Atlantic Review - US Foreign Policy

Obama Stresses Security Policy Differences with McCain

nospam@example.com (Joerg Wolf) — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:27:07 +0200

In his nomination speech, the Democratic presidential candidate reiterates his commitment to direct diplomacy with Iran and his hawkish position on Pakistan, which I describe at Atlantic-Community.org. I am also asking whether Obama is an Atlanticist and look forward to your views on Germany's security policy of free-riding.

Texas Columnist: America's Wishful Thinking Leads to Further Foreign Entanglements

nospam@example.com (Editors) — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:57:10 +0200

Rod Dreher, a Dallas Morning News editorial columnist, writes in RealClearPolitics:

"We are all Georgians now," John McCain said in response to Russia's invasion of the former Soviet republic.

We are? Spare me. You couldn't find one American in a thousand who could locate Georgia on a map, but the Republican hothead who would be president is ready to bind America's sacred honor to the place. And more than our sacred honor, our military might, too. Mr. McCain, a tempestuous Russophobe to the marrow, demanded that the U.S. accelerate efforts to bring Georgia into NATO, thus extending a trip wire for war with Russia to Moscow's southern border. Because, you know, having conquered Iraq and Afghanistan while barely breaking a sweat, we're rested and ready to let an adventurous Caucasus nation led by a nut shown on TV chewing on his cravat drag us into World War III.

He does not like Barack Obama's support for NATO membership for Georgia either and wonders whether the Democrats are "so afraid of being baited by the Republicans as cowards that they sign on to any foolish policy proposed by GOP jingoes?"

Dreher is frustrated with the lack of realism in the political debate:

Dr. Bacevich said, "What neither of these candidates will be able to, I think, accomplish is to persuade us to look ourselves in the mirror, to see the direction in which we are headed." That direction, he went on, is deeper into the hole of debt and foreign entanglements involving an overstretched U.S. military. We prefer to believe the romantic image of ourselves and our country and to deal with the world as we wish it were rather than as it is.

U.S. Ambassador: Russian response in Georgia 'well-grounded'

nospam@example.com (Nanne Zwagerman) — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:24:55 +0200

In an interview with the Kommersant, the U.S. Ambassador to Russia, John Beyrle, confirmed that the Russian response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia was legitimate. He also stated, however, that Russia went too far by invading Georgia 'proper', and that Russia now has to abide by the cease-fire agreement and stop hinting at regime-change in Tblisi. A small bit of an AP report in the International Herald Tribune:

John Beyrle [...] told the Kommersant Friday that Russia "gave a well-grounded response" to a Georgian attack on Russian peacekeepers, but exceeded its authority by invading Georgia proper.

Ambassador Beyrle has presumably been green-lighted to give this statement, and he has also stated to the Kommersant that Saakashvili acted without the consent and against the advice of the United States in attacking South Ossetia. This signals a certain ratcheting-down of tensions between the U.S. and Russia, and a readiness on the side of the U.S. to come to an accommodation.

The full interview is available in Russian, here.

Late update: Telo notes in the comments that the translation of the AP might be off, and that the relevant statement by Ambassador Beyrle implies that the Russians had a reason to respond, but is ambiguous on whether that reason was completely sufficient.

Responding to Resurgent Russia: Should US Troops Go East or Go West?

nospam@example.com (Joerg Wolf) — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 22:45:00 +0200

Wess Mitchell, director of research at The Center for European Policy Analysis, writes that the EU's largest states are more interested in avoiding a rupture with Moscow than in protecting the vital interests of the Union's eastern members. Therefore, the United States should announce its intention to transfer the entire Europe-based American military establishment to new locations in Central Europe. Read his Op-Ed for the Atlantic Community: "How America Should Respond to Resurgent Russia

One familiar commenter suggested:

We are in agreement about the need for the US to redeploy its forces in Europe. We are in disagreement as to the direction. You want them moved eastward and I want them to move west, as in to the United States. The US should withdraw from Europe until such time as the Europeans take their security seriously. They don't and have not for a long time. I am sure the members of the chocolate summit can devise a treaty which will make the Central European nations feel secure.

Here's part of Wess Mitchell's response:

Continue reading "Responding to Resurgent Russia: Should US Troops Go East or Go West?"

United States and Poland Agree on Missile Defense Deal

nospam@example.com (Kyle Atwell) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:56:37 +0200

From the New York Times:

The United States and Poland reached a long-stalled deal on Thursday to place an American missile defense base on Polish territory, in the strongest reaction so far to Russia’s military operation in Georgia.

Russia reacted angrily, saying that the move would worsen relations with the United States that have already been strained severely in the week since Russian troops entered separatist enclaves in Georgia, a close American ally.

I wonder how far Russia-West relations will spiral? We may continue to see a tit-for-tat exchange that has real consequences on the institutions and defense postures that govern these delicate relations. From EU Observer:

The US missile deal had an instant impact on already fragile Polish-Russian relations, with Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, cancelling a scheduled trip to Warsaw in September as soon as media reported the initialling ceremony would take place.

"It is this kind of agreement, not the differences between the US and Russia over South Ossetia, which could lead to a real rise in the tension in Russian-American relations," the Russian parliament's foreign affairs committee chairman, Konstantin Kosachev, told Interfax.

The US-Russia deal "cannot go unpunished" Russian general, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said. "Poland, by deploying [the missiles] is exposing itself to a strike - 100 percent."

Russian Interests

nospam@example.com (Nanne Zwagerman) — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 07:25:00 +0200

On the Cato at Liberty blog, Benjamin H. Friedman notes that many commentators fatally misunderstand Russian foreign policy, due to an excessive focus on the intentions of the current government:

Commentators of all stripes seem to assume that Russia’s move into Georgia was driven by its increasingly autocratic nature. [...] It is worth considering whether this is a misperception. A powerful body of political science argues that states’ foreign policy actions are driven mostly by their circumstance and interests, not their regime type or the personality of the leaders. Regime type and personality affect how states interpret their circumstances, but maybe not as much as we tend to think. The United States is not particularly tolerant of seemingly hostile states in its near abroad either, whether they are democracies or not.

Continue reading "Russian Interests"

Germany Saves the United States

nospam@example.com (Joerg Wolf) — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:23:53 +0200

The United States has done so much for Germany in the 20th century. I thought we had to be eternally grateful. Nope, not anymore. Germany has saved Americans from themselves. Now we are even. Yeah! ;-) Read what Justin Logan, the associate director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, has to say:

Recall that President Bush made a full-court press to get Georgia (and Ukraine) onto Membership Action Plans at the recent NATO summit in Bucharest. In a heroic move, the Germans spiked the deal, saving us from ourselves. But both Barack Obama and John McCain favor Georgian accession into NATO - and with it, a full-on security commitments as Article V of the NATO charter makes clear.

Let's hope that even more Americans will realize Germany's opposition to NATO membership action plans for Georgia was a "heroic move" rather than appeasement of Russia. Seriously: While I do think that Justin Logan exaggerates quite bit, I agree with his basic point.

Endnote: The CATO blog is pretty cool. Benjamin Friedman, for instance, warns about China Rising by linking to a Defense News report that notes: "China has banned its air force pilots from drinking alcohol at lunchtime." We better watch out. The West's real threats come from the Far East, not from Eastern Europe. Russia + Vodka = Yoga! ;-)

Georgia Conflict Gives Boost to European Missile Defense Talks

nospam@example.com (Kyle Atwell) — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:01:14 +0200

A poll by Opinion Research Corporation finds a strong majority of Americans support missile defense, as reported by Market Watch:

A national poll released today revealed that 87 percent of the American Public believes that the United States should have a missile defense system. The public survey showed that 58% of the American Public thinks that there is a real threat from missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction and that missile defense is the preferred option over pre-emptive military action or diplomatic efforts for dealing with the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction by nation states.

This is an astonishingly high number considering the broad opposition to missile defense in Europe, and the reluctance to embrace it by several leading Democrats, including Barack Obama.

It will be interesting to see if Russia’s intervention into Georgia will increase or decrease European support for US systems. Initial reports suggest Russia’s actions have provoked a renewed sense of urgency into recently stagnant negotiations between Poland and the United States. According to the Financial Times:

Talks on building part of a US missile defence shield on Polish soil restarted on Wednesday, with Polish officials sending much more positive signals than recently, in part because of fears awakened by the Russian attack on Georgia.

The fighting between Russia and Georgia appears to have made the benefits of having a permanent US troop presence on Polish soil more apparent to Warsaw. US negotiators are also interested in strengthening security ties with Poland.

Talks stalled over Polish demands that the US beef up Polish domestic defenses, including with expensive Patriot interceptors, in order to place US missile defense systems on Polish territory. However, Polish political leaders argue that Russia’s intervention against Georgia has provided substance to its demands, as reported by the Associated Press:

Prime Minister Donald Tusk said Tuesday the attacks in Georgia justified Poland's demand for additional security guarantees if it accepts a U.S. installation.

"The increase in international tension that we are dealing with now, but which we had not expected, makes the security guarantees ... an issue even more important than before," [Polish Foreign Minister] Sikorski said.

Russia has strongly opposed US missile defense systems based in Poland and the Czech Republic, which it sees as a security threat. It is interesting that Russia's incursion into Georgia has emboldened Poland and the United States to push forward with missile defense plans, rather than making them “think twice” before moving ahead with the controversial project.

Georgians: We Helped you in Iraq, now Help us!

nospam@example.com (Joerg Wolf) — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:33:41 +0200

The Georgian government is recalling its 2,000 troops serving in Iraq to confront the threat at home, reports The Times:

We helped in Iraq - now help us, beg Georgians As Russia forces its neighbour to retreat from South Ossetia, the people of Gori tell our correspondent of betrayal by the West. (...)
Miriyan Gogolashvili, of Tkviav, said: "The Russians will be here tomorrow. They want to show us and the world how powerful they are. Tomorrow it will be Ukraine and nobody in the West is doing anything to stop them. Why were our soldiers in Kosovo and Iraq if we don't get any help from the West now?" he asked.

So, is the West going to defend Georgia? Nobody seriously expect the EU to fight the Russians, after all we Europeans are from Venus. So what about the Americans from Mars? Is the United States going to help Georgia fight the Russians? After all, the US was Georgia's strongest supporter for NATO membership action plans...

Continue reading "Georgians: We Helped you in Iraq, now Help us!"

The "Cabal" That Prevents a Counterdrug Program in Afghanistan

nospam@example.com (Joerg Wolf) — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:16:40 +0200

Why is Afghanistan a narco-state? Ambassador Thomas Schweich left the State Department in June and is now at liberty to identify the "cabal":

An odd cabal of timorous Europeans, myopic media outlets, corrupt Afghans, blinkered Pentagon officers, politically motivated Democrats and the Taliban were preventing the implementation of an effective counterdrug program. And the rest of us could not turn them around.

Wow, what a cabal! Only Sean Penn is missing in that list of usual suspects.

Thomas Schweich used to be the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs and pressed hard for aerial eradication to wipe out the poppy production in Afghanistan. He considers eradication "an essential component of successful anti-poppy efforts in Guatemala, Southeast Asia and Pakistan."

His 5,500 words long essay in the New York Times Magazine describes in great detail his frustration with the widespread opposition to aerial eradication. The essay's title is "Is Afghanistan a Narco-State?" but deals mainly with the many disagreements within the US government (and with NATO allies).

Schweich blames mainly the Pentagon for lack of understanding and the British military for lack of loyalty:

Continue reading "The "Cabal" That Prevents a Counterdrug Program in Afghanistan"

Obama Keeps it Global

nospam@example.com (Nanne Zwagerman) — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:46:01 +0200

One of the first things I picked up in the audience after Obama's speech was 'fast genau eine halbe Stunde' (almost exactly half an hour). The audience was keeping time. After many had waited for two hours or longer, they were perhaps expecting more? Certainly, it took some time to get the people around me to warm up beyond 'polite applause'. About halfway in some big applause lines came on seeking a nuclear free world, taking responsibility to fight climate change and ending the war in Iraq. Of those, only putting the idea of a nuclear free world in the spotlight might be unexpected.

Newsworthy on the side of the audience would be that there was quite some applause for Obama's lines about fighting together in Afghanistan, and even roaring applause for his line 'Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words "never again" in Darfur?'. The liberal internationalist sentiment championed by Joshka Fischer has clearly not yet perished in Germany.
Continue reading "Obama Keeps it Global"

Understanding Berlin, a pre- Obama speech guide

nospam@example.com (Nanne Zwagerman) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 01:20:00 +0200

Obama's high-profile speech tomorrow in Berlin is fostering all kinds of tragic misunderstandings.

On the size of the crowd, the Deutsche Welle reports that Berlin authorities are expecting up to a million people tomorrow, at the Siegessäule. This is probably the most absurd overestimation since Hillary Clinton's campaign played up expectations of turnout in the Puerto Rico primary. The most plausible explanation for the figure would be that Berlin's authorities hope to turn away people.

Over 100,000 people at the speech will make good pictures for Obama, as long as the networks don't spend all day speculating about the size of the crowd.
Continue reading "Understanding Berlin, a pre- Obama speech guide"

Karadzic's Arrest: Triumph of European Soft Power?

nospam@example.com (Joerg Wolf) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:55:00 +0200

Finally, Serbia is back in Europe. Stephen Castle and Steven Erlanger write in the NY Times:

Europe on Tuesday welcomed the arrest of Radovan Karadzic not just as a victory for international justice, but as a vindication of the Continent's favored political doctrine: soft power. (...)
In the last few months the European Union has helped bring a pro-Western political party to victory in Serbia's elections while ensuring that it has powerful incentives to hand over war crimes suspects. The arrest of Mr. Karadzic demonstrates how effective the union's leverage can be, particularly with neighboring countries that have ambitions to join it.

Yeah, it only took a bit more than a decade...

But then again, how successful (and how costly) is hard power? Milosevic and Karadzic were not arrested during the many Balkan wars... (Well, obviously, without the wars, they might still be in power.) And capturing Saddam was much more expensive and demands from the US to a strong commitment to Iraq of at least a decade...

A Title (Mis)Match

nospam@example.com (Editors) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 22:02:41 +0200

This is a guest post by Joe Noory:

For the past two weeks the story has been making the rounds. Fouad Ajami of the School for Advanced International Studies offers a recitation of the timbre of the traditional hatred floating around between Europe and the Near East. The title of his Wall Street Journal op-ed is "Anti-Americanism Is Mostly Hype", but seems to end up being betrayed by selectively deciding the bombings of the 80's and 90's being little other than hype, not to mention the Hizballah's debutante party on Marines stationed in Beirut as part of an Palestinian-Israeli cease fire, the holding of American diplomats as hostages in Teheran, and so forth:

Continue reading "A Title (Mis)Match"

More Combat Deaths in Afghanistan Than in Iraq

nospam@example.com (Joerg Wolf) — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:35:24 +0200

The Associated Press:

American and allied combat deaths in Afghanistan in May passed the monthly toll in Iraq for the first time. Defense Secretary Robert Gates used the statistical comparison to dramatize his point to NATO defense ministers that they need to do more to get Afghanistan moving in a better direction. He wants more allied combat troops, more trainers and more public commitment.
More positively, the May death totals point to security improvements in Iraq that few thought likely a year ago. But the deterioration in Afghanistan suggests a troubling additional possibility: a widening of the war to Pakistan, where the Taliban and al-Qaida have found haven.
By the Pentagon's count, 15 U.S. and two allied troops were killed in action in Iraq last month, a total of 17. In Afghanistan it was 19, including 14 Americans and five coalition troops. One month does not make a trend, but in this case the statistics are so out of whack with perceptions of the two wars that Gates could use them to drive home his point about Afghanistan.