National Security Online Resource Center

Should we negotiate with the Taliban? President Obama pondered negotiation early last year but instead decided to scale up its efforts against the group. Now Ahmed Rashid, one of the foremost scholar-journalists on the Afghan conflict, has suggested that America may have no other choice. A similar solution is proposed by George Gavrilis in the recent issue of Foreign Affairs where he argues that a less intrusive, less idealistic solution is the way to go in Afghanistan.

The politically accommodating solution is attractive (especially to a transactional president like Obama) but not always successful. Nixon bombed Vietcong to the peace table but South Vietnam fell a couple of years later. This is essentially Obama’ s strategy – weaken the Taliban and then negotiate. Obviously the situation in Afghanistan is different from Vietnam. The country is far more fragmented and a political reconciliation with the Taliban unavoidable given the growing unpopularity of the war. However, we must not forget about the commitment of freedom and democracy we made to the Afghan people. Rights of women are going to roll back and the country is likely to return to an increasingly autocratic/Islamist regime. Even if democracy is maintained, it will be marred by corruption and another civil war started by the loosers is not out of the question.

So whats the solution? You tell me.

Geert Wilders, a right-wing member of the Dutch Parliament, is now on trial in the Netherlands for a controversial film that juxtaposed Koranic quotes and images of Islamist terrorist violence. While the video’s content is undoubtedly controversial, the content of which can be found here, the fact that he potentially faces a 15-month prison sentence is even more so. Wilders has become increasingly popular despite his persecution as he has been willing to stand up to the increasing Islamism in the Netherlands and Europe as a whole.

As his trial opened, Wilders offered his opening statement, where he stressed the importance of liberty in society. Here are a few excerpts, but the entire speech can be found here.

“Our freedom in this country is the fruit of centuries. It is the result of a history that has no equal and has brought us to where we are today. I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom is threatened in the Netherlands. That heritage, which generations could only dream of, is precisely this freedom which is no longer a given fact, no longer a matter self-evidence.”

“In this trial it of course is about the freedom of expression. But in this trial it is certainly also about finding the truth. The statements I have made, the comparisons I have drawn — are they true? As mentioned in the summons? Because if something is true, how can it be illegal?”

Egypt recently arrested 30 bloggers as they were on their way to Naga Hammadi, the site where several Coptic Christians were brutally killed. Here are some details about the event:

“The bloggers are among a bigger group of Egyptians that include politicians like Osama Ghazali Harb of the liberal Democratic Front Party, Kifaya leader George Ishaaq and Cairo university professor and opposition leader Mohamed Abul Ghar. Split in two separate groups, one en route to Naga Hammadi by train and the other by bus from Luxor, they were heading to the small town in order to meet Bishop Kirollos of the Naga Hammadi Diocese, in addition to the families of those who lost their lives in the violence a week earlier, not only in order to console them but also to show solidarity.”

The State department is currently concerned about the arrests, yet no further actions seem likely. President Obama has done quite a bit to repair the damaged relationship between Egypt and the United States. However, he cannot in good conscience allow democracy activists and advocates of religious freedom to be arbitrarily arrested in a country that is the second largest recipient of U.S. international assistance! Squeezing moderates is going to empower Islamists who offer an alternative to America and democracy.

Conservative governance scored a major victory in Chile as billionaire and former Senator Sebastián Piñera defeated the leftist opposition by a 52-48 margin. This victory, over former Chilean President Eduardo Frei, ends twenty years of leftist rule ever since they came to power in wake of General Augosto Pinochet’s departure in 1990.

This New York Times articles notes that many experts believe this victory is not a repudiation of the leftist government, considering the outgoing president enjoys 75 percent approval ratings. In addition, Piñera could not escape Pinochet’s legacy. The article also reports that several members of his coalition served in Pincochet’s Cabinet, and that several leftists in Chile were wary of this fact when voting.

As the Times reports, “‘This was one of the most difficult decisions the country has had in a long time,’ said Erica Tapia, 44. ‘Unfortunately, I voted for Frei out of fear of the right.’”

Nonetheless, Piñera has pledged not to appoint any former Pinochet Cabinet members to his new Cabinet. Piñera, who has also pledged to privatize several nationalized industries and create one million jobs, will hopefully be a bright spot in Latin American politics to counter the influence of socialists such as Hugo Chavez. Having a pro-American ally in previously-leftist Chile could potentially increase our favorability in South America.

Our thoughts and prayers here at NSORC go out to the victims of an earthquake that struck the island nation of Haiti this week. A report of the tragedy can be found at any news source, but here is one report containing numerous details of the disaster. The earthquake, which measured a 7.0 out of 10 on the Richter scale, has potentially killed upwards of 100,000 people (although estimates vary considerably) and has reportedly destroyed the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince and most hospitals in the city, which renders this earthquake even more damaging.

Fortunately, international aid has poured into Haiti from the United States, the United Nations, and countries such as France. In fact, one sports retailer is sending t-shirts featring now-former University of Tennessee coach Lane Kiffin, who left Tennessee after one season to coach at the University of Southern California.

President Obama acted swiftly and sent troops and aid to Haiti. This is a good opportunity for the United States to show its benevolence to the rest of the world. Readers of this blog know that I rarely discuss President Obama without offering criticism, but I will defer to the President for now.

I will continue to update readers as more information becomes available. But for now please think of the victims and remember how fortunate we are.

Every since the Christmas day undie-bomber Yemen has come increasingly under the spotlight. Many are already calling it a failed state, citing the strangle hold Al Qaeda seems to have over the country. But there is another problem, one that is mostly only mentioned in passing, the Houthi Shias. The Houthis are a religious minority in the predominately Sunni Yemen, and for the past 5 years they have been waging a war against Yemen and in the last couple of years, southern Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have recently claimed victory over the Houthis who have been occupying a town in southern SA for the past several months. The Houthis claim to be oppressed for their religious beliefs and are claiming northwestern Yemen and parts of southern Saudi Arabia as their homeland. This recent conflict between the Houthi and the Saudis is just a small part of the greater conflict between the Houthis and Yemen. The question remains, Will the Saudis be willing to assist Yemen in defeating the Houthis? Or are they merely considered with their own territorial well being?

It is rather interesting to witness the late arrival of Yemen to the discussion of American security threats. Yemen’s instability has been long known but when the Christmas bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, said that he received assistance from an Al-Queda branch in Yemen, the small, poor country showed up on the map. President Obama announced a doubling of U.S. monetary assistance to Yemen. So including this new addition, the United States is now deeply involved in 5 Muslim countries. The other countries include: Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. So we must ask at least the question: Where do we draw the line?

American presence is vital to these countries’ security and to ours. I am not questioning that notion and I understand the desire to increase our presence in Yemen. Yet have we fully thought about all of the options. Do we need to increase our presence in any country to solve our problem? I know it won’t make much sense to most to do nothing and to suggest doing less seems blasphemous. It maybe that we need to do more, but are we sure that the answer isn’t doing less?

Other than the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, on security matters, the administration has been largely responsive, rather than proactive. Key initiatives have failed to get anywhere (Israel-Palestine, Guantanamo). So does the United States have a long-term strategic plan for dealing with Middle East rather than being responsive to a series of crises? If so, why hasn’t the President outlined this initiative? With President Bush, at least we were certain of his foreign policy mindset. With President Obama, nothing seems clear.

After traveling to Swaziland in October, Equatorial Guinea in November, and Myanmar in December, the Dictator of the Month now moves to Europe to profile the only remaining official dictator in Europe, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus.

Profiled by BBC in 2007, Lukashenko has ruled Belarus since 1994, three years after the Soviet Union collapsed. He makes no secret of his authoritarian nature. This article mentions that Lukashenko had supported the coup attempt against Soviet leader Gorbachev in 1991, and that he disbanded parliament in 1996 when threatened with impeachment.

Since then, he has won elections with little opposition and also overturned a constitutional term-limit, just as Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez did recently. When facing the prospect of opposition to his rule, he described how be would handle his opponents: “We will wring their necks, as one might a duck”. Undoubtedly, the KGB (the former Soviet agency has not changed its name in Belarus) carries out his will.

At this point, we have no reason to believe that Lukashenko will be removed from office any time soon, barring an assassination or an act of God. This report indicates that his hold on power is very strong compared to that deposed leaders in Georgia, who could not defeat resistance leaders.

Since everyone seems to be making a list, we at NSORC figured that we should make a list of our own. So here we go:

5. D.C. Sniper/Anthrax Attacks – Both events followed the attacks of September 11 touched a nerve as people were scared more than ever. Ten people were killed by the sniper with 3 others seriously injured. The anthrax attacks killed 5 while injuring seventeen.

4. Fort Hood Massacre: The killing of 13 people by Major Nidal Malik Hasan is currently being investigated as a possible homegrown terrorist attack. The event raised questions about other possible planned attacks in the U.S.

3. Guantanamo Bay/Abu Ghraib – American treatment of prisoners from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was extremely controversial and subject of much debate in the United States and abroad. These events were a major blow to American image in the Muslim World

2. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – Both wars will continue into the next decade but the current decade was marred with stories, discussion and opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

1. 9/11 – History has yet to make a final judgment on how Sept. 11 2001 changed the paradigm of American National Security. However we can say that no other event in the past decade was more significant in the National Security realm than the terrorist attacks nearly 9 years ago.