<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Barnett Rubin Archives - Just Foreign Policy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/tag/barnett-rubin/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/tag/barnett-rubin/</link>
	<description>Mobilizing citizens to advance diplomacy, cooperation, and the rule of law.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:50:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.5</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>NoEscalation.org: Can the Peace Movement Reach President Obama?</title>
		<link>https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/noescalation-org-can-the-peace-movement-reach-president-obama/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Naiman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:50:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan escalation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan War]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barnett Rubin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[david obey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[john murtha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rahm Emanuel]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/noescalation-org-can-the-peace-movement-reach-president-obama/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>If there were ever a time when the peace movement should be able to have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, that time should be now. If there were ever a time for extraordinary effort to achieve such an impact, that time is now. The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year. McChrystal&#8217;s proposal...</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/noescalation-org-can-the-peace-movement-reach-president-obama/">NoEscalation.org: Can the Peace Movement Reach President Obama?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.justforeignpolicy.org">Just Foreign Policy</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If there were ever a time when the peace movement should be able to have an impact on U.S. foreign policy, that time should be now. If there were ever a time for extraordinary effort to achieve such an impact, that time is now.</p>
<p>The war in Afghanistan is in its ninth year. McChrystal&#8217;s proposal could continue it for another ten years, at a likely cost of a trillion dollars, and many more lives of U.S. soldiers and Afghan civilians. The contradiction between domestic needs and endless war was never more apparent. Congress fights over whether we can &#8220;afford&#8221; to provide every American with quality health care, but every health care reform proposal on the table will likely cost less than McChrystal&#8217;s endless war. A <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/19/cnn-poll-will-afghanistan-turn-into-another-vietnam/">recent <em>CNN</em> poll</a> says 6 in 10 Americans oppose sending more troops.</p>
<p>Democratic leaders in Congress are deeply skeptical: as far back as June, Rep. Murtha and Rep. Obey voted for Rep. McGovern&#8217;s amendment demanding an exit strategy, and that was before the Afghan election fiasco, when international forces failed at their key objective of providing security, and before McChrystal demanded a 60% increase in U.S. forces, on top of the 50% increase approved earlier this year. <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-congress-afghan9-2009oct09,0,7226424.story">Our troops are &#8220;exhausted,&#8221;</a> Murtha says. </p>
<p>Top Administration officials share the skepticism. Vice-President Biden, Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, and Afghan scholar Barnett Rubin, an advisor to Ambassador Holbrooke, have all been arguing against a troop increase: the political people on the grounds that the American people and Congress won&#8217;t support it; Biden on the grounds that it would be a diversion from Pakistan; Rubin on the grounds that it would be counterproductive to reconciliation in Afghanistan. </p>
<p>Elite opinion is closely divided. This is a jump ball. It could go either way. And a decision by Nobel Laureate Obama to send 40,000 more U.S. troops is likely to severely constrain U.S. policy, abroad and at home, for many years.</p>
<p>Such a time calls for extraordinary efforts to mobilize public opinion to move policy. </p>
<p>National peace advocacy organizations, including Peace Action, Just Foreign Policy, Code Pink, United for Peace and Justice, and Voters for Peace, are launching such an extraordinary effort. At the joint website <a href="http://noescalation.org">noescalation.org</a>, we&#8217;re posting the phone numbers of every Congressional office, and what is known so far about where they stand on the proposal to send 40,000 more U.S. troops. We&#8217;re asking Americans to call Congressional offices and search the media for information on where each Member of Congress stands. And we&#8217;re asking for that information to be reported back to the website <a href="http://noescalation.org">noescalation.org</a>.</p>
<p>The more Members of Congress take a clear stand against military escalation, the more likely President Obama is to reject McChrystal&#8217;s request. Some Members of Congress are saying, &#8220;we&#8217;re waiting to see what the President decides.&#8221; But that nonsense is an obvious dodge. The time to affect the President&#8217;s decision is obviously before he makes it, not afterwards. Of course some Members of Congress are going to avoid taking a position if they can. Our job is to smoke them out.</p>
<p><a href="http://noescalation.org">Call now</a>. The Norwegians are counting on you. </p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/noescalation-org-can-the-peace-movement-reach-president-obama/">NoEscalation.org: Can the Peace Movement Reach President Obama?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.justforeignpolicy.org">Just Foreign Policy</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Team Obama: Afghan Taliban Not a Threat to U.S.</title>
		<link>https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/team-obama-afghan-taliban-not-a-threat-to-u-s/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Naiman]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 18:18:45 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barnett Rubin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joseph Biden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taliban]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/team-obama-afghan-taliban-not-a-threat-to-u-s/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>All hands on deck, Obama Nation. The ship of state is turning. The New York Times reports: President Obama&#8217;s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States,...</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/team-obama-afghan-taliban-not-a-threat-to-u-s/">Team Obama: Afghan Taliban Not a Threat to U.S.</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.justforeignpolicy.org">Just Foreign Policy</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All hands on deck, Obama Nation. The ship of state is turning. </p>
<p>The <em>New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/08/world/asia/08prexy.html">reports</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>President Obama&#8217;s national security team is moving to reframe its war strategy by emphasizing the campaign against Al Qaeda in Pakistan while arguing that the Taliban in Afghanistan do not pose a direct threat to the United States, officials said Wednesday.</p></blockquote>
<p>This shift means that President Obama will not have to approve General McChrystal&#8217;s request for 40,000 more troops:</p>
<blockquote><p>the shift in thinking, outlined by senior administration officials on Wednesday, suggests that the president has been presented with an approach that would not require all of the additional troops that his commanding general in the region has requested.</p></blockquote>
<p>Finally, the Administration is going to distinguish between the Afghan Taliban, an indigenous Afghan movement with Afghan goals, and Al Qaeda, a global movement with a global agenda of attacking the United States:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Clearly, Al Qaeda is a threat not only to the U.S. homeland and American interests abroad, but it has a murderous agenda,&#8221; one senior administration official said in an interview initiated by the White House on Wednesday on the condition of anonymity because the strategy review has not been finished. &#8220;We want to destroy its leadership, its infrastructure and its capability.&#8221;</p>
<p>The official contrasted that with the Afghan Taliban, which the administration has begun to define as an indigenous group that aspires to reclaim territory and rule the country but does not express ambitions of attacking the United States. &#8220;When the two are aligned, it&#8217;s mainly on the tactical front,&#8221; the official said, noting that Al Qaeda has fewer than 100 fighters in Afghanistan.</p></blockquote>
<p>The Taliban cannot be removed from Afghanistan, Team Obama says:</p>
<blockquote><p>The officials argued that while Al Qaeda was a foreign body, the Taliban could not be wholly removed from Afghanistan because they were too ingrained in the country. </p></blockquote>
<p>As Team Obama shifts, we can expect vicious attacks from Republicans in Congress and sniping from some close to the military and some right-wing pundits. </p>
<p>But here&#8217;s a key fact: the top official in the Obama Administration who is actually a leading scholar with long experience in Afghanistan is leading the charge against sending more troops.</p>
<p>The <em>Wall Street Journal</em> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125487333320069331.html">reports</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Administration officials in the Biden camp fear they too could close off the path to a more peaceful resolution of the conflict if 40,000 more troops are sent. They believe most of the Taliban fighters, and some of their leaders, are neither hard-core, violent Islamists nor sympathetic to al Qaeda.</p>
<p>Some are nationalists trying to rid their country of foreigners. Some leaders are willing to flip sides depending on the deals on offer or the momentum on the ground. Many more are simply doing it for the money paid by Taliban leaders.</p>
<p>According to senior administration officials, among those pressing the case most effectively is Barnett Rubin, a top aide to Richard Holbrooke, Obama&#8217;s special representative to the region.</p></blockquote>
<p>If you&#8217;ve been reading Juan Cole&#8217;s <a href="http://juancole.com/">blog</a> for some time, you probably know who Barnett Rubin is. Before he joined Holbrooke&#8217;s team, he <a href="http://www.cic.nyu.edu/afghanistan/informedcomment.html">blogged</a> at Juan Cole&#8217;s &#8220;sister blog&#8221; Informed Comment Global Affairs.</p>
<p>Barnett Rubin actually knows something about Afghanistan. From New York University&#8217;s <a href="http://www.cic.nyu.edu/staff/rubinbio.html">website</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>Barnett R. Rubin is Director of Studies and Senior Fellow at the Center on International Cooperation of New York University, where he directs the program on the Reconstruction of Afghanistan. He has worked at CIC since July 2000. During 1994-2000 he was Director of the Center for Preventive Action, and Director, Peace and Conflict Studies, at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Rubin was Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for the Study of Central Asia at Columbia University from 1990 to 1996. Previously, he was a Jennings Randolph Peace Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University.</p>
<p>Dr. Rubin is a Director of Gulestan Ariana Ltd., a private company manufacturing essential oils and related consumer products in Afghanistan. In November-December 2001 he served as special advisor to the UN Special Representative of the Secretary General for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, during the negotiations that produced the Bonn Agreement. He advised the United Nations on the drafting of the constitution of Afghanistan, the Afghanistan Compact, and the Afghanistan National Development Strategy.</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<blockquote><p>Dr. Rubin is the author of Blood on the Doorstep: the Politics of Preventing Violent Conflict (2002). He is also the author of The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System (2002; first edition 1995), Calming the Ferghana Valley: Development and Dialogue in the Heart of Central Asia (1999), Stabilizing Nigeria: Sanctions, Incentives, and Support for Civil Society (1998); Post-Soviet Political Order: Conflict and State Building (1998); Cases and Strategies for Preventive Action (1998); Toward Comprehensive Peace in Southeast Europe: Conflict Prevention in the South Balkans (1996), and The Search for Peace in Afghanistan: From Buffer State to Failed State (1995). Dr. Rubin has written numerous articles and book reviews on conflict prevention, state formation, and human rights. His articles have appeared in Foreign Affairs, Orbis, Survival, International Affairs, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The New York Review of Books.</p></blockquote>
<p>And apparently Barnett Rubin, a leading scholar on Afghanistan with long experience in the country, is counseling President Obama against sending 40,000 more troops. </p>
<p>Many hoped that in the Obama Administration, actual knowledge about reality would take precedence over ideology. Perhaps this <em>New York Times</em> report suggests that actual knowledge about Afghanistan is about to trump the dogmas of military counterinsurgency theory. </p>
<p>Godspeed, Barney Rubin. From your mouth to Obama&#8217;s ear.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.justforeignpolicy.org/team-obama-afghan-taliban-not-a-threat-to-u-s/">Team Obama: Afghan Taliban Not a Threat to U.S.</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.justforeignpolicy.org">Just Foreign Policy</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>