Wow. That was my reaction reading Walter Russell Mead’s Memorial Day blog post. Mead chooses to honor our American troops past and present by talking about what he calls their ‘momentous victory’ in Iraq. That’s right, Iraq. Not World War II or I, not the American Revolution or the Spanish-American war, but the George W. Bush-led war in Iraq. Mead, a top notch American historian, is one of the most sober, deep thinking social and political commentators our country has right now and this was one of his most memorable.

In the piece, Mead argues that the turning point in the wars, Iraq and War on Terror, occurred when Iraq’s Sunni population decided to choose the American side over Al Qaeda’s in 2006. Not only was a strategic victory for a future, democratic Iraq, but for Mead, it was the end of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s dreams of bringing their version of Islam to the masses. Basically, the Sunni’s of Iraq saw what both sides had to offer, neither perfect of course, and made a fateful decision to choose America’s path. Here is Mead’s description:

But on this Memorial Day it is not enough to remember, and give thanks, that Osama’s dream died before he did and that the terror movement has been gravely wounded at its heart.

Because the dream didn’t just die.

It was killed.

And it was killed by coalition forces.  They killed it by fighting harder and smarter than the enemy and they killed it by winning trust and building bridges better than the enemy.  They did it because they were better, more honorable warriors and better, more honorable partners for peace.  Mostly American and mostly Christian, the coalition forces were more compassionate, more just, more protective of the poor and more respectful of Arab women than the crazed thugs who thought setting off bombs in the market was fulfilling God’s will.

Though I am sympathetic to Mead’s core argument that the war in Iraq should be seen as a victory for the United States, I believe there is much more work to be done before the history books will really have a definitive answer. Concerning the War on Terror, Osama may be dead, but Al Qaeda isn’t. There are still far too many people still left, who follow a disturbed and dangerous form of Islam, that wish the United States and our allies harm. Sadly, I would not be surprised in the least if the United States homeland was targeted for a serious terrorist attack in the near future. Back to Iraq, there are still so many questions yet to answer: How will the country handle life without a large US military presence? How will the Iraqi government handle a full transfer of power from one political party or leader to another, a key sign of a functioning democracy? How will the country deal with a more forceful Sadr movement? Will Iran be able to fill a vacuum that may be created when the US forces finally depart? What must be noted, however, is how amazing it is that these questions can be stated in reference to what used to be a totalitarian nightmare. Iraq is one of the more stable, democratic, and liberal places in the Middle East. That means something and Mead is right to call it a ‘victory’.

Another key part of Mead’s post is his calling out, though not by name, of all those who abandoned the Iraq war when the fighting got tough. From war hawks to Moveon.org (Never forget General Be-Tray-Us), it is amazing how many, including most of the ‘elite’, gave up on the war effort. Times got tough and a lot of people threw in the towel, at times, myself included. Thankfully, the men and women of the US military and their Commander-in-Chief George W. Bush did not. I’ll let Mead finish off:

We must continue to honor and thank the Arab allies and tribal leaders who made the choice for America in a dark and a difficult time.  But especially on this Memorial Day we must honor and remember the American heroes who by their lives and by their deaths brought victory out of defeat, understanding out of hatred and gave both Muslims and non-Muslims a chance to get this whole thing right.

The story of America’s victory over terror in Mesopotamia needs to be told.  In justice to those who sacrificed so much, and for the sake of those who may have to face similar dangers in the future, somebody needs to tell the real story of how, against all odds and in the face of unremitting skepticism and defeatism at home, our armed forces built a foundation for peace and reconciliation in the Middle East.

Go ahead and read the whole thing.

I went under the hot lights and answered a few questions thrown my way by FMFP on President Obama’s recent speech on the Arab Spring in the Middle East:

1. What was the main takeaway or takeaways from the President’s speech?

Pat: Firstly, that the US continues to put its weight behind the forces of democracy and liberalism in their foreign affairs. President Obama’s speech channeled his inner George W. Bush and Woodrow Wilson in this speech, unequivocally putting the United States on the side of those seeking political and social freedoms in the Middle East. Now following up this rhetoric with policies is the hard part. It is much easier to critique the Bahrain government is a speech in Washington D.C. than in person when they are holding the rights to a key American naval base. The President offered economic aid in the form of loans, investments, debt forgiveness to Egypt and Tunisia, but these will need the backing of other international actors, including the IMF and their new leader, and will take awhile to see fruit.

Another takeaway is that the Obama administration wants you to believe they were not got off guard with these events in the Middle East. This is not surprising as every administration/leader wants to appear omnipresent and in charge, but the ad hoc approach taken by the administration as these events unfolded presented a different picture. Basically, the administration seemed to just be tackling the events individually as they arose as best they could. This is not a huge criticism as few saw this coming and there were many tough calls (Mubarak alone) to be made, but these events did bring to light the fact that the administration had no overarching strategy or outlook to base its policy on.

A final takeaway is the fact that this President can’t help himself when it comes to the Israel-Palestinian eternal conflict. This in many ways is praiseworthy as the President refuses to throw up his hands at the continual roadblocks to this seemingly intractable problems. But I just don’t get it. With Hamas coming back into the fold and Netanyahu holding strong, it is difficult to imagine a solution to this issue anytime soon.

2. Did the President comment on US policy toward the Arab Spring – the political uprisings against dictators in Syria, Egypt, Yemen and other countries?

Pat: Very much so, but not with too many specifics. He did say that Syrian dictator Bashar Assad had to implement reforms or ‘get out of the way’, by far President Obama’s strongest rhetoric on Syria’s uprising. Obama also had relatively strong words for the leaders of Bahrain and Yemen, two US allies. The President tried to put the US on the side of all the peaceful demonstrators and made a convincing argument (though I’m a sympathetic ear) that American interests are furthered in the long term when more people get to have a voice in their government. The problem is this gets blurry quickly. The US does not want the Yemen or Bahrain governments toppled by extreme anti- American forces that could hurt our interests. The US also does not wish to see the Muslim Brotherhood gain too much power in Egypt. Instability anywhere is also a global harm that the administration should be weary of, as I believe was a heavy consideration for intervening in Libya (right next door to a vulnerable Egypt).

3. Did the President address the topic of foreign aid to Pakistan? In the last ten years, America gave some $20 billion in foreign aid to Pakistan ($9 billion to fight militants). After talk of Pakistan aiding al Qaeda and other terrorist networks, does the President have a position on whether we should continue supporting this critical state?

Pat: No, he did not, but in fairness this was a speech about the Middle East. Obama has been quiet about aid to Pakistan since the Osama assassination. The President is keeping close to vest on this one, I believe, because his administration probably has no plans to curtail the current aid package to Pakistan. The American people are clearly fed up with Pakistan government and military as only 17% support maintaining the aid in one poll, but realpolitik comes into play here. Unfortunately, the US is still dependent on the Pakistan state and military for a positive outcome in Afghanistan and for information regarding anti-US militants inside of Pakistan. The US is in bed with Pakistan in the War on Terror and its a bed with tight sheets.

4. On the topic of Israel and Palestine, the President advocated a return to pre-1967 War borders. Clearly this was not welcome news for Israeli supporters and its president who just visited with Obama. Is this a change in US policy? What will likely be the implications of such a policy?

Pat: Obama has argued that it is not a change, but perception matters greatly, and others, including AIPAC, Palestinian and Israeli leadership, major American news outlets, believe it was a shift. Obama has bent over backwards the past few days to calm everyone down and try to emphasize the ‘swap’ part of his 1967 borders statement, but this has likely made a difficult situation that much harder. Israeli leader Netanyahu has already come out strong against any idea that Israel will ever return to borders before the 1967 war, calling it not ‘reality‘. A situation that didn’t need anymore setbacks, just appeared to get another one.

5. Did the President address the efforts of the US and NATO in Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan – our three military fronts in the Middle East?

Pat: Iraq was mentioned in a positive light. In fact, President Obama brought it up as a possible shining example of a pluralistic society governing itself democratically to all the other states in the region going through either rebellion or democratic growing pains. The President reiterated the fact that the US, along with the international community, halted a large scale massacre in Libya by acting with force and that  Qaddafi will have to go eventually. It is interesting to note though how Tunisia, Egypt, and even Bahrain and Syria, received either more or almost as much attention in the speech as Libya, a state we are currently at war with! Afghanistan was mentioned exactly once and I can shorten the only sentence even further: Taliban on run, US troops leaving soon, Afghans will take lead. Heck, that was almost as long as the actual Afghan part of the speech!

By no means is Libya a simple issue, nor do these facts necessarily argue against the actions taken by the United States, but it is important to take this opportunity to put our last major military intervention in Iraq into perspective by considering just a few facts:

International Support
* Coalition partners Bush had for Iraq: 30
* Coalition partners Obama has for Libya: 17

Domestic Support (Pew Research Center)
* Decision to use military force in Iraq (March 2003): 72% support/22% oppose
* Decision to enforce no-fly zone in Libya (March 2011): 44% support/45% oppose
* Decision to bomb Libyan air defenses (March 2011): 16% support/77% oppose

Constitutional Considerations
* Candidate Obama (2007): “The President does not have power under Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military strike.”
* President Obama (2011): “Obama did not seek congressional authorization before joining allies, including Great Britain and  France, in taking military action against the regime of Libyan dictator Col. Moammar Gadhafi in order to establish a no-fly zone over that country. The action was approved by the United Nations Security Council but not by the U.S. Congress.” – CNS.com

Congressional Support
* Iraq war resolution passed House 297-133 and Senate 77-23.
* Libyan war resolution: does not exist

Objective
* US objective in Iraq War: Topple Saddam Hussein regime, replace with democratically-elected government, stop race to obtain and use WMDs and ultimately bring more stability to Middle East.
* US objective in Libya: Stop Qaddafi from murdering Libyan residents, ???

Public Demonstrations

* Iraq War: Major protests in San Francisco, New York, Portland
* Libya War: Crickets….

The Iraq war started in 2003 and the present one in Libya have numerous differences, but I thought the comparisons above were worth highlighting. GPP will have much more on the ongoing American/UK/French war efforts in Libya throughout the next few days.

Since it is the season of giving, I’ve got some super exciting, extremely provocative, and amazingly fascinating great power stories for you to check out. I mean we got….sanctions, Hugo Chavez, Polish missiles, Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer, an Islamic Reformation, and cyberwarfare in Iraq. One of those was just a tease. Another present? GPP’s 4th Great Power Rankings will be out this weekend. Print it out, wrap it, and give it to your loved ones.

Sanctions and Strategy – This is a provocative (I told you that would be here) analysis of the use of economic and political sanctions in modern international politics by George Friedman at Stratfor. Friedman, a staunch IR realist, is more than a little skeptical about sanctions usefulness in actually changing a state’s behavior. Friedman’s conclusion concludes that sanctions are just a way of buying time and passing the buck:

The ultimate virtue of sanctions is that they provide a platform between acquiescence and war. The effectiveness of that platform is not nearly as important as the fact that it provides a buffer against charges of inaction and demands for further action.

Sanctions satisfy the need to appear to be acting while avoiding the risks of action.

Hugo’s Russian Missiles – About a week ago, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez stated his country had received thousands of Russian-made missiles and rocket launchers as part of his government’s military preparations for a possible armed conflict with neighboring Colombia. Chavez claimed: “They {Colombia} are preparing a war against us. Preparing is one of the best ways to neutralize it.” In recent years, Hugo’s regime in Venezuela has grown closer and closer to Moscow and it has been reported that Venezuela has bought more than $4 billion worth of Russian arms since 2005, ‘including 24 Sukhoi fighter jets, dozens of attack helicopters and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles. In September, Russia opened a $2.2 billion line of credit for Venezuela to purchase more weapons.’

A more distressing issue though is Chavez’s military build up on Venezuela’s border with Colombia and released reports that his government is aiding and abetting FARC members. The US should make it loud and clear that any overt aggressiveness by Chavez would be met with a strong rebuke, mainly with international pressure and military assistance to Colombia. However, I doubt anything serious will occur.

Cyberwarfare in Iraq and Beyond – Shane Harris of The National Journal has written a fascinating (told ya!) article about the recent past and present of US cyberwarfare tactics and defense. Harris asserts that President Bush authorized a cyberattack on cell phones and computers used by Iraqi insurgents to plan roadside bombings in May 2007. Anonymous officials reported that the Americans were able to deceive their adversaries with false information and led them into the fire of waiting U.S. soldiers. Well, I’m impressed and think this needs to be a tactic that the US military continues to exploit. Harris credits former Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell and Gen. David Petraeus for bringing cyber threats to the table under the Bush administration. Gen. Former President Bush formed the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative (CNCI), which President Obama is attempting to enhance and grow. In regards to our beloved great power politics, Harris quotes Kevin Coleman, a senior fellow with security firm Technolytics, who asserts that there is basically a three way tie between China, Russia and the U.S in terms of cyberwarfare capability. The whole articles a must-read.

Poland’s American Missiles – A Status of Forces Agreement has been reached between Poland and the US, which calls for American troops to install and operate a mobile, land-based set of short- and medium-range missiles to defend against incoming attacks. In other words, after scrapping the major Czech-Poland-American missile defense plan, the Obama administration has put in place a similar program, but on a much smaller, disconnected scale. Russia, of course, is concerned about this recent development. Though I was against the cancellation of the earlier plan, I applaud the Obama administration for a rather quick strategic re-engagement with a trusted ally, Poland.

Special Relationship, Not So Special – I’ve discussed this at least twice before so I don’t need to get into too much here, but the Obama administration has continued to distance itself from the British Isles. I think this is wrong for many reasons and hope the administration changes course soon.

Islamic Reformation, Not Looking Too Likely Anytime Soon – New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote an exciting (ok, that one was forced) op-ed calling for internal changes within the Islamic community. Here’s an example of what Friedman sees as wrong or failing in parts of the Islamic world and with reactions to it in the US:

(Referencing the recent terrorist bombings in Baghdad) Not only was there no meaningful condemnation emerging from the Muslim world — which was primarily focused on resisting Switzerland’s ban on new mosque minarets — there was barely a peep coming out of Washington. President Obama expressed no public outrage. It is time he did.

Friedman is right, there really is very little the United States can do to get to the heart of Islamic violent extremist dilemma. Their neighbors, family, countrymen need to stand up and say ‘this type of behavior is wrong and does us much more harm than good’. In referencing Friedman’s article, I found an even better one on the subject by Tom Bevan.

President Obama made a ‘war on terror’ state of the union type speech today at the National Counterterrorism Center (NCC).  The speech covered the basics (we are fighting hard against Al Qaeda, but the threat is still with us, etc.), but two things peaked my interests.  There was a lot to like about the speech no doubt, but these two things irked me a bit.

First off, Obama rightly praised the work of all those who have diligently worked, mostly in the shadows, to keep America safe.  Specifically, he highlighted the recent good works that have lead to the deaths or capture of 11 of the top 20 Al Qaeda members.  These folks and these works do indeed deserve every American citizen’s cheers and gratitude.  But what was missing was any mention of the previous administration led by President Bush.  The very constitution of the NCC itself as it looks today would not be as it is without the Bush administration.  I’m not asking Obama to heap praise on Bush, but a quick acknowledgement of all the work that was done after 9/11 would have been appropriate and respectful.  Whether one agreed with 50%, 75%, or 100% of the previous administration’s anti-terror policies, there were still thousands of good people, many Bush appointed, doing their best to keep America safe and by not mentioning this in any real way is bringing partisanship into national security.  Obama, you don’t like Bush, I get it, but you’ve been president for almost a year now and know the hard calls that the position takes.  I would think this would sober one up a bit and give one greater respect for his predecessors.  It’s not like President Obama has really reversed much of the Bush anti-terror policies anyways.  This is really disappointing to me because, though it sounds and is surely naïve, I like to think that certain parts of our American system are above politics, and protecting the country is one of them.  I would like to see more continuity between administrations and less ‘all bad, I fix’ mentality that I so far have seen from Obama.

Secondly, I was disappointed in the time of the speech, not the ‘timing’, but the speech’s length.  It is well known that President Obama’s main focus is on domestic affairs, but couldn’t a speech on a such a vital national security issue be longer than 10 minutes?!  Especially in light of the recent arrest of Al Qaeda connected terrorist Zazi in Denver and reports that the US has had some major success in killing numerous of Bin Ladin’s top men in the mountains of Pakistan.  I’m not sure how long the President’s Olympic address was in Copenhagen, but I’m gonna guess it was longer.   

Overall, a couple minor qualms in a decent speech.  GPP’s thoughts on the Iranian negotiations and Obama’s UN speech still to come.  And I guess I could forsee the 4th edition of GPP Great Power Rankings! coming soon as well.  

As much as I disagree with the CIA prosecution policy of the Obama administration, it has helped highlight a critical and complicated issue in US national security, international security, and for modern democracies.  Discussions by President Obama, ex-VP Dick Cheney, leading intellectuals, newspapers, and citizens, like us here at GPP, attests to this, and I hold up that we can find an acceptable, if not happy, medium.  In any regard, that’s all I’m going to say about that right now.  Well, almost.  Here’s two provocotive CIA/torture pieces worth checking out:  Liberal Columnist Richard Cohen looks at ‘Torture’s Unanswerable Questions‘ 2.  A high level debate on the issue spurred by Cohen’s piece.

The rest of this post will be as the title suggests, a hodge-podge of Great Power topics.  Are you pumped or what!?!  I am!!!

• Stratfor’s George Friedman takes a stab at reviewing the now concluded, opening stage of President Obama’s foreign policy.  Friedman’s take is centered on two related points: Obama’s policies are a lot like Bush’s and this is no surprise because state leaders’ foreign affairs decisions are shaped by ‘necessity’ and constrained by fundamental strategic interests.  Friedman is a Realist, and a consistent one, so this should not surprise.  The most interesting aspect of the review is Friedman’s geopolitical analysis of Obama’s ‘Reset’ policy with Moscow.  He sees an inherent problem with the strategy:

The problem, of course, was that the last thing the Russians wanted was to reset relations with the United States. They did not want to go back to the period after the Orange Revolution, nor did they want to go back to the period between the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Orange Revolution. The Obama administration’s call for a reset showed the distance between the Russians and the Americans: The Russians regard the latter period as an economic and geopolitical disaster, while the Americans regard it as quite satisfactory. Both views are completely understandable.

This is true for many international issues, as just because we desire ‘talks’, ‘resets’, ‘war’, etc. does not mean our ally or enemy want the same.  Conflicts happen for a reason.

• For only the 2nd time in decades, with this time looking to be much more consequential than the first, Japan has a new ruling party running its domestic and foreign affairs.  The perennially in power Liberal Democrats have been booted out of government and replaced by the Democratic Party of Japan and this will muddies the future Japan-US alliance, if even just a bit.  From their very existence, the Liberal Democrats were closely allied with the US, and the DPJ has held some troubling policy prescriptions toward its relations with the US while in opposition.  Though a sea change in relations is extremely unlikely, there is indeed some cause for concern, especially in regards to the presence of American military personnel on certain Japanese islands.  The Obama administration will need to show some agility in dealing with this new government and keeping the Japanese-American alliance strong.  A rather mundane, stable US foreign policy sphere has suddenly become a bit more exciting/worrying.

• Speaking of East Asia and Realism, Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini wrote a short and sweet piece persuasively arguing that no one should expect to see US-China partnership any time soon.  Here is a list of the contrasting interests and positions that will keep them apart: 1. US focus on geopolitical headaches around the globe with China confining itself with geo-economic challenges 2. Both state governments have internal issues to keep their attention (economic, health care, Uighurs, baseball playoff races, etc.) 3. Internal bureaucratic infighting, especially in regards to a lack of cooperation with both Beijing and Washington’s respective State and Treasury Departments 4. Lastly, on major international security issues, like Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Russia’s moves in Eastern Europe, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, climate change, the two behemoths have diverging positions.  What’s interesting about this piece by Bremmer and Roubini is that they make a Realist argument, but stress internal aspects (bureaucracy, domestic politics) as key factors.  Realist theory largely and mistakenly misses these factors by focusing too much on just the state and international actors.

• Speaking of Russia in Eastern Europe (at least I did a little bit ago), Moscow is having a good ol’fashioned great power row with Poland about who was more Nazi-friendly during World War II.  I know what you’re thinking….this is great-power-awesome!  Apparently, Russia has been releasing documents showing elements in Poland helped the Nazis, while the Polish are trying to remind Moscow that they invaded and conquered them in a partnership with the Third Reich!  It seems like this morbid diplomatic fight is not a real threat to Polish-Russian relations, just an interesting verbal spat.

• Apparently, the War on Terror may not be dead just yet.  Obama Press Secretary used the phrase in its proper context when defending Obama’s Afghan strategy.

• Just when you thought your great power work was done, here is a bloggingheads.tv video by two mostly well-spoken folks debating whether America will remain a great power, with the much more important question of How, being addressed as well.  Hat tip to my friends at Foreign Policy Association’s Rising Powers blog, specifically David Kampf, for this and for already picking out the discussion’s ‘money quote’:

“the greatest advantage that the United States has going forward is that as other countries become more powerful there is always going to be the feeling among their neighbors and among others in the world that they are going to view that apprehensively and I think they are going to look to the United States…to provide you with a security partner.”

Just like the Pittsburgh Pirates’ playoff chances, this post is finished!