My fellow blogger David Isenberg noted below that Senator Obama should reject the advice of Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser. The basis for David’s statement is the advice Brzezinski gave Carter in the 1970′s on U.S.-Pakistan relations. Brzezinski urged Carter to prioritize Pakistani assistance for U.S. efforts in Afghanistan over nuclear proliferation concerns.

With the benefit of hindsight I am sure that there are some things Brzezinski would do differently if, knowing what he knows now, he was given a mulligan. Of course, unlike the game of golf, national security issues rarely allow for a do over on such critical issues, nevertheless I do feel that David was a bit unfair in his critique of both Brzezinski and, frankly, his rhetorical linking of Khan with Senator Obama.

Regarding Brzezinski, yes it is true that his decision to put nuclear proliferation on the back burner of U.S.-Pakistani relations was an important moment in the AQ Khan time line. However, the trade off from his point of view was a compelling one – an opportunity to cripple the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Frankly, the trade off is one that most analysts would have agreed with at that time. To discount Brzezinski’s present day advice on a range of important issues on the basis of this one call (which even in hindsight is a tough call) from the 1970′s does not seem reasonable. This feeling is bolstered when when one considers that it was only one key point in the long AQ Khan timeline, for instance during the 1990′s Khan flitted back and forth to North Korea without any meaningful action from the U.S. Administration.

The more I think about it the more I believe that for David to discount Brzezinski as a credible foreign policy advisor based on the Pakistan proliferation call, without recognizing the failures of U.S.-Pakistani policy over the last 30 years, is a stretch. Particularly when you consider that the current Administration has spent the years since 9/11 implementing a disastrous U.S.-Pakistani foreign policy that has led to the rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan and on that on the proliferation side has even failed to secure AQ Khan for questioning.

Finally I thought that it was odd for David to link Obama and AQ Khan in the opening part of his post. An analysis of Obama’s foreign policy proclamations is reasonable. A stand alone in-depth critique of Brzezinski looking at his whole record or even the Pakistan call in context is fair game but to jump from Obama to Brzezinski to AQ Khan….I’m just not convinced that there is merit to that.

What’s that you ask? What does Barack Obama have to do with A.Q. Khan, the “father of Pakistan’s nuclear bomb?  Excellent question; I’m glad you asked.  Give me a few moments and I’ll get around to answering it.

But first, let’s consider Pakistan. In the aftermath of the assassination of Benazir Bhutto the media has been full of stories in which dutifully concerned experts wring their hand and wrinkle their brows about the prospects of Pakistan descending into anarchy and its nuclear arsenal falling into the “wrong hands (code for al-Qaeda).

Such stories are inevitably accompanied by references to A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani metallurgist who quit his job in Europe, working for a uranium enrichment consortium, and brought back plans and blueprints that enabled Pakistan to master the uranium enrichment process and develop nuclear weapons.

While Khan was not actually the “father” of Pakistan’s bomb his help was critical and he subsequently became a wealthy and important man. That lead to his eventual downfall, because after setting up a global black market network to import the equipment and materials necessary for Pakistan’s enrichment program he eventually branched out into the export business, providing nuclear technology and equipment to other countries trying to develop nuclear weapons, such as North Korea and Libya. And some of his equipment was also purchased by Iran. So successful was he in this that his network became known as the one stop shopping center for nuclear wannabees; a “Nuclear Wal-Mart” as the IAEA referred to him. (more…)

Seth Green has pointed out in two recent posts (here and here) the public support that Obama and Huckabee have gained through their calls for unity between Democrats and Republicans.  I couldn’t agree more.  Full disclosure – I spent the past week volunteering for the Obama campaign in Iowa.  

Both Obama and Huckabee have been emphasizing the need to get beyond the deep divisions that have enveloped our country not just in the Bush years, but also during the Clinton years.  Their message is catching on and I would argue that it’s one of the reasons that they both have been successful.  Of course, it’s not the only reason.  Huckabee was successful in reaching out to evangelicals in Iowa.  Obama has positioned himself as the change candidate.  These were also reasons for their succcess.  Nevertheless, the appeal to unity in our country is something that, unfortunately, we don’t hear from many of the other candidates.  Americans are yearning to get beyond the sharp partisan divisions of the past and to rally behind leaders who seek to emphasize our commonalities and not our differences. 

A striking contrast between the top two Democratic candidates, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton was evident in their post caucus speeches. 

One of the first lines from Obama’s speech: 

They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose. But on this January night – at this defining moment in history – you have done what the cynics said we couldn’t do. You have done what the state of New Hampshire can do in five days. You have done what America can do in this New Year, 2008. In lines that stretched around schools and churches; in small towns and big cities; you came together as Democrats, Republicans and Independents to stand up and say that we are one nation; we are one people; and our time for change has come.

Contrast this to the first line of Clinton’s speech:

Well, we’re going to take this enthusiasm and go right to New Hampshire tonight. This is a great night for Democrats. We have seen an unprecedented turnout here in Iowa. And that is good news, because today we’re sending a clear message: that we are going to have change, and that change will be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009.

Obama emphasizes bringing Democrats, Independents, and Republicans together to solve the problems of the country.  Clinton, on the other hand, said that “it’s a great night for Democrats” and “that change will be a Democratic president….”  Later she says: (more…)

For all those who believe in the importance of returning bipartisanship and smart policy choices to American government, last night’s caucus was one small step for Iowa and one giant leap for the country. Obama and Huckabee both won big (9 percentage points) by bringing out huge groups of new voters. And they did it not by going to the extremes of their parties and appealing with militant rhetoric, but by talking up their role as unity figures who could move this country forward instead of left or right. Obama’s message was simple and inspired: “we are not a collection of Red States and Blue States, we are the United States of America.” Huckabee’s message was equally powerful: “Americans are looking for a change… to make Americans, once again, more proud to be Americans than just to be Democrats or Republicans.” 

What is striking is not just that Obama and Huckabee won on messages of unity but they even seem to agree that they are fighting largely the same fight, even if they have strong policy differences. Huckabee told Leno on Wednesday night:

“I have a great respect for Barack Obama. I think he’s a person who is trying to do in many ways what I hope I’m trying to do and that is to say let’s quit what I call ‘horizontal politics.’ Everything in this country is not left, right, liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican. I think the country is looking for somebody who is vertical, who is thinking, ‘Let’s take America up and not down,’ and people will forgive you for being left or right if you go up.”

Karl Rove resigned last summer for “family reasons.” In truth, I think he was smart enough to know that his brand of divisionary politics was reaching a breaking point. Last night will hopefully go down in history as the formal end of the Karl Rove era of American politics. Thank you Iowa for putting that embarrassing time in our history behind us. Listening to Obama and Huckabee last night, I really did feel so proud to be an American.

The New Year, only two days old, already carries hope for the successful revising of US/NATO strategy in Afghanistan. In December, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates left a high level NATO meeting in Scotland with approval to develop a long term Afghan strategy, which will be created through coordinated assessments by the US State Department, US Central Command, and NATO itself. The new strategy will seek to minimize the increasing level of violence, which has produced unprecedented casualty rates in 2007 and has frustrated broader reconstruction efforts in the country. By developing a 3-5 year vision, including benchmarks to measure progress, increased NATO troop level, and a mission statement, clarifying the methods and objectives of insurgency combat, the Defense Department hopes to revitalize the spirit of the 7 year long Afghan mission.

Recent events underscore the urgent need for a revised Afghan policy. Benazir Bhutto’s assassination has dealt a crippling blow to Pakistan, which continues to function as an imperfect but irreplaceable asset in the US’s Afghan operations. Plans hatched between the Pentagon and the Pakistani Joint Chiefs in November, which would have expanded U.S. military presence in Pakistan’s frontier area, as well as launched a new US-Pakistani strategy for cross border military operations, will now be delayed indefinitely. With no leverage in Pakistan at the moment, and with limited capacity to increase US troop size in Afghanistan, the Bush Administration must find other methods to revamp Afghan policy.

Luckily, the Administration has timing on its side. Bhutto’s assassination, coinciding with the beginning of the presidential primaries, has thrust international terrorism once again to the forefront of US media. As the media frenzy kicks into high gear, ordinarily disinterested Americans become extraordinarily sensitive to the foreign policy platforms of the presidential hopefuls. Candidates such as Mike Huckabee, who have successfully campaigned up to this point without international policy experience or discernable strategy, find themselves subject to intense scrutiny. Furthermore, the focus of Washington is turning naturally to Afghanistan, as sectarian violence in Iraq calms at least momentarily.

To keep up momentum on revising the US/NATO Afghan strategy, advocates such as Gates must continue to lobby on two fronts: both to the U.S. public, and to NATO allies. The overtures by Gates and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice last December to improve civil-military coordination with respect to Afghan foreign aid are good examples of the former strategy. With respect to the latter, the Bush Administration must maintain an aura of confidence that the political situation in Pakistan can, and will, be remedied. Persuasive dialogue, as well as the carefully crafted long term strategy Gates has been tasked to devise, will be essential to secure the cooperation of our allies in Afghanistan.

(more…)