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.

1. In your opinion, what were the main factors that led to the discovery and killing of Osama Bin Laden? In other words, who deserves credit for this remarkable accomplishment?

FMFP: Clearly there were several factors that lead to the capture and death of OBL. It appears undeniable, however, that the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA – and criticized so vociferously by President Obama, AG Holder and virtually the entire liberal establishment – played a key role in getting the ball rolling. Some former Clinton staffers and others on the Left have come out and acknowledged this to their credit. We can only hope that the President decides to do the same, if not in words then through his actions by eliminating all talk of trying CIA interrogators who have proven so valuable in this War on Terror. As to credit, well many people deserve it, one of which is of course President Obama. He made the decision that we elected him to make and many Americans would have been disappointed if he did not make. Previous President Bush also deserves credit for putting into place policies that facilitated this event. Above all, though, the politicians should be much lower on the list of credit due than the military and intelligence officers who have actually prosecuted this war.

Pat: I have already stated that President Obama, former President Bush, Special Forces, CIA, and all the intelligence and military apparatuses that worked day in day out since 9/11 deserve our thanks for this accomplishment. I would also like to second, FMFP’s assertion that the much maligned CIA interrogators, who still this day are under investigation for wrong doing (a second investigation as they were already exonerated by one), need to be thanked for their service and sacrifices during one of the most stressful and tumultuous periods in our country’s history. They deserve our thanks, not our vindictiveness. It is likely true that without their efforts, Osama Bin Laden would still today be planning terrorist attacks on our homeland.

2. What does the killing of Osama Bin Laden mean for US national security? US foreign policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East?

Pat: Big question. The killing of Osama definitely hurts Al Qaeda’s short and long term capabilities, but by how much is uncertain. We will likely learn more in the next few weeks from the data uncovered during the attack, just how central Osama still was to their daily operations. Losing their most famous and unquestioned leader has to hurt the overall Islamist terrorist global movement, but I have no doubts that it is still alive and ticking throughout the globe. We can only hope that it’s ability to plan and implement a massive attack, such as 9/11, has been forever nullified. What his death means for the future of US policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East as a whole is much harder to answer. I have already heard numerous folks on the Right talk about declaring victory and getting out of Afghanistan and the Left has voiced this opinion for a couple years now. I can imagine there are a great many regular Americans out there who would feel much more comfortable getting our troops out of Central Asia now than they were a couple weeks ago. The President has so far not made any mention so far regarding changes to our Afghan policy, but the country will demand to hear rather soon if we are keeping our current strategy or making a change. President Obama has kept Afghanistan in the rearviewmirror publicly, almost never talking about it, but that will have to change real soon. Are we bring troops home since we killed the head of Al Qaeda? Or are we staying to fight the Taliban and the Al Qaeda elements inside of Afghanistan and Pakistan? The President needs to clarify his position, whether it has changed or not, very soon.

FMFP: Killing Osama probably doesn’t shift much in terms of our broader national security or the goals of our armed forces. It appears that he had a minimal role in the operation of al Qaeda so the various cells will certainly still continue planning and preparing attacks. This isn’t to minimize the impact of the death – it’s a huge deal and is a moral blow to terrorist networks around the world. Unfortunately, I do think this will open the door for Obama to pull out of Afghanistan and declare the mission over. This might have the effect of ceding Afghanistan back to the Taliban and a more general hands-off approach to the Middle East.

3. What does this successful mission mean for the Obama presidency?

FMFP: One smart political commentator that I have spoken to thinks it will be a permanent 3 point bump when all is said and done. This seems logical and likely. In a sense, Obama moved back to par when it comes to national security. He clearly still has Libya and the Middle East uprisings that he has so completely mismanaged but people are going to be happy to place these on the same level as the OBL killing when assessing his foreign policy acumen. In the end, though, this will not be a decider of elections one way or the other.

Pat: I think this is huge for President Obama. Obama’s commander and chief stature just exploded with this event and he is taking advantage of it. He unequivocally claimed responsibility for the successful attack during his speech, using ‘I’ many times, and released those great photos of him and his team watching. His team will wisely stretch this out for weeks.Obama can now also start to get out of Afghanistan without facing any significant claims of withdrawing in shame or not having resolve. This may turn out to be one of the more underestimated bonuses for the Obama team. All of a sudden, their position of wanting to get out of there is likely to be in line with a majority of the voters. This will of course also help please Obama’s base. How the President leads from here on out will determine how much of a lift this event has given his presidency. Just a week ago, his presidency seemed to be unraveling. Voter confidence was low in him, the economy, and America’s future. Even though Obama asked S&P to wait to hear his budget speech before their market judgment on American fiscal health, they still downgraded the US to ‘negative’. The slaying of Osama Bin Laden has given the President another chance to lead this country in the way he was elected to do so in the first place; in a bi-partisan, pragmatic, efficient manner. Unfortunately, for the country and Obama’s reelection hopes, he has so far done the exact opposite. It will be provocative to see if this changes his presidency in a truly meaningful way.

4. What do you think of the outward signs of happiness shown by the large crowds in New York, DC, around the country when the news was announced? Do you think this was appropriate?

Pat: While I wish we could all cheer over a signing ceremony of Al Qaeda’s formal surrender, I am fine with Americans celebrating Osama Bin Laden’s demise. This war will likely never have it’s V-Day like World War II and in a period where the enemy is so blurred and asymmetrical, this one case where we have clarity. Osama Bin Laden was a mass murder of Americans and hundreds of others. He dedicated his life (including what would have been his future) to the misery and death of the US and his personal destruction hurts his cause dearly. I have heard many from both sides of the aisle criticize the youthfulness of the revelers outside the White House, in New York City, etc. I disagree. Surely some of them are just using this as an excuse to ‘party’, but I’m sure most are celebrating the end of sad, scary era. An era were they never knew America before it became ‘Fortress America’ and they had to leave their shampoo at home when they flew or lose a relative or friend in one of the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan. I grew up in the booming 90′s and I remember thinking a year or so after 9/11, ‘dang, those were good times’. Those college kids didn’t get to enjoy those more peaceful, prosperous, less hyper political times. Osama Bin Laden changed their childhood for the worse and he has finally met his appropriate end. And for me personally, good riddance to human garbage and three cheers to all those that helped bring Osama to justice.

FMFP: I am generally fine with their sentiment. As Pat explained, this was a joyous day for America and Americans and these crowds embodied that feeling. My initial reaction was to look at the crowd and think it oddly similar in makeup to those same crowds that marched in the streets and chanted ridiculous slogans like, “Bush Lied, People Died” or “America Deserved It” Perhaps this is an irrational thought to have at a time like this but I just couldn’t help thinking feeling slightly skeptical of the sincerity of the crowd, specifically the young college students that dominated the scene (with pot smoke and drinking very visible). Anyway, I think the folks in NYC particularly were well within their right to celebrate this cathartic occasion.

‘World is Safer and Better Place Because of the Death of Osama bin Laden’

President Obama

You got that right, Mr. President. The death of Osama Bin Laden, the perpetrator of numerous crimes against the United States and humanity, including mass murder, at the hands of an American soldier is justice served. Bin Laden’s orchestrated attack against the United States on 9/11 was an act that will live in infamy in this country and to all those who watched those two towers fall. His death does not bring the nearly 3,000 fallen back to our lives, but it can’t help but bring some form of closure. This successful action also makes something very clear: If you mess with the United States and threaten our safety and way of life, you will get the horns!

A few thoughts:

• The braveness shown by the group of Navy Seals/CIA (details of course our sketchy), who were dropped from the sky to probably the most hostile of environments to carry out one of the most crucial, historical, and dangerous missions in American history, is hard to comprehend. They are heros through and through and have earned our eternal gratitude.

• This successful mission could not have been accomplished without years of hard work by our nation’s intelligence agencies, military forces, and diplomats and all of them deserve all the accolades coming to them.

• President Obama showed great leadership and of course this mission could not have happened without it. His presidency will forever be known as the one that got Osama, and like his quote above, the US and world are all the better for it.

• Though the details and facts of this amazing mission are still coming in, it seems that it could never have been accomplished without information gathered by the much-maligned CIA during the crucial and headspinning days/years after the 9/11 attack. It seems that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave up the name of the courier that led the US to Osama’s compound 5 years ago. This strategic information might never have been acquired without the Bush administration’s stress on capturing Al Qaeda figures alive so they could be interrogated. The success of this mission indeed has many fathers, and former President Bush and his staff definitely belong among them.

• This fight is far from over. Al Qaeda’s No. 2 al-Zawahriwi is still alive and free and this must change. He is a powerful figure and in many ways was the leader of Al Qaeda’s strategy and logistics. Violent attacks against the US by Islamic radicals did not all funnel from Osama Bin Laden, either. The failed bombing attempts in Time Square (car), Detroit (underwear bomber, plane), and Portland (Christmas tree), just to name a few, had no known direct links to Osama’s camp, but nevertheless they were real and dangerous and their threat is still alive.

• The big elephant in the room now is American and NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. Already I have heard in the media and among some colleagues about declaring ‘mission accomplished’ and ‘getting out’. Though I disagree with this, I do believe Osama’s death is going to be a game changer. More on this later.

So good riddance to human garbage and big cheers to all those who helped make our country and the world a bit safer and much more just.

(Photo Source: New York Times)

First, suffer through this two minutes:

(H/T Tom Bevan, Real Clear Politics)

Just a quick book recommendation here. I just bought Paul Berman’s sequel to ‘Terror and Liberalism‘ called ‘Flight of the Intellectuals‘. Berman’s ‘Terror’ was a bestseller back in 2003 and had a tremendous impact on how I see the so called ‘war on terror’ and violent Islamic extremism. I reviewed the book here. ‘Flight’ is reportedly an expansion on Berman’s long New Republic article ‘Who’s Afraid of Tariq Ramadan‘. I’ll get to ‘Flight’ as soon as I’m done with Robert Kagan’s ‘Dangerous Nation’, which has been a joy, but one of those ‘joys’ that takes a long time to get through. Reviews of both will be coming and so look to see 2nd (and 5th overall) Great Power Rankings of the year soon as well. Now, go get Berman’s books!

It is always easier to critique a decision than to actually make one. It is always simpler to ask questions than to answer them. It is always faster to eat than to cook. It is always easier to fly than….ok, I think we get the idea. I’ve been critical of recent US policy on many matters, from Afghanistan and Iran to human rights and American exceptionalism and it’s time I laid out my positions on such matters. Before I do this, I want to emphasize that I do not claim to have all the answers, as I don’t. I fully understand how difficult is to make actual foreign policy as a head of state, while as much as a civilian who’s never been president can, and will just offer the best advice I can.

The first significant policy facing the United States and the Obama administration that I will offer my policy prescription on is the war in Afghanistan.

This is the issue for which I have spent the most attention on in the past two years and therefore I have no illusions to how difficult the task is facing the United States, NATO, and the Afghan government. What do I believe our goals to be in the conflict? First and foremost we must defeat, and at minimum contain Al Qaeda and similar groups of their ilk. Secondly, the Taliban, specifically their more radical elements, cannot be allowed to control the central government again. In this regard, the building of an at least somewhat effective and capable central government that can provide a decent amount of security and services for most of its citizens must be attempted. This last part will be the most challenging and as one can tell by my weak rhetoric (decent), I hold a fair amount of skepticism of success on this front, at least in the short-term. Fourthly, the stability and integrity of the Pakistani state must be maintained and strengthened with a special focus on their nuclear weapon system. Lastly, there is also a moral aspect to this conflict. The attacks of 9/11 not only immediately killed thousands of innocent Americans and people from around the globe, but have also bred long-term negative effects on our daily lives (increased security measures, feelings of insecurity, vitriol partisan politics on the national security level, etc.) The American people and way of life was attacked and we need to fight back. Another ethical aspect is the fact that the US removal of the Taliban in 2001 freed millions of Afghans from one of the most repressive, backwards, and violent regimes in modern history. Can we let this happen again? In my opinion there is much for the US to lose by failing in these objectives and that is why I believe we must play to win.

This is why I support Gen. McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy. The Taliban cannot be allowed to freely control the Pashtun region’s of southern and eastern Afghanistan, let alone dominate the central state, and a major increase in US/NATO troops following McChrystal’s population security-centric strategy provides the greatest opportunity to fight back. If the strategy is successful, less ideological members of the insurgency should be able to be pulled away and reintegrated. A crucial aspect of this is the ability to offer these Afghans a chance of not only physical safety, but of a job and a living. I don’t see how economic growth and the building of a stronger central and local government can occur without breathing space from insurgent attacks, bribes, and threats and I believe that is what the McChrystal surge could provide. Do I expect the troop surge and counterinsurgency approach to provide a death blow to the Taliban? No, but it could help put the Afghan government, NATO, and US on a stronger footing, forcing the moderate elements of the insurgency to switch sides or at least negotiate from a weaker standing point. The commitment of thousands of troops with strong political backing from the US President would be a strong signal to the Taliban and more importantly to the Afghan population, that we aren’t going anywhere until we see some progress of stability and governance. If the Taliban are sure we will leave than we have already lost. Time and time again, I have read reports of Afghan civilians failing to fully open up and trust US/NATO troops and aids because ‘they don’t know how long they will stay, while they know for a fact the Taliban will’. We need to take this initiative back and show in a concrete fashion that we can be trusted and are the side to bet on. The McChrystal surge gives us the best chance at this outcome.

The McChrystal led surge could also create a bit of a pincer move against the both Pakistani and Afghani Taliban insurgents. Though there is too much ungoverned and treacherous land to ever fully cover, if the Pakistani government continues to show a commitment to fighting these Taliban elements in South Waziristan (and hopefully beyond) is combined with a strong US/NATO presence in the Afghanistan south and east it leaves far less operating space for the insurgents. Speaking of just Pakistan, I believe the Obama administration is largely on the right track. There has been constant attention to the Zardari and Pakistan military apparatus from high levels of the administration (with NSA Gen. Jones and CIA Chief Penatta just visiting this week) and this applied pressure, along with the impetus created by the myriad of domestic terror attacks throughout the country, seems to be prodding these two actors to take the fight to the insurgents causing havoc in Pakistan’s ungoverned northwest territories. The US has provided billions of aid in both the Bush and Obama administrations and it looks like some of it is going to good use. Concerning the drone attacks against Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders inside Pakistani territory, the administration has my full support and should continue to use this valuable tool. This blunt, but effective tactic is a valuable one, but it cannot stop Al Qaeda or the insurgency alone, it must just be one of the many tools in our tool box.

Those who support a more modest counter-terrorism strategy (Biden, Obama’s political aides, George Will, CATO) argue that we should we should just train and grow the Afghan military and police and get out, leaving them to do their own fighting. While I fully agree that we must build up the Afghan forces as quickly and efficiently as possible I understand that it takes US/NATO troops to not only train these forces, but also partner with them in battle, where the real learning occurs. Michael O’Hanlon from the Brookings Institution sees an Afghan surge as having a more than fair chance in strengthening the effectiveness, legitimacy, and confidence of the nascent Afghan military and police forces and thinks it offers a ‘key reason’ for ‘more hopefulness about our mission’. If we want these Afghan security forces to grow into effective fighting and policing units we must show a commitment to this goal, by letting them learn by working in partner with the greatest military force in the world.

This policy recommendation faces tremendous obstacles, but I believe it offers us the greatest chance at progress in the war on terror and in bringing stability and peace to Afghanistan and Pakistan. The US national security is at risk here as the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan have shown in the recent past and present that they cannot control their own territories from being used as a home base for violent Islamic extremists who have it as a goal to attack US citizens and interests. Besides the fact that I believe a larger troop presence accompanied with an effective strategy to protect the local population gives us the greatest opportunity for victory, I also believe in the now seemingly out of fashion idea that it is better to fight them over there than here. Many pundits and experts state that are efforts in Afghanistan have largely been a failure, and in many ways they are right, but there is one piece of evidence that showcases that we are doing something right today and in the past 8 years. The United States homeland has been free from a major foreign originating terror attack since 9/11. This does not happen by chance. Thousands of dedicated, courageous Americans, along with our allies, have been investigating, prosecuting, fighting, communicating, and dying so we can be safe and secure here at home. As of today, 923 Americans, 235 British, and 366 others have given their lives in Afghanistan to protect our way of life.

With no illusions and with a heavy heart, I urge President Obama to do what is necessary to win in Afghanistan. Besides seeing an counterinsurgency strategy quickly and effectively implemented, I would like to see our President put forth a strong campaign to help steady wavering public support of our efforts in this conflict. He needs to be firm and explain why we are doing what we’re doing and how this policy will give us the greatest chance of success. I strongly believe that faltering polls numbers favoring our presence in Afghanistan have become so because of a lack of executive leadership. I don’t want to hear an exit strategy, I want to hear a winning strategy. I urge President Obama to stand up and deliver.

Alright, I’ll try to do more of these in the future. Let me know what policies interest you the most. Also upcoming will be the 4th GPP Power Rankings!

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!

There are many besides those in the Obama administration who think this is a good idea.  In fact, the New York Times and the Huffington Post are angry that these moves do not go far enough!  In one scary Huffington Post article, former Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin calls the past administration a ‘Bush torture regime’ and compares this prosecution process to the Nazi Nuremburg trials!  Last time I checked waterboarding two known terrorists and verbally threatening a few others does not equal a Holocaust, but maybe I’m wrong.  I think Mr. Froomkin should start shopping at the perspective store.  Froomkin argues that Obama should go much further, worrying:

“The message for future federal employees faced with morally suspect orders will be clear: Do what you’re told to do, and we’ll cover your ass. And the message for future policymakers will be: If you can find someone at the Department of Justice to say it’s OK, then anything goes – literally, anything.”

Reread the last part.  ‘Anything goes’.  99% of CIA, military, FBI, and government officials acted appropriately and extremely diligently to protect US civilians, but apparently the Bush administration had an ‘anything goes’ policy that only Froomkin knew about.  Though not nearly preposterous as Froomkin’s ramblings was a New York Times editorial praising the Obama administration’s recent CIA exposure moves.  The editorial spends quite a bit of space talking about the Bush administration’s ‘moral repugnance’ and pushing for more investigations, but at no time, not one word, mentions how these CIA investigations and releases affects US national security.  It is easy to criticize an agency tasked with national security without mentioning why it did what it did in order to provide protection and whether or not its methods were effective or not.  If you want to advocate a high level investigation of CIA officials and former administration members, you at least must acknowledge the national security, agency morale, and future administration ramifications.

These CIA soldiers were told what they were doing was lawful and needed to protect the United States and now they fear for their livelihood. It would be wrong to pretend that this investigation will not have its negative impact, as according to some, it already has; as one anonymous CIA official concluded about his fellow agents:

“Their view is, they policed themselves and they turned themselves in.  Now they have to fight al Qaeda and the U.S. government at the same time.”

A little over dramatic, but true nonetheless. Current CIA Director Leon Panetta had this to say about the recent bad news: “This is in many ways an old story. … The use of enhanced interrogation techniques, begun when our country was responding to the horrors of Sept. 11, ended in January.  For the CIA now, the challenge is not the battles of yesterday, but those of today and tomorrow. It is there that we must work to enhance the safety of our country. That is the job the American people want us to do.”  The job of the CIA is to keep American citizens and interests safe, sometimes I think this is forgotten, especially if you read the aforementioned opinion pieces.

In this post, I have constantly referred to ‘President Obama’ and the ‘Obama administration’, not AG Eric Holder or the Justice Department, and I did so purposely.  Though the President has tried to distance himself from these recent policy decisions, he is ‘where the buck stops’ and a decision by Eric Holder is for all purposes a decision by the President, who appointed him and could fire him at any moment.  If Obama thinks this is best for our country he needs to stand up and explain why.  Where’s the leadership?  Where’s the Commander and Chief?  Imagine if you worked for the CIA and after releasing damaging, formerly classified documents a few months ago, the President came and made a big speech about how the CIA’s integrity was vital to our national security, but just a couple months later his administration is all over you again?  Would you feel safe?  Trusted?  An editorial by the Chicago Tribune ended poignantly:

One day, heaven forbid, there may be another attack on American soil. Once again, we will ask CIA and other agents to find out whatever they can, as quickly as possible, to defend this nation. How will they respond?

Heaven Forbid.