Tag: Pakistan
Peace picks this week
I’m late with this week’s top items. Missed two good ones today: on Syria option at Brookings and on war with Iran at Georgetown. I hope you caught them. Here is the rest of the week, with most of the interesting stuff on Wednesday:
1. The Human Rights Situation in Syria: An Assessment by the United Nations Independent Commission of Inquiry, Brookings, 4:30-6 pm March 20
For the past year, the international community has been largely paralyzed in responding to Bashar al-Assad’s violent repression of protests in Syria. Though the United Nations Security Council has failed to pass a condemnatory resolution, the UN Human Rights Council swiftly established an independent international Commission of Inquiry in September 2011 to investigate all alleged violations of international human rights law since the beginning of the uprising. After extensive interviews with victims and witnesses, the commission’s report presented this month concluded that the Syrian military and security forces have been committing gross violations of human rights since the onset of the protests.
Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC
Map
RELATED CONTENT
On March 20, Managing Global Order and the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host the members of the commission to discuss the findings of this recently released report. Paulo Pinhiero, chairman of the commission, along with commissioners Yakin Ertürk and Karen AbuZayd will provide an overview of their investigation and describe the current human rights situation in Syria. Senior Fellow Ted Piccone, deputy director of Foreign Policy at Brookings, will provide introductory remarks and moderate the discussion.After the program, panelists will take audience questions.
Participants
Panelists
Karen AbuZayd
Commissioner, Commission of Inquiry for Syria
Former Commissioner General, UN Relief and Works Agency
Yakin Ertürk
Commissioner, Commission of Inquiry for Syria
Former UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women
Paulo Pinheiro
Chairperson, Commission of Inquiry for Syria
Former UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Myanmar
2. Challenging the Axis of Resistance: Syria, Iran and the Strategic Balance in the Middle East, Reserve Officers Association, One Constitution Avenue, NE 7:30-9 am March 21
The Iran-Syria alliance poses significant challenges for U.S. diplomacy in the Middle East. Iran’s support for Syria has helped the Assad regime sustain a brutal campaign of repression against the Syrian people, insulating it from the full effect of international and Arab sanctions. Syria’s support for Iran has enhanced Tehran’s regional influence, promoted Hezbollah’s power in Lebanon, and helped to consolidate an “axis of resistance” that has reshaped the strategic balance in the Middle East.
Please join Jay Solomon, foreign affairs correspondent of the Wall Street Journal, and Daniel Brumberg, USIP’s senior adviser in the Center for Conflict Management, as they examine two of the most significant challenges for the Middle East, Iran and Syria, and the ramifications that their interplay has for U.S. regional strategy. The discussion will be moderated by Steven Heydemann, senior adviser for Middle East Initiatives at the U.S. Institute of Peace.
This is the third in a series of breakfast briefings titled, “A Year of Turmoil: The Arab Awakening and the Path Ahead.” The briefings are organized by the United States Institute of Peace in partnership with the Defense Education Forum of the Reserve Officers Association.
Speakers
- Jay Solomon, Discussant
Foreign Affairs Correspondent
Wall Street Journal - Daniel Brumberg, Discussant
Senior Adviser, Center for Conflict Management
U.S. Institute of Peace - Steven Heydemann, Moderator
Senior Adviser for Middle East Initiatives
U.S. Institute of Peace
Breakfast will be available at 7:30am, followed by the moderated discussion from 8-9am.
3. Iran and the West at a Crossroad: Will Recent Elections Make or Break a Deal on Iran’s Nuclear Program? Middle East Institute, 12-13:15 pm March 21
Location:
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has described upcoming talks with Iran over its nuclear program as “the last chance to resolve the crisis.” Yet as the final hour approaches for an opportunity to avert a military attack, there are few apparent signs Iran will make compromises. Recent parliamentary elections have only strengthened the power of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the hardliners in his inner circle who aspire to make the Islamic republic a regional superpower. Join us for a discussion with Geneive Abdo and Syed Aliakbar Mousavi on the impact of the elections on the future of Iran’s nuclear program, and the outlook for the forthcoming negotiations aimed at de-escalating U.S.-Iranian tensions.
Bio:
Geneive Abdo is the director of the Iran Program at The Century Foundation, a Washington and New York-based think tank. Her current research focuses on contemporary Iran and political Islam. She is the creator and editor of the newly-launched website: www.insideIRAN.org She was formerly the Liaison Officer for the Alliance of Civilizations, a U.N. initiative under Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Before joining the United Nations, Abdo was a foreign correspondent. Her 20-year career focused on coverage of the Middle East and the Muslim world. From 1998-2001, Abdo was the Iran correspondent for the Guardian and a regular contributor to the Economist and the International Herald Tribune. Abdo is the author of No God But God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam (Oxford University Press, 2000), and Mecca and Main Street (Oxford University Press, 2006). Abdo’s commentaries and essays on Islam have appeared in Foreign Policy, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, among other outlets. She has been a commentator on NPR the BBC, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN, and al-Jazeera,
Seyed Aliakbar Mousavi is a visiting fellow at the University of Maryland and a digital freedom & human rights activist. From 2000 to 2004, Mousavi served as a member of the 6th Parliament of Iran, where he held several positions including Deputy of the Parliamentary ICT Committee, Secretary of the Tehran District, and Head of Inspecting and Supervising of Prisons. Currently, he advises the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, an advocacy group based in the United States, and was a visiting fellow in the Iranian Studies program at Stanford University. He is the founder and former general secretary of the Iranian Graduates Organization and was a member of the Central Council of the Iranian Students Union. Mousavi was also a participant in the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and an founder of the Prisoners Rights Defense Association.
4. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf: Looking for the Arab Spring, Georgetown University, 12:30-2 pm March 21
This event requires a ticket or RSVP
The Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding
invites you to:
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf: Looking for the Arab Spring
________________________
featuring:
Natana J. DeLong-Bas
________________________
Wednesday, March 21
12:30pm – ICC 270
________________________
In the midst of the Arab Spring, Saudi Arabia alone seems to have escaped public protests over corruption, authoritarianism and the quest for more equitable sharing of benefits. This impression masks the realities of life and reform within the Kingdom. This presentation explores some of the ways in which Saudi Arabia is working to address the challenges of the Arab Spring from a long-term perspective, offering analysis of areas of both stability and uncertainty for the future.
________________________
Dr. Natana J. DeLong-Bas is the author of Jihad for Islam: The Struggle for the Future of Saudi Arabia (forthcoming, Oxford, 2012), Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad (rev. ed., Oxford, 2008 – named “1 of the 5 best books for understanding Islam” by the Wall Street Journal), and Notable Muslims: Muslim Builders of World Civilization and Culture (OneWorld, 2006), and co-author of Women in Muslim Family Law (with John L. Esposito, rev. ed., Syracuse, 2001). She is Editor-in-Chief of [The Oxford] Encylopedia of Islam and Women (forthcoming, Oxford, 2012) and Deputy Editor of The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World and Oxford Islamic Studies Online (Oxford, 2008), as well as serving on the Advisory Board for Oxford Bibliographies Online – Islamic Studies. She serves as a consultant to the media, the US and international governments and corporations and is a member of The British Council’s Our Shared Future Opinion Leaders Network. Her Op-Ed pieces on contemporary issues in Islam have been published in the US, Europe, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. She teaches comparative theology (Islam and Christianity) at Boston College.
___________________________________________________________
Please RSVP here:
http://gulfarabspring.eventbrite.com/
Seating is limited.
Lunch will be served.
5. Halting the Descent:U.S. Policy toward the Deteriorating Situation in Iraq, 2172 Rayburn, 1:30 pm March 21
You are respectfully requested to attend the following open hearing of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building.
General Jack Keane, USA, Retired
(Former Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army)
Lieutenant General James Dubik, USA, Retired
Senior Fellow
Institute for the Study of War
Kimberly Kagan, Ph.D.
President
Institute for the Study of War
Colin H. Kahl, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
Center for a New American Security
6. Ahmed Rashid – Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, Politics and Prose, 7 pm March 21
Four years after his Descent into Chaos, the Lahore-based Pakistani journalist reassesses the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan and offers suggestions for American foreign policy in the region. He pays particular attention to the role of the Taliban and the reliability of American allies.
- 5015 Connecticut Ave NW
- Washington, District Of Columbia
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Time to go
Is there anyone still out there who thinks we can achieve our goals in Afghanistan? Yes is the short answer. Michael O’Hanlon for example. So I’ll try to reiterate why I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we need to get out as quickly as possible, without however destabilizing the situation.
Far be it from me to suggest that the homicidal behavior of a single American staff sergeant should determine what we do, or don’t do, in Afghanistan. The fact however is that incidents like the one Sunday, in which 16 Afghans appear to have been murdered by a single American, really do have a broader significance. It is just no longer possible for many–perhaps most–Afghans to support the effort we have undertaken supposedly for their benefit. The Afghan parliament has said plainly that patience is running out. Wait until they realize how long it will take before the alleged perpetrator is tried and punished!
Of course we left Afghanistan to its own devices once before, after the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. That did not work out well, for us or for them. The risks are great that the scenario will be repeated. I’m not sure President Karzai will last as long the Soviet-installed President Najibullah, who managed three years. But I trust Karzai will not stay on in Kabul if the Taliban appear at its gates, as Najibullah did. The Taliban castrated him and dragged him to death with a truck, then hung his body on a lamp post.
I doubt the Taliban, who would certainly gain control of at least parts of Afghanistan upon American withdrawal, would again make the mistake of inviting in al Qaeda. There isn’t much in it for them: al Qaeda is a pan-national movement with pretensions to uniting all Muslims in a revived caliphate.
As Rory Stewart notes, we are not going to be able to get the support we need from Pakistan or create the kind of government in Afghanistan that can gain the confidence of the Afghans. The only thing we’ve got going for us is that the Afghans hate the Taliban more than they hate us, but that is cold comfort.
It may also be in some doubt: the Taliban are having at least some success in governing areas they control. Their courts dispense justice, private and even state schools use their curriculum, and some nongovernmental organizations are allowed to operate. The Taliban district and provincial governors operate with increasing visibility and some degree of legitimacy.
To combat this kind of capillary presence of the Taliban, we would need to continue to distribute Americans widely in the countryside. It just isn’t going to be possible. With U.S. troops already withdrawing, the risk to Americans embedded in Afghan villages and ministries is going to rise sharply. Last month’s attacks on advisors embedded in the Interior Ministry, and the rising frequency of Afghan security force attacks on Americans, make that clear.
Like many Iraqis, at least some Afghans will come to regret U.S. withdrawal. The Pushtuns will not like dealing with the Northern Alliance, which defeated the Taliban in 2001 with help from the U.S., better than dealing with us, and many in the Northern Alliance would already prefer that we stay. Women–still not treated equally with men–stand to lose some of the enormous gains that they have made since the Taliban’s fall.
It would be a mistake to await the outcome of the negotiations with the Taliban, which could drag on for a long time. Better to go into these negotiations stating a willingness to withdraw–by the end of this year if feasible, or shortly thereafter–provided a satisfactory political solution can be agreed. That could actually accelerate the diplomacy rather than hinder it. And in any event the Taliban will know full well that public and political support for the war is fading in the United States.
What we have wanted is an Afghanistan that can defend itself and prevent the return of al Qaeda. It is hard for me to believe that we’ll get any closer to those goals by staying another three years. It is time to go. It should be done deliberately, not precipitously. But it should be done.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
FUBARistan
The military also uses the term “goat rope,” which might be more appropriate to Afghan conditions. Whichever. This war has endured beyond the point at which we can expect results commensurate with the enormous effort involved.
The weekend’s news is particularly discouraging. Afghans killed two Americans advising the Interior Ministry. Ambassador Crocker has sent a back channel cable calling for more troops and military effort to deal with safe havens in Pakistan. Violent, even deadly, protests of the burning of Korans by American troops continue.
But it is not just today. These incidents are symbolic. We haven’t got the kind of relationship with the government in Afghanistan required for a proper counter-insurgency effort. That would require a clean, authoritative regime ready to risk its own and fully committed to the fight. Karzai and his minions are lacking in all those respects. It would also require the Americans to know something about Afghan sensitivities. We are manifestly lacking in this important respect. The Afghans are tired of the foreign presence. Nor have we got the kind of backing in Pakistan that war requires of an ally and massive aid recipient.
It is not, as Ryan Crocker suggests, a question of fatigue. He is right to say we shouldn’t quit because we are tired of the effort, provided the effort can produce the results we want. I don’t see much chance of that any longer.
It is time to cut our losses. This is what the Administration is trying to do under the guise of negotiations with the Taliban, but on a timeline that would waste the better part of another three more years and who knows how many hundreds of American lives. Accelerating the turnover of primary security responsibilities to the Afghans will still leave many Americans exposed to the kind of murderous impulse or plan that led to the losses at the Ministry of Interior. Embedded advisers are the most exposed of all our personnel.
There are two main arguments against accelerating the withdrawal to the end of this year: the Afghans need the time to prepare, and the President needs to avoid an American retreat/defeat before the November election. Both arguments are so reminiscent of Vietnam that it is hard for someone like me who opposed that war to give them a fair hearing. I’ll leave that to others.
Still, we have to recognize that early withdrawal from Afghanistan could have highly negative consequences. These include renewal of the civil war, with the Uzbeks and Tajiks of the Northern Alliance clashing with Pushtun Taliban in the south, a fight that the Taliban won in the 1990s. Assuming the Northern Alliance attracts most of the Afghanistan National Army and gets U.S. and Indian support while Pakistan backs the Taliban, the outcome might be different this time. Stalemate and partition would be a distinct possibility.
There is also a real possibility that early withdrawal will put Pakistan’s stability at risk, as the Taliban move their safe havens into Afghanistan and Al Qaeda takes up the cudgels against Islamabad, whose nuclear weapons are both an attractive target and a good reason for the Americans to stay involved. If I really thought staying almost three more years would improve our odds in managing this problem, I suppose I might try to get us to stay longer. But the problem could arise no matter how long we stay in Afghanistan, which seems either unwilling or unable to protect itself from extremist dominance in parts of the south and east.
I don’t really think we’ll “abandon” Afghanistan, if only because the Republicans would make a lot of political hay out of an early withdrawal and whatever chaos ensues. But I’ve yet to meet an ordinary citizen who cares much about our troops or civilians in Afghanistan, including those politicians who see Islamic terror behind every tree. I do care, and it is hard to avoid the conclusion that we are wasting their courage in an effort that is bound to fail.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
This week’s “peace picks”
Loads of interesting events this week:
1. Georgian-South Ossetian Confidence Building Processes, Woodrow Wilson Center, 6th floor, February 6, noon- 1pm
Dr. Susan Allen Nan will discuss the Georgian-South Ossetian relationship, including insights from the 14 Georgian-South Ossetian confidence building workshops she has convened over the past three years, the most recent of which was in January. The series of unofficial dialogues catalyze other confidence building measures and complement the Geneva Talks official process.
Please note that seating for this event is available on a first come, first served basis. Please call on the day of the event to confirm. Please bring an identification card with a photograph (e.g. driver’s license, work ID, or university ID) as part of the building’s security procedures.
The Kennan Institute speaker series is made possible through the generous support of the Title VIII Program of the U.S. Department of State.
-
Associate Professor of Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University
by
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Former National Security Adviser and CSIS Counselor and Trustee
Willard Room, Willard InterContinental Hotel
1401 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC
Introduction by
John Hamre, CSIS
Remarks by
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Interviewed by
David Ignatius, The Washington Post
Book Signing
from 4:00 to 4:30 p.m.
-Books will be available for purchase-
This invitation is non-transferable. Seating is limited.
To RSVP please e-mail externalrelations@csis.org by Wednesday, February 2.
This book seeks to answer 4 questions:
What are the implications of the changing distribution of global power from West to East, and how is it being affected by the new reality of a politically awakened humanity? Why is America’s global appeal waning, how ominous are the symptoms of America’s domestic and international decline, and how did America waste the unique global opportunity offered by the peaceful end of the Cold War? What would be the likely geopolitical consequences if America did decline by 2025, and could China then assume America’s central role in world affairs? What ought to be a resurgent America’s major long-term geopolitical goals in order to shape a more vital and larger West and to engage cooperatively the emerging and dynamic new East? America, Zbigniew Brzezinski argues, must define and pursue a comprehensive and long-term geopolitical vision, a vision that is responsive to the challenges of the changing historical context. This book seeks to provide the strategic blueprint for that vision.
5. The Unfinished February 14 Uprising: What Next for Bahrain? Dirksen, 9:30-11 am February
|
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 106
|
|
|
POMED DC Events Calendar
|
|
|
alex.russell@pomed.org
|
|
|
As the February 14th anniversary of the start of mass protests in Bahrain approaches, now is a critical time to analyze events over the past few months and discuss expectations for the coming weeks. With the release of the BICI report in late November, which detailed systematic human rights abuses and a government crackdown against peaceful protesters, the Government of Bahrain was tasked with a long list of reforms and recommendations. At this juncture, nearly two months after the release of the report, it is essential for the United States to debate the Kingdom’s reforms and how to move Bahrain forward on a path of democratic progress. Human rights groups continue to raise significant human rights concerns with respect to the situation on the ground. What are some of these concerns? What are the current realities on the ground in Bahrain? What are the strategies of the country’s political opposition parties and revolutionary youth movement, and how is the monarchy reacting? What are some expectations and challenges regarding the palace-led reform process? And, importantly, what constructive roles can the U.S. play in encouraging meaningful reform at this time? Please join us for a discussion of these issues with: Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Elliott Abrams Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies, Council on Foreign Relations Joost Hiltermann Deputy Program Director, Middle East and North Africa, International Crisis Group Colin Kahl Associate Professor, Georgetown University; Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security Moderator: Stephen McInerney Executive Director, Project on Middle East Democracy To RSVP: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dGFWVEU3dzBVNUtiTzFKYW5OVlZ3UXc6MQ This event is sponsored by the Project on Middle East Democracy (POMED), the National Security Network, and the Foreign Policy Initiative. For more information, visit: http://pomed.org/the-unfinished-february-14-uprising-what-next-for-bahrain-2/
|
6. An Assessment of Iran’s Upcoming Parliamentary Elections, Woodrow Wilson Center, 12-1:15 pm February 9
with
Hosein Ghazian
and
Geneive Abdo
Location:
-
Geneive Abdo //Director, Iran Program, The Century Foundation
-
Visiting Scholar, Syracuse University
- This event requires a ticket or RSVP
The Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU) and the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding
invite you to
One Year Later:
Has the Arab Spring Lived Up to Expectations?
A public panel featuring:
John L. Esposito
University Professor & Founding Director
ACMCU, Georgetown University
Heba Raouf
Associate Professor
Cairo University
Radwan Ziadeh
Fellow, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
Senior Fellow, United States Institute of Peace
Moderated by:
Farid Senzai
Director of Research
Institute for Social Policy and Understanding
February 9, 2012 – 4:00-6:00 pm
Georgetown University Hotel & Conference Center | Salon H
One year has passed since protestors took to the streets across the Arab World. Join the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding and the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding for an engaging panel on what progress has been made on the ground and where the revolution will go from here.
_______________________
John L. Esposito is University Professor, Professor of Religion and International Affairs and of Islamic Studies and Founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University. Esposito specializes in Islam, political Islam from North Africa to Southeast Asia, and Religion and International Affairs. He is Editor-in-Chief of Oxford Islamic Studies Online and Series Editor: Oxford Library of Islamic Studies, Editor-in-Chief of the six-volume The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World, The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World, The Oxford History of Islam (a Book-of-the-Month Club selection), The Oxford Dictionary of Islam, The Islamic World: Past and Present, and Oxford Islamic Studies Online. His more than forty five books include Islamophobia and the Challenge of Pluralism in the 21st Century, The Future of Islam, Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think (with Dalia Mogahed), Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam (a Washington Post and Boston Globe best seller), The Islamic Threat: Myth or Reality?, Islam and Politics, Political Islam: Radicalism, Revolution or Reform?, Islam and Democracy (with J. Voll). His writings have been translated into more than 35 languages, including Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Bahasa Indonesia, Urdu, European languages, Japanese and Chinese. A former President of the Middle East Studies Association of North America and of the American Council for the Study of Islamic Societies, Vice Chair of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, and member of the World Economic Forum’s Council of 100 Leaders, he is currently Vice President (2012) and President Elect (2013) of the American Academy of Religion, a member of the E. C. European Network of Experts on De-Radicalisation and the board of C-1 World Dialogue and an ambassador for the UN Alliance of Civilizations. Esposito is recipient of the American Academy of Religion’s Martin E. Marty Award for the Public Understanding of Religion and of Pakistan’s Quaid-i-Azzam Award for Outstanding Contributions in Islamic Studies and the School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University Award for Outstanding Teaching.
Heba Raouf Ezzat holds a Ph.D in political theory and has been teaching at Cairo University since 1987, and is also an affiliate professor the American University in Cairo (since 2006). She currently serves as Visiting Senior Fellow at the Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Her research, publications and activism is focused on comparative political theory, women in Islam, global civil society, new social movements and sociology of the virtual space. She is also a cofounder of Islamonline.net which is now Onislam.net, an academic advisor of many youth civil initiatives, the member of the Board of Trustees of Alexandria Trust for Education – London, and the Head of the Board of Trustees of the Republican Consent Foundation – Cairo. She was a research fellow at the University of Westminster (UK) (1995-1996), the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (1998 and 2012), and the Center for Middle East Studies, University of California-Berkeley (2010). She recently participated in establishing the House of Wisdom, the first independent Egyptian Think Tank founded after the Egyptian revolution 2011.
Radwan Ziadeh is a Fellow at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU), a Senior Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace, and a Dubai Initiative associate at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He is the founder and director of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies in Syria and co-founder and executive director of the Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Washington, D.C.
Farid Senzai is Director of Research at ISPU and Assistant Professor of Political Science at Santa Clara University. Dr. Senzai was previously a research associate at the Brookings Institution, where he studied U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, and a research analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, where he worked on the Muslim Politics project. He served as a consultant for Oxford Analytica and the World Bank. Dr. Senzai is currently on the advisory board of The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life where he has contributed to several national and global surveys on Muslim attitudes. His recent co-authored book is Educating the Muslims of America (Oxford University Press, 2009). Dr. Senzai received a M.A. in international affairs from Columbia University and a Ph.D. in politics and international relations from Oxford University.
_______________________________
Please RSVP here: http://arabspringispu.eventbrite.com/
For a map and directions to the GU Conference Center, please visit: http://www.acc-guhotelandconferencecenter.com/map-directions/
mem297@georgetown.edu
-
Dr. John Hamre
President and CEO, CSISModerated by
Dr. Bulent Aliriza
Director and Senior Associate, CSIS Turkey ProjectCenter for Strategic and International Studies
B1 Conference Room
1800 K. St. NW, Washington, DC 20006
9. China, Pakistan and Afghanistan: Security and Trade, 12:30-2 pm, Rome Auditorium, SAIS
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Threats should drive responses
I’m not big on Administration testimony in Congress, as it tends to the soporific. But I enjoyed skimming Director of National Intelligence James Clapper’s testimony Tuesday in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. This “Worldwide Threat Assessment” is worth a glance.
First the obvious caveats: this is unclassified testimony lacking in vital details. Clapper would not want to tip our policy hand by saying too much about Iran, China, Al Qaeda or any number of other challenges. This is testimony meant to give a broad picture of many challenges, not a deep dive into even the top priorities. The fact that the media has focused principally on its mention of the possibility of Iranian terrorist acts in the U.S. tells us more about the U.S. media than about Clapper’s view of the threats.
His introductory remarks give a hint of where he is going:
Although I believe that counterterrorism, counterproliferation, cybersecurity, and counterintelligence are at the immediate forefront of our security concerns, it is virtually impossible to rank—in terms of long-term importance—the numerous, potential threats to US national security. The United States no longer faces—as in the Cold War—one dominant threat. Rather, it is the multiplicity and interconnectedness of potential threats—and the actors behind them—that constitute our biggest challenge. Indeed, even the four categories noted above are also inextricably linked, reflecting a quickly changing international environment of rising new powers, rapid diffusion of power to nonstate actors and ever greater access by individuals and small groups to lethal technologies.
It is nevertheless striking that many threats have receded and others have developed more slowly than many of us imagined they might. According to Clapper, global jihad is fragmenting, a mass casualty attack in the U.S. is unlikely, Al Qaeda central is in decline, Iran and North Korea are not imminent nuclear threats, Afghanistan faces problems that arise as much from its own government as from the Taliban… Of course the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, as the sign in our high school coaches’ room said, but this is not the worst of all possible worlds.
It behooves us to use this respite well. It won’t last. The odds are for trouble with Iran this year, and there is no ruling out a successful terrorist attack, no matter how weak Al Qaeda gets. Clapper is remarkably silent on Pakistan and even China–I imagine that most of what he had to say is classified. Either one could cause serious difficulty, Pakistan by continuing to exploit the Taliban inside Afghanistan and China by challenging U.S. efforts to contain its growing military and political presence in the Pacific, the Middle East and Africa.
In the meanwhile, it would be wise to prepare well for the priorities Clapper cites. Their distinguishing characteristic is that none of them are amenable to purely military solutions. Terrorism, proliferation, cybersecurity and counterintelligence all fall in the unconventional warfare box. They are far more amenable to policing, diplomacy, strategic communications, and cooperation with allies than the more conventional military threats.
This is the context in which we should be evaluating the Defense, State and intelligence community budgets. The civilian side of the budget equation should be strengthened, in the name of national security. The military side should be maintained and even improved in important respects, but the notion that current cuts in personnel and hi-tech conventional weaponry are sufficient is not likely to hold. Fighter aircraft are just not very useful in dealing with the main threats, and the improved performance of the new ones is bought at a very high price.
What we need to do is begin considering the defense budget in a broader context. What can the weapons we are buying do to counter the threats we are facing? This is such an obvious question it is almost embarassing to ask it. But threats should indeed drive responses.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Righting the civilian/military balance
Someone might imagine that I would be unhappy with the President’s strategic guidance for the Defense Department, released last week. It reiterates many of the U.S. military’s more traditional roles: counter-terrorism and irregular warfare, deterring and defeating aggression, projecting power, countering weapons of mass destruction, maintaining nuclear deterrence. It also re-emphasizes some relatively new areas: outer space and cyber space as well as support to homeland defense. Its implications in many of these areas are unclear, maybe even still undetermined. Certainly who watch the Defense budget more than I do aren’t sure yet.
But it includes a clear and unequivocal step back from stability operations like those in Iraq and Afghanistan (and before in Bosnia and Kosovo), the design and implementation of which preoccupied me for at least 15 years. This is the President’s guidance on stability and counterinsurgency operations:
In the aftermath of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States will emphasize non-military means and military-to-military cooperation to address instability and reduce the demand for significant U.S. force commitments to stability operations. U.S. forces will nevertheless
be ready to conduct limited counterinsurgency and other stability operations if required,operating alongside coalition forces wherever possible. Accordingly, U.S. forces will retain and continue to refine the lessons learned, expertise, and specialized capabilities that have been developed over the past ten years of counterinsurgency and stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged stability operations.
In another section of the document, the guidance also suggests that U.S. forces will be:
...able to secure territory and populations and facilitate a
transition to stable governance on a small scale for a limited period using standing
forces and, if necessary, for an extended period with mobilized forces.
Surprise: I find all of this eminently reasonable, provided the civilian and reserve capacities are built up in a serious way. It is a mistake to use active duty fighting forces in roles that might be carried out at least as effectively by civilians, whether government officials or contractors. Our non-military means are however still lacking. Despite Hillary Clinton’s well-intended Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, we are still far from having in the State Department and USAID the capabilities required.
This matters. It was the lack of civilian capacity to deal with post-victory stability and governance in Afghanistan that allowed the Taliban to regroup and regenerate. It was the lack of civilian capacity to deal with post-victory stability in Iraq that turned a quick victory into an eight-year nightmare. If ever we need to deal with a post-war or post-revolution Iran or Pakistan (whether the war involves the U.S. as a belligerent or not), or even post-Assad Syria, we will clearly lack adequate civilian capacity, and the military’s reservists won’t suffice either.
So yes, let’s get the military out of the peacebuilding/statebuilding/nationbuilding/postconflict stabilization/reconstruction business as much as possible. Let’s use reservists when possible, as we have for years in Kosovo and Bosnia. As civilians in uniform, they have talents and experience that active duty forces often lack. But let’s not forget that we might still have to do these things, despite the best intention of the Administration to avoid it. If even 10 per cent of what the military saves in following the President’s strategic guidance were to be spent on civilian capacity, it might be enough. But there is no sign of anything like that happening yet.
So yes, I am happy with the strategic guidance, but it has to be backed up with budgetary allocations to the civilian side of our foreign policy apparatus to make it practical. Righting the balance requires not just words but money and people.
RSS - Posts
