Tune into my segment with Max Boot and Jeremy Schahill on Lou Dobbs.
"
November 4, 2009
October 29, 2009
President Obama: Afghanistan Needs More Than a Military Solution
Because the military has become the "go-to" choice for conducting US foreign policy, it's no wonder General McChrystal felt he could (and should) go directly to the Europeans to plead the case for his Afghanistan plan. The civil service no longer has the capacity to perform its national security duties, so the military has stepped up to the plate. It no longer has the capacity because, during the early '90s, our infinitely wise Congress outsourced foreign policy decision-making to various think tanks. These "idea centers," many highly partisan and faith-based, have elevated bickering, bias and bullheaded resistance to critical analysis to an art form. They have replaced constructive dialog with petty debates, putting our nation in jeopardy.
Read the full article here The Huffington Post.
Read the full article here The Huffington Post.
October 22, 2009
Call a Jirga not a Runoff in Afghanistan
If the U.S. and international community are serious about this intervention and having any kind of political success (and less war) in Afghanistan, it should call a Loya Jirga, or a "grand assembly".
Read the full article here The Huffington Post.
Read the full article here The Huffington Post.
October 6, 2009
Troops or no more troops in Afghanistan?
The current beltway dialogue is focused on the request by General Stanley McCrystal to send another 40,000 troops to Afghanistan. President Obama is meeting with Congressional representatives, Administration appointees and experts to determine if he should up the battle anti or stand pat yet there still is not a formal strategy. Is it stability, counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, stability or development?
President Obama inherited a chaotic mess in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration went from destroying Al Qaeda to removing the Taliban to nation building. Billions of dollars flowed into the country followed by a plethora of civilian development organizations and 42 nations that are currently contributing approximately 70,000 troops for the war. However, the exact mission in Afghanistan remains to be seen.
There are major issues with the chain of command, coordination, transparency and clarity of duties. Civilians needs the military and the military needs civilians, but the foundation for their cooperation is unclear.
It is completely understandable why the new commanding General is asking for more troops. He is a strong leader who has been sent to Afghanistan for his reputation in getting things done and he needs more brigade teams to succeed.
Obama though needs to realize that just sending troops without a clear mission and chain of command is only going to make the pandemonium worse. He should take time, think, and ask his Secretary of State to outline how she wants the civilian actors organized. The loss of UN deputy Peter Galbraith and the state of confusion over the elections will make this difficult, but it must be done.
Winter is coming and in Afghanistan the treacherous weather can buy a tiny slice of time. That time should be used for preparation and planning both on the civilian and military side. If the “surge” moves forward, we will at least know that the US is focusing on a counterinsurgency effort. This effort must include all NATO troops so including them in the preparation is also essential. The counterinsurgency effort also needs a civilian counterpart that must work with the government of Afghanistan.
All international and American efforts must be clarified. If they are not, sending 40,000 or 100,000 troops will not make much of a difference. Lack of mission, chain of command and civilian relations are all key for at least a minimal stability. The Administration must do their homework. They owe it to our troops so that they can eventually come home.
President Obama inherited a chaotic mess in Afghanistan. The Bush Administration went from destroying Al Qaeda to removing the Taliban to nation building. Billions of dollars flowed into the country followed by a plethora of civilian development organizations and 42 nations that are currently contributing approximately 70,000 troops for the war. However, the exact mission in Afghanistan remains to be seen.
There are major issues with the chain of command, coordination, transparency and clarity of duties. Civilians needs the military and the military needs civilians, but the foundation for their cooperation is unclear.
It is completely understandable why the new commanding General is asking for more troops. He is a strong leader who has been sent to Afghanistan for his reputation in getting things done and he needs more brigade teams to succeed.
Obama though needs to realize that just sending troops without a clear mission and chain of command is only going to make the pandemonium worse. He should take time, think, and ask his Secretary of State to outline how she wants the civilian actors organized. The loss of UN deputy Peter Galbraith and the state of confusion over the elections will make this difficult, but it must be done.
Winter is coming and in Afghanistan the treacherous weather can buy a tiny slice of time. That time should be used for preparation and planning both on the civilian and military side. If the “surge” moves forward, we will at least know that the US is focusing on a counterinsurgency effort. This effort must include all NATO troops so including them in the preparation is also essential. The counterinsurgency effort also needs a civilian counterpart that must work with the government of Afghanistan.
All international and American efforts must be clarified. If they are not, sending 40,000 or 100,000 troops will not make much of a difference. Lack of mission, chain of command and civilian relations are all key for at least a minimal stability. The Administration must do their homework. They owe it to our troops so that they can eventually come home.
September 27, 2009
Mideast Solutions Require International Resolve, Not Rants
Because the UN has long served as a valve for venting hot air, it came as no surprise when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Benjamin Netanyahu administered high doses of hypocrisy and self-righteousness to the General Assembly.
We can only hope, when it comes to Iranian nukes and Israeli settlements, that world leaders ignore the bloviating (for a change), and take serious steps to resolve the problems before they reach crisis proportions.
Though Ahmadinejad talks a good talk, his legitimacy as Iran’s president is in serious doubt. The world has not forgotten about the violent suppression of protests over the election, and is not about to ignore Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear arsenal, which is making nervous Nellys of the Israelis.
Netanyahu has reason to worry about Iran, but he can take small comfort knowing that his nation’s nuclear-tipped missiles could reduce Iran to rubble well before the mullahs finish their weapons program.
On the Palestinian issue, Netanyahu is (at best) disingenuous when he suggests that 3.7 million Israeli residents are the world’s problem. According to numerous UN resolutions and international law, the Palestinians living within Israel are its citizens, not citizens of the West or the Arab world.
The world is justly banding together to pressure Iran with crippling sanctions because of its nuclear ambitions. Now it’s time for those same nations to pressure Israel into freezing settlements, getting serious about creating a fully sovereign Palestinian state and improving relations with the Arab world.
In other words, we must insist that Israel, like Iran, fulfill its international mandates or risk losing global support. This is in Israel’s best interest and the world’s. (The US Congress, especially, should display a little backbone with Tel Aviv, as it routinely does with Tehran.)
Most important, it’s time that Iran and Israel call a halt to their hypocritical and dangerous rhetoric. It does nothing but fuel continued instability in the region.
This article is a shorter version of the one published on the Huffington Post. You can view the longer version here The Huffington Post.
We can only hope, when it comes to Iranian nukes and Israeli settlements, that world leaders ignore the bloviating (for a change), and take serious steps to resolve the problems before they reach crisis proportions.
Though Ahmadinejad talks a good talk, his legitimacy as Iran’s president is in serious doubt. The world has not forgotten about the violent suppression of protests over the election, and is not about to ignore Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear arsenal, which is making nervous Nellys of the Israelis.
Netanyahu has reason to worry about Iran, but he can take small comfort knowing that his nation’s nuclear-tipped missiles could reduce Iran to rubble well before the mullahs finish their weapons program.
On the Palestinian issue, Netanyahu is (at best) disingenuous when he suggests that 3.7 million Israeli residents are the world’s problem. According to numerous UN resolutions and international law, the Palestinians living within Israel are its citizens, not citizens of the West or the Arab world.
The world is justly banding together to pressure Iran with crippling sanctions because of its nuclear ambitions. Now it’s time for those same nations to pressure Israel into freezing settlements, getting serious about creating a fully sovereign Palestinian state and improving relations with the Arab world.
In other words, we must insist that Israel, like Iran, fulfill its international mandates or risk losing global support. This is in Israel’s best interest and the world’s. (The US Congress, especially, should display a little backbone with Tel Aviv, as it routinely does with Tehran.)
Most important, it’s time that Iran and Israel call a halt to their hypocritical and dangerous rhetoric. It does nothing but fuel continued instability in the region.
This article is a shorter version of the one published on the Huffington Post. You can view the longer version here The Huffington Post.
September 18, 2009
Ramadan: A Time for Peace or Another Month of War?
After being embroiled in years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans have now heard of Islam’s holiest month, Ramadan, which began on August 22nd this year. (Note: Ramadan is based on the position of the moon and may differ depending on time zone, so some mark the first day as the 21st. The holiday ends on September 19/20 on Eid Al-Fitr, or the Festive of Fast-Breaking). During this month, Muslims around the world observe a month of prayer and fasting. Like the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur or the Christian Easter, Ramadan stresses empathy and compassion and encourages reflection of the self, an understanding of how one has behaved in the past and how one can atone and become a better person for the future.
Read the full article here The WIP (Women's International Perspective).
Read the full article here The WIP (Women's International Perspective).
