As NATO leaders converge on Bucharest for the alliance summit, there is a palpable sense that change is on the way. There was never much love lost between the George W Bush administration and old Europe, and a heavy expectation sits in the air that a new administration will usher in a new tone, and open new prospects. In truth that expectation is felt on both sides of the Atlantic, and there is reason to be hopeful. Much of the damage of the last few years has been needless, petty and marked by a sense of hubris. But it would be equally foolish to believe that there aren’t substantial policy problems that defy easy solutions in this twilight of the Bush era and the beginning of the next administration.

Rightly or wrongly the US is deeply mired in two protracted conflicts, neither of which show any sign of abating. In Afghanistan the US is pushing its allies to share the burden in a conflict which the chairman of the Joint Chiefs has called “an economy of force operation”. Many European powers are not willing to send their forces to the region without caveats to keep them out of harms way. They feel little responsibility or national interest in participating in a mission which many see as bailing out a failing war on terror. Fundamentally many Americans see engagement as the answer to extremism where many Europeans see western intervention as a needless toxin in a foreign land.

(more…)

This week I’d like to highlight a very thought provoking op-ed by Rudy Deleon and Bryan Thomas that revisits the issue of a war surtax.  As many may remember, this was proposed by Rep David Obey back in October of last year.  The Democratic leadership was against it as were most Republicans.  I think, however, that it merits further consideration, particularly as the war continues to drag on. I agree with the authors that as Congress begins to consider the future of Bush’s tax cuts, they should reconsider this proposal.  My feeling, though, is that it will only happen if done on a bipartisan basis. 

I have written in many previous blog posts about my frustration with this administration related to its reluctance to ask Americans to sacrifice anything for this war.  This is the first major conflict of this century where Americans have been asked to make no economic sacrifice.  The number of Americans who are negatively affected by this war is actually quite small.  Granted, those that have been affected, have been in the most profound manner. 

Here are my back of the envelope calculations:  so far there have been 4010 US soldiers killed in Iraq.  Roughly 30,000 have been wounded.  The average household size in the US is 2.6 people.  So, at a very basic level, we can estimate that 88,426 people (soldiers plus their immediate families) have been affected in the most dramatic way by the war (30,000+4010 x 2.6).  If we add in the number of troops stationed in Iraq (158,000), we can estimate that there are another 410,000 (158,000 x 2.6) people that are affected less dramatically, but still very deeply.  So, just by these back of the envelope estimates looking just at soldiers and immediate family members, only about 498,426 Americans have been significantly impacted by the war.  Half a million out of a population of 300 million is just a drop in the bucket. And this is exactly how the Bush administration has been able to maintain our presence in Iraq. 

By only having a small portion of the population make any sacrifice, they have been able to limit the sort of public outrage that we saw in Vietnam when thousands were drafted.  Granted, according to polling, public opinion remains opposed to continued engagement in Iraq, yet it is still not strong enough to pressure enough of Congress to force Bush’s hand.  (more…)

Although much of the ongoing debate about immigration seems to always focus on what type of people America should to keep out, the real issue for our long-term security is not whom we should keep out, but whom we must bring in.

In the increasingly inter-connected global economy, America’s competitive edge will only be maintained by our ability to engage the most effective and entrepreneurial workforce and establish the essential conditions for its success. As our country’s education system continues to fall in global rankings, our immigration system will become an even more essential tool of national competitiveness.

The United States has a distinguished history of spurring innovation and economic growth through the targeted application of immigration policy. In the years before, during and after World War II, for example, the U.S. gave refuge to thousands of Jewish scientists from Europe who played a central role in laying the scientific foundation for America’s technology-driven post-war economy. Today, America simply cannot maintain our competitive edge without using strategic immigration as a fundamental driver of American competitiveness.

Much has been made of India’s and China’s growing ability to educate the highly qualified scientists and engineers needed to drive those countries’ growth well into the future, while America’s numbers of science and technology graduates continue to dwindle. But the competitiveness of economies and societies in the 21st century will be measured less by how many students each graduates in strategic fields than by the overall skill set of each population. Although the United States probably cannot educate more scientists and engineers than China or India, we can and must use our immigration policy to actively seek the best, brightest, highest educated and most motivated people from around the world through a much expanded H1-B visa program. (more…)

It’s amazing how history repeats itself. Today, President Bush announced his full support for Ukraine’s bid to begin the NATO admission process at a meeting with Ukraine’s pro-western leader on his way to the NATO summit in Bucharest. Moscow has voiced its firm objection to NATO expansion, and is backed by France and Germany, which depend on Russian oil and gas to keep the lights on in Paris and Berlin. (Remember, unlike other Slavic states that have departed from Russia’s orbit, Ukraine was never an independent country until 1991, and the country is still viewed by Russians themselves as the cradle of Russian civilization.)

Almost a decade ago, I wrote a piece for the Harvard International Review (At Russia’s Door, June 1999) cautioning that admission of the Baltic States to NATO would precipitate unnecessary conflict with Russia. I argued that while integrating former Soviet Republics (as distinct from former Warsaw Pact members not bordering directly on Russia) could encourage positive political and economic developments in those states, NATO expansion to Russia’s very doorstep was not worth the blatant provocation of Moscow it would entail. They joined anyway.

Here’s what I said back then (try substituting Ukraine for Baltic Republics):

Although simple geography makes the region essentially indefensible by conventional means, NATO strategists predict that committing Western forces to defend the Baltic republics would deter Russia from threatening them altogether. President Clinton paraphrased this policy: “If we extend membership [in NATO] to another country, it means that we are committing the people who wear the uniform of our nation to go and fight and die for that nation, should it ever be attacked … I think it’s a pretty good gamble, because no NATO nation has ever been attacked, ever, not once.” The unfortunate consequence of this gamble, however, is that it assumes and thereby reinforces a rivalry between NATO and Russia, which can only be detrimental to the security of both sides.

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, the NATO Alliance has expanded to include not only the Baltic States—Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia—but seven other former Eastern Bloc countries, including Poland and the Czech Republic. The latter two are now caught up in a US-Russia impasse over missile defense installations in Eastern Central Europe, an utterly unnecessary confrontation that could torpedo meaningful Russian help on the Iranian nuclear issue, and with many other critical relationships in which Russia is a major player. NATO expansion to include former Warsaw Pact states may have been important to their successful democratic transitions and integration with Western Europe, but let’s not ignore the negative consequences. (more…)

The Brookings Institution hosted an ambitious event this past Monday titled “The Future of Iraq and Afghanistan.” The advertisement for the afternoon’s discussion ran as follows:

“Five years after the US-led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein, the debate on how the United States should proceed in the divided nation is as heated as ever. Although violence has declined, the US military remains in a fight for peace and stability while a divided Iraqi government has failed to reconcile crucial political and economic issues. Additionally, Afghanistan remains far from stable with a resurgent Taliban and rampant drug trade among numerous problems facing Hamid Karzai’s government.”

The Brookings strategy was twofold. First, seat a panel of credentialed subject experts, both academic and military. Let them deliver the narrative in an objective, critical fashion, and follow it up with sound policy advice for moving forward on both regional fronts.

Next, trot out the three foreign policy heads for the 2008 presidential campaigns. Rinse, and repeat.

The segue from the first to second panel should have been smooth, and perhaps politically provocative. I had expected the panel moderator to float the narrative and strategic conclusions generated by the previous panel into this makeshift candidate’s forum. In turn, each idea could be held up to the light, examined, and judged according to its political viability by the ideological rainbow of the presidential proxies. (more…)