Month: October 2012
Quandaries
Max Boot asks:
Does the Press Have Better Intel than the White House?
The answer is yes, in particular in Benghazi, for the reasons Boot cites. The press has people on the ground. Both the State Department and intel officers from Benghazi were evacuated immediately after the September 11 attack on the consulate, according to press reports.
What difference does that make?
Eyes and ears on the ground are vital to accurate intelligence. Once upon a time, I was in the office of the Italian prime minister’s diplomatic adviser when a call for me from the White House situation room interrupted our chat. They wanted to know what was going on at Fiumicino airport, because they had a report of AK47 firing nearby. I asked the diplomatic advisor, who knew nothing about it and called the intelligence service. Yes, they said, some dufus who had bought an automatic weapon decided to enjoy target practice at his farm, which happened to be on the final approach to a Fiumicino runway.
I don’t really know how the White House got wind of this in the first place, but if I had to guess it was probably sigint (signals intelligence). Highly reliable in and of itself, sigint doesn’t always tell you what is actually happening and its significance. The sit room clearly imagined it was more menacing than a gun enthusiast enjoying his latest acquisition. You need eyes and ears on the ground, or in front of the Benghazi consulate, to really understand the situation.
The press is better informed than the intelligence community in many circumstances because it takes greater risks. Journalists move towards the sound of gunfire. Diplomats and intel officers do not. My friend Kurt Schork, dean of American war reporters in his day, was killed in Sierra Leone when he followed the sound of gunfire into an ambush. The press does not evacuate its people readily. Even when it does, it maintains stringers who continue to report. The results show all too clearly in the statistics: a lot more journalists are killed in conflict zones these days than diplomats or intelligence officers.
Of course the press also makes a lot of mistakes in what it reports, and social media reports from conflict zones can be both highly informative and difficult to interpret, not to mention misleading. Having people on the ground is not a guarantee of accuracy, only a healthy check on fallacious interpretation.
The problem is that we move our government officials away from risk en masse in a quixotic effort to reduce risks to zero. It is absurd that FBI agents were apparently not allowed for weeks to visit the Benghazi consulate to collect evidence. Benghazi is relatively friendly turf. I’m not guessing–I’ve been there (without personal protection other than anonymity) twice since Qaddafi fell. Would Chris Stevens have been safer to walk out to the street and melt into the night than to seek refuge in a supposed safe haven in which he apparently suffocated to death? We can certainly put a couple of anonymous FBI agents on the ground in Benghazi quietly for a day or two, moving them low profile with some Libyan protection. But we hesitate, because we don’t want to risk the embarrassment of another incident, no matter how small the risk. Put yourself in President Obama’s size 11s.
There is an additional problem. Highly classified material is valued highly in the bureaucracy. It takes time to reach the top. The President’s daily intel brief does not include a lot of “open source” material (that’s material from the press, blogs, Twitter or other generally available media). UN Ambassador Susan Rice apparently had ample classified intelligence material telling her that the attack on the consulate originated from a demonstration against the Innocence of Muslims video, which had already generated problems in Cairo earlier in the day. She would not be alone in the government in believing the highly classified stuff rather than the New York Times. The CIA reportedly prepared her talking points but decided later on that the initial report was erroneous.
There are a lot of quandaries here: should we maximize the safety of our people, or take greater risks in order to keep eyes and ears on the ground? do we do as good a job as we should in integrating “open source” material with highly classified intelligence? how quickly should intelligence estimates move up the chain of command? should we communicate what we think we know about an incident to the American people, or should we hold back until we are sure what happened?
But let’s be clear: there is no absolute safety, no perfect intelligence, no error-free transmission of information and no absolute certainty. We are not likely to know the complete story until publication of the Accountability Review Board’s report, if then. Tonight’s presidential debate is not the time or place to shed light on who or what caused the tragedy.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s peace picks
There are many options this week, including several with a focus on the approaching US elections.
1. Iraq Energy Outlook, Monday October 22, 9:30 AM – 11:00 AM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 Conference Room
Speakers: Fatih Birol, Jabir Habeb
The CSIS Energy and National Security Program is pleased to host Dr. Fatih Birol, Chief Economist and Director of Global Energy Economics at the IEA, to present highlights from the IEA’s recent World Energy Outlook Special Report, the Iraq Energy Outlook.
Iraq is already the world’s third-largest oil exporter. It has the resources and intention to increase its oil production vastly. Contracts are already in place.Will Iraq’s ambitions be realised? And what would the implications be for Iraq’s economy and for world oil markets? The obstacles are formidable: political, logistical, legal, regulatory, financial, lack of security and sufficient skilled labour. One example: in 2011, grid electricity could meet only 55% of demand.
The International Energy Agency has studied these issues with the support and close co-operation of the government of Iraq and many other leading officials, commentators, industry representatives and international experts. The report examines the role of the energy sector in the Iraqi economy today and in the future, assesses oil and gas revenues and investment needs, provides a detailed analysis of oil, gas and electricity supply through to 2035, highlighting the challenges of infrastructure development and water availability, and spells out the associated opportunities and risks, both for world oil markets and for Iraq’s economy and energy sector.
RSVP for this event to energy@csis.org.
2. Religion, Violence, and Coexistence, Monday October 22, 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC
Speakers: Suzan Johnson Cook, Haris Tarin, Marc Gopin, Manal Omar, Susan Hayward
The Internet release of a trailer for the anti-Islam film “The Innocence of Muslims” recently sparked protests around the world, some of which turned violent. These events serve as a stark reminder of the relationship between freedom of expression, religious coexistence, religious freedom, violence and security.
On October 22, 2012, the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) will host a panel discussion about civil society’s role in preventing and addressing provocative statements of religious bias and violent responses to it. The panelists will discuss the complementarities and tensions between the freedoms of expression and religion, use of the media in fomenting religious discrimination, and how to work with the media to promote respect for all religious traditions. The conversation will focus on how these issues are playing out in the context of political transitions occurring throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and the way in which civil society and the U.S. government can collaborate constructively to advance peaceful religious coexistence, freedom, and security.
This public discussion is co-sponsored with the Office of International Religious Freedom at the U.S. Department of State.
Register for this event here.
3. Adaptable Autocrats: Regime Power in Egypt and Syria, Monday October 22, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM, Woodrow Wilson Center
Venue: Woodrow Wilson Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004, 6th Floor
Speaker: Joshua Stacher
Why did the uprisings in Egypt and Syria turn out so differently? In his recent book, Adaptable Autocrats, Joshua Stacher argues the different outcomes are a product of how executive power flowed before the protests began. While popular mobilization challenged both regimes, Egypt’s Mubarak could be replaced as the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) slid into the executive’s role to adapt the system, while the option of changing the ruling coalition still has not occurred in Syria. Based on years of field research in Egypt and Syria, Stacher lays out a template for understanding the Arab uprisings and the turmoil that has followed.
Register for this event here.
4. AFSA Book Notes: “America’s Other Army”, Monday October 22, 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM, American Foreign Service Association
Venue: American Foreign Service Association, 2101 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20037
Speaker: Nicholas Kralev
“America’s Other Army” brings the high-flying world of international diplomacy down to earth and puts a human face on a mysterious profession that has undergone a dramatic transformation since September 11, 2001. Through the stories of American diplomats, the book explains how their work affects millions of people in the United States and around the world every day, and how it contributes directly to U.S. security and prosperity. It shows a more inclusive American diplomacy that has moved beyond interacting with governments and has engaged with the private sector, civil society and individual citizens. Having visited more than 50 embassies and interviewed about 600 American diplomats, author Nicholas Kralev reveals a Foreign Service whose diversity and professional versatility have shattered old perceptions and redefined modern diplomacy. But he also depicts a service not fully equipped to address the complex challenges of the 21st century.
RSVP for this event to events@afsa.org.
5. Book Discussion: Powerful Peace: A Navy SEAL’s Lessons on Peace from a Lifetime at War, Monday October 22, 6:00 PM – 7:00 PM, CSIS
Venue: CSIS, 1800 K Street NW, Washington DC, 20006, B1 A/B Conference Room
Speakers: J. Robert DuBois, Rick “Ozzie” Nelson
“Nowhere is the cost of failure higher than in the life-and-death struggle of armed conflict. Now J. Robert Dubois harnesses that real-world sense of wartime urgency to guide our search for solutions to challenging problems. He takes on a crucial and unprecedented mission for a retired Navy SEAL: the relentless pursuit of interpersonal and international peacekeeping as an imperative to global security. A treatise for policy makers and warriors, mediators and educators, Powerful Peace is also a compelling and practical guide to problem solving for every engaged citizen.” Please join the CSIS Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program on the evening of October 22 for a discussion with J. Robert DuBois regarding his new book, Powerful Peace, as well as his insights into the importance of peacemaking at the global and personal level.
Register for this event here.
6. Decision 2012: The Foreign Policy Debate, Monday October 22, 8:00 PM – 11:00 PM, George Washington School of Media and Public Affairs
Venue: GW School of Media and Public Affairs, 805 21st Street NW, Washington DC, 20052, Jack Morton Auditorium
Speakers: Doug Wilson, Richard Engel, Anne Gearan, Susan Glasser, Noah Shachtman
Join us at the Jack Morton Auditorium for pre-debate insight from four of America’s most respected and experienced national security correspondents — and immediately following, for the final presidential debate.
7:30 PM – 8:00 PM Reception
8:00 PM – 9:00 PM Panel Discussion
9:00 PM – 10:30 PM Debate Watch
10:30 PM – 11:00 PM Analysis and Closing Remarks
Register for this event here.
7. Connecting to Diaspora Communities Through Web Portals: Opportunities and Limitations, Tuesday October 23, 9:00 AM – 10:00 PM, QED Group
Venue: QED Group, LLC, 1250 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, Suite 1100
Speakers: Eric Guichard, Molly Mattessich
Diaspora communities have played a longtime role in the development of their countries of origin in areas as diverse as business development, financial investments, philanthropy, volunteerism, advocacy, etc.
For instance, the amount of money diaspora communities send to their home countries as remittance far exceed that of official development aid. In 2010, the globally recorded amount in remittance flows to developing countries was $325 billion and the World Bank estimates that amount to reach an estimated $404 billion a year by 2013. Regionally, African diaspora communities contribute an estimated $40 billion in remittances annually to the continent. Similarly, philanthropy from the US to developing countries was estimated at $39 billion in 2010 by the Index of Global Philanthropy and Remittances.
These staggering amounts have triggered a change in recent years among the formal donor community as diaspora communities are increasingly recognized as a credible and meaningful contributor to development. Given the significant contribution of diaspora communities, a key issue facing the donor community has become how to engage and partner effectively with diasporas? In this area of technological hyper-development, web portals have become omnipresent in any development venture and diaspora-driven development is not different. This seminar will present two such portals—Homestrings, a private investment platform, and Africa Rural Connect , an online global philanthropic network—and examine their effectiveness in engaging diasporas in development.
Register for this event here.
8. Applying Peace Economics in Dangerous Places, Tuesday October 23, 10:00 AM – 12:30 PM, USIP
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037
Speakers: Jurgen Brauer, J. Paul Dunne, Clare Lockhart, Todd Moss, Raymond Gilpin
Creating a sound economic policy and a stable macroeconomic framework is essential to societies recovering from violent conflict, yet few practitioners have the background needed to apply economic concepts effectively. USIP’s new publication titled “Peace Economics: A Macroeconomic Primer for Violence-Afflicted States” provides a concise but broad overview of practical ways that sound macroeconomic fundamentals could be used to build stability in states that are affected by violent conflict.
The discussion extends beyond economic principles into the wider realm of social reconstitution, social contract, and social capital. Co-authors, Jurgen Brauer and J. Paul Dunne, examine recent case studies and illustrate the applicability of concepts presented in the book.
Register for this event here.
9. National Security Challenges from an Israeli Perspective, Tuesday October 23, 12:00 PM – 1:00 PM, Heritage Foundation ****THIS EVENT HAS BEEN CANCELED.
Venue: Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20002, Lehrman Auditorium
Speakers: Yossi Baidatz, Steven P. Bucci
Israel, long America’s closest ally in the Middle East, faces growing national security challenges from Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and various radical Islamist groups that have flourished during the so-called “Arab Spring.” The collapse of Egypt’s Mubarak government, Syria’s intensifying civil war and growing strains inside Jordan have added greater uncertainty to an already volatile region. Iran continues to make substantial progress in enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon, as well as expanding its arsenal of ballistic missiles, some of which can reach Israeli targets. Iran also has transferred increasingly sophisticated rockets to Hezbollah and Hamas, each of which has used them to bombard Israeli civilians.
Please join Major General Yossi Baidatz, Commandant of the Israeli National Defense College, as he offers his insights in assessing Israel’s security environment and the important role of US-Israeli security cooperation.
Register for this event here.
10. The Political and Economic Implications of the Palestinian Authority’s Fiscal Crisis, Tuesday October 23, 3:30 PM – 5:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, 1619 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Rome Building Auditorium
Speakers: Robert Danin, Khaled Elgindy, Oussama Kanaan, Hussein Ibish
The Middle East Institute’s George and Rhonda Salem Family Foundation and the SAIS Conflict Management Program are proud to host Robert Danin, Khaled Elgindy, and Oussama Kanaan for a discussion about the fiscal crisis facing the Palestine Authority and the political implications of the PA’s deteriorating economic situation. In mid-September, the IMF and the World Bank issued a report saying that the Palestinian financial crisis will worsen unless foreign funding increases and Israel eases restrictions on economic activity. Neither solution looks imminent and protests in response to the economic hardships have turned into an indictment of President Mahmoud Abbas’s policies, raising questions about the future of the PA’s leadership. Danin, Elgindy, and Kanaan will examine the economic and political fallout stemming from the latest crisis and explore the role of the international community in finding a way out.
Register for this event here.
11. The Rise of Extremism in Greece and Its Impact on Minorities, Tuesday October 23, 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM, United Macedonian Diaspora
Venue: United Macedonian Diaspora, 1510 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Suite 900
Speakers: Archimandrite Nikodim Tsarknias, Sali Bollati, Stacy Burdett, Eugenia Natsoulidou, Sevin Elekdag
European Union member-state Greece is home to Macedonian and Turkish minorities, with sizeable Albanian, Roma and migrant populations and religious communities such as Catholics and Jews. Known as the cradle of democracy, Greece has seen a significant democratic deficit especially towards its minorities. Recently, the Chrysi Avgi (Golden Dawn), the Greek neo-Nazi political party, which denies the Holocaust ever occurred, has risen in popularity, given the deepening economic crisis in the country. The right wing extremist group has secured 18 seats – 9 percent of the total – in the Greek parliament against a backdrop of increased anti-Semitic and xenophobic rhetoric throughout the country.
Is the rise of extremism in Greece a new phenomenon or embedded within Greek society? What does this mean for the minority communities of Greece?
Greece chaired the OSCE in 2009, and now is vying for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council. In July, the EU appointed as its first Special Representative for Human Rights, the previous Greek Foreign Minister Stavros Lambrinidis.
RSVP for this event to tgzirishvili@umdiaspora.org.
12. Jordan in the Crosshairs, Tuesday October 23, 6:00 PM – 7:15 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Lindner Family Commons, Room 602
Speakers: Marwan Al-Muashar, Curtis Ryan, Edward Skip Gnehm
Although the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has so far weathered the region’s political upheaval, rising domestic unrest combined with regional pressure stemming from the Syrian conflict pose serious challenges to Jordan’s stability. The panelists will discuss the internal and external pressures shaping Jordan’s contentious political process, assessing the prospects of political reform and potential for greater unrest.
Register for this event here.
13. Fortress Israel: The Inside Story of the Military Elite Who Run the Country – and Why They Can’t Make Peace, Wednesday October 24, 4:00 PM – 5:30 PM, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Venue: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1779 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036
Speaker: Patrick Tyler
Former Washington Post and New York Times reporter Patrick Tyler speaks about his new book “Fortress Israel: The Inside Story of the Military Elite Who Run the Country–and Why They Can’t Make Peace.”
RSVP for this event to info@fmep.org.
14. Foreign Policy and the Presidential Election: A Post-Debate Analysis, Wednesday October 25, 4:30 PM – 5:30 PM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Falk Auditorium
Speakers: Martin Indyk, Susan Glasser, Robert Kagan, Kenneth G. Lieberthal, Suzanne Maloney, Bruce Riedel
With just two weeks to go before the U.S. election, President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney will engage in their final presidential debate on Monday, October 22. In this next debate, the candidates will focus on a wide range of foreign policy issues, including the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, U.S. counterterrorism efforts, the Iran crisis, and U.S.-China relations. Given the tone of the Obama-Romney town hall meeting and the critical U.S. and global security issues on the agenda, the foreign policy debate promises to be equally intense.
On October 24, Foreign Policy at Brookings, in association with Foreign Policy magazine, will host a discussion on the issues raised during the next presidential debate. Susan Glasser, editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy magazine, will moderate the panel, which will include Brookings Senior Fellows Robert Kagan, Suzanne Maloney, Kenneth Lieberthal and Bruce Riedel. Brookings Vice President Martin Indyk will offer opening remarks.
After the program, the panelists will take audience questions.
Please register for this event here.
15. Human Rights Perspectives on American Elections: Free or Fair?, Thursday October 25, 12:00 PM – 1:20 PM, AU Washington College of Law
Venue: AU Washington College of Law, 4801 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016, WCL Room 602
Speakers: Patrick Merloe, Marcia Johnson-Blanco, Hadar Harris
What does it mean to have ‘free and fair elections,’ and will the 2012 elections in the United States be free and fair? The Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law and the Program on Law & Government will host a discussion on international standards of free and fair elections as viewed from a human rights perspective, and examine how these standards apply to election policy in the United States. Specific topics will include human rights-related issues emerging in domestic and international elections, such as transparency, fairness of process, the right to political opinion, and the right to participate in government. Speakers will also address the current obstacles to full enfranchisement in the upcoming U.S. elections, such as voter identification laws and restrictions on early and absentee ballots. This event will feature Patrick Merloe, Senior Associate and Director of Electoral Programs of the National Democratic Institute, and Marcia Johnson- Blanco, Co-Director of the Voting Rights Project of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. The discussion will be moderated by Hadar Harris, Executive Director of the Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law.
RSVP for this event to humlaw@wcl.american.edu.
16. Women After the Arab Awakening: Making Change, Thursday October 25, 2:00 PM – 3:30 PM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036, Saul Room/Zilkha Lounge
Speakers: Tamara Cofman Wittes, Lina Ahmed, Marianne Ibrahim, Randa Naffa, Souad Slaoui
Women played an integral role in the Arab uprisings, and the continued empowerment of women will be critical to the emergence of democracy in the region. Gender rights and women’s equality are among the most consequential and controversial issues facing newly elected governments across the Arab world. Some fear that the election of Islamist parties will turn back the clock on women’s rights, but others see more open politics as a new opportunity for efforts to achieve equality in the Arab world. How has the Arab awakening affected the women of the region? How are activists and politicians seeking progress for women in this uncertain and evolving landscape?
On October 25, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings, with Vital Voices Global Partnership and the Project on Middle East Democracy, will host activists from Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan who are advocating for women’s rights in a variety of ways: combating child marriage, working to repeal gender-discriminatory laws, promoting gender equality in the new Egyptian constitution, and protecting the rights of women workers. Brookings Senior Fellow Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, will provide introductory remarks and moderate the discussion.
After the program, the panelists will take audience questions.
Register for this event here.
17. Playing with Fire: Pakistan at War with Itself, Thursday October 25, 3:30 PM – 5:00 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, Suite 605
Speaker: Pamela Constable
Pamela Constable, Foreign Correspondent and Former Deputy Foreign Editor, The Washington Post
RSVP for this event to security@gwu.edu.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
A step in the right direction
So Dačić and Thaçi have met in Lady Ashton’s office in Brussels. The world has barely noticed. That’s the good news. While their domestic oppositions may criticize the two prime ministers (of Serbia and Kosovo, respectively) for “giving in” to each other, no one else thinks this meeting is really a big deal. They may not have shaken hands, but they have taken a quiet step towards normalizing relations.
That is what the European Union has rightly insisted on. Ashton deserves credit for pulling this meeting off, so far as I know as a surprise. I find myself in comfortable agreement with my professor colleagues Ognjen Pribićević and Predrag Simić, former Serbian ambassadors in Berlin and Paris respectively. The meeting is important symbolically and will reduce the tension between Belgrade and Brussels. There is still a long road ahead, at the end of which Serbia will have to choose between the EU and Kosovo. This is a first step in the right direction.
The question is whether there is more in than that. I suspect so. The EU has made it clear in recent days that Serbia cannot expect to hold on to part of Kosovo. Dačić has implicitly, if not explicitly, accepted this EU condition in meeting with Thaçi, whose commitment to Kosovo’s territorial integrity is not to be doubted. President Nikolić and Aleksander Vučić, defense and deputy prime minister, must be enjoying putting their coalition partner Dačić out front on an issue that has little upside in Serbian politics.
What did Thaçi give? Implicitly if not explicitly he has I trust agreed to discuss north Kosovo with Belgrade. This is very much the right thing to do. There can be no resolution of the situation there without cooperation from Belgrade in the reintegration process, which will have to be carefully planned and implemented. But there are those in Pristina who prefer to use north Kosovo has a bludgeon rather than get it resolved, so Thaçi will no doubt get some flak for moving ahead.
I trust Washington contributed something to this effort, if only encouraging Thaçi. I suspect it may also have had a hand in the strange high-profile visit of Clint Williamson to Belgrade earlier this week. He is the American the EU has named to lead an investigation of crimes against Serbs, including alleged involvement of Thaçi. That enabled the Belgrade’s political leaders to pose as protectors of the Serbs just before the meeting with Thaçi.
Kosovo and Serbia still have a long way to go. It is my hope that they can develop the habit of helping each other get over the bumps in the road. That will require a lot more effort from both Brussels and Washington, both of which should be gratified to see that their tough stance on partition has bent Belgrade in the right direction.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Follow the money
The real difference between the candidates on foreign policy issues is not what they say they would do but what they want to fund, which ultimately affects what whoever is elected can do. The Ryan budget proposal, which Romney has said he backs, cuts international affairs spending by almost 10% in 2013 and close to a quarter by 2016 while funding a giant military buildup (on top of the buildup that has occurred since 9/11). Obama does not propose cuts to military spending, but he is trying to keep it below previously projected levels. His “international affairs” budget proposal for 2013 would keep that category more or less at current levels, taking inflation into account.
The consequences of this difference between the candidates for American foreign policy are dramatic. We are already overusing our highly competent, effective and expensive military forces. In Iraq and Afghanistan, they often substituted for far cheaper, but unavailable, civilians: the military provided not only humanitarian aid, which it is required to do in “non-permissive” environments, but also development and state-building assistance. I won’t be surprised if the U.S. military (along with the paramilitary parts of CIA) now has more foreign assistance money available than USAID. The Ryan budget proposal, if adopted, would dramatically increase reliance on the U.S. military for non-military aid, statebuilding, international law enforcement and other fundamentally civilian tasks.
This is not smart. At well over $1 million per deployed soldier (counting support and infrastructure costs), the U.S. military is a fabulously expensive way of getting things done. Relying on it for civilian tasks is the international equivalent of relying on emergency rooms for routine medical care. You may get it done, but only at a far higher price than providing the same care in doctors’ offices or community clinics.
The supposedly business-savvy Governor Romney is suggesting both health care in emergency rooms and use of our armed forces when civilians might suffice. Moreover, experience indicates that the existence of a strong military instrument without equally strong civilian instruments will get us into wars that we might otherwise avoid: need I mention Iraq? If anyone doubts whether our military has been thinking ahead to Iran, this map should be instructive:
I do not mean to suggest, as many of those publishing this map do, that we would be better off without these military installations. Clearly they lend credibility to the threat of force that will be essential if ever there is a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear problem. And if diplomacy fails, the military option needs to be on the table.
But it is hard for me to imagine that we spend more 1 one-thousandth of the cost of these bases on the diplomatic effort with Iran. We may in fact spend significantly less. That means that a 1 one-thousandth chance of a diplomatic solution is worth pursuing. I would put the real odds of diplomatic success at more like 50/50 or maybe 25/75. Someone on the right might say the odds are 1/10. But what Ryan and Romney are proposing is that we cut the diplomatic effort and increase the military push. Does that make financial sense?
I hasten to note that Romney has also made some sensible proposals to use American foreign assistance money more effectively by focusing on rule of law and establishing conditions for successful private initiative. The trouble is there won’t be any money in the government kitty to do those things if he is elected and the Ryan budget adopted.
Iran is the odd problem these days. It may require a military solution, but that is unusual. China as a currency manipulator does not. Even Russia as a geopolitical threat, if you think it one, requires diplomacy more than military mobilization. George W. Bush, no retiring violet, did not try to respond militarily to Russia when it went to war with Georgia, a country he wanted to get into NATO. The list of problems not amenable to military solution is long: Pakistan’s drift toward extremism, Afghanistan’s corrupt government, the stalled Middle East peace process. It is striking that the international community is busy mobilizing an exclusively military response to Islamist extremism in Mali, where a more balanced approach that emphasizes local community economic development would be far more likely to succeed.
I know it won’t happen, but this is what the two candidates should be asked at the debate: given the strains on the U.S. military, what would you do to strengthen America’s civilian instruments of foreign policy and how are those priorities reflected in your budget proposals?
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Dialogue is about listening
It was a pleasure to be back at USIP yesterday after a two-year hiatus for the launch of Facilitating Dialogue: USIP’s Work in Conflict Zones. This is a book of case studies I edited with David Smock. Here are my speaking notes for the occasion, which I more or less used:
- These two years have been devoted mainly to teaching post-war reconstruction—using USIP’s own Guiding Principles to Stabilization and Reconstruction, still the best text for the purpose—and writing about the areas in which America’s civilian instruments of foreign policy need strengthening.
- One of those areas is facilitating dialogue, the subject of this slim volume that represents for me an enormous amount of intense work by a lot of people and an important departure for USIP as an institution.
- When I arrived at USIP in 1998, there was a director of the grants program—his name was David Smock—anxious to try to apply in conflict zones what the Institute thought it had learned in the previous 10 years or so.
- That sounded like a good idea to me, so I tried to carry it forward, first in the Balkans with only modest success and later in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- Before I knew what had happened, ten years had gone by and other colleagues had picked up the refrain and were facilitating dialogue in Nepal, Colombia, Israel/Palestine and elsewhere.
- USIP, in its own argot, had become not just a think tank but also a do tank.
- But what was it doing, and why was it important?
- Our Kosovo experience illustrates some of the answers: it was getting people not so much to talk to each other—people rarely have difficulty speaking—but rather to listen to each other.
- This is much harder.
- My Albanian friends in Kosovo had no trouble telling me about the Serbs who had kicked them out the government, industries, health system and schools.
- My Serb friends had no trouble telling me about the havoc wrecked by the Kosovo Liberation Army. But neither had any ability or desire to hear what the others were saying.
- This is not surprising. People in violent conflict dehumanize the other and lose the ability to listen to what it is saying, even as they raise their own voices to stentorian levels.
- The situation is made doubly difficult if the transition after conflict involves not only peacebuilding but also democratization.
- Dictatorships do not allow normal communication. They may be nominally non-ethnic or non-sectarian, as Milosevic’s at times claimed to be, but in practice most institutionalize the privileges of relatively small groups and limit meaningful communication to those.
- This was certainly the situation we found in Kosovo even before the war, when in 1998 my colleagues and I embarked on a training program intended to help disempowered Kosovo Albanians manage the conflict with Serbs nonviolently.
- We found something similar with Serbs after the war: now they had been disempowered and had limited ability to get the Albanians to pay attention.
- Getting these groups to listen to each other became our objective.
- We were largely successful: they even eventually developed a joint plan for building peace in Kosovo, outlined in what was called the Airlie Declaration.
- But the process was brought to an abrupt and premature end by the rioting in March 2004 that resulted in serious damage to Serb communities and a further exodus of Serbs from south of the Ibar river.
- That however was not enough to re-open funding for dialogue, and the years since then have largely seen what might be termed a dialogue of the deaf: both sides stating their positions clearly and effectively, and neither side listening much to what the other had to say.
- If Hal Saunders were here—as David and I would have liked—he would note that we failed to sustain the dialogue for a sufficient period. He would be correct.
- I simply don’t know of conflict situations in which too much money has been spent getting people to listen to each other, begin to trust each other, and build a common future together by solving real problems in the lives of the groups they represent.
- I hope USIP will continue these efforts and redeem the real value inherent in a dialogue in which people listen and really hear.
Here is Voice of America’s report report on the event.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Hoisted by his own petard
There is no doubt Mitt Romney was injured last night by a device (that’s more or less what a petard is: an explosive device to breach a wall) he intended to use against Barack Obama. The Governor’s claim that the President had not labelled the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans a terrorist act for 14 days was quickly fact-checked and found untrue on the spot.
The question is why this claim had any currency at all. It has been circulating now for weeks and was false all along. Why does the supposedly liberal media repeat ad infinitum a claim that it took only seconds to invalidate?
Part of the problem is that the Administration muddled its own message with ambiguous statements that came after the President’s Rose Garden reference to the attack as an act of terror. Vice President Biden and UN Ambassador Susan Rice have cited intelligence reporting as the basis for the suggestion that the attack was related to a demonstration against the “Innocence of Muslims” video. Anyone who has dealt with raw intelligence reports can easily imagine that this–and possibly several other explanations–were offered up in the aftermath of the incident. Human intelligence (humint) sources are only too anxious to earn their keep when an incident occurs by offering their own version. With the CIA station in Benghazi cleaned out, it would have been difficult to make contact and verify information from sources that are often unreliable.
Another part of the problem is the media’s obvious effort to bend over backwards to avoid the charge that it has a liberal bias. These charges from the right have had a palpable impact, causing what Sarah Palin calls the “lamestream” media to hesitate when faced with right-wing bluster. If you think you are being objective, any claim of bias will make you think twice. Fox News, which does not pretend to be objective, has no problem with Jon Stewart’s nightly assaults on its veracity.
I was surprised by the President’s mild reaction to Romney’s false claim. He continued seated and uttered what I took to be a mild grunt when the moderator confirmed the falsehood. But of course a black man in America has to be careful about showing too much anger. It would not have been well received in parts of the electorate.
Will Romney’s mistake/lie/exaggeration/mistatement affect the election outcome? I doubt it. Those who like him will write it off as a mistake. Those who don’t will be confirmed in their distaste. Those who haven’t made up their minds will wonder why anyone would think it important compared to all the serious policy issues at stake.
Nevertheless, hoisted by his own petard.
RSS - Posts
