It might seem strange, only four days after a major terror plot was disrupted, to argue that the terror threat has been exaggerated. It might seem obtuse, at a time when Americans are prohibited from carrying bottled water (and Brits are prohibited from carrying almost anything) onboard airplanes for fear that it might be a bomb, to make the case that we are winning the war on terror. But I’m going to try.

For starters, this is not a new idea. Nearly two years ago, Ohio State University Professor John Mueller wrote about our “false sense of insecurity” in Cato’s Regulation magazine.

James Fallows’s cover story in the September Atlantic Monthly takes off in a similar vein. Fallows quotes Mueller, but also a number of other experts, and concludes that we should declare victory in the war against Al Qaeda, and focus our efforts going forward on a more targeted and effective military and diplomatic campaign.

The reason for Fallows’s relative optimism is straightforward enough:

because of al-Qaeda’s own mistakes, and because of the things the United States and its allies have done right, al-Qaeda’s ability to inflict direct damage in America or on Americans has been sharply reduced. Its successor groups in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere will continue to pose dangers. But its hopes for fundamentally harming the United States now rest less on what it can do itself than on what it can trick, tempt, or goad us into doing.

(more…)

Last week’s show of diplomacy by the United States in working towards a UN resolution for the crisis in Lebanon was impressive, both in and of itself, and in contrast to the earlier behavior of the administration. Although it is sad to consider how many things might have turned out differently had the administration utilized a more collaborative approach for the past six years, this new development provides an opening first step towards reestablishing a bipartisan foreign policy that seeks to strengthen rule of law and multilateral organizations instead of undermining and sidelining them. Building on this opening will require openness on both sides of the isle – from Democrats whose critique of the administration’s approaches to many foreign policy and national security issues have proven prescient, as well as from certain Republicans who might feel that shifting course now might make it look as if their earlier approaches were inadequate, always tough to do in a politicized environment.

Kudos to Madalene O’Donnell and Julie Fischer for their contributions while I was away on vacation.

Much of the media’s attention is focused on the defeat in Connecticut of Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democrat primary on Tuesday, and the nomination of Ned Lamont as the Democrat’s candidate for Senate. Attention is also on Lieberman’s declaration that he will still run for Senate – as an Independent.

White House spokesman Tony Snow, at the “Western White House” today, addressed these events, of course, announcing that “the stakes are high.” But rather than call for support for the Republican candidate for Senate in Connecticut, Snow instead suggested that the nomination of Lamont was going to encourage terrorists, lead Iraq to become a failed state, damage American credibility, and offer up a “white flag” to the war on terror.  He also managed to link Lamont’s upstart nomination to threats to the US from Iran, North Korea, and terrorists worldwide (again, and again).

Lamont seems to have shaken up more than Connecticut.  If he is that powerful, perhaps he should be in the Senate. (more…)

And now we return you to our regularly scheduled war. Remember Iraq? The country where thousands of American troops have died and tens of thousands have been wounded, where hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, and where the Bush administration wants to continue to stay the course.

Things are looking worse for those who support that policy. Today, in Connecticut, Sen. Joe Lieberman is expected to lose the Democratic primary to anti-war challenger Ned Lamont because of Lieberman’s stand by his President stance.

Last week New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, a staunch and early supporter of the war finally saw the light and wrote, “three years of efforts to democratize Iraq are not working. That means ‘staying the course’ is pointless, and it’s time to start thinking about Plan B — how we might disengage with the least damage possible.”  

The outgoing British ambassador to Iraq has warned British Prime Minister Tony Blair that civil war is a more likely outcome in that country than democracy, according to a BBC report.  BBC reported that the confidential memo from Ambassador William Patey predicted the “breakup of Iraq along ethnic lines into three separate countries. While ‘not hopeless,’ Mr. Patey wrote, it will remain a ‘difficult and messy’ situation for the next five to ten years.”

But sometimes, to get a true sense of what is happening, it is best just to listen to what people are saying. With that in mind let’s just read some of the excerpts from the August 3 hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee. (more…)

The entries on this blog are telling of a global transformation. From the violence in the Middle East to global health pandemics to North Korea, the world is in transition and it’s not clear yet where we’re headed. In his new book, The Meaning of the 21st Century, Dr. James Martin therefore calls today’s young people the “transition generation” because it is these young leaders that will play the critical transition role to the next world order. “We are traveling at breakneck speed into an era of extremes—extremes of wealth and poverty, extremes in technology, extremes of globalism,” he writes. “If we are to survive, we must learn how to manage them all.”I could not agree more with Dr. Martin’s assessment and what’s most troubling is that young people around the world are growing up with a disturbingly negative image of the U.S. In the most recent Pew data, Britain was the only surveyed country in Europe with favorable views of the U.S., as compared to 2002 when all surveyed countries had favorable views. And the U.S. image is even lower in the Muslim world.

If we are the transition generation, then it is dangerous for American foreign policy to be so drastically out of touch with our generation. It means that we could transition the world toward an order opposed to the U.S. and its interests. I warned of this danger as a student at Oxford in an op-ed to the Christian Science Monitor back in 2002: (more…)

I think that Charles Krauthammer’s column in today’s Washington Post is meant to buck up Israel’s supporters — to give them the stomach to keep supporting Israel’s fight against Hezbollah in the face of mounting calls for a cease fire. Krauthammer argues that disunity in the Israeli cabinet — that is, policy differences on the best way to implement Israel’s goal of protecting itself from Hezbollah’s attacks — is what undermines Israeli military effectiveness. On the other hand, he asserts that Hezbollah is “a wholly owned Iranian subsidiary” — that is, that Israel’s (and America’s) enemies are blessed with perfect unity of effort, Krauthammer’s implicit explanation for their relative military effectiveness. The key point is that dissent foments weakness and suppression of debate is the road to a strong foreign / military policy. This strikes me as wrong, both in the specifics of the situation in Lebanon and in principle. (more…)

For Democrats concerned with bipartisanship in US foreign policy, the Senate race in Connecticut presents many issues that allow for introspection.  Although I haven’t lived in Connecticut for years, I’ve been following this race closely because it presents a possible contradiction for me as both a progressive Democrat, but also a supporter of bipartisanship.  

Today’s New York Times indicates that Lieberman seems to be falling behind Lamont in the most recent polls.  What I also found interesting in recent coverage is that the Times and Post had very different views on Lieberman.  The Times in their endorsement Sunday of Ned Lamont describe the election as a “referendum on [Lieberman’s]  warped version of bipartisanship, in which the never-ending war on terror becomes an excuse for silence and inaction.” 

The Washington Post, on the other hand, took the contrary position.  It praised Lieberman’s ability to work with those of the other party: “the Democratic Party, if it hopes to accomplish anything, will need people such as Mr. Lieberman who bring some civility to an increasingly uncivil capital — who can accept the idea that opponents may disagree in good faith and who can then work to find areas of agreement and assemble working majorities of 60 senators.” (more…)

July was a horrible month, and August has gotten off to a bad start. And I’m not talking about the weather. 

Practically everywhere we look around the world, U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. Long-sought objectives – stability in Iraq, peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the demise of terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the spread of democracy in the Middle East and the former Soviet Union, the end of the North Korean nuclear weapons program, the end of the Iranian nuclear program – seem less attainable today than they have in many years. 

Surveying the wreckage, the American public is frustrated, and fearful. But the headline writers at the New York Times see something more sinister at work: “Americans Showing Isolationist Streak, Poll Finds.” 

Really?

(more…)

I want to begin by saying that I support US engagement in the Middle East.  However, I remain concerned about the impact, both intended and unintended, of our image around the world.  I remain concerned, not only about the mood toward the US on the streets of Amman, but also on the streets of London. 

It is obvious that the events of September 11, 2001 forced the Administration to be immediately reactive to the situation, and no one can fault us for that.  However, since that day we have continued as principally a reactionary force in the Middle East, particularly in our reconstructive efforts in Iraq.  Today, as we approach the 5th anniversary of 9/11 and find ourselves on a threatening front, it seems vital to US interests and the interests of that region to be increasingly proactive.  Victory and success, as I would define them in this context, are all but impossible from a reactive position.

Successive administrations have found political will thwarted again and again with Iran, and now we find ourselves facing that issue once more.  However, on this occasion the Administration has been more forward-thinking in its approach as it has sought to allow other countries to take the diplomatic lead and to maintain as much as possible within the context of the United Nations.  This has led to headway in what would otherwise be a stalemate between East and West.  In some ways, the recent activity of Iran and its engagement with Hezbollah may even reflect the ultimate frustration of the Iranian government as it seeks to derail not only a US initiative, but also a multi-national one. (more…)