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.

“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.

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.

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.

In hindsight, the most prescient sentence penned during the presidential campaign belongs to Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker. “Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama,” he wrote in July 2008, “is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them.”

The New Yorker Article is here and the rest of Douthat here.

This is not the first time that the United Kingdom has issued an arrest warrant against a former Israeli politician for their involvement in the Gaza War. Ehud Barak, Israel’s defense minister and leader of the Labour Party, was also targeted by lawyers but escaped because the Foreign Office declared that he was a serving minister who was meeting his counterparts and thus enjoyed immunity. The warrants have been issued on the behest Palestinians who have claimed to be victims of the Gaza War under the 1998 Criminal Justice Act, giving courts in England and Wales ‘universal jurisdiction’ over any case related to war crimes.

The larger issue brought to light here is the debate over universal jurisdiction. Can a judicial system in one country prosecute leader or former leader of another country for crimes not committed in its state or against its people? International law says Yes. Yet could this not be exploited for self advancement or sympathy to a particular cause. How can a judge in England conduct a fair trial for something that happened thousands of miles away? These are difficult questions but one thing is clear: Israel-UK relations took a serious hit.

The state controlled media is criticizing for him for his international service and lack of political expereince. “Imported president for Egypt,” read the headline of state-owned Al Ahram el-Messaei, along with a large front page cartoon portraying Mr ElBaradei as a foreigner. Another newspaper suggested that Mr. ElBaradei is a puppet of the United States and helped the United States invade Iraq. In fact he actually defied the U.S. in refusing to support American claims of nuclear weapons in Iraq. ElBaradei represents a real chance for Egypt. He is a moderate, rational figure with international prestige and domestic popularity. Until last week, Egyptian state media considered him a credit to their country.

President Obama has shied away from democracy promotion. Reformers have even lamented his election. However, he has a chance to change this. The President can apply pressure to Mubarak, threaten to withdraw aid and do whatever it takes to demand a free and fair election. He has a chance to bring democracy to Egypt, to allow the country not to sink into Islamism and offer a true alternative. A democracy for Egypt by Egyptians. Mr. Obama has an unbelievable opportunity and if he helps bring democracy to Egypt, he truly deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.

The President, who came in on the promise to bring troops home, had to decide to send more. He enacted the same (surge) policy he opposed as Senator, realizing that the President’s job isn’t to pander to his base but to keep the country safe. This decision was probably not easy given the waning popularity of the Afghan war, especially amongst his core group of supporters.

Now Republicans have criticized the 18 month deadline imposed by the President. However, as stated in his speech as well as clarified by Robert Gates and Hillary Clinton, the deadline is not a drop dead deadline and a withdrawal will only occur with permitting conditions on the ground.

My larger issue is not with the surge but rather potential of success in Afghanistan. If history has taught a lesson to the great powers on Afghanistan, it is that the country cannot be controlled. Now the U.S. mission is very different from the one pursued by the British and the Soviets but their failures should teach us that this is one country that cannot be brought under centralized control, and an attempt to do so would be quite foolish.

1. Arabs expected Obama to gain deep concessions from Israel, Obama could not even get the Israelis to stop settlements. He has tried to sympathize with the Palestinians and the Israelis. However, their opinion of Obama and the United States are at all time lows.

2. Reformers expected Obama to help coax their regimes into changing towards openness and democracy. Indeed, the Bush administration loudly demanded allies (Egypt and Jordan) as well as foes (Iran) to change, but Obama has been mum. His attempt to both to be one with the people and one with the government has won him support of neither.

3. The Arab World is tried of Obama’s flowery rhetoric that is not backed up by substantive action. His apologist views of American actions were well received but have not been substantiated. Indeed, Obama has made America look ridiculous while accomplishing nothing.

Barack Obama has tried his best to play both sides on most issues. He has failed and lost support of both sides. If he is to succeed, Obama needs to stand for something. That something must be freedom and democracy He needs to do it now before he looses what little international support he has left.