Yesterday the Washington Post reported that Pakistan has requested more immediate assistance from the United States to help in the flood relief effort there.  Floods have been inundating the northwest region of Pakistan, affecting more than 14 million people according to Pakistani officials.  This is the same region of Pakistan that is home to many of the militants that continue to threaten American troops in Afghanistan and seek to maintain that area as a safe haven for al Qaeda.  Although these floods are a tremendous humanitarian disaster, they also provide an opportunity to both assist those in need and demonstrate to the Pakistani people that the United States is a partner that they can count on.

A recent Pew poll shows that that this will be a steep hill to climb.  Only 17 percent of Pakistanis had a positive view of the U.S. and 59 percent described the U.S. as an enemy.  Recognizing that our efforts in Afghanistan will not succeed unless Pakistani militant safe havens are eliminated, this lack of support by the population is enormously troubling.  There are a number of reasons for their negative views ranging from U.S. support for previous military dictators to the sporadic nature of U.S. engagement with the country.

The question now is, will we respond quickly enough? The Pakistani government has been unable to address this humanitarian disaster on its own.  In this vacuum, militant groups have been rushing to seize this opportunity.  So far the United States has sent six helicopters and pledged $55 million.  Considering the task at hand and short time available to save lives, I question if this is the best effort we could muster.  An important comparison case study is worth examining – the 2004 Asian tsunami.  (more…)

Today, partisan bickering is taking precedence over sensible solutions to the AfPak conflict.  Apparently, even the safety of American citizens is considered a side concern when it comes to the labor versus business debate that characterizes much of our domestic – and now foreign policy – discourse.  Democrats say that they are on the side of the workers and Republicans say that unduly constraining business hurts us all.  This debate between the parties has been going on for decades.  Unfortunately, this debate is spilling over into the national security realm and we’re less safe because of it.  It’s time for D’s and R’s to come together on a simple trade issue that can make a difference in the struggle against extremism.

Here’s what is happening.  The Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) region of Pakistan borders Afghanistan. It’s the home base of Al Qaeda and the many of the Taliban insurgents that stream across the porous border with Afghanistan and attack our troops and destabilize Afghanistan.  Osama Bin Laden is thought to be hiding away in this remote tribal region.  Many believe that if a future 9/11-type attack happens on the United States, its origin will likely be this remote tribal region in Pakistan.

FATA is also one of the poorest and most disenfranchised regions of Pakistan.  The literacy rate in FATA is just 17.42 percent, compared to 43.92 percent in the rest of the country.   It scores quite poorly on most all socioeconomic indicators – and that’s in comparison to the rest of Pakistan, which is not particularly wealthy to begin with.  FATA residents are also marginalized from the political life of their country.  They have no elected representatives in a provincial or national assembly who can legislate on local concerns.  In this environment, it’s not surprising that extremists have had an easy time recruiting for their cause.  No, poverty and marginalization don’t cause terrorism, but they can contribute to an environment where extremism is more likely to take hold. (more…)

Amid the intense domestic coverage of the health care debate came a reminder of the hope that even hardened global figures have for the Obama Presidency and its ability to transform global affairs.

In the hours after Congress acted last Sunday, the White House announced that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia was one of the first two global leaders to call and congratulate Obama on his domestic victory.

Now, it is reasonable to assume that the Saudi leader was not particularly concerned about health care reform itself but recognized that its passage would strengthen Obama domestically and perhaps reignite his desire to be remembered as a transformative President not simply at home but also abroad.

In 2008 Obama ran a campaign that, in part, portrayed his very election as a step towards resetting U.S. relations with the international community. Further more, by illustrating his understanding of specific hot button issues ranging from Indo-Pakistani disagreements in Kashmir to the harm caused by the Bush administrations “war on terror”, Obama suggested that he would prioritize tackling the policy matters that had corroded relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world and thus undermined U.S. national security.

His early actions as President, from the appointment of Middle East envoy Mitchell to his historic Cairo speech, collectively suggested that Obama was looking to move beyond simply the reset offered by his election and was seeking a fundamental realignment between the U.S. and the Muslim world that would transform the international arena.

(more…)

Last week the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations released a new report that called on the U.S. to better engage religious communities in the conduct of its foreign policy.  Although foreign policy analysts frequently acknowledge the integral role of religion in conflicts and peacemaking around the world, the reality is that too often religious communities are not engaged in U.S. policy decisions.   Last Tuesday task force members met with Obama administration representatives to present the findings of the report.  If heeded by this administration, this advice could, in the long run, substantially strengthen our hand in achieving our national security goals.  This report’s prescriptions are particularly applicable to how the United States deals with madrassas in the Muslim world.

The report states

Religion has been a major force in the daily lives of individuals and communities for millennia. Yet recent data show that the salience of religion is on the rise the world over. Once considered a “private” matter by Western policymakers, religion is now playing an increasingly influential role—both positive and negative—in the public sphere on many different levels….. What is needed is an informed and coherent framework that allows actors within and outside government to better understand and respond to religiously inspired actors and events in a way that supports those doing good, while isolating those that invoke the sacred to sow violence and confusion.

This inability to fully understand religion and the role it plays in international relations has been characteristic of both Democratic and Republican administrations.  When speaking of her 2006 book, the Mighty and the Almighty, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said,

As a practitioner of foreign policy, I certainly come from the generation of people who used to say, “X problem is complicated enough. Let’s not bring God and religion into it.” But through my being in office, and as I explored the subject much further in writing “The Mighty and the Almighty,” I really thought that the opposite is true. In order to effectively conduct foreign policy today, you have to understand the role of God and religion.

(more…)

Last week the State Department released its Afghanistan and Pakistan Regional Stabilization Strategy.  There is much to like in this comprehensive document that seeks to elevate development and diplomacy efforts alongside that of defense.  Although the troop increase announced in December by President Obama will be integral to success, for too long the military has overshadowed development and diplomacy in this part of the world.  They are all part of the solution.  We’re now moving in the right direction, but there’s more to be done to get the Pakistani public on board.

The strategy in Afghanistan focuses on reconstruction and development, improved governance, rule of law, and an expanded civilian presence.  The Pakistan component deals with the recently passed Kerry-Lugar-Berman legislation that devotes $7.5 billion over 5 years to Pakistan.  It also emphasizes security assistance, communications, and strengthening people-to-people ties.   The strategy isn’t just a list of impressive goals, but rather it lays out measurable milestones that we should all use to hold the U.S. government accountable.

This all sounds great.  So what’s missing?  Here’s my concern, particularly related to Pakistan.  Poll after poll reports that the Pakistani public continues to harbor strong anti-American sentiment.  For example, in an August poll by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, 64% of Pakistanis viewed the U.S. as an enemy.  Only 22% of Pakistanis felt that the U.S. takes their interests into account when making foreign policy decisions.  There were many references in the strategy about the commitment to a long-term partnership with Pakistan.  Although the Pakistani government might have agreed, I’m quite concerned that the Pakistani people are not yet convinced. (more…)

This is my last post for 2009 I thought I would write about Afghanistan but on second thought I will, no doubt, be doing that quite a lot during 2010. Thanks to the Obama Administration’s surge strategy Afghanistan will, from a blogging viewpoint, be the gift that keeps on giving.

So, as we contemplate whether 2010 will be better or worse let’s take a moment to consider 2009. In the spirit of Dave Barry’s classic annual year in review column let’s acknowledge, albeit with some poetic license commentary by moi, a few of the significant events that made, however briefly, the headlines.

Although it started on Dec. 28 2008 the month of January saw massive Israeli air strikes and a ground force invasion of the Gaza Strip. Heavy fighting took place in Gaza City between the Israeli forces and Hamas. At least 1300 Palestinians were killed. On Jan. 17 Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced a unilateral ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, declaring that Israel has achieved the goals it set when launching the military operation. On Jan. 21 Israel completes its troop withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

Also that month President Barack Obama signed executive orders closing the US detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year; closing the CIA’s secret prisons; requiring a review of military trials for terror suspects; and requiring all interrogations to follow the non-coercive methods specified in the Army Field Manual.

Of course, nobody knew back then that the camp would end up in Illinois. One can only hope that the inmates are not too acclimated to the Caribbean climate to adjust to a midwest winter.

On Jan 27 Hama declared that it previously was just kidding and broke the ceasefire by attacking an Israeli frontier patrol. Israel immediately responded that it lacks a sense of humor and renewed its air strikes on the Gaza Strip border with Egypt.

On Feb. 3 Iran launched its first domestically built satellite into orbit. Iran stated that the satellite is meant for research and telecommunications purposes, but Western states express concern that the technology could be used in the development of ballistic missiles. The U.S. intelligence community, estimating that Iran will show the same swift progress with its missiles that it did with its nuclear program, predicted the next flight will be in 2040.

On Feb. 6, renewing their classic rivalry, a British and a French nuclear submarine collided in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Political leaders from both countries sighed in relief that it was merely submarines and not their respective football fans that collided. (more…)

President Obama has now presented the nation with a sober, solemn assessment in explaining the need for an additional 30,000 troops for Afghanistan: Al Qaeda remain in “common cause” with the Taliban; they have metastasized into Pakistan; they have again infiltrated our shores.  Answering those who have grown complacent, the President reminded America that “this is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat.”

Yet many are unconvinced.  Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), for instance, responded to the President’s address that more troops would not make America more secure because ”Al Qaeda can go any place. They don’t have to be in Afghanistan.”   Senator John Kerry stated that many members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he chairs, “either don’t see the nexus or don’t accept” that al Qaeda and the Taliban remain in league with one another.

(more…)

Last week a CIA drone fired two hellfire missiles at a farmhouse in a remote region of South Waziristan, Pakistan.  The target was Baitullah Mehsud, the notorious leader of the Pakistani Taliban who, according to the UN, is thought to be responsible for over 80 percent of the suicide bombings that have taken place within Afghanistan.  He is also likely responsible for the assassination of the Pakistani political leader Benazir Bhutto.  According to many accounts, Mehsud, a diabetic who was receiving treatment on the roof of the house, was killed by the attack.  Mehsud’s apparent demise is welcome good news.  However, we must also be realistic in our assessment of its potential impact.  Too often we have yearned for the quick solution – the elimination of a terrorist or a tyrant – to solve a much larger systemic problem.

Historians frequently debate the role of individuals in shaping past events.  Some argue that if were not for the actions of certain leaders at critical times, the path of history would have been dramatically different.  Others downplay the role of individuals and point to broader societal forces that shape leaders’ decisions.  Of course, the reality is that in some situations individuals play a critical role and in others the circumstances of the time dominate.  Unfortunately, when looking at the issue of terrorism, we have too frequently overemphasized the role of individual leaders – Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc.  This is not to say that these individuals did not play a critical role.  However, an overemphasis on a handful of “bad guys” leads us sometimes to overlook the more fundamental changes in the environment that must take place.

Iraq provides one example of this phenomenon.  As the insurgency in Iraq began to expand in the summer of 2003, there was a concerted effort to capture or kill Saddam Hussein and other high level members of his regime.  In December 2003, Hussein was captured and many Americans breathed a sigh of relief.  At last the leader of a hated regime posed no further threat to the future of the country.  But, the insurgency was just catching fire.  In March 2004, Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah ambushed a Blackwater convoy.  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi rose to prominence as a leader of the insurgency.  This was just the beginning. (more…)

Last week the Pew Global Attitudes Project released its 2009 poll results on the US image in the world.  This year’s results showed a dramatic change since last year’s poll.  With Obama’s election, views of the US by people around the world have improved dramatically.  Considering that during the presidential campaign, Obama was receiving a tremendous outpouring of support from around the world, this result is not altogether surprising.  Amidst this good news, however, the poll indicates that there remain real reasons for concern, particularly amongst those in the Muslim world.  Although Obama’s election has certainly improved the view of the US by many around the world, many of those whose opinions count most in America’s struggle against terrorism have not been won over by Obama’s persona nor his oratory skills.  They are waiting for concrete changes in US policy.

Certainly there is much to celebrate in this poll, particularly regarding America’s relations with its traditional friends and allies.  In Britain positive views of the US increased from 53 to 69 percent.  In France, there was a 33 percentage point increase to 75 percent favorability.  And in Germany favorable ratings of the US increased from 31 to 64 percent.  In Germany and France more people expressed support for Obama than for Angela Merkel or Nicolas Sarkozy.  Although America’s foreign policy interests are impacted by a variety of factors, certainly having a favorable public in allied countries should not be underestimated.

Admittedly, however, getting Europeans to like Americans should be considered low hanging fruit.  My guess is that few Europeans would report that the US foreign policy of the past several years has impacted them on a personal level.  Rather, their disdain for the Bush administration had more to do with the symbolic “ugly American” that it represented – the swaggering American cowboy quick to pull his pistol rather than resort to more “civilized” discourse.  So, it’s not surprising that when the symbolic ugly American exits the stage, approval ratings rebound.

Considering that our experience with the Iraq war has demonstrated that the go-it-alone approach to US foreign policy is seriously flawed, having the Europeans on board is certainly a welcome change.  Unfortunately, however, it’s not enough. (more…)

President Obama’s much-anticipated speech to the Muslim world is just a few days away. We now know the location (Egypt) and the venue (Cairo University). We know that the president will also visit Saudi Arabia, another hugely important Muslim state. We know the context of his travels to the region: Obama enjoys relatively favorable ratings among Muslims, especially when contrasted with those of President George Bush, but many are reserving judgment, waiting to see if Obama will actually change U.S. foreign policy, or merely talk about doing so. The test case is the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian dispute. But the president will also want to talk about Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, he will hope that North Korea’s behavior doesn’t grow even more erratic at a time when his attention will be focused elsewhere.

The Peace Process: As I noted in January, no one ever said it was going to be easy to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Last week reminds us that 1) that the essential issues are well understood, 2) the two parties are at an impasse, and 3) the United States is caught in the middle. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reaffirmed the U.S. government’s opposition to the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. “A stop to settlements,” she said emphatically, “not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.” The next day, the Israeli government responded with equal clarity. Israeli Cabinet Minister Benny Begin said “natural growth” of existing West Bank settlements would continue. “The Israeli Jewish towns and villages should develop according to the natural development rate and this must not be stopped,” he said. And just in case anyone questioned the official Palestinian position, Rafiq Husseini spelled it out: “No peace can be reached with one settler remaining in Palestine.” The expansion of the settlements is the key stumbling bloc to a resumption of serious negotiations. What is President Obama prepared to do to stop them? What can he do?

Iraq: The war still isn’t over, there are still nearly 140,000 U.S. troops on the ground there, and they won’t all be out until 2012. Gen. Casey hinted that the Army is prepared to stay longer. That isn’t consistent with the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) negotiated between the outgoing Bush administration and the Maliki government in Baghdad, but Casey appears to be laying the groundwork for any last-minute change of plans. Regardless, the United States needs the cooperation of Iraq’s neighbors to prevent the country from falling back into sectarian chaos as U.S. troops do draw down, and to contain the violence if the worse-case scenario occurs.

Iran: With presidential elections less than three weeks away, President Obama is surely hoping that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s days in power are numbered. But there is little that the United States can do to hasten that end, and if Washington is perceived to be interfering in Iran’s internal politics, that will surely strengthen Ahmadinejad’s otherwise very weak hand. Obama was right to take a wait-and-see approach to Iran, and should urge other countries in the region to do the same until after June 12th.

Afghanistan/Pakistan: They aren’t Middle Eastern countries, but they are Muslim countries, and the conduct of military operations there clearly affects the United States’ global standing, and therefore on the level of support that we can expect going forward. President Obama should reiterate at every possible opportunity our essential goals, what we are prepared to do to achieve them, and what others can do to help us.

In general, during the course of his travels, President Obama is likely to adopt a conciliatory, even deferential tone. He will stress the need for cooperation over confrontation, and for problem-solving over trouble-making. But so long as the rejectionists and the extremists can dictate events on the ground, he will also need a strong dose of humility.
countrywide home loans overnight,
need 5000 loan overnight cash,
washington mutual home loans,
excel loan amortization schedule prepayment cash,
high risk personal loans now,
citibank student loan,
home equity loans pros and consulting,
loan amortization schedule payment