November 21, 2008
November 20, 2008
Barack Obama and the World's Expectations
I discuss this issue on Press TV as part of a round table, November 19, 2008.
November 19, 2008
The Bush Legacy: Weighing in on Afghanistan
Tricia contributes to El Dario La Pensa in The BUSH LEGACY.
All Eyes on Afghanistan: What Should Barack Obama Do?
Many different interests vie for supremacy in Afghanistan, and the new administration must stimulate an honest discussion among the stakeholders. Left out of discussions so far has been consultation with the Afghan people themselves..
I recently taught a class at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs, where students were assigned various roles simulating democracy-building efforts, The exercise highlighted issues such as civilian casualties, negotiations with the Taliban, refugees whose families have been killed, and the limited cooperation of international organizations and agencies. The students diligently outlined their goals and interests, and determined whom they should (or should not) be working with.
There were a number of striking similarities between the simulation’s outcome and the current reality.
* The smallest groups, NGOs and refugees, spoke to everyone and anyone to increase their chances of getting the job done, but larger groups—the military and USAID—dismissed their value.
* The larger groups worked only with groups that would support their agendas, without considering the larger strategic picture.
* Other than refugees (who were directed to do so in the simulation), no party spoke with the Afghan government, except for the U.S. military, but they met with “Karzai” just 10 minutes before the simulation ended. And that visit was merely to “inform” the Afghans about their plans.
* Lack of a holistic, strategic and visionary U.S. foreign policy is hardly news, and neither is competition between organizations and agencies. What is shocking is that most Afghan nationals are repeatedly excluded from the planning, decision-making and implementation processes. Although they are sometimes “informed,” their input is often dismissed while outside plans are imposed.
My class learned this in a safe environment. Regrettably, the U.S. military has learned the same lesson in a very dangerous one—Iraq. Many recent successes in Iraq have occurred because our soldiers are finally learning to work with community leaders to win hearts and minds. The new emphasis—on working collectively—is being transferred to Afghanistan, and Barack Obama has pledged to support this strategy.
Afghans watched the U.S. election closely. While I was in Kabul this summer, every one of my colleagues expressed support for an Obama administration, and I received many congratulatory emails afterward.
Afghans believe that Obama will concentrate on the welfare of civilians, and minimize the use of force. They believe he will use civilian foreign policy “tools” that more effectively empower Afghans, so they can convince their own communities to keep the Taliban at bay and repair their shattered society.
Afghans know they need help. They understand that they live in a broken nation, one ranked 173 out of 178 in the area of human development. They know that the poppies cultivated in the south do not give them power, but help to maintain warlord domination and aggression. The people know, but they feel powerless to make the changes without more help—and a much bigger say.
As president, Obama will have an unprecedented chance to make big differences in our world, including Afghanistan.
To do this, however, he must first realize that the U.S. foreign policy apparatus needs an overhaul. If the parts are not coordinated to create an effective whole, the United States will never get out of Iraq, let alone help Afghanistan to move forward.
Obama must also require the military to create a comprehensive strategy for success. This requires that NATO and the international community accept more leadership responsibilities.
Finally, without strengthening Afghan participation and requiring accountability from all parties, little will change in the country or the region. We will not only fail at a more rapid rate, we will find ourselves on the outside, looking in. Afghans will tell you that they won’t tolerate much more domineering behavior.
Obama will be tasked with determining how Afghanistan fits into a new and, one hopes, visionary American foreign policy. He must also set the direction for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, while promoting change in an international community that has been as much a part of the problem as the solution.
The current head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, said it will take more than extra soldiers to stabilize Afghanistan. It will take Afghans, as well as a more holistic foreign policy. This policy must be more inclusive, taking into account the interests of all parties in the region.
The “cowboy” mentality practiced under the outgoing administration has not gotten us anywhere. Change is overdue. This requires equal and honest participation from all stakeholders in creating a stable country that can finally move beyond war.
WMC Reprint & Credit Requirements: The Women's Media Center grants permission to reprint free-of-charge with the understanding that media outlets credit the author of the piece and the Women's Media Center, as in: "by [author's name] for the Women's Media Center (www.womensmediacenter.com)." If the format allows it, please note at the end: "The WMC is a non-profit organization founded by Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan, dedicated to making the female half of the world visible and powerful in the media.
The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author alone and do not represent the WMC. The WMC is a 501(c)(3) organization and does not endorse candidates.
I recently taught a class at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs, where students were assigned various roles simulating democracy-building efforts, The exercise highlighted issues such as civilian casualties, negotiations with the Taliban, refugees whose families have been killed, and the limited cooperation of international organizations and agencies. The students diligently outlined their goals and interests, and determined whom they should (or should not) be working with.
There were a number of striking similarities between the simulation’s outcome and the current reality.
* The smallest groups, NGOs and refugees, spoke to everyone and anyone to increase their chances of getting the job done, but larger groups—the military and USAID—dismissed their value.
* The larger groups worked only with groups that would support their agendas, without considering the larger strategic picture.
* Other than refugees (who were directed to do so in the simulation), no party spoke with the Afghan government, except for the U.S. military, but they met with “Karzai” just 10 minutes before the simulation ended. And that visit was merely to “inform” the Afghans about their plans.
* Lack of a holistic, strategic and visionary U.S. foreign policy is hardly news, and neither is competition between organizations and agencies. What is shocking is that most Afghan nationals are repeatedly excluded from the planning, decision-making and implementation processes. Although they are sometimes “informed,” their input is often dismissed while outside plans are imposed.
My class learned this in a safe environment. Regrettably, the U.S. military has learned the same lesson in a very dangerous one—Iraq. Many recent successes in Iraq have occurred because our soldiers are finally learning to work with community leaders to win hearts and minds. The new emphasis—on working collectively—is being transferred to Afghanistan, and Barack Obama has pledged to support this strategy.
Afghans watched the U.S. election closely. While I was in Kabul this summer, every one of my colleagues expressed support for an Obama administration, and I received many congratulatory emails afterward.
Afghans believe that Obama will concentrate on the welfare of civilians, and minimize the use of force. They believe he will use civilian foreign policy “tools” that more effectively empower Afghans, so they can convince their own communities to keep the Taliban at bay and repair their shattered society.
Afghans know they need help. They understand that they live in a broken nation, one ranked 173 out of 178 in the area of human development. They know that the poppies cultivated in the south do not give them power, but help to maintain warlord domination and aggression. The people know, but they feel powerless to make the changes without more help—and a much bigger say.
As president, Obama will have an unprecedented chance to make big differences in our world, including Afghanistan.
To do this, however, he must first realize that the U.S. foreign policy apparatus needs an overhaul. If the parts are not coordinated to create an effective whole, the United States will never get out of Iraq, let alone help Afghanistan to move forward.
Obama must also require the military to create a comprehensive strategy for success. This requires that NATO and the international community accept more leadership responsibilities.
Finally, without strengthening Afghan participation and requiring accountability from all parties, little will change in the country or the region. We will not only fail at a more rapid rate, we will find ourselves on the outside, looking in. Afghans will tell you that they won’t tolerate much more domineering behavior.
Obama will be tasked with determining how Afghanistan fits into a new and, one hopes, visionary American foreign policy. He must also set the direction for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, while promoting change in an international community that has been as much a part of the problem as the solution.
The current head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General David McKiernan, said it will take more than extra soldiers to stabilize Afghanistan. It will take Afghans, as well as a more holistic foreign policy. This policy must be more inclusive, taking into account the interests of all parties in the region.
The “cowboy” mentality practiced under the outgoing administration has not gotten us anywhere. Change is overdue. This requires equal and honest participation from all stakeholders in creating a stable country that can finally move beyond war.
WMC Reprint & Credit Requirements: The Women's Media Center grants permission to reprint free-of-charge with the understanding that media outlets credit the author of the piece and the Women's Media Center, as in: "by [author's name] for the Women's Media Center (www.womensmediacenter.com)." If the format allows it, please note at the end: "The WMC is a non-profit organization founded by Jane Fonda, Gloria Steinem, and Robin Morgan, dedicated to making the female half of the world visible and powerful in the media.
The views expressed in this commentary are those of the author alone and do not represent the WMC. The WMC is a 501(c)(3) organization and does not endorse candidates.
November 14, 2008
Senator Clinton as Secretary of State?
There are rumors that President-elect Obama is vetting Senator Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State. Taking Clinton out of the Senate and putting her in this position would be a major loss for New York, and no gain for Obama's foreign policy team.
It is true that Clinton has met many international leaders - mostly during her time as first lady and not in a policy making capacity. She has also traveled abroad as Senator - mostly to Israel voicing her unwavering support. She has tried to boost her foreign policy credentials over the years by joining the Senate Armed Services Committee - mostly to support her candidacy for President. Not one of these examples makes her a diplomat.
Clinton, unlike Obama, is hawkish on national security issues. May I remind you she voted to go to war with Iraq and repeatedly said she thought nothing of using nuclear weapons on Iran.
Making Clinton Secretary of State is not what the US needs especially when it is trying to repair its relationships in the world, end two wars and get the Middle East peace process back on track. Further, trying to bring a more balanced civilian component into foreign policy is nothing she has ever purported to support.
So I ask you, will putting her in the top diplomat position encourage a better foreign policy and change? I don't think so. What will she say to the Iranians, "oh that bombing threat was just for constituency consumption"?
If Obama is serious about turning America around, Chuck Hagel would be a much wiser choice. He has spoken out against the war, supported many of Obama's initiatives in the Senate and, as a Republican, would be the right choice to build the bridge between party lines.
Hagel also understands the importance of leveling our civilian leadership in the foreign policy equation, taking into account international interests and working to improve the status of this country throughout the world. Clinton would serve everyone better by staying in the Senate and it would serve Obama much better if he left her there.
It is true that Clinton has met many international leaders - mostly during her time as first lady and not in a policy making capacity. She has also traveled abroad as Senator - mostly to Israel voicing her unwavering support. She has tried to boost her foreign policy credentials over the years by joining the Senate Armed Services Committee - mostly to support her candidacy for President. Not one of these examples makes her a diplomat.
Clinton, unlike Obama, is hawkish on national security issues. May I remind you she voted to go to war with Iraq and repeatedly said she thought nothing of using nuclear weapons on Iran.
Making Clinton Secretary of State is not what the US needs especially when it is trying to repair its relationships in the world, end two wars and get the Middle East peace process back on track. Further, trying to bring a more balanced civilian component into foreign policy is nothing she has ever purported to support.
So I ask you, will putting her in the top diplomat position encourage a better foreign policy and change? I don't think so. What will she say to the Iranians, "oh that bombing threat was just for constituency consumption"?
If Obama is serious about turning America around, Chuck Hagel would be a much wiser choice. He has spoken out against the war, supported many of Obama's initiatives in the Senate and, as a Republican, would be the right choice to build the bridge between party lines.
Hagel also understands the importance of leveling our civilian leadership in the foreign policy equation, taking into account international interests and working to improve the status of this country throughout the world. Clinton would serve everyone better by staying in the Senate and it would serve Obama much better if he left her there.
November 4, 2008
Voting is not enough: Americans need to get and remain engaged!
Today, like millions of Americans, I exercised my constitutional right to vote. I have to say, although I waited just about an hour, I am proud to exercise my right and privilege as an American. My voice joins the chorus of so many others. I am able to participate in choosing who will represent us in the State Senate, the Federal Congress and, of course, the White House.
I have to admit something however, as I walked around the corner of the voting entrance and saw the line, I almost turned around thinking perhaps I could come back later. Since I brought a few magazines and a cup of coffee, I got in line and waited it out. Before I knew it, I was at the desk giving the registrar my name and district. Because I moved over two years ago, it seemed that the election center did not manage to update my registration – although I did sometime ago – but they did have a paper ballot ready for me to fill out and sigh with my pledge that I was in fact registered to elect.
While waiting in line I heard comments from people and came and left. Most were definitely frustrated with the fact that they had to wait. Others left, lines scaring them away. I couldn’t help thinking they were giving up before even trying things out. I recalled all those Iraqis who waited for hours in the midst of war and I though of all those Afghans who rode donkeys for hours just to cast their ballot. I was saddened by how much we all take our rights for granted.
People who give up so easily on their future just because they have to wait a short while most likely do not appreciate where they are and probably do not take the time to understand what this day represents and why it is so important. I wanted to shout out, “this is your country, your future and if you don’t take responsibility for your part in this process, you should not even think about waging a complaint!”
Personally I am thrilled that no matter who goes home, the United States is seeing a record-voting turnout for this Presidential election. Not that I’m trying to get ahead of myself, but what I’d like to see next is a more engaged American. An America that learns about the issues – global and domestic, reads and becomes informed, does research, engages in discussions and debate, and strives to make this country the best it can be.
The apathy and disengagement in this country is stunning. Too many quote news organizations and pundits as if all they report is true. Propaganda on both sides should be viewed as just that; didn’t we learn anything from watching during the cold war? We were told repeatedly how strong militarily the people were behind the iron curtain. When I got there in 1993, soldiers were hungry and most did not even have boots. Not too scary if you ask me.
What we were told was wrong and if I had not gotten out there to learn and see, I would never have known my very own people – my government - were deceiving me. So I vowed then that I would never just believe, I needed to learn more and make my own decisions based on the facts. This is want I hope more Americans will strive to do as well.
I understand that the US is a wealthy nation and when you are wealthy you often think others should just listen to you. Despite our wealth our knowledge does not seem to be increasing. I was to say the very least shocked that anyone could even think of supporting a Vice Presidential candidate that doesn’t support intellectual prowess. Mediocrity seems to be ok with her. It should not be ok with any of us.
We need to put a higher value on education and knowledge. How did Americans get to the point where they do not want to go to school, do more homework, learn and keep learning more?
Aren’t we concerned when we face a war with a country and do not know where it is located? Most people did not even know where Iraq and Afghanistan were until we invaded them. We sent our children to fight and die without even realizing why.
How are we supposed to understand how to hold our representatives accountable for these invasions or think about a comprehensive policy if we don’t know the issues, the facts, the country, the people and the culture? How can we make any decisions if we are uninformed?
This country is fortunate that it has plentiful resources so we often feel we do not need anyone, but that is not true. In today’s world we need to consider everyone when looking at global climate change, stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, security weapons of mass destruction and, believe it or not, fixing the economic crisis. All countries of the world are connected to these issues and we Americans need to know more so we can work cooperatively, on an international level, to solve them.
So yes, this is an exciting time. People are getting out in droves and voting. Just remember that voting alone does not make a democracy nor does it make any country strong. The people of this country must also commit to engagement with themselves and in their own policies and process. They owe it to themselves and they owe to the future of the entire world.
I have to admit something however, as I walked around the corner of the voting entrance and saw the line, I almost turned around thinking perhaps I could come back later. Since I brought a few magazines and a cup of coffee, I got in line and waited it out. Before I knew it, I was at the desk giving the registrar my name and district. Because I moved over two years ago, it seemed that the election center did not manage to update my registration – although I did sometime ago – but they did have a paper ballot ready for me to fill out and sigh with my pledge that I was in fact registered to elect.
While waiting in line I heard comments from people and came and left. Most were definitely frustrated with the fact that they had to wait. Others left, lines scaring them away. I couldn’t help thinking they were giving up before even trying things out. I recalled all those Iraqis who waited for hours in the midst of war and I though of all those Afghans who rode donkeys for hours just to cast their ballot. I was saddened by how much we all take our rights for granted.
People who give up so easily on their future just because they have to wait a short while most likely do not appreciate where they are and probably do not take the time to understand what this day represents and why it is so important. I wanted to shout out, “this is your country, your future and if you don’t take responsibility for your part in this process, you should not even think about waging a complaint!”
Personally I am thrilled that no matter who goes home, the United States is seeing a record-voting turnout for this Presidential election. Not that I’m trying to get ahead of myself, but what I’d like to see next is a more engaged American. An America that learns about the issues – global and domestic, reads and becomes informed, does research, engages in discussions and debate, and strives to make this country the best it can be.
The apathy and disengagement in this country is stunning. Too many quote news organizations and pundits as if all they report is true. Propaganda on both sides should be viewed as just that; didn’t we learn anything from watching during the cold war? We were told repeatedly how strong militarily the people were behind the iron curtain. When I got there in 1993, soldiers were hungry and most did not even have boots. Not too scary if you ask me.
What we were told was wrong and if I had not gotten out there to learn and see, I would never have known my very own people – my government - were deceiving me. So I vowed then that I would never just believe, I needed to learn more and make my own decisions based on the facts. This is want I hope more Americans will strive to do as well.
I understand that the US is a wealthy nation and when you are wealthy you often think others should just listen to you. Despite our wealth our knowledge does not seem to be increasing. I was to say the very least shocked that anyone could even think of supporting a Vice Presidential candidate that doesn’t support intellectual prowess. Mediocrity seems to be ok with her. It should not be ok with any of us.
We need to put a higher value on education and knowledge. How did Americans get to the point where they do not want to go to school, do more homework, learn and keep learning more?
Aren’t we concerned when we face a war with a country and do not know where it is located? Most people did not even know where Iraq and Afghanistan were until we invaded them. We sent our children to fight and die without even realizing why.
How are we supposed to understand how to hold our representatives accountable for these invasions or think about a comprehensive policy if we don’t know the issues, the facts, the country, the people and the culture? How can we make any decisions if we are uninformed?
This country is fortunate that it has plentiful resources so we often feel we do not need anyone, but that is not true. In today’s world we need to consider everyone when looking at global climate change, stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan, security weapons of mass destruction and, believe it or not, fixing the economic crisis. All countries of the world are connected to these issues and we Americans need to know more so we can work cooperatively, on an international level, to solve them.
So yes, this is an exciting time. People are getting out in droves and voting. Just remember that voting alone does not make a democracy nor does it make any country strong. The people of this country must also commit to engagement with themselves and in their own policies and process. They owe it to themselves and they owe to the future of the entire world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
