emergency.

The media, with new freedoms since the Orange Revolution, amplified public panic. People emptied pharmacies, hoarding medicine and masks. Patients waited days before seeking treatment from a dysfunctional health-care system, leading to severe H1N1 disease and possibly avoidable deaths. They couldn't receive antiviral medication until H1N1 was confirmed by a laboratory in Kiev.

Meanwhile, the World Health Organization is investigating changes in the H1N1 virus in Ukraine that might make control more difficult. Influenza viruses mutate readily and the significance of these changes is notoriously difficult to ascertain.

Many countries have ineffective governments and under-resourced health-care systems.  Add an enigmatic pathogen, and conditions are ripe for social upheaval.

Dr. Jean-Paul Chretien is a fellow of the Truman National Security Project and an active duty U.S. military officer. The views expressed here are his own.

A Few Good Yemen: When Everything that can go wrong in a Middle East country, does

Yemen, home of the fabled Queen of Sheba and ancient cradle of civilization... What does it have to do with the 21st Century? Well, pretty much everything.

Roughly the size of Texas, this arid country reaps few benefits from its location on the oil-rich Arabian Peninsula. Far from it. In 2009, Yemen endured nearly every hardship imaginable.

Dwindling oil reserves. A precariously low water supply. Incessant conflict, stoked by meddling archrivals Iran and Saudi Arabia. An ongoing refugee crisis and humanitarian emergency. Piracy. Rising hunger, and the threat of another food crisis.

Yemen's experiences speak volumes. Its fate could well foreshadow that of the broader Middle East, as oil supplies ebb while climate change accelerates desertification. In 2009,Yemen ranked as one of three countries hardest hit by extreme weather.

Yemen's woes also portend new security challenges across the developing world. Having lingered on the margins of the global economy, countries with the world's poorest billion people like Yemen can't pay government workers, secure their borders, provide basic public services, or jump start their economies.

One result: extremists can now operate more freely and idle youths heed their call to arms, as recent evidence demonstrates. Lethal terrorist attacks are increasing in poor countries, where more often, they target the U.S.

Yemen is no exception. This year, al Qaeda established a new hub there. United States intelligence czar Dennis Blair and President Obama both warned Yemen is re-emerging as a jihadist battleground. The country's plight reverberated across the globe on November 5 when a U.S. Army psychiatrist killed 13 people at Fort Hood. The suspect had had repeated contacts with a radical imam in Yemen.

Is an alternative future conceivable for Yemen? Sure, and the call in U.S. Congress for increased support for development and peace in Yemen is a tiny first step in the right direction. But as 2009 turns into 2010, we'd do well to keep taking more steps.

Corinne Graff is a Truman National Security Project Fellow and a Fellow at the Brookings Institution, where she has just finished a co-edited book on fragile states titled Confronting Poverty: Weak States and U.S. National Security.

Not at Home, But not Abroad: Making room for rebels after Sri Lanka's civil war

For much of modern history, Sri Lanka, an island nation located off the southern coast of India, has been synonymous with paradise. British colonialists grew some of the world's finest teas in the tropical climate of the island they formerly called Ceylon.

Sadly, in recent years Sri Lanka has become another in a long list of countries plagued by ethnic strife and terrorism due to a civil war between the mainly Buddhist Sinhalese majority government and the mainly Hindu Tamilese minority rebels. Compounding the tragedy, the island was also devastated by the giant tsunami of 2004, which killed over 30,000 Sri Lankans.

After years of fighting, the Sinhalese government finally defeated the Tamil rebels this year. Unfortunately, since that time Sri Lanka has been grappling with over 260,000 internally displaced persons, a condition affecting an estimated 24.5 million people worldwide and generally deemed to be one of today's most daunting humanitarian challenges.

Efforts to reintegrate the Tamils back into Sri Lankan society have been slow and demonstrations by the Tamil diaspora have taken place around the world. Much of the global community has urged the Sri Lankan government to reconcile with the IDPs but internal politics makes this difficult. Furthermore, Sri Lanka doesn't get much in the way of foreign aid so international pressure holds limited sway.

One potential piece of good news is that Sri Lanka is set to hold a presidential election in the coming months, which means that all Sri Lankans, including the Tamils, will have a role in shaping the new government. In light of this, it seems that the current government is working harder to heal old wounds.

This effort, if successful may provide a useful exemplar for other countries with significant numbers of IDPs, including Sudan, Iraq, and Colombia, to follow in the future. Failure, on the other hand, may lead to more conflict and potential destabilization. Either way, it's an experiment whose results are sure to be worthy of world attention.

Michael McNerney is a Truman Security Fellow and former military officer with nonprofit experience in Sri Lanka. The views expressed here are his own.

Sink or Swim: The Maldives become the world's conscience on climate change


Spread out flat like a thin emerald necklace over a band of the Indian Ocean about the size of Maine, the islands of the Maldives are no longer content to lay low on the world stage. As climate change is causing sea levels to rise, the nation with the world's lowest average elevation has become the first to confront a remarkable choice: stop climate change or face national extinction.

Thanks to the 2008 election of the charismatic President Mohamed Nasheed-the Maldives's first new president in 30 years, who ranks one spot above Barack Obama on one "Hottest Heads of State" list-the Maldives has become the poster child for the effects of climate change in the developing world, and Maldivians themselves have become vocal advocates of radical measures to stop climate change.

Other nations-Bangladesh, Nauru, Chad, Zimbabwe-face costly catastrophe if climate change is not slowed to less than a 2 degree rise in Earth's average temperature. But the Maldives has assumed a mantle of leadership in the Association Of Small Island States, a critical bloc in the international climate negotiations. Because of President Nasheed's activism, and his eye for publicity-in October, his cabinet suited up in scuba gear to stage the world's first underwater bill-signing-the Maldives is changing its image from a sleepy tourist destination into the world's conscience on climate.

The Maldives has led the international charge for adaptation funding-money given by developed countries to help poor developing countries cope with the costs of climate change. The Maldives often compares its request for such aid to the Bush and Obama administrations' bailouts of Wall Street. The hotter it gets, the more President Nasheed's words echo in our ears: Climate change is happening now. Our response is urgent. The Earth is too big to fail.

Eric Maltzer is a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and a specialist on climate issues.

Voting Irregularities: Asia's oldest democracy on the brink


While Americans traveled far and wide to see family for Thanksgiving, a one-time U.S. colony, the Philippines, suffered a brutal massacre that shocked Filipinos and the international community alike.

Fifty-seven civilians, journalists, and lawyers were massacred by members of a private militia on the Philippines' conflict-wracked southern island of Mindanao. The long dominant Amputuan clan, a significant support base for the ruling Arroyo administration, orchestrated the killings to prevent a new challenger from officially filing to run for governor in next May's national elections.

While an extreme case, the Maguindanao Massacre-named for the province in which the killings took place-is hardly the first instance of election-related violence in the Philippines.

Consider the contests of 2004 and 2007. In 2004, 189 people lost their lives. Conditions improved in 2007, but there were still 126 deaths. A spate of extrajudicial killings of leftist activists and party leaders has gone unpunished. The Committee to Protect Journalists now calls the Philippines the world's most dangerous place for members of the press, many of whom cover local politics and corruption cases. The tragedy of political violence-perpetuated by a deeply entrenched culture of impunity-is too familiar.

This year's atrocities were especially worrisome because they exposed the Arroyo administration's support for local militias to defeat the country's Communist and Muslim insurgencies. Moreover, to facilitate arrests-and to the alarm of many Filipinos-the massacre provided the current government with the opportunity to declare martial law.

Despite these challenges, the Philippines has a dynamic Supreme Court, vibrant civil society, and proud tradition of "people power" that make it far from a hopeless case.

In recent years, the state of democracy in Asia's oldest democracy has weakened significantly, making next year's elections critical. The international community would do well to stay tuned beyond this single devastating incident in Maguindanao. The future of human rights in the United States's longest-standing ally in the region and one of the Association of Southeast Asian Nation's best hopes depends on it.

Camille Eiss is Director of Programs for the Truman National Security Project and a Southeast Asia Analyst for Freedom House.]]> GOOD Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:00:03 PST <![CDATA[Is Afghanistan Really a Critical Base for Terrorism?]]> http://www.good.is/post/is-afghanistan-really-a-critical-base-for-terrorism/ http://www.good.is/post/is-afghanistan-really-a-critical-base-for-terrorism/

If al Qaeda needs Afghanistan as a safe haven, we can't afford to leave.



The complexities of Afghanistan defy salvation by the answer to any single question. Still, one issue lies at the center of the future of America's mission there: does the al Qaeda-led global jihad need it for a safe haven? If an Afghan foothold allows al Qaeda Inc. to plan attacks against the United States, whether directly or indirectly, then there's a good case for sticking around for a while. If al Qaeda can just set up equally effective operations elsewhere, regardless of what the United States does in Afghanistan, then there's a good case for getting out sooner rather than later.



President Obama has now answered. He plans to send 30,000 more troops to engage in a targeted yet robust counterinsurgency campaign aiming to secure the population, build up government forces, and defeat irreconcilable elements of the Taliban allied with al Qaeda and its friends.



Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard, has questioned this strategy. He argues that "defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan isn't the key to thwarting al Qaeda." That is true, but it's also a straw man. There is no single key. Al Qaeda must be confronted on many fronts, in many lands, using all instruments of national policy.



It is enough that Afghanistan is a central front. According to Peter Bergen, a journalist who interviewed Osama bin Laden as early as 1997, al Qaeda training camps are critical to its ability to mount meaningful attacks. As he points out, virtually all recent plots targeting the West, including the recent case of Najibullah Zazi, link to operatives who underwent intensive training in Afghanistan or Pakistan. And we can't quite go into the latter.



Contra Walt, al Qaeda needs more than "safe houses … and a supply of potential martyrs." It needs trainers, time, freedom of movement, and access to networks that can resource them. These are all harder to come by in alternate countries like Yemen and Somalia where the group's roots are shallower and American countermeasures and intelligence operations are logistically quite simpler. To say that al Qaeda could just as well set up shop elsewhere is to misapprehend the continued payoffs of bin Laden's three decade-long investment in Afghanistan and its Taliban elements.



Indeed, notwithstanding occasional grumblings and second-guessing, the Taliban's synergies with al Qaeda should not be underestimated. If the country slides into Taliban hands once again, it is difficult to conclude that chief Taliban leaders such as Jalaluddin Haqqani, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and Mullah Omar would turn on al Qaeda.



Mullah Omar's daughter is married to bin Laden's son-no small connection in that part of the world-while the Haqqani family and bin Laden are old friends. Al Qaeda, moreover, provides the Taliban with important military and financial assistance. These handouts would become more valuable if the United States leaves, as an early departure would likely provoke yet another civil war in Afghanistan. Given its less than stellar treatment of Tajiks, Turkmen, and Hazaras in the past-all important ethnic groups in Afghanistan-the Taliban would have to prepare itself for stiff resistance. Having al Qaeda in its back pocket would make those preparations much easier.



Some argue the Taliban will not risk tolerating an al Qaeda presence for fear of replaying the events of 2001 that dislodged them from power. But it is a stretch to think the United States could make a credible threat after withdrawing in what the Taliban will see as surrender. Notwithstanding criticisms they have leveled at their friends in al Qaeda, it is not at all apparent there has been a strategic break. The hope of a chastened Taliban is a thin reed upon which to rest U.S. national security decisions of such consequence.



Certainly, nationalism and Pashtun pride courses through the veins of Taliban leaders. And one can't say the same for al Qaeda. Nevertheless, the presence of nationalism does not imply the absence of religious fundamentalism. The Taliban did not come to power to run a state that picks up the garbage or makes the trains run on time. It sought to impose stark vision of Islam on the people of Afghanistan, a vision al Qaeda largely shares.



If the future of America's mission in Afghanistan depends on whether al Qaeda needs an Afghan foothold, then the answer is clear. Al Qaeda does need an Afghan foothold, and so the United States must take the necessary steps to stop that from happening. The Taliban and al Qaeda have not changed their stripes, and we have seen first-hand the consequences of their alliance. That is why President Obama's long-anticipated decision, though difficult and fraught with risk, is nevertheless the right choice.



Michael Lieberman is a Fellow at the Truman National Security Project.


]]>

If al Qaeda needs Afghanistan as a safe haven, we can't afford to leave.



The complexities of Afghanistan defy salvation by the answer to any single question. Still, one issue lies at the center of the future of America's mission there: does the al Qaeda-led global jihad need it for a safe haven? If an Afghan foothold allows al Qaeda Inc. to plan attacks against the United States, whether directly or indirectly, then there's a good case for sticking around for a while. If al Qaeda can just set up equally effective operations elsewhere, regardless of what the United States does in Afghanistan, then there's a good case for getting out sooner rather than later.



President Obama has now answered. He plans to send 30,000 more troops to engage in a targeted yet robust counterinsurgency campaign aiming to secure the population, build up government forces, and defeat irreconcilable elements of the Taliban allied with al Qaeda and its friends.



Stephen Walt, a professor of international relations at Harvard, has questioned this strategy. He argues that "defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan isn't the key to thwarting al Qaeda." That is true, but it's also a straw man. There is no single key. Al Qaeda must be confronted on many fronts, in many lands, using all instruments of national policy.



It is enough that Afghanistan is a central front. According to Peter Bergen, a journalist who interviewed Osama bin Laden as early as 1997, al Qaeda training camps are critical to its ability to mount meaningful attacks. As he points out, virtually all recent plots targeting the West, including the recent case of Najibullah Zazi, link to operatives who underwent intensive training in Afghanistan or Pakistan. And we can't quite go into the latter.



Contra Walt, al Qaeda needs more than "safe houses … and a supply of potential martyrs." It needs trainers, time, freedom of movement, and access to networks that can resource them. These are all harder to come by in alternate countries like Yemen and Somalia where the group's roots are shallower and American countermeasures and intelligence operations are logistically quite simpler. To say that al Qaeda could just as well set up shop elsewhere is to misapprehend the continued payoffs of bin Laden's three decade-long investment in Afghanistan and its Taliban elements.



Indeed, notwithstanding occasional grumblings and second-guessing, the Taliban's synergies with al Qaeda should not be underestimated. If the country slides into Taliban hands once again, it is difficult to conclude that chief Taliban leaders such as Jalaluddin Haqqani, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and Mullah Omar would turn on al Qaeda.



Mullah Omar's daughter is married to bin Laden's son-no small connection in that part of the world-while the Haqqani family and bin Laden are old friends. Al Qaeda, moreover, provides the Taliban with important military and financial assistance. These handouts would become more valuable if the United States leaves, as an early departure would likely provoke yet another civil war in Afghanistan. Given its less than stellar treatment of Tajiks, Turkmen, and Hazaras in the past-all important ethnic groups in Afghanistan-the Taliban would have to prepare itself for stiff resistance. Having al Qaeda in its back pocket would make those preparations much easier.



Some argue the Taliban will not risk tolerating an al Qaeda presence for fear of replaying the events of 2001 that dislodged them from power. But it is a stretch to think the United States could make a credible threat after withdrawing in what the Taliban will see as surrender. Notwithstanding criticisms they have leveled at their friends in al Qaeda, it is not at all apparent there has been a strategic break. The hope of a chastened Taliban is a thin reed upon which to rest U.S. national security decisions of such consequence.



Certainly, nationalism and Pashtun pride courses through the veins of Taliban leaders. And one can't say the same for al Qaeda. Nevertheless, the presence of nationalism does not imply the absence of religious fundamentalism. The Taliban did not come to power to run a state that picks up the garbage or makes the trains run on time. It sought to impose stark vision of Islam on the people of Afghanistan, a vision al Qaeda largely shares.



If the future of America's mission in Afghanistan depends on whether al Qaeda needs an Afghan foothold, then the answer is clear. Al Qaeda does need an Afghan foothold, and so the United States must take the necessary steps to stop that from happening. The Taliban and al Qaeda have not changed their stripes, and we have seen first-hand the consequences of their alliance. That is why President Obama's long-anticipated decision, though difficult and fraught with risk, is nevertheless the right choice.



Michael Lieberman is a Fellow at the Truman National Security Project.


]]> Michael M. Lieberman Tue, 1 Dec 2009 08:00:03 PST <![CDATA[Is Obesity a National Security Problem?]]> http://www.good.is/post/is-obesity-a-national-security-problem/ http://www.good.is/post/is-obesity-a-national-security-problem/

To defend our way of life abroad we may need to reconsider how much junk food it involves at home.



It's not every day that former generals and admirals speak out about children's health and education. But last Thursday was one of those days. According to Mission: Readiness, a nonprofit, bipartisan organization led by retired senior military leaders, 75 percent of 17 to 24 year olds cannot enlist in the military because they fail to graduate high school, have a criminal record, or are physically unfit.



One trend called out in the report deserves special attention: America's obesity epidemic not only limits the military's recruiting base, but is a growing drain on the Department of Defense budget and hurts the readiness of our forces. The numbers are alarming. Since 1998, the rate at which active-duty servicemembers received a medical diagnosis of being overweight or obese increased more than 2.5-fold.



We all know Americans are gaining weight. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than one-third of adults in the United States are obese, double the rate in 1980; around two-thirds are at least overweight. (An adult with a body mass index between 25 and 29.9 is overweight; 30 or higher is obese. Someone 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighing 169 lbs, for example, is considered overweight. If that same person weighed more than 203 lbs, he would be obese.)



There's no mystery behind this phenomenon. Less than 10 percent of high school students consume the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables daily. Less than one-third meet the recommended levels of physical activity. Children and adolescents average several hours of TV, DVD, and movie-watching daily. Sugar-sweetened drinks are everywhere, including schools.



These lifestyles, however, are reflected in our military, and the costs are considerable. One-quarter of DoD beneficiaries (which includes servicemembers and their families, and retirees) are obese, little better than in the general U.S. population, while 40 percent are overweight. As in the civilian sector, the military health system is spending a lot of money treating conditions that obesity promotes, like heart disease and diabetes. The DoD estimates its healthcare costs attributable to obesity at $2 billion per year, more than for alcohol- and tobacco-related conditions combined. The cost is sure to grow under an expanded DoD entitlement program for retirees (the Congressional Budget Office projects a near-doubling of DoD healthcare costs, from $46 to $85 billion, during the next 30 years), and could constrain other critical DoD medical treatment and prevention programs.



Then, of course, there is the impact on individual military members. The Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center reports that rates of joint and back disorders-among the leading causes of lost duty time-in overweight or obese active duty servicemembers are three times higher than the overall active duty rate. Nearly one-quarter of servicemembers diagnosed as obese or overweight last year also were diagnosed with a joint disorder during the previous year.



Obesity may even play a role in the mental consequences of war, a link we're only just beginning to understand. This year, a large DoD epidemiological study that includes many personnel who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan reported that servicemembers who don't see themselves as healthy-which we know correlates with being overweight or obese-were at significantly higher risk for post-traumatic stress disorder.



The link between America's obesity epidemic and national security is becoming clear to public health experts like Dr. Richard Carmona, who is especially qualified to recognize the connection. He enlisted in the Army, served in Special Forces, and was a combat-decorated Vietnam veteran before beginning his medical career and going on to serve as President George W. Bush's Surgeon General. Dr. Carmona said recently that "Obesity is not just a health issue" but "affects our national and global security."



The DoD is launching new initiatives against obesity. The military health system recently completed a pilot project using an internet-based program to help beneficiaries lose weight. Commissaries now have shelf signs with dietary tips based on U.S. Government dietary guidelines. More important, probably, is to help children establish healthy lifestyle habits. Investing in early education on food and health is a good bargain for America whether or not these children choose military service later.



And that's something that healthy lifestyle campaigners and supporters a strong military-not always a natural constituency-can agree on.


]]>

To defend our way of life abroad we may need to reconsider how much junk food it involves at home.



It's not every day that former generals and admirals speak out about children's health and education. But last Thursday was one of those days. According to Mission: Readiness, a nonprofit, bipartisan organization led by retired senior military leaders, 75 percent of 17 to 24 year olds cannot enlist in the military because they fail to graduate high school, have a criminal record, or are physically unfit.



One trend called out in the report deserves special attention: America's obesity epidemic not only limits the military's recruiting base, but is a growing drain on the Department of Defense budget and hurts the readiness of our forces. The numbers are alarming. Since 1998, the rate at which active-duty servicemembers received a medical diagnosis of being overweight or obese increased more than 2.5-fold.



We all know Americans are gaining weight. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than one-third of adults in the United States are obese, double the rate in 1980; around two-thirds are at least overweight. (An adult with a body mass index between 25 and 29.9 is overweight; 30 or higher is obese. Someone 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighing 169 lbs, for example, is considered overweight. If that same person weighed more than 203 lbs, he would be obese.)



There's no mystery behind this phenomenon. Less than 10 percent of high school students consume the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables daily. Less than one-third meet the recommended levels of physical activity. Children and adolescents average several hours of TV, DVD, and movie-watching daily. Sugar-sweetened drinks are everywhere, including schools.



These lifestyles, however, are reflected in our military, and the costs are considerable. One-quarter of DoD beneficiaries (which includes servicemembers and their families, and retirees) are obese, little better than in the general U.S. population, while 40 percent are overweight. As in the civilian sector, the military health system is spending a lot of money treating conditions that obesity promotes, like heart disease and diabetes. The DoD estimates its healthcare costs attributable to obesity at $2 billion per year, more than for alcohol- and tobacco-related conditions combined. The cost is sure to grow under an expanded DoD entitlement program for retirees (the Congressional Budget Office projects a near-doubling of DoD healthcare costs, from $46 to $85 billion, during the next 30 years), and could constrain other critical DoD medical treatment and prevention programs.



Then, of course, there is the impact on individual military members. The Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center reports that rates of joint and back disorders-among the leading causes of lost duty time-in overweight or obese active duty servicemembers are three times higher than the overall active duty rate. Nearly one-quarter of servicemembers diagnosed as obese or overweight last year also were diagnosed with a joint disorder during the previous year.



Obesity may even play a role in the mental consequences of war, a link we're only just beginning to understand. This year, a large DoD epidemiological study that includes many personnel who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan reported that servicemembers who don't see themselves as healthy-which we know correlates with being overweight or obese-were at significantly higher risk for post-traumatic stress disorder.



The link between America's obesity epidemic and national security is becoming clear to public health experts like Dr. Richard Carmona, who is especially qualified to recognize the connection. He enlisted in the Army, served in Special Forces, and was a combat-decorated Vietnam veteran before beginning his medical career and going on to serve as President George W. Bush's Surgeon General. Dr. Carmona said recently that "Obesity is not just a health issue" but "affects our national and global security."



The DoD is launching new initiatives against obesity. The military health system recently completed a pilot project using an internet-based program to help beneficiaries lose weight. Commissaries now have shelf signs with dietary tips based on U.S. Government dietary guidelines. More important, probably, is to help children establish healthy lifestyle habits. Investing in early education on food and health is a good bargain for America whether or not these children choose military service later.



And that's something that healthy lifestyle campaigners and supporters a strong military-not always a natural constituency-can agree on.


]]> Jean-Paul Chretien Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:00:39 PST <![CDATA[Party Like It's 1969 ]]> http://www.good.is/post/party-like-it-s-1969/ http://www.good.is/post/party-like-it-s-1969/ trumanviet76The most significant parallel between Afghanistan and Vietnam isn't the potential quagmire abroad.

Comparisons between Afghanistan and Vietnam are popular these days, as worries of another "quagmire" mount. But the most significant parallel might not be the wars themselves, but rather the divisions they cause among Democrats in Congress. As with Vietnam, Congressional divisions could set the public narrative on Afghanistan and leave the President with a political quagmire at home.



Democrats won big in the 1964 election, but President Lyndon Johnson struggled to convince his party to continue America's involvement in Vietnam. Johnson was concerned that if South Vietnam fell, so would the other countries in the region; furthermore, he upped the ante on Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin incident earlier that year. Johnson's war policy of "gradualism" called for steadily increasing military pressure against the North Vietnamese. Congressional Democrats, however, criticized this approach from both sides.



These divisions played out through televised hearings at a time when foreign policy differences were rarely aired in public. On one side, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, William Fulbright of Arkansas, heard testimony in 1966 from intellectuals who opposed an escalation of the war and called for a negotiated settlement. Shortly thereafter, Senator John Stennis of Mississippi held Senate Armed Services Committee subcommittee hearings in which military leaders testified in favor of escalating the commitment further than the administration advocated.



Since the Johnson administration proved inept at articulating its own strategy, the Congressional debate took center stage in the public mind. The national conversation boiled down to a discussion of two extremes-scale down or dramatically ramp up-and left no room for other strategies. The hearings, and the debate they shaped, crowded Johnson's "gradualism" from the field.



A similar scenario could be playing out today. Intra-party fissures among congressional Democrats exist over General Stanley McChrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops. Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton supports General McChrystal's request, but chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin is skeptical. Disagreement also exists between the leaders of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, with Senator Daniel Inouye in favor of a counterinsurgency strategy, and Congressman David Obey in opposition to a troop buildup.



Not only have Congressional Democrats begun staking out their positions, they have also begun pushing actions to advance their causes. Congressman Skelton is calling for General McChrystal to testify to Congress at his earliest convenience. In echoes of the 1969 Church-Cooper resolution, which restricted funding for expanding the Vietnam War, Congressman Obey has promised scrutiny of the administration's funding request for any additional troops.



On the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the President has already ruled out withdrawing from Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Congressional Democrats have started a debate that presents America with a binary choice-give General McChrystal what he wants, or start getting out. But those aren't the only two options. The President could send more troops, but perhaps fewer than requested. He could also re-tailor the mission by concentrating on the use of U.S. troops to train Afghan troops. Or he could maintain troop levels and change what the troops are actually doing. The list goes on.



The President has chosen to conduct a comprehensive review to determine which of these options presents our best bet for creating a successful strategy for Afghanistan-an eminently responsible action for a Commander-in-Chief. However, as he takes the time to reach a decision, the extremes represented in the Congressional conversation are growing more entrenched. If the President recommends a strategy that does not exactly reflect one of the two extremes-as is likely to be the case-he risks being drowned out in the public square, where those extremes have begun to take root.



In other words, the longer President Obama remains mum, the more difficult this task will become.



The President has clearly taken some lessons from Vietnam to heart, evoking that war while emphasizing the need to support our troops with the right strategy and resources. Vietnam, however, is also a lesson in how intra-party splits can hinder a President's strategy, particularly if it's an alternative approach that does not have its own advocates on Capitol Hill. Given the stakes, Americans deserve to hear all the options at our disposal in Afghanistan. By taking this lesson of Vietnam to heart, the President can help make sure that happens.



Jessie Daniels is a Principal of the Truman Project and is currently an independent writer living in New York City.



Photo courtesy of The National Archives.


]]> trumanviet76The most significant parallel between Afghanistan and Vietnam isn't the potential quagmire abroad.

Comparisons between Afghanistan and Vietnam are popular these days, as worries of another "quagmire" mount. But the most significant parallel might not be the wars themselves, but rather the divisions they cause among Democrats in Congress. As with Vietnam, Congressional divisions could set the public narrative on Afghanistan and leave the President with a political quagmire at home.



Democrats won big in the 1964 election, but President Lyndon Johnson struggled to convince his party to continue America's involvement in Vietnam. Johnson was concerned that if South Vietnam fell, so would the other countries in the region; furthermore, he upped the ante on Vietnam after the Gulf of Tonkin incident earlier that year. Johnson's war policy of "gradualism" called for steadily increasing military pressure against the North Vietnamese. Congressional Democrats, however, criticized this approach from both sides.



These divisions played out through televised hearings at a time when foreign policy differences were rarely aired in public. On one side, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, William Fulbright of Arkansas, heard testimony in 1966 from intellectuals who opposed an escalation of the war and called for a negotiated settlement. Shortly thereafter, Senator John Stennis of Mississippi held Senate Armed Services Committee subcommittee hearings in which military leaders testified in favor of escalating the commitment further than the administration advocated.



Since the Johnson administration proved inept at articulating its own strategy, the Congressional debate took center stage in the public mind. The national conversation boiled down to a discussion of two extremes-scale down or dramatically ramp up-and left no room for other strategies. The hearings, and the debate they shaped, crowded Johnson's "gradualism" from the field.



A similar scenario could be playing out today. Intra-party fissures among congressional Democrats exist over General Stanley McChrystal's request for 40,000 additional troops. Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee Ike Skelton supports General McChrystal's request, but chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee Carl Levin is skeptical. Disagreement also exists between the leaders of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, with Senator Daniel Inouye in favor of a counterinsurgency strategy, and Congressman David Obey in opposition to a troop buildup.



Not only have Congressional Democrats begun staking out their positions, they have also begun pushing actions to advance their causes. Congressman Skelton is calling for General McChrystal to testify to Congress at his earliest convenience. In echoes of the 1969 Church-Cooper resolution, which restricted funding for expanding the Vietnam War, Congressman Obey has promised scrutiny of the administration's funding request for any additional troops.



On the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the President has already ruled out withdrawing from Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Congressional Democrats have started a debate that presents America with a binary choice-give General McChrystal what he wants, or start getting out. But those aren't the only two options. The President could send more troops, but perhaps fewer than requested. He could also re-tailor the mission by concentrating on the use of U.S. troops to train Afghan troops. Or he could maintain troop levels and change what the troops are actually doing. The list goes on.



The President has chosen to conduct a comprehensive review to determine which of these options presents our best bet for creating a successful strategy for Afghanistan-an eminently responsible action for a Commander-in-Chief. However, as he takes the time to reach a decision, the extremes represented in the Congressional conversation are growing more entrenched. If the President recommends a strategy that does not exactly reflect one of the two extremes-as is likely to be the case-he risks being drowned out in the public square, where those extremes have begun to take root.



In other words, the longer President Obama remains mum, the more difficult this task will become.



The President has clearly taken some lessons from Vietnam to heart, evoking that war while emphasizing the need to support our troops with the right strategy and resources. Vietnam, however, is also a lesson in how intra-party splits can hinder a President's strategy, particularly if it's an alternative approach that does not have its own advocates on Capitol Hill. Given the stakes, Americans deserve to hear all the options at our disposal in Afghanistan. By taking this lesson of Vietnam to heart, the President can help make sure that happens.



Jessie Daniels is a Principal of the Truman Project and is currently an independent writer living in New York City.



Photo courtesy of The National Archives.


]]> Jessie Daniels Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:14:17 PST <![CDATA[Going Ballistic]]> http://www.good.is/post/going-ballistic/ http://www.good.is/post/going-ballistic/

America doesn't need a missile defense system in Europe, or this new fear-mongering film.



With the relative silence of Dick Cheney in recent months, American political debates have been disturbingly absent of abject scare tactics (besides the occasional invocation of "death-panels"). Thankfully, the Heritage Foundation-a conservative think tank-has filled this vacuum with a "documentary" on missile defense. Entitled 33 Minutes, the soon to be released film purports to tell the "brutal" "truth" that a ballistic missile, launched from anywhere on earth, could strike the United States in a mere 33 minutes. But what this movie actually does is frighten viewers into supporting a ballistic missile defense system that is costly, ineffective, and undermines President Obama's efforts to craft a realistic policy to counter the threat of nuclear weapons.



But first thing's first. What is a ballistic missile defense system? To paraphrase comedian David Cross, it's "a net made of magic, held in place by pixies." While that might not be completely accurate, it's not too far off. The idea behind ballistic missile defense is to shoot down our enemies' missiles. Whether that enemy is Iran or the old Soviet Union, B.M.D. is designed to make it impossible for adversaries to attack the United States with missiles. It may sound like beautiful idea on paper, but it's not so impressive in practice.







Nevertheless, B.M.D. has entered the pantheon of right-wing idols, along with gun rights, lower taxes, and Fox News. Although a Republican-Richard Nixon-initially limited U.S. use of B.M.D. with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Republicans have long argued that a lack of B.M.D. is an unconscionable infringement of U.S. sovereignty and will ultimately lead to the downfall of America. Ronald Reagan famously launched his Strategic Defense Initiative, or "Star Wars," to develop space-based missile defense systems, and Congressional Republicans continued to push for a B.M.D. system during Clinton's presidency. George W. Bush stayed the course, pulling out of the A.B.M. treaty early into his term and increasing efforts to install a B.M.D. system in Eastern Europe, which Russia interpreted as a threat.



A B.M.D. system may not increase U.S. security at all. The ability to shoot down incoming missiles would make our potential rivals-namely Russia and China-uneasy. Even if B.M.D. worked, such nations could simply build more missiles to overwhelm the system. And making B.M.D. work is a big challenge. The physics involved in shooting down a missile flying at a speed of 2.5 miles per second are incredibly complex, and we have yet to develop a reliable B.M.D. system despite the billions of dollars that have been spent.



On taking office earlier this year, President Obama attempted to change this situation.  In April, he gave a stirring speech calling for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. This was accompanied by concrete actions in September, when he announced that the United States would cancel the planned Eastern Europe missile system. Instead, we would implement a ship-based missile system to focus exclusively on a possible Iranian missile launch. Obama's altered missile defense system should also greatly decrease tension with Russia, which will help us pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program.



Obama, then, is committed to protecting America from the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Adapting Bush's B.M.D. initiatives to develop a more effective system is integral to these efforts. Yet the Right's obsession with B.M.D. led to vociferous opposition to Obama's plans. Republicans have accused him of "appeasing" Russia, abandoning allies in Eastern Europe and, ironically, "empowering" Iran. It is as part of this broader conservative campaign-a political attempt to paint Obama as weak on national security and reinstate a costly and ineffective program-that 33 Minutes must be understood.



This film has all the hallmarks of a well-funded fear baiting. Ominous music provides a backdrop to sound-bytes on ballistic missiles. Facts of questionable accuracy are combined with statements so vague as to appear concrete. One quote, taken from ArmsControlWonk's transcript of the film, illustrates this perfectly:



"It's very difficult to guess the number of states that will have ballistic missiles in ten years. If one follows a straight line projection, the number gets quite large."



33 Minutes will leave viewers anxious about their security, fearful of apparently-imminent ballistic missile strikes, and no more informed about B.M.D. than they were before. And that is exactly what Heritage wants. As long as Americans remain ill-informed about B.M.D., convinced that any sign of weakness will result in Iranian missiles raining down on us, we cannot have a true debate.



Obama is crafting a foreign policy that will decrease unnecessary antagonism with other nuclear states, limit nuclear proliferation, support allies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and, most importantly, protect America against the threat of nuclear attacks. Simplistic fear-mongering like 33 Minutes will do little but undermine these common sense goals and harm America's security interests.



LEARN MORE Read the primer on missile defense from the Council on Foreign Relations.



Peter Henne is a doctoral candidate at Georgetown University, and a Security Fellow with the Truman National Security Project. His writing has appeared on Huffington Post, Real Clear World, The Moderate Voice, and the Washington Post's "On Faith."



Photo from the Missile Defense Agency


]]>

America doesn't need a missile defense system in Europe, or this new fear-mongering film.



With the relative silence of Dick Cheney in recent months, American political debates have been disturbingly absent of abject scare tactics (besides the occasional invocation of "death-panels"). Thankfully, the Heritage Foundation-a conservative think tank-has filled this vacuum with a "documentary" on missile defense. Entitled 33 Minutes, the soon to be released film purports to tell the "brutal" "truth" that a ballistic missile, launched from anywhere on earth, could strike the United States in a mere 33 minutes. But what this movie actually does is frighten viewers into supporting a ballistic missile defense system that is costly, ineffective, and undermines President Obama's efforts to craft a realistic policy to counter the threat of nuclear weapons.



But first thing's first. What is a ballistic missile defense system? To paraphrase comedian David Cross, it's "a net made of magic, held in place by pixies." While that might not be completely accurate, it's not too far off. The idea behind ballistic missile defense is to shoot down our enemies' missiles. Whether that enemy is Iran or the old Soviet Union, B.M.D. is designed to make it impossible for adversaries to attack the United States with missiles. It may sound like beautiful idea on paper, but it's not so impressive in practice.







Nevertheless, B.M.D. has entered the pantheon of right-wing idols, along with gun rights, lower taxes, and Fox News. Although a Republican-Richard Nixon-initially limited U.S. use of B.M.D. with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, Republicans have long argued that a lack of B.M.D. is an unconscionable infringement of U.S. sovereignty and will ultimately lead to the downfall of America. Ronald Reagan famously launched his Strategic Defense Initiative, or "Star Wars," to develop space-based missile defense systems, and Congressional Republicans continued to push for a B.M.D. system during Clinton's presidency. George W. Bush stayed the course, pulling out of the A.B.M. treaty early into his term and increasing efforts to install a B.M.D. system in Eastern Europe, which Russia interpreted as a threat.



A B.M.D. system may not increase U.S. security at all. The ability to shoot down incoming missiles would make our potential rivals-namely Russia and China-uneasy. Even if B.M.D. worked, such nations could simply build more missiles to overwhelm the system. And making B.M.D. work is a big challenge. The physics involved in shooting down a missile flying at a speed of 2.5 miles per second are incredibly complex, and we have yet to develop a reliable B.M.D. system despite the billions of dollars that have been spent.



On taking office earlier this year, President Obama attempted to change this situation.  In April, he gave a stirring speech calling for the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. This was accompanied by concrete actions in September, when he announced that the United States would cancel the planned Eastern Europe missile system. Instead, we would implement a ship-based missile system to focus exclusively on a possible Iranian missile launch. Obama's altered missile defense system should also greatly decrease tension with Russia, which will help us pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program.



Obama, then, is committed to protecting America from the threat posed by nuclear weapons. Adapting Bush's B.M.D. initiatives to develop a more effective system is integral to these efforts. Yet the Right's obsession with B.M.D. led to vociferous opposition to Obama's plans. Republicans have accused him of "appeasing" Russia, abandoning allies in Eastern Europe and, ironically, "empowering" Iran. It is as part of this broader conservative campaign-a political attempt to paint Obama as weak on national security and reinstate a costly and ineffective program-that 33 Minutes must be understood.



This film has all the hallmarks of a well-funded fear baiting. Ominous music provides a backdrop to sound-bytes on ballistic missiles. Facts of questionable accuracy are combined with statements so vague as to appear concrete. One quote, taken from ArmsControlWonk's transcript of the film, illustrates this perfectly:



"It's very difficult to guess the number of states that will have ballistic missiles in ten years. If one follows a straight line projection, the number gets quite large."



33 Minutes will leave viewers anxious about their security, fearful of apparently-imminent ballistic missile strikes, and no more informed about B.M.D. than they were before. And that is exactly what Heritage wants. As long as Americans remain ill-informed about B.M.D., convinced that any sign of weakness will result in Iranian missiles raining down on us, we cannot have a true debate.



Obama is crafting a foreign policy that will decrease unnecessary antagonism with other nuclear states, limit nuclear proliferation, support allies in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, and, most importantly, protect America against the threat of nuclear attacks. Simplistic fear-mongering like 33 Minutes will do little but undermine these common sense goals and harm America's security interests.



LEARN MORE Read the primer on missile defense from the Council on Foreign Relations.



Peter Henne is a doctoral candidate at Georgetown University, and a Security Fellow with the Truman National Security Project. His writing has appeared on Huffington Post, Real Clear World, The Moderate Voice, and the Washington Post's "On Faith."



Photo from the Missile Defense Agency


]]> Peter Henne Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:27:11 PDT <![CDATA[Fixing Elections in Afghanistan]]> http://www.good.is/post/fixing-elections-in-afghanistan/ http://www.good.is/post/fixing-elections-in-afghanistan/

There's one bright spot in Afghanistan's election debacle: The fraud investigators are taking their job seriously.



America's war in Afghanistan isn't going well. The problems in Afghanistan range from a basic lack of government services-particularly security-to some of the lowest human development indicators in the world. As if the country didn't have enough to deal with, Afghanistan is now wrestling with the fallout of a deeply flawed election.



The ongoing debacle of the August 20 elections has only highlighted the depth of corruption and abuse in Afghan politics. Electoral authorities have found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud." The European Union's observation mission recently claimed that up to 1.5 million ballots could be fraudulent, enough to dramatically change the projected results.



While the elections have rightfully attracted much criticism, at least one reason for cautious optimism does exist: The Electoral Complaints Commission. The ECC, which is charged with investigating electoral abuse and irregularities, is taking its mandate seriously. It has ordered recounts at more than 2,500 polling stations, around 10 percent of the total. This is particularly impressive given the extraordinary pressure it is under to simply certify the "official" results and allow President Karzai to claim victory without a second round. If allowed to carry out its mandate unhindered, the work of the ECC could help restore some of the credibility in the electoral process, which in turn would translate into legitimacy for the government that emerges. With public confidence in the Afghan government at an all time low, this is critical.



In unveiling his Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, President Obama said that the United States "cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders." One way to confront that corruption would be to rally the international community to support the ECC. The 64th session of the General Assembly meeting this week in New York would be a good place to start. The people of Afghanistan would be reassured to know that the United States is still committed to one of the fundamental principles of democratic governance-that citizens choose their leaders.



Oren Ipp is a consultant in the field of democratic governance and a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project.



Photo of "Go Vote" billboard from Flickr user Todd Huffman (cc)


]]>

There's one bright spot in Afghanistan's election debacle: The fraud investigators are taking their job seriously.



America's war in Afghanistan isn't going well. The problems in Afghanistan range from a basic lack of government services-particularly security-to some of the lowest human development indicators in the world. As if the country didn't have enough to deal with, Afghanistan is now wrestling with the fallout of a deeply flawed election.



The ongoing debacle of the August 20 elections has only highlighted the depth of corruption and abuse in Afghan politics. Electoral authorities have found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud." The European Union's observation mission recently claimed that up to 1.5 million ballots could be fraudulent, enough to dramatically change the projected results.



While the elections have rightfully attracted much criticism, at least one reason for cautious optimism does exist: The Electoral Complaints Commission. The ECC, which is charged with investigating electoral abuse and irregularities, is taking its mandate seriously. It has ordered recounts at more than 2,500 polling stations, around 10 percent of the total. This is particularly impressive given the extraordinary pressure it is under to simply certify the "official" results and allow President Karzai to claim victory without a second round. If allowed to carry out its mandate unhindered, the work of the ECC could help restore some of the credibility in the electoral process, which in turn would translate into legitimacy for the government that emerges. With public confidence in the Afghan government at an all time low, this is critical.



In unveiling his Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, President Obama said that the United States "cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders." One way to confront that corruption would be to rally the international community to support the ECC. The 64th session of the General Assembly meeting this week in New York would be a good place to start. The people of Afghanistan would be reassured to know that the United States is still committed to one of the fundamental principles of democratic governance-that citizens choose their leaders.



Oren Ipp is a consultant in the field of democratic governance and a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project.



Photo of "Go Vote" billboard from Flickr user Todd Huffman (cc)


]]> Oren Ipp Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:05:44 PDT <![CDATA[Why We Should Ignore Ahmadinejad]]> http://www.good.is/post/why-we-should-ignore-ahmadinejad/ http://www.good.is/post/why-we-should-ignore-ahmadinejad/

The president of Iran says the darndest things-but that doesn't really matter.



This week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in New York to speak before the United Nations General Assembly. As with previous such appearances by the Iranian president, the event promises to inspire little substantive debate about Iran 's role in the world, its internal political divisions, or its controversial nuclear program. Instead, the Iranian delegation and its tireless critics here in the United States will bring us the kind of over-the-top dramatic performance that no VH1-produced reality show could ever fabricate. If only we could stop watching.



Ever since Ahmadinejad came to office following a dark horse election victory in 2005, the former mayor of Tehran has made himself into something of a caricature in Western eyes. Eternally impressed by his own revolutionary rhetoric, Ahmadinejad has not strayed too much from the regime's preferred vocabulary, using the U.N. as a platform to speak on behalf of the "oppressed" and against countries that "occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders;" code for the violence perpetrated by first-world nations, which Iran, of course, would never allow itself to engage in.



It doesn't help that his recent reelection was marred by claims that the vote was stolen, along with opposition street protests of a size and scope not seen since the revolution of 1978 and 1979.



But Iranian revolutionary talk has not tainted Ahmadinejad the way his anti-Semitic statements have. Aside from openly calling for the end of the state of Israel, the sole Jewish state in the world, Ahmadinejad has actually questioned the reality of the Holocaust-a move that speaks volumes about his lack of understanding of Western sensibilities.



Ahmadinejad hasn't escaped the caricature label back home, either. Following his first visit to the U.N. in 2005, he suggested to Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli that a halo had formed over him while he was speaking to an audience of world leaders: "A member of the (Iranian) delegation told me, ‘I saw a light that surrounded you.' … I sensed it myself too. … All leaders in audience didn't blink for 27, 28 minutes. … they had opened their eyes and ears to see what is the message from the Islamic Republic." The YouTube clip of the encounter made the rounds during the 2009 presidential election, cementing Ahmadinejad's image as a person of superstitious religiosity, the kind that tends to embarrass the clerical establishment and only further alienates Iran's millions of secular-leaning voters.



Of course, Ahmadinejad's antics are only part of the story. Western reactions to the Iranian president have ranged from strange to outright comical. While still U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in 2007 John Bolton called for Ahmadinejad to be "charged with inciting genocide," an quixotic effort by the U.S. delegation that wasted time and dwindling credibility.



Not to be outdone, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger allowed Ahmadinejad to speak at his university that same year, just so he could insult him in front of a national audience, saying in part, "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." Bollinger's words served as an insult to the Iranian nation, which, like every democratic and nondemocratic state in the world, deserved to have its leaders granted a basic level of diplomatic respect. The insult was also misguided-Ahmadinejad, perhaps despite his own hopes, is not even close to dictator-status. The presidency of Iran is a relatively weak office, with little say over domestic and international security matters.



With such extreme and useless language coming from influential figures in America, it is no accident that so much of the discussion in the media has degenerated into a false choice between embracing Ahmadinejad and his rhetoric, and setting the stage for a blind confrontation with Iran.



The United States-and the world-would benefit from long-term stability in Iraq and Afghanistan (both Iran 's neighbors). This will be impossible without the Islamic Republic's active and tireless cooperation. All negotiations, accusations, and debates regarding Iran and its political figures must be driven by our commitment to ensuring that the progress made by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is not undermined by our desire to "stick it" to Ahmadinejad.



Coming to an agreement with Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader and the country's ultimate constitutional authority, should be the Obama administration's focus. And as such it is difficult to see why Ahmadinejad needs to factor into the equation at all, no matter how eager he may be to sit across from U.S. officials and jump into one of his usual lectures.



Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. will serve as just another opportunity for politicians and the mainstream media to engage in a play-by-play analysis of Ahmadinejad's silly and at times hateful rhetoric. Iran's reality show, brought to us by confrontational figures in the Islamic Republic and the United States, will be just like reality shows on primetime American TV-predictably scripted and only vacuously entertaining.



If only the American public could stop obsessing over a talentless party girl, or hanging on every word of an equally overrated, attention-seeking Iranian president, our country might be able to focus on matters of serious consequence.



Nathan Gonzalez is the author of Engaging Iran: The Rise of a Middle East Powerhouse and America's Strategic Choice and the upcoming book The Sunni-Shia Conflict: Understanding Sectarian Violence in the Middle East. He is a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project.


]]>

The president of Iran says the darndest things-but that doesn't really matter.



This week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in New York to speak before the United Nations General Assembly. As with previous such appearances by the Iranian president, the event promises to inspire little substantive debate about Iran 's role in the world, its internal political divisions, or its controversial nuclear program. Instead, the Iranian delegation and its tireless critics here in the United States will bring us the kind of over-the-top dramatic performance that no VH1-produced reality show could ever fabricate. If only we could stop watching.



Ever since Ahmadinejad came to office following a dark horse election victory in 2005, the former mayor of Tehran has made himself into something of a caricature in Western eyes. Eternally impressed by his own revolutionary rhetoric, Ahmadinejad has not strayed too much from the regime's preferred vocabulary, using the U.N. as a platform to speak on behalf of the "oppressed" and against countries that "occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their borders;" code for the violence perpetrated by first-world nations, which Iran, of course, would never allow itself to engage in.



It doesn't help that his recent reelection was marred by claims that the vote was stolen, along with opposition street protests of a size and scope not seen since the revolution of 1978 and 1979.



But Iranian revolutionary talk has not tainted Ahmadinejad the way his anti-Semitic statements have. Aside from openly calling for the end of the state of Israel, the sole Jewish state in the world, Ahmadinejad has actually questioned the reality of the Holocaust-a move that speaks volumes about his lack of understanding of Western sensibilities.



Ahmadinejad hasn't escaped the caricature label back home, either. Following his first visit to the U.N. in 2005, he suggested to Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli that a halo had formed over him while he was speaking to an audience of world leaders: "A member of the (Iranian) delegation told me, ‘I saw a light that surrounded you.' … I sensed it myself too. … All leaders in audience didn't blink for 27, 28 minutes. … they had opened their eyes and ears to see what is the message from the Islamic Republic." The YouTube clip of the encounter made the rounds during the 2009 presidential election, cementing Ahmadinejad's image as a person of superstitious religiosity, the kind that tends to embarrass the clerical establishment and only further alienates Iran's millions of secular-leaning voters.



Of course, Ahmadinejad's antics are only part of the story. Western reactions to the Iranian president have ranged from strange to outright comical. While still U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, in 2007 John Bolton called for Ahmadinejad to be "charged with inciting genocide," an quixotic effort by the U.S. delegation that wasted time and dwindling credibility.



Not to be outdone, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger allowed Ahmadinejad to speak at his university that same year, just so he could insult him in front of a national audience, saying in part, "Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator." Bollinger's words served as an insult to the Iranian nation, which, like every democratic and nondemocratic state in the world, deserved to have its leaders granted a basic level of diplomatic respect. The insult was also misguided-Ahmadinejad, perhaps despite his own hopes, is not even close to dictator-status. The presidency of Iran is a relatively weak office, with little say over domestic and international security matters.



With such extreme and useless language coming from influential figures in America, it is no accident that so much of the discussion in the media has degenerated into a false choice between embracing Ahmadinejad and his rhetoric, and setting the stage for a blind confrontation with Iran.



The United States-and the world-would benefit from long-term stability in Iraq and Afghanistan (both Iran 's neighbors). This will be impossible without the Islamic Republic's active and tireless cooperation. All negotiations, accusations, and debates regarding Iran and its political figures must be driven by our commitment to ensuring that the progress made by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is not undermined by our desire to "stick it" to Ahmadinejad.



Coming to an agreement with Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader and the country's ultimate constitutional authority, should be the Obama administration's focus. And as such it is difficult to see why Ahmadinejad needs to factor into the equation at all, no matter how eager he may be to sit across from U.S. officials and jump into one of his usual lectures.



Unfortunately, Ahmadinejad's speech at the U.N. will serve as just another opportunity for politicians and the mainstream media to engage in a play-by-play analysis of Ahmadinejad's silly and at times hateful rhetoric. Iran's reality show, brought to us by confrontational figures in the Islamic Republic and the United States, will be just like reality shows on primetime American TV-predictably scripted and only vacuously entertaining.



If only the American public could stop obsessing over a talentless party girl, or hanging on every word of an equally overrated, attention-seeking Iranian president, our country might be able to focus on matters of serious consequence.



Nathan Gonzalez is the author of Engaging Iran: The Rise of a Middle East Powerhouse and America's Strategic Choice and the upcoming book The Sunni-Shia Conflict: Understanding Sectarian Violence in the Middle East. He is a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project.


]]> Nathan Gonzalez Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:00:10 PDT <![CDATA[The Homer Doctrine]]> http://www.good.is/post/the-homer-doctrine/ http://www.good.is/post/the-homer-doctrine/

When it comes to American foreign policy, The Simpsons might just provide the lens we need to understand our own history.



For 20 years The Simpsons has satirized the banalities and foibles of American life. From Lisa's precocious insights to Bart's antics, the show emerged as Generation X's reply to Leave it to Beaver and The Brady Brunch. Unlike Mike Brady or Ward Cleaver, there is no wise paterfamilias at the show's core. Instead, there is Homer Simpson. Whether he is watching Itchy & Scratchy, eating donuts, or swilling a can of Duff beer, Homer, is an exaggerated American "common man" who embodies Americans' naïveté, excess, and basic decency.



As a Gen Xer raised by and on television, I became a keen student of unrealistic depictions of American life and human motivations. For this reason I never liked Perfect Strangers. I could see Larry letting Balki live with him for a few months, but years on a fold-up couch, even after he was engaged? Though BJ and the Bear was a guilty pleasure, I realized well-adjusted men don't live in 18-wheelers and have a monkey for a best friend.



Faced with this sort of competition, The Simpsons became a sensation because it was the first sitcom to realistically depict an American family. As an academic who studies U.S. foreign policy, I often think about what I learned from 1980s sitcoms whenever I go to conferences or review a book. In the hands of many foreign policy specialists, William McKinley might as well be Perfect Stranger's clueless and spineless Larry Appleton, and Lyndon Johnson is BJ's corrupt and scheming Sherriff Lobo. It is not as if McKinley and Johnson were perfect or even necessarily admirable men, but they were human beings who, like Homer Simpson, possessed a full range of foibles and noble characteristics. The same is true of American foreign policy writ large. The range of American international relations over time should reflect the crass, naïve, ambitious, and good motivations behind policy crafted by people.



In writing, I always keep "The Homer Doctrine" in mind. Inspired by The Simpsons, the Doctrine simply explains that even regrettable and downright bad episodes in American history are not products of a scheming Montgomery Burns-like imperialist, but are usually a result of Homer-esque laziness, naïveté, and bumbling good intentions. Similar to individual Simpsons' episodes, the Homer Doctrine allows for very bad endings but also some happier conclusions. Mostly, it reminds me that foreign policy is a reflection of real life, and that historical interpretations of human actions and decisions should bear more resemblance to Homer's befuddled attempts at parenting than J.R. Ewing's machinations on Dallas.



Sandwiched between the civil war and the 20th century's dawn, the Spanish-American War reflects the Homer Doctrine's necessity. When historians write about it, many see it as a case of big power imperialism motivated by an imperialist United States. While the war had imperial results, its roots are much more muddled and Homer-esque than history books allow.



In the latter decades of the late 19th century, Cuba became embroiled in a bloody civil war where rebels fought to oust their Spanish overlords. Trying to maintain the last vestige of an empire, Spain separated civilians from rebels by moving peasants into "strategic hamlets." Endemic war caused food shortages, malnutrition, disease and resulted in thousands of deaths and an emergent humanitarian nightmare.



Aghast at the news from Cuba, middle-class Americans organized and sent foodstuffs, supplies, and the Red Cross's Clara Barton to the island. Even with supplies and the Red Cross, the civil war made Barton's humanitarian task all but impossible. By the mid-1890s, middle-class Americans of all political stripes called for a "humanitarian intervention."



As the movement for American intervention gained steam, William McKinley entered the White House. At first glance, the Civil-War-vet-cum-politician could hardly have been more unlike Homer Simpson. Pious, serious, reserved, and revered by those closest to him, McKinley was a Rock of Gibraltar-a president John Wayne could have admired.



McKinley eventually opted for war, but he is not the Montgomery Burns many historians imagine. Like the 20th episode of the Simpsons 16th season, "Home Away from Homer," in which Homer accidentally drives Ned Flanders from Springfield by betraying his own principles and their friendship, McKinley lost control of events once war commenced. Indeed, the lure of empire, geopolitical realities, and the president's racism and blindness to Filipino and Cuban nationalism resulted in America's temporary acquisition of an overseas empire.



Whether it is Ned Flanders, Cuba, or Afghanistan, the "Homer Doctrine" remains instructive. American foreign policymakers, from presidents to national security staffers, are guided by a complex mixture of idealism, naiveté, selfishness, and sometimes a zeal for donuts and Duff beer.



Jeff Bloodworth is a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and a professor of history at Gannon University in Erie, Pennsylvania.


]]>

When it comes to American foreign policy, The Simpsons might just provide the lens we need to understand our own history.



For 20 years The Simpsons has satirized the banalities and foibles of American life. From Lisa's precocious insights to Bart's antics, the show emerged as Generation X's reply to Leave it to Beaver and The Brady Brunch. Unlike Mike Brady or Ward Cleaver, there is no wise paterfamilias at the show's core. Instead, there is Homer Simpson. Whether he is watching Itchy & Scratchy, eating donuts, or swilling a can of Duff beer, Homer, is an exaggerated American "common man" who embodies Americans' naïveté, excess, and basic decency.



As a Gen Xer raised by and on television, I became a keen student of unrealistic depictions of American life and human motivations. For this reason I never liked Perfect Strangers. I could see Larry letting Balki live with him for a few months, but years on a fold-up couch, even after he was engaged? Though BJ and the Bear was a guilty pleasure, I realized well-adjusted men don't live in 18-wheelers and have a monkey for a best friend.



Faced with this sort of competition, The Simpsons became a sensation because it was the first sitcom to realistically depict an American family. As an academic who studies U.S. foreign policy, I often think about what I learned from 1980s sitcoms whenever I go to conferences or review a book. In the hands of many foreign policy specialists, William McKinley might as well be Perfect Stranger's clueless and spineless Larry Appleton, and Lyndon Johnson is BJ's corrupt and scheming Sherriff Lobo. It is not as if McKinley and Johnson were perfect or even necessarily admirable men, but they were human beings who, like Homer Simpson, possessed a full range of foibles and noble characteristics. The same is true of American foreign policy writ large. The range of American international relations over time should reflect the crass, naïve, ambitious, and good motivations behind policy crafted by people.



In writing, I always keep "The Homer Doctrine" in mind. Inspired by The Simpsons, the Doctrine simply explains that even regrettable and downright bad episodes in American history are not products of a scheming Montgomery Burns-like imperialist, but are usually a result of Homer-esque laziness, naïveté, and bumbling good intentions. Similar to individual Simpsons' episodes, the Homer Doctrine allows for very bad endings but also some happier conclusions. Mostly, it reminds me that foreign policy is a reflection of real life, and that historical interpretations of human actions and decisions should bear more resemblance to Homer's befuddled attempts at parenting than J.R. Ewing's machinations on Dallas.



Sandwiched between the civil war and the 20th century's dawn, the Spanish-American War reflects the Homer Doctrine's necessity. When historians write about it, many see it as a case of big power imperialism motivated by an imperialist United States. While the war had imperial results, its roots are much more muddled and Homer-esque than history books allow.



In the latter decades of the late 19th century, Cuba became embroiled in a bloody civil war where rebels fought to oust their Spanish overlords. Trying to maintain the last vestige of an empire, Spain separated civilians from rebels by moving peasants into "strategic hamlets." Endemic war caused food shortages, malnutrition, disease and resulted in thousands of deaths and an emergent humanitarian nightmare.



Aghast at the news from Cuba, middle-class Americans organized and sent foodstuffs, supplies, and the Red Cross's Clara Barton to the island. Even with supplies and the Red Cross, the civil war made Barton's humanitarian task all but impossible. By the mid-1890s, middle-class Americans of all political stripes called for a "humanitarian intervention."



As the movement for American intervention gained steam, William McKinley entered the White House. At first glance, the Civil-War-vet-cum-politician could hardly have been more unlike Homer Simpson. Pious, serious, reserved, and revered by those closest to him, McKinley was a Rock of Gibraltar-a president John Wayne could have admired.



McKinley eventually opted for war, but he is not the Montgomery Burns many historians imagine. Like the 20th episode of the Simpsons 16th season, "Home Away from Homer," in which Homer accidentally drives Ned Flanders from Springfield by betraying his own principles and their friendship, McKinley lost control of events once war commenced. Indeed, the lure of empire, geopolitical realities, and the president's racism and blindness to Filipino and Cuban nationalism resulted in America's temporary acquisition of an overseas empire.



Whether it is Ned Flanders, Cuba, or Afghanistan, the "Homer Doctrine" remains instructive. American foreign policymakers, from presidents to national security staffers, are guided by a complex mixture of idealism, naiveté, selfishness, and sometimes a zeal for donuts and Duff beer.



Jeff Bloodworth is a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and a professor of history at Gannon University in Erie, Pennsylvania.


]]> Jeff Bloodworth Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:02:34 PDT <![CDATA[Turkey’s Nuclear Crossroads]]> http://www.good.is/post/turkeys-nuclear-crossroads/ http://www.good.is/post/turkeys-nuclear-crossroads/

Turkey has quietly held NATO tactical nuclear weapons since the Cold War. Removing them will be a critical step towards a safer world. But it won't be easy.



On April 5, 2009, President Barack Obama made a speech in Prague outlining his intention to make nuclear disarmament, with the eventual goal of elimination, the organizing principle of U.S. nuclear policy. Now the task is to figure out the how to actually get to zero nuclear weapons.



There are approximately 23,335 nuclear weapons held between nine nations: the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Less widely known are the five other states that hold nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, NATO deployed nonstrategic or "tactical" nuclear weapons  in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Today these aging weapons are more of a liability than an asset-their size and portability makes them attractive to terrorists.



The removal of these tactical nukes is an early step on the long road to zero. Getting the five NATO members who hold the tactical nukes to relinquish them quietly will take care, and Turkey may be the toughest piece in this particular part of the disarmament puzzle.



I recently returned from a trip to Turkey, coordinated by the Truman National Security Project, an institute that recruits, trains, and positions a new generation of Americans to lead on national security. In discussions with government officials, civil servants, retired military personnel, academics, and businessmen, two things became clear: First, that it is difficult to be positioned at a geographical and societal crossroads, and second, that you are stuck with your neighbors.



The Turks look around them and see conflicts and threats in most directions. I was interested in what the Turks saw when they looked towards Tehran. Specifically, I asked about the threat, perceived or real, from the Iranian nuclear program. The answers varied sharply.  Some dismissed the threat, noting that the Turks and the Persians had not been in conflict for 500 years. Others shuddered at the mention of a nuclear Iran. But regardless of the official line that Iran is an important trading partner and a regional ally, I think the Turks would not abide a nuclear Iran. In fact, when asked directly about the response to Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, a high-ranking official from the Foreign Ministry said that Turkey would follow suit-immediately.



I took this as a confirmation of the oft-repeated theory that if Iran attains a nuclear weapon, surrounding nations will acquire them too, resulting in a "cascade of proliferation." Throwing multiple nuclear arsenals into a region with many long-standing tensions, disputed borders, and conflicting ethno-religious sects is a recipe for catastrophe.



Turkey has a vastly superior military force and would not be directly threatened by Iran (a few people I spoke to flippantly noted that it was Israel who would be in trouble). Nevertheless, nations acquire nuclear weapons not only for security, but also for pride and prestige. Having a nuclear capability elevates a nation into an elite, if dubious, club.



At the moment, Turkey seems alright with the status quo. It does not have a nuclear adversary, and in addition to being covered by NATO's strategic security umbrella, it also houses an estimated 50 to 90 tactical nuclear weapons. Turkish officials were cagey about discussing these weapons. A former Air Force general, following what seemed to be the official line, denied that there were nuclear weapons in Turkey, saying they were removed at the end of the Cold War. This differed from the other officials I met, whose wink-wink references basically confirmed the presence of the nukes. They also hinted that the weapons would be critically important if a certain neighbor got the bomb.



Polling I had seen previously indicated ample public support in Turkey for giving up these weapons, but my trip there made it clear that polling, papers, and news reports are no substitute for actually going to a country and meeting with people. Most Turks I met would answer disarmament questions in entirely different ways, depending on whether or not Iran was referenced.



Removing tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey will be difficult, but not impossible. In order to move towards a world free of nuclear weapons, U.S. policy makers have to start thinking about how things are connected. Countries like Turkey rely on nuclear weapons for political and security reasons. To feel comfortable without nukes, these countries must be convinced that their neighbors will not acquire them. That means efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles-including tactical nukes-and efforts to stop the creation of new nuclear programs must happen in concert.



Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione notes that disarmament and nonproliferation are two sides of the same coin: disarmament creates the unity needed to prevent proliferation, which provides the security needed for disarmament. I have no doubt that the Turks with whom I met would agree.



Alexandra Bell is a Project Manager at the Ploughshares Fund and a Truman National Security Fellow.


]]>

Turkey has quietly held NATO tactical nuclear weapons since the Cold War. Removing them will be a critical step towards a safer world. But it won't be easy.



On April 5, 2009, President Barack Obama made a speech in Prague outlining his intention to make nuclear disarmament, with the eventual goal of elimination, the organizing principle of U.S. nuclear policy. Now the task is to figure out the how to actually get to zero nuclear weapons.



There are approximately 23,335 nuclear weapons held between nine nations: the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel. Less widely known are the five other states that hold nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, NATO deployed nonstrategic or "tactical" nuclear weapons  in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. Today these aging weapons are more of a liability than an asset-their size and portability makes them attractive to terrorists.



The removal of these tactical nukes is an early step on the long road to zero. Getting the five NATO members who hold the tactical nukes to relinquish them quietly will take care, and Turkey may be the toughest piece in this particular part of the disarmament puzzle.



I recently returned from a trip to Turkey, coordinated by the Truman National Security Project, an institute that recruits, trains, and positions a new generation of Americans to lead on national security. In discussions with government officials, civil servants, retired military personnel, academics, and businessmen, two things became clear: First, that it is difficult to be positioned at a geographical and societal crossroads, and second, that you are stuck with your neighbors.



The Turks look around them and see conflicts and threats in most directions. I was interested in what the Turks saw when they looked towards Tehran. Specifically, I asked about the threat, perceived or real, from the Iranian nuclear program. The answers varied sharply.  Some dismissed the threat, noting that the Turks and the Persians had not been in conflict for 500 years. Others shuddered at the mention of a nuclear Iran. But regardless of the official line that Iran is an important trading partner and a regional ally, I think the Turks would not abide a nuclear Iran. In fact, when asked directly about the response to Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, a high-ranking official from the Foreign Ministry said that Turkey would follow suit-immediately.



I took this as a confirmation of the oft-repeated theory that if Iran attains a nuclear weapon, surrounding nations will acquire them too, resulting in a "cascade of proliferation." Throwing multiple nuclear arsenals into a region with many long-standing tensions, disputed borders, and conflicting ethno-religious sects is a recipe for catastrophe.



Turkey has a vastly superior military force and would not be directly threatened by Iran (a few people I spoke to flippantly noted that it was Israel who would be in trouble). Nevertheless, nations acquire nuclear weapons not only for security, but also for pride and prestige. Having a nuclear capability elevates a nation into an elite, if dubious, club.



At the moment, Turkey seems alright with the status quo. It does not have a nuclear adversary, and in addition to being covered by NATO's strategic security umbrella, it also houses an estimated 50 to 90 tactical nuclear weapons. Turkish officials were cagey about discussing these weapons. A former Air Force general, following what seemed to be the official line, denied that there were nuclear weapons in Turkey, saying they were removed at the end of the Cold War. This differed from the other officials I met, whose wink-wink references basically confirmed the presence of the nukes. They also hinted that the weapons would be critically important if a certain neighbor got the bomb.



Polling I had seen previously indicated ample public support in Turkey for giving up these weapons, but my trip there made it clear that polling, papers, and news reports are no substitute for actually going to a country and meeting with people. Most Turks I met would answer disarmament questions in entirely different ways, depending on whether or not Iran was referenced.



Removing tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey will be difficult, but not impossible. In order to move towards a world free of nuclear weapons, U.S. policy makers have to start thinking about how things are connected. Countries like Turkey rely on nuclear weapons for political and security reasons. To feel comfortable without nukes, these countries must be convinced that their neighbors will not acquire them. That means efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles-including tactical nukes-and efforts to stop the creation of new nuclear programs must happen in concert.



Ploughshares Fund President Joe Cirincione notes that disarmament and nonproliferation are two sides of the same coin: disarmament creates the unity needed to prevent proliferation, which provides the security needed for disarmament. I have no doubt that the Turks with whom I met would agree.



Alexandra Bell is a Project Manager at the Ploughshares Fund and a Truman National Security Fellow.


]]> Alexandra Bell Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:17:34 PDT <![CDATA[Exporting Obama Politics]]> http://www.good.is/post/exporting-obama-politics/ http://www.good.is/post/exporting-obama-politics/

Albania's young voters try "Yes we can!"-but can't quite yet.


I was invited to Albania to help the newly formed G99 party fundamentally change the way Albanians thought about and conducted politics. G99-developed out of Albania's youth-driven democratization movement-began in 2003 in response to rampant government corruption. Inspired by the "yes we can" attitude in America, G99 wanted to try its hand at Obama-style organizing in advance of their June 28 parliamentary elections. Having spent the better part of five years in political organizing on different levels, including for Obama's Florida campaign in the general election, I came to add perspective and experience to G99's operation.

I felt proud to aid their mission. After decades of oppression and corruption, cynicism had a stranglehold on the country. G99 understood that they could not achieve a full democracy until the Albanian people saw themselves as agents of change and bearers of responsibility. Organizing strengthens democracy by enabling participation in the political process; it opens avenues for people to hold their elected officials accountable, to dictate the debates, and to confront the immediate needs of the community from the ground up.

But organizing requires volunteers and community building, and "volunteering" had been compulsory during the 45 years of communism. Walking through the trash-ridden streets, by the graffiti-covered public buildings from which the communist regime once presided, one understands why most Albanians feel an absence of responsibility in their communities.

These former political realities very much constrain Albania's older generations. But they liberate its youth, who empathize with the past but see their country not as it is but as it could be. G99 sought to change all of this. Member after member of G99 told me of how they came to the organization asking the question: Why couldn't Albania be better?

This was the very mindset of those who helped get President Obama elected, the majority of whom were under the age of 30. The "Millenial generation," as it has come to be called, made up of those of us born between 1978 and 2000, has been shaped by a democratized access to information and the experience of growing up in a transitional, malleable post-Cold War world. We have a more optimistic, innovative, politically motivated mindset geared towards connecting the world around us. We are post-ideological and pragmatic. What's more, the under 30 demographic accounts for over 50 percent of the world's population.

Many Albanians work to leave the country rather than change it. These G99 youth, however, felt a responsibility to make their country better and, with 50 percent of the population under 28, know they are the only ones that can. But knowing that Albania should be better and knowing how to carry out that vision effectively are different things.

We did our best. I helped train volunteers and then watched them go out, elicit support, and empower others with their mission. They worked tirelessly and without precedent, the only motivating example was the vague understanding of the Obama campaign that they had gathered secondhand from my experiences and from newspapers. In the end, G99 came up short of its expectations and goals with less than 1 percent of the vote, gaining no representation in parliament.

I see this shortcoming not as an abject failure in G99's mission nor in the lack of applicability of Obama's model beyond the United States. Rather, I see this as an important lesson in democracy-building. Obama's general model-of creating participatory democracy through community organizing-is replicable but only if adapted in the right ways. The Millennial mindset and energy will prove indispensable as these youth come of age, but only if harnessed and given the direction and tools to succeed.

G99 simply needs more time, more training, an informed strategy, and better resources. Ideally, they could also have a global network of youth leaders who are doing the same work, reaching for the same goals, and building off of each other's successes-from Albania to Turkey to Vietnam to the United States. Ultimate success will not come in the short span of one campaign, but it can come if they build off of smaller successes. As tools like Facebook continue to give us a common platform, we have to work to create a common language. As the mistakes of our peers and the confines of our past continue to teach us what not to do, we have to work together to effectively learn what to do. These lessons and this language are not inherent even with the noblest of missions and the biggest of ideas.

We stand on the brink of a momentous opportunity to harness the power of a generation to redefine the way we relate to each other and to our governments and, in turn, tackle our most pressing challenges. But this window of opportunity is relatively small. Sure, there will always be youth ripe for empowerment, but the Millennial generation is coming of age now, and, given our sheer numbers, will set the political tone in countries around the world for at least the next forty years. These are the world's future leaders, and we have to ensure they have the tools to translate "yes we can" into real solutions for today's toughest challenges.

Erin is a proud member of the Millennial generation, an independent nonprofit and political consultant, and a fellow at the Truman National Security Project.]]>

Albania's young voters try "Yes we can!"-but can't quite yet.


I was invited to Albania to help the newly formed G99 party fundamentally change the way Albanians thought about and conducted politics. G99-developed out of Albania's youth-driven democratization movement-began in 2003 in response to rampant government corruption. Inspired by the "yes we can" attitude in America, G99 wanted to try its hand at Obama-style organizing in advance of their June 28 parliamentary elections. Having spent the better part of five years in political organizing on different levels, including for Obama's Florida campaign in the general election, I came to add perspective and experience to G99's operation.

I felt proud to aid their mission. After decades of oppression and corruption, cynicism had a stranglehold on the country. G99 understood that they could not achieve a full democracy until the Albanian people saw themselves as agents of change and bearers of responsibility. Organizing strengthens democracy by enabling participation in the political process; it opens avenues for people to hold their elected officials accountable, to dictate the debates, and to confront the immediate needs of the community from the ground up.

But organizing requires volunteers and community building, and "volunteering" had been compulsory during the 45 years of communism. Walking through the trash-ridden streets, by the graffiti-covered public buildings from which the communist regime once presided, one understands why most Albanians feel an absence of responsibility in their communities.

These former political realities very much constrain Albania's older generations. But they liberate its youth, who empathize with the past but see their country not as it is but as it could be. G99 sought to change all of this. Member after member of G99 told me of how they came to the organization asking the question: Why couldn't Albania be better?

This was the very mindset of those who helped get President Obama elected, the majority of whom were under the age of 30. The "Millenial generation," as it has come to be called, made up of those of us born between 1978 and 2000, has been shaped by a democratized access to information and the experience of growing up in a transitional, malleable post-Cold War world. We have a more optimistic, innovative, politically motivated mindset geared towards connecting the world around us. We are post-ideological and pragmatic. What's more, the under 30 demographic accounts for over 50 percent of the world's population.

Many Albanians work to leave the country rather than change it. These G99 youth, however, felt a responsibility to make their country better and, with 50 percent of the population under 28, know they are the only ones that can. But knowing that Albania should be better and knowing how to carry out that vision effectively are different things.

We did our best. I helped train volunteers and then watched them go out, elicit support, and empower others with their mission. They worked tirelessly and without precedent, the only motivating example was the vague understanding of the Obama campaign that they had gathered secondhand from my experiences and from newspapers. In the end, G99 came up short of its expectations and goals with less than 1 percent of the vote, gaining no representation in parliament.

I see this shortcoming not as an abject failure in G99's mission nor in the lack of applicability of Obama's model beyond the United States. Rather, I see this as an important lesson in democracy-building. Obama's general model-of creating participatory democracy through community organizing-is replicable but only if adapted in the right ways. The Millennial mindset and energy will prove indispensable as these youth come of age, but only if harnessed and given the direction and tools to succeed.

G99 simply needs more time, more training, an informed strategy, and better resources. Ideally, they could also have a global network of youth leaders who are doing the same work, reaching for the same goals, and building off of each other's successes-from Albania to Turkey to Vietnam to the United States. Ultimate success will not come in the short span of one campaign, but it can come if they build off of smaller successes. As tools like Facebook continue to give us a common platform, we have to work to create a common language. As the mistakes of our peers and the confines of our past continue to teach us what not to do, we have to work together to effectively learn what to do. These lessons and this language are not inherent even with the noblest of missions and the biggest of ideas.

We stand on the brink of a momentous opportunity to harness the power of a generation to redefine the way we relate to each other and to our governments and, in turn, tackle our most pressing challenges. But this window of opportunity is relatively small. Sure, there will always be youth ripe for empowerment, but the Millennial generation is coming of age now, and, given our sheer numbers, will set the political tone in countries around the world for at least the next forty years. These are the world's future leaders, and we have to ensure they have the tools to translate "yes we can" into real solutions for today's toughest challenges.

Erin is a proud member of the Millennial generation, an independent nonprofit and political consultant, and a fellow at the Truman National Security Project.]]> Erin Mazursky Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:27:21 PDT