On Monday, September 19^th, Partnership for a Secure America along with the Stanley Foundation and the Hudson Institute hosted Ambassador Linton Brooks in a series of events at the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center, which focused on the nuclear challenges facing the United States. Ambassador Brooks, currently a senior analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was the lead US negotiator on the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) and also served as Director of Arms Control for the National Security Council and as an administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

(more…)

While Libya is currently at the center of the debate, Yemen conjures up far more ominous headlines like “Yemen: Trouble in the Most Dangerous Domino.” There, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who has been in power longer than most Yemenis have been alive, is facing an opposition that fails to abate despite his concessions and is tenuously holding on to power.  Meanwhile, the fears surrounding a rapid destabilization require the United States to think creatively about how to change the lens through which it views Yemen as it prepares for a Yemen sans Saleh.

For most Americans, Yemen is only in the news when it is connected to terrorism – and with good reason.  The Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, was behind the failed 2009 Christmas Day airline bombing.  Recently, Defense Secretary Robert Gates referred to the group as the “most active and, at this point, perhaps the most aggressive branch of al Qaeda.” Moreover, there are serious concerns that AQAP could gain a stronger foothold should Yemen fall into further chaos. (more…)

From Cairo: The Arab consensus for international sanction against the Gadhafi regime is not surprising. The Arab monarchs no doubt see the opportunity to animate the long-term enmity with the Libyan dictator. This personal feud does indeed have a moral or humanitarian basis. Libyan planes bombing civilian and non-civilian rebels should not be labeled genocide but the morality of leveling the boxing ring by instituting a no-fly zone can be rationalized on a political as well as human rights basis.

The idea of another American or NATO – led military intervention is fraught with diplomatic and military landmines. First and foremost, the U.S. administration must have the emblematic, or symbolic, political cover of international law. This may not be as easy as first reported. Russia may come around quicker. However, the other security council veto possibility, China, continues to resist Western–led interventions on principal if nothing else.

Second, lets take to heart hard lessons from the two Gulf wars. International legal mandates and political demarches do not endure as long as American and NATO soldiers are alone left to not only vanquish the tyrant but also to pick up the pieces, as during the ten years of the no-fly zones over Iraq following the first Gulf war and in Iraq and Afghanistan today. The regional stakeholders need to not only help offset the financial cost and issue sanctioning resolutions from the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council but also get in the game, so to speak. GCC countries, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, have quite an arsenal of nice untested fighter planes. Although they may need some logistical support from NATO in order to project air power into Libya, the military capability is there. The question is of political will.

Interestingly, the idea of Arabs flying sorties over southern Libya while showing cohesive political resolve will probably do the most to convince China not to veto UNSC resolutions. The massive Chinese economic and diplomatic presence on the Arabian Peninsula and throughout the region militates against Beijing being in a position of opposing Arab leaders. The Arab people have begun to express themselves and take responsibility for their own destiny. The Arab leaders should take heed for themselves. Time to step up.

President Obama should impress upon our regional allies that they should share the risks as well as the rewards of being part of the world community. To do otherwise risks putting Western countries to do the dirty work after the dust settles and, thus, further exacerbating anti-American attitudes in the long-term.

Many commentators have recently noted the United States’ failure to anticipate the ongoing “Arab Spring” and, more importantly, seeming inability to shape events on the ground. The United States, critics claim, has lost much of its influence in the Middle East and been reduced to spectator status as events unfold.

While the validity of this criticism is debatable, there is no doubt that the United States will have to engage new and unfamiliar Middle Eastern actors. Secular political parties, Islamist groups, military leaders and technologically-savvy youth will all try to define their visions for the future and shape post-revolutionary states. The process is likely to be chaotic, even violent, with no guarantee that the end result will match U.S. interests.

Now is the time for the United States to assert its leadership.  President Obama needs to take the initiative and harness the power of the entire free world. The United States, the European Union, Turkey, Indonesia, Brazil, Japan, India and all other democratic powers should quickly forge a common declaration to present to Arab revolutionaries. (more…)

In 1848 popular revolution broke out in one European land after another, from the Netherlands to Serbia, Poland to Prussia. Monarchies tottered and the old social order appeared destined to the dustbin of history with the advent of new movements for an old continent; democracy and socialism.

Yet the “Spring of the Peoples” that dawned in Europe in 1848 was slowly reversed through a rolling counterrevolution that capitalized on the inability of revolutionary forces to quickly coalesce into governing majorities. The passing of months and years without stability and clear direction allowed the former interests aligned with the status quo to counter attack against the revolutionaries of 1848. The masses that had supported democratic change in the revolution of 1848 became generally disillusioned fairly quickly and were not there to resist the counter attack of the old order. (more…)

In this populous Muslim majority nation, demonstrators were fed up with more than 30 years of authoritarian rule by a former general.  The country’s economy was imploding.   The military had become an enormous state apparatus that reached its tentacles into all aspects of society, including hundreds of businesses.  The President called the shots that were rubber stamped by a compliant legislature.  Although there were regular elections, the results were always a foregone conclusion.   Opposition voices were stifled.  Security forces were known for their brutal treatment of regime opponents.

An emerging middle class, led initially by student activists, demanded reforms.    They were fed up with the crony capitalism that enriched the President and his associates while the rest of the country dealt with skyrocketing inflation.  Protests spread throughout the country.  Before long the President announced that he would not step down but that he would start a transition that would lead to new elections and he wouldn’t run.    Unfortunately, after years of repression, there seemed to be dearth of viable opposition leaders.

As the world has watched transfixed on unfolding developments in Egypt, one would assume that the description above refers to the events of the past 14 days. It does not.  It describes the 1998 democratic transition in Indonesia.  It is remarkable how similar the events appear.  Days after President Suharto announced that he would not run in a future election, he received word that he no longer had the support of the military, leading him to step down from the presidency and turn over power to his vice-president, B.J. Habibie. (more…)

“Virtually all serious observers of national security affairs now recognize the current structure of the national security system militates against unified problem-solving when the problem is a multiagency issue. The question is what to do about it.”

Counter-proliferation, counterinsurgency, food security, energy policy – all examples of complex and multifaceted issues that increasingly dominate America’s security priorities and starkly highlight the chronic limitations of the U.S. national security structure. The Project on National Security Reform and others stress the critical need for a Goldwater-Nichols Act of national security to take on the colossal and outdated bureaucracy built around the security challenges of the post WWII period. (more…)

As we watch the current demonstrations in Egypt and Jordan, and as Tunisia moves to a new phase in its history, much is being made of American ties to these leaders.  As the “Arab street” watches what is transpiring, it should note that the US and other western countries are letting these events play out even given real concerns over the impact this will have on geopolitics, global security and a shaky world economy.

Yet, as the governments and militaries of Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan show some restraint in handling these protests, one has to reflect on the fact that one of the most sophisticated populaces in the world, the Iranian people, were not shown the same courtesy by their regime.  Rather, the Supreme Leader, his allies, and his loyal guardsman and militias used and continue to use every opportunity to shut down peaceful protests and threaten the opposition.

Let’s hope the Supreme Leader and his allies realize that what is transpiring in the region is a revolt against autocracies writ large.  If Iran wants to become a real regional power and take what it believes is its rightful place in the international order, then it should unleash the greatest power it has – the power of its people.  After all, it is this Persian power that has contributed so much to world civilization and continues to garner international respect today.

The Obama Administration announced Monday that it asked Partnership for a Secure America Advisory Board member, Ambassador Frank Wisner, to travel to Egypt to meet with President Hosni Mubarak and other Egyptian political leaders. A former Ambassador to Cairo (1986-91), Ambassador Wisner brings considerable expertise and strong relationships in the Middle East to bear on this current assignment.  Deeply respected for his contributions to American diplomacy and peace-building in some of the world’s toughest neighborhoods, Wisner has served in both Democratic and Republican Administrations, most recently as President George W. Bush’s special envoy responsible for negotiating Kosovo independence.

While doing some winter cleaning recently, I discovered an October 1970 edition of Life magazine I had purchased from a Manhattan street vendor some years back.  The cover story on the sudden death of Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser featured a photo of crowds swarming to the funeral of the controversial leader, who was, for them, a symbol of dignity.  More than forty years later, the scenes from Egypt are strikingly different, but echoes of that same desire for dignity remain strong.

To many watching from afar, the images of Egyptian protesters are equally compelling and mysterious.  Their cause seems just, having more to do with outrage over bad governance than ideology, but “who are they?” has become a common query with regard to the disparate group of protesters.  That leaves the question of what comes as far from clear, which makes you want to sit on the edge of your seat to see what happens but also leaves you wondering whether you’ll be sorry you did.

While Tunisia’s so-called Jasmine Revolution helped to inspire Egypt’s so-called Lotus Revolution, more consequential is what alternative model emerges for a transitional democracy.  Part of the fear associated with the what-comes-next scenario comes from remembering past negative models like Gaza.  On the flip side, though, is Turkey, a secular democracy in a Muslim majority state.  Moreover, the country has become an increasingly influential player on the world stage, and gained prestige in the Middle East for doing so.  And as the Wall Street Journal noted, Turkish policymakers see the potential to “enhance its diplomatic influence” even further.
(more…)