Just Foreign Policy News
November 8, 2010
Help the Palestinians. Go See This Movie
If many Americans see the movie Budrus, about the successful nonviolent resistance of Palestinians and Israelis against the route of the Israeli "separation barrier" and its confiscation of Palestinian land in the West Bank village of Budrus, it could lead to concrete changes in U.S. policy that would lead to real improvement in the ability of Palestinians in the West Bank to free themselves from the occupation by nonviolent action.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/help-the-palestinians-go_b_780609.html
Senator-Elect Rand Paul: Congress needs to debate Afghanistan
"We need to have a national debate and say, is our national security still threatened? I don’t think it’s enough to have had the debate ten years ago, and just accept that that’s the same ongoing – the situation hasn’t changed. We’ve been there for ten years, and I think Congress has abdicated its role… So there needs to be a debate within the Senate and the House, over what is in our national security interest and has it changed in Afghanistan? Can we do nation-building? Do we have the money to do nation-building? Is it effective? Those are things that should be discussed and should not be all based on a resolution from ten years ago."
http://www.washingtonstakeout.com/index.php/2010/11/07/rand-paul-calls-for-debate-on-war-and-presidential-power/
Beverly Bell: An Alternative Environmental Future for Haiti
Aldrin Calixte, an agronomist with Haiti Survie, proposes solutions for Haiti’s environmental problems.
http://www.truth-out.org/an-alternative-environmental-future-haiti64247
South of the Border on DVD
Oliver Stone’s documentary South of the Border is now available on DVD. Why did the center-left cruise to victory in Brazil? You can get the DVD here.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/southoftheborder
Help Support Our Work
Your donation helps us educate Americans and create opportunities to advocate for a just foreign policy.
https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate
Summary:
U.S./Top News
1) NATO and Pentagon officials claim that US and Afghan forces are routing the Taliban in Kandahar and seizing momentum elsewhere, the New York Times reports. But as a White House review of strategy gets under way, the claims have opened an intense debate at the Defense Department, the White House, the State Department and the intelligence agencies over what the claims really mean. At the White House, so far there is uncertainty and skepticism. A White House official said wiping out midlevel Taliban fighters might have unintended consequences. "Are these guys being replaced by guys less beholden to the senior leaders in Pakistan?" the official said. If that is the case, in any future peace talks, "it’s possible that the leaders at the top could not deliver." A former C.I.A. official with longtime experience in Afghanistan said recent statements about US progress in Afghanistan reminded him of what was sometimes written about the Russians before they began withdrawing from Afghanistan in defeat in 1988, when they had been at war there for nearly 10 years. "I don’t find many people I talk to who really believe any of this," he said.
2) The Corrie family brought its civil suit against the Israeli military at the suggestion of Bush Administration official Lawrence Wilkerson, who said the Bush Administration agreed with the family’s assessment that the original Israeli military investigation of Rachel Corrie’s death was not "thorough, credible and transparent," the New York Times reports. An observer from the US Embassy in Tel Aviv has attended every session of the case. Rachel’s sister Sarah, who has taken a leading role in bringing attention to the case, rejected implications that the family is "anti-Israel" and noted that Israeli peace activists shared Rachel’s concerns and have been helping the family pursue the case.
3) US Defense Secretary Gates rejected comments by Israel’s prime minister calling for a "credible" military threat against Iran to ensure it does not obtain nuclear weapons, AFP reports. Meanwhile, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told the Halifax International Security Forum that if Obama "decides to be tough with Iran beyond sanctions, I think he is going to feel a lot of Republican support," and that "containment is off the table."
4) The American Geophysical Union, the country’s largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution, the Los Angeles Times reports. Of the more than 100 new GOP members of Congress, 50% are climate change skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress.
5) Mina Corp. and Red Star Enterprises, controversial fuel suppliers to the Pentagon, finally revealed their owners after the Pentagon finally asked them to do so, the Washington Post reports.
Iran
6) Sanctions will not be enough to push Iran to make a deal with the U.S., and the US needs to offer Iran positive incentives to reach a deal, argue Barry Blechman of the Stimson Center and Daniel Brumberg of the U.S. Institute of Peace in an op-ed in USA Today. US policymakers have yet to forge a consensus on incentives we would be ready to offer Tehran. Incentives must begin with recognition of Iran’s rights, like all other nations under the NPT, to enrich uranium, provided that Iran fully complies with the safeguards set out by the IAEA. The international community should make a concerted effort to help Iran modernize its state-owned oil industry, they argue.
7) Sen. Lindsey Graham says any military strike on Iran to stop its nuclear program must also strive to take out Iran’s military capability, AP reports. Graham said the U.S. should consider sinking the Iranian navy, destroying its air force and delivering a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard. He says they should neuter the regime, destroy its ability to fight back and hope Iranians will take a chance to take back their government. His remarks stunned many in the audience at the Halifax International Security forum, AP says.
Afghanistan
8) U.S. defense chiefs said Afghanistan should be ready to handle its own security by 2014, AP reports. The 2014 date would give a symbolic deadline for ending the war and bringing most combat forces home, AP says.
9) Unless we find a way to accommodate Pakistan’s interests in Afghanistan, Pakistan will not stop its tolerance of or support for the Afghan Taliban or other extremists on its border with Afghanistan – nor will it let us eradicate them, argues former State Department official David Pollock in the Washington Post. That means addressing Pakistani concerns about India’s influence in Afghanistan. The US has stoked Pakistani concerns by encouraging India to become the region’s major economic player in Afghanistan, to train Afghan officials, and exercise other influence on the Afghan government and people. This increases Pakistani determination to hang on to the Taliban, the Haqqani group and other insurgent networks to both counter Indian influence and protect Pakistani interests in Afghanistan. This in turn makes it impossible for the US to succeed in its declared goals of stabilizing Afghanistan and securing it against violent extremism while safely reducing the US military presence. Adjusting our policies to accommodate Pakistani interests is essential to U.S. national interests in Afghanistan, Pollock argues. Most urgent is to start working closely with Pakistan on our Afghan reconciliation and reintegration policies, instead of ignoring Pakistan’s expressions of interest in these plans.
Israel/Palestine
10) The Israeli military’s status in Israel appears to be slipping, the Washington Post reports. A growing minority is avoiding conscription. The share of military-age Jewish Israelis who don’t serve grew from 12.1 percent in 1980 to 26 percent in 2007. The military projects that figure will reach 43 percent by 2020. The portion of 11th- and 12th-grade males who said they would volunteer if service was not mandatory was only 58 percent in 2007, compared with 94 percent in 1988. With peaceful relations between Israel and Egypt and Jordan, some Israelis have questioned the need for maintaining so many combat troops. A former military correspondent for Haaretz says the dragging on of the conflict with the Palestinians is eroding the legitimacy of military service.
El Salvador
11) Representatives of El Salvador and Spain inaugurated 12 schools built by a program under which Madrid wrote off $10 million in debt in exchange for a pledge the money would be spent on education, EFE reports. Salvadoran and Spanish officials said the initiative was leading to 31 schools being built or repaired, 850 schools equipped with desks and books, 770 libraries created, and more than 1,300 training courses for teaching personnel.
Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) Some Skeptics Questioning Rosy Reports on War Zone
Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, November 7, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/world/asia/08military.html
Washington – The recent reports circulating in Washington’s national security establishment about the Afghan battleground of Marja show glimmerings of progress: bazaars are open, some 1,000 children are in school, and a new (and only) restaurant even serves goat curry and kebabs.
In Kandahar, NATO officials say that American and Afghan forces continue to rout the Taliban. In new statistics offered by American commanders in Kabul, Special Operations units have killed 339 midlevel Taliban commanders and 949 of the group’s foot soldiers in the past three months alone. At the Pentagon, the draft of a war assessment to be submitted to Congress this month cites a shift in momentum in some areas of the country away from the insurgency.
But as a new White House review of President Obama’s strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan gets under way, the rosy signs have opened an intense debate at the Defense Department, the White House, the State Department and the intelligence agencies over what they really mean. Are they indications of future success, are they fleeting and not replicable, or are they evidence that Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top United States and NATO commander in Afghanistan, is simply more masterful than his predecessor at shaping opinion?
At the White House, so far there is uncertainty and skepticism. "There are tactical cases which seem promising as discrete bits of evidence," a senior White House official said in an interview over the weekend. "What’s not clear is whether those cases can be put together to create a strategic trend." Marja, he added, "looks a lot better than two years ago. But how many Marjas do we need to do and over what time frame?"
The debate centers on the resiliency of the Taliban and the extent to which the group can rebuild from the hammering it is taking. Most involved say that there are positive trends for the Americans, but that the real answer will not be clear until a new fighting season begins as the weather warms next year.
[…] Another question is what impact killing so many midlevel Taliban commanders will have on American efforts to pressure the group’s top leaders to negotiate an end to the war. United States commanders are encouraged by radio intercepts showing Taliban fighters demoralized and angry that their senior leaders remain in havens in Pakistan, which theoretically could make the Taliban more willing to make a deal. But intelligence experts view the intercepts as anecdotal at best.
The White House official said that wiping out midlevel Taliban fighters might have unintended consequences. "Are these guys being replaced by guys less beholden to the senior leaders in Pakistan?" the official said. If that is the case, in any future peace talks, "it’s possible that the leaders at the top could not deliver."
[…] A former C.I.A. official with longtime experience in Afghanistan said that the recent statements about American progress in Afghanistan reminded him of what was sometimes written about the Russians before they began withdrawing from Afghanistan in defeat in 1988, when they had been at war there for nearly 10 years. "I don’t find many people I talk to who really believe any of this," he said.
The military’s more positive view is hardly monolithic; doubts also exist within its ranks. The Defense Department’s coming war assessment says that violence once again increased in Afghanistan in the past year, in large part because of the aggressive American military operations in the south, while Pentagon officials readily acknowledge that security has deteriorated in previously quiet areas of the north.
But commanders on the ground in the south repeatedly say they have seen tactical progress in recent months. "There’s no safe location in Marja where you can say, 100 percent, I’m not going to get shot at," Lt. Col. Kyle Ellison, commander of the Second Battalion, Sixth Marine Regiment, said in an interview in September at a base in Marja, a 75-square-mile swath of farming villages in Helmand Province that was the site of a major NATO and Afghan offensive in February. "But when we first got here, you couldn’t walk outside this gate without getting a shot."
[…] "It is certainly true that Petraeus is attempting to shape public opinion ahead of the December review," said an administration official who is supportive of the general. "He is the most skilled public relations official in the business, and he’s trying to narrow the president’s options."
[…]
2) For Family of Slain Activist, No End in Sight for Case
Ethan Bronner, New York Times, November 7, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/world/middleeast/08corrie.html
Haifa, Israel – Seven years after an American student, Rachel Corrie, was killed in Gaza by an Israeli military bulldozer she tried to block, becoming a global symbol of the Palestinian struggle, her parents and her older sister sit in an Israeli court in this northern city with two hopes: to confront the men who ran over her and to prove that the army investigation into her death was flawed.
On both counts, it has been a frustrating effort. To guard their identities, the bulldozer operators are called only by their initials and testify behind a screen, disembodied voices claiming vague memories. The Corrie lawyer presses them with props: "Mr. A," he said to a commander this past Thursday, arranging a plastic toy bulldozer, an orange lump of putty and a Raggedy Ann doll, "Where was she when you saw her?"
Mr. A’s answer differed markedly from that of Mr. Y, the driver of the bulldozer who testified two weeks earlier, although both denied seeing her before she was crushed under their vehicle. The army said Ms. Corrie’s death was an accident. The Corries believe the drivers either saw Rachel or were so careless toward the protesters as to be criminally negligent.
On the blond wooden benches of the Haifa District Court, the Corries take notes, volunteer translators whispering in their ears. They have mostly been here, away from their Olympia, Wash., home, since their civil case claiming the intentional and unlawful killing of their daughter began in March and there is no end in sight, with sessions already planned for January. They are exhausted but unbent.
"If I killed someone, I would remember that day for the rest of my life," Cindy Corrie, Ms. Corrie’s mother, said during a break, eyes tearing, voice shaking. "This is not just about Rachel, but something bigger. What happens to the humanity of soldiers?"
[…] But the Corries believe that the army carried out a lackluster investigation filled with internal contradictions and with insufficient care to what orders soldiers received when faced with civilians in their paths. That view, it turns out, was not only that of a grieving family. It won support from the United States government.
Lawrence B. Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, wrote to the Corries in his official capacity in June 2004. He referred to their query whether the American government viewed the military’s final report "to have reflected an investigation that was ‘thorough, credible and transparent.’ I can answer your question without equivocation. No, we do not consider it so." Mr. Wilkerson recommended that the Corries pursue the matter in an Israeli court. An observer from the American Embassy in Tel Aviv has attended every session of the case.
Sarah Corrie Simpson, Ms. Corrie’s older sister, who is here with her mother and father, Craig, has taken a leading role in bringing attention to the case. Asked what she thought of how her sister was viewed, she said her family did not consider itself anti-Israel and was not responsible for the way in which Ms. Corrie’s name had been used by groups and causes. To the contrary, she said, the family was using Israel’s court system to get its army to stand up to the standards it professes, a vote of confidence in the society.
"I don’t see this as about Israel’s legitimacy," she said in an interview. "My family is not anti-Israel. What Rachel saw when she went to Gaza was extremely troubling and because of what happened to her we are now connected to the Palestinian issue. But Israeli peace activists shared her concern and are helping us with our case. From our family’s perspective, this is about human rights for all people and holding governments accountable."
Cindy Corrie added, "An Israeli colonel said at this trial that there are no civilians in a war zone. But there are. If that hadn’t been the army’s attitude, maybe my daughter would still be with us."
3) US rejects Israel call for military threat against Iran
Dan De Luce, AFP, Mon Nov 8, 1:06 am ET http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101108/wl_afp/irannuclearpoliticsisraelusmilitary_20101108060638
Melbourne – US Defence Secretary Robert Gates on Monday rejected comments by Israel’s prime minister calling for a "credible" military threat against Iran to ensure it does not obtain nuclear weapons.
"We know that they are concerned about the impact of the sanctions. The sanctions are biting more deeply than they anticipated and we are working very hard at this," Gates told reporters on a visit to Australia for security talks. "So I would disagree that only a credible military threat can get Iran to take the actions it needs to to end its nuclear weapons programme.
"We are prepared to do what is necessary but at this point we continue to believe that the political-economic approach that we taking is in fact having an impact in Iran."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told US Vice President Joe Biden on Sunday that only a "credible" threat of military action would stop Iran from developing the atomic bomb, a senior Israeli official said. The official, who asked not to be named, quoted Netayahu as telling Biden: "The only way to ensure Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons is by creating a credible threat of military action against it if it does not halt its race to acquire a nuclear bomb."
[…] Republican Senator Lindsey Graham set a tough tone on Saturday at a security conference in Ottawa when he said conservatives want "bold" action on Iran.
If Obama "decides to be tough with Iran beyond sanctions, I think he is going to feel a lot of Republican support for the idea that we cannot let Iran develop a nuclear weapon," Graham told the Halifax International Security Forum. "The last thing America wants is another military conflict, but the last thing the world needs is a nuclear-armed Iran… containment is off the table."
[…]
4) Climate scientists plan campaign against global warming skeptics
The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.
Neela Banerjee, Los Angeles Times, November 8, 2010
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-climate-scientists-20101108,0,545056.story
Washington – Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday’s election.
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country’s largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.
John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a "climate rapid response team," which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.
"This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced and that we need to take bold measures to not only communicate science but also to aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science and its scientists," said Scott Mandia, professor of physical sciences at Suffolk County Community College in New York. "We are taking the fight to them because we are … tired of taking the hits. The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed."
During the recent campaigns, skepticism about climate change became a rallying cry for many Republican candidates. Of the more than 100 new GOP members of Congress, 50% are climate change skeptics, according to an analysis of campaign statements by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.
[…]
5) Controversial defense contractors Mina and Red Star reveal owners
Andrew Higgins, Washington Post, Saturday, November 6, 2010; 1:01 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110507065.html
Amid rising anger in Kyrgyzstan over a new Pentagon jet fuel contract for a vital U.S. base in the Central Asian nation, a secretive business group at the center of the storm Friday lifted a veil of mystery surrounding its ownership.
The group, which comprises Gibraltar-registered Mina Corp. and Red Star Enterprises, has won Pentagon deals worth billions of dollars over the past eight years but only on Thursday – a day after announcing another contract with the group – did the Pentagon ask for, and then receive, details of who owns the operation.
The business, according to a Defense Logistics Agency official who requested anonymity, belongs to Delphine Le Dain, the French wife of Douglas Edelman – an elusive Californian businessman who used to run a bar and hamburger joint in Kyrgyzstan – and to Erkin Bekbolotov, his 35-year-old Kyrgyz partner.
Pentagon contracting regulations do not require that contractors reveal their ownership. Mina and Red Star nonetheless went to great lengths to conceal the ownership role of Edelman’s wife – who has no known experience in jet fuel logistics – and Bekbolotov behind a web of offshore entities.
Revealing this data should help meet demands from the White House that the Pentagon shed more light on the controversial jet fuel deals, but it is unlikely to calm the fury in Kyrgyzstan, which demanded Friday that Washington stop dealings with Mina Corp. The company won a major new Pentagon contract Wednesday to supply jet fuel to a U.S. air base in the former Soviet republic. The award infuriated Kyrgyz officials, who want private contractors replaced by a Russian-Kyrgyz joint venture.
[…] Kyrgyz officials have repeatedly accused the companies of corrupt ties to the family of former president Kurmanbek Bakiyev, who was ousted in April. But they have provided no proof of wrongdoing and a six-month investigation by the House subcommittee on foreign affairs and national security has found no credible evidence of corruption. The companies have denied wrongdoing and say they are the victims of misinformation spread by rivals.
But, U.S. officials say, their secrecy and the Pentagon’s contracting rules have helped fan suspicion. Mina and Red Star spokesman John Lough declined to comment on why the firms had hidden their ownership so elaborately, but he said that they provided the data "immediately" when the Defense Logistics Agency asked for it Thursday. Mina’s recently appointed chief executive Denis Grigoriev revealed the ownership details to DLA Friday morning.
[…] Mina and Red Star told congressional investigators of their ownership this summer, but only after elaborate negotiations over confidentiality. Edelman did not comply with a congressional subpoena.
[…]
Iran
6) U.S. needs to recalibrate Iran policy
Barry Blechman and Daniel Brumberg, USA Today, November 7, 2010
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-11-08-column08_ST1_N.htm
[Blechman is co-founder of the Stimson Center. Brumberg is a special adviser to the U.S. Institute of Peace. These recommendations are part of a report, "Engagement, Coercion, and Iran’s Nuclear Challenge," to be released Nov. 16.]
With the possibility of a resumption of U.S.-Iranian talks looming on the horizon, administration officials should be figuring out how to make the trip to Geneva worthwhile. The key challenge facing the U.S. is to muster the political will to think big, which means nothing less than a recalibration of our Iranian policy.
By "recalibration," we do not mean retreating from the sanctions strategy for which the administration deserves credit. But sanctions alone will not elicit Tehran’s cooperation. What is needed is a set of robust economic, political and strategic incentives that give Iran’s leaders reason to cooperate. Unless U.S. negotiators leverage sanctions with incentives, the future will bring only a choice between two bad options: military conflict or containment of a nuclear Iran.
The opportunity to rebalance U.S. policy will not last forever. Sanctions have intensified the debate between the ultraconservative hard-liners, led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the more pragmatic leaders in the parliament, business community and universities, many of whom have assailed Ahmadinejad for policies that have only isolated Iran. The U.S. challenge is to help open a path for those regime voices who might have an interest in backing a mutually acceptable compromise on the nuclear issues.
Obama officials rightly insist that they’ve made strenuous efforts to engage Iran, only to be rebuffed. But our own policymakers have yet to forge a consensus on incentives we would be ready to offer Tehran. This requires a readiness to test Tehran in ways we have not done.
Incentives must begin with recognition of Iran’s rights, like all other nations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, to enrich uranium, provided that Iran fully complies with the safeguards set out by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Given the secretive history of Iran’s nuclear program, and the many questions raised by the IAEA, the U.S. and its allies have every right to insist Iranian enrichment be undertaken under stringent conditions and close international supervision.
Beyond the nuclear issue, U.S. leaders must have a list of possible inducements to help Iran find its way back into the international community. This should include proposing bilateral or multilateral talks on security issues, such as Afghanistan and the drug trade, and normal exchanges between U.S. and Iranian diplomats in third nations and multinational organizations.
The international community should make a concerted effort to help Iran modernize its state-owned oil industry, and/or create a regionwide gas and electric grid to provide energy for Iran and its neighbors. If the U.S. and its allies, together with Russia and China, set out such possibilities, it might energize a far-ranging diplomatic negotiation with a real chance of success.
The U.S. cannot expect progress with Iran if it continues to rely solely on coercive measures. Even veiled allusions to the "military option" only reinforce arguments that Iran needs nuclear weapons to deter the U.S. and protect Tehran. We should weaken the naysayers by emphasizing what Iran can gain through cooperation, rather than defiance.
[…]
7) Senator: Consider Taking Out Iran’s Military
Rob Gillies, Associated Press, Saturday, November 6, 2010; 4:48 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/06/AR2010110603095.html
Halifax, Nova Scotia – A leading U.S. senator on defense issues says any military strike on Iran to stop its nuclear program must also strive to take out Iran’s military capability.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who sits on the Armed Services Committee and the Homeland Security Committee, said Saturday the U.S. should consider sinking the Iranian navy, destroying its air force and delivering a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard.
He says they should neuter the regime, destroy its ability to fight back and hope Iranians will take a chance to take back their government.
His remarks stunned many in the audience at the Halifax International Security forum.
[…]
Afghanistan
8) Pentagon Chiefs: Afghans Can Manage By 2014
Anne Gearan and Matthew Lee, Associated Press, Monday, November 8, 2010; 6:30 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/08/AR2010110800793.html
Melbourne, Australia – Afghanistan should be ready to handle its own security by the year 2014, the top U.S. defense chiefs said Monday.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen said NATO should endorse the 2014 timeline proposed by Afghan President Hamid Karzai when the alliance holds its annual summit later this month. "As a target at this point that makes sense, so I am comfortable with it," Mullen said.
The 2014 date would give a symbolic deadline for ending the war and bringing most combat forces home. The war is already in its 10th year and unpopular in the U.S. and Europe.
The U.S. plans to begin withdrawing some of its 100,000 troops next summer, but has never said exactly how long some forces would remain. The top NATO civilian in Afghanistan, Mark Sedwill, has said the 2014 deadline is feasible for all but a residual allied force including special forces and trainers.
U.S. responsibility will extend for years, Gates said Monday.
[…]
9) Our Indian Problem In Afghanistan
David Pollock, Washington Post, Monday, November 8, 2010
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/07/AR2010110703840.html
[Pollock was a senior State Department adviser for the broader Middle East from 2002 to 2007]
President Obama’s trip to India offers a crucial, and counterintuitive, opportunity missing in all the talk about Afghanistan: how to accommodate Pakistan’s interests in that country. Unless we find a way to do that, Pakistan will not stop its tolerance of or support for the Afghan Taliban or other extremists on its border with Afghanistan – nor will it let us eradicate them. While serious analysts agree that such a shift is necessary for any U.S. success in Afghanistan, many fail to follow this logic to its conclusion: that we must persuade Pakistan it can crack down on Afghan extremists without jeopardizing its cross-border interests.
What are those interests? First and foremost, to minimize the presence and influence in Afghanistan of Pakistan’s own archrival, India. Yet somehow this point is absent from most American debates about these issues, probably because of our narrow focus on terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism. In fact, the United States has stoked Pakistani paranoia by encouraging India to become the region’s major economic player in Afghanistan, to train Afghan officials, and exercise other influence on the Afghan government and people.
To Pakistani perceptions, this raises the threat of foreign influence in Afghanistan, and increases Pakistani determination to hang on to the Taliban, the Haqqani group and other insurgent networks to both counter Indian influence and protect Pakistani interests in Afghanistan. This in turn makes it impossible for the United States to succeed in its declared goals of stabilizing Afghanistan and securing it against violent extremism while safely reducing the American military presence.
India, of course, is an increasingly important regional and global partner for U.S. foreign policy. But it is in India’s self-interest to contain extremist pressures in Afghanistan and Pakistan – and one paradoxically clever way to do that is to lower India’s profile in Afghanistan. During his visit, Obama should drive home the point that such self-restraint would best serve our common interest in stabilizing the region.
Pakistan’s other major interest is to promote a friendly regime in Kabul. This is hardly as simple as it sounds. Afghans are famously proud and prickly about their independence, and some are still not fully reconciled to Pakistani rule over some 30 million Pashtuns across the border. In fact, Afghanistan has never recognized that border along the Durand Line, drawn by the British raj in 1893 to mark the limits of Afghan rule.
Recently, however, and entirely apart from, or even against American advice, the Afghan and Pakistan governments have moved to resolve some of their differences. Afghan President Hamid Karzai abruptly removed the chief of his National Security Directorate, Amrullah Saleh, who was widely viewed as anti-corruption but also anti-Pakistan (a point that received much less attention in the U.S. media). In return, Islamabad stopped blocking Afghan trucks from using Pakistani roads and negotiated an Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement allowing Afghan traffic all the way to India.
There is much the United States should do to capitalize on this momentum. Most urgent is to start working closely with Pakistan on our Afghan reconciliation and reintegration policies, instead of ignoring Pakistan’s expressions of interest in these plans. We should also tell Islamabad that we are encouraging Kabul to send security personnel for Pakistani (rather than Indian) training – and then do so. We should encourage Kabul to pursue reasonable confidence-building measures, such as letting Pakistan know about pending Afghan government appointments in the border provinces. We should advise Pakistan that the United States recognizes the Durand Line and will work with the Afghan government to lay this ancient issue to rest.
All these small steps will help convince Pakistan that it can work more confidently with us and with the Afghan government, without playing the old double game of keeping insurgents and extremists in reserve. While we cannot buy or bully Pakistanis into abandoning their interests in Afghanistan, we can show them new ways to secure those interests. Properly understood, this is no longer a zero-sum "great game" in the region.
Adjusting our policies to accommodate Pakistani interests is essential to U.S. national interests in Afghanistan. And contrary to conventional wisdom, it is consistent with the long-term interests of our friends in the Afghan and Indian governments in countering the violent extremists who threaten us all.
Israel/Palestine
10) Israel confronts flagging interest in military service
Janine Zacharia, Washington Post, Sunday, November 7, 2010; 12:18 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/06/AR2010110604283.html
Tel Hashomer, Israel – Since Israel’s founding, the military here has served not just as a defender against outside threats, but as the glue that brings together a patchwork nation of immigrants.
Now, the Israel Defense Forces’ position as the country’s most venerated institution appears to be slipping. While service is compulsory for most young men and women, a growing minority is avoiding conscription, leaving planners to worry the military won’t have the troops it says it needs.
The characteristics of those who do serve are changing in striking ways. Officers who are ideologically opposed to relinquishing Israeli control of the West Bank are taking on a more prominent role, potentially complicating any eventual Israeli withdrawal of Jewish settlers from the territory as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.
A recent series of scandals has reignited debate about morals and accountability in the armed forces, and analysts say public trust in the military is declining. Last month, a YouTube video of a dancing Israeli soldier shimmying near a bound and blindfolded Palestinian woman went viral on the Internet, further embarrassing the military. "The military understands its position has eroded," said Yagil Levy, a professor at Israel’s Open University and a leading expert on the military.
The share of military-age Jewish Israelis who don’t serve grew from 12.1 percent in 1980 to 26 percent in 2007, according to a study by Haifa University political scientists published in August. The military projects that figure will reach 43 percent by 2020. And the portion of 11th- and 12th-grade males who said they would volunteer if service was not mandatory was only 58 percent in 2007, compared with 94 percent in 1988, the study found.
[…] The biggest explanation for the declining service rate is the growing number of ultra-Orthodox Jews, who study full-time in yeshivas, or religious schools, and are eligible for exemptions from military service. Others are exempted for health reasons, criminal records or because they live abroad.
Today, the military loses 13 percent of its potential draftees because of ultra-Orthodox exemptions, compared with 4 percent 10 years ago. In 2020, that number is expected to reach 20 percent because of a drastically higher birthrate among the ultra-Orthodox compared with secular Israelis. To help persuade more ultra-Orthodox to volunteer, the Israeli military is expanding its efforts to provide special food, extra time for prayer and other adjustments to make service compatible with their religious practices.
[…] With peaceful relations between Israel and former foes such as Egypt and Jordan, some Israelis have questioned the need for maintaining so many combat troops.
In recent years, Israelis successfully pushed to shorten the length of reserve duty. But periodic efforts to make service in the IDF voluntary have gone nowhere. Military officials say that, given today’s low motivation levels, they would be unable to recruit enough volunteers to meet their needs.
[…] But these days, according to Dan Sagir, a former military correspondent for the newspaper Haaretz, some wealthy Tel Aviv families are hiring Arabic tutors to boost their children’s chances of being drafted into intelligence units rather than risk ending up with dangerous combat assignments.
[…] Officers point to the war between Israel and the Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah in 2006. The Israeli campaign was waged mostly from the air, they say, because politicians and military planners understood the public’s tolerance for Israeli casualties had dwindled. The fighting left Hezbollah intact and reminded Israelis of the persistent need for ground troops.
For Israel’s military, there is enough uncertainty to require the maintenance of a large force: conflicts with Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria remain unresolved, and the prospect of a confrontation with Iran looms as the Iranian nuclear program advances.
But in a recent opinion piece in Haaretz, Sagir, an avowed leftist whose son will soon be drafted, worried that the Israeli government’s failure to reach a peace agreement with the Palestinians would further erode public enthusiasm for military service. "Israeli society is at a crossroads with respect to conscription in the IDF," Sagir wrote. "The issue is the erosion of the legitimacy of service in the IDF as the conflict drags on."
El Salvador
11) El Salvador Builds Schools Thanks to Spain Forgiving Debts.
EFE, November 4, 2010
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=375839&CategoryId=23558
San Salvador – Representatives of El Salvador and Spain on Thursday inaugurated 12 schools that were built by a program under which Madrid wrote off $10 million in debt in exchange for a pledge the money would be spent on education.
"With this act, we inaugurate … symbolically the latest 12 educational centers rehabilitated or enlarged with funds from the debt conversation for education program, a program that the Spanish government agreed to with the Republic of El Salvador," Spanish Ambassador Jose Javier Gomez-Llera said.
During the ceremony, held in the district of Azacualpa, 55 kilometers (34 miles) northeast of San Salvador, the diplomat emphasized that about 75 percent of the investment was destined for infrastructure and the rest to the stocking of libraries and teacher training.
"The program has meant an investment in El Salvador of $10 million, with which 31 educational centers have been built or repaired, 850 schools have been equipped with desks and books, 770 libraries have been created and more than 1,300 training courses have been provided for teaching personnel," he said.
[…] According to a communique released by the Education Ministry, within the framework of the program in question, in addition to the schools inaugurated on Thursday, another 17 were reconstructed and the bidding process for preparing them has been started for two more.
–
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans.