I am posting the video link below without issuing any judgment, except what might be implied from my title. I have not myself served in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I hardly feel it my place to criticize measures taken by Americans in uniform to avoid becoming the war’s latest casualty figures.

Click here for a streaming video illustrating why the majority of average Iraqis want us out of Iraq, even if they appreciate much of what the US has done for them.

This is the sorry state of US-Russia relations some seventeen years after the end of the Cold War: In February, Russia and the US traded harsh words over what each termed US “unilateralism” and Russian “authoritarianism.” This summer, balking at the US plan to base radar stations in Central Europe, Russia pulled out of a treaty limiting armed forces in Europe. And last month, when Condi Rice and Robert Gates flew to Moscow to patch things up, Putin made them wait 45 minutes to see him and then gave them a blistering dressing down. A few days later, Putin flew to Iran, where he treated with both Ahmadinejad and the real power, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, striking deals to speed construction of a nuclear reactor at Bushehr and to sell Iran commercial jets and arms.

But the Cold War really is over. Russia, with Putin at the helm, is operating in its own rational self interest, and though its confidence has been buoyed by windfall oil and gas profits, it has no pervasive ideology driving Cold War style confrontation with the United States. Much of Putin’s apparent coolness toward the US is born of his (thus far justified) suspicion that the US is not interested in a genuine strategic partnership with Russia, and that the Bush administration views him as a dictator to be carefully watched and, when possible, removed. For the time being, Putin’s overwhelming domestic popularity and Russia’s booming economy have insulated the Russian President from US criticism, while the Bush administration has consistently missed opportunities to win Putin’s trust, meet on equal and open terms, and find genuine common ground.

The more things stay the same, the more they change.

(more…)

As I watched my beloved Washington Redskins get pummeled by the New England Patriots on Sunday, I began to think about the Patriots’ coach Bill Belichick. Belichick has been a defensive mastermind, both as a defensive coordinator and as a head coach, for decades in the NFL by adhering to the philosophy that he is going to take away what the offense does best and force it to adapt. After watching the game on Sunday and reading the current hysteria over Iran this week, I began to envision a foreign policy inspired by Coach Belichick. Let’s take away what Ahmadinejad and the Iranian hard-liners do best, namely confrontation, and force them to adapt to a world where the United States and Iran can cooperate on a range of issues.

(more…)

 The United States and Turkey are on the brink. While Turkey itches to launch a counter- terrorism strike into Northern Iraq and avenge its recent casualties, the US continues to hold its ally back, afraid the incursion would destabilize the only peaceful region left in Iraq. Rather than crediting the U.S. for attempting to diffuse the situation through multilateral diplomacy, the Turkish public blames America for its large casualty count this month. Few on Turkey’s streets believe in the sincerity of the U.S. and its war on terrorism Given the pervasive disillusionment and fading goodwill, the next few days—and the US’s next move—could significantly affect the course of the bilateral alliance. If the US does not aid Turkey’s anti-terrorism efforts in some substantive way, it could risk pushing Turkey away, and in the process force Ankara to act unilaterally in Iraq.

Turkish resentment has pervaded public opinion to the core. Possible military confrontation with the U.S. is today a matter of serious discussion within the Turkish media.  The chief columnist of Hurriyet, Turkey’s largest newspaper, urges Turkey to create military alliances with Iran, China, Russia, and Latin America, as a challenge to the U.S.  How have we come to this point? 

One explanation is Western insensitivity. For example, the Western media refrains from labeling the PKK as “terrorists”. Instead, sources refer to the Kurdistan Workers Party in benign terms such as “rebels,” “militants,” or even “group”. Such hypocrisy strengthens the hands of conspiracy theorists and Turkish extremists, who aim for a marginal and revisionist foreign policy.

A second explanation is the harm done by Kurdish spokespeople. Turkish eyebrows raise when Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Kurdish Regional President Massaoud Barzani act as spokesmen for the PKK. For example, Talabani, speaking on behalf of the terrorist group PKK, has offered a truce to Turkey. This is analogous to Felipe Caldron, the President of Mexico, offering a truce to the U.S. on behalf of Al-Qaeda.  (more…)