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.

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.

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.

A report here discusses the murders of four pro-democracy protesters in Iran. One of the dead is the nephew of a prominent opposition leader. For more details on the recent violence, give this article a read.

Just as he failed to properly denounce the Iranian regime’s violent response to this summer’s election protests, President Obama still has not spoken out against this most recent wave of violence. If this is his idea of changing America’s image abroad, his critics who claim he has little respect for America’s unique contributions to the world may be on to something.

Excellent and timely analysis from Ross Douthat on the Obama Presidency thus far:

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.

I have not yet decided on a “Dictator of the Month” for January, but the leadership of Socialist Republic of Vietnam officially puts forth its candidacy with the June arrest of three dissidents. The most notable arrest is that of an American-educated attorney who has been an advocate for human rights.

The article reports that the arrests, on charges of “subversion” that carry a potential death sentence, come as the Communist Party of Vietnam prepares for its 2011 Communist Party Conference. For those who are unfamiliar with communist administrations, communist countries host occasional “party conferences” where the official party positions are decided. In light of such an event where major policy decisions in Vietnam will be made, a totalitarian state would naturally but sadly crack down on dissenters.

I am looking forward to President Obama’s response to this crackdown. Vietnam has fallen off the radar in terms of media coverage, but that is no reason to ignore its human rights violations. Considering Obama’s hesitation to speak out against human rights violations in non-western countries (think of Iran for instance), I would not hold my breath for his response.

The dissidents are expected to stand trial relatively soon, according to the New York Times. I will write a follow up post on the trial’s outcome when it is official. But as the accused have already “confessed” and asked the government for clemency, this trial is more likely to be a show trial where the sentencing will be the only interesting outcome.

This is not usually a place where President receives much praise. However, it is important to give credit where credit is due. The President faced a daunting task. After eight years, Afghanistan remains a failed state. The previous administration largely ignored Afghanistan to focus on Iraq. The prospect of success remains dim as the Taliban is resurgent and Al Queda is returning.

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.

A few thoughts on President Obama’s decision to increase troop-presence in Afghanistan:

1. This was a good, but long-awaited move. Despite his objection to President Bush’s Iraqi surge in 2007, President Obama has recently realized that this strategy was effective and decided to implement it in Afghanistan. This is another case (just like his policy change in Honduras) of his demonstrated ability to realize when he is wrong and (quietly) change course.

2. The fact that he set a date for troop withdrawal in July of 2011 is shortsighted and may have been implemented to appease an increasingly-frustrated liberal anti-war base. We have no way of knowing the environment in Afghanistan in 2011. Therefore, setting a troop withdrawal date is a shortsighted move. While his base may be pleased to hear that the troops will come home, this strategy could well backfire if troops have to stay longer than July 2011.

3. Obama may have made the correct decision (sort of), but the fact that he waited this long, much to the chagrin of the military, was arrogant and irresponsible. President Obama is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces; he should not postpone major military decisions without a good reason. Postponing meeting with his generals indicates that he was unwilling to hear his options, not that he was mulling his options to make an informed decision.

Overall, this could have been done a lot better. But at least he got something right.

Via the Politico:

• 30,000 more troops
• Asks for NATO step-up
• Promises to begin bringing forces back by Summer 2011.

Is it just me or does this sound exactly like GWB when he purposed the Iraq “Surge”? Complete with troops numbers, benchmarks (which Obama opposed in the Senate) and timetables.

Several commentators have begun focusing on the growing discontent in the Arab world towards Obama. Fouad Ajami and Jackson Diehl do a pretty decent job of explaining why exactly this is occurring. Essentially, there are three main reasons:

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.